D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[Minigiant]

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 know you didn't direct it to me. But I don't think the thought that some people don't get that some old school DMs don't want non-old school races or classes.

I think it's that some people think that some DMs think the fun of the players don't matter. There is some dismissal of the concept of figuring out why players want to to play certain types of PCs and apathy to adding or fostering popular ideas amongst players in the D&D Community.

For example, I have old 5e PHB classes and races in my Klassivo setting. However I've designed Klassivo to foster all old school archetypes and all race-class-background combinations. Why? Because I want one of a player top 5 PCs to be the one in my campaign. I don't want to force a player to create a PC they don't love... then miss sessions because they don't really care about their PC.

Because to me, outside of a few rare situations a player can't finding a race-class combo they want to feels like a failing on my part. I've created this awesome world and none of it fun to you? It can't constantly happen unless I messed up.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Or, you could see what characters the players are interested in playing, and then use those as the starting point for the world. If no one suggests playing a drow, then sure, proceed as you've described or use them as villainous monsters or whatever. But if one has said they'd like to play one, then discuss how they can fit into the setting in a way that works for both of you. Even if you have 5 or 6 players and each wanted to play a non-human, you'd still only have a handful of playable races very much on par with what is typical.

Crazy, I know.

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?

I suppose I don't really consider "do drow exist or not in this world?" as all that compelling a mystery for the players to learn. The absence or presence of something in a campaign really doesn't mean jack until there is some kind of context. No one's sitting around "we're level 6 and no mind flayers yet....I wonder if they exist in this world!!"

So to run with the drow example.....let's say I have a player who's interested in playing a drow. I'd ask why. Then maybe he comes up with the classic "I want to be a heroic member of a race typically considered evil" concept. Okay, then let's design some evil drow civilization. There you go.

This doesn't mean the player has to know every single detail of the drow society, although they'd likely have a good sense of things. But they also don't need to know what specific members may be up to. The GM is still going to come up with ideas and possible threats from this drow society that may be interesting for the players to interact with.

To me, what High Priestess Eclavdra may be up to is a far more interesting mystery than "are there drow in this world?"

Also, why would the group be acting in secret? And if so, why must that lead to contradictions? I'd think that a lot of this can easily be avoided through a combo of cooperation and leaving plenty to be discovered in play rather than committing to every detail ahead of time.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

I think it's the opposite.

5e is built like a traditional but heroic setting but marketed to everyone. So there is little sense of compromise and consideration as the 2 built in toggles and the added on toggles fight for dominance in the community.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I think it's that some people think that some DMs think the fun of the players don't matter.

That might be part of it, but the tone and ideas expressed leads me to think my initial assessment is also correct.

Of course the fun of the players matters! If a player encounters a DM and they really feel that way, not just because they couldn't get their own way, then they should find a new DM.

Otherwise, it comes down to what is fun for the DMs to run as well as what is fun for a player to play.

There is some dismissal of the concept of figuring out why players want to to play certain types of PCs and apathy to adding or fostering popular ideas amongst players in the D&D Community.

The "D&D Community" isn't my concern, just what happens at my table when I DM.

Some posters might want to express, "Hey, let them play what they want!", others "Hey, run the game you want to run!" Still others might say, "Hey, try to compromise!" All are valid points, so why can't everyone just respect that they are different views instead of challenging them?

I, certainly, have never said "Hey, you MUST restrict your game world, otherwise it won't be fun for you."

 

[MichaelSomething]

How about the DM goes, "I can't conceptualize this race you want to play. I'll allow it if you run a one shot themed around this race so I understand the idea behind it."

 

[DND_Reborn]

How about the DM goes, "I can't conceptualize this race you want to play. I'll allow it if you run a one shot themed around this race so I understand the idea behind it."

Sure, if that is the DM's reason/issue, this is a great solution.

If the player isn't willing to do it, then that indicates it might not really have been that important IMO. (Or maybe they are just afraid of sucking as DM... )

 

[Mordhau]

So to run with the drow example.....let's say I have a player who's interested in playing a drow. I'd ask why. Then maybe he comes up with the classic "I want to be a heroic member of a race typically considered evil" concept. Okay, then let's design some evil drow civilization. There you go.

This doesn't mean the player has to know every single detail of the drow society, although they'd likely have a good sense of things. But they also don't need to know what specific members may be up to. The GM is still going to come up with ideas and possible threats from this drow society that may be interesting for the players to interact with.

This is sort of assuming a certain level of the specificity on the part of what the character wants to do and no more.

"Let's design some evil Drow civilisation" assumes that the GM is still making up the Drow civilisation - but in my experience specificity often breeds more specificity. "I want to play a Drow and I thought maybe could have been a former member of the first half of the city but his house lost favour with the Spider Queen and was destroyed when the other houses launched an attack on each other and he was forced to flee the city". This, assuming you go with it, would impose a the default Forgotten Realms conception of Drow onto the game.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

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.

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?

I think you aren't viewing "collaborative design" the same as others in the thread?

Collaborative design is not a GM and players sitting around the table and designing a fully complete adventure that they all then play through with the players knowing about all the traps, treasures, and backroom deals that were involved.

Collaborative design is the players helping to seed the setting with maybe drawing a general dungeon floorplan, a suggestion of an idea that gnolls and kobolds are up to something as a team, or asking that some nemesis be included in the adventure. The GM then takes all these suggestions and contributions and creates a customized adventure based upon the collective desires of the entire table.

 

[Arilyn]

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?

Collaboration deepens player engagement, potentially adds more interesting and imaginative bits to the lore of the world and lightens the GM's load. There is still plenty of room for mystery and surprises, if not more so because no one is exactly sure what's out there at any given moment. And when even the GM is not the sole arbiter of knowledge the world feels more mysterious. The most suspenseful and intense games I've played in were No Myth.

Collaboration does not make the world a surreal mess, whether it's full on Story Now, or just letting the players add in some details. It works, otherwise this style would have been abandoned years ago.

 

[Minigiant]

That might be part of it, but the tone and ideas expressed leads me to think my initial assessment is also correct.

I think it is both to a sense.

But that goes to another very unpopular opinion of mine.

I think D&D has a worldbuilding problem and the traditional race lineup and even the updated one are low tier race lineups.

On a purely game design mindset, Dwarf-Elf-Gnome-Human-Halfling-HalfElf-HalfOrc lineup is not a good racial array for a RPG. It's full of gaps and holes, has redundancies, and has little specialness or wonder within the races themselves as objective concepts.. But WOTC and D&D fans are willing or ready to discuss that.

Add that and the different goals, needs, and responsibilities of DMs and players and you just start from a point that causes this whole problem.