D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[Oofta]

It's not a conflation.

The situation is Why is it such a Big Deal for a DM to inquire why a player wants to play a particular race or class that is banned and suggest one that isn't banned that fits the setting and the players desires?

If the player wants to be an elf to be a haughty snootbag, why can't the DM suggest being a human from Simeon where the nobles are snooty?

If someone asks to play something not on my whitelisted races, I'll ask why and what they're looking for. Sometimes it's a simple "no" but hopefully there's some compromise.

Apologies if I misunderstood your post.

 

[Oofta]

This is actually something I've been trying to move away from. I've been trying to incorporate some player choices, ideas and actions into the campaign worlds I run.

Examples:
Playing Ghosts of Saltmarsh, a recent character chose to play a human Gladiator battlemaster. That led to the creation of a gladiatorial circuit in the Kingdom of Keoland, that may extend beyond its borders. I may have this link be a stepping stone to a multidimensional supernatural "fight club" from a campaign from years ago - which itself was a spur-of-the-moment creation based on player desire for some power-leveling.

In the same campaign, due to a random trinket rolled on the PHB (A book with iron pages) for the Kenku player (who is a wizard), it turned out the book previously belonged to Keraptis (of White Plume Mountain infamy), and it was an apprenticing spellbook from when he was tutoring under Xenopus. This turned into a convulted story/quest involving the Dungeon of Xenopus, The Haunted House of Saltmarsh, The Tower of Iverness and White Plume Mountain - now all located in the Kingdom of Keoland and interlinked.

There's no one true way to build campaign worlds. But your thread title seems to state that there is one true way: allow anything. That's what I take issue with.

Obviously I could decide to allow anything. I choose not to. So?

 

[Oofta]

Eh. There's a whole lot of assumption in that statement as to what constitutes a game world. I don't think diving into this would be constructive, beyond stating that I, and others, have and can run games in which the game world is, essentially, "there's a village out there where you can buy food, arrows, torches and stuff," but little or no other explicit detail. Facts of the game world will be revealed as play goes on, "We have an elf and dwarf in the party, so there are elves and dwarves in the world," and "Oh, hey, here are lizardfolk on a pirate ship - so that's a thing," Improvisational D&D is a thing you can do.

And, as I have noted above - that a game world exists does not specify how it is generated. "The GM makes up everything" is by no means the only way to go about things.

Yep, there are many ways to do this. I happen to have an established campaign world, but it's perfectly valid to build the world for every campaign. That doesn't mean that what you prefer is any better or that restricting races is "bad" which is the impression you make whether it's intentional or not.

So, I have already noted that the answers to your question clearly don't apply to you. I am not talking about what you are doing. I am talking about what other people, who are decidedly not you, do, or may find useful, and why.

Please internalize that, or this will continue to be you finding conflict in things that aren't about you. This will not be constructive, and will quickly become tiresome.

And what I am saying is that I post my experiences and opinions so that other DMs will have support if they decide to limit races. There are many ways to play the game, I'm not telling anyone my way is better. I am telling them that if they decide to do it my way, it's perfectly okay and I understand why you are doing so. There is nothing wrong with a DM making reasonable restrictions.

I find supporting a wide variety of games constructive. Shutting down people because they happen to disagree is not.

 

[Maxperson]

OMG, I want to play that. Not !



Ah, good times, good memories...

Other than the pacifist portion which is usually disruptive to the game, I don't see a problem with a 7 foot elf. Gigantism is a thing, so an abnormally tall elf would be unusual, but not impossible.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The DM builds the world, which includes populating it with specific races. The player gets to create any character that fits in that world. In my campaign I also have some simple guidelines designed to make the game work for all the other players at the table.

We regularly provide lunch for our players because we host games at our house and my wife likes to cook. We let people know what we're thinking of making, take into consideration preferences but ultimately my wife is the chef and she gets to decide what gets made. Is she "privileged"? Yes. She's the one cooking the meal and putting far more work into it than anyone else at the table. Same with the DM.

