D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[Thomas Shey]

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?

If you start down that road, a fairly small number have anything like any number of tropes present commonly in D&D, including how magic works, the prevalence of enchanted items, monsters and even adventuring parties at all.

As noted, almost from the start D&D was its own thing and did a really poor job of representing most fantasy fiction if pressed on.

 

[Oofta]

Look, semantic loading works both ways; "tyranny" has associations you didn't like in the title, "kitchen sink" has associations others don't like in your characterization. If you don't want bad reactions, some lifting to avoid it is required on both ends.

Which is why I asked for a better term. Open-ended just means something completely different to me than allow any race. Is Cantina style campaign better?

 

[Thomas Shey]

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

Though that's kind of cheating given Amber is not one world but, well, a hell of a lot (some of which aren't even fantasy).

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yes and allowing the DM to be the final arbiter or sole creator of the world or to curate the world in whatever manner he wants is only a problem if the DM is the one with the worse perspective for the overall health of the game... of course if you feel that's the case I'd ask... why are you playing in a game run by him or her?

I note your edit, so this is something of a side comment, but--all kinds of people play with players or GMs who have problems, because they'd rather do so than not play, and their options are limited. That doesn't make the problems any less problems.

EDIT: I mean if we don't assume this for either DM's or players what are we really discussing here? At that point it boils down to what I said earlier... do what's best for your group and let others do what's best for their group.

The reason to discuss it is there's a pretty heavy weighting in the hobby, particularly in D&D to assume the GM is always the one in the right as a default, and that assumption doesn't seem nearly as well founded as some people seem to think it is.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Which is why I asked for a better term. Open-ended just means something completely different to me than allow any race. Is Cantina style campaign better?

That one is probably worse, since its been used dismissively about settings with a wide variety of races for years now. What's wrong with "racially open ended" if you want to be more specific?

 

[Imaro]

I note your edit, so this is something of a side comment, but--all kinds of people play with players or GMs who have problems, because they'd rather do so than not play, and their options are limited. That doesn't make the problems any less problems.

Yes and those problems exist on both sides... which is one of my points, the other being if you fundamentally don't trust your GM to arbitrate... well that seems like a major problem since as far as D&D goes that is one of the major responsibilities of a DM. It's like not trusting a player to play honestly with the use of their characters abilities.

The reason to discuss it is there's a pretty heavy weighting in the hobby, particularly in D&D to assume the GM is always the one in the right as a default, and that assumption doesn't seem nearly as well founded as some people seem to think it is.

The example I originally responded to wasn't about a discussion it was an instance where the players goth their way because of numbers.

EDIT: Why do you believe this assumption doesn't seem nearly as well founded as some people think it is? I have yet to see a real argument that objectively shows why group consensus, player arbitration or GM arbitration is better. I would in fact argue it's a different strokes for different folks type of thing.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Why should they? Does greater number now equate to more correct? Does it somehow make them inherently more deserving? I'm really trying to understand your thinking here...

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...

The issue was not with clear rules, it was with an unclear situation that required a ruling. The ruling made by the GM seemed unsatisfactory to everyone else playing the game.

If I'm a GM and I make a ruling and no one at the table is really willing to accept it, I'm likely going to give it some more thought.

It seems like one of those "It's not me, it's everyone else who's wrong!" kind of situations.

 

[Lyxen]

If I'm a GM and I make a ruling and no one at the table is really willing to accept it, I'm likely going to give it some more thought.

Again, it's one of those hypothetical situations... Has it ever happened ? I don't think it has ever happened to me in 43+ years of DMing. Has it ever happened to you? Moreover, there might be reasons that the players are not aware of, and should not be aware of. For example someone cannot hide somewhere because, actually, an invisible NPC is directly watching them. And in that kind of case, the DM is perfectly right to say "look guys, there are reasons that you don't know about and should not know about, let's move on and we'll discuss that at the end of the evening." And even, by then, the players might reconsider.

So let's not base complete arguments on situations that (almost) never happen...

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Right. You don't like the use of the word tyranny, despite the many clarifications that have been provided. We get it. You don't need to complain about it for another dozen pages.

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.

I don't know what you mean by pulling a @Faolyn but that seems like a poor use of the mention function and you probably shouldn't do that. I doubt you'd appreciate your name being used as a verb for behavior others take issue with, so you should probably show others that respect. And if you want to criticize me, feel free to speak openly and clearly.....I can take whatever it is you have to say.

As for my use of the word "allowed", I was talking about the hypothetical selfish and entitled players you mentioned who cared only about their own characters.

Tracking initiative is not the kind of thing I'm talking about. That's sharing maintenance. It's helpful, but doesn't accomplish the same kind of thing as involving players in the world building and other fictional elements of the game.

Now, if you don't involve your players in that and everyone's cool with it, then fine. But my point was, if your players were actually like those you were describing, then maybe involve them more and you might be surprised that they start to care about the setting more, rather than just their own characters.

Because, for me, if my players only cared about their own character, it'd seem pretty clear to me that my setting doesn't really interest them all that much, and so any priority I place on setting fidelity above player satisfaction is in fact, counterproductive.

 

[Oofta]

The issue was not with clear rules, it was with an unclear situation that required a ruling. The ruling made by the GM seemed unsatisfactory to everyone else playing the game.

If I'm a GM and I make a ruling and no one at the table is really willing to accept it, I'm likely going to give it some more thought.

It seems like one of those "It's not me, it's everyone else who's wrong!" kind of situations.

If that ever happens I'll reconsider. There have been times when I made a ruling to keep the game going and we discussed and/or looked thing up later. That has more to do with pacing and not interrupting the flow of the game than me being "right". It's extremely rare that even that happens, I don't remember the last time.