Neither. I'm asking who says Tabaxi have been around for as long as humans have.
Okay, Fiend Folio. They've existed since DnD 1e, just as long as humans have been in the game of Dungeons and Dragons.
False Equivalences are false. There's a rather marked difference between, "We know dwarves exist and have decided for X reason that they don't exist in this world, yet you're trying to be disruptive by playing one anyway." and "We just started making this game and hey, that's a cool idea. Let's make it."
So player is only disruptive if they are bringing something that exists but was deemed to not fit into the world?
So the player who wants to play a Nihme, a race that has never appeared before in any product is being less disruptive to the game?
Or, like I asked, are we saying that players today must be held to a different standard than players of the older editions, because DnD is older now, and we don't want to have as much player input as we used to have?
Or am I still doing false equivalences, because you can't compare the game now to the game back then?
The DM banned them for a reason. How can he be wrong? You can disagree with that reason, but I don't see how he can be wrong about it.
Well, lets go with a basic one.
The DM assumed that their ban would increase enjoyment of the table. It doesn't. Therefore they are wrong.
That's the equivalent of a mechanical rules change. It's not the same as not having dwarves, because a great plague killed every last one of them 3400 years ago.
Isn't removing dwarves a mechanical change to the game? If we picture character creation as a video game model, then removing an option is the same as any other change to the code.
Or are you trying to make this a "fluff changes are different than mechanical changes" bit?
It depends on what's being done. For things of lore, he's is right, even if you hate what he did. If it's a rules change/addition/subtraction, it can work out very badly for the game. DMs are often make the wrong decision when they alter things mechincally.
Not often, but it has happened.
Heh. I threw that in there to see if anyone would catch that.
So you agree it is preposterous.
But, let's go back to that "not often" of innkeepers responding to heavily armed humans.
The idea of a Tabaxi getting a cold or hostile reception is... just a matter of course, obviously it would happen, because they are so strange and potentially dangerous.
But a group of heavily armed humans walking into a bar... They might get a cold reception. It is possible, but unlikely. Despite the very clear and present danger they present.
So... what do we call it when one person is treated with more suspicion and hardship than other people, based solely upon their appearance? Because it can't be the threat they potentially pose. I described nothing about the Tabaxi's outfit. They could be dressed in anything. But I was very clear about the humans being heavily armed and clearly equipped to kill people. So the Humans are clearly the much more clear and present danger.
Yet one group is guaranteed different treatment.
Lots of homebrew game worlds. I've made several over the years, but none in the last 20 or so. All of those worlds were created by me and me alone. And I don't think I'm unique in this. I think a lot of DMs who make their own worlds do so alone.
And you think all of those worlds are richer and deeper than any world created by a group instead of an individual?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You claimed that it was possible for the DM to be either incorrect or immoral by disallowing certain options at character creation. Your example is not that. Still waiting.
So one example of the DM being morally wrong in their implementation of limits wasn't actually enough. You want specific examples that will convince you.
Fine, since you just want one that is incorrect, what if we gave this example.
The DM bans Centaurs because there is no official player character write up for Centaurs. They are factually wrong about that, making them incorrect. Actually, that is one where they even could have been right, but the game changed and then made it an option.
Does that satisify your "Seriously, just one example." criteria?
("took the title"?) Still meaningless without context. I've consistently been talking only about players joining extant games wherein the DM has already imposed limitations on character creation because of setting lore, campaign theme, or (at the extreme) choice of ruleset. My position has consistently been that just because an option is in a game's core book, that's no cause for a player to assume it's automatically available in every campaign; and that DMs are largely free to impose such constraints prior to the start of a campaign, for any reason, without external justification. Nothing more than that; nothing less than that. I'm not talking about a group of players and a DM negotiating the initial parameters of a campaign; that's not remotely relevant to anything I've been discussing here.
So clarify this scenario to me. "The start of character creation" is not, after all, the same thing as "the start of the campaign". How long has the DM been running this campaign? How long has the DM been using its setting? Does the DM intend for the campaign to have a specific theme that might make dwarves a poor fit for the game, even if they exist in the game world? Details, please.