Not always. I personally tend to build a world with my players' input. We collaboratively build a world together. Or, at the very least, I'll build a world and allow them pretty significant contributions.

Then of course, there are also pre-existing settings like Forgotten Realms and the like. Those don't require a GM to build them.

So your comparison to a cook preparing a meal isn't always the case.

Are there times when I think players should compromise? Sure, absolutely. Sometimes a PC concept simply clashes with the setting or the campaign idea.

But just as often (if not more so) I think a GM's ideas about what's important take precedence over what the group would like to do, and I don't think that's a good way to proceed. I don't think of it as "The GM's World". If that's what it is.....if the GM cares more about Setting Solitaire than about the group game....then I think they should be the one to compromise.

Write stories instead, if that's the case.

 

[Neonchameleon]

This is really not at all what 'playing the same game' means. That the characters have differing capabilities doesn't make it a different game.

Each of the players engaging with the game very differently means that it effectively is.

And I could say that 'anything goes' attitude in GM is an indication that they don't take their setting seriously or care about it, so why should the players either? That, however, would be an uncharitable generalisation.

You could say that. But it wouldn't just be an uncharitable generalisation, it would show that you simply do not know how some very good games are run. Apocalypse World, for example, literally tells the MC to come with nothing at all before session zero and it works well.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Other than the pacifist portion which is usually disruptive to the game, I don't see a problem with a 7 foot elf. Gigantism is a thing, so an abnormally tall elf would be unusual, but not impossible.

I've always wondered why an always fluttering cape is always a part of this frequently mentioned horrible character. It's literally a published 5e magic item and would have little to zero impact on the game.

 

[Stormonu]

There's no one true way to build campaign worlds. But your thread title seems to state that there is one true way: allow anything. That's what I take issue with.

Obviously I could decide to allow anything. I choose not to. So?

I'm sorry you took that as what I was advocating. I was not. My intent was to advocate to being open to suggestions and new ways of doing things rather than be dogmatic about "the only way is my way". No one person has all the answers to all the creative things that can be done in an RPG, and the players can sometimes come up with interesting and fun ideas too - they're not just trying to stomp your campaign world vision into the dirt - at times, they want to be part of the creative process too.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is actually something I've been trying to move away from. I've been trying to incorporate some player choices, ideas and actions into the campaign worlds I run.

Examples:
Playing Ghosts of Saltmarsh, a recent character chose to play a human Gladiator battlemaster. That led to the creation of a gladiatorial circuit in the Kingdom of Keoland, that may extend beyond its borders. I may have this link be a stepping stone to a multidimensional supernatural "fight club" from a campaign from years ago - which itself was a spur-of-the-moment creation based on player desire for some power-leveling.

In the same campaign, due to a random trinket rolled on the PHB (A book with iron pages) for the Kenku player (who is a wizard), it turned out the book previously belonged to Keraptis (of White Plume Mountain infamy), and it was an apprenticing spellbook from when he was tutoring under Xenopus. This turned into a convulted story/quest involving the Dungeon of Xenopus, The Haunted House of Saltmarsh, The Tower of Iverness and White Plume Mountain - now all located in the Kingdom of Keoland and interlinked.

I think it's really interesting that playing with your kids has brought this to your attention. That's really cool. I do think there can be a strong tendency to get very stuck in our ways...."I've been doing this for 30 years and this is what's best...." and so on. Then along comes someone with a fresh take on things....with different touchpoints and different media that have influenced them and given them a different view....and that can be very eye-opening.

I personally find the idea of not involving the players in the world building of any game to be kind of hard to imagine at this point.

 

[Maxperson]

I've always wondered why an always fluttering cape is always a part of this frequently mentioned horrible character. It's literally a published 5e magic item and would have little to zero impact on the game.

Heh. I didn't talk about the half-demon?/half-vampire with the cape, because that was kinda ridiculous. The 7 foot pacifist elf was fine as a 7 foot elf, though.

In 3e I had a standing rule that players could just take Races of +1 ECL or lower. +2 or higher had to be approved.