D&D General [+] More Robust 'Fantasy Race' Mechanics for D&D-alikes / Redeeming 'Race as Class' for Modern D&D [+]

[Tigris]

Worldbuilding and believability are much more important to me than making sure every possible heritage and class is available and every combination is represented. Players can almost always find something they like in the available options.

So you put a small increase of your enjoyment over a potential huge decrease of enjoyment of others "almost always".

Also there is a huge difference in "find something enjoy playing" and "play whst you enjoy most".

Also 1000s of games and 10 000s of GMs manage to make believable worlds where all combinations are possible, so its not like this goes against believability per se. Its just that you personally dont manage to create a believable world where this is possible.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So you put a small increase of your enjoyment over a potential huge decrease of enjoyment of others "almost always".

Also there is a huge difference in "find something enjoy playing" and "play whst you enjoy most".

Also 1000s of games and 10 000s of GMs manage to make believable worlds where all combinations are possible, so its not like this goes against believability per se. Its just that you personally dont manage to create a believable world where this is possible.

I see no reason why any given player's desire to play exactly what they feel like needs to override setting logic. If I make a setting where a particular combination doesn't work, it's because that's the setting and the campaign I want to run. I can be flexible if it doesn't matter to what I'm running (and often it doesn't), but no one is going to force me to run a game I don't like, just as I can't and wouldn't try to force a player to play in a game they don't like. Why would it be otherwise? Why should the GM automatically defer to the player if they want something in the game I don't?

 

[Mannahnin]

I like games which have implied worldbuilding.

I like how B/X making the core 4 classes all human and the demihumans additional options with more specific specialties pushes humans to the forefront of the game and entirely removes race/species/ancestry as a tool for min-maxing.

On the other hand I also definitely appreciate the flexibility of games which allow lots of different combinations of heritage and class, because it gives more open worldbuilding options and supports more concepts players may enjoy.

There's definitely room for both, but I can understand how if a given group or player just wanted to stick to one system, the one with more options and flexibility could serve them better. If you've got such a game, you can also always choose to restrict or limit options to fit a specific campaign or world. "Hey guys, in this new campaign world Dwarves are the only wizards, and Elves both have no clerical magic and aren't affected by it."

 

[Tigris]

There's definitely room for both, but I can understand how if a given group or player just wanted to stick to one system, the one with more options and flexibility could serve them better. If you've got such a game, you can also always choose to restrict or limit options to fit a specific campaign or world. "Hey guys, in this new campaign world Dwarves are the only wizards, and Elves both have no clerical magic and aren't affected by it."

This for me just makes no sense.

1. Why would the player who is NOT picking characters (so not affected by the limitation), limiting character choices? Its like if players would tell a GM they are not allowed to have female NPCs. Or not allowed to run ranged enemies. Making others life harder just for the sake of it?
2. Why playing a game where something is possible, when you then want to restrict it? This just makes things more complicated. When someone wants to play a game, and asks around to play that game, I am assuming we are playing that game, and if not they need to explain their houserules beforehand which makes communication more complicated.

I see no reason why any given player's desire to play exactly what they feel like needs to override setting logic. If I make a setting where a particular combination doesn't work, it's because that's the setting and the campaign I want to run. I can be flexible if it doesn't matter to what I'm running (and often it doesn't), but no one is going to force me to run a game I don't like, just as I can't and wouldn't try to force a player to play in a game they don't like. Why would it be otherwise? Why should the GM automatically defer to the player if they want something in the game I don't?

I see no reason why the desire of a single player to play king overide other players personal desires of character choices.
The players play the characters, so they should decide, else the players should also decide what NPCs you are not allowed to play and what enemies. When your boss gives you money, they also cant decide what car you buy. Also you are 1 person, players are normally 4 people. Most people decide things democratically, in modern society and not have 1 bully force others to do their will.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This for me just makes no sense.

1. Why would the player who is NOT picking characters (so not affected by the limitation), limiting character choices? Its like if players would tell a GM they are not allowed to have female NPCs. Or not allowed to run ranged enemies. Making others life harder just for the sake of it?
2. Why playing a game where something is possible, when you then want to restrict it? This just makes things more complicated. When someone wants to play a game, and asks around to play that game, I am assuming we are playing that game, and if not they need to explain their houserules beforehand which makes communication more complicated.



I see no reason why the desire of a single player to play king overide other players personal desires of character choices.
The players play the characters, so they should decide, else the players should also decide what NPCs you are not allowed to play and what enemies. When your boss gives you money, they also cant decide what car you buy. Also you are 1 person, players are normally 4 people. Most people decide things democratically, in modern society and not have 1 bully force others to do their will.

The GM and the players have different jobs, but the GM creates/decides on the world and all the things the player can choose from to make their characters in my game, and in traditional games in general. Perhaps you don't run games that way, and that's fine, but it's all just preferences at the end.

And again, no matter how many people want you to run something you don't, they can't make you, and appealing to democracy doesn't change that. They are welcome to run the game they want if our preferences are incompatible.