D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[JiffyPopTart]

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.

I always feel like players really only get 2.5 major decisions for their character (Race/Class/Background).

Limiting them to 1.5 major decisions always feels wrong to me, if the missing element is t made up for in some other interesting way like a rules-inclusive choice of guild membership or important family to allow for more differentiation.

 

[Mordhau]

I always feel like players really only get 2.5 major decisions for their character (Race/Class/Background).

Limiting them to 1.5 major decisions always feels wrong to me, if the missing element is t made up for in some other interesting way like a rules-inclusive choice of guild membership or important family to allow for more differentiation.

I think that's just generally a good idea anyway. Players often don't want to play humans because they are perceived as boring and vanilla. So make them not so.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I figured that would be your stance @Lanefan, and I respect it - I have on occasion been rather heavy-handed about the inclusion of certain things in the games I run (no PC drow in 1E/2E being one that comes foremost to mind), but after having also raised my kids to play D&D, I’ve opened the gates quite a bit (similiar to @Smackpixi ’s experience with his “players” ).

I can understand the head-desking when the group goes full Cantina, but I also understand the desire to play or be something you just can’t in this world. While I try to make playing a human in my home brew desirable, I’ll allow just about anything - so long as the mechanics aren’t unbalanced. The big thing I keep in mind is that I don’t let myself worry about how to make it fit into the game - players willing enough to play strange things are fonts of ideas themselves, and when it comes to monsters player’s ability to imagine the worst scenario possible for its origin or how it fits into the world arc often exceeds my own.

One potential problem with this, when there's only one example of something in the world, it is bound to attract attention from NPCs in the world, and some of that attention is bound to be negative. Otherwise, you're really stretching the way people think. The "hideous lizard-man" mentioned in the OP is likely to cause fear in many communities by virtue of its appearance alone, for example.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I can understand it, but it indicates an issue - the GM having an intent for the game (say, human dominated with a small number of others) that the players haven't embraced - a Session Zero problem, if you will.

It is an indication that intent doesn't seem valuable to the players. So, one should ask - what value should it give to the players? Did the GM actually make it valuable to them? Were they given a reason to embrace it beyond, "I, the GM, want it this way?"

There should be some things the player accept because the GM wants it that way, and vice versa, in the name of compromise and mutual fun. But the GM ought to ask themselves if this is one that really matters.

Are you saying that it shouldn't matter? The vast majority of fantasy properties are primarily human with a small number of other races for a reason. If the DM wants to hew to that philosophy, I'm inclined to let them. Changing that conceit is a HUGE worldbuilding headache if the world isn't built with that in mind.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Definitely my biggest failing/hurdle as a DM is being obsessed with internal consistency that the player's just don't care or even think about.

I don't consider that a failing. Worldbuilding is a large part of my fun as a GM, and I want my world to have internal consistency. PCs don't have to care about the world, but I do.

 

[Maxperson]

I always feel like players really only get 2.5 major decisions for their character (Race/Class/Background).

Limiting them to 1.5 major decisions always feels wrong to me, if the missing element is t made up for in some other interesting way like a rules-inclusive choice of guild membership or important family to allow for more differentiation.

I very, very rarely limit races like that, and when I do it's for good reason that I know the players will enjoy.

 

[Thomas Shey]

One potential problem with this, when there's only one example of something in the world, it is bound to attract attention from NPCs in the world, and some of that attention is bound to be negative. Otherwise, you're really stretching the way people think. The "hideous lizard-man" mentioned in the OP is likely to cause fear in many communities by virtue of its appearance alone, for example.

That doesn't necessarily follow. As the OP noted, that's in mindset where everyone expects they know what their world is about. Especially in a cosmopolitan area, the reaction could be "Huh, I've heard there are weird things out the world; apparently one of them is lizard men."

 

[MichaelSomething]

Why don't you just make humans the mechanically most powerful race of you want all the players to be human? It worked in the old games!

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think that's just generally a good idea anyway. Players often don't want to play humans because they are perceived as boring and vanilla. So make them not so.

How would you do that in basic 5e? They are designed to be the least interesting race, and the Tasha's add-on just made it worse.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That doesn't necessarily follow. As the OP noted, that's in mindset where everyone expects they know what their world is about. Especially in a cosmopolitan area, the reaction could be "Huh, I've heard there are weird things out the world; apparently one of them is lizard men."

How cosmopolitan can an area be with a short list of non-human races?