D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Faolyn]

All of that stuff, no matter what game it's found in, is IMO best presented as advice, not rules.

I see no reason for that beyond, as I said, pure contrarianism. It's not like people don't ignore or alter rules all the time--why should rules like this be any different.

 

[Faolyn]

Whether intentionally or not, this take shows a strong bias: that it's OK to add more species but not OK to remove some of what's already there.

As in, it's acceptable to add Hill Giants to the PC-playable list but is a less (or not) acceptable thing to remove Aarakocra from that list.

Personally, I'd rather that bias not be present.

I haven't found that. I remove (and add) species all the time, and there's been little to no pushback.

What I have found is that it's important to find out why a player is married to the idea of a particular race you don't want in the game. Sometimes its for reasons that are actually very important to the player.

 

[Lanefan]

I haven't found that. I remove (and add) species all the time, and there's been little to no pushback.

My point was around your saying that adding species was not a houserule where removing them would be.

What I have found is that it's important to find out why a player is married to the idea of a particular race you don't want in the game. Sometimes its for reasons that are actually very important to the player.

For things like allowable species etc. those decisions are made and hard-locked as part of the worldbuilding and rules-building process, long before I start inviting players into the campaign. A player married to a character concept or species etc. that I don't allow would, naturally, probably decline said invitation. All is good.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I see no reason for that beyond, as I said, pure contrarianism. It's not like people don't ignore or alter rules all the time--why should rules like this be any different.

Rules have weight, a sense that you're playing wrong if you don't do what they say. Also, in a game that can be played in many different ways like D&D and most of its relatives, having a rule governing behavior says that other ways should not be pursued, which is something of a slap in the face to those who disagree with that rule. And now that rule can be cited by your players whenever things don't go the way they prefer, putting pressure on you to "tow the line" if they don't think you're a big enough fan of the players to suit them.

 

[Remathilis]

It depends, too, on one's definition of 'awful' and how high one sets the bar.

Some might think a DM is awful just because she neutrally and fairly runs a lethal-to-the-characters game and they don't like losing their characters.

Some might think a DM is awful just because he won't allow their favourite character species-classes-concepts into the game for whatever reason.

Some might think a DM is awful just because some unpleasant things (slavery, colonialism, racism, etc.) are portrayed as being accepted norms in the setting.

Thing is, even though they might not be to a specific person's taste, none of these make a DM awful. And yet even in this thread I've seen pretty much just this: examples of awful DMs where further inquiry shows their only "fault" was one of the reasons above.

There's a huge difference between an awful DM and a DM that for whatever reason you'd simply choose to not play with.

My rule of thumb when I DM is to ask myself "would I want to play under me if I was a player?" I find that focus guides me out of a lot of pitfalls and it steels my spine when it needs it. To me, a DM should always keep their players in mind when designing. To many DMs are married to the concept in their heads rather than the joy to the players. Kinda like throwing a party and only ordering the food you like regardless of your guests preferences and restrictions. Most of the time, you're probably going find enough common ground that people will be able to eat, but if one of your friends is vegan and your not offering anything they can eat (and then telling them if they don't like the food, don't come to the party) I seriously question how much of a friend you really are.

 

[Remathilis]

My point was around your saying that adding species was not a houserule where removing them would be.

For things like allowable species etc. those decisions are made and hard-locked as part of the worldbuilding and rules-building process, long before I start inviting players into the campaign. A player married to a character concept or species etc. that I don't allow would, naturally, probably decline said invitation. All is good.

I cannot fathom hard locking most D&D worlds. Part of the enjoyment of the game is discovering new species and monsters. I would hate to shackle my world to "Only the stuff in the core rulebooks exist. Nothing else" for example.

(And I realize most DMs have far less of a problem introducing new monsters than they do new PC species. Very few DMs feel the same compulsion to limit what types of monsters exist in their world but can be very specific about what a PC can play. Rules for thee, not for me.)

 

[kermit4karate]

What I've found over time is that the bad DMs and bad players often aren't the same people.

I've seen bad players become good DMs and I've seen good players become bad DMs.

My off-the-cuff theory is that there's a degree of self-confidence and maybe ego required to be a good DM but too much of it tends to make one a bad player; flip side, an otherwise good player lacking this is liable to fail at DMing.

Completely agree. It'll probably ruffle feathers to hear it put that way (not mine, of course; I dig it), but it takes a certain comfort being the "bad guy" sometimes, or rather being the referee (just like it does to be a ref in sports), to be a DM.

But as the saying goes (hacked version), you can please all of the people some of the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time.

Or is it some of the people some of the time... Never mind, you know what I mean.

So what though, right? Nature of the beast. Just don't let the impossible task of trying to please everyone all the time ruin the group's good time.

 

[kermit4karate]

I haven't found that. I remove (and add) species all the time, and there's been little to no pushback.

What I have found is that it's important to find out why a player is married to the idea of a particular race you don't want in the game. Sometimes its for reasons that are actually very important to the player.

In my experience, allowing non-standard races isn't usually a cause for concern. But it's when someone wants to play a juvenile red dragon or a lich that we have to, like, parley about it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My rule of thumb when I DM is to ask myself "would I want to play under me if I was a player?" I find that focus guides me out of a lot of pitfalls and it steels my spine when it needs it. To me, a DM should always keep their players in mind when designing. To many DMs are married to the concept in their heads rather than the joy to the players. Kinda like throwing a party and only ordering the food you like regardless of your guests preferences and restrictions. Most of the time, you're probably going find enough common ground that people will be able to eat, but if one of your friends is vegan and your not offering anything they can eat (and then telling them if they don't like the food, don't come to the party) I seriously question how much of a friend you really are.

I would happily play in a game run under my principles of GMing. There is nothing I want in an RPG that I would see as an issue personally on either side of the screen.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I cannot fathom hard locking most D&D worlds. Part of the enjoyment of the game is discovering new species and monsters. I would hate to shackle my world to "Only the stuff in the core rulebooks exist. Nothing else" for example.

(And I realize most DMs have far less of a problem introducing new monsters than they do new PC species. Very few DMs feel the same compulsion to limit what types of monsters exist in their world but can be very specific about what a PC can play. Rules for thee, not for me.)

And it's obvious to me you are judging that tendency. I have no problem with the GM making those kinds of decisions as they see fit, whether or not the GM is me.