D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[Vaalingrade]

I was literally replying to Jack Daniel saying he couldn't conceive of another focus for the game and lamefan also stating his preference. Yet I'm the one that gets jumped for emphasis.

 

[Umbran]

Fair enough. I just get the impression that some treat their preferences as more than just that. No one's favorite is inherently better than anyone else's, and sometimes I feel that needs to be emphasized.

Well, there have been a couple points with emotionally loaded words being used to describe preferences for how to go about pretending to be elves, one should not be surprised if it comes across as there being some overall judgement being placed.

 

[Umbran]

I consider it a problem when GMs (and, in some cases, game systems) try to pawn off that work onto the players It's not their job.

It may be a problem for you, but that's about you, not about games.

 

[Oofta]

There's not necessarily anything wrong with it. But flip the question around. Why is it more important that they be human than that the player gets to play what they're looking to play?

Honestly, if the only reason is because that's what the GM would prefer, then I think that's a bit of a problem. Is it an earth-shattering problem? No, of course not.

And I'm including your take on the bookkeeping element here....how can this be explained....as GM preference. It's really not much of an issue to have a tribe of people that was previously not widely known.

The DM makes dozens, hundreds of decisions about the campaign. I've explained why I made the decision I've made but really it just comes down to my vision of the world, my preference. I have a hard time taking kitchen sink campaigns seriously unless the DM has put thought into it. Changing my campaign world to a kitchen sink one would change the very nature of the game.

But let's say I allow one addition to the list, it becomes canon for every game I run from now on that grey skinned Goliaths exist as a separate species. Is it earth shattering? No. But then someone else wants to play a tiefling, genasi or tabaxi. Pretty soon I have a kitchen sink campaign. Thank goodness I had this rule during my 4E campaigns or I might have had to figure out how to include a ::shudder:: shardmind*. My campaign would feel distinctly different. Other than one player getting their way, I don't see anyone else who doesn't want to play non standard races benefiting. I know I don't benefit because I'll be less enthusiastic about my game. If I'm less enthusiastic about my game and campaign world I'll be worse as a DM.

I have no problem attracting and keeping players. Before session 0 I let people know a fair bit about the type of campaign I run and what races are allowed; also that they can ask. Sometimes we can come to a compromise sometimes the answer it's no. When it's happened the player adjusted their vision slightly to suit my vision or played one of the whitelisted races. Why does it matter if goliaths in my world can easily pass as (and effectively are) human? I'm not restricting anything else about their appearance. Other than "don't be evil" and "try to make a PC that will get along with a group" I have very few restrictions.

Specifically for goliaths? My campaign world is one where fire giants are literal big bads. Surtr, the god of fire giants, is destined one day to destroy the entire world. A gray skinned giant comes walking into town and some people are going to assume that they're related to fire giants and take what they think is appropriate action. I want the world to be realistic, I also don't want to deal with it.

I have no problem with you running a kitchen sink campaign, why the repeated questions on why I don't run one? I'm not picking on you per se. After all you weren't the one who said that a DM that restricts races makes the person feel "icky". But why do people care? We don't spend a lot of time arguing incessantly about whether we run a high or low magic world. Sometimes it comes up and I explain my thoughts on it and we move on.

I tend to try not to restrict any of that stuff. I've come to realize over the years that homebrew worlds, generally speaking, aren't really all that compelling in and of themselves. They're not as unique and interesting as a GM tends to think. Can there be exceptions? Sure. Are most perfectly suitable? Sure. But most homebrew settings really don't make players say "Oh wow, I'm interested in this world and want to play in a game set there."


And I think that's part of the issue here. Whatever restrictions are placed on the player choices have to add up to a compelling enough world that the players no longer mind the restrictions.

The setting should be one suitable for play. That's its actual function. Being suitably detailed for a novel is not.


So, when things like "no drow as PCs" come up, if the reason is nothing more than "because I'm an old school GM and drow are evil NPCs only", that's not all that compelling.

So for me, any restriction tends to either need a strong reason, and one my players will agree is strong, or it comes up naturally as a result of play. For example, I really don't dig gnomes all that much. I don't really get them, they seem redundant with halflings, and I've only ever seen one interesting gnome character in all my years of D&D. But I don't restrict gnome PCs. But, when my players make their characters and none happen to be gnomes.....guess what race won't ever be making an appearance in the campaign?

This means that the players' choices are influencing things more than just my whim.

Why trash people that make home worlds? I don't think my homebrew world is worth publishing but I enjoy it, several of my players have complimented me over the years on it. How "compelling" does something have to be that you are limited to - gasp - more than half a dozen races with options to potentially use the mechanical bits of a race not listed? How set are you on playing a kenku that you can't accept that they just aren't allowed and if you want to play in my game you'll have to choose a different option? If a player said that a game is not worth playing unless they can play X, to me it would be a bit of a red flag that they are unwilling to compromise and may not be a good fit for a group where compromise with other players will be inevitable.

