I can't speak for anyone else on here, but I use the term "core four" in this forum. On this thread. Prior to this thread, I had never even heard the term. I consider gnomes to be part of the core races. Always have.
Fair enough, you always consider them.
But, you do recognize that on this thread, people say "the core four". A phrase which seems to be very much tied to Tolkien. After all, if you wanted to make the Fellowship of the Ring, all you need are humans, elves, dwarves and hobbits. A habit in the community so pervasive that even people who don't consider those four races the exclusive "core" adopt the term.
Thanks for the clarification. It is appreciated. I think we might still see things differently based on skepticism. (Perhaps?) I would never be skeptical of a DM that told me that. I can't imagine someone lying about the amount of work they put in because it corners them into very high expectations. (Maybe?) You are skeptical of them. I think that is our difference, which causes us to have different takes on DM power.
Yeah, I'd be skeptical. Maybe not, depends on a lot of factors, but I've known people to lie to shut down conversations they don't want to have, so I try to keep that in mind.
Every player has a chance though. They have many chances. They can:
- find a different table
- join a different game online
- choose to DM next campaign
- wait until the next campaign and prior to the DM starting the parameters ask them to insert their choice
And I do not mean any of those as a negative. As I have noted, I have never seen a DM not bend over backwards. I also have played on very few tables (I can only think of two campaigns in D&D out of my 30+ years) that limited races. So there are many many many out there for that player if they have the absolute need and cannot deviate from their ideal character of a specific race. Again though, those are my experiences viewing the problem associated with a DM limiting races. I just really don't see it as a problem; one because I have never seen this type of conflict at a table, and two, because it literally is six months to a year until they get to play something else (average).
So, I get that you don't mean them negatively, but these don't address the issue at all.
The issue at question is the DM has spent 100+ hours building their world, and how can you ask them to do more, complicating factor, the DM builds the world before the game.
So, find a different table? That DM has also built their world before the game and likely spent 100+ hours on it, so there is literally no change in your situation.
Join a different game online? Same thing, world already built. 100+ hours, you still can't ask them to change.
DM yourself? Well... um, that isn't playing the game. In fact, this being presented a solution to "I have a character I want to play" is just a ripe excuse for DMPCs, which are a thing people do. "I wanted to play this character so bad I created an entire campaign to feature how awesome they are" and DMPCs are nearly universally panned as being terrible ideas, because they focus on that character and not the party. So, this would be a terrible solution.
And, the last option is equally poor. First of all, it assumes that the DM is building an entirely new world and abandoning the one that they spent +100 hours on, you know, the one they refused to change because they put so much work into it? Secondly, it assumes that the player can catch them building this new world, is aware of it, and is wanting to play in the campaign that world will feature. That is a lot of points of failure here. And finally, it assumes that a DM who was concerned about the sanctity of their personal creation would listen to outside advice.
What the player is actually left with is a very binary situation. Stay in this game or gamble that someone else has built a world that agrees with what you want.
But, that only applies in these situations that are being presented, a DM who bans races then refuses to work with the players, and as you say, in your experience those DMs are rare.
I respect your playstyle. And that was kind of my point about time. A DM puts the work into the world pre session zero from my experience. I have never seen a DM hold session zero and then build the mythos, gods, races, cultures, kingdoms in the time allotted (one or two weeks) until the next session. That seems impossible, even if they were on vacation or retired. One way they could do it is to improv a lot of things. But I have been very clear. If the DM is just going to improv, then they should probably allow any race the player chooses (outside of power or clear turbulent dynamics of said race). I know not everyone on the DM side agrees with that. And that is okay. Just my two copper.
But back to the point. Once a DM builds their world, then the work falls into other things: adventures for the players to go on, plot lines, character arcs, dungeon design, NPCs, villains, (and for some - minis, maps, etc.). Online offers even more work at times. So there is no time to expand the cosmology, add a new kingdom, etc.
But none of this addresses potentially changing things. And, like I said above, if the premise you are presenting is that the DM shouldn't be asked to change, because they already did so much work, then the player is kind of left with no recourse. You present this question like the player's who ask are over-stepping, but you seem to forget that the DM building alone, with no input from anyone else... has no chance to get input from anyone else. Players literally cannot ask until the DM has already put in the work, unless they get lucky enough to know a DM, who is starting to worldbuild, and is willing to listen.
Ok. We'll just have to agree to disagree then. The context of my sentence was clearly positive - uber positive - in my mind. A negative word surrounded by all positive context means it is meant as a positive. I mean, a drag queen on RuPaul's Drag Race saying, "
Bitch you look so stunning, I have to shield my eyes. I am jealous!" is not referring to the other person negatively even though they use bitch.
Do you realize that adding the context of the community, drag queens, who are stereotypically known for that phrase being used in a positive light basically just proves my point?
In this community, that term has a meaning that is fairly clear to all of us who have been discussing. You aren't in a seperate community where that term is used differently, so being shocked someone took it negatively is kind of mind-blowing to me. I mean, if I went to a sunday church sewing group and talked like a drag queen, they probably aren't going to take it as a compliment.
