D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[Lyxen]

1) None of my players are artistically capable of roleplaying an actual alien species, nor do they want to. Every PC regardless of race ends up being portrayed as a "human in a rubber mask".

We have a few of them, including one who is really good (after 35 sessions, the others have finally understood that the lizard man he is playing is female while they always assumed it to be male, but they still have zero understanding of how it works and its real motivations), but also take into account that most races are not that alien, see just below.

2) As far as roleplaying is concerned... Races aren't actual alien species, they are merely packages of human quirks bundled together to create a specific personality type.

Indeed.

And when players want to select a non-human race, it's really because it is easier and more justifiable to play that personality type via that non-human Race, than it is to play a Human who has the same package of quirks.

Or some just want to play it for the technical benefits, something that should not be discounted in terms of motivations...

 

[Umbran]

It's incredible (and sad) how few people around argue in favor of the DMs, these days. No wonder people have trouble finding games and DMs to run them...

I speak from the perspective of someone who is perennially the GM for my group.

Both you and Oofta, below, seem to be speaking as if the GM is a position that deserves some entitlements. You seem to be forgetting that your game is in competition with every other entertainment, an embarrassment of riches, your players have at their disposal. Your players, by and large, are not itching to play your game like they may have been decades ago. If they don't play your game, they're going to go off and watch the next season of The Witcher, and then maybe play some Elder Scrolls. Or maybe they'll get some more time at home with the kids, or get some laundry done. It may not be the same as TTRPG play, but... they'll be okay without you.

Yeah, maybe they have trouble finding games and DMs, but... they don't actually need them as much, either.

What harm does it do to accept that the DM has a vision of the world that doesn't include birdmen?

Your vision is not a thing they care about in and of itself. You need to sell them that vision, and make it seem worthwhile and interesting for them. It isn't sufficient that you will feel more satisfied - it has to satisfy them, because they are the ones who are actually impacted by it.

Corollary: The restrictions you enact actually have to be a clear part of making it seem worthwhile and interesting for them.

So, for something like human-dominated game worlds - you have to ask yourself how much more interesting that actually is for the player. Answer: If you aren't using the fact that it is human-dominated for something, if it isn't an active element, then it won't be more interesting for the player. It is just a fact of life that, after character generation, they are likely to ignore.

A real life example - I played in a d20 Star Wars game some time ago, and the GM placed a restriction - for all characters, their first or second level must be in the Jedi class. After that, you could do what you wanted. This restriction was an active plot element - our game was set after an alternate Jedi Civil War, in which the Jedi were outlawed in the Republic, and largely eradicated. It was central to the game's plotline that we were all Jedi.

What's central to your game that the PCs are almost all human? What will they get out of your restriction that they wouldn't get otherwise? A vague, often ignored sense of "realism" is unlikely to seem much of a payoff, to them.

 

[Minigiant]

I'm not sure I'm getting the gist of your post here, as I have trouble reconciliating the two sentences. I think I agree with the first one very strongly, my personal history of it is that this is something that is very D&D and actually fairly recent. I don't recall having any trouble with this in a game other than D&D, and I don't recall having any trouble with it prior to 3e, which started a phase of builds and player entitlement.

My point is if the player wants to play a certain type of PC, it shouldn't be taboo for a DM to suggest an in-setting option that meets their priorities.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Or some just want to play it for the technical benefits, something that should not be discounted in terms of motivations...

Heh heh... I do. Because when you bundle the three or four racial mechanics into the massive amount of stuff they get from their classes... the racial mechanics get subsumed by all the other stuff for the most part (other than maybe flight in the few races that get it.) But granted, my players are not inclined to min-max everything mechanical.

 

[Cadence]

Semi-connected thoughts.

Personally, sometimes as a DM I run a pretty developed campaign world I've been mulling over for a long time with lots of detail, and sometimes I have a plot hook and a kitchen sink. In either case the players need to buy into it to get it to go.

It feels like most players will make a lot more characters than they they will make developed campaign worlds, and that the developed campaign world is orders of magnitude more effort/time than making a character.

I don't think I've ever been stuck with a player who needed to play something that didn't fit whatever the DM wanted to run that the group agreed to. Which has made it nice for the DMs when they had something they wanted to do that was narrow in theme. It's been helpful though that we've always had a variety of people able to run, and some of them like kitchen sink. And there have been times where the DM would float an idea and there weren't takers.

 

[Lyxen]

Both you and Oofta, below, seem to be speaking as if the GM is a position that deserves some entitlements.

Indeed, I'm from a culture where work is respected, even the one that you produce while enjoying it. Therefore, compared to a player which is required to do nothing at all, by default the DM deserves more respect than a player (although, obviously, as people, all deserve some respect).

You seem to be forgetting that your game is in competition with every other entertainment, an embarrassment of riches, your players have at their disposal. Your players, by and large, are not itching to play your game like they may have been decades ago.

It's certainly not the case with my players. Some I've been playing with for more than 35 years, others are new (including much younger players whether from the generation of my daughters or even my 5-years old Grandson who wants to play "Messire Gabriel" any chance he gets). That is not to say that they want only to do this, but they are asking for sessions and really commit to them.

If they don't play your game, they're going to go off and watch the next season of The Witcher, and then maybe play some Elder Scrolls. Or maybe they'll get some more time at home with the kids, or get some laundry done. It may not be the same as TTRPG play, but... they'll be okay without you.

Yeah, maybe they have trouble finding games and DMs, but... they don't actually need them as much, either.

Maybe, but then, do I really want non-committed players ? As a DM, it's more of a chooser's market, if I don't want some players, it seems to me that I can always find others. We've had the case now and then of a player who did not really commit, who skilled sessions regularly, in the end, he just left. But is that even the same problem ?

