D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[Lyxen]

Just curious why you don’t allow telepaths?

I can't answer for @Minigiant , but we had a Kalashtar in our previous Eberron campaign, and the telepathy was systematically abused especially in social situations. It is severely limited using the rules, but the limitations are actually a bit complex to track off, and the player could not be trusted to remember and apply them, which caused quite a few silly arguments. Also, the interference with spells is not absolutely clear.

 

[Lyxen]

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.

The thing is that, honestly, most of the people that I've seen asking to play an unusual race where actually for technical benefits. At some point in time, it was all about the drow (magic resistance), then we've had the yuan-ti, now I understand it's tortles (which honestly I find ugly and uninteresting).

 

[Older Beholder]

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..

That makes sense. I do remember thinking about that, it hasn’t really come up yet, the player hasn’t really tried to abuse it (although it’s only been 3 sessions). It can mean a bit more prep work and/or improv. in some situations.

It made for a fun encounter with a flumph, who blocked the telepathic attempts of the character while hanging around leeching psychic energy from him.

 

[Older Beholder]

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.

Not such a bad thing if the Tabaxi, Kenku and Tortle are a travelling band of bards out to make a name for themselves.

 

[Panzeh]

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.

Yeah, I can see that, though I kinda feel like that sort of granular social modeling doesn't fit with how i see d&d playing at its best- i could have people react 'realistically' harshly to outsiders, but I don't think i'd have the impact be too much- the people who need an adventuring party aren't going to be that picky. That being said, DMs have their own things. For me it's weird, non-heroic behaviors or playing way too cautiously. Part of the core experience of D&D is playing a bunch of outsiders doing heroic deeds, which is why the PHB is all about a bunch of fairly mis-matched outsiders rather than a book that goes into skillsets, social class, and properties.

For example, i'll probably seem like a tyrant to people in the thread when my solution to PCs robbing a shop or shoplifting is to halt the game right there. I try to spell it out in session 0 that i'm not interested in playing Fantasy Grand Theft Auto where I run a bunch of hapless guards while the players abscond with stuff from settlements. I'd be happy to play in someone else's game if they want to step up, but i'm just not interested in that. People might call me a tyrant for that, and that's fine. I don't necessarily ban evil PCs, but i do tend to scrutinize their behavior really carefully in this light.

 

[Lyxen]

For example, i'll probably seem like a tyrant to people in the thread when my solution to PCs robbing a shop or shoplifting is to halt the game right there. I try to spell it out in session 0 that i'm not interested in playing Fantasy Grand Theft Auto where I run a bunch of hapless guards while the players abscond with stuff from settlements.

Yes, this is obviously a topic for session 0, about the style of game and the expectations of the players, including the DM. And it's true that in a day and age where railroading is always regarded in a suspicious light, and where sandboxing seems to be the style to go to, clarifying those expectations in terms of "is there a story/intrigue to follow" is really important. The thing is that you need mature players for this, so that they can outline their expectations. And it's the same in terms of limiting choices...

 

[Oofta]

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

Have you seen some of the responses? That a monk running a circle around someone fast enough to create a Flash tornado (a real tornado The Flash can do because "comic books") sounded like kind of a cool idea? That yeah, I could probably figure out some sort of way to have a half dragon half vampire? Not half dragonborn by the way, they didn't exist at the time. Literal dragon. Like, if Blade were a dragon instead of Wesley Snipes.

I run a more serious game than that.

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.

It's not like I ignore my players. I run very player directed campaigns, they regularly get a choice of direction they're headed next based on ideas I have or something they suggest. The last time I had any real pushback against a ruling was a few years ago when I decided that Heat Metal cast on someone's armor did not give the target automatic disadvantage for the rest of their life. Even then we just discussed it for a minute, I explained my reasoning and moved on.

If the entire group really wanted to change the tone and nature of the campaign we'd discuss it. But everyone knows what restrictions I have when I invite them to the game. Since I've been doing that it's never been an issue.

 

[Oofta]

Kitchen sink is plenty dismissive.



Open-ended.

I doubt many people would know what I meant if I said open-ended. Or at least I wouldn't have a clue. To me it means that the campaign has no defined end or direction, doesn't say anything about races allowed.

Seems like any way I try to describe it is called dismissive at some point.

• Kitchen sink, somehow dismissive.
• Mos Eisley Cantina, or just Cantina is bad. Maybe.
• World looking like Zootopia (a movie I enjoyed) wrong.
• Looking like a cartoon, nope

Personally I don't find any of those derogatory. But open-ended? Doesn't mean anything to me.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Fantasy world?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I don't get the knee jerk offense of the word "tyranny".

….um. Whatever your point might be, if this is how you are introducing it, then either you’ve gone very wrong somewhere or you’re trying to convert someone to be your Sith apprentice.