Why do you feel compelled to state that homebrew worlds aren't special? They are special to the people that make them, isn't that enough? If you don't want to play in my game, that's fine. I'm not going to be the DM for everyone.

*Sentient walking rocks with roughly humanoid shapes for those that aren't aware.

 

[Minigiant]

But let's say I allow one addition to the list, it becomes canon for every game I run from now on that grey skinned Goliaths exist as a separate species. Is it earth shattering? No. But then someone else wants to play a tiefling, genasi or tabaxi. Pretty soon I have a kitchen sink campaign.

This is the logic I don't understand.

Imagine the GM has a campaign with a setting of only PHB races. That's 9 races?
Is that kitchen sink setting?

Let's say the DM has a group of 5 Players. Not too big. Now what if 3 of the players want to play races outside of PHB?
Does that make it a kitchen sink setting?

If so, are there any Player Requested Races that could replace DM Chosen Races? Could you swap out Gnomes for Haregon who wear gnomish hats?

Or could the DM replicate the Player's Requested Race with a DM Chosen race? With a few tweaks? Could you swap the ability bonuses of a Wood Elf if the Player just wanted a High Wis & Str character? Could your grant Powerful Build into a Human who wants to play a 7ft muscley tank?

As a DM I love to craft the worlds I run the way I want to. However I've found that I don't get the display said world well if the players doesn't truly feel their character and their character's connections into the world. I rather not waste my time running a world with characters the players are "meh" about. The campaign also goes meh once you leave the dungeon.

It's one reason why I think "roll in order, the dice makes you PC" order works for pure dungeon crawl.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The DM makes dozens, hundreds of decisions about the campaign. I've explained why I made the decision I've made but really it just comes down to my vision of the world, my preference. I have a hard time taking kitchen sink campaigns seriously unless the DM has put thought into it. Changing my campaign world to a kitchen sink one would change the very nature of the game.

But let's say I allow one addition to the list, it becomes canon for every game I run from now on that grey skinned Goliaths exist as a separate species. Is it earth shattering? No. But then someone else wants to play a tiefling, genasi or tabaxi. Pretty soon I have a kitchen sink campaign. Thank goodness I had this rule during my 4E campaigns or I might have had to figure out how to include a ::shudder:: shardmind*. My campaign would feel distinctly different. Other than one player getting their way, I don't see anyone else who doesn't want to play non standard races benefiting. I know I don't benefit because I'll be less enthusiastic about my game. If I'm less enthusiastic about my game and campaign world I'll be worse as a DM.

I have no problem attracting and keeping players. Before session 0 I let people know a fair bit about the type of campaign I run and what races are allowed; also that they can ask. Sometimes we can come to a compromise sometimes the answer it's no. When it's happened the player adjusted their vision slightly to suit my vision or played one of the whitelisted races. Why does it matter if goliaths in my world can easily pass as (and effectively are) human? I'm not restricting anything else about their appearance. Other than "don't be evil" and "try to make a PC that will get along with a group" I have very few restrictions.

Specifically for goliaths? My campaign world is one where fire giants are literal big bads. Surtr, the god of fire giants, is destined one day to destroy the entire world. A gray skinned giant comes walking into town and some people are going to assume that they're related to fire giants and take what they think is appropriate action. I want the world to be realistic, I also don't want to deal with it.

I have no problem with you running a kitchen sink campaign, why the repeated questions on why I don't run one? I'm not picking on you per se. After all you weren't the one who said that a DM that restricts races makes the person feel "icky". But why do people care? We don't spend a lot of time arguing incessantly about whether we run a high or low magic world. Sometimes it comes up and I explain my thoughts on it and we move on.

Yeah, I'm not saying yor preference is wrong. I'm just explaining my take on it. If you and your players are happy with the game and whatever restrictions may be in place or not, then that's fine. It's not how I tend to approach things, but it doesn't need to be.

And to clarify, I'm not necessarily advocating for a kitchen sink setting, or the absence of any restrictions at all. I'm just saying that I tend to involve my players in the setting design to try and avoid any conflicts, and when it comes to restrictions, they need a strong reason to justify them, in my opinion.

Why trash people that make home worlds? I don't think my homebrew world is worth publishing but I enjoy it, several of my players have complimented me over the years on it. How "compelling" does something have to be that you are limited to - gasp - more than half a dozen races with options to potentially use the mechanical bits of a race not listed? How set are you on playing a kenku that you can't accept that they just aren't allowed and if you want to play in my game you'll have to choose a different option? If a player said that a game is not worth playing unless they can play X, to me it would be a bit of a red flag that they are unwilling to compromise and may not be a good fit for a group where compromise with other players will be inevitable.

Why do you feel compelled to state that homebrew worlds aren't special? They are special to the people that make them, isn't that enough? If you don't want to play in my game, that's fine. I'm not going to be the DM for everyone.

*Sentient walking rocks with roughly humanoid shapes for those that aren't aware.

