Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
And you are wrong. By definition boring is below average.
The only two settings that are pretty much the same are FR and GH. The rest have different tropes and/or races.
D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity
- Thread starter Stormonu
- Start date
- Status
Maybe I'm not explaining it well.
My point is that if you magicaly popped into a random D&D table you will very likely land in
1) a published setting using 20+year old race and class tropes
or
2) a homebrew setting using 20+ year old race and class tropes
Do that with an average quality DM and you get some boring. And overexposed.
Most of those setting use human, dwarves, elves, halflings, orcs, gnomes with slight twwist. The lore might be different but not enough to explain at the campaign pitch.
There aren't completely shifted in tropes like a Dark Sun where you have to explain differences before Session 0.
Jack Daniel
Legend
Holy schnikes. That's gonna be a "yikes on trikes" from me, pal.
I kinda feel sorry for you if you think that just because a campaign world has a long history or that it doesn't try to be , I don't know, an avant garde unique unicorn campaign, that it's automatically boring. DMs are not (usually) artists. They're just doing the best they can to make a fun setting the best they know how.
How do you expect a different mix of races to change that? Why is it solely the DM's job to make a game fun and interesting? Isn't the player at least partly responsible?
As far as "pondering" changes, as someone who's had the same campaign world for a long time, of course I ponder changing it up. I do shake up the politics and political boundaries and factions once in a while. But then we're all having so much fun in the same old "boring" setting that I'm not sure I could do much better. A big part of the fun is the depth of the campaign history, knowing that your PCs are contributing to it.
I'm not an author. I don't pretend to be one. But we're having fun in my hackneyed world, standard tropes and all. So maybe the problem isn't the DMs. Or maybe I, and most DMs, would just not the right DM for you.
Crimson Longinus
Legend
Boring to whom? To you? Obviously. To me? Perhaps. To the people at those tables? Probably not.
Furthermore, why are you assuming that the GM is the one stuck with the traditional ideas, and the players are ones who want something new and demand to play non-classic races? Certainly it just as easily could be that the GM wants to do an innovative setting and the players demand to play traditional elves and dwarves?
Scars Unseen
Hero
So here's the thing. Of all of those tables, some are going to be well thought out, well run campaigns. Those will not be boring. Some are not going to be well thought out, well run campaigns. Those might be boring(though that ignores that groups can have fun for reasons unrelated to the quality of the campaign itself)
And the above that I posted? That will be true regardless of what races are or are not allowed at a given table. If you were to change the settings on your magic so that you only popped into tables with no race or class restrictions whatsoever, you would have no greater or lesser chance of landing at a boring game.
A good DM that prefers restrictions can run a good campaign with restrictions. A good DM who doesn't prefer restrictions can run a good campaign without restrictions. A bad or inexperienced DM will be unlikely to run a good campaign, with or without restrictions.
It's a non-point from the perspective of whether a given game will be good or not.
Races, to me, are pretty superficial set dressing the vast majority of times. Either races have specific mechanical benefits that are cool for the few first time you play them but then the novelty wears off or it's a role playing thing. If it's role playing then I think incredibly small changes can keep 90% of the concept with a different race.
Let's say the campaign is human only. You wanted to play a tiefling. What does tiefling buy you? Horns? Resistance? Weird skin color, maybe inherent prejudice against you? Horns are pretty superficial, it just makes you look different. There are many ways of looking different, primarily in a human only campaign by being a different ethnicity. Talk to your DM and come up with some features that are unusual for the are you're from. Maybe it's as simple as having bright red hair or an accent that people associate with an enemy nation. Your hair will make you stand out just as much as horns. If you want the bad reputation, etc. it's because of politics and country of origin. No need to be a separate species. Want to be fighting against your heritage? Same thing, you come from a culture of violence that has slaves and believes in the right of colonialism.
You won't get resistance. You can't run a human that has a flight speed. But every game has limitations, I don't think having minor mechanical benefits for some characters makes a boring campaign suddenly interesting.
The background and personality I come up with for a PC matters more than the actual race. The stories told, the obstacles faced, the presentation of PCs and environments all matter far more than the diversity of races.
People keep asking DMs to ponder why they don't allow any race. I'm just asking why players shouldn't be asking the similar questions about their PCs. What makes a PC unique outside of visual differences?
Mind of tempest
(he/him)advocate for 5e psionics
those campaigns setting can still be boring but the game might be fun for different reasons as the plot may be good and minigiant's point is not that restrictions are bad but that restricting only to the classic races is a limit that likely does not serve us well when putting in something new in you epic history might serve just as well or better.
A race in dnd is four things, an aesthetic, a stat block, a bundle of tropes and a basic infered story.
- Status
Similar Threads
