D&D General I finally like non-Tolkien species for PCs

[Emerikol]

also the fact this is happening in session 0 is a factor, if charlie had wanted to introduce dragonborn halfway through the campaign then IMO the GM may have had more grounds to reject their addition even if there is potential appropriate myths to justify them being on-theme, i don't really believe that 'over the horizon' is a space of infinite potential to continuously dripfeed untethered people and ideas into the campaign.

This is key. Session 0 is absolutely a must have and the DM needs to be detailed in what he is allowing and not allowing as well as what houserules are in place. I think a lot of people think my approach involves a lot of conflict. It doesn't. It reduces conflict. Most people who play in my campaigns know I am serious about the intro packet. The game is going to have a theme and be consistent. They like that enough that most players just pick from the options. They'd rather have a well detailed well run campaign world executed fairly than be a stick in the mud over some concept they can save for the next campaign.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Okay, but that basically just means the GM can never ever allow anyone to play anything rare ever--everyone has to play only things that are extremely common, period, end of discussion. That seems just as extreme as saying no race is ever rare, period, end of discussion. Surely there has to be a middle ground?

Here I agree with you. I think it is perfectly fine to say "only one of X" or even "only one from group of X+Y+Z." I find it is unlikely that several people want to be the same rare thing anyway, and if they do, they can work between themselves who plays it. It is already pretty common to do this with classes, and not even for reasons of rarity, just for variety. Whilst not usually hard rule, I think it is rather common practice to players to aim to choose different classes.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The answer is "too complicated to summarize with a single word". Mu, one might say.

It must--always--be a give-and-take, for everyone. Receptivity and respect from everyone. Not unilateral absolute power on one side and a forced choice between absolute obedience or bridge-burning on the other. GMs have more latitude; that means they are held to higher standards as a result. GMs restrict more things than players--and should; that means they must genuinely sell their players on those restrictions, and part of doing so is being receptive to reasonably-limited, but also reasonably generous, flexibility.

But of course, as always, it becomes exactly what it always does in these ridiculous "debates". The GM must have absolute, unmitigated, unrestricted power to do anything they want, no matter what, eternally, and players get the choice of "meekly submit to every restriction no matter how much they might bother you" or "almost guaranteed upset people by refusing to participate". I reject this ridiculous extreme. People who respect one another don't do that.

This is just your strawman scaremongering you always resort to in these discussions. Of course the GM needs to sell their premise to the players, otherwise they have no players and no game. And there can be discussions, but ultimately the GM needs to run a campaign they want to run and the player needs to play a character they want to play, and if these cannot happen in the same game, then so be it.

 

[RealAlHazred]

A pygmy, you say? Well congratulations, you've convinced me! Those are objectively present in Greek myth, some of the most important Greek myths we know even.

Pygmies would be halflings though, as they're explicitly described as never exceeding "three spans" tall in the Illiad, which is equivalent to 27 inches. That's definitely a halfling, rather than a dwarf (who have always been medium-size, despite their shorter stature than humans). Devotion to Hera is fine, though for a Ranger I would generally have expected Artemis. (She did, after all, have both female and male Hunters of Artemis, so that's fine.) Any specific reason why you would be devoted to Hera?

Hera changed the Queen into a crane, leading to the war. He's torn between devotion to the goddess and his devotion to his people.

I'd argue halflings are meant to be homebodies, and I'm not sure Pygmies were depicted as such; their main claim-to-fame is their ongoing war against the cranes, and warlike behaviour is very Dwarvish.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This is just your strawman scaremongering you always resort to in these discussions. Of course the GM needs to sell their premise to the players, otherwise they have no players and no game. And there can be discussions, but ultimately the GM needs to run a campaign they want to run and the player needs to play a character they want to play, and if these cannot happen in the same game, then so be it.

Several people have specifically told me they never need to do that. Some of those people post on this forum.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Hera changed the Queen into a crane, leading to the war. He's torn between devotion to the goddess and his devotion to his people.

Awesome, sounds like a great concept.

I'd argue halflings are meant to be homebodies, and I'm not sure Pygmies were depicted as such; their main claim-to-fame is their ongoing war against the cranes, and warlike behaviour is very Dwarvish.

Well, do keep in mind that halflings in Athas are cannibalistic savages. We can always play with the formula.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Several people have specifically told me they never need to do that. Some of those people post on this forum.

Do what?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Do what?

Sell their players on a particular campaign. They just announce it, and if other people don't like it, well, sucks to be them, they don't get to play this one.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sell their players on a particular campaign. They just announce it, and if other people don't like it, well, sucks to be them, they don't get to play this one.

Well, if they have enough players for the campaign, they obviously sold it well enough!

 

[Emerikol]

Well, if they have enough players for the campaign, they obviously sold it well enough!

This would be the point. If the idea has enough players, and I have turned away players just to keep the group size manageable, then it can go forward. I'm not saying DMs never target player preferences but when I do I gather that info before even starting a campaign and then present the campaign idea. I find if I'm really enthused about something that I will be a better DM and at least some players will want to engage that idea. I don't tend to try really weird stuff a lot.