Being railroaded into playing a race I can't stand!

35 posts / 0 new
Last post
So my gaming group and I just wrapped up the campaign that we've spent about four years (well, three for me, as I joined further into it) on, and our DM has been talking to us for a few months now about his next campaign and such, which he'll be starting in a month or two. However, I have a major issue with the campaign: It's entirely themed around (with the party entirely consisting of) my absolute most despised race in the fantasy genre: Dwarves. While we don't have to mechanically play as the Dwarf race, he's re-flavoring almost all the races (save for Human, Elf, Half-Elf, Drow, Thri-Kreen and Vryloka, which he's not allowing) as some form of Dwarf.

I'm the kind of player who hates stereotypes, "racial personalities", and generally being constrained or restricted when going about my characters. I've tried very hard to work with him on the matter, find some way for a non-dwarf to live amongst the dwarves of his setting, but he simply says that I'm going to have to play a dwarf if I want to play in his campaign. I'm extremely hesitant to simply drop out because I don't want to be a ****, and I feel somewhat obligated to play because this guy is one of my best friends and this group is just about the only people I get to play D&D with. But at the same time I know I would very quickly get bored and irritated by the all-dwarf-all-the-time theme of the campaign which would drag things down for everyone. I'm really at a loss for what to do here.

Has anyone else delt with a situation similar to this? How did you deal with it?
He's putting forth a game idea that you will not have fun with.  Not playing is the correct action, because if you are forced to sit at the table and not have fun, you will, consciously or not, reduce everybody else's fun, as you say.  If you were to play, you would be being a ****, not if you choose to exclude yourself.

Just politely say 'I'll sit this one out'.

Your other option, of course, would be to play an iconoclastic dwarf.  Buck the stereotypes.  Play a wizard, or a cleric of not-Moradin.  Shave your beard because it gets in the way of your needlepoint.
I'd say to just not play that campaign. Even if you did play a very non typical dwarf, the entire campaign seems to be themed with them in mind. Seeing as to you apparently hate them with a passion you'd get bored hearing all about very stereotypical dwarves doing very stereotypical dwarven things.
How did you deal with it? 



DM tells you that he's running a game you don't want to play in.  He asks you if you'd like to join.  You think about it, and decide that this isn't a game you want to play in.

This is not "railroading".

This is "someone is running a game I don't want to play in, and I don't want to play in it.  What should I do?"

The answer is "don't play".
Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.
The above posters are all correct. But you might be able to make it work.
Find a race you like, and play it as a dwarf. Like drow? Play a dwarf who was a personal handservant to a drow matron his entire life, and only knows drow culture. Like  genasi? Take an elemental theme and play an azer. Then there's warforged (short robot) and revenant (Frankenstein's monster, minus a few feet). Playing a fish out of water could allow you to continue playing with these people I assume are your friends.  
What is it you hate about dwarves? Find it, and remove it from the character.

On a related note, I also dislike dwarves. I don't hate them, but I want nothing to do with them. Still, my longest lived D&D character was a dwarf- a Bane worshipping Infernal warlock from the Underdark with facial tattoos, ear plugs, piercings, self scarification,  dreads, dreads in his beard, and old rusty armor. Warhammer's Chaos Dwarves inspired parts of the character.

Co-author on AoA 2-3 and 4-1.

Is this 4th?  Cause if it's 4th what's the problem?  Dwarves are seriously, the master race in 4th.  Second winds as minors, reduced forced movements, saves to avoid being knocked prone, dwarven weapon training as a starting feat, man dwarves are so awesome I keep threatening to play one if my DM causes my current guy to die.

Personally, as the DM I wouldn't "reflavor" any races.  If I was starting a campaign where I wanted all players to start as a dwarf, I'd just make them start as dwarves, and encourage everyone to have different classes and backgrounds for their characters. 

I played a pathfinder campaign that was all dwarves, I was an ale brewing drunken monk, and I ripped dudes apart with my fists!

Dropping out is the wrong thing to do.  Instead, you should embrace it as a chance to explore something you as a player wouldn't normally do.  The opportunities to explore a different world from a different perspective and role play it should be any challenge accepted by any DnD player worth his salt.

