Community

Apr 29, 2012 -- 7:46PM, Azzy1974 wrote:

Sure, but can also be repurposed by DMs to customize the rarities in their own settings (and campaign setting expasions to do the same), too. But that doesn't answer the question I asked. Even just giving the phase ("DMs should come up with a set of character creation guidelines for each campaign, weighing player input as they see fit") that you preferred "helps the traditionalist say no" just as much.

Right, that way of doing things does help the traditionalist say no, *which is fine*. It helps any DM say no, in fact, without a bias one way or the other. I can't wrap my brain around the idea that saying no to a common race is as easy as saying no to a rare. That implies the labels mean nothing - so why have them?

I'm not arguing that DMs should say yes to every idea. I think they should talk with groups about what the game world/style is, but as a DM I like to have some creative license, which sometimes means excluding things I can't make room for or don't want to work into the story. I don't see any value in these default labels though, since they assume a lot of things that won't be true in a lot of campaigns.

Again, the labels give zero useful info. Whether you value tradition or novelty, you know what's new and what's not. If you're new to the game, you don't need a history lesson to decide what's right for your campaign. A few examples of different styles would be great, but default labels present only one style. There is literally no group that benefits from this, except those who want to be able to ban new things more easily because they are labeled rare.
 

These labels wouldn't say anything about what edition they appeared in, it would only give metric of what is typical of the game (traditionally and, apparently, as played).

As played by whom? I've seen a lot of human, elf, tiefling, dwarf, dragonborn, and warforged PCs, with the occasional high elf, half-elf, drow, shifter, or changeling. In my actual experience of gaming in the last twenty-something years, halflings, gnomes, and half-orcs are virtually absent. Obviously that's a function of the groups I've played with rather than D&D as a whole. But why do I need default labels in my game that reflect what groups I didn't play in do more commonly?

Well, the first half of that paragraph seems to be about people that don't act like "adults who can resolve problems reaonably", so... I don't know what to tell you. Using labels or not, DM and players should always communicate with each other in an adult-like fashion.

OK - how do these default labels based on tradition move us toward that goal? If the PH and DMG urge people to be non-jerks, what will rarity labels add to that? If they're just an example, why build ONE example into the race description instead of providing several outside the description. Again, what makes this strategy at all better than any other?

What you describe isn't common sense and reason, though. If the DM has communicated that halflings are out and shifers are in, I'm sure that he/she has also conveyed that the existing rarity lablels have been altered. Thus, I don't see how a player could be annoyed anymore than if told the same thing and the labels didn't exist.

I agree that the DM should be the one putting the labels on things, possibly with player input if that's the group's way of working. Which again makes me wonder - what do the default labels add? I'm sorry if I'm just repeating myself. I really don't see how this system is anything close to the best way to handle the variety of homemade settings out there.