What's central to your game that the PCs are almost all human? What will they get out of your restriction that they wouldn't get otherwise? A vague, often ignored sense of "realism" is unlikely to seem much of a payoff, to them.

And sometimes, you just have to trust the DM. DOes he have to explain everything up front ? Can't he have a few surprises in his backpack about the way the story unfolds ? Trust in the DM is for me one of the fundamental qualities of a player, so if they cannot even manage that, do I really want them as players ?

 

[Jack Daniel]

Ooh, this thread again! (clap) Let's see if we can hit the highlights!

1) "Orbiting the sun of humanity" —Gygax; "An oddity too much" —Lewis; "Centaur, lawful werebear, or even Japanese!" —Dr Holmes; etc.

2) What do the players get out of a DM's human-only campaign? IME, a nudge away from playing dull stereotypes. Most dwarves are just Gimli all over again. Could a player actually play a well-rounded dwarf? In theory, yes. But in practice they never ever actually do.

3) Nobody gripes about "No Klingons in Star Wars" or "No My Little Ponies in Vampire," so why take offense at "No Tabaxi at Bob's D&D table?" Well, because D&D actually provides mechanics for playing Tabaxi, and therefore Bob is obligated—obligated, I say!—to consider the feelings of players who want to play Tabaxi. Because D&D is a special sort of game where players' expectations on this specific matter must always be put on a pedestal. But does this emotional equation change if the racial mechanics in question are homebrew rather than something from an Officially Published by WotC™ Hardcover D&D [current edition] Rulebook? You bet your britches it suddenly does!

 

[Oofta]

I speak from the perspective of someone who is perennially the GM for my group.

Both you and Oofta, below, seem to be speaking as if the GM is a position that deserves some entitlements. You seem to be forgetting that your game is in competition with every other entertainment, an embarrassment of riches, your players have at their disposal. Your players, by and large, are not itching to play your game like they may have been decades ago. If they don't play your game, they're going to go off and watch the next season of The Witcher, and then maybe play some Elder Scrolls. It may not be the same as TTRPG play, but... they'll be okay without you.

Yeah, maybe they have trouble finding games and DMs, but... they don't actually need them as much, either.



Your vision is not a thing they care about in and of itself. You need to sell them that vision, and make it seem worthwhile and interesting for them. It isn't sufficient that you will feel more satisfied - it has to satisfy them, because they are the ones who are actually impacted by it.

Corollary: The restrictions you enact actually have to be a clear part of making it seem worthwhile and interesting for them.

So, for something like human-dominated game worlds - you have to ask yourself how much more interesting that actually is for the player. Answer: If you aren't using the fact that it is human-dominated for something, if it isn't an active element, then it won't be more interesting for the player. It is just a fact of life that, after character generation, they are likely to ignore.

A real life example - I played in a d20 Star Wars game some time ago, and the GM placed a restriction - for all characters, their first or second level must be in the Jedi class. After that, you could do what you wanted. This restriction was an active plot element - our game was set after an alternate Jedi Civil War, in which the Jedi were outlawed in the Republic, and largely eradicated. It was central to the game's plotline that we were all Jedi.

What's central to your game that the PCs are almost all human? What will they get out of your restriction that they wouldn't get otherwise? A vague, often ignored sense of "realism" is unlikely to seem much of a payoff, to them.

If the world and it's inhabitants don't work for me then I don't see how I can sell the world to others. A Bugs Bunny toon may fit in your campaign world, it would not fit in mine unless it's a dream sequence.

I try to give people a general idea of my campaign world and style even before a session 0. I have a bit of a writeup that explains in broad brushstrokes what is allowed that includes races and other general ideas of how the world works. As far as selling my world, not sure what to say. I've never had an issue attracting or retaining players. While I allow up to 6 players (which includes my wife) I'd prefer 4. It never seems to happen, if anyone ever drops there's always a friend of one of the players who wants to join. I sell my campaign by having a rich history, interesting NPCs and cultures, factions and enemies that make sense. I know why the elves of the Ar Glad don't get along with the dwarves of the Thunder Mountains and the turmoil it's caused in both. The region that a dragon tried to claim as a false emperor? It's slowly rebuilding after a long civil war and is starting to prosper now that a PC turned NPC is in charge, but the threat from the Bone Hills remains because their group had to make a choice of which evil was the greater threat. Thanks to another PC's sacrifice the evil is contained for now, but it's just contained. Probably will have minimal impact on my current campaign other than some brief mentions of trade, but if the PCs decide to go off on some tangent it's there.

I don't see what value allowing every race under the sun would add to my game. For me, as DM, having a Mos Eisly feel makes the world less lived, less serious and more abstract unless there's a good reason for allowing every race.

So yes, I think the DM deserves some entitlements. I create the world, the sandbox, the PCs live in. I'm not going to apologize or feel bad for having the final say on how things work. If that means I'm not the right DM who can't possibly envision playing anything other than a dragonborn then so be it.

 

[Minigiant]

Because it's a new setting that the players have not seen yet, and exploring it to become familiar with it is what playing the campaign is all about. You could of course write a small tome of setting information, but you can't make any players actually read it.

If players are running characters in your world, why are they blind to the world's lore?

I get it's a stylish choice. However it never made sense to me.

 

[Cadence]

If players are running characters in your world, why are they blind to the world's lore?

I get it's a stylish choice. However it never made sense to me.

It feels like there is a big space between being blind to all the world's lore and knowing the entire MM and DMG. In zero to hero, why would the kids at the isolated woodland village know much, for example?