D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[Oofta]

Your critique of the word tyranny also applies to the phrase "kitchen sink".

I don't see anything objectionable about kitchen sink. Tyranny on the other hand is well defined and quite a provocative word choice in this context.

What other term would you use to describe a campaign that is not curated?

 

[Lyxen]

But that isn't the premise of the original post. It is written as advice for GMs. And it certainly is not written in an adversial tone. Once again the title says "Tyranny of Rarity"

It's written as an "advice" to DMs with a title that starts with "Tyranny" and it's not meant to be adversarial ? Then don't use such a word in your title. While I admit that the rest of the post is indeed not that adversarial (although, once more, on such a subject, a bit of a less one-sided view would have been nice), just the use of the word in the title is more than enough for it to sound adversarial.

The whole "entitled" player thing was added later by people reading into things that was not even remotely the purpose of the post.

"entitled" not more adversarial than "tyranny", you know...

 

[Oofta]

But that isn't the premise of the original post. It is written as advice for GMs. And it certainly is not written in an adversial tone. Once again the title says "Tyranny of Rarity"

The whole "entitled" player thing was added later by people reading into things that was not even remotely the purpose of the post.

I get that, but words still have meaning. If we expand the thread title out and talk include the actual topic it would look something like: "The despotic abuse of power when limiting choice of races"

I'm not saying it was the intent. But you can't have a thread title that begs the question like that and not have pushback.

 

[hawkeyefan]

And how about the player needing a shift in thinking ?

I mean, the OP was about one person's specific view as a GM.

Poor, poor players, living in such a world of tyranny...
And, in general, for good reasons, the DM thinks about the whole of the campaign and all his players, when it's very rare that a player thinks about anything else than his entitled little self. When you add that to all the work that the DM does, you see immediately that this is not a game where all roles are equal, and 5e just fully recognises that again.

Wow sounds like you have some awesome players. Maybe if you involved them in the world building a little more they'd be more likely to care about something other than the little bit they are allowed to craft.

And if you did allow them some more input, then there'd be less work for the DM to do, and you'd get yourself a little positive feedback loop.

And it's really annoying seeing such one-sided perspectives.

Your counter is just as one sided. DM has final say is as one sided as player has final say.

I've said if everyone is on board with whatever the GM puts forth....."okay, this campaign is going to be gnomes only, and you all have to be rogues"....if the players are cool with that, then awesome, there are no problems.

But in a case where one of the players says "You know, I really can't stand playing rogues....any way I could be something different?" maybe the GM can work with the player to make something work.

That's really all the OP said. Instead of defaulting to "GM gets to say" maybe try and allow something you might normally be against. That's it. Let the player have their fun. Don't place the GM's sense of setting fidelity above the enjoyment of the player.

The amount of pushback is pretty crazy, really.

 

[Lyxen]

I mean, the OP was about one person's specific view as a GM.

??? This is a very bizarre sentence that I can't reconcile with the original post.

Wow sounds like you have some awesome players. Maybe if you involved them in the world building a little more they'd be more likely to care about something other than the little bit they are allowed to craft.

It's not a question of being "allowed", it's a question of maintaining the mystery and balance needed for crafting together epic stories. It's a question of respecting each other around the table, and putting in place a paradigm of play that looks even slightly like the one D&D has always used.

And if you did allow them some more input, then there'd be less work for the DM to do, and you'd get yourself a little positive feedback loop.

Blah blah blah. Please show me some actual, real design done by players in your campaign, something that is even a small fraction of what the DM is in charge of. Because my experience (and that of all my fellow DMs) is that even awesome, creative players usually focus their creativity on their characters and their stories, in particular because they are respectful not only of the DM and his work, but of the other players as well, and they trust the DM to balance all that. My players manage initiative for me, yes, and in another campaign, I completely manage the crafting, but based on DM's input although I make suggestions, again because the DM knows the balance that he wants. And that is not even 1% of what the DM actually creates for the campaign, stories, maps, histories, intrigues, encounters, whatever.

As for feedback, we actually generate tons, but based on the DM/players roles that we enjoy, which are the traditional ones, fully collaborative to have fun. Sue us.

