D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[hawkeyefan]

I don't think anyone here has stated that they curate races as an excuse to flex their authority.

But is that a factor? Isn't that a legit question?

Of course no one’s saying “I use the opportunity to select playable races as a chance to exercise my authority.”

Instead we get concerns of the cantina effect and incoherency and so on. But aren't those things born of fear of lack of control? *

That you let one dragonborn in, and then there you go…Klingons and Smurfs! And that one there has a friggin’ laser gun! My ability to be sensible and say no vanished entirely because I said yes that one time!!

Odin’s taint, how’s a DM to make sure the world makes sense if someone else has some say? I let a player decide what god his cleric worshipped one time. Do you know what god he chose? Anubis! Like we were in bloody Egypt rather than my homebrew world where my god of the dead has a vulture head, as any respectable, sensible deity would. It’s madness, I tell you! Madness!!!!



* here ends the part of the post where I don’t try to use exaggeration to illustrate my point

 

[Maxperson]

But is that a factor? Isn't that a legit question?

Not in my opinion, no. 30+ years of playing, dozens of DMs played with, 100's of players and not once have I encountered or even heard of a DM who curated races to flex his authority.

Instead we get concerns of the cantina effect and incoherency and so on. But aren't those things born of fear of lack of control? *

No. A dislike for cantina style play doesn't imply fear or lack of control at all. We all have preferences. Some like player facing systems. Others like DM facing systems. Some like cantina style play. Others like their races curated to avoid that. These are simply valid preferences and the vast majority of the time are nothing more.

That you let one dragonborn in, and then there you go…Klingons and Smurfs! And that one there has a friggin’ laser gun! My ability to be sensible and say no vanished entirely because I said yes that one time!!

Most of those here in this thread who curate strongly have given examples of saying yes in the past.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Not in my opinion, no. 30+ years of playing, dozens of DMs played with, 100's of players and not once have I encountered or even heard of a DM who curated races to flex his authority.

No. A dislike for cantina style play doesn't imply fear or lack of control at all. We all have preferences.

But I think you’ve missed the point. The cantina effect is very often cited as the end result of a single instance of granting a player request that runs counter to the DM’s preference.

It’s not a case of:
Player: Hey can we play a cantina campaign where everyone plays a bizarre race?

DM: No, that’s not really something I’d want to run.

But instead it’s been:
Player: Can I play a tiefling?

DM: No, the game will devolve into the cantina effect.

I certainly can see a bit of fear of lack of control in there. No? Not that it has to be the case, but it seems at the very least a question worth considering.

 

[Lanefan]

This is the issue. Does the DM enjoy special privilege or not?

Yes.

That was easy.

Next question, please.

 

[Lanefan]

So I was just wondering what other DMs are doing. Do you have tons of intelligent beings but only a few are playable?

Pretty much, yes.

 

[Lanefan]

None of what you say here does anything to counter the idea of DM as control freak. It seems to double down on it.

There aren’t only two options as you describe. A GM could let the players make their PCs and then use what the players have come up with to craft the lore of their world. The GM doesn’t have to decide all that stuff ahead of character creation. Or even ahead of actual play, for that matter.

You don't get it. I don't run games by RAW, ever.

Before the players make their PCs I come up with a series of rules around each PC-playable species*. I have (the equivalent of) species-based ASIs. I have separate age-height-weight ranges for each playable species. Each playable species has its own pantheon (Humans have several). Etc. And I simply don't want to do this for 35 different bloody species, and this - along with tradition - is a large part of why I keep the species list sharply curated.

* - most if not all of which have to be in place before players start rolling/deciding their characters' species. Otherwise, players are rolling in the dark; for example if you decide to play a Tabaxi Fighter without knowing their species-based ASIs and I later decide Tabaxi get a Charisma boost and a Strength chop as their ASIs you ain't gonna be very happy.

And to add to the fun, as the setting is designed before the players get to it, I have different species be more or less available depending on where you are in the setting e.g. if you're in region XYZ Dwarf might not be chooseable as your species, you might have to roll for it on a species-abundance table (and the roll result is binding, so you risk getting something very not-Dwarf-like).

The other part of it is that it'd be a rare player indeed who would roll up a character and then wait 6-12 months to be able to play it; that being the 6-12 months I'd be spending on setting design. It's not just crafting the lore around the chosen species, it's designing the whole setting such that a) each of those species have a few suitable climatic/geographical areas to live in and b) they have enough contact with each other that there's enough recognition to allow a party of assorted species to function. When there's only 5 or 6 species this isn't too hard. When there's dozens, someone else can do it 'cause I ain't gonna.

And if all that makes me a control freak then >shrug< so be it.

 

[Maxperson]

But I think you’ve missed the point. The cantina effect is very often cited as the end result of a single instance of granting a player request that runs counter to the DM’s preference.

It’s not a case of:
Player: Hey can we play a cantina campaign where everyone plays a bizarre race?

DM: No, that’s not really something I’d want to run.

But instead it’s been:
Player: Can I play a tiefling?

DM: No, the game will devolve into the cantina effect.

I certainly can see a bit of fear of lack of control in there. No? Not that it has to be the case, but it seems at the very least a question worth considering.

Hyperbole is often used on both sides. I haven't seen an instance of that where I believed that the person was serious. Same with all the, "If you curate even one race you are a fascist authoritarian dictator who just wants to assert his dominance" posts.

 

[Lanefan]

I wish everyone in this topic would upload their campaign worlds...

You can see a fair bit - by which I mean probably far more than you want to! - of my current one here:

www.friendsofgravity.com/games/decast

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Well, part of the trick is to run it such that they're still discovering "new" content ten years in that's in fact been there all along...

 

[Lanefan]

I would have been sitting out that campaign anyway.

Fine. That would leave a seat open for me.