D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[Cadence]

RE the idea of a kitchen sink.

I don't see this as the opposite of a curated list of races/classes/other options. Ultimately, the game only has to have the things the players have chosen or are allowed to choose.

If one of my players says, I want to play a warforged, and we work it out in some way (either by adding the race to the setting, or by coming up with some unique origin for the character) that doesn't make it a kitchen sink.

The two things are not mutually exclusive. My list of allowable races could consist of the exact 4 races chosen by my players for their characters and no more.

For me, when I question such restrictions, it's not about the restrictions themselves, but the reasoning behind them, and how that compares to player desire and satisfaction.

If a character dies (or a new player joins, or they're tired of the old one) does the list stay at just stay at the four for the late addition?

 

[Lanefan]

I once came to a table with a GM that was the worst example of power trippy you are playing MY world I've ever played under. My character concept was "A woodsman guy with a giant axe" and no other expectations. He started me off in the campaign by giving me a really cool magic longsword he had come up with as my starting weapon.

Which is fine by me - maybe that longsword just happens to be the best weapon you've come across so far in your career; and though you'd love to trade it in on a kick-ass 2-handed axe at some point, for now it'll just have to do...

 

[hawkeyefan]

If a character dies (or a new player joins, or they're tired of the old one) does the list stay at just stay at the four for the late addition?

It's a good question. We'd probably have to see what happens.

The player may choose one of the ones already in use, which would be simple and require no effort to explain/resolve.

The player may choose a new one that has not been previously selected. If this happens, we can add that race to the world, or otherwise explain the origin of this character.

There's no need that the answers to the question needs to be answered before the game starts. It can be figured out when it comes up.

 

[Minigiant]

The array of races in the PHB does open up a can of worms if considered from a game design perspective. Of course, that simply serves to draw attention to the much larger can of worms sitting right next to it: the poor game design of the core classes, including 9 magic-using classes compared to 3 non-magical classes, 3 classes that run off a high Cha, certain archetypes that overlap together with others that are underserved.

It's one of the newcomers might see aspects of DND as weird and create setting and characters jarring to longtime fans.

Without the history, many D&D decisions in design don't have the level of sense and logic a fan might expect.

 

[Cadence]

It's a good question. We'd probably have to see what happens.

The player may choose one of the ones already in use, which would be simple and require no effort to explain/resolve.

The player may choose a new one that has not been previously selected. If this happens, we can add that race to the world, or otherwise explain the origin of this character.

There's no need that the answers to the question needs to be answered before the game starts. It can be figured out when it comes up.

But then it might clash with the 50 hours of time over a course of two years that I spent making a tightly woven pantheon and creation story... (I mean, seriously. And yes, I might have a problem with managing my game design tendencies some of the time... )

At the other end, the current one I'm running is pretty wide open with little large scale world construction. Any non demi-human was fine to fit with the hook, and they'd all get a ring to let them appear (demi)human if needed. Of course one player went with a human that had been cursed to be a bugbear (the ring makes him look like his old self), and another picked a race that was almost visually indistinguishable from human (the ring makes him look like something less obviously human).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

RE the idea of a kitchen sink.

I don't see this as the opposite of a curated list of races/classes/other options. Ultimately, the game only has to have the things the players have chosen or are allowed to choose.

If one of my players says, I want to play a warforged, and we work it out in some way (either by adding the race to the setting, or by coming up with some unique origin for the character) that doesn't make it a kitchen sink.

The two things are not mutually exclusive. My list of allowable races could consist of the exact 4 races chosen by my players for their characters and no more.

For me, when I question such restrictions, it's not about the restrictions themselves, but the reasoning behind them, and how that compares to player desire and satisfaction.

But as already noted, how about when new characters are needed?

Also, it really isn't about the number of species, it is about their place in the world and thematic coherence. I don't think that choosing four species effectively random and building the world around them is necessarily a super good way to produce a thematically coherent world, especially as this seems to assume that said world building probably happens very quickly. Granted, I think it could be an interesting challenge, but definitely not how I prefer to work. I intentionally left my current world very sketchy and vague so that there is room to improvise and add things. I still started making it at least year before the characters were created. I'd imagine that world that was effectively created only after character creation (so presumably a week or so before you start playing) would by necessity ne incredibly shallow.

Furthermore, why should the setting creator even limit themselves to the things WotC decides to print? Race mechanics are very light, so mechanically creating new ones is super easy (unlike with classes.) Personally I alter the species to better suit the theme of my world, and create completely new ones.

