PHB2 Races = Mos Eisley Cantina

[Fenes]

I'd say if a single PC race ruins a game for a DM, that's the least of a group's worries.

-O

I'd say that if the banning of a single race ruins the enjoyment of a player, then that player should not be playing with that DM.

 

[Obryn]

I'd say that if the banning of a single race ruins the enjoyment of a player, then that player should not be playing with that DM.

Fair enough. I'd say a prima donna on either side of the screen can spoil a game.

-O

 

[Fenes]

Fair enough. I'd say a prima donna on either side of the screen can spoil a game.

-O

Prima Donna? I'd not say so. People's taste and priorities and game breakers vary, but that doesn't make them prima donnas.

Would you condemn a GM in the same way if he or she doesn't want to run a game for evil PCs? Or doesn't want to run a game where sex plays a role?

 

[Fallen Seraph]

I think another aspect that DMs can take, is one based off malleable fluff and pickable crunch.

Essentially, prior to the game starting the DM lets the Players have free-reign to pick whatever race (and for that matter classes) they wish. I state that their decision is based on what they want crunch wise. After this is decided, we together formulate what each race would be like in this world. A Gnome may be something all-together different then it started out.

So by doing this, the race still works for the setting and the tone. But it doesn't limit the Players options for the amount of races or different racial abilities.

 

[Obryn]

Prima Donna? I'd not say so. People's taste and priorities and game breakers vary, but that doesn't make them prima donnas.

Would you condemn a GM in the same way if he or she doesn't want to run a game for evil PCs? Or doesn't want to run a game where sex plays a role?

Are you saying that one PC race is the same as the direction of a campaign?

I think that's apples and oranges.

I agree with you - a player who throws a tantrum about not being able to play (for example) an elf is being a dip. I also think a DM who throws a tantrum over a PC race is being a dip. It's all about keeping perspective. The 'integrity' of a campaign world has a certain value - and I think it's all to easy to overvalue it.

Gaming is a cooperative endeavor, and nerd-rage over the minor things is a sure way to ruin camaraderie.

I wouldn't put a single class or race in the same boat as "an evil campaign." I can't imagine making the comparison, honestly. "In game A, we're raping and pillaging, overthrowing churches, and burning down orphanages. In game B, we're playing normal heroic D&D, but Bob is playing a modron."

-O

 

[Celebrim]

But, the thing is, you DO have a reason. You have a perfectly justifiable reason, but, because it is a campaign secret, you cannot reveal it to the player.

But wait, now all the sudden I'm not obligated to justify my position to the player? Doesn't that directly contridict what you've already said? From the players perspective there is absolutely no difference between being told, "No, I just don't like elves.", "No, you can't play an elf, but I can't tell you why not.", and "No, elves would spoil the mood." They are all statements of personal preference, and really the most annoying and least satisfactory explanation of all for anything is always, "Trust me."

Presumably your players trust you enough that you can say, "I have a reason, but I cannot tell you now, you're just going to have to trust me."

Yes, but presumably if my player's trust me enough that I can tell them I complete non-answer like "Trust me.", then they they trust me well enough that when I say, "No, you can't.", they assume I have very good reason.

So you don't have a position at all. You aren't saying anything. When you make, "Trust me." a valid answer, you've pretty much invalidated any claim that the player has the right to question the DM, and if the player has no right to question the DM, they have no right to anything regardless of the DM's preference, and the DM does have absolute authority. If "Trust me." is a valid answer, we are right back to my position which has always been, "The DM has absolute authority. This doesn't mean that every excercise of that authority is good DMing."

if the ONLY REASON you can come up with is, "Cos I don't like them" then perhaps it's time to reevaluate your reasons.

How ridiculous is it to suppose that anyone has a preference for or against anything that they don't have some reason behind it? You think people just dislike things for no reason? I mean, even if someone says, "I don't like brussel sprouts.", my general assumption is that "Brussel sprouts don't taste good to Bob." If Bob can't articulate to me exactly why he doesn't like brussel sprouts, it by no mean invalidates his opinion of Brussel sprouts. Who of us can articulate the reasons behind all of our opinions? Who of us can justify all of our opinions to everyone else? You haven't said a darn thing.

And remember, you've just removed the requirement of the DM to articulate why he doesn't like something anyway.

Look at the quoted sentense again. It's a sentence that is true in every case. It's unfalifiable. It's meaningless. If you can come up with one hundred reasons why you don't like something, it doesn't imply that it's not time to reevaluate your reasons. People's opinions are I would hope always up for evaluation, or at least in any event it 'sounds good' if they are. We don't say much of anything by stating that there are circumstances where we should evaluate our reasons. "Fine, I evaluated my reasons, and the answer is still no." It's like the politician that says he's "Studying the problem." He hasn't said anything.

Moreover, on anything that is an opinion, like whether or not elves have a Lovecraftian feel to them, whether the deserve inclusion in a particular high fantasy setting, whether they rock because of their deep mythic ties, or whether they are just overused cliches whatever 'reasons' we come up with for having our opinion, all of those reasons ultimately boil down to, "because I don't like them." or "Because I do like them." It's not like we are dealing with objective considerations.

You continuously bring up example after example where you have perfectly valid reasons that I AGREE WITH. Like I said, 99.9% of the time, we'd have absolutely no problems. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT SITUATIONS WHERE YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL REASONS.