In short, be an adult, deal with it.  Life ain't always what you want, and who knows, you might actually have fun.
What you call "stereotypes, 'racial personalities', and generally being constrained or restricted when going about my characters," I call roleplaying. The first time I played a dwarf, I barrowed a friends copy of Races of Stone (3.5) and took the time to read about dwarves in DnD. It showed me that dwarf personalities can vary a great deal. I made a dwarf that, while not a stereotypical dwarf, still fit the describtion given to a good degree. I've played with DMs that assign "one size fits all" personality to certain races, mainly dwarfs and elves. I've noticed that people that have mainly played under those DMs tend to make the same mistakes. You might just nees to take the time to realize that not every dwarf puts the clan above the individual or thinks work should come before everything else.

The way I see it, you have two (reasonable) choices: 1) Tell your friends that you don't want to play, because you doubt you have any fun, and will bring down the good time shared by the rest of the group. Sometimes it is the best thing to do. I occasionally excuse myself from social gatherings for the same reason. Some movies I just hate, some video games I just don't want to play, and some people I just don't want anything to do with. 2) Try to have fun dispite not liking dwarves. Worry less about what your doing and more about who you are doing it with. Go into it with an open mind and maybe try to gain a deeper understanding of the race. Worst case scenario, you decide to do option one anyways.
Is this 4th?  Cause if it's 4th what's the problem?  Dwarves are seriously, the master race in 4th.  Second winds as minors, reduced forced movements, saves to avoid being knocked prone, dwarven weapon training as a starting feat, man dwarves are so awesome I keep threatening to play one if my DM causes my current guy to die.



Not the point.  The OP simply does not like dwarves; how powerful they are is irrelevant.

Personally, as the DM I wouldn't "reflavor" any races.  If I was starting a campaign where I wanted all players to start as a dwarf, I'd just make them start as dwarves, and encourage everyone to have different classes and backgrounds for their characters. 



All the players do not want to play dwarves.  That is the problem.  This player most emphatically does not want to play a dwarf.

I played a pathfinder campaign that was all dwarves, I was an ale brewing drunken monk, and I ripped dudes apart with my fists!

Dropping out is the wrong thing to do.  Instead, you should embrace it as a chance to explore something you as a player wouldn't normally do.  The opportunities to explore a different world from a different perspective and role play it should be any challenge accepted by any DnD player worth his salt.

In short, be an adult, deal with it.  Life ain't always what you want, and who knows, you might actually have fun.



You didn't actually read the first post, did you?

My first thought on this situation can be summed up as "wtf??" The Gm has some weird idea that he wants to be dwarves, but the mechanics aren't changing for all allowed races, which is practically all of them. Soooo, the only thing he's changing is the label? I gotta wonder what he's thinking, why he wants to do this. Finding out what his plans and intentions are might help, th oug if it's just that he wants to force people to play dwarves, well, I can't say much in favor of that. 

If he's going to insist that everyone play typical (let alone stereotypical) dwarves, then there's a major issue, because as far as I'm concerned, a GM who so limits the personalities of the player characters is just asking to not run a game; he should go write his novel or movie script and not take up game time. (In my long-standing home group, who have played almost everything RPG, one campaign died in utero when the GM said that everyone should play wisecracking rebels - never mind that most of us typically play wisecracking rebels anyway. Wasn't the only reason for the cancellation, but it was in the top three.) 

If he's just relabeling races and not radically changing mechanics, and not imposing particular roleplaying/personality on PCs, then I'm wondering why this would be such an issue for a player. It could be - flavor and label is not a trivial thing, different tastes and boundaries, et cetera. 


If there really is no way to work out a compromise, then the player simply doesn't play in the campaign. And the GM has one less player (at least). Everybody loses. If the setup is so important that he's willing to refuse players, that's his call (I'd suspect a lack of perspective on his part, but I don't know all the circumstances). In my home group, my wife doesn't care much for medieval fantasy, so she doesn't play in two of our three D&D campaigns - but we rotate GMs every few weeks, so she's never out for more than two or three weekly sessions at a go (we've got one or more non-D&D games running in addition). 
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />If he's going to insist that everyone play typical (let alone stereotypical) dwarves, then there's a major issue, because as far as I'm concerned, a GM who so limits the personalities of the player characters is just asking to not run a game; he should go write his novel or movie script and not take up game time.



I think you mean "I shouldn't play in that game, and if he doesn't get enough players he should either reconsider or write a book instead".

