Only the Lonely: Why We Demand Official Product

[jasper]

Nice. What con? My next con doesn't arrive until next month.

Kamicon up in Birmingham Al. And lets takes this to PM before we annoy other people.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It defies reason to think that none would have been seen for thousands of years and then suddenly they are all over the place.

It defies reason how no one has ever mapped the rest of WoG, but yet it happenend.

And there is no reason why a race has to be "all over the place" in order for them to be playable. Even elves in the Forgotten Realms are far from "all over the place".

 

[Maxperson]

And there is no reason why a race has to be "all over the place" in order for them to be playable. Even elves in the Forgotten Realms are far from "all over the place".

Yep! They've always been..............oh wait, all over the place. Not one city or country that I can think of didn't have elves. If you look at the setting books it even gave the number or percentage of demihumans for the locations. The percentages were low, but they were there................all over the place.

 

[Acolyte of Zothique]

A campaign setting is designed with X, Y and Z races. Dark Sun or example came out in 1991 with very specific races in it. In order to force Tabaxi in, you either have to do something drastic to the setting in order to get them there, which many will find to be unpalatable, or else you have to ignore the decades of gaming where there were no Tabaxi in the marketplaces or anywhere else the players went in the world and suddenly they are everywhere, which many will find to be unpalatable. It makes the setting worse for people who want things to make sense or not be drastically setting altering.

As an example, the Forgotten Realms was released in 1987 and I bought it. No mention of Saurials anywhere. I played the game for years before the novel with Saurials in it was written in 1991. They didn't make it into the game until 1996 and suddenly we have Dinosaur born in the game. Supposedly they were brought to the world by a god, which altered the world. I hated it and said no. Dragonborn are the same. They don't exist in my game.

This is fine, you have explained why adding Dragonborn makes the setting worse in your opinion. The other poster did not and seems unable to.

If someone is unable to explain why they have reached a particular opinion - how that opinion was formed - that opinion is then worthless and not worthy of consideration as it has no basis. People have opinions on a great many things and usually there is a reason why they hold that opinion. An opinion without a basis is just thoughtless drivel.

 

[Maxperson]

This is fine, you have explained why adding Dragonborn makes the setting worse in your opinion. The other poster did not and seems unable to.

If someone is unable to explain why they have reached a particular opinion - how that opinion was formed - that opinion is then worthless and not worthy of consideration as it has no basis. People have opinions on a great many things and usually there is a reason why they hold that opinion. An opinion without a basis is just thoughtless drivel.

I don't agree with that. Just because someone has difficulty expressing the reason for the opinion, doesn't mean that it is baseless or thoughtless drivel. There will rarely be an opinion that is without reason. It may not be that useful for the purposes of understanding where that person is coming from or furthering the conversation, but the opinion itself isn't worthless.

 

[Oofta]

This is fine, you have explained why adding Dragonborn makes the setting worse in your opinion. The other poster did not and seems unable to.

If someone is unable to explain why they have reached a particular opinion - how that opinion was formed - that opinion is then worthless and not worthy of consideration as it has no basis. People have opinions on a great many things and usually there is a reason why they hold that opinion. An opinion without a basis is just thoughtless drivel.

Really? I need a reason other than "They don't exist in my campaign and never have?" Why? You want a campaign with all 40-ish races as an option? Go for it! DM a campaign. I might even want to play it.

I really hope my current group makes an indelible, lasting mark on my campaign world. Well, even if they fail one possible goal (I don't set goals, I set up options) they'll probably leave a mark for better or worse. Players contribute to the world and make it more than I could imagine all the time.

But the foundation of the world's structure is ultimately mine, and mine alone. Between me and my wife, I'm the only one guaranteed to be interested in the world in a year or two. So yes, I've thought long and hard about my world and it's look and feel. No I don't have to explain why it is like it is to you.

 

[billd91]

Between me and my wife, I'm the only one guaranteed to be interested in the world in a year or two. So yes, I've thought long and hard about my world and it's look and feel. No I don't have to explain why it is like it is to you.

To us, no. To your players, I think common courtesy suggests you should - and I'm emphasizing it. As a gaming group, you need buy in from both the players and the DM. Explaining why things are as they are (without giving away spoilers) is something I think DMs owe their players. And it could be as simple as "I've been building this campaign setting for a long time and I've thought long and hard about the things I've incorporated into it. If I've left something out, it's because I didn't feel it fit as well as other things I thought fit better and I wanted to keep out the extra complication." But, either way, giving explanations is what builds trust - not the yes or no to adding something - and trust builds buy-in.