Then you aren't talking about anything. Which ever way you get pushed on your position it flexes to accomodate the changes, until by this point you've functionally conceeded absolute authority to the DM to enforce his personal preferences. On the one hand, you've now moved the goal posts to accomodate as legitimate DMing telling the player, "No.", so long as you can tell the player, "I have a reason but I don't want to tell you what it is because its a secret." But in that case, the player has no right to anything - no reason, no explanation, no debate. If the DM were a politician, you'd be a fool to vote for someone that told you they had reasons but that they couldn't explain them. Clearly, for all your ranting otherwise, you are advocating a DM that isn't accountable to the players.

On the other hand, because "personal preference" is such a broad and undefinable term of such limitless scope, by insisting that it's not sufficient reason, I have no idea whether at some future point, if you don't agree with my reasons and don't think their valid, that because of your preferences you are going to insist that mine make for badwrongfun and clearly I'm a bad DM for not acquiesing to your demands. In other words, your nebulous position on the DM-player relationship would raise a big freaking red flag when dealing with you, because you don't think my opinions are sufficient justification to shape my campaign world - or at least that's what you say until we throw up some non-abstract examples and you are pressed on the claim.

So, when the player asks to play something, follow the following checklist:

• Does the choice violate established canon?
• Is the choice going to ruin campaign elements (such as Celebrim's gnome example above)
• Does the choice violate game rules and/or game balance?
• Is the choice going to spoil mood?
• Is the choice going to annoy the heck out of the other players?
• Is the choice being done maliciously?
• Is there any other issue at hand other than the DM's personal preference?

If the answer to ANY of the above "yes" then the DM is perfectly justified in saying no.

But all of those are just personal preferences. How do you objectively define 'the mood'? If a legitimate reason for banning a race is only that the DM thinks it will "spoil the mood", how do possible think that is any different than the DM just not liking the race as a personal preference? How do you think you can objectively define what is canonical for someone's homebrew campaign? Who is going to have authority over what is canonical for a campaign but the author? Even if I based my campaign off of some other DM's campaign, it's not like Ed Greenwood or Gary Gygax are going to be standing over my shoulder saying, "You aren't doing it right." How do you objectively define what is in or outside of the bounds of the genera? Who has the authority to decide that this is in or this is out?

OTOH, if the answer to all of the above is no, then, IMO, the DM is not justified in saying "No", just as he is not justified in exercising his "absolute" power after the game has started.

That's just one mass of contridictions. On the one hand you've given this very broad set of guidelines that allow the DM to bad or include almost anything based on a whim and without owing the players an explanation. And on the other hand you are insisting that the DM doesn't have absolute power and isn't justified in banning things on a whim.

 

[Elrith]

Personally, I don't like a lot of races in a setting. Just because it's in the book, doesn't mean you have to use them. What about the races in PHB2 makes you think that they're a part of the setting if you don't want them to be?

Amen. I don't let players play Eladrin or Teiflings for setting reasons. I would let them play Devas though. No other races from PHII will appear in the setting right now...Despite the fact that I think all the races are interesting. It's a players responsibility to play in the world, and the DMs responsibility to say yes to good concepts, not accept everything in a sourcebook as given.

 

[Fenes]

Are you saying that one PC race is the same as the direction of a campaign?

I think that's apples and oranges.

I agree with you - a player who throws a tantrum about not being able to play (for example) an elf is being a dip. I also think a DM who throws a tantrum over a PC race is being a dip. It's all about keeping perspective. The 'integrity' of a campaign world has a certain value - and I think it's all to easy to overvalue it.

Gaming is a cooperative endeavor, and nerd-rage over the minor things is a sure way to ruin camaraderie.

I wouldn't put a single class or race in the same boat as "an evil campaign." I can't imagine making the comparison, honestly. "In game A, we're raping and pillaging, overthrowing churches, and burning down orphanages. In game B, we're playing normal heroic D&D, but Bob is playing a modron."

-O

Since when does "We can have evil PCs" or "there is sex in this campaign" equate to "Campaign direction"? I'd rate both as on the level of having a race or not. Just because you have set views on what "Evil PC" means doesn't mean you have any idea what it means for others.

And it's not really "the integrity" of the campaign - what's it about is that the DM has fun. If integrating a race means the DM has no fun, then that's it.

All this "If you don't like this race/setting/playstyle, then you're no good" is getting tireing. I would think people should finally understand that not everyone shares their taste or priorities.

 

[Kask]

I don't think it's different. Was just adding another voice to the "absolute power" vs "everything goes"

Bingo. There are more players looking for DM's than there are DMs looking for players...

It comes down to the fact that a player doesn't have to play & in the end, the rules of the game are in the DMs hands, not the players.

 

[Obryn]

Since when does "We can have evil PCs" or "there is sex in this campaign" equate to "Campaign direction"? I'd rate both as on the level of having a race or not. Just because you have set views on what "Evil PC" means doesn't mean you have any idea what it means for others.

And it's not really "the integrity" of the campaign - what's it about is that the DM has fun. If integrating a race means the DM has no fun, then that's it.

All this "If you don't like this race/setting/playstyle, then you're no good" is getting tireing. I would think people should finally understand that not everyone shares their taste or priorities.

I am not saying that a DM should run a game he doesn't find fun.

I am saying that losing your fun over minor details is a sign that something is wrong. Ditto, for players.

Like I said, for me it's about the gaming prima donnas. Specifically, I think anyone who insists that everything in a game goes their way may be (in some sense) objectively right - but that doesn't make them a player or a DM I'd want to have around.

-O