D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[Cadence]

The problem I'm having is still that "the DM has the final call" isn't an intrinsic necessity, and isn't even required for the latter two. Or put another way, one of these things is not like the others. As I noted before, the only way the first is required for the other two is if you go in with the assumption (which, again, to be clear, can be true but is not a universal the way some people seem to think is) that the players are not able to acknowledge each other's interests and needs in collective decisions. If they are, there's no intrinsic requirement for the DM to have the final call.

I... I'm not going to get this out exactly the way I want it, so apologies in advance.

I mean, there's no intrinsic requirement for D&D to be level based, or hit point based, or use classes, or use alignment, or anything else that (iirc) every other edition of D&D has always had as rules either, but they're usually taken as the default when discussing the game. (Are there any editions of D&D that haven't had the DM make the final call?)

Even so, as many others have posted in various threads. there are games that have different arrangements between players and DM, and there's nothing wrong with modding the D&D rules, and a lot of us would still claim to be playing D&D.

If we want to decenter the DM, I guess: "The participants (that is, both those playing characters and the DM) decide how these rules will be used in the game. The participants should talk about problem areas with each other and consider each other's requests. The participants should determine how they will handle disagreements that occur in play and what to do if a full resolution seems likely to hold things up. If any participant disagrees enough, they may quit the game (and if it is the DM then the other participants will need to designate a new one). It is up to all of the participants to create an adventure they all enjoy."

 

[Maxperson]

You're taking it personal and that's why the point is flying over your head.

No. I can assure you that I've taken nothing personally. In fact, since my players play primarily humans, elves, dwarves and halflings and they have fun and I've been running the Forgotten Realms since 1e, I must under your argument be above average as a DM. You've complimented me.

I just don't agree that it takes an above average DM to accomplish that. I think Joe Average the DM will accomplish it as well.

That's what I disagree with. Just because someone is bored of one setting doesn't mean they will be bored with another.

That's true, but that isn't tied to either race or DMing ability. I may just be bored with the same cities and geography over and over. Or I may be bored with the same leaders and prominent NPCs.

Such a statement comes off with an attitude that a DM can do no wrong.

Now you're just projecting. Nothing I've said can be construed that way.

I argee and I think there is a noticeable percentage of DMs not doing it. Otherwise we would not be hearing about so many bad experiences.

Not necessarily. First, people who are happy rarely go out of their way to say something. Second, the internet allows you to see huge numbers of people. Just because you see a thousand different people complaining about it, doesn't mean that a million more aren't having good experiences.

 

[Oofta]

"It doesn't happen to me so to doesn't exist" is not usually a great stance to take.

It's my problem so everyone has the same problem is better?

Like I've sad in other thread, "DMs not having a hard time finding players" is often the cause of the problem.
It shifts power and preferences to DMs heavily. And allows selfish DMs to make games where a selfish player lacks such ease.

Right all DMs are selfish bastards. You seem to be pushing this idea that allowing all races is going to be some magic wand that if only those a-hole DMs would just listen to you all the issues would all go away and we'd walk into some nirvana of excellent games.

There is never going to be a perfect DM for every player in existence. DMs should do what make sense to them, let people know what kind of campaign they run before they join, listen to players. Finally they should run the best game they can even if sometimes that means an individual players doesn't get everything they want.

 

[Cadence]

It takes different strokes to move the world.

I actually don't have that tune in my memory even though I could place the words. I am now hearing the phrase "Wha'choo talkin' bout, Willis?" though.

 

[Cadence]

The point is the D&D has a Huge chunk of DMs makeing Same setting. And the Law of Averages mean most of these DMs are average and not ading much. This creates boredom.

Especially if D&D runs with the premise that the fan can create anything and the DM has to do most of the work.
Then you have TSR and WOTC reprint the same kinds of setting over and over for sale as shortcuts for DMs.

Basically average quality DMs with bland, common, or purchased settings are pushing players to see interest in new classes and races. Especially as other media explores other races and classes in the fantasy genre.

Tangent here (so not aimed at Minigiant). I find my self taking the first sentence and making it: "The point is RPGs have a huge chunk of GMs running D&D. And most of these GMs are average and not trying other games. This creates boredom."

 

[Minigiant]

No. I can assure you that I've taken nothing personally. In fact, since my players play primarily humans, elves, dwarves and halflings and they have fun and I've been running the Forgotten Realms since 1e, I must under your argument be above average as a DM. You've complimented me.

You're welcome.

I just don't agree that it takes an above average DM to accomplish that. I think Joe Average the DM will accomplish it as well.

I think the average DM uses other aspects to make up for it.

That's true, but that isn't tied to either race or DMing ability. I may just be bored with the same cities and geography over and over. Or I may be bored with the same leaders and prominent NPCs.

My point is it can be. And if the DM copies alot or changes little, it is morelikely that they will run into someone bored with it.

Now you're just projecting. Nothing I've said can be construed that way.

So you believe a DM can create a boring setting?

Not necessarily. First, people who are happy rarely go out of their way to say something. Second, the internet allows you to see huge numbers of people. Just because you see a thousand different people complaining about it, doesn't mean that a million more aren't having good experiences.

That's why I stated a "noticeable percentage". I don't have the data to say its a majority.

But it happens enough that we notice it.

 

[Minigiant]

It's my problem so everyone has the same problem is better?

No.
But "It's not my problem" is one of the ways a game dies.

Right all DMs are selfish bastards. You seem to be pushing this idea that allowing all races is going to be some magic wand that if only those a-hole DMs would just listen to you all the issues would all away and we'd walk into some nirvana of excellent games.

There is never going to be a perfect DM for every player in existence. DMs should do what make sense to them, let people know what kind of campaign they run before they join, listen to players. Finally they should run the best game they can even if sometimes that means an individual players doesn't get everything they want.

No. No all DMs are selfish bastards.

But DMing is a selfish bastards' dream. You can force your desires on others and there are enough players that eventually you'll get a group. Especially now with the internet and 5e's explosion.

A very selfish DM can still get games now and it's kinda scary.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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 run 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 than 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.

If a campaign being good or not has nothing to do with the races allowed, then why bar any?

I believe that it does matter. I think most people in this thread agree that it matters. I just think if "What races are available" matters for the DM and that's understandable, then I don't see how "What races are available" shouldn't matter for the players.

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.

Why not?

This is a leisure activity done for fun. Why do we treat the fun of one participant as more important than the other? Would you do this in most other group activities?

 

[Mannahnin]

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

Although Maxperson already confirmed his awareness of Gnomes being a D&D race since 1E, I am too amused by the trivia not to point out the timing on this. The 1E PH came out in June 1978, the year after this came out in English and was massively popular (62 weeks on the best seller list):

Gnomes (book) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Cadence]

If a campaign being good or not has nothing to do with the races allowed, then why bar any?

I believe that it does matter. I think most people in this thread agree that it matters. I just think if "What races are available" matters for the DM and that's understandable, then I don't see how "What races are available" shouldn't matter for the players.

Why not?

This is a leisure activity done for fun. Why do we treat the fun of one participant as more important than the other? Would you do this in most other group activities?

Why don't the other players just pick a new DM if the current one is too domineering for their tastes?
(I assume DMing isn't particularly hard or demanding to do. Because if it was then the position of DM would be more important. And that would explain why their fun might be seen as more important than the others in some senses). <- That came out snarkier than I wanted. I think it's lunch time.