D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[JiffyPopTart]

First... you have assumed a goal and how said goal is achieved for all games... but putting that aside.Then why have rules to determine uncertain outcomes in D&D? just let majority decide what happens... right? If the majority get what they want... all the time... then the most fun is achieved at least according to your logic... right?

I'll just say for me and my group at least this wouldn't result in a satisfactory experience or fun...

Nothing you are saying here remotely has anything to do with what I said, except that I'm inferring your tables goal is not "to have fun".

 

[Lyxen]

No, it's not an "infinitesimal" part. It's a fairly sizable amount of what matters to the PCs.

Even when designing details about a race, it's 10% of the races at best and races are what, 10% of the game at best ? Infinitesimal. And it might matter to a PC now and then and please him, but compared to the material that a group goes through in a complete campaign, I maintain it's infinitesimal.

Also, running the game is different than worldbuilding.

And in both cases, the DM needs to output a hundred times more than a player. Even with published settings and adventures, it's a huge difference, reading, understanding, preparing...

But there are groups who do round-robin games, where each player takes a turn as the GM in the same setting with (most of) the same PCs.

Weren't you listening ? I gave you that exact example on our meg-campaign, and what I told you is that ONLY the DMs did worldbuilding. Not people who were only players.

So what? What's your actual goal here? To say that players should have nothing to do with the creation of their world?

Look, did I not write EXACTLY THE CONTRARY ("Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the principle, but surely you can see that, compared to everything a DM does to actually run the game, these contributions are really small.").

This "conversation" is over, go find someone else's words to misquote, since it's your only way of making "contributions".

 

[Lyxen]

It comes from Umbran's idea. If I were to use the idea that his character had, then no, undead wouldn't have souls; they'd have negative energy spirits, and thus wouldn't heal from magic.

"negative energy spirits" is not something that comes either from the game or from Umbran. Look you can invent whatever you like in your campaign to justify whatever you want. But it does not mean that it will make sense and be pleasing to everyone, that's all I'm saying.

Nope.

It's interesting how, once more, you cut off my post to actually just say "no" and then repeat exactly what I said. Once more, please learn to discuss properly without misquoting and making extremely selective quotes to make it appear like you have something interesting to say and people will actually discuss with you. As for me, I won't, not until you change your behaviour.

It's more likely they were listed as humanoids so they could get healed via magic, which probably most players wouldn't be happy with.

And just to prove it, this is the sentence that you replied "no" to, then going on to say exactly the same thing I did: "5e decreed that they are humanoids so that its simple system could accommodate them as player races when Eberron was rebooted for it."

Stop trolling and we might have a real conversation with real arguments.

 

[Lyxen]

This thread started with the OP's observations about GMing. So that's largely been the thrust of the discussion. How GMs can work to make player ideas that may seem to run contra to what the GM wants or has established actually work without disrupting their setting.

And I would have liked the ideas to be a little less one sided, and maybe starting with "please start by looking at the DM's proposal and try to understand it, and if you can't or if you think that oyu have a really good idea, please go and discuss it with him, he might find a way to accomodate it."

It is VERY different from saying that there is a "tyranny" and that there should almost be ways for DM to accomodate you.

I didn't mention being allowed. I said involve them. Build a world collaboratively. Collaboration seems to be something you believe it and promote....and yet here you seem to be against it.

Please don't pull a "@Faolyn" on me. Proof:

• In this post, you said: "care about something other than the little bit they are allowed to craft." So YOU MENTIONED BEING ALLOWED.
• Instead of saying that I was against it, I wrote, in this post : "My players manage initiative for me, yes, and in another campaign, I completely manage the crafting", not to mention the pantheon thingie so OBVIOUSLY, no, I'm not against it. I just think it's minimal, by the design of the game.

I will pick up this conversation once you have acknowledged the above, as I have no interest discussing with people misquoting my words at every single turn to try and make a point.

 

[Older Beholder]

I’m usually pretty excited when a player chooses a race I‘m not familiar with. It’s always cool to see new things in play.

Recently I had a player ask to play a Kalashtar in a game I started. A race I’d probably only ever briefly flicked through when I first got the Eberron book.

I was happy to allow it although I never really felt the need to find a place for Kalashtar as a culture in my setting, there was already plenty of hooks for the character. All the stuff with the dual mind/ Quori / having someone else’s dreams… was really great to use for me as a DM.

 

[Lyxen]

Like I said, it's not just the name. I dont like the metal/stone/wood construction, which always felt to me to be an excuse for them to be mostly like other PCs.

I agree. I like really distinctive races for PCs, and the warforged were that in 3e, and these are the warforged that I started loving in their unusual setting. In general, I love 5e, while still saying that it's not perfect, and this is one such area, the much simpler model does not allow for what we like as the proper feeling of the race, along with the fact that races have all gone the wishy-washy way (and this has nothing inherently to do with 5e).

 

[Minigiant]

I don't get the knee jerk offense of the word "tyranny". Since by default the DM has the final say, only the DM can control rarity and only the DM can be a tyrant.

Like only a king can be a mad king.

Since the OP did not call all DMs tyrants, I could make sense of offense if someone sees the default as not listens to players and not working with them.If you are a DM who attempts to work with players then a tyrant by the OP's definition isn't you.

Kalashar are banned in 3 of my settings. No racial telepathy. They don't exist and their other aspects exist in other allowed races. I can't see anyone making an good argument for an exception.

 

[Older Beholder]

Kalashar are banned in 3 of my settings. No racial telepathy. They don't exist and their other aspects exist in other allowed races. I can't see anyone making an good argument for an exception.

Just curious why you don’t allow telepaths?

 

[Baldurs_Underdark]

As a DM, I just cannot be bothered to roleplay countless unimportant NPC-encounters where yet another bunch of villagers scratch their heads why a Tabaxi, a Kenku and a Tortle walk through their town. Also, of course every person on the continent will remember that party, so the party can forget about traveling inconspicuously.

If the campaign setting and story bores the players so much that they must make the campaign interesting by playing some exotic race from a non-core book, then that's a reason to see how the campaign setting can be improved.

 

[Minigiant]

Just curious why you don’t allow telepaths?

Language.

Until most DMs, I use language. You get bonuses for talking in certian language.

And 2 of my settings use a Language, Accent, and Dialect houserule.

Edit: also it screws up social interaction too easily with smart players..