D&D 5E What is the appeal of the weird fantasy races?

[Snarf Zagyg]

It was a response specifically to the original post. I think it's reasonable to assume that someone coming late to a thread might not have gone through 20-something pages of discussion, arguments and tangents.

Perhaps badwrongfun is the wrong term, but the tone of the original post strikes me as a combination of exasperated, mocking and also slightly disdainful. Tone on the internet is a tricky thing though and we all bring our own baggage to it.

And, while it can feel like a condescending response to a question, "Relax and try it out" can be legitimately useful advice for a person who seems exasperated by something.

Again, if you're coming into a thread days late and more than 500 posts short, maybe do a bare minimum of skimming?

And I think that you are the one reading into it- should I say that you are engaging in badwrongfun and being intolerant because you are incorrectly saying that the OP is "disdainful?" No? Is there, perhaps, a reason you have spent several posts defending a "condescending response" while at the same time attacking a good-faith question?

People are a little too eager to toss around the "gatekeeper" and "badwrongfun" in order to shut down other people. Not everyone will have the same opinions, or run game the same way; and that's fine! But we should encourage, not disparage, people that are asking about things that they don't understand, or aren't familiar with.

 

[Oofta]

Again with respect, all the stuff you're talking about here isn't actually content included in the original post.

And for the record, I think the game can have one, a small number, or any number of races as long as the people playing it are having fun.

Where I happen to disagree is when one group thinks their way is "the one true way".

Well, what did the OP say that you feel the need to tell him he's doing it wrong? That he doesn't understand why people need to play D&D as if it were Zootopia? While they admit they're a bit old school and that they personally find it a bit off putting and then asked a question of why people want to play such PCs. There is no indication of one-true-way-ism to be found.

Your responses are basically "Stop being an **** and let people play what they want, the one true way to play D&D is to allow any race."

 

[Gammadoodler]

Again, if you're coming into a thread days late and more than 500 posts short, maybe do a bare minimum of skimming?

And I think that you are the one reading into it- should I say that you are engaging in badwrongfun and being intolerant because you are incorrectly saying that the OP is "disdainful?" No? Is there, perhaps, a reason you have spent several posts defending a "condescending response" while at the same time attacking a good-faith question?

People are a little too eager to toss around the "gatekeeper" and "badwrongfun" in order to shut down other people. Not everyone will have the same opinions, or run game the same way; and that's fine! But we should encourage, not disparage, people that are asking about things that they don't understand, or aren't familiar with.

Are we planning to institute testing for when people can reply to a posted topic on a discussion board?

And certainly I'm reading into it, maybe incorrectly. Never claimed to be perfect. But that's also how reading works. We ingest what we see and try to make sense of it. You are also welcome to describe my tone in a way that matches your interpretation, and, in fact you have.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Are we planning to institute testing for when people can reply to a posted topic on a discussion board?

I'm not planning on instituting testing; I'm asking that you extend the same grace and courtesy to someone who started the thread by asking a question in good faith (and has continued to participate) that you do for someone who interjected more than 500 comments in with a snarky, dismissive, and as you admit, "condescending" response. So when you go after the OP for being "badwrongfun" for no good reason, while defending what is an admittedly condescending response that hasn't read the thread, I will point that out. And that you continue to do so is your right, but speaks for itself.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Well, what did the OP say that you feel the need to tell him he's doing it wrong? That he doesn't understand why people need to play D&D as if it were Zootopia? While they admit they're a bit old school and that they personally find it a bit off putting and then asked a question of why people want to play such PCs. There is no indication of one-true-way-ism to be found.

Your responses are basically "Stop being an **** and let people play what they want, the one true way to play D&D is to allow any race."

See here, I think we're reading the same thing and reaching different conclusions based on our personal preferences. In the same way I feel your Zootopia reference is not meant to be complimentary or neutral, I feel the OP did not mean "furry role play" as a compliment or neutral statement. With the underlying thought being that the people who chose to play this way are D&D'ing wrong. If my feelings regarding this phrasing is incorrect, then, yes, I have misinterpreted. And I apologize.

