D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[Micah Sweet]

If a DM has problems attracting players in my experience it has little to do with any restrictions on player options. Conversely allowing anything and everything doesn't inherently make their games more enjoyable.

But we keep seeing this conflation of issues. A DM that doesn't allow all races isn't pitching their campaign or they're a control freak that is only interested in telling their story. Why? What do they have to do with each other?

Related: why is one true way so acceptable if that one true way it to allow people to play any race they want without consideration of the world the DM has built? If you collaboratively create a brand new world with every campaign, cool! If you have an established campaign world that has precedence, awesome! Why do people think either style is inherently better?

Someone said upthread that these discussions boil down to, "You're not exactly playing wrong, but MY way is so much better". Boy were they right.

 

[Mannahnin]

FWIW, I think a lot could be said by answering this question:

Which came first, the DM or the player?

The Player. Before DMs there were Referees and Umpires.

Also, Dave Arneson was a player first when he started going ham in Dave Wesely's Braunstein games, especially the banana republic revolution game in which his student activist character took the initiative to pose as a CIA agent and Dave improvised his own amazing win conditions for the scenario. It was only after that, that he invented Dungeon Mastering.

 

[Oofta]

I think we'd all be sympathetic to you expressing your emotions about those particular players. If you generalized from them to cast negative aspersions on the people here in this discussion, that would seem to be unreasonable.

As Oofta misinterpreted Stormanu's title as some sort of slight against or attack on Oofta's game, seemingly based in part on old bad feelings Oofta has toward unreasonable players he has had in the past.

There are multiple valid ways to make a game world. Limiting player character options CAN be a reasonable part of building a world and conveying an atmosphere. Of making a given campaign distinct. But you need player buy-in. While the GM is important, everyone's happiness and enjoyment is the objective. Stormanu is sharing his experiences of having opened up his style and approach to be better able to incorporate his players' concepts, and has found himself happy with the results. YMMV.

Thread titles have meaning. If this thread were titled "Why I allow all races" I would have no problem with it. Different strokes for different folks. But it's hard to look at the title and not interpret it as "If you don't agree you're being a tyrant". This is hardly the first thread title that has been implicitly, intentionally or not, been telling people they're playing the game wrong if they don't agree.

It's not an attack on my specific game and even if it was I wouldn't really care. It comes across to me as a broad based attack on all games that have restrictions.

 

[Mannahnin]

Thread titles have meaning. If this thread were titled "Why I allow all races" I would have no problem with it. Different strokes for different folks. But it's hard to look at the title and not interpret it as "If you don't agree you're being a tyrant". This is hardly the first thread title that has been implicitly, intentionally or not, been telling people they're playing the game wrong if they don't agree.

It's not an attack on my specific game and even if it was I wouldn't really care. It comes across to me as a broad based attack on all games that have restrictions.

I think that's a reasonable complaint, about the title. I do think that Stormanu's actual OP was perfectly inoffensive, and that his clarification post once you raised the issue was quite clear that he didn't intend any attack. And it looked like you had accepted his explanation. Am I misremembering?

No one here is arguing that you need to bow down to the unreasonable demands of the anecdotal jerk players you've had over the years. Folks are advocating that we as DMs have a responsibility for the fun of our groups (as do the other players), and that it's worth considering whether we ever over-use our authority to create restrictions. You've evidently had success with a restricted list of races. If you recall, my first post in the thread was advocating for similar. Stormanu and Umbran and others use less restrictions. These all seem to work.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Again, as soon as you do add sapient nonhuman races, especially rare or unique ones, to an all-human community (even one with a lot of human cultures), things change imo. Most people aren't going to shrug off the world's only lizard man as no big deal, at least not for a long while.

I meant all-human, not half-human.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I always expect players to respect that, as DM, my decision is FINAL PERIOD. If you can't convince me to see your side, sorry, but since I am running the game and doing the most work for it, I expect you to respect the dedication I have to the game and accept my rulings are final. And just to satisfy anyone's curiosity, when I am a player treat my DM this way. Their word is final. Period.

And as a DM I have a corollary. Every single time I lean on that authority and say "My way or no way" I have failed as a DM. I've failed to build consensus, share my vision, and reach agreement. If I need to routinely reach for the hard authority rather than soft authority of the role it's because I'm doing my job badly. And the same goes for other DMs.

A player who sounds like they won't be happy unless they get a particular race in this one game sounds symptomatic of a narrow minded trouble maker who can't flexibly roleplay.

They sound about as narrow minded to me as the DM who must have their world exactly so because it is their world and they are precious about it. And I'd rather have a narrow minded trouble maker as a player than one as a DM.

FWIW, I think a lot could be said by answering this question:

Which came first, the DM or the player?