Because not only is there nothing wrong with "I want to run a game with X type of PC", it's pretty much a prerequisite in any game that isn't straight by-the-book "team-based good-aligned heroes save the world" D&D.

Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />If he's going to insist that everyone play typical (let alone stereotypical) dwarves, then there's a major issue, because as far as I'm concerned, a GM who so limits the personalities of the player characters is just asking to not run a game; he should go write his novel or movie script and not take up game time.



I think you mean "I shouldn't play in that game, and if he doesn't get enough players he should either reconsider or write a book instead".

Because not only is there nothing wrong with "I want to run a game with X type of PC", it's pretty much a prerequisite in any game that isn't straight by-the-book "team-based good-aligned heroes save the world" D&D.



The GM can run any kind of game he wants, if the players go along with it. But he shouldn't be surprised if one or more players don't want to go along. And the indication in the OP (accurate or not) was that the GM was not responsive to compromise or creativity in character creation.  

Personally, I have a very bad reaction to GMs who tell me how to RP my character, so I admit my response is colored by that preference/prejudice. The OP offerred no information on why either side of the dispute took the stance they did (other than personal prejudice on one side), or what the GM intends to accomplish with the changes. My efforts in this situation would be to try to find out why, and how to reach those goals without violating the preferences of either the player or the GM.  It's entirely possible that both have good reasons for what they want, and the game can be enhanced by better understanding and cooperation. 

The GM can run any kind of game he wants, if the players go along with it. But he shouldn't be surprised if one or more players don't want to go along.



Granted!  And, if he still has enough players to play the game, this isn't a problem.  Those players can just not play, and nobody is harmed.

Personally, I have a very bad reaction to GMs who tell me how to RP my character, so I admit my response is colored by that preference/prejudice. The OP offerred no information on why either side of the dispute took the stance they did



Hang around the forums for a while, you'll see a thousand posts like this one, and you'll get used to seeing half the story.

My efforts in this situation would be to try to find out why, and how to reach those goals without violating the preferences of either the player or the GM.



Whereas, I feel that life is way too short and free time too precious to waste time playing in a game you don't want to play in, and in the process of whining about how the game is terrible and doesn't let you play what you want 90% of gamers will detract from the enjoyment of those around them.

The 10% of gamers who can happily play in "a game I won't enjoy" and not make it obvious to the other players that they're playing under protest an in the process make the game less fun?  Don't post to the WotC forums complaining of railroading.
Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.


You didn't actually read the first post, did you?




I don't think you read his post, because nowhere in it does it say that all the players at the table don't want to play dwarves.  The OP just doesn't want to play a dwarf.  I don't know why everyone's first response in these forums every time there's a problem is "JUST STOP PLAYING GIVE UP WALK AWAY ZOMGZ IT'S HORRIBLE!". 

All I see is the OP saying he doesn't want to play a specific race.  It would be one thing if the DM was forcing him to be one race where everybody else got the choice, but the DM wants an all dwarf group to start.  If he's been with that DM for the 3 years he says he has then he should have faith that the DM has a plan for where he's going with it and that it might be fun after all.  Everybody says quit, but the OP says it's the only group he games with. 

I say, don't quit.  Deal with it.  DnD isn't the "all about me game" it's about the party, it's about the experience of the party (as in experience being with a party.)  The whole "Man, I don't want to fight that beholder, or these hordes of zombies, I just want Vorpal Swords at level 1 and if you don't do it, I'll quit" is just whiny entitlement. 

He's played with the group for 3 years, it's one thing if everybody tells the DM "hey, we don't like the dwarf thing," but from the OP he's the only one who doesn't want to be a dwarf, as it sounds.  Adversity is how you grow as a person and a player. 

I had fun playing an all dwarf themed party, even though at the time I would never have wanted to be a dwarf. 

He says he hates "stereotypes", well he's going in with his own stereotypes, aversions, and inhibitions, saying dwarves are boring and he'd be irritated with them.  And quitting the group before even trying it is the wrong thing to do.  Play a session or two as a dwarf.  If you really hate it, sure just say "It ain't me, I'm not gelling with this stone-humper." and walk away.  But don't just give up on the experience before you even get to experience it. 

DnD should mirror life in a way.  Things happen that you don't want to happen, and how you deal with it helps you grow as a player.  Just because something happens that you don't want to do, doesn't mean you should quit before you even start.


You didn't actually read the first post, did you?