And if my message is "let people play the way they want", good. That is intentional. That includes people who only want to play humans and people who want the kitchen sink. There's room for both and neither is wrong.

 

[Oofta]

See here, I think we're reading the same thing and reaching different conclusions based on our personal preferences. In the same way I feel your Zootopia reference is not meant to be complimentary or neutral, I feel the OP did not mean "furry role play" as a compliment or neutral statement. With the underlying thought being that the people who chose to play this way are D&D'ing wrong. If my feelings regarding this phrasing is incorrect, then, yes, I have misinterpreted. And I apologize.

And if my message is "let people play the way they want", good. That is intentional. That includes people who only want to play humans and people who want the kitchen sink. There's room for both and neither is wrong.

So you're saying anyone pushing one true way to play D&D is wrong, but the one true way to play D&D is to let people play whatever they want whether it makes sense to the DM and their campaign world.

You don't see anything wrong with the double standard at all?

 

[Gammadoodler]

So you're saying anyone pushing one true way to play D&D is wrong, but the one true way to play D&D is to let people play whatever they want whether it makes sense to the DM and their campaign world.

You don't see anything wrong with the double standard at all?

I see the confusion. When I say people play what they want, I'm meaning at the table level of detail. What the DM and players agree to together. And at that level, no I do not believe there is a double standard.

 

[Oofta]

I see the confusion. When I say people play what they want, I'm meaning at the table level of detail. What the DM and players agree to together. And at that level, no I do not believe there is a double standard.

Which means that if a DM limits the PCs to those in the PHB (or even a subset of those) then it's perfectly okay?

Because that's the opposite of what was said which is what I responded to, which in context of the thread I can only read as "if you don't allow any race you're doing it wrong."

Relax a little and try being a little more tolerant. Things don't have to always be what you want or expect them to be.

As far as "furry" reference, I doubt the OP meant it as insult. I know my zootopia reference wasn't. An anthropomorphic animal campaign could potentially be a lot of fun. Probably not one I'd want to play long term because I would have a hard time taking it seriously, but that's a personal preference.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I'm not planning on instituting testing; I'm asking that you extend the same grace and courtesy to someone who started the thread by asking a question in good faith (and has continued to participate) that you do for someone who interjected more than 500 comments in with a snarky, dismissive, and as you admit, "condescending" response. So when you go after the OP for being "badwrongfun" for no good reason, while defending what is an admittedly condescending response that hasn't read the thread, I will point that out. And that you continue to do so is your right, but speaks for itself.

I'm not really interested in going after the OP, so much as in pointing out that elements of the original post are at least tonally suspect (which the OP has acknowledged), but even moreso, that it had nothing in it to do with consistent, believable worldbuilding as Oofta stated in his response.

That was the full limit of my interest in the response.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I'm not really interested in going after the OP, so much as in pointing out that elements of the original post are at least tonally suspect (which the OP has acknowledged), but even moreso, that it had nothing in it to do with consistent, believable worldbuilding as Oofta stated in his response.

1. When people don't know what they don't know, or to put it a different way, when people aren't even sure of what they don't know, then hopefully they will ask questions. If you spend all of your time policing the tone ("tonally suspect") of the question, as opposed to trying to answer them, then you will not only not get a good response, you will also dissuade other people from asking questions because they will assume that if they misstate the question, or use the wrong words in asking the question, people will attack them for their "tonally suspect" language instead of trying to help them understand.

2. This assumes, of course, that you are correct in your suppositions.

3. I think Oofta has some good points, but they are not the same as mine, which is more mundane; the question of exotic races, and communication between DM and players, and the delineations of responsibilities, is evergreen. Approaching these topics with humility and compassion is more effective than slinging around terms like "badwrongfun."