D&D 5E Monster Races and a quick sword thrust at the gate

[Pathkeeper24601]

If you're so concerned with realism, you should have all but one race be extinct.

Because in reality, elves and dwarves and humans and halflings would all have gotten into a giant race war and exterminated each other.

Of course, having more than one race exist is pretty ludicrous so if you're so concerned with realism you should just have a single intelligent race world.

Of course, having a world of magic and monsters that still somehow looks like a Golden Age of movies medieval period piece is totally insane so you should probably drop the whole thing and play Boggle.

I think there is a big difference between being real-world and trying to have NPCs act in a realistic manner within the RPG setting. Obviously the whole point of RPG is to take you out of the first. That doesn't prevent the DM from attempting to follow the second.

 

[Sacrosanct]

If you're so concerned with realism, you should have all but one race be extinct.

Because in reality, elves and dwarves and humans and halflings would all have gotten into a giant race war and exterminated each other.

Of course, having more than one race exist is pretty ludicrous so if you're so concerned with realism you should just have a single intelligent race world.

Of course, having a world of magic and monsters that still somehow looks like a Golden Age of movies medieval period piece is totally insane so you should probably drop the whole thing and play Boggle.

This is no more true than it is to say there should only be one race today because whites and blacks and Asians etc would have race wars and exterminated each other.

So basically, I’m saying I disagree with your logic

 

[Wulffolk]

[MENTION=6777454]TheHobgoblin[/MENTION] took the time to express his true and passionate feelings about this subject. For that I am grateful. It let's me know right away that we are unlikely to agree on much of anything, and I can safely skip most of his posts without worry for missing anything. Also, it lets me know that this is a person that would not be welcome at my table, and probably would hate my game anyways.

Let me respond by simply saying . . . NO!

It is that level of player entitlement that really annoys me. As a DM I am not your employee, your slave, or your entertainment system. I owe you nothing. I have made myself available to work with a group of players to create a story that we will all enjoy. That means that the DM must enjoy it as much or more than the players, since the DM does all the work.

In regards to the OP, I am in the same mindset as you. I very much prefer to run games that resemble Basic D&D. I have strong preferences for certain races (Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling and Half-Elf), a open mind for a few races (Half-Orc primarily), and an irrational hatred of one particular race (Gnomes). However, when it comes to monster races I will not run a game for them unless the entire group is from the same tribe of monsters, and even then it will probably be a very short run, and they can expect to be in for an extremely difficult time. Those players are signing up to play character's that almost everybody wants to kill. For Classes I encourage them to play the standards (Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard), and have an open mind for others, but try to encourage the group to only have one of the rarer classes.

 

[Chuck Ocenasek]

So your game or else, I am out.

 

[Eric V]

So your game or else, I am out.

Basically. In a group of friends, you'd think there would be some flexibility, some special story or something (I can't imagine doing this to friends in my group myself), but if this is with an organized group of people who are otherwise strangers, then yeah: these are the terms or GTFO. What's weird is that the players keep making the monster characters...sounds like another conversation needs to be had, to me.

 

[Ganymede81]

I still don't understand why the OP allowed his players to select optional monster races when he knew those PCs would not be able to function meaningfully in the game.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I still don't understand why the OP allowed his players to select optional monster races when he knew those PCs would not be able to function meaningfully in the game.

Sounds like he told them up front what to expect and they wanted to play them anyway. Also, it sounds like he is going to restrict them going forward.

 

[Sunseeker]

While I enjoy politics and like to include complex and often sensitive subjects in my game, I understand that not all my players are interested in those subjects to an equal degree. It is A: why I'm so picky with who gets to be my player, and B: why I'm flexible in what I run.

The latter part is why I typically have two campaigns ready to go at any given moment. I have my "Greater Campaign" which includes the politics and sensitive subjects and my "Infinite Dungeon" which is a set of cards that are drawn each round to assemble a random dungeon with random challenges and random loot. But my Greater Campaign Setting is where my true love is at (and to a lesser extent, a Ravenloft and Drow/Underdark campaign) because it involves the elements I'm interesting in running.

So all of this talking about myself is to say: a DM should present what they're willing to run, a bored DM does not typically make for a good game, and players should be up-front with the kind of game they're looking for. I suspect most campaigns are flexible enough for compromise, but there are some that aren't, either by design or omission you just can't remove certain bits of it without damaging the whole game. IE: If you were to take racism out of Warcraft, you essentially couldn't have World of Warcraft because many of the alliances and enemies are established on the basis of long-held feuds and prejudices. You can attempt to just not talk about those things, but players aren't dumb, and they'll get that there are blanks and they'll probably fill in those blanks with the right answer.

I think you OP, may need to have a Session Zero 2.0, and figure out what sort of game and setting your players are looking for.

 

[Wulffolk]

So your game or else, I am out.

That would be one way that a high-maintenance self-entitled player might look at it. Another way to look at it would be that if that is the game you want to play then maybe you would be better served finding a DM that is interested in running that game, rather than expecting your current DM to ignore his own enjoyment in favor of yours. Another solution would be for another member of the group to step up and volunteer to run that game themself . . . or maybe even you should.

 

[Hussar]

I still don't understand why the OP allowed his players to select optional monster races when he knew those PCs would not be able to function meaningfully in the game.

This, right here.

While a few DM's here are patting the OP on the back for running his game his way, THIS is the most important point.

If you are going to allow players to take these races and then make it virtually impossible to actually PLAY in the setting, what's the point? If they can never go to town, do you have non-human towns they could go to? Are there other options in the setting?

If there aren't, then why on earth are you allowing these characters in the first place.

It's one thing to say, "Well, the DM warned the players" but, so what? "I'm allowing these options, but, if you take them, I'm going to kill your PC" is a pretty crappy move on the DM's part. If you actually are allowing these, then they have to be playable. YOU, the DM, need to change your setting to make these character races viable. Otherwise, take them off the table and stop wasting everyone's time.