I don't think you read his post, because nowhere in it does it say that all the players at the table don't want to play dwarves.  The OP just doesn't want to play a dwarf.  I don't know why everyone's first response in these forums every time there's a problem is "JUST STOP PLAYING GIVE UP WALK AWAY ZOMGZ IT'S HORRIBLE!". 

All I see is the OP saying he doesn't want to play a specific race.  It would be one thing if the DM was forcing him to be one race where everybody else got the choice, but the DM wants an all dwarf group to start.  If he's been with that DM for the 3 years he says he has then he should have faith that the DM has a plan for where he's going with it and that it might be fun after all.  Everybody says quit, but the OP says it's the only group he games with. 

I say, don't quit.  Deal with it.  DnD isn't the "all about me game" it's about the party, it's about the experience of the party (as in experience being with a party.)  The whole "Man, I don't want to fight that beholder, or these hordes of zombies, I just want Vorpal Swords at level 1 and if you don't do it, I'll quit" is just whiny entitlement. 

He's played with the group for 3 years, it's one thing if everybody tells the DM "hey, we don't like the dwarf thing," but from the OP he's the only one who doesn't want to be a dwarf, as it sounds.  Adversity is how you grow as a person and a player. 

I had fun playing an all dwarf themed party, even though at the time I would never have wanted to be a dwarf. 

He says he hates "stereotypes", well he's going in with his own stereotypes, aversions, and inhibitions, saying dwarves are boring and he'd be irritated with them.  And quitting the group before even trying it is the wrong thing to do.  Play a session or two as a dwarf.  If you really hate it, sure just say "It ain't me, I'm not gelling with this stone-humper." and walk away.  But don't just give up on the experience before you even get to experience it. 

DnD should mirror life in a way.  Things happen that you don't want to happen, and how you deal with it helps you grow as a player.  Just because something happens that you don't want to do, doesn't mean you should quit before you even start.




Well said and solid advice.  

I dream of Beer Head Armies.

Autocard is our friend. [c‍]Urborg Mindsucker[/‍c] → Urborg Mindsucker

D&D isn't supposed to be a fun hobby- it's an experience you have to go through, even if you don't actually enjoy it.



I disagree with your statement.

Co-author on AoA 2-3 and 4-1.

D&D isn't supposed to be a fun hobby- it's an experience you have to go through, even if you don't actually enjoy it.



I disagree with your statement.



This is one of those rare situations where "+1" or "thumbsup" would be appropriate to use.
Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.


You didn't actually read the first post, did you?




I don't think you read his post, because nowhere in it does it say that all the players at the table don't want to play dwarves.  The OP just doesn't want to play a dwarf.



The OP is a player in the game.  He doesn't want to play a dwarf.  Therefore, not all the players in the game want to play dwarves.  This is PRECISELY what Lola said.

  I don't know why everyone's first response in these forums every time there's a problem is "JUST STOP PLAYING GIVE UP WALK AWAY ZOMGZ IT'S HORRIBLE!". 



If you aren't going to have fun playing, don't play.  It's as simple as that.  Nobody said the game was zomgz horrible; it just isn't to this player's taste.

All I see is the OP saying he doesn't want to play a specific race.  It would be one thing if the DM was forcing him to be one race where everybody else got the choice, but the DM wants an all dwarf group to start.  If he's been with that DM for the 3 years he says he has then he should have faith that the DM has a plan for where he's going with it and that it might be fun after all.  Everybody says quit, but the OP says it's the only group he games with. 

I say, don't quit.  Deal with it.  DnD isn't the "all about me game" it's about the party, it's about the experience of the party (as in experience being with a party.)  The whole "Man, I don't want to fight that beholder, or these hordes of zombies, I just want Vorpal Swords at level 1 and if you don't do it, I'll quit" is just whiny entitlement. 



And has nothing to do with the issue at hand, which is a PLAYER-DM out-of-game relations issue, not an in-game issue.

He's played with the group for 3 years, it's one thing if everybody tells the DM "hey, we don't like the dwarf thing," but from the OP he's the only one who doesn't want to be a dwarf, as it sounds.  Adversity is how you grow as a person and a player. 



Which is fine, unless you're playing a game, which is supposed to be for fun.

I had fun playing an all dwarf themed party, even though at the time I would never have wanted to be a dwarf. 



Congratulations.  Relevance?

