D&D General The Importance of Page 33

[prabe]

Ultimately it's up to the DM to make a decision on how people would react in their campaign world. So it's going to vary from campaign to campaign, DM to DM. When I say not to tabaxi or drow PCs it's not because I'm a control freak. It's because I want the campaign world to be logical and allowing PC's that a large chunk of the world would view as monsters is something I don't think would be fun for the group or the player.

See, I'll admit that I am kinda a control freak, about the world I'm creating. It needs to make sense to me, feel coherent in my head, for me to feel comfortable making stuff up to build on it. There are playable folk that don't make sense on my world, and others that in the world's history have been extirpated. Even with a fairly tight, curated list, there are nearly thirty types of playable folk on my world; I don't feel as though I'm being overly restrictive by disallowing (to pick four) drow, duergar, kenku, and tabaxi.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I never said "doesn't want to play a human/dwarf/elf/halfling", that was you inferring. If I pitched a setting that didn't have those four race where they were wiped out in a primeval war with the gods and haven't been seen for thousands of years, those players would immediately slap down their human and dwarf characters before the sentence had finished.

And like I said before, approach matters. If the player makes an effort to describe how their unusual character could fit into the setting and the sort of game I pitched, that's far more likely to get me to say yes. For example, if I wanted to play a tiefling in Primeval Thule (a swords-and-sorcery setting that doesn't have them by default), I might link it to the suggested origin of sorcerers, where they gain innate magic by transforming themselves into a being not entirely human, or have them be a servant of the demons who live up north, whose ancestors were twisted into a more pleasing form by the fiends. Things that make them part of the world rather than "I just want to play a devil-man and didn't bother reading anything about the setting." And I'd also make it clear that if this guy doesn't work for them, I'm fine with playing a more standard character.

That's the difference for me. Not the desire to play a weird character in itself, but the attitude towards the game that I get from how any given request is phrased. Wanting a wacky character doesn't mean they're an attention hog or min-maxer.....but I've seen some correlation. Notably from one player early on in my gaming career, who just had to play whatever the wacky non-standard option was for every given campaign, and then milk it for drama and "every scene is about me". He was the embodiment of a line from an old White Wolf book--"Don't confuse having an interesting character sheet with having an interesting character."

Sure, but the attitude towards the game is rarely reflected in talking about their character if they aren't playing something unusual.

And, I agree with most of your points, but I'd like to direct you back to your own post I was referring to, which demonstrated none of that nuance. It instead added to the list of "why people play non-standard characters" a list which then reads (as a summary)

It depends on why they want to play an oddball race. They better have a good reason for it.

They could be min-maxxers only looking at the mechanics instead of the story

They could be spotight hogs who want to make everything about them

They could just literally not care about anything except their own concept.

The idea I've been pushing back against this entire thread though is that that entire list, every problem people have with "oddball races" not only has nothing to do with the race, but could equally apply to any race the player chooses.

But they are almost always exclusively talked about in the context of the race. Which I think is unfair, because it paints this perception that a person who wants to play something different than the big four is more than likely trying to be a problem, instead of just wanting to play a character.

See, I'll admit that I am kinda a control freak, about the world I'm creating. It needs to make sense to me, feel coherent in my head, for me to feel comfortable making stuff up to build on it. There are playable folk that don't make sense on my world, and others that in the world's history have been extirpated. Even with a fairly tight, curated list, there are nearly thirty types of playable folk on my world; I don't feel as though I'm being overly restrictive by disallowing (to pick four) drow, duergar, kenku, and tabaxi.

See, I'm barely even talking about the DM in this discussion. One poster earlier said that "if even a single player's suspension of disbelief" was ruined by an odd-ball concept that that race should not be allowed at the table for that game.

And I think the other players opinions here do matter, because if I come to a CoS game with my Tabaxi Monster Hunter, and the DM is cool with it, but half the table is hostile because they think I A) Don't care about the "sanctity of Barovia" or B) Am a min-maxing power gamer or C) Am trying to be a spotlight hog who wants to make the game all about me... then I'm going to have less fun.

And with how the accusations get phrased on this forum about "how they better not be trying something like that in my game" there really seems to be a deep suspicion that is likely to fall on anyone who isn't toeing the fantasy line.

 

[prabe]

See, I'm barely even talking about the DM in this discussion. One poster earlier said that "if even a single player's suspension of disbelief" was ruined by an odd-ball concept that that race should not be allowed at the table for that game.

You may barely be talking about the DM, but there are DMs talking about players; some of the DMs are claiming not to be control freaks, while I'm admitting I kinda am one. My own suspension of disbelief matters to me while I'm DMing--I am tempted to say I can't DM without it. That's part of the reason I'm homebrewing the world--I have a harder time managing suspension of disbelief in the worlds others create.

And I think the other players opinions here do matter, because if I come to a CoS game with my Tabaxi Monster Hunter, and the DM is cool with it, but half the table is hostile because they think I A) Don't care about the "sanctity of Barovia" or B) Am a min-maxing power gamer or C) Am trying to be a spotlight hog who wants to make the game all about me... then I'm going to have less fun.

