D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Possibly, yes. I went with the most common reason I've seen that players have wanted to play drow, and once that was assumed, I came up with some basics about how that would come about. But I never said anything about Lolth or matriarchy or the underdark. I took the broad theme and then said "this is what the world will need in order for you to have your character theme".

If instead, the player just wanted to play a drow as a refugee from the underdark who's a stranger to the surface world, then you'd need to come up with the underdark or something similar.

But yes, once you come up with whatever basics are needed, then usually additional details will suggest themselves, and the GM and players can come up with those ahead of time, or leave it to be determined in play.

 

[Mordhau]

Possibly, yes. I went with the most common reason I've seen that players have wanted to play drow, and once that was assumed, I came up with some basics about how that would come about. But I never said anything about Lolth or matriarchy or the underdark. I took the broad theme and then said "this is what the world will need in order for you to have your character theme".

If instead, the player just wanted to play a drow as a refugee from the underdark who's a stranger to the surface world, then you'd need to come up with the underdark or something similar.

But yes, once you come up with whatever basics are needed, then usually additional details will suggest themselves, and the GM and players can come up with those ahead of time, or leave it to be determined in play.

I've usually found in the past my issue is not so much with the specific things a player wants to do in terms of character race or class, but rather the assumptions they want to bring with them.

 

[MGibster]

I'm actually genuinely curious as to why it matters whether the DM restricts the available races. We've been moving away from assigning any specific traits to races. Attributes? Not tied to race. Abilities? Many of them not tied to race. Culture? Again, we're moving away from essentialism so there's no racial culture.

 

[Minigiant]

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

I get that. My issue is the situation with a reasonable DM and reasonable Players should be rare. A player should have many characters they want to play and DM should allow a huge array of characters in their setting.

If the players lists 5 PCs they which to play seriously and none of them fit a campaign world then to me either the the campaign is very niche, the player is unreasonable, or the DM is unreasonable. And if the DM is running a super niche campaign, to me the DM should strongly pitch the fun of it to potential players. The DM did all the work so the DM knows where's the fun at.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Sure. Not disagreeing with that. Thus none of those besides humans exist in my current world. But many people here seem to think that a GM shouldn't make such restrictive decision.

 

[Oofta]

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.

The way I try to immerse players in the world is to have it be logical, consistent and hopefully engaging. Having a limited number of races, and understanding the factions that they represent, how they interact with each other helps. For example, halflings are either travelling tinkers/entertainment/messengers/traders that wander the continent trading goods or they are itinerant halflings that settle in cities doing the work of the little guy like lacework or chimney sweeps.

If I can't set up an engaging environment, set up challenges, obstacles and goals that are going to engage a player then allowing them to play a different race isn't going to fix anything. Race in D&D is largely cosmetic. Want to play a drow? Well, in the past the people I've played with that played drow really just thought it was a cool look and didn't really roleplay them as anything particularly special. Oh, and they always wanted some way to easily get around the penalties. I'm sure there are exceptions, I just never met any.

But I don't allow drow*, so I'd work out some option. Want to play someone fighting against their heritage? Cool. You were from this region, and this family that supported the would-be dragon emperor. Specifically your family was a noble house and there are (true) rumors that they are fervent supporters of Lollth. Not all worshippers of Lollth in my world are drow. Let's work on how that worked out for you, here's the history of the region. Now, what race from the allowed list do you want to play?

On the other hand if I'm not the right DM for a player, that's too bad but it happens.

*Actually not technically true, in my campaign you could play a gray elf, basically a reformed drow that has rejected the darkness and Lollth and the underdark/Svartleheim. It generally comes with a more logical/lawful mindset, Vulcan elves.

 

[Minigiant]

Sure. Not disagreeing with that. Thus none of those besides humans exist in my current world. But many people here seem to think that a GM shouldn't make such restrictive decision.

A GM can make restrictive decisions.
A GM can't design a PC for the player (without permission)

The core issue is when does one become the other.

If a player wants to be a Drow to be a racial outcast, the DM should have options to be a racist outcast of another race.

If a player want wants to be a Drow to be an outcast and the setting lacks outcasts, the setting feels incomplete or overly restrictive.

 

[DND_Reborn]

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.

Ok, that is your view on what you consider an unpopular opinion. I can respect that, even if I don't agree.

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.

I think they are a perfectly good racial lineup for an RPG, after all I've been using them for many-a-year!

They offer select distinct options IMO, even if some individuals don't play them that way and look at them instead as a set of mechanics. FWIW, I think WotC could have done better in designing them, and hope they will be revisited considering the loss of things like racial ASIs, etc.

I am not sure what you mean as far as the issues you take with it (bolded), and if you wished to discuss those issues I would be more than happy to! Perhaps you see something I don't, but I am more likely thinking we just feel differently about it.

My issue is the situation with a reasonable DM and reasonable Players should be rare. A player should have many characters they want to play and DM should allow a huge array of characters in their setting.

Hopefully it IS rare!

But not including many races does not necessarily preclude many characters a player can have that they want to play. And I certainly don't feel the DM is obligated to have any more races for PCs in their game then what they want to run.

If the players lists 5 PCs they which to play seriously and none of them fit a campaign world then to me either the the campaign is very niche, the player is unreasonable, or the DM is unreasonable. And if the DM is running a super niche campaign, to me the DM should strongly pitch the fun of it to potential players. The DM did all the work so the DM knows where's the fun at.

Oh, I agree completely! It would be unfortunate if all 5 PCs concepts were unviable (for whatever reason), and hopefully a compromise might be reached, but (as the player) if none could be and the DM was adamant about not allowing them, I would be forced to consider if I wanted to join that group.

Also, I appreciate we can have a civil discussion, despite having such opposing points of view!

 

[Oofta]

If I'm thinking about campaigns that I've enjoyed, restrictions on race were just about the last thing I worried about. There are so many things that make a campaign work for me. The other players, the DM, is the setting coherent and believable, are the challenges interesting, do I feel like my PC has autonomy, the style and feel of the game. I was once considering joining a game and the DM and his buddy were telling a story about how in a previous town the DM had a hard time coming up with an NPC name so he decided it was Bob. Then he decided everyone in the village would be called Bob. The name of the village? Bobtown. They thought it was the most hilarious thing ever, I decided not to join the game.

If someone has a list of restricted races, at least I know they've given some thought about the world and how it works. But honestly, it will be pretty low on my list of why I would join a game or not. I enjoy playing dwarves. But if a campaign sounded interesting and they weren't allowed I would just move on to one of the allowed races.

Everyone has preferences and idiosyncrasies. I simply can't imagine having only one possible preconceived character concept before a session 0.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I've usually found in the past my issue is not so much with the specific things a player wants to do in terms of character race or class, but rather the assumptions they want to bring with them.

Like what? Have any examples?