He says he hates "stereotypes", well he's going in with his own stereotypes, aversions, and inhibitions, saying dwarves are boring and he'd be irritated with them.  And quitting the group before even trying it is the wrong thing to do.  Play a session or two as a dwarf.  If you really hate it, sure just say "It ain't me, I'm not gelling with this stone-humper." and walk away.  But don't just give up on the experience before you even get to experience it. 



I saw no indication in the first post that the OP is inexperienced with dwarves.  We have no evidence to support the fact that he hasn't already gone through this experience; I'm assuming he has, though confirmation of that wouldn't hurt.

DnD should mirror life in a way.  Things happen that you don't want to happen, and how you deal with it helps you grow as a player.  Just because something happens that you don't want to do, doesn't mean you should quit before you even start.



In-game occurances, yes.  This, however, is more of a, for lack of a better term, 'metagame' issue that needs to addressed, particularly the rather ham-handed and resistant to compromise DM who won't even let the PC play something that would fit neatly into the game even if not a dwarf.

It gets no more complicated than this: If you aren't having fun, or know you aren't going to have fun playing a game, then you don't play.  I would be having the same reaction if someone said 'you have to be an elf, period' or 'I'm going to start Legend of the Five Rings' or 'Let's play world of Darkness'.  I would not enjoy those games, therefore it would be counterproductive for the entire group if I were to force myself to play.  I would have no fun, and their fun would be impaired.

Opting out is the polite, considerate, and mature thing to do if a compromise cannot be reached (and this thick-headed DM seems immune to compromise, so there you go).
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
D&D isn't supposed to be a fun hobby- it's an experience you have to go through, even if you don't actually enjoy it.



I disagree with your statement.



Alright, you're changing what I'm saying to suit your needs way to go. Undecided

I feel sorry for all of you who shy away from new experiences because it's outside of your "comfort zone" or it isn't something you "like". 

You're all running on assumption gas, saying he won't have fun because he knows he won't have fun.  How do you know something won't be fun until you try it?  Granted there are some things, like being drawn and quartered that are pretty solid knowing that going in you're probably not going to enjoy it, but this is pretty far on the other end of the spectrum of that.

3 years with this group and he wants to not play and most of you are saying "quit" over a race issue.  With all the drama that goes on at tables, DM's arbitrarily changing rules, favoring one player over another, characters forcing someone's alignment to shift, general ****ery at a table, being punished for missing a game because you had a job, all those and more, and the OP and most posting want this guy to quit over his DM / Table of 3 years wanting to run an all dwarf campaign?

I would not walk away from a group of 3 years for a non-issue like that.














Would you play if it was an all human campaign?  Cause if so... racist. Sealed


Alright, you're changing what I'm saying to suit your needs way to go.



His paraphrase was accurate.

You're all running on assumption gas, saying he won't have fun because he knows he won't have fun. 



Actually, we're assuming he won't have fun because he SAYS he won't have fun, and we're all familiar with players like that.

We're saying that he shouldn't play because
A) He says he won't have fun and we take him at his word
and
B) A player who announces he won't have fun is going to make the game less fun for everyone else.

3 years with this group and he wants to not play and most of you are saying "quit" over a race issue. 



Actually, we're saying "don't play in this particular game" over a premises issue.

With all the drama that goes on at tables, DM's arbitrarily changing rules, favoring one player over another, characters forcing someone's alignment to shift, general ****ery at a table, being punished for missing a game because you had a job, all those and more,



I don't play with groups like that.  Neither does anyone else I play with, that I know of.  That all seems *not fun*, and danger signs of the people you're spending your free time with being *bad people to game with*.

and the OP and most posting want this guy to quit over his DM / Table of 3 years wanting to run an all dwarf campaign?



"Don't join one particular new game" != "never speak to these people again."

When someone wants to run a game he wants to play in, he can rejoin.  Or he can run a different game for the same people.  Big whoop.

I would not walk away from a group of 3 years for a non-issue like that.



"Hi, Joe.  I want to run GURPS in SPAAAAAACE.  You've been playing with us for 3 years, do you want in?"
"Hmm, I hate GURPS and I hate SPAAAAAACE games.  No thanks!"
"Okay, Joe.  See you later."

DRAMA.
Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.


