D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[DND_Reborn]

I'm not arguing about this any more. There are times a DM will, and should, say no. Sometimes there's a "no but". In other cases, just "no".

You do you.

Join me in the shadows, @Oofta, in the shadows...

 

[Oofta]

It's not too difficult to say no to someone if what they want doesn't exist in a book. It's harder for options that are in the PHB like Tieflings and Dragonborn.

But, if someone really wanted to make a half dragon/ half vampire, you could choose a mix of features from Dragonborn and Dhampir easily enough.

This was long before we had dhampir or dragonborn for that matter.

There are times every DM I've ever had has said no. I think it's silly to pretend that's wrong.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Who else has the final say, then, if not the DM?

It has to be someone. Not the group, not consensus, but someONE; as - speaking from experience both in and out of RPGing - having a single final-word authority to fall back on when other means of resolution have failed is the only way these things can work and remain sustainable.

At my table...if something is a big enough sticking point that the player is feeling cheated and the GM isnt relenting it generally goes to a group vote.

As an example, there was a scene where the GM had a hallway filled with various pressure plate traps which the players didn't want to set off. My wizard cast levitate on a shield and we were going to ride it down the hallway to avoid the plates. The GM said something to the effect of "Hah! The levitating shield still pushes down on the floor with the same weight so that PC who just air hockeyed down the hall set off all the traps. The players argued it was a bad call and the GM eventually had to give way because they were outvoted.

More recently I have had issues with how a GM in my group starts combats at too close of a range. As a wizard/archer character you are going to start shooting at the bad guys at your max range not wait unt they get within 40 feet. I will frequently ask the GM to back things up so I can have the proper prep time or extra attacks.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

This was long before we had dhampir or dragonborn for that matter.

There are times every DM I've ever had has said no. I think it's silly to pretend that's wrong.

Nobody here is giving you grief for saying no to someone asking to play something or with a power that doesn't exist in the rules. People are generally talking about opening up to official content....and probably in most cases just the PHB content.

 

[Imaro]

At my table...if something is a big enough sticking point that the player is feeling cheated and the GM isnt relenting it generally goes to a group vote.

As an example, there was a scene where the GM had a hallway filled with various pressure plate traps which the players didn't want to set off. My wizard cast levitate on a shield and we were going to ride it down the hallway to avoid the plates. The GM said something to the effect of "Hah! The levitating shield still pushes down on the floor with the same weight so that PC who just air hockeyed down the hall set off all the traps. The players argued it was a bad call and the GM eventually had to give way because they were outvoted.

Doesn't this just mean anything beneficial for the players (whether fairly done or not) will win by majority?

 

[JiffyPopTart]

If playing the same few species all the time becomes boring that's a player issue, not a DM one*.

My advice, grain of salt included for free, is to try doing something different - and I mean really different - with each new Human PC you play. Bring some gonzo. And then whatever you're doing, dial it up to eleven and overplay the hell out of it. Go for entertainment (and laughs, where such make sense) first, ahead of in-game efficiency or optimization (though if you can achieve both at once you've really got a winner).

* - the exception is that it's a DM issue if you're starting new campaigns with new characters way too often and don't have time to sink your teeth into any one of them.

And a lot of uncreative players whose characters might as well be made of cardboard. Creativity is a two-way street.

Some players (myself included) enjoy experiencing the mechanics of the system. I would feel very constrained if the game we played had 55 different options for my character but I only ever could pick from the same 7 every character I made.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Doesn't this just mean anything beneficial for the players (whether fairly done or not) will win by majority?

No. We are all reasonable adults.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

Kitchen sink is plenty dismissive.

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

Open-ended.

 

[Older Beholder]

This was long before we had dhampir or dragonborn for that matter.

There are times every DM I've ever had has said no. I think it's silly to pretend that's wrong.

I'm not sure that anyone is saying a DM can never say no.

I think the general idea of the thread is more that players are probably going to enjoy the game and be more invested if they get to play what they want, and how a DM can accommodate that without having to drastically alter their campaign to fit a new idea.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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?

Honestly, "making decisions that are best for everyone" is one of those justifications for top down decision making that is always a problem in this discussion. That's because sometimes its true (there are absolutely players who pay no attention to what's good for the health of the overall campaign and/or what will serve other players) but still begs the question by assuming that's always true without looking at the specifics at hand, and also assumes that the GM's perspective on this is always sound here (you can absolutely have GMs who think "what's best for everyone" is very different than his player group does).

To tell the truth, I find the "If I'm not enjoying it no one will" a more honest argument from that end because it owns the problem rather than trying to push it off on one or more players.