I'm not trashing people at all. I'm talking about the settings. I have no doubt that folks enjoy their settings. I've made several myself and I enjoy them for different reasons. I've played or run games in plenty of pre-existing settings, too, and they can also be fun.

But most of them are pretty basic in many ways. They're slight variations on some kind of Tolkienesque fantasy setting, with the many tropes and concepts from European folklore and mythology. That's almost always the starting point, and then changes are made from that base.....no drow, no paladins, this pantheon versus that one, and so on.

This isn't a problem really....I don't think a setting needs to be incredibly deep in order to be an engaging element of play. In fact, I often think the opposite. But I also think that what makes a setting unique or flavorful isn't usually the list of playable races. Like Dark Sun....ask people about that, and many will often point out there are no gnomes or no orcs. Those two missing races are such a minor part of what makes Dark Sun what it is. The themes and world details are what makes it shine. Put a gnome in Dark Sun, and it doesn't come crashing down. It's just a gnome.

My take on this is if the setting details are based more on the GM's personal tastes than they are about play, I question them. I think lots of GMs, particularly DMs of D&D, tend to engage with the game through prep in between sessions. This is perfectly fine given the nature of the game and how it functions. But I also think that all that time can sometimes become a bit too precious to a GM. That they will favor a decision they made when engaging alone in prep over one that comes up at the table in play.

I know that I used to do this. Many GMs I know and have played with do it or used to do it. Many people here on these boards comment in ways that lead me to believe that they do it, too. And I don't think that's a good thing for any game. The priority should be the group activity of actual play versus the enjoyment a GM gets from solo prep.

I think that this is something each GM should think about and be honest with themselves about. I think that ties back to the way @Stormonu described their experience in the OP.

If you've given thought to this stuff, and you're comfortable with the answers, and your players are as well, then that's great, continue on as you do. But for others who maybe reading, this is something I think is worth examining.

 

[Lanefan]

have you considered that 5e is really not a zero to hero system?

No; but if it indeed isn't I'd count that as a major failing.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Why can't some people (not directed at @Minigiant or anyone in particular) simply accept that some DMs just don't want non-old school D&D races (i.e. humans, dwarves, elves, halflings, and maybe gnomes, half-elves, half-orcs...) in the games they run?

I see so many posts about "Hey, if it works for you, cool, but..." and then they go on to explain why they think it is wrongbadfun or something. How it makes for "less of a game", or how it is "not cool" or whatever.

Some people act like it is a travesty against the gaming gods to impose limitations on game world because that is what a DM wants to run.

If a player wants to play a race (or class, for that matter) restricted by the DM, suddenly that makes the DM a tyrant or something.

Or if the DM isn't willing to let the player have their way, the DM is somehow unfair because the player can't play a race they want.

When I join a game I play by that DM's rules--whatever they are. Sure, I might ask or try to convince them if I don't like something or can't have something I want, but if the DM says, "Sorry, but no," I accept it and move on. I have so many characters I would love to play, that just because I can't have what I want for a particular build isn't going to stop me from having fun. Really, for the aspect of character race, if you can't enjoy your over all character concept because the DM restricted your ideal race, that seems like a pretty poor and limited concept IMO.

Worst case scenario, ask if a different player is willing to DM (after discussion with the group) or find a different group.

Frankly, other than as a one-off or farce (such as our all-animal monk game), I hate having all the additional races or allowing monster PCs. In my games players are fortunate I go so far as to allow the PHB races. I see dragonborn and tieflings, especially, and to an extend even half-orcs, as monsters. THAT IS MY VIEW, please don't challenge it. If you love those races, I'm happy for you, really, I am.

So, can you respect that is my choice as the DM? If you can, great and thank you!

If you can't, well then we can just both be glad you don't want to play in my game.

 

[Lanefan]

So, when things like "no drow as PCs" come up, if the reason is nothing more than "because I'm an old school GM and drow are evil NPCs only", that's not all that compelling.

If a DM is tired of Drow (as foes or PCs, whichever) it's pretty easy to reskin that as "No Drow in this game" and only have the players/PCs find out much later during play it's because Drow are pretty much extinct on this world - which is exactly what I've done in my current campaign; the background reason being that IMO Drow have been done to death as opponents and I wanted to use something different.

I've since managed to work their near-extinction into the story arc by having a few parties meet (and, incredibly, not kill on sight!) some survivors.

There's nothing "so called" about them. They work just fine. In fact, I'd say that they often tend to result in far less contradictions than worlds built almost entirely ahead of time.

Assuming all involved want to keep some sense of mystery*, how can something designed by a group of people each acting at least partly in secret not end up rife with unintended contradictions?

* - and if not, what's the point?

 

[Bacon Bits]

No; but if it indeed isn't I'd count that as a major failing.

I think that's one of the big problems with 5e. It tries to be the everything fantasy RPG. It wants to support the gamut between heroic fantasy and sword & sorcery. That's why there's so much conflict about setting, tone, and so on.