I made the eldri, a small elf-like species to fulfil the niche of elves, halflings and gnomes in my setting. It would be thematically incoherent to have normal D&D elves, halflings and gnomes alongside with them. (More pics and sketches here.)

Personally it bugs me how many D&D species are very similar to each other, and there is a lot of thematic overlap, or if you want give them a definite niche it makes them weirdly narrow. Having so many species makes more sense if you see them as a toolkit to choose from or as an inspiration to your own creations.

 

[hawkeyefan]

But then it might clash with the 50 hours of time over a course of two years that I spent making a tightly woven pantheon and creation story... (I mean, seriously. And yes, I might have a problem with managing my game design tendencies some of the time... )

This is absolutely true, and I think this is very much at the heart of the issue, and the thread has touched on this at times, but maybe not as much as it should.

As a GM, you have to decide if your player's idea that they've just come up with is equally valid to the idea that you had already come up with.

Contrary to how it may seem from this thread, I don't think there's one right answer to this. I think that it's a case by case type of situation, and there may be many factors to any given example.

What I do question is how many people do tend to consider the right answer to be "The GM's idea is more important" and to a lesser extent "The default is that the GM's idea matters more".

I don't consider "Because it's my world" or " Because I'm the GM" as satisfactory or meaningful answers to the question.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This is absolutely true, and I think this is very much at the heart of the issue, and the thread has touched on this at times, but maybe not as much as it should.

As a GM, you have to decide if your player's idea that they've just come up with is equally valid to the idea that you had already come up with.

Contrary to how it may seem from this thread, I don't think there's one right answer to this. I think that it's a case by case type of situation, and there may be many factors to any given example.

What I do question is how many people do tend to consider the right answer to be "The GM's idea is more important" and to a lesser extent "The default is that the GM's idea matters more".

I don't consider "Because it's my world" or " Because I'm the GM" as satisfactory or meaningful answers to the question.

Ultimately to me world building is a big part of my fun as GM. It also is something I can do between games and campaigns. Now I fully get that not everyone feels the same way, and that's fine. Though even as player I really appreciate good world building. Granted, from that perspective it hardly is the most important aspect of a successful game.

And this is not to say that I don't take suggestions. My world now has sand pirates operating sand skiffs as that what one player suggested for their background. Good suggestions are always welcome, but I also have to stay true to my own artistic vision for me to keep up my interest.

 

[Imaro]

Good suggestions are always welcome, but I also have to stay true to my own artistic vision for me to keep up my interest.

I think for many DM's (Myself included) this is key. I have to want to run the game that ultimately ends up at the table. If it becomes something that doesn't interest me or there are so many caveats that it has lost what I enjoyed about it... well IMO it's better if someone else runs it. I think for those that have a surplus of people willing to run, that's not a big impediment... but if you're like my group which currently has 2 people (Me and one other person willing to run) well I think the fact that we are willing to run and play but you are only willing to play tends to make our desires, wants, etc... in the realm of world/campaign building matter more.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Ultimately to me world building is a big part of my fun as GM. It also is something I can do between games and campaigns.

I want to highlight this point because I think it's very common and very valid. The nature of D&D is such that preparation of at least some sort is required. And many enjoy that prep as a creative endeavor.

I think what happens is that many folks automatically favor the ideas that they've come up with during this between-session prep because they are attached to them as something they spent time on. It's a reflex of a kind, or at least it can be, and it's perfectly natural.

Now I fully get that not everyone feels the same way, and that's fine. Though even as player I really appreciate good world building. Granted, from that perspective it hardly is the most important aspect of a successful game.

And this is not to say that I don't take suggestions. My world now has sand pirates operating sand skiffs as that what one player suggested for their background. Good suggestions are always welcome, but I also have to stay true to my own artistic vision for me to keep up my interest.

Right, I get that, and I wouldn't disagree.

What I've been saying....or trying to say...is that we should examine these situations when they come up. As the OP suggests, perhaps there are alternative ways to give the player what they're looking for without compromising the setting as the GM has imagined.

I usually go one step further in these discussions to say "maybe consider if the inclusion of X actually does compromise your setting" because I tend to think that GMs overestimate the uniqueness of their settings. That any change at all is a disruption to their vision. I say this as someone who has done it.

I do all the kinds of things that most D&D GMs do.....I come up with ideas for NPCs and factions and nations and pantheons and all that kind of stuff. I want the world to feel genuine and specific. But I also value the group activity of playing an RPG, and my setting exists to serve that act.

I think sometimes GMs either ignore that or else forget to consider it.