D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[Vaalingrade]

The odds of any individual getting a bad DM is the same it's always been.

Probably less with the DMG no longer having a big bold 'THE DM IS THE BOSS' in them.

 

[Cadence]

Probably less with the DMG no longer having a big bold 'THE DM IS THE BOSS' in them.

You mean where the description of boss Included listening to the players and making an adventure that was fun for the players?

Does 5e no longer have the buck stopping with the DM?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This thread
The many popular official races created after the PHB
The many popular unofficial races created after the PHB
Custom Lineage
TCOE race customization

If everyone loved what existed, none of these other things would be popular or even existent.

This is a non sequitur. You're claiming that WotC is too conservative and traditionalist and thus keep making up new stuff? How does that make sense? And why is any of this a problem? If the GM likes dwarves, they can put dwarves in their setting, if they like tabaxi, they can put them there and if they like neither they can homebrew their own stuff. Where's the problem?

Never said that.

You implied it. Or the whole GM tyranny complaint doesn't make sense. You frame this as GM vs player issue.

What I said is it's easier to be innovative with a PC than a setting as one is smaller than the other.

Creating a single character is indubitably less work that creating an entire setting. It doesn't follow from this that it is easier to be innovative with the former than the latter.

What I've said is D&D does not teach objective worldbuilding so the average DM doesn't know how to create an interesting homebrew setting for anyone but themselves.

If the GM is bad at worldbuilding, forcing them to include elements they don't like will not improve things.

 

[Oofta]

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?

I've answered this from you multiple times. Not going to bother repeating myself.

Have a good one.

 

[Oofta]

You mean where the description of boss Included listening to the players and making an adventure that was fun for the players?

Does 5e no longer have the buck stopping with the DM?

The guidelines in the 5E books hasn't really changed. From the intro to the DMG


The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren’t in charge. You’re the DM, and you are in charge of the game. That said, your goal isn’t to slaughter the adventurers but to create a campaign world that revolves around their actions and decisions, and to keep your players coming back for more! If you’re lucky, the events of your campaign will echo in the memories of your players long after the final game session is concluded.

 

[Vaalingrade]

You mean where the description of boss Included listening to the players and making an adventure that was fun for the players?

Pretty sure a lot of people stopped at the headline that gave them some form of authority.

Does 5e no longer have the buck stopping with the DM?

Not it's largest fault, but a fault.

 

[Minigiant]

This is a non sequitur. You're claiming that WotC is too conservative and traditionalist and thus keep making up new stuff? How does that make sense? And why is any of this a problem? If the Gm likes dwarves, they can put dwarves in their setting, if they like tabaxi, they can put them there and if thy like neither they can homebrew their own stuff. Where's the problem?

I'm claimed WOTC was too conservative and traditionalist and realized the desire for new things after they design the core of them game.

WOTC and many fans dismissed the popularity of nontraditionalist ideas and now D&Dis trying to work backwards to fix that error.

You implied it. Or the whole GM tyranny complaint doesn't make sense. You frame this as GM vs player issue.

I clearly stated it is a player issue AND a DM issue many times.

What I've also said is that since D&D give the DM the power and final say, the majority of the blame of lack of communication and consideration also goes to them.

It's the power and responsibility dynamic.

Creating a single character is indubitably less work that creating an entire setting. It doesn't follow from this that it is easier to be innovative with the former than the latter.

what?
What?
Wait. What?
I can create an innovative PC 100 times easier than a setting or adventure, copied or innovative.

If the GM is bad at worldbuilding, forcing them to include elements they don't like will not improve things.

of course.
I was never for that. I was always for teaching worldbuilding.

To me the solution was never adding races but asking "why those races?"

In my Six Kindoms setting, every single race has a inworld and narrative purpose. Each race had to earn their inclusion on its own right. Does every DM do that?

 

[Mind of tempest]

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

I somehow have read some of those books.

Breaking the mold is not inherently better than honoring it.

true but when you saw a new take of dwarves or halflings? I have once and that was by making the halflings evil otherwise they are quite bland, a new take can get you to care again.

On the first part, you're misconstruing my words. Again. On the second, If races available matters to a player, they should find a group that caters to their tastes. If the DM of the group they are considering playing with isn't entertaining that preference, then they can either compromise their preferences or reconsider that group.

Now you could try to flip that around and say that the DM has the same choice, but in my experience, it's pretty easy for a DM to find players, so it's not exactly an equal situation. A DM, especially a good one, is rarely going to find themselves across the table from an entire group who isn't interested in their game.

But to be honest, with all the tools available to find a group and with online gaming being what it is, a player should have little trouble finding another group if they leave anyway. The hobby is pretty popular right now as long as you're looking to play 5E specifically. This whole discussion feels like 21st century pundits arguing a 20th century situation. Just find a group you're comfortable with and none of this matters.

you do know how the youth tend to play in a sort of bland knock off of the realms as most have not the faintest idea of what to do with races and most of the old guard do not want to even run the full PHP believe me DMs who want to mix it up are rare.

if you get someone willing to humour you then you gotta deal with the other players and they bring the heaven knows what into the game. I had to dodge a game with Skaven as I know what a murder hobo player acts like getting into a good game with an element dm is hard or they only put the effort into humans and you end up wishing they just said a human only game as that is how they seem to want to play.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

I think I'm approaching the topic as "what can we do to keep the group together". Sure, DMs can find other players and players can find other DMs. That's an obvious solution if it fits the situation.

But there are times when people have a dedicated group and want to maintain that group, for whatever reason. They're friends, they're the people they play with at the local game shop, whatever the case.

As for DMing being hard.....I don't know if that's the case. I mean, I know some people will find it to be the case, sure. And I know it takes more effort than playing does. But I also see how many folks say that they enjoy the prep they have to do as DM.

And suggestions to prep less, or to involve players in prep have mostly been shot down in this thread, so it's kind of a catch 22.

 

[Cadence]

As for DMing being hard.....I don't know if that's the case. I mean, I know some people will find it to be the case, sure. And I know it takes more effort than playing does. But I also see how many folks say that they enjoy the prep they have to do as DM.

And suggestions to prep less, or to involve players in prep have mostly been shot down in this thread, so it's kind of a catch 22.

I'm good with involving people if that works for the group (I'm always happy to get ideas to think about from players, or to contribute lots of relevant background for consideration when I am one, and have co-DMd a world in the past).

It just seemed like somewhere up thread it was mentioned by some people that a lot of players won't DM or that DMing well was hard, and I was having trouble reconciling that with DMs not being particularly special. (There being a wide range between "first among equals" and "tyrant" even if special.)