 

[Acolyte of Zothique]

Really? I need a reason other than "They don't exist in my campaign and never have?" Why? You want a campaign with all 40-ish races as an option? Go for it! DM a campaign. I might even want to play it.

I really hope my current group makes an indelible, lasting mark on my campaign world. Well, even if they fail one possible goal (I don't set goals, I set up options) they'll probably leave a mark for better or worse. Players contribute to the world and make it more than I could imagine all the time.

But the foundation of the world's structure is ultimately mine, and mine alone. Between me and my wife, I'm the only one guaranteed to be interested in the world in a year or two. So yes, I've thought long and hard about my world and it's look and feel. No I don't have to explain why it is like it is to you.

Zaardnar is posting that adding Dragonborn to the Forgotten Realms makes the setting worse. The way he posts this ( over and over again) makes this seem like an indisputable fact which he seems incapable of explaining the rationale for. Other people, including myself, disagree with this.

This has nothing to do with what you or anyone else decides to do with your own game; I - along with several other people - do not agree with Zaardnar's view; he is putting forward an argument he appears unable to justify. I do what the heck I want with my own games too but I don't state, for example, that adding Aasimar to Ravenloft makes the setting worse. I have added Aasimar to Ravenloft in my own campaign and I have my reasons.

If you post something that looks like you are stating a fact when it is actually your opinion, and people call you out on it, then you should be able to back your opinion up. If you cannot support your opinion then people will ignore you and regard your view as pointless. This is something I need to do in my work on a very regular basis and I need to back my views up with a good rationale or my input will not be taken seriously.

Do not confuse supporting an argument you are putting forward in public with doing what you want in your own game in private.

 

[Oofta]

Zaardnar is posting that adding Dragonborn to the Forgotten Realms makes the setting worse. The way he posts this ( over and over again) makes this seem like an indisputable fact which he seems incapable of explaining the rationale for. Other people, including myself, disagree with this.

This has nothing to do with what you or anyone else decides to do with your own game; I - along with several other people - do not agree with Zaardnar's view; he is putting forward an argument he appears unable to justify. I do what the heck I want with my own games too but I don't state, for example, that adding Aasimar to Ravenloft makes the setting worse. I have added Aasimar to Ravenloft in my own campaign and I have my reasons.

If you post something that looks like you are stating a fact when it is actually your opinion, and people call you out on it, then you should be able to back your opinion up. If you cannot support your opinion then people will ignore you and regard your view as pointless. This is something I need to do in my work on a very regular basis and I need to back my views up with a good rationale or my input will not be taken seriously.

Do not confuse supporting an argument you are putting forward in public with doing what you want in your own game in private.

But what I was responding to is the "The DM has to justify their setting" idea. Maybe I'm confused - I'm starting to come down with cold/flu - but my point is that no, I don't think I need to justify every decision I've ever made for my campaign. I don't really care what other people decide or what published campaigns do.

This applies to @billd91 as well. Personally, I find FR to be kitchen sink garbage dump of a campaign. That doesn't mean it's not fun in it's own way, but I have a problem taking it seriously. The number of races already stretches credulity for me, I don't want to stretch it any further. While I play to have fun, my campaign has a serious side as well. I would have a hard time feeling that I could run a serious campaign with a kitchen sink campaign.

So I limit races and include that in my session 0/campaign invite posting. If anybody asks the reason is a simple "it doesn't make sense in my world".

On the other hand let's say you join my campaign and you want to play a Minotaur. I think about it for a bit and while they're traditionally a monstrous race I've never actually used them. So sure. Cow-boy it up. I come up with a story of how minotaurs were on an undiscovered island of Etrec and off we go.

But then you decide that minotaurs are a bunch of bull and instead want to play a Kenku. Again, I come up with a story of a hidden valley, a curse, whatever. Then you decide Kenku are nothing to crow about.

I could go on with the puns like there's something fishy about Locathah and so on but my point is that if I start allowing one new race I have less and less reason to ban other races. At a certain point, to me race just becomes a rubber mask and races have no meaning.

My limits and house rules are not arbitrary. That doesn't mean I have to justify it to anyone.

 

[Undrave]

On the other hand let's say you join my campaign and you want to play a Minotaur. I think about it for a bit and while they're traditionally a monstrous race I've never actually used them. So sure. Cow-boy it up. I come up with a story of how minotaurs were on an undiscovered island of Etrec and off we go.

You could C.O.W.-boys it up instead! It's an easy way to suddenly add a new race to a setting: Because Magical Meteorite!

Then, the fact they're a brand new race adds interesting story elements