D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[Oofta]

My group and I have done this a couple different ways over the years, to varying degrees of success.

In one case I can think of, I crafted a whole slew of first level characters for the players to pick from. I made at least one for every class, and each had pre-existing connections to the setting. Very different from the way I approach things now, but the goal was to have characters who felt like a part of the world instead of the typical murder-hobos. This went over with mixed results. Some of the players quite liked it…they felt they had a lot to work with as far as motivations for their character and connections to the world. Two players disliked it. They felt like they were simply adopting a role in a story I’d already written. And although I think there was still plenty of decisions for them to make, and ways for them to go about things, I don’t blame them for feeling that way.

Another time, we collectively crafted a starting area and populated it with tons of potential PCs. Each player made a variety of characters. Each character had a place in the setting, and connections to other characters, and goals for what they wanted. We also each designed a few NPCs for the starting area, and then the excess PCs also became NPCs. We chose PCs randomly. The result was that everyone felt very invested in the starting location and the people there. The characters were all more fleshed out and well rounded than many NPCs tend to be. And the players were all satisfied with their PCs, although if anyone wasn’t, they had the option to replace them with one of the unselected characters if they wanted.

These two examples are a big part of what helped me get over my stance that “the GM builds the world”. While that approach can be perfectly satisfying, I found my group much more invested when they were more involved in the process. And I found myself much more invested. It was like a feedback loop…their interest fueled my own, which fueled theirs….and so on. It was one of our best campaigns of D&D, and pretty unanimously so.

I think the reason that there is some conflict in this thread is because many of us who want the players more involved in the world building used to not feel that way. Certainly the OP describes such an evolution. People seem a bit too focused on being offended by the word “tyranny” instead of absorbing the elaboration from the OP and subsequent posts.

I think that with that kind of shift in thinking, it’s hard not to think of it as growth or progress. So when you then discuss it with people who don’t agree with that…but who also don’t seem to have spent much time actually trying what you’re describing…it can seem a bit limiting. Not entirely fair, of course, but it can be hard to not feel that way.

I think there's a difference here though, a matter of scale. Let's say I'm starting the game in Newburg. During a prep and session 0 we decide all the PCs come from Newburg and the group starts coming up with backstories, perhaps including some significant detail about their families, the city and so on. I'll discuss what options I have for where the city could be and the implications, it could be located in mountains, islands, tropics or sub arctic. I have a big world with plenty of open spaces. We'll also talk about style of the campaign, be it mercenary, heroic, primarily based in local politics or exploration. I'll double check on that aspect once and a while during the campaign.

I'll still reserve editorial control, I don't want to set up a scenario where a PC can just go to the parental units to solve the majority of their problems for example. There will be secrets about the town and NPCs that they are unaware of, everything they design and know will be from the perspective of the PCs. We'll even work out custom backgrounds and benefits if it makes sense.

All of that sounds pretty typical if I'm setting up a new campaign, especially with an established group. Oftentimes will people come up with backgrounds it will be "I want to be someone from a noble background that's running from a dark past" and we'll work out details. They'll come up with some things, I'll give feedback or ways it can fit into the existing world and history.

It's not either/or people contribute for me. It's just that I have canon for the world that's been established that I don't want to change, although some things may just be related by an unreliable narrator. I also want to leave plenty of room for discovery.

 

[Umbran]

People have stated that people that curate worlds give them an "icky" feeling. That such people are control freaks and dictators.

"They did it to me, so I do it to them," does not create a cogent discussion. What it leads to is escalation.

Not everyone of course. Then we get odd out of the blue insinuations about "iron grips".

Dude. There was no actual insinuation. It was a rhetorical device to demonstrate the point I was making.

I was holding up a mirror for you. Your response here is exactly the point. That is how you make others feel when you say things like "terrible", when the majority of the folks in the discussion have said no such thing.

And no, it is not just you - as already noted, this is a general internet dynamic, and it takes some discipline and attention to avoid it.

There is a pattern called "reading to respond". Person A says a thing. Person B does not like some part of it, and reads the rest of the post specifically to construct a counter. Reading to really understand where Person A is coming from stops, in preference for reading for points to reject.

