D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[JiffyPopTart]

And yet… same as last time, the two entrenched positions on this thread can be summarized as, "I curate, but if you don't, that's totally cool," and "Your curating offends me, on behalf of your oppressed players."

Hmmm...I wonder what side you consider yourself on???

 

[Maxperson]

So, @hawkeyefan, @Vaalingrade, or anyone else who doesn't particularly like DMs to restrict things when they don't need to, if my character idea for your new game is an experienced 3rd level war-wizard, a 5th level former mercenary captain, or an exiled 9th level monk... are those all good to go in whatever game you're running? If not, why not?

Well, Warwizards use subtractive magic and Richard Rahl is the only person to have been born with subtractive magic in thousands of years. Might be an issue.

 

[Oofta]

And yet… same as last time, the two entrenched positions on this thread can be summarized as, "I curate, but if you don't, that's totally cool," and "Your curating offends me, on behalf of your oppressed players."

I do seem to notice a pattern with this and other semi-related threads. I tend to be on the side of "This is what I do and why, if you do something different, that's cool." Then there's the other side "If you don't allow any race, it's just a selfish and lazy cop-out". Because I obviously can create an entire campaign world but the thought of adding another race terrifies poor lazy, selfish, control freak me.

 

[Oofta]

Hmmm...I wonder what side you consider yourself on???

The one that doesn't say that other people are playing wrong if they don't do it the way they do it?

 

[Maxperson]

Please tell me there is a thread somewhere where you've detailed the sentient hat!

The one at Hogwarts had to come from somewhere.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Hmmm...I wonder what side you consider yourself on???

Well it's not a secret or anything. The point is, my own bias aside, one side in this argument is open-minded about a variety of campaign styles being valid, and the other side is attacking one specific style. (Even if the OP tried to frame it as an anodyne, "Consider the following…")

I am curious, though, to see how the side I'm not on thinks the two positions ought to be summarized. It would be a source of actual insight, I think, into what the "FREEDOM FROM ELFGAME TYRRANY!" folks think they're saying when we're very definitely hearing/seeing/reading, "Your way of doing things is bad and wrong and oppressive and also probably outdated."

 

[Cadence]

Well it's not a secret or anything.

I am curious, though, to see how the side I'm not on thinks the two positions ought to be summarized. It would be a source of actual insight, I think, into what the "FREEDOM FROM ELFGAME TYRRANY!" folks think they're saying when we're very definitely hearing/seeing/reading, "Your way of doing things is bad and wrong and oppressive and also probably outdated."

I think it's happened several times. And the next post says that something sounds awful domineering or tyranical or the like, and it's back off the rails.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

The one that doesn't say that other people are playing wrong if they don't do it the way they do it?

Oh, you mean the side that says being open is "caving in" or "cantina-style" or "rubber masking" or implying that one can't have internal consistency or logical setting if one allows their players to use all the WotC content instead of just a subset of it?

 

[Mecheon]

Csn I interest you in a Jedi Gundam Klingon?

I mean you say that, but lately in FF14 due to the addition of Sage I've just been making all of the Gundam jokes because I'm now the Nu Gundam and also I'm a backup healer (ohgod don't make me main heal as sage please)

Anywho, my position has always been more open. Heck knows I want to help my friend get into the D&D side, and first thing she wanted to play? Tabaxi. Because... Well, because Khajiit. From Elder Scrolls. Because we're in an age where more people are going to have Oblivion, Warcraft and Skyrim as a fantasy baseline than other things. So as such, with that fantasy baseline, there's less of a demand for "The stuff from Tolkein" and moreso "The stuff from (Other series)". Heck knows original D&D was inspired by pop culture of the time

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Well it's not a secret or anything. The point is, my own bias aside, one side in this argument is open-minded about a variety of campaign styles being valid, and the other side is attacking one specific style. (Even if the OP tried to frame it as an anodyne, "Consider the following…")

I am curious, though, to see how the side I'm not on thinks the two positions ought to be summarized. It would be a source of actual insight, I think, into what the "FREEDOM FROM ELFGAME TYRRANY!" folks think they're saying when we're very definitely hearing/seeing/reading, "Your way of doing things is bad and wrong and oppressive and also probably outdated."

I don't use the words bad, wrong, or outdated to describe someone's game I'm only familiar with in buts and snippets.

When someone tells me their ten yearlong campaign has never infused any new content (besides non-sapient monsters) it strikes me that they are leaving so much off the table and I can't help but wonder if in some world where they were less tied to a singular vision they might end up with a superior experience.

A frequent response to this is that they aren't getting any complaints....but how many complaints/requests are you going to get in a system where one party had openly stated "Its my game, you play it my way or I walk" in return for bearing the onus of GMing?

So, to try to rephrase both sides in a neutral way...

Side A: I'm going to run the game I want because that will result in the best game I can provide.

Side B: I'm going to run the game my players want because that will result in the best game I can provide.