The player, beyond a shadow of a doubt. One on one collaborative storytelling predates D&D - so do boardgames, wargames, and the sort of free kriegspiel D&D grew out of (with referees not DMs).

At least to me, that is not the issue. Sure. if lizardfolk exist, then it probably could make sense for a player to play one.* It is not about Tolkien races vs 'exotic' races or anything like that. It is about the GMs prerogative to create a coherent setting.

Once more you say "coherent", I say "sterile". The way the world we ourselves live in doesn't when you get down to it make a hell of a lot of sense although you can make some sense out of it. And part of the reason it doesn't have top down coherence to the lowest levels is that it has been built over time by billions of people. A single person's vision will, at the very best, turn out to be as expansive as Tolkien's. Which is far too ordered however amazing it is.

Not everything someone at WotC decided to print in a book needs to exist in every setting. The GM can, and I might even suggest should, curate things.

This doesn't mean that the GM should curate it by swatting the players with a rolled up newspaper or even the DMG when they try to contribute. No one is suggesting that Menzobarranzan needs to be in every setting - or even needs to be in every setting where someone wants to play a drow. No one is suggesting that half the species in the Monster Manual need to exist. Merely that there should be space in the setting for if a player wants to play something the GM hasn't planned unless the GM can sell the entire group on it without resorting to Respect Mah Authoritah

Again, as soon as you do add sapient nonhuman races, especially rare or unique ones, to an half-human community (even one with a lot of human cultures), things change imo. Most people aren't going to shrug off the world's only lizard man as no big deal, at least not for a long while.

You're talking about literal half-human communities already existing. And D&D worlds are high magic worlds, like it or not. If you go back to medieval times and ask them what they thought people on the other side of the world looked like then lizardmen would have been exotic but plausible.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Again, that was a typo. I meant all-human communities.

And as a DM I have a corollary. Every single time I lean on that authority and say "My way or no way" I have failed as a DM. I've failed to build consensus, share my vision, and reach agreement. If I need to routinely reach for the hard authority rather than soft authority of the role it's because I'm doing my job badly. And the same goes for other DMs.

They sound about as narrow minded to me as the DM who must have their world exactly so because it is their world and they are precious about it. And I'd rather have a narrow minded trouble maker as a player than one as a DM.

The player, beyond a shadow of a doubt. One on one collaborative storytelling predates D&D - so do boardgames, wargames, and the sort of free kriegspiel D&D grew out of (with referees not DMs).

Once more you say "coherent", I say "sterile". The way the world we ourselves live in doesn't when you get down to it make a hell of a lot of sense although you can make some sense out of it. And part of the reason it doesn't have top down coherence to the lowest levels is that it has been built over time by billions of people. A single person's vision will, at the very best, turn out to be as expansive as Tolkien's. Which is far too ordered however amazing it is.

This doesn't mean that the GM should curate it by swatting the players with a rolled up newspaper or even the DMG when they try to contribute. No one is suggesting that Menzobarranzan needs to be in every setting - or even needs to be in every setting where someone wants to play a drow. No one is suggesting that half the species in the Monster Manual need to exist. Merely that there should be space in the setting for if a player wants to play something the GM hasn't planned unless the GM can sell the entire group on it without resorting to Respect Mah Authoritah

You're talking about literal half-human communities already existing. And D&D worlds are high magic worlds, like it or not. If you go back to medieval times and ask them what they thought people on the other side of the world looked like then lizardmen would have been exotic but plausible.

 

[DND_Reborn]

And as a DM I have a corollary. Every single time I lean on that authority and say "My way or no way" I have failed as a DM. I've failed to build consensus, share my vision, and reach agreement. If I need to routinely reach for the hard authority rather than soft authority of the role it's because I'm doing my job badly. And the same goes for other DMs.

(bold added)

More of "my way is the right way" and "yours is bad wrong fun" then???

The player, beyond a shadow of a doubt. One on one collaborative storytelling predates D&D - so do boardgames, wargames, and the sort of free kriegspiel D&D grew out of (with referees not DMs).

Sure, that is one way to look at it. The other is the DM because one person telling another a story (i.e. the storyteller role) came before one on one collaborative storytelling.

FWIW, there is NO right or wrong answer to that question. We each have to answer it for ourselves. And my answer is also the player, but for different reasons.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This, to me, is part of the essence of old school gaming.

I always wonder about this; OD&D was not low magic in any meaningful way, and if you stayed with it long enough, not low power.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I have a question what makes exotic races such a contention point? people fight lizard folk all the time so letting one join the group would be equally likely, also who other than the dm says what is mundane to begin with?

The latter is a perfectly legitimate question, but I will note a lot of GMs are not doing their campaigns from the ground up with every campaign. They're using exterior material, or a campaign setting they've used before, and the decision about what's common is probably long since baked in, and may not be easily removed without a lot of ripple effects.