D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[hawkeyefan]

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

But an entire preconceived world is easier to accept?

 

[Mordhau]

Like what? Have any examples?

Like the Drow example with the specific backstory that assumes the Drow basically work like in the Forgotten Realms.

If my evil elves are albinos who live in great fortresses on the northern tundra and worship Kiaransalee goddess of Undeath and Vengeance rather than Lloth, than the specific character that they were imagining playing doesn't work.

Something sort of similiar does - but not the specific idea they wanted.

 

[Oofta]

But an entire preconceived world is easier to accept?

Going in to a session 0 I expect to work with the other players to discuss the theme of the campaign, what role I can fulfill in the group and so on. I expect there to be potential compromises and I'll go in with any number of ideas. I may prefer to play a wizard but I enjoy playing rogues as well so maybe I'll do an arcane trickster. I have far more character concepts than I have time to play.

As long as the world is logical (and more thought out than "Bobtown") then I'll adjust my PC to fit. If the DM has gone to the work of setting up a campaign world, or becoming well versed in a published campaign, then I have no problem being flexible about things like class and race. There are some red lines for me. I won't play an evil PC because I wouldn't enjoy it. But having to compromise a bit on race? When I'm assuming I may need to compromise on other things like class to fit into the group? I don't see why I wouldn't accept it.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

It works but the lineup is not great. We are just used to it. Science fiction and urban fantasy due to it not being tied to the same tropes offers better arrays.

Gaps: No high wisdom races. No Roguish race
Holes: No races with special powers. No dragon race, No Big Guy Race, No Artic/Desert/Jungle race,
Redundancies: 2 high Dex races, 2 high Con race, 3 Fey races, 2 Norse linked races, Almost all pretty races, Almost all humanlike races, 3 version of Human.
Specalness: Human, Short human. Skinny human. Stout human. Short human 2. Kinda skinny human. Kinda big human.

And that's all before you get to culture. If you judged the line up with no nostalgia, it gets a C+ at best.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Like the Drow example with the specific backstory that assumes the Drow basically work like in the Forgotten Realms.

If my evil elves are albinos who live in great fortresses on the northern tundra and worship Kiaransalee goddess of Undeath and Vengeance rather than Lloth, than the specific character that they were imagining playing doesn't work.

Something sort of similiar does - but not the specific idea they wanted.

Okay, gotcha. I figured that was what you meant, but wanted to be sure.

I feel like most of this could be sorted out with a discussion, though. Like if a player has ideas about a drow PC and the GM has ideas about drow in his world, then they can discuss things so that everyone's on the same page. This is exactly why I involve my players in the world building prior to beginning play, and throughout play.

Going in to a session 0 I expect to work with the other players to discuss the theme of the campaign, what role I can fulfill in the group and so on. I expect there to be potential compromises and I'll go in with any number of ideas. I may prefer to play a wizard but I enjoy playing rogues as well so maybe I'll do an arcane trickster. I have far more character concepts than I have time to play.

As long as the world is logical (and more thought out than "Bobtown") then I'll adjust my PC to fit. If the DM has gone to the work of setting up a campaign world, or becoming well versed in a published campaign, then I have no problem being flexible about things like class and race. There are some red lines for me. I won't play an evil PC because I wouldn't enjoy it. But having to compromise a bit on race? When I'm assuming I may need to compromise on other things like class to fit into the group? I don't see why I wouldn't accept it.

Sure, I get that. Like I said, compromise is the key, and I've played in plenty of games where there were restrictions on class and race. I've run such games myself.

But I also think about the times when I had a character in mind and then was told it doesn't fit the campaign, and so I made another character.....and it just wasn't the character I'd been excited about, and so that game was a letdown.

I've largely been viewing this conversation through the lens of "GM Preference" versus "Player Satisfaction". I know these two things need not be mutually exclusive, but when they do come into conflict, I tend to go with player satisfaction as the more important of the two.

 

[pogre]

A few of my players get great pleasure out of experimenting with PCs of unusual races. This has led to me running a pretty much kitchen sink style campaign when it comes to PCs. That does not mean the races will they choose will be plentiful in the world. Indeed, I run a human-centric campaign world. However, my campaign can survive a few strange beings as PCs.

