PHB2 Races = Mos Eisley Cantina

[Kask]

I have to add that it's not just the DM that rules what races are played in the campaign, but the players too. Vetoing by "Our PCs kill that race on sight" works.

You could say that but, you'd be wrong. If the DM rules that you can't play a 1/2 Dandelion 1/2 dragon, you don't ever get in the game to be killed.

Notice, the player never had a say in the rule...

 

[Fenes]

The DM who says --given, as you've just pointed out, the tendency for D&D campaigns to be kitchen-sink affairs full of different, even divergent genre elements/influences-- that a single element (race, class, etc.) ruins the experience for them.

That seems petty, in my opinion.

So, do you think a single element - like say Jar-Jar Binks, or a spoonful of chili - can't ever ruin a movie or a dish? A player telling the GM "My PC goes and rapes the barwench" shouldn't be a game breaker for anyone, with all the violence in the game? Or a racist PC?

Or is it just that someone disliking things you can stomach is petty, while those who don't accept things you consider major are not petty?

 

[Fenes]

You could say that but, you'd be wrong. If the DM rules that you can't play a 1/2 Dandelion 1/2 dragon, you don't ever get in the game to be killed.

Notice, the player never had a say in the rule...

Not really. I said the Players rule too. They might not be able to force a DM to allow a race, but they can effectively ban a race if they refuse to work with a PC of said race. That's ruling as well.

 

[Kask]

but they can effectively ban a race if they refuse to work with a PC of said race. That's ruling as well.

True, if a player wants to do a "protest sit out" they can screw around with the game. But, the DM just boots them from the campaign... That's what I'd do. Never been in that position though.

 

[Mallus]

That their personal taste is somehow stupid just because they do not like a certain song - or can't get enough of another?

Note that I never said anything critical about people's tastes, only how they responded to something that wasn't to their taste. You'll note there's a difference.

Part of this, for me, is a refusal to treat D&D as a special case. It's just another social situation for me and my friends. If a buddy of mine refused to attend a party because I intended to play some music he didn't like, or serve I beer he didn't approve of, they'd get called petty (because, on the balance, isn't the party going to be fun?). Ditto w/a friend who refused to play in a campaign that sported Dragonborn.

 

[Obryn]

I take offense at people saying "If you have no fun just because there's X in this game, you're wrong, since X is a minor thing". Everyone decides for themselves what is a minor and a major point in a game.

Did I say they didn't? Of course everyone can have an opinion. I don't need to hold all opinions equal, though.

I'm saying I am perfectly in my rights to disagree with someone else on what's major and what's minor. And this will reflect on the kinds of players I let in my games, and the kind of DMs whose games I'm happy to play in.

So I guess I'm still confused. What are you arguing? It seems bizarre that you'd argue with me that everyone's entitled to an opinion about what is or isn't minor; but disagree that I'm entitled to an opinion on what kinds of people I enjoy playing with. Or at least to imply I can't act on that opinion.

-O

 

[Obryn]

Note that I never said anything critical about people's tastes, only how they responded to something that wasn't to their taste. You'll note there's a difference.

Yep, well-stated.

Part of this, for me, is a refusal to treat D&D as a special case. It's just another social situation for me and my friends. If a buddy of mine refused to attend a party because I intended to play some music he didn't like, or serve I beer he didn't approve of, they'd get called petty (because, on the balance, isn't the party going to be fun?). Ditto w/a friend who refused to play in a campaign that sported Dragonborn.

Again, yep. Like I mentioned before, I think it's the gaming prima donnas that are the issue. And it's an issue of what kinds of people I like to game with, not an issue about some kind of objective right or wrong way to pretend to be an elf. (Assuming elves are allowed, that is.)

-O

 

[Mallus]

So, do you think a single element - like say Jar-Jar Binks, or a spoonful of chili - can't ever ruin a movie or a dish?

I don't think those comparisons are helpful. Movies and main courses aren't similar enough to D&D campaigns to make that question relevant.

A player telling the GM "My PC goes and rapes the barwench" shouldn't be a game breaker for anyone, with all the violence in the game? Or a racist PC?

I think there's a difference between wanting to play a gnome or a Dragonborn and wanting to play a rapist or a Klansman.

Or is it just that someone disliking things you can stomach is petty, while those who don't accept things you consider major are not petty?

Are really saying there's no difference between disliking gnomes and disliking rapists? This looks like category trouble...

 

[Kwalish Kid]

True, if a player wants to do a "protest sit out" they can screw around with the game. But, the DM just boots them from the campaign... That's what I'd do. Never been in that position though.

A classic example of the GM-in-control paradigm of most RPGs.

 

[Kask]

A classic example of the GM-in-control paradigm of most RPGs.

Correct. The most successful RPGs have this as part of the design.