Yes, took the title.
DMs can be players and players can be DMs. Just because you are a DM sometimes doesn't mean you always hold the title of DM....
Except, thinking back, didn't you specifically say that you afford more respect to players that sometimes DM? Is that part of this? That you think being a DM is somehow... more than just the one time role at the table?
But to your post, you might have been talking about "extant games" but most of us are talking in general. In fact, EzekielRaiden's posts quite clearly showed a preference for making a new game world with the players when they sat down, which would clearly mean the game hasn't even started yet.
So, again, that might be part of your problem in this discussion, is you are using a far narrower scope than some of the rest of us. Might be why you are getting so much pushback, if you are only looking at this under the lens of "a new player comes into a long running game" when a lot of us are only hearing "The DM gets to decide no matter what the circumstances."
Ah yes, I'm falling into the classic trap of assuming that the rules in the PHB mean something.
Silly me, why, I can't even assume that spells and classes exist in DnD without my benevolent DM informing me that they will allow such things to grace their table.
I mean, is that how it goes at your tables?
"DM, are fighters allowed in this game?"
"DM are longbows allowed in this game?"
"DM do longbows have the heavy property in this game?"
"DM do longbows also have the two-handed property in this game?"
"DM do longbows also use Arrows in this game?"
"DM if I use a Longbow and an arrow, does that do 1d8 damage in this game?
"DM do I get to add my Dexterity modifer to that damage in this game?"
"DM can I hold multiple arrows in a quiver in this game?"
"DM can I draw an arrow as part of an attack in this game?"
"DM if I draw and arrow and make an attack, do I attack normally withing 150 ft in this game?"
"DM if I am making an attack do I roll a d20 in this game?"
I mean, if I need permission for everything, that seems a bit excessive, doesn't it?
(Well that's certainly an artful way to dodge my question about Ohioans vs. tabaxi.) But, no, I suppose I really don't care, when you get right down to it.
I don't think it's in my job description to care. When I DM a game, my job is worldbuilder and referee.
Right, that is the difference.
As the DM the point of my building a world and designing plots, statting up NPCs and making the place come alive are all in service to the players having fun.
I could run the game 100% realistic and by the rules, and when the players annoy a mob boss in the city at level 3 by stopping destroying one of his shipments, they find that the next day when they drink their evening ale, they all make Con Saves DC 19 versus 12d6 poison damage, half on a success. With an average success still dealing at least 21 damage, the players that survive will be easily killed by the six Assassins that were in the kitchen.
That follows the world I built and is a completely fine refereeing of the rules. But it ignores any semblance of player enjoyment, and most people would say that the DM who does this would be failing in their role as a DM. Because if you don't care about the players... what is the point?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The exact reason I mentioned starting points for good and evil campaigns. Some DM's that have fleshed out their world have the drow as evil. They base this off the thousands of pages of lore available. And I have discussed more than enough the complications this can make on a table and player and DM level. If a DM chooses to do have all these races get along, cool. But many many many do not. You seem to disregard this point.
Okay, Drow are evil.
Tabaxi aren't.
Lizardfolk aren't.
Firbolgs aren't.
Goliaths aren't.
So what does Drow being evil have to do with these races?
And then the inevitable rebuttal "But I don't want to have a Mos Eisley Canteena full of all these races interacting"
To which I then respond, "But you have no problem with making the Underdark where the Drow, Duergar, Mindflayers, Grimlocks and Troglodytes are interacting? Or the "Savage lands" where the Orcs, Ogres, Gnolls, Giants, evil humans, and Yuan-ti interact? If you don't want a Canteena, why is it okay to have those set piece locations?"
To which you've been responding... well, it depends on if you are playing an evil campaign or not.... which makes no sense. It doesn't address the point.
Why is a Canteena
only bad when it addresses PC options, but can be casually glossed over anywhere else? How does one cause a problem for world-building but not the other?
Chaos, there are times I really think you are not even reading what I wrote. I have stated a dozen times that a DM can add them. But it comes with complications, and those complications are often unfair to DM's that already have their world built, to players that lose immersion because there is a spectacle walking around with them, or to a table that chooses to not pay attention to the race, thus making it just a skin (eliminating the culture, origin, history, etc.)
sigh
And sometimes I get the same feeling Scott.