What I balk at is joke names. Tedious and disrespectful IMO. My players know I love to have a laugh and a good time, but joke names ruin the flavor and atmosphere I try to build in my campaign world.

 

[jmartkdr2]

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.

In general, it doesn't -or it's not fair to say that there's a specific reason why it matters.

But dm's generally restrict races for a reason. It's never just randomly deciding that this setting has no dwarves because the thought just occurred to me. And the reason given (or withheld) can tell you quite a bit about the dm's style. There are few universally good or bad reasons, but they imply preferences pretty clearly.

Like, after a few years on these boards I'd say I have a pretty good feel for how Lanefan runs his games. Based on that info, largely derived from threads about pc restrictions, I know what to expect if I were to join that game. If I didn't know this stuff, I probably could get that info from a conversation about the allowed races.

Honestly I find "what races do you restrict and why?" to be one of the best questions for learning how someone dms.

 

[Cadence]

But an entire preconceived world is easier to accept?

Something I accept every time I pick up a book to read, movie to watch, or TV series to binge.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Since I know you prefer more "single-post, single-response" posts Oofta, I'll group all of your posts together, and then follow with my own responses. I can't truly merge them all together, at least not without creating confusion, otherwise I would.

What's wrong with them just being human? It makes the world look more consistent, I don't have to explain why they've never been seen or mentioned before.

I think it depends on the DM and the group. If I allowed any race under the sun I would want some kind of explanation for it. A world with portals to many realms, a port planet in a SpellJammer cosmology, something. Then again I'd love to run a weird west campaign, a science fantasy campaign using Esper Genesis, a stone age campaign, a campaign where you're all cats (I wrote up a 1-shot for that but never got around to playing it) and on and on.

The way I try to immerse players in the world is to have it be logical, consistent and hopefully engaging. <example snip>

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.

As long as the world is logical (and more thought out than "Bobtown") then I'll adjust my PC to fit. If the DM has gone to the work of setting up a campaign world, or becoming well versed in a published campaign, then I have no problem being flexible about things like class and race. There are some red lines for me. I won't play an evil PC because I wouldn't enjoy it. But having to compromise a bit on race? When I'm assuming I may need to compromise on other things like class to fit into the group? I don't see why I wouldn't accept it.

First quote: For my part, the thing "wrong" with "everyone's just human" is that it's boring. It doesn't feel like fantasy to me. I like playing things like dragonborn, aasimar, warforged, etc. because they feel fantastical--and because they challenge me to "think beyond myself" as it were, beyond what humans typically do.

---

Second quote: This is again pulling in the slippery slope--"if I allow X, I must allow everything, no matter what." Further, sounds like you have plenty of ideas for how things could work, and not only work but be fun and engaging. E.g. Weird West could easily have drakogeneikos (Greek immigrants, lit. "born-of-dragon(s)") or longzhizi (Chinese immigrants, lit. "sons of the dragon" at least according to Google Translate), with either one dripping with roleplay potential and drawing on aspects of the real Old West to inform and drive the play experience in the Weird West. So...I don't really get the rather strident "players should just be happy with whatever the DM gives them" stance you frequently take on this topic.

---

Third quote: Forgive me if I am humblebragging here...but I don't have any problem doing this with a game that embraces lots of races. In part, it's because there's a shared feeling of common culture due to everyone in these societies being mortal (as opposed to the immortal noble genies and their various courtiers and servants): mortals collectively threw off the yoke of genie tyranny, and as a result find common cause with one another more easily. There's much more variation in terms of geographical origin than in terms of physiology, which...frankly makes a great deal more sense to me. Physiological monocultures are not likely to survive in a fantasy setting where you have migration, trade, and diplomacy. After all, even in high medieval Europe, you had tales of "Moorish" (that is, black African) characters, though that was sometimes...presented in unintentionally humorous ways (like the bi-racial knight Feirefiz in Eschenbach's Parzival having patches of black skin and white skin). If you're having diasporas, conquests, alliances, centuries of intercontinental commerce...yeah, you're not going to have mono-racial cultures nor mono-cultural races without some serious heavy lifting. It's both easier and more "logical" to have trends and blends and messiness.
And, for my part, if one has permitted race to be truly cosmetic and nothing else, one has wasted a golden opportunity. It can be so, so much more than that, without being an albatross around someone's neck (be it DM or player). It's an opportunity to explore questions that are difficult to impossible to ask otherwise, in a way that tends to be more healthy and positive (since of course races with actual tails or telepathic speech should have some life experiences that humans simply don't).

