D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[Thomas Shey]

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.

This assumes a separation between the two things I don't think necessarily follows. When I'm playing something other than a human, I want both; I want the mechanical properties to support the roleplaying properties. Its similar to the fact when I'm describing doing something in combat I don't want it to be just color, but have mechanical heft, too.

 

[Minigiant]

Holy schnikes. That's gonna be a "yikes on trikes" from me, pal.

Explain the yikes?

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?

It's not the DM's sole job to make the fun.

The campaign's combats might be great
The campaign's interactions might be great
The campaign's exploration might be great
However if the setting is a copy and paste of one of most popular settings, it takes an above average DM to keep that aspect of the game interesting.

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.

My criticisms are not a targeted attack against you or any other poster.

My point is that copying 10, 20, 30, 40 year old fantasy tropes whole cloth might not excite the long time fantasy fan or D&D fan.

DMs aren't authors and I've been a proponent of Worldbuilding help in the DMG for years now.

 

[Cadence]

No offense man, because I usually find most of your posts very reasonable, but...so what?

I mean, the whole point is that some of the top-down view of how games should be run dates back to the beginning of the hobby. That's why its often taken as gospel. But that doesn't say anything about whether its the best approach, just that its functional and what people are used to (especially in the D&D sphere).

Umbran asked that to. Here was my answer as to why I thought it was relevant:

D&D General - The Tyranny of Rarity

We have races with Warrior aspects (Dwarf, Half Orc) and races with Wizard aspects (Elf) There is no Traditional Old Schoool race with Thief (Goblin, Bugbear, Changeling) or Priest aspects (Aasimar). Again, Lightfoot Halfling has Naturally Stealthy and Wood Elf has Mask of the Wild. Halflings...

www.enworld.org

 

[Stormonu]

it is just an idea and the stat blocks are just there use it if you like.

Well, that’s the point of this thread. I hadn’t considered using them, and they actually would be an interesting fit - at least as opponents - in my homebrew. Could even become a PC option - maybe a spy Aurak in the party, or a Bodak deserter, maybe even a Sivak patriot for a game where the PCs are playing on the dragon’s side.

 

[Minigiant]

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?

I'm just explaining where the conflict comes from.

IME, DM, worldbuilders, and WOTC aren't breaking the mold that often. And this creates the tradition vs innovation divide in this almost 50 year old game.

 

[jmartkdr2]

You're a bit off there. The idea is that campaigns in general being good or not has nothing to do with the number of races allowed, but rather the skill and effort of the DMs who runs it. It's a highly generalized assertion. It doesn't mean that a given DM will do better with a style they don't prefer to one they do. That would be a specific claim that might not apply. It would be like saying that Stephen King would have been just as accomplished if he had tried to be a mystery writer or a romance novelist. Could he write in a different genre if he chose? Probably. But he clearly has a primary interest in the horror genre, so it's safe to assume he wouldn't do as well forcing himself to write in a genre he didn't like.

To make it even more generalized: People who do well at the thing they like doing do well when doing the thing they like.

Some dm's have a specific setting they want to run - whether it's a published one, one from a novel, one they made up or one they've been running for a while and grown to like. These dm's will want pc's introduced to the game to fit the setting. One way to do this is a curated list of allowed races, or even a single-race game.

Dm's with a setting in mind do have to find a way to explain to players what's cool about the setting, so the players can choose to lean into that and add to it. If this fails to happen (either because the dm doesn't do it, does it poorly, or because the player's don't listen) they'll get pushback. Or, somehow worse, the players will appear to be following along but totally miss the core themes the dm wanted and the whole thing falls flat because the cool stuff doesn't actually happen because no pc is designed to interact with it.

Some dm's aren't attached to the setting per se. They might have a genre, a type of challenge, or a specific enemy in mind to use, or they might just enjoy running for some other reason that doesn't require specific prep (e.g. they enjoy the challenge of building around the characters and find that makes for more interesting character arcs) These dm's often have specific no-go things like flying races or guns in the setting, but are likely to be flexible on the edges and allow anything rules-legal and not specifically banned.

On the other hands, players have a similar divide: some will come to the table with a character in mind they want to play. and try to tweak it to fit the setting if needed. Other will come with about ten ideas and look for the best one for the setting being used. Some will come with nothing and try to build the character in the spot as the setting is introduced, other players do the bare minimum at character creation and build the character during play.

Some players and dm's will come with a clear idea and try to make it work, compromising on details to make it fit. Others will recognize when ideas won't mesh and will pocket those for another game. Others will not be willing to compromise, and generally cause the table to have less fun. These aren't always different people, even.

 

[Maxperson]

you see I do not believe in dm problems or player problems just group problems.

Yes and no. Yes, because it becomes a group problem since almost any issue impacts the group. No, because it's originating with the player and not the DM. Remember the context of my responses. I was responding to someone saying that having an average DM means that humans, elves, etc. will be boring.

Since the issue of boredom with a race primarily resides with the player, it's primarily on the player to find a game where he can play a race he finds more interesting. The the much smaller extent that it's a DM issue, that issue is with substandard DMs, not average ones or better.

gnomes must have been a race since at least 2e I think they are oddly unmemorable.

There were gnomes in 1e as well. I don't know if they appeared before that. My comment was intended purely as humor, not as a serious statement.

 

[Minigiant]

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 is just one toggle in Setting. And Setting is only one aspect of Campaign.

I'm just saying race choice and racial lore is just one way to pique player interest. Especially if the player is a D&D veteran. Especially if the player has many games to choose from. Especially if the player has tons of PC ideas rolling in their head.

And like the OP mentions, working with the player on their character's fit into the setting can get the player excited about the setting.

 

[Oofta]

I have to say that the idea that racial choice doesn’t or shouldn’t impact the quality of a campaign for a player seems a bit at odds with how a curated list of allowed races can impact the quality of a campaign for a GM.

Seems to be a bit of a double standard going on.

DM: See my unique and interesting world? There are no dragonborn here and gnomes have green skin and live in trees!

Player: Cool. Are there any tieflings?

DM: What does it matter if your PC has horns and a tail?

The DM is building an entire world. The player is building an individual PC. Apples to oranges. Actually an apple orchard to a single orange. It's not the same.

 

[Stormonu]

The DM is building an entire world. The player is building an individual PC. Apples to oranges. Actually an apple orchard to a single orange. It's not the same.

Typically that’s true. However, I have had players bring significant lore they would like to incorporate into a game. Even ideas for entire campaign arcs that would involve one or more of the PCs characters.