"Hi, Joe.  I want to run GURPS in SPAAAAAACE.  You've been playing with us for 3 years, do you want in?"
"Hmm, I hate GURPS and I hate SPAAAAAACE games.  No thanks!"
"Okay, Joe.  See you later."

DRAMA.



Or, alternatively:

"You know what, even though I hate it, I've been with you guys for 3 years, I think it's worth giving it a try to see if I'll like it or not, 'cause you know, we've been together for 3 years, why throw that away without even giving it a chance?"


"Hi, Joe.  I want to run GURPS in SPAAAAAACE.  You've been playing with us for 3 years, do you want in?"
"Hmm, I hate GURPS and I hate SPAAAAAACE games.  No thanks!"
"Okay, Joe.  See you later."

DRAMA.



Or, alternatively:

"You know what, even though I hate it, I've been with you guys for 3 years, I think it's worth giving it a try to see if I'll like it or not, 'cause you know, we've been together for 3 years, why throw that away without even giving it a chance?"



Except
#1:  You're not throwing anything away.  It's not like it's unusual among gaming groups for one person to sit out a session or an adventure or a campaign, or that anything stops you from rejoining.
#2:  The OP has showed up on the forums complaining about "this totally unfair railroading".  Which is to say, he's already decided that not only does he not want to play, but he wants everyone to know it.  And so, that player not showing up to that game is a good thing, for all the other players in the game.
Confused about Stealth? Think "invisibility" means "take the mini off the board to make people guess?" You need to check out The Rules Of Hidden Club.
Damage types and resistances: A working house rule.
With all the drama that goes on at tables, DM's arbitrarily changing rules, favoring one player over another, characters forcing someone's alignment to shift, general ****ery at a table, being punished for missing a game because you had a job, all those and more,..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />



If you consider this to be acceptable table behavior, it's no wonder your vision of D&D is so utterly distorted.  You have my sympathy that you have been exposed to bad gaming so long that you can no longer identify it as such.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
With all the drama that goes on at tables, DM's arbitrarily changing rules, favoring one player over another, characters forcing someone's alignment to shift, general ****ery at a table, being punished for missing a game because you had a job, all those and more,..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />



If you consider this to be acceptable table behavior, it's no wonder your vision of D&D is so utterly distorted.  You have my sympathy that you have been exposed to bad gaming so long that you can no longer identify it as such.



You really need to work on your comprehension, I never said these were issues that happened at my table, nor did I ever say these were acceptable.  Anybody who has been on these forums long enough has seen hundreds of posts of players complaining about the problems I listed.  Always in the "these guys are doing this, what do I do?" scenario. 

There are lots of posts in these forums of players complaining about these problems that happen at their tables.  And what I'm saying is that in comparison to some of the more extreme drama at a DnD table, especially ones that cause real world / out of game player conflict, an issue of a DM, who he has been with for 3 years (so something that DM is doing is being done right) wanting to run an all dwarf campaign is small taquitos compared to other problems.

But you read it as a statement that those were experiences at my table or that it was behavior I put up with, when at no point did I say either.  Reading comprehension ftw, fyi.



#1:  You're not throwing anything away.  It's not like it's unusual among gaming groups for one person to sit out a session or an adventure or a campaign, or that anything stops you from rejoining.
#2:  The OP has showed up on the forums complaining about "this totally unfair railroading".  Which is to say, he's already decided that not only does he not want to play, but he wants everyone to know it.  And so, that player not showing up to that game is a good thing, for all the other players in the game.



Except, also he said that their previous campaign ended after a 4 year run.  That he was a part of for 3 years.  So, it seems to me that if he "sits out", he could be sitting out for another 3-4 year stretch of campaign time.  That's a long time to be out of a group, that obviously he enjoyed being a part of long enough to be with them for 3 years.

With all the drama that goes on at tables, DM's arbitrarily changing rules, favoring one player over another, characters forcing someone's alignment to shift, general ****ery at a table, being punished for missing a game because you had a job, all those and more,...



If you consider this to be acceptable table behavior, it's no wonder your vision of D&D is so utterly distorted. 



You really need to work on your comprehension, I never said these were issues that happened at my table, nor did I ever say these were acceptable.  Anybody who has been on these forums long enough has seen hundreds of posts of players complaining about the problems I listed.  Always in the "these guys are doing this, what do I do?" scenario.  


 
Weren't most of those issue mentioned in threads in the past month or so?