Your counter is just as one sided. DM has final say is as one sided as player has final say.

The main difference is that, even after a bit of tinkering like D&D did with 3e, the designers came back to "the DM has final say" like in the huge majority of TTRPG (I was just reading a bit more of Runequest a few minutes ago and, unsurprisingly, the exact same rule came up): "Remember that the gamemaster has the final say on the appropriateness of attempting Inspiration and its duration."

There are many reasons for this, and they've been put on the table many times, and these are good, factual reasons based on the general type of games that TTRPG in general and D&D in particular are about. And yes, there are very minor counterexamples of this, for games which are totally on the fringe of the hobby, again because it's not the usual players expectations.

I've said if everyone is on board with whatever the GM puts forth....."okay, this campaign is going to be gnomes only, and you all have to be rogues"....if the players are cool with that, then awesome, there are no problems.
But in a case where one of the players says "You know, I really can't stand playing rogues....any way I could be something different?" maybe the GM can work with the player to make something work.

Why is is about rogues now ? When did we shift to the DM choosing classes for the players ?

That's really all the OP said. Instead of defaulting to "GM gets to say" maybe try and allow something you might normally be against. That's it. Let the player have their fun. Don't place the GM's sense of setting fidelity above the enjoyment of the player. The amount of pushback is pretty crazy, really.

And the amount of insistence on the fact that words like "tyranny" mean nothing really is absolutely astounding as well. As well as insisting on the players' side rather than the DM's side as if there should actually be sides. There should not, and anything put on the table to create sides, and in particular words like tyranny are a bad trend for me.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I admit that as a DM I create the playground for the PCs and invent or control pretty much everything they interact with. Has anyone ever denied that? Of course I set restrictions because I want the world to be consistent with past decisions and to make a living, breathing, logical world. Many of those decisions are preference and judgment calls.

I think the "living, breathing, logical world" is the part that creates an issue here. Or at least, that it may. Because with a fantasy world where there are dozens of humanoid lifeforms, what any particular person may consider logical is going to vary pretty wildly. And the OP was specifically about finding ways to give the player what they'd like without having to disrupt the setting at all.

Every decision I make has the possibility of limiting choices. Whether it's telling the monk that they can't run so fast that they create a Flash tornado or that no, they can't make a PC that's half dragon half vampire.

Stop pretending that words have no meaning:

Tyranny: arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.​

Fiat: an arbitrary decree or pronouncement​

I'm not arbitrary in my decisions. I'm making decisions based on what I think will work best for everyone at the table. Of course I listen to my players and take their desires into consideration. At the same time I don't want to mislead people about what kind of game I run. It's why in my campaign invite I tell them to read my limited house rules which includes a list of acceptable races.

Right. I'd say fidelity to the setting is kind of arbitrary. You say you're making decisions based on what's best for everyone, but what if a player doesn't really worry about if dragonborn have existed in your world prior? A hidden valley of the dragonfolk can be whipped up pretty quick, or as the OP suggests, this dragonborn isn't the member of a race, but instead is a human who is the victim of a curse or some such.

You're assuming that your setting matters as much to others as it does to you.

Now, having said that, it's possible, especially with a longstanding group, that the players are invested in your setting, and don't want to disrupt it in any way. Okay, awesome.....then there is no issue.

The issue is only when there actually is cause for conflict here. When a player's desires and a GM's decisions are in some way at odds.

DM long enough and I think every DM is going to make some decision at some point that will mean a player can't do what they wanted. It's called being a DM. Why is limiting races called tyranny? Why is this particular decision "fiat"?

Why can't people just admit that their preference, their decision as DM is to have a kitchen sink campaign?

Because I don't think that the issue is "Limiting race options" versus "allowing all race options". It's about "GM Desire" versus "Player Desire".

If I let a player have a dragonborn character in my campaign world where they had previously never come up, it doesn't make my setting a kitchen sink setting. It means I allowed a dragonborn PC.

Is the race of a PC the main thing that distinguishes one PC from another the only thing that matters? Combinations of race/class/personality/goals/setting/etc don't mean anything?