This does not lead to understanding. I leads, in fact, to ignoring often major elements of the point, and arguing against strawmen, escalation, and everyone around feeling put upon, as you do now.

The chorus of people thinking, "But I never do that!!!1!" is full of people who haven't watched their own writing with a critical eye. Everyone does it from time to time. For everyone, your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to be aware that this happens, and step back when someone says you've misrepresented their position, and accept that is is quite possibly correct.

No, retreating into "But they did it first!" is not constructive. If we require that everyone else apply the Golden Rule before we will ourselves, nobody will. You (each individual you, not just Oofta here) must be the change you want to see, as they say.

We've had more than 20 pages of people who curate their worlds saying that if you allow any race, cool. If you build a new campaign world every 6 months as a collaborative effort, awesome. But some people, as both DM and player don't want collaborative world building for reasons given repeatedly.

And... you are for some reason upset that some folks continue, regardless? You want... universal acceptance of your points on the internet, or something?

Why the double standard?

When I say that this happens to everyone, I am not applying a double standard. I am merely using you as the root from which to make a point. Maybe because I think you are reasonable enough to actually see it.

We'll see if I was correct in that.

 

[MNblockhead]

As a player, I can enjoy both approaches just as I can both enjoy restaurants with a "have it your way" approach and those that have a "soup nazi" approach.

I can get as much enjoyment from experiencing a campaign that a DM has carefully crafted and who rigidly adheres to their setting's norms as I do from crafting my own character concept and collaboratively contributing to the world building with the DM.

There is absolutely no tension for me between these two approaches, although I respect that others have stronger preferences for one over the other.

The focus of the discussion on issues arising from players not being happy with, and being unwilling to adhere to, a setting's limitations has been focused on the start of the campaign and the need for discussions during or before session zero. But, in my experience, these issues have arisen more often well into longer campaigns. I find that many players are fine with certain setting limitations and home rules when discussed before a campaign and are happy playing within those lines at the beginning of the campaign but find themselves being unsatisfied with certain aspects after a period of playing in the campaign.

Generally, as a DM I try to accommodate, but attempt to reach a consensus with everyone at the table before introducing such a change. If I would be unhappy running the campaign with those changes and the players are unhappy continuing the campaign with those restriction, then a change of campaigns is in order.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

As a player, I can enjoy both approaches just as I can both enjoy restaurants with a "have it your way" approach and those that have a "soup nazi" approach.

I can get as much enjoyment from experiencing a campaign that a DM has carefully crafted and who rigidly adheres to their setting's norms as I do from crafting my own character concept and collaboratively contributing to the world building with the DM.

There is absolutely no tension for me between these two approaches, although I respect that others have stronger preferences for one over the other.

The focus of the discussion on issues arising from players not being happy with, and being unwilling to adhere to, a setting's limitations has been focused on the start of the campaign and the need for discussions during or before session zero. But, in my experience, these issues have arisen more often well into longer campaigns. I find that many players are fine with certain setting limitations and home rules when discussed before a campaign and are happy playing within those lines at the beginning of the campaign but find themselves being unsatisfied with certain aspects after a period of playing in the campaign.

Generally, as a DM I try to accommodate, but attempt to reach a consensus with everyone at the table before introducing such a change. If I would be unhappy running the campaign with those changes and the players are unhappy continuing the campaign with those restriction, then a change of campaigns is in order.

Your post made me shift my perspective a bit when it comes to this (and all the others like this in other threads) discussion...

We aren't really arguing/debating whether or not a GM should curate player choices.....what we are arguing is how to reduce the conflict that arises when a player wants X and the GM does not want X.

One's answer may be that the GM always wins, or maybe at some tables the player always wins, or I'm guessing at most tables there is compromise. That is what we are really discussing, not curation in and of itself.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Being a High Elf adds a little wizard to your fighter or makes your wizard wizardier.
There isn't a race that adds a little rogue (...). to your fighter or wizard.

Goblin

 

[Helldritch]

Yep. My very first D&D game was of this form. It isn't my favorite way to play these days, but it can work.