Except, also he said that their previous campaign ended after a 4 year run.  That he was a part of for 3 years.  So, it seems to me that if he "sits out", he could be sitting out for another 3-4 year stretch of campaign time.  That's a long time to be out of a group, that obviously he enjoyed being a part of long enough to be with them for 3 years.



This is the main thing that you have said that I strongly disagree with. I've quit and/or decided not to play in campaigns run by people in the group I usually play with, and nothing bad has ever come from it. We are all still friends/acquaintances, and I still play in one game with them. If no one else in his group is running a game, he can start one himself. I still agree that he should at least give it a try and be open minded about it. But as others have stated, not everyone is reasonable, not everyone is equally capable of willing to be civil, and if he doesn't want to play then he probably won't no matter what we tell him. He probably just came here to get some validation for his want to not play in the game, which he has recieved.
He probably just came here to get some validation for his want to not play in the game, which he has recieved.


This.

Or maybe he took randomvirus' advice, which is fine too. 

But as everyone knows, internet without the pointless bickering wouldn't be half as much fun. 
blah blah blah, as other posters have said, he set the game, you talked with him, he's uncompromising in that particular idea, so you're completely fine deciding not to play it.

its like driving...if you don't want to drive the speed limit, you don't drive your car on the road.


however, thats not to say you can't keep a careful eye out for cops and use a radar detector....

in other words, what about playing a changeling/doppleganger?  Especially one that the party is unaware of.  You might have some REAL fun by occasionally "remembering" and including dwarven stereotypes....maybe you start disagreeing with someone with some eloquent discourse, and then stop yourself and say "BAH!" instead :-)

this gives you the "not a dwarf" setup
it gives the other players and the DM a sense of group cohesion and story they wanted
it gives you a reason to be there (spying (probably for yourself, not another organization), thievery, maybe just getting along with the other dwarves, but thought you'd be more accepted this way)
when your secret "gets out" eventually, you don't even have to be in dwarf "form" anymore most of the time. basically saying you're only even superficially a dwarf until the party figures you out, then you play whatever.         
Finally, it allows you to fill a role that a dwarf would not normally be good at, and even be subtle about it (say, rogue - you could fight with battleaxe and dagger, and just choose to always make your swings with the dagger) 
What about a mul? You'd be half-dwarf, but could play up the human side with feats.

Or a revenant with dwarf past life?
RS: 60/60 CS: 60/60 RotS: 60/60 U:60/60 CotF: 60/60 BH: 60/60 A&E: 51/60 TFU: 53/60 LotF: 37/60 KotOR: 37/60 CW: 26/40 IE: 31/40 JA: 17/40 G@W: 7/40 DT: 7/40 Good trades with: Lily_Wan, creme_brule, suki_jedi_apprentice, Ephant_Mon
it sounded like you could be any race (as far as stats) but just reflavored as a dwarf.. am I correct in this?  If this is the case I don't see the big deal.  I don't particularly enjoy playing Dwarves but if you can pick the stats of just about any race and put them inside a dwarf skin there really is not much issue here.  And like others said you DO NOT need to play a stereotypical dwarf, you still get to create your background and personality.  I would think that the DM has an idea that works best with a cohesive party of dwarves (for whatever reason).

I say give it a try, I do not see how this alone would cause you to not have fun...if you do not have fun it is because you are not letting yourself get over this hurdle.  What is the saying?.... 'You are making a mountain out of a mole hill.'
"The great epochs of our life come when we gain the courage to rechristen our evil as what is best in us." - Friedrich Nietzsche
I don't particularly enjoy playing Dwarves but if you can pick the stats of just about any race and put them inside a dwarf skin there really is not much issue here. 


You just described the issue perfectly- OP doesn't like the flavor of dwarves. So no, that wouldn't work.

What is the saying?.... 'You are making a mountain out of a mole hill.'

 
In what regard? The OP doesn't like one thing, and doesn't want to have to participate in an activity that is unenjoyable. Besides, has OP even posted since the first? 

Co-author on AoA 2-3 and 4-1.

I hate dwarves.  There, I said it.

I am currently running a similar campaign; it takes place on earth thousands of years into the future, and all player races are ultimately just sub-races of human; the concept is that after nuclear fallout, humans began to evolve significantly more rapidly, and now take on dramatically different traits.

