D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[DND_Reborn]

Unless a player feels really strongly about playing a certain race, I am comfortable banning PC races that I don't want in the game. If a player really wants to play something that is otherwise banned, I am perfectly happy doing the "you came from a different realm and are trapped in a strange world" or whatever.

 

[Mordhau]

And if I was a player in that game, having heard the above sentence, and before actually creating a character, I would ask the DM whether my drow would be OK. It's not the DM's fault here, honestly, at least he communicated, it's the player who decided not to communicate about his intent to actually diverge from what the DM had told him.

It's not solely the DMs fault. Players can be sometimes be somewhat wilfully indifferent to what the DM is aiming for, but DMs need to know what they actually want too.

It's a lot more useful to tell your players what you do want (and sell them on why it would be cool) rather than tell them what you don't want. Because in my experience if you do the latter they will always come up with something you don't want but which it didn't occur to you to exclude.

 

[Mordhau]

How I do it.

DM: "The campaign I have in mind is human centric. Ideally you will all be human, but if you guys can agree on it, one PC can be non-human. If you can't agree, then all human it will be."
Players: "Cool. We'll discuss it and see what we come up with."

Clear expectations make it all easier.

Well. Yes. That's the better way to do it.

Although I think it helps to know why you want everyone to be human.

 

[Lyxen]

How I do it.

DM: "The campaign I have in mind is human centric. Ideally you will all be human, but if you guys can agree on it, one PC can be non-human. If you can't agree, then all human it will be."
Players: "Cool. We'll discuss it and see what we come up with."

Clear expectations make it all easier.

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.

 

[Mordhau]

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.

Yes. Yes. Obviously it's not irresolvable.

But resolved or not, it illustrates that by saying "human-centric" you haven't actually done anything to encourage players to get on board with what you actually want to do. What does it say about what you've offered them that their first prefence is to play an elf?

Why is it cooler to play a human in this game than an outsider elf character?

 

[DND_Reborn]

please discuss with Player 1 and let me know who gets to play the elf in the group.

Or do a version of King Solomon if their discussion is an impasse:

DM: You both roll a d4. Whoever rolls higher gets to play the elf, but if you both roll the same number, neither of you do.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

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.

Players 1 & 2: we decided to both be half-elves. That’s like one whole elf for the party.

 

[Shiroiken]

Player 1: What's the game world like?
DM: Well it's a human centric world and non-humans are rare.
Player 1: So I can only play a human?
DM: No there are some elves who visit human lands from time to time.
Player 1: Ok I'll be an elf.
Player 2: Damn. I wanted to be an elf. Perhaps we can be brothers travelling the human lands together?
Player 1: Cool!

A summary of a 3E game I almost played in (never got past session 0). While I fortunately no longer have to deal with this type of player, too many people seem to assume that players can be reasonable.

DM: We're doing a human centric world, so PHB races only
Me: Human's fine with me.
Player 1: I'm thinking elf.
Player 2: Gnome maybe.
Player 3: I'm going with Treant.
DM: I said PHB only.
Player 1: Oh, I'm going with drow.
DM: wait...
Player 2: Never mind, pixie looks good.
DM: seriously???

 

[JiffyPopTart]

While I see what you're getting at here and to some extent agree, the inherent risk is that you'll run aground* on table mechanics: "Hey, she's got one of those to play, I want one too!", meaning that thing that until a moment ago was a complete one-off either a) suddenly has to be duplicated or b) is liable to cause resentment at the table.

More broadly, I also very much want to avoid the end-result effect where an adventuring party resembles the Star Wars cantina on feet.

* - I speak from experience here, and have had these discussions. Perhaps fortunately for me, the player of the one-off character was a real Leroy Jenkins type and ran it straight into its grave, whereupon the desirability of playing that species dropped considerably...

If, as a GM, a player asked to be a warforged in a world where there weren't any warforged I'd allow it and have a lot of fun coming up with the oddball circumstance that made it happen (lightning hit a statue at the same time a cleric cast True Resurrection and a soul was created and instilled).

If, after that strange one-off backstory a different player wanted to ALSO play a warforged, well now not only do I get to have fun creating a different odd all story...now I have an instant subplot involving two characters (Who is creating these creatures with bolts of lightning???)

That being said, the plots of the games I run are the intersection of the PC goals and the happenings in the world around them. I try to rarely use generic adventure goals....which is why I have little use for premade adventure oaths and campaign setting books.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

And once more, as a balance, we are left with the actual tyranny of the player, who wants to play whatever he wants, despite the DM maybe having prepared a very consistent world with some restrictions because they fit his cosmology, history, myth, cultures or whatever. Some worlds are created with the principle of "whatever exists in D&D exists in that world" and that's fine too. But the players are playing in the DM's world, so they have to accept his rules and his design. And if, for example, he does not want flying creatures because they are unbalanced compared to what he has prepared (and please don't server me the BS about "it's easy to adjust", first it's not true especially at low level and second, a DM has enough work as it is with all his players, why should he expend specific effort to cater just for my whims ?), then sorry, that's the way it is. We are just starting a new campaign in an interesting world, the types of tieflings there are different, so I'm choosing one of them. And I won't be an entitled little wangrod and insist that my DM allows me to play a winged tiefling just because they have to exist somewhere in the universe. Simply put, in that universe, they don't, and I accept that to be able to play in a consistent campaigns where tieflings are descendant of specific creatures, with a history and consistency, and I will enjoy that.

All of this goes with a trend that started with 3e of not respecting the work the DM does for his players enjoyment. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the players having fun, but there are limits to it, respect needs to flow both ways, and respect for work and preparation is very important for me.

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.