Because you are trying to tell me that a DM is going to have complications in their world building, because they specifically left an entire area blank on their map, with a big ol' question mark about what it is over there, and then they ended up filling it in?
What is the practical difference between the player coming to the DM and asking "Hey what if there are Tabaxi in that forest?" and the DM thinking to themselves "Hey, what if there are Chitines in that forest?"
You have to answer the exact same questions. It has the exact same burden on effort, filling in the map.
At some tables. Not all. Specifically because of the complications I have listed.
So are you saying that Drow don't exist in the world? That the players won't fight Orcs and Goblins?
Or do these complications only possibly exist when the character is a PC option?
You have at least 25 cultures in your world. Not me. Not many of the DM's I know.
I see your point, especially about FR. I get it. It seems with so many sentient races running around, then maybe for the small village nothing is shocking - even a mind flayer walking up to the blacksmith and asking for a horseshoe for his centaur lover. I get it. But, those are not the worlds that many DM's have built. (Not to mention the races born of evil perception, godly interference, etc.)
So I'll sum it up so I'm not misunderstood:
- DM's can add races. It is easy. Poof - you now have half yuan-ti-half elf created. Magic resistance and immunity to sleep and charm spells. It's easy.
- Adding races comes with complications. And for some (which is all I have ever asked you to be able to see), it is immersion breaking, wreck, dissolves or interferes with years of work, or just pi*%#s in the face of traditional tropes and conventions.
You don't?
You and all those other DMs don't use Orcs, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Bugbears, Mindflayers, Gnolls, Aboleths, Giants, Beholders, Ogres, Trolls, Lizardfolk, Dragons, ect?
Or are you saying that evil races don't get the treatment of actually mattering for worldbuilding? Because... you know, that's been the question I've been asking in this line of the conversation. What is the difference between PC races and Enemy Races when it comes to worldbuilding?
Somehow, having more than four PC races, how did you put it? "is immersion breaking, wreck, dissolves or interferes with years of work, or just pi*%#s in the face of traditional tropes and conventions"
But, those same traditional tropes and conventions also include these dozens upon dozens of enemy races, so those obviously aren't a problem.
Why not?
Not because you can play an evil campaign and therefore it matters that you start in a Drow city. I'm not asking that question, that question is entirely pointless to what I am asking.
Why does adding an enemy race to the world, have less of an impact on your worldbuilding than adding a PC race? Why are orcs, goblinoids, giants, dragons, and abberrations trivially easy to add, but adding a single PC option is not? From a world-building perspective, they are the same thing. So what do you see as different about them?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I haven't seen anyone call that "being a bad player," but it could absolutely make a player a poor fit for a campaign with a table-culture that doesn't value backstory. Plenty of campaigns work that way: "0 XP" means exactly what it says on the tin, that nothing particularly noteworthy or extraordinary has happened in the character's life prior to the start of the campaign. That's the definition of 0 XP for that table. And what's more, trying to introduce certain personalized motivations (e.g. the stereotypical revenge plot) into a campaign might not mesh well at all with some campaign structures (e.g. a classic site-focused dungeon-delve).
I'm sorry, but you yourself are one of the people who said I might be an #$%hole for trying to bring something that wasn't pre-approved to the table. Also a tool, a jerk, and I'm sure you had other wonderful names for it.
But, I can see how you missed bringing in an entire race and their story as bringing in just a single backstory. They can be one and the same from the perspective of world building.
I have no desire to watch people who aren't improvisational actors attempt improvisational acting. I do want to see players role-play, which is to say, make decisions as if they themselves were in their character's shoes, while treating the fantasy world as if it were a real place their characters actually inhabit.
Which... involves acting?
I mean, I guess you can get away with "I try to persuade the caravan leader" but it does generally help to... give some dialogue. Which involves acting as though you are trying to persuade the caravan leader.
I mean, I wouldn't even ask for a community theater level of talent, but an elementary school level amount of effort doesn't seem unreasonable.