However, if a player came to me and said "I hate playing humans, everything about the concept is infuriating", I would do one of 2 things.

1.  They are human only as far as history goes.  The mutation may have been so dramatic that, although being humanoid in stature, and being related to humans in lineage, they may be so far-gone in their evolution that they appear and behave like an entirely different creature.  This is a compromise on the player's part.

2.  They could play the exception to the rule.  In most tales, there is that one character who is an exception to story.  This is a compromise on the GM's part.

As a GM, I would prefer option 1.  Option 2 can do one of 2 things:  it can compromise certain aspects of story structure, and it can make other players envious.  Maybe another player wanted to play a different race; now that they see you are, they'll want to as well.  As well, introducing other races usually means introducing a lineage, history, relations with other races, etc, and the DM would rather spend time building an existing race.

However, if you really don't want to play a dwarf, as him to make an exception to the rule.  If he doesn't compromise, and you can't compromise, then just walk.  There will be other campaigns. 
My friends do stuff without me sometimes.  We're still friends.  Also, I don't usually brag about it, but I'm a great cook.  My friends trust in my ability to make a good dish, and one of my standbies is gumbo.  Now I've got friends who can't abide the taste of cayenne pepper.  Like I said, they trust me to make something that tastes good, but when I invite them over for gumbo they politely decline.  I don't take that for an insult.

Similarly, some folks can't abide the flavor of dwarf.  I'm sure the guy's an excellent DM and a good time will be had by everyone who plays in the campaign, but surely he respects the fact that some of his friends just don't care to play that sort of campaign.
"When Friday comes, we'll all call rats fish." D&D Outsider
i'm a fellow dwarf hater as well, and my advice would be to just sit this campaign out. it seems that the dm has a pretty solid notion of what he wants the game to be and if that notion seems awful to you then you shouldn't waste your time playing something you hate.
As an alternative, you could try and find another gaming group, or you could try your hand at being a GM yourself with new players (or current, if some of them don't mind 2 campaigns in their schedule).  Being a GM has never been easier in any game than in 4e; the amount of material available for custom or predesigned campaigns has never been more readily available.  That, and you get to design your own story!  Once I started, I never looked back
Is this 4th?  Cause if it's 4th what's the problem?  Dwarves are seriously, the master race in 4th.  Second winds as minors, reduced forced movements, saves to avoid being knocked prone, dwarven weapon training as a starting feat, man dwarves are so awesome I keep threatening to play one if my DM causes my current guy to die.

Personally, as the DM I wouldn't "reflavor" any races.  If I was starting a campaign where I wanted all players to start as a dwarf, I'd just make them start as dwarves, and encourage everyone to have different classes and backgrounds for their characters. 

I played a pathfinder campaign that was all dwarves, I was an ale brewing drunken monk, and I ripped dudes apart with my fists!

Dropping out is the wrong thing to do.  Instead, you should embrace it as a chance to explore something you as a player wouldn't normally do.  The opportunities to explore a different world from a different perspective and role play it should be any challenge accepted by any DnD player worth his salt.

In short, be an adult, deal with it.  Life ain't always what you want, and who knows, you might actually have fun.



This is complete bunk.

The DM doesn't get to tell you what you're going to play. If he refuses to allow any non dwarves in his campaign, he's being too damned fussy about his precious vision, and needs to get over it. If he won't, don't play in that campaign.

Being friends with someone doesn't obligate you to participate in things you find distasteful.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome


I think you mean "I shouldn't play in that game, and if he doesn't get enough players he should either reconsider or write a book instead".

Because not only is there nothing wrong with "I want to run a game with X type of PC", it's pretty much a prerequisite in any game that isn't straight by-the-book "team-based good-aligned heroes save the world" D&D.




No, it isn't.

I don't play those campaigns, and I don't restrict PC type.

I never do either of those things.

I make some requests regarding player behavior*, and I have one campaign where everyone is some kind of sword wielder**, but that's it.

*Like, don't be a disruptive jerk. no alignment restrictions, just don't be a jerk.

**which came out of a conversation with the group toward the tail end of the last campaign with them, in which we all fell in love with the idea, and decided as a group to do it.

D&D isn't supposed to be a fun hobby- it's an experience you have to go through, even if you don't actually enjoy it.



I disagree with your statement.



This is one of those rare situations where "+1" or "thumbsup" would be appropriate to use.



seconded.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome