Oofta
Legend
That's "tyranny"?That’s what I’m talking about, though. The stage, as you put it. One person getting to decide all of that.
That's "tyranny"?That’s what I’m talking about, though. The stage, as you put it. One person getting to decide all of that.
What if that list was last modified a decade or more ago?Sure, but don’t you think that folks will typically expect elves over say pixies as playable races? Because the PHB labels them as a core race.
And I’m not advocating for allowing all races, or even allowing all races in the PHB. I’m fine tailoring a list of races to suit a campaign. I just think it’s a good idea to involve everyone in deciding what’s on the list.
But the example of a Minotaur in Vampire isn't really apt because it's not offered in the rules. There's no place for them in the setting as designed and it's not a choice that any player is going to suggest.
In D&D, on the other hand, a Minotaur may be something a player would suggest because they're detailed to some extent, even if not typically as a PC. And then the races that are offered as PCs are going to be even more likely to be suggested.
That's why I abolished Dragonborn. It's the one race that I have an out and out ban on. There are some others that will require some background justification to play, but most races are just available.Still no dragonborn though (I replaced them with Lizardfolk since I am running a variation on Ghosts of Saltmarsh). I just don't like the idea of dragon-people and feels it cheapens dragons. Even in Dragonlance the appearance of dragon-people was a shock and tied closely to setting lore and the central theme. If they want someone can play a lizardfolk and make the common lizardfolk claim that they are descended from dragons and we could or could not explore that possibility as a campaign theme.
I'm assuming the DM either has a setting they've worked on for a while, or is using a published setting they've read over and liked enough to want to run in particular, and presents that to the players as something they'd like to run. If that's the case I don't know how it would be described as random.
If the initial premise is agreed to, I'm used to the player then coming up with the idea in response to that. I'm not sure the players choice is random either, but if the idea isn't in response to the DM pitch in some way, it kind of feels that way. If they wanted something way outside the pitch it feels like they should have brought it up before agreeing to it.
That's "tyranny"?
What if that list was last modified a decade or more ago?
Yes, exactly. You seem to get it just fine.An Athas campaign will have different options than a Middle-Earth campaign.
Not any more than those of Athas and Middle-Earth. It is part of the creative choices made by the setting creator. Literally the exact same thing.But what about a homebrew? What about a world where a GM has determined a list of available races ahead of time and then sends them to the players; won’t that list very likely seem random to the players? Won’t whatever context is shared just seem like justification for the GM’s choices?
As a player, I’m not really interested in playing through a GM’s uber-detailed homebrew setting.
In my case, because Drow are one of the races on my banned list along with Dragonborn, planar/elemental races, and several others. A DM has no obligation to cater to your particular preferences just because you happen to also like D&D and don't like the options presented.What should I care if my playing a drow renders some paragraphs you jotted in a spiral notebook 8 years ago moot?
Yes, exactly. You seem to get it just fine.
Not any more than those of Athas and Middle-Earth. It is part of the creative choices made by the setting creator. Literally the exact same thing.