---

I also have no problem making compromises...about class, or background, or various other things. I'd just really, really rather not change race if I have a particular one I'd like to explore. Usually that's dragonborn, because I unabashedly love them, but sometimes it's other things: warforged, half-elf, minotaur, orc, aasimar, horned lion-men (charr from Guild Wars or hrothgar/ronso from Final Fantasy), it varies. It's not just "waaah I wanna be K3WL L33T UB3R H4XX0R!!!1!!1!1@12!one!" I legit enjoy both the challenge of playing something not-quite-human and of keeping in mind all the little ways that their experience differs, both required by physiology and contingent due to the history of this particular world.

Do y'all (on both sides) view choice of character class the same as race? Sub-classes? Alignment? Deities?

No. For my part, there's a loose hierarchy from vital to optional, as somewhat implied in my above response to Oofta. Alignment is at the top (flexibility is extremely unlikely), followed by race and deity (flexibility is possible but I'd prefer not to), followed by class (I have preferences but usually enough of them to adjust to any group), followed by subclass (this is often easily re-flavored...and also usually not much of a problem anyway). Alignment, race, and deity are the "closest" choices, the ones that most deeply affect the fundamental experience of playing a different person.

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.

Because if it were purely about the mechanics it wouldn't be an issue most of the time--at least as far back as 4e, reskinning has been a big deal. It's about the aesthetic, on both sides. Oofta and others like him do not want the dragonborn aesthetic, the tiefling aesthetic, etc., and indeed would very much rather have as close to a uniform and "traditional" lineup as possible, given the use of phrases like "Star Wars cantina on feet." Myself and others like me want the dragonborn aesthetic etc.; I can't speak for everyone's reasons, but at least for me, that different aesthetic and the ways physiology interact with culture and physical products all matter, and give me a challenge for playing something different from myself. (E.g., what are dragonborn shoes like, if they even use them? If dragonborn have tails, how does that affect their chairs, or the tailoring of their clothes? How are prisons designed to hold people who can breathe fire or teleport? Are dragonborn comfortable in different temperatures, e.g. do their scales prevent frostbite or reflect away solar heat? Etc.)

And, as noted above, I already had no interest in monoracial cultures nor monocultural races. I have always loved the fact that Arkhosia, the empire built by dragonborn in the 4e implied setting, was naturally poly-racial, with dragons, dragonborn, kobolds, humans, and a variety of other races all represented within it, even though dragonborn tended to be prominent and were likely the plurality of the populace.

Something I accept every time I pick up a book to read, movie to watch, or TV series to binge.

And which of those are you an active participant whose preferences become factored into the experience by the creator, as the work is being created?

 

[Lanefan]

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.

For now...until that first batch dies off or gets cycled through one by one leading to another half-dozen potential requests for something oddball that wasn't played in the first batch. Five players can, over the course of some low-level adventures, quite easily each go through several characters.

I never assume a player will keep the same character for the campaign's duration; be it due to in-game lethality or other career-ending occurrences or out-of-game player boredom/dissatisfaction with the character and-or just wanting to play something different.

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.

The player doesn't have to know, but I do; at least enough to provide a consistent background and framework for a) the PC now and b) any other interactions later between any PCs and this society. This adds work that I didn't think I'd have to do, never mind that work is to create a society I might not have even wanted in the world.

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

Where once their scarcity is realized, "What hapened to the Drow?" is to me a far better mystery and something I can mine for a whole string of adventures should interest turn that way.

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.

If I'm designing a part of the game world and I want to preserve a sense of mystery for the other players then the only person who will be told anything about what I'm designing is the DM. I would expect the same of the other players in order to preserve the mystery for me; and major contradictions could be as basic as where I've put a plot-significant mountain range on the map is the same place as someone else wants to put a plot-significant large open ocean; and as soon as we each have to defend our placement as plot-significant we've given info to other players that only the DM should have.