Why is a DM "uncreative" if you can't possibly have more depth to your PC than "it's an elf so it's exactly the same as every other elf I've ever played"?

Race can be a big factor for determining elements of a PC, sure. Class and background and backstory and culture and all manner of things may be filtered through the choice of race. I mean, the argument can be flipped; if the choice doesn't matter then why restrict it?

If a DM is truly uncreative, I very much doubt that adding races is really going to do much for the game.

Well, it may give a player who is not into the DM's setting something to enjoy.

 

[Arilyn]

I get that, but words still have meaning. If we expand the thread title out and talk include the actual topic it would look something like: "The despotic abuse of power when limiting choice of races"

I'm not saying it was the intent. But you can't have a thread title that begs the question like that and not have pushback.

This just isn't what I'm seeing at all. The post is very reasonable and makes good points. There's been some hyperbole on both sides, but I don't think the title caused it. Since when do we need an excuse to argue?

You have said that you listen to your players and work with them as much as possible to get their ideas to fit into your world, and only say no, if the player is being silly or if their idea just won't work. Your GMing style seems great to me and I don't think anyone reasonable would accuse you of being a tyrant, including the original poster.

 

[Oofta]

This just isn't what I'm seeing at all. The post is very reasonable and makes good points. There's been some hyperbole on both sides, but I don't think the title caused it. Since when do we need an excuse to argue?

You have said that you listen to your players and work with them as much as possible to get their ideas to fit into your world, and only say no, if the player is being silly or if their idea just won't work. Your GMing style seems great to me and I don't think anyone reasonable would accuse you of being a tyrant, including the original poster.

I didn't mean to make a big deal of the title again, I just think that when you're creating a thread that people should consider the wording of the title. I know I mentioned this before but I think it would have been better if the title had been something along the lines of "I decided to allow all races and here's why".

 

[Oofta]

I think the "living, breathing, logical world" is the part that creates an issue here. Or at least, that it may. Because with a fantasy world where there are dozens of humanoid lifeforms, what any particular person may consider logical is going to vary pretty wildly. And the OP was specifically about finding ways to give the player what they'd like without having to disrupt the setting at all.



Right. I'd say fidelity to the setting is kind of arbitrary. You say you're making decisions based on what's best for everyone, but what if a player doesn't really worry about if dragonborn have existed in your world prior? A hidden valley of the dragonfolk can be whipped up pretty quick, or as the OP suggests, this dragonborn isn't the member of a race, but instead is a human who is the victim of a curse or some such.

You're assuming that your setting matters as much to others as it does to you.

Now, having said that, it's possible, especially with a longstanding group, that the players are invested in your setting, and don't want to disrupt it in any way. Okay, awesome.....then there is no issue.

The issue is only when there actually is cause for conflict here. When a player's desires and a GM's decisions are in some way at odds.



Because I don't think that the issue is "Limiting race options" versus "allowing all race options". It's about "GM Desire" versus "Player Desire".

If I let a player have a dragonborn character in my campaign world where they had previously never come up, it doesn't make my setting a kitchen sink setting. It means I allowed a dragonborn PC.



Race can be a big factor for determining elements of a PC, sure. Class and background and backstory and culture and all manner of things may be filtered through the choice of race. I mean, the argument can be flipped; if the choice doesn't matter then why restrict it?



Well, it may give a player who is not into the DM's setting something to enjoy.

I think practically every DM has a line they will not cross. Maybe it's race or no evil PCs. Maybe it's no half dragon half vampire. Maybe it's no openly misogynistic PCs or any number of other things. Where that line is drawn will vary from group to group. But like I just said, if you DM for long enough I think there will always be times when the DM and player desire different things. It's inevitable.

I've joined D&D groups as a player that I quit because they didn't work for what I was looking for in a game. All I would recommend is that if you DM you are clear and up front about what kind of game you run ahead of time. If that means that someone doesn't join because they can't play a dragonborn, I don't see a problem.

 

[Minigiant]

I think half of the rare conflict is that DMs and Players feeling offended that someone doesn't like their idea.

Since D&D defaults with the DMs having the final say, it also becomes the DM's ideas that are more criticized since the Player's PC is often a minor aspect and less described in the world.