D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[Oofta]

That’s what I’m talking about, though. The stage, as you put it. One person getting to decide all of that.

That's "tyranny"?

 

[Oofta]

Sure, but don’t you think that folks will typically expect elves over say pixies as playable races? Because the PHB labels them as a core race.

And I’m not advocating for allowing all races, or even allowing all races in the PHB. I’m fine tailoring a list of races to suit a campaign. I just think it’s a good idea to involve everyone in deciding what’s on the list.

What if that list was last modified a decade or more ago?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But the example of a Minotaur in Vampire isn't really apt because it's not offered in the rules. There's no place for them in the setting as designed and it's not a choice that any player is going to suggest.

In D&D, on the other hand, a Minotaur may be something a player would suggest because they're detailed to some extent, even if not typically as a PC. And then the races that are offered as PCs are going to be even more likely to be suggested.

Also, another point regarding this: If I say "I'd like to run Vampire the Masquerade, are you interested in playing?" or "I'd like to run D&D in setting X (which has no minotaurs,) are you interested in playing?" The situation is the exactly the same. The minotaurs were never an option. That some other setting could in theory have minotaurs is totally irrelevant, regardless of whether that setting would be designed for D&D or Storyteller system.

 

[Older Beholder]

I find when players are choosing a race for a campaign it's a far more organic process than internet arguments would suggest (at least in my experience). There's usually a bit of give and take, a player suggests a race that doesn't find the DM's concept and the DM tries to sell them on a couple of options they think are a good compromise or that the player might still enjoy. Just as a player that wants something outside the box will make a case for how it could fit and concessions they're willing to make.

I can't remember the last time I had a choice rejected, despite always picking exotic races. It just comes down to open communication. Actually, the only thing I can think that a DM turned down was when I wanted to play the rogue sub-class 'Mastermind', so I went with Swashbuckler. He wouldn't tell us any campaign details, so was hard to argue or try to make the idea fit better.

Curating a list of options is great, all that is being suggested is not to discount your players ideas off the bat if they come up with something you hadn't considered.

 

[Maxperson]

Still no dragonborn though (I replaced them with Lizardfolk since I am running a variation on Ghosts of Saltmarsh). I just don't like the idea of dragon-people and feels it cheapens dragons. Even in Dragonlance the appearance of dragon-people was a shock and tied closely to setting lore and the central theme. If they want someone can play a lizardfolk and make the common lizardfolk claim that they are descended from dragons and we could or could not explore that possibility as a campaign theme.

That's why I abolished Dragonborn. It's the one race that I have an out and out ban on. There are some others that will require some background justification to play, but most races are just available.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm assuming the DM either has a setting they've worked on for a while, or is using a published setting they've read over and liked enough to want to run in particular, and presents that to the players as something they'd like to run. If that's the case I don't know how it would be described as random.

It depends, for sure. An Athas campaign will have different options than a Middle-Earth campaign.

But what about a homebrew? What about a world where a GM has determined a list of available races ahead of time and then sends them to the players; won’t that list very likely seem random to the players? Won’t whatever context is shared just seem like justification for the GM’s choices?

If I start a campaign and I tell players to make characters, and then I take the races they’ve opted for their PCs and any related background details, and then I use that to build a world, what makes this more random?

Do you mean from the GM’s perspective?

If the initial premise is agreed to, I'm used to the player then coming up with the idea in response to that. I'm not sure the players choice is random either, but if the idea isn't in response to the DM pitch in some way, it kind of feels that way. If they wanted something way outside the pitch it feels like they should have brought it up before agreeing to it.

Of course. But maybe they had an idea that occurred to them out of the blue, and they want to run with it. “Maybe the GM will be cool with this; it seems like a pretty cool idea”.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That's "tyranny"?

In so far as anything in this conversation could be labeled as such, sure. Arbitrary use of power or authority.

What if that list was last modified a decade or more ago?

Make a new list? Or ignore the list?

Again, the list exists to appease your sense of verisimilitude, right? For the world to make sense. But if it’s placed ahead of player concerns, then yeah, I think that’s where it’s a problem.

As a player, I’m not really interested in playing through a GM’s uber-detailed homebrew setting. Or at least, not in exchange for my ability as a player to contribute to the game.

What should I care if my playing a drow renders some paragraphs you jotted in a spiral notebook 8 years ago moot?

Again, though, if your players aren’t concerned about this, then it’s not an issue.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

An Athas campaign will have different options than a Middle-Earth campaign.

Yes, exactly. You seem to get it just fine.

But what about a homebrew? What about a world where a GM has determined a list of available races ahead of time and then sends them to the players; won’t that list very likely seem random to the players? Won’t whatever context is shared just seem like justification for the GM’s choices?

Not any more than those of Athas and Middle-Earth. It is part of the creative choices made by the setting creator. Literally the exact same thing.

 

[Greg K]

As a player, I’m not really interested in playing through a GM’s uber-detailed homebrew setting.

What should I care if my playing a drow renders some paragraphs you jotted in a spiral notebook 8 years ago moot?

In my case, because Drow are one of the races on my banned list along with Dragonborn, planar/elemental races, and several others. A DM has no obligation to cater to your particular preferences just because you happen to also like D&D and don't like the options presented.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes, exactly. You seem to get it just fine.


Not any more than those of Athas and Middle-Earth. It is part of the creative choices made by the setting creator. Literally the exact same thing.

Right. Again, I'm not against a tailored list.

There are just means of tailoring a list that don't default to "Because I wrote it down that way ten years ago".

Designing a home brew world? Simply ask the players "hey, what playable races do you want to see? What classes? How about the pantheon, if there is one?"

Or, if someone comes up with some kind of exception, then see what you can do to make it work without disrupting the setting.