D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[Lanefan]

Or another example:

• DM: Human centric campaign
• Player 1: But I'd like to be an elf
• DM: OK, we can have one elf
• Player 2: I'd like to be an elf
• DM: I'd rather for the campaign to be human centric, and that would make two elves, please discuss with Player 1 and let me know who gets to play the elf in the group.

And if players 1 and 2 are at all stubborn, as is very often the case, you immediately have an argument; and that argument is only going to be resolved by one of them ending up resentful, or both of them playing elves, or neither playing an elf as due to this you've had to shut elves down as PCs.

 

[Lanefan]

So far, most of the focus of discussion has been on PC races. But I'm also curious - what about the monstrous side - the opposition (or help) on the DM's side of the screen?

We all have our favorites when we pick and choose what enemies show up the campaign world. How narrow are your choices when it comes to the player's opponents? Do you stick to only creatures "of the real world" and don't use supernatural enemies (perhaps beyond a Giant version of something)? Do you avoid/never use devils? Dragons are too rare and mighty to waste on adventurers? Not gonna use a 3rd party product because it's "not D&D" or perhaps the monsters in Volo's don't suit your game? Are there monsters that are common in D&D, but far rarer or unique in your own?

Have you ever excluded monsters because they simply don't fit your vision of the game world, especially if it was something the players wanted to see included for some reason?

When it comes to monsters I throw a pretty wide variety at 'em, given long enough. I also make up my own now and then, just to change things up ever further.

Sure there's still a few monsters I've never DMed; some because they just hold no interest to me and-or are effectively the same as something else, some because I simply forget they exist when designing adventures, and some (e.g. Modrons) because the right situation to meet them has never arisen.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And if players 1 and 2 are at all stubborn, as is very often the case, you immediately have an argument; and that argument is only going to be resolved by one of them ending up resentful, or both of them playing elves, or neither playing an elf as due to this you've had to shut elves down as PCs.

If your players legitimately cannot come to an amicable conclusion about this, frankly, I don't think they should be playing together in the first place. If "you get to play X this time, I'll play one next time" is so onerous that it creates permanent, long-standing resentment between the players in question, I find it difficult to believe that they're going to avoid things like resentment over who gets the fancy magic sword or character-specific unfolding events that temporarily make one character more special than another.

How is this not a problem of immaturity and petulance between players who should be trying to get along?

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Why is it a "hangup"? For that matter what could you get out of a aarakocra that doesn't fly that you couldn't get from an accepted race?

What harm does it do to accept that the DM has a vision of the world that doesn't include birdmen?

An avian character dealing with the curse of having broken wings was one of the NPCs from Baldurs Gate II. Maybe the idea of a character with that loss of freedom would be interesting to explore for someone. What does somebody get out of playing a blind human or a one armed dwarf?

If a GM had a world that contained avian NPCs but limited choice of avian PCs because of balance issues, a player having a clipped wing version of that race would fulfill the GMs request AND allow them to play what they wanted.

I'm not going to relitegate the old "Why can't you just do what the GM asks you to do?" discussion ive already had 10+ times in other threads. It's as useless an argument as "Why can't you just alter your vision to let the player choose X?".

 

[JiffyPopTart]

That's a false dichotomy. Races can be excised for reasons other than tight curation or a racial ability. I don't allow dragonborn. To me dragons are a mighty and rare race, and the presence of weak humanoid dragons diminishes both the might and rarity. For that reason they are gone. I don't have a "hangup" with breath weapons or want a tightly curated list.

The person I was replying to said they had a world where winged tieflings didn't exist because they do not like to GM flying characters.

My point was....if flying is an issue then just make a blanket "no flying " rule and apply it to all characters equally. You don't have to limit races in your world just because mechanically they were designed with flight for PCs.

 

[Mercurius]

I like the idea of the malleable approach to the toolbox of D&D advocated in the OP (i.e. an owlbear as a unique creature, not necessarily a member of a species). On the other hand, I don't think a DM "must" allow everything the players want, no matter how much it clashes with their setting premise and themes.

One thing that often gets lost in the mix is the enjoyment of the DM. In some sense, the DM's enjoyment trumps all: if they're not having fun, chances are no one will, and the DM not having fun is more challenging to troubleshoot than an individual player not getting their double katana-wielding kenku.

In that sense, I think the DM owes it to themself--and the group--to run a world that they want to run. Their job isn't simply "entertain the players" or be a font of instant wish-fulfillment; it is to orchestrate an experience that is entertaining for all, and sometimes that involves restraint and holding back on one wish to further a larger plan (not unlike telling your kids why they can't eat ice cream for every meal).

It isn't either/or, of course, and really there's a Goldilocks zone - but it is pretty broad, unless a player gets fixated on a specific thing and/or the DM's setting and game is very thematically narrow.

I think also that part of the social contract of D&D is that the players are, in a sense, "guests" in the DM's "house." The DM puts a lot more work into the game, and that should be honored. Now if the DM says, "The theme of the world is My Little Centaur" and no one is into it, that's just how it goes and the DM has to accept that, unless they want to find a group that is into it. But that sort of thing is the exception. If the DM is saying, "no warforged," I think it behooves the players to accept that, and not feel entitled for the DM to explain their reasons why beyond "It doesn't fit the overall themes I'm going for." There, done - no further explanation required, and a reasonable human being will move onto something else (maybe dual katana-wielding kenku).

 

[Mordhau]

I think the GM is in their right to say "No warforged" because it doesn't fit the mood they're aiming for. But if they don't actively explain the mood they are aiming for, they can't really complain if the PCs keep coming up with other character concepts that also don't fit the mood.

 

[Lyxen]

I think you are conflating avoiding a mechanical hang-up (flying at low level) with a locked down set of options.

Would you allow me to play an aarakokra(sp?) in your game if I didn't use my innate flight power?

If yes...your hangup is flying.
If no....your hangup is wanting a tightly curated list.

I used flying as an example, but aren't both just restrictions that can be perfectly valid from a DM's perspective ?

 

[Lanefan]

If your players legitimately cannot come to an amicable conclusion about this, frankly, I don't think they should be playing together in the first place. If "you get to play X this time, I'll play one next time" is so onerous that it creates permanent, long-standing resentment between the players in question, I find it difficult to believe that they're going to avoid things like resentment over who gets the fancy magic sword or character-specific unfolding events that temporarily make one character more special than another.

Experience tells me the best way of dealing with arguments is to not give them cause to arise in the first place. A DM saying on the meta-level that one player can do something and another cannot is not only bad form on the DM's part but is bad form on the part of the players for putting the DM into that position to begin with, and of course it will - and IMO should - lead to arguments. It's a question of simple fairness: the opportunity* for any one player to play something special or unusual should be the same as that for any other player, which is neatly solved by gating the oddball species behind die rolls.

Note too that we're not talking about who gets a treasury item or has some other in-game/in-character event happen to a PC as per your examples above, we're talking about out-of-game or meta-level decisions over who gets to play what; which is a completely different thing.

* - an opportunity which may or may not be taken up if-when it arises; numerous times I've had players roll their way into the oddball table and decide against playing what came up there.

 

[Minigiant]

I never got why it's still seems unacceptable for DMs to ask a player why they want to play a particular race or class and not suggest options that exist in the DM's setting.

I mean. If you are going to artificially upkeep rarity, then it is up to you to make that rarity seem fun.