D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[Cadence]

Speaking of fantasy worlds, serious question. Other than books specifically set in FR or other D&D property, how many fantasy novels have anything similar to the number of different races that D&D has?

I mentioned the SpellSinger series from Foster, it was populated with all sorts of anthropomorphic animals. But most fantasy novels I've read? Only a handful. Then again I freely admit my selection is somewhat limited.

Glen Cook's Garrett PI series has lots living in the same city and deals with the issues that feels like it would bring. (I think the first six volumes are spectacular).

 

[Micah Sweet]

LotR has: Humans, elves, dwarves, orcs, different orcs, trolls, cave trolls, treants, whatever gollum was, sentient spiders, and sentient eagles. This is just the beings the fellowship encountered along their trail during the books. My sense is that if you explored the entire continent and better yet the entire planet there would be hundreds of different intelligent beings.

Also Lion/Witch/Wardrobe and Redwall have similar numbers of anthromorphic animals similar to Spellsinger.

Gollum was a hobbit. Everything past and arguably including orcs appears in the MM in some form as a monster NPC and is intended as such. Not a PC race, which is what we're discussing here.

 

[Oofta]

This is not helping the 'DM-as-frustrated-author' criticism.

Most fantasy novels have a competent magic system* too, but they never change that in D&D either.

*Vance's system was competent in his sci-fi series where it made sense and was fun. This has not translated into D&D.

Who said anything about DM as author? It's about common visions and conceptions of what a fantasy world looks like. If I were running a sci-fi campaign it would be similar. Star Wars? Star Trek? The Expanse? Old school Niven or Aasimov?

We base worlds on shared stories and imagery. Same with games.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Gollum was a hobbit. Everything past and arguably including orcs appears in the MM in some form as a monster NPC and is intended as such. Not a PC race, which is what we're discussing here.

That's a different question, though. The question posed was how many fantasy series have large numbers of races.

Another one is Amber which has an infinite amount of races

 

[Imaro]

This entire exchange could not illustrate any more clearly why your table and my table could not enjoy a game together or better show our fundamental difference of opinion on the status of players and GMs.

This has nothing to do with status and everything to do with the implicit agreement that in agreeing to play D&D we accept the rules of D&D... even when said rules may produce an outcome we don't all like.

If everyone at the table EXCEPT THE GM is unhappy with the game then either the GM needs to adjust or the game needs to end.

Why, why does the GM need to do this. When a PC is killed at my table none of the players are happy with the result... that in and of itself doesn't mean it should be reversed.

If one, as a GM, makes a call that every player at the table calls foul about then one, as a GM, needs to relent, adjust, and smooth over the issue so as to continue the game. Everyone is there to enjoy themselves, NOT follow orders like some subserviant lesser being.

I hate this way of thinking... being in a majority does not equate to being correct, being more fair, being able to see whats best or anything else that would make the players interpretation more valid than the DM's.

Again I've rarely if ever seen players in the actual moment afterwards, be happy about a call that goes against them and I've even had players only after some time has passed admit a ruling they didn't like was fair or better for the game... but if I follow your guidelines that knee jerk reaction should be the determining factor for outcomes, sorry not buying it

Furthermore, if the players and the GMs at ones table are unable to separate what is best for their character or personal vision from what is best for the game overall, then that might be a bigger problem than simple curated lists.

I disagree... very few people in most aspects of life desire or are able to fully disregard their own personal bias, wants, desires, etc... in order to do whats best for the whole. Furthermore D&D intrinsically makes this harder by having the players focused on their individual PC's and the party they make up as the center of the game for them. It tries to get around it by positioning the GM as arbiter and not giving him a singular focus of enjoyment but even that doesn't guarantee he can make a call without bias or interfering desires... so again we are left with a situation of more (which will always be the players advocating for their characters) equals correct... something I don't agree with.

 

[Oofta]

Glen Cook's Garrett PI series has lots living in the same city and deals with the issues that feels like it would bring. (I think the first six volumes are spectacular).

I'll have to check libby when I get a chance. If I ever get done with the Iron Druid series one of my players got me started on.

 

[Imaro]

And by this logic I couldn't levitate a crate because the bananas inside are different items and not part of the crates weight.

Not true you are levitating a crate already filled with bananas and so I would allow it since in order to levitate the crate the weight of the bananas must be accounted for... what I won't allow is for you to then use the crate to lift numerous creatures which add varying degrees of excess weight after it has already been levitated.

I am curious though... do you think the intention of the levitate spell was to be able to use one casting to levitate and/or move multiple creatures and/or objects in numerous instances without casting it again? Do you believe, especially with the linear fighter/quadratic wizard arguments that are pretty common complaints...interpreting it the way you and your fellow players voted for was better or worse for the overall game?

 

[Imaro]

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".

Your assuming the players always getting what they want equates to fun... thats an incorrect assumption.

 

[Oofta]

Your assuming the players always getting what they want equates to fun... thats an incorrect assumption.

Working around limitations and obstacles seems to be pretty core to the game. Otherwise we might as well sit around writing fan fiction for our Mary Sue/Marty Stue characters.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Which one? Star Wars? Game of Thrones or The Witcher? Tolkien? The SpellSinger series (anthropomorphic animals) or Conan? There are many, many visions of what a fantasy world would look like.

That's not allowed! Unless every world has the exact same cast of species, defined by what WotC happens to deem official at the moment, it is tyranny!