This is what I did when CoS got out. I made 6 pregen PCs.
All were taken from different "worlds". All were humans.
1st one was a Battlemaster, a swat officer from Montreal. Yep, shot gun and revolver in full riot armor.
2nd was an archer from the conan hyperborean age, assassin.
3rd was a chineese demon hunter with double hand crossbows Ranger/rogue type.
4th was a wizard from the Dragonlance world, a wizard of high sorcery.
5th was a cleric of the light from my home campaign. (Light domain with all the bonus to heals from the life domain, but not the armor prof.) with the warlock initiate feat.
6th was a paladin of Heironeous from the Greyhawk campaign.

It worked out quite well. Two groups tried those characters and no character evolved to be the same.

As for our topic.
I much prefer a campaign world with restriction, the cantina effect is not my cup of tea. I usually restrict races to PHB races with warnings about drow, tieflings and half-orc choices depending on the campaign world we will choose (at this point in time, all players are quite familiar with my play style).

I do accept some odd character/race concept once in while if the concept is catching my interest and those of the players. I have opposed Dragonborn in Greyhawk for a long time until a player came with a really good concept, a zone from which the Dragonborn would come and the reason for their "sudden" appearance. But it took a lot of work from the player to both convince me and the other players to allow it.

I do have a kitchen sink world where everything is allowed but for some reasons, my players prefer worlds where there are some restrictions going on. It helps group cohesion by quite a lot. Also, the world seems more believable and interesting when there is some restriction and a limitation on races. At some point, how many races can inhabit a world before that world loses all pretense of being believable?

Most D&D worlds are about the "good" races trying to survive a world in which evil is real and not a simple concept. Evil gods exists, the fight for survival is real and some moral compromises are inevitable. Staying good in adversity is quite a battle and an invasion by a humanoid horde is only a season away. Exploring dungeons and adventuring does not mean a sure survival as the attrition rate is relatively high in my campaign and play style.

So yes, I do impose limitations but I am always open for the odd character concept but these must be good enough to go through votes during session zero with the other players. And strangely, the other players are even harsher than I am. And with our mortality rate, weird concepts are hard to pass on.

 

[Minigiant]

Goblin

The original point was that I gave the Old School race array a C and the one with Dragonborn and Tiefling a C+.

Old school PHB and the 5e PHB don't have Goblin as a race and that's why I give in less than a B.

Many posters got upset with my low grade for OS Race Array. But that goesto mypoint of people holding things high up on pedestals due to nostalgia. A better line-up trades out Halflings for Goblins, Kobolds, Kitsune, or Ratfolk. And it's not an opinion on my point but a realization of redundancies and gaps in the races.

6e should add Full blooded Orcs, a clericy race like Aasimar or Deva, and a full roguish race like Goblin or Kobold. And probably a anthropomorhic animal race with a natural claw or bite.

And if you don't like the the new additions, the DM can ban them.

 

[Mordhau]

Why would we be adding races specially suited for specific classes?

After all we just got ride of ability score bumps for more class race flexbility. Why do that, and then find other ways to make particular races the best at certain classes?

 

[Minigiant]

Why would we be adding races specially suited for specific classes?

After all we just got ride of ability score bumps for more class race flexbility. Why do that, and then find other ways to make particular races the best at certain classes?

Then take awaythe High Elf's cantrips, Drow and Tiefling's spells, Elven weapons, Dwarven weapons and armor, and Half Orc's Savage attacks.

My point is if you have warrior and mage races, then the lack of priest and thief races is a strike against your race lineup.

That's half of the point ofthe Tasha's custom rules. That the old school and base race line ups were missing things and pushed using splatbook races tocreate the PCs players want.

People who hate kitchen sink settings should be all for Tasha Race Customization or more race and subraces.

 

[Mordhau]

People who hate kitchen sink settings should be all for Tasha Race Customization or more race and subraces.

I am. Dwarves and elves have got to be the most lazy pointless setting inclusion imaginable.

I just think there's an incoherence in what people want from races mechanically.

In the early days of 3e it was perceived as so liberating when race/class restrictions were lifted. You could now play what you want.

When 4e came along it was perceived as so liberating when abiltiy score penalties were removed.. You could now play what you want.

When Tasha's came out it was perceived as so liberating when abiltiy score bonues were removed.. You could now play what you want.

When Xe removes all abilities that favour specific classes it...