And with how the accusations get phrased on this forum about "how they better not be trying something like that in my game" there really seems to be a deep suspicion that is likely to fall on anyone who isn't toeing the fantasy line.

So, the folk I don't allow, I don't allow because they don't make sense to me, in the world I'm making. I am not intending to accuse any player who wants to play something I'm not allowing of anything worse than possible tone-deafness. There is no "purity of the world" to be violated, there is no judgment of playstyle.

 

[Oofta]

...
The idea I've been pushing back against this entire thread though is that that entire list, every problem people have with "oddball races" not only has nothing to do with the race, but could equally apply to any race the player chooses.
...

This is where I disagree. The old school standard races (elf, dwarf, hobbit halfling, gnome) can all be played in movies with a few minor prosthetics, outfits that make them look heftier or smaller along with some camera angles and special sets. Because the old school standard races are effectively human with minor size and shape modifications.

To do a tabaxi right you'd have to replace the actor with CGI. Just remember to replace the hands.

 

[jmartkdr2]

This is where I disagree. The old school standard races (elf, dwarf, hobbit halfling, gnome) can all be played in movies with a few minor prosthetics, outfits that make them look heftier or smaller along with some camera angles and special sets. Because the old school standard races are effectively human with minor size and shape modifications.

To do a tabaxi right you'd have to replace the actor with CGI. Just remember to replace the hands.

But to build on @Chaosmancer 's point - how does that make them bad players? Why does wanting to play a cat-person make you someone who shouldn't play DnD, or needs to change as a player to be okay? What are you doing that makes the game worse for everyone else?

Or, put another way: why does needing to use different words to describe you appearance (DnD is a non-visual medium, after all) clash with roleplaying?

 

[Fanaelialae]

If a creature appears too monstrous for your campaign, it's always within the DMs power to adjust their appearance to suit the campaign. For example, you could have tabaxi who resemble the Thundercats.

It doesn't even need to be a retcon. If you've already established traditional tabaxi, these could simply be a different variety of tabaxi (similar to how different types of elves have differences in their appearance).

Similarly, surface elves and drow could run the gamut of skin tones. Maybe the idea of of the black skinned drow is just a surface world stereotype (owing to the fact that they are called dark elves, so the uneducated simply assume that to refer to their skin tone). You could have a dark skinned surface elf who might be quite sensitive from regularly being mistaken for a drow by ignoramuses. Personally, I think it opens up all kinds of interesting potential avenues for interesting NPCs and adventures.

I'm not saying a DM has to change the creatures' appearances to make them suitable for the campaign; just pointing out that doing so is well within their power, and a nearly effortless change.

 

[Oofta]

But to build on @Chaosmancer 's point - how does that make them bad players? Why does wanting to play a cat-person make you someone who shouldn't play DnD, or needs to change as a player to be okay? What are you doing that makes the game worse for everyone else?

Or, put another way: why does needing to use different words to describe you appearance (DnD is a non-visual medium, after all) clash with roleplaying?

I've never said they were a bad player. They may not want to be part of my game when I DM but I've never had an issue getting or retaining players. That may sound harsh, but it's just being a realist.

I've had players quit over the years because they've moved, life interfered and so on. I've also had players quit because I just wasn't the right DM for them (they really wanted to play an evil PC which I don't allow). I've quit games as a player because even though the DM was a friend I just didn't like how they ran the game.

No game is going to work for every person, no DM is going to be the right DM for all players. I don't see a problem as long as there's open, honest communication and expectations are set.

A player only becomes a problem if they make it a problem by being argumentative instead of having a conversation or openly resentful instead of finding a different role to play.

 

[prabe]

A player only becomes a problem if they make it a problem by being argumentative instead of having a conversation or openly resentful instead of finding a different role to play.

I don't exactly disagree with this, but I think it's just as possible for the DM to be the problem. I'm willing to work with players who have some specific idea they're trying to make work. I'd hope it's something other than "This is the character I always play."

 

[Raaron]

See, it’s not always a matter of ‘only play the big four’. Sometimes one of the big four’ is what is excluded and something truly odd is in instead. And in that world the something odd might be common enough that it is no longer odd. Which in my experience often seems to drain away a lot of the desire for it and make whatever else is taken out be the thing they just ‘have to have’.

 

[Fanaelialae]

See, it’s not always a matter of ‘only play the big four’. Sometimes one of the big four’ is what is excluded and something truly odd is in instead. And in that world the something odd might be common enough that it is no longer odd. Which in my experience often seems to drain away a lot of the desire for it and make whatever else is taken out be the thing they just ‘have to have’.

That's literally been the opposite of my experience. When options are banned and replaced with campaign specific options, folks at my table tend to get excited about the new options. The only time I've seen that not be the case was when the new options were uninspired or mechanically weak.