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

[prabe]

The problem doesn't lie with players wanted to play "weird" races, the problem lies with DMs that have "setting purity" issues and/or micro-managing/control issues.

This reads as though you're saying a DM who disallows a PC race has issues. I allow (as a default "yes") fourteen types of humanoids as PCs in my world, but not tabaxi, kenku, or goblinoids; I allow four types of elves, but no drow. I've written up how the the folk I'm allowing fit into the setting, and the others I either didn't like enough to fit in or couldn't figure out how they'd fit in--I guess you could call that either "setting purity" or "micromanagement" but does it really sound like a problem to you?

 

[Oofta]

You're not alone! Dragonborn were "invented" in 3E for this reason, dragons are popular, and folks want to play them! WotC is on record that their dragon-themed books are best-selling, and it's why we got "Races of the Dragon" and "Dragon Magic" in 3E. Dragonborn are now a core race, and there's a reason for that!

Similar reason why tabaxi and kenku are on the B-list in D&D right now (one step away from "core") . . . folks enjoy playing them! If you enjoy this type of character, it doesn't make you a "furry" with some sort of mental issue or weird kink.

The problem doesn't lie with players wanted to play "weird" races, the problem lies with DMs that have "setting purity" issues and/or micro-managing/control issues.

So DM's preferences and world vision don't matter?

You know what, if anyone comes to me with that attitude, fine. Find another DM. I'm already turning away players, so it doesn't bother me one bit.

 

[Mallus]

For example, my mom has been binge watching Hallmark and Christmas movies lately and, wow, they may as well just all be the same movie! Sure one movie has a blonde woman who plans parties and the other one has a brunette man that has a dog shelter, but the storyline was identical!

Hallmark Channel movies are really enjoyable if you treat them as cultural artifacts instead of works of fiction. Watch 'em for the comforting banalities and uncomfortable subtexts!

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

So DM's preferences and world vision don't matter?

You know what, if anyone comes to me with that attitude, fine. Find another DM. I'm already turning away players, so it doesn't bother me one bit.

I generally don't care if a race fits into a world or not. If the player would have more fun as that race, why shouldn't I allow it? If it's for so called "setting purity", that's a bunch of BS. You're the DM, the literal overgod of your setting. Pull an Eberron and let the Tabaxi character be a unique cat that was transmuted into a humanoid, or something like that. IMO, RAF matters more than the stubbornness of the DMs precious and eternally unchangeable world.

 

[prabe]

If the player would have more fun as that race, why shouldn't I allow it.

If allowing it as DM would actively diminish my fun--and/or that of one or more other players--why should I allow it?

I know it's a trade-off; I just (think I) know which side I'm on, here.

 

[Shardstone]

If allowing it as DM would actively diminish my fun--and/or that of one or more other players--why should I allow it?

I know it's a trade-off; I just (think I) know which side I'm on, here.

Don't allow it. You're the DM.

This is a non-argument. No one cares what you do at your game.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

This is a non-argument. No one cares what you do at your game.

I'm fairly certain that @prabe and prabe's players care.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

If allowing it as DM would actively diminish my fun--and/or that of one or more other players--why should I allow it?

I know it's a trade-off; I just (think I) know which side I'm on, here.

I have never understood how people think that raising a player's fun would diminish their own fun. It's not a trade off, as it's not like allowing them to have more fun would destroy any aspect of the game for you.

There are circumstances where allowing a player to play a different race could be detrimental to the fun of the game (such as a race that is completely unbalanced, or they play the race in a problematic/not fun way), but in general I see no problem with allowing a player to play what they want to play. If you don't like playable Lizardfolk, and won't allow a roleplayer, imaginative-character designing player to play a Lizardfolk, even though the odds are that the character will not negatively impact the fun of the game in any way, that just seems petty and un-fun to me.

Perhaps you can explain what you mean by "allowing it as a DM would actively diminish my fun"? That may help me understand how giving a player more fun somehow equals you having less fun for you.

 

[Oofta]

I generally don't care if a race fits into a world or not. If the player would have more fun as that race, why shouldn't I allow it. If it's for so called "setting purity", that's a bunch of BS. You're the DM, the literal overgod of your setting. Pull an Eberron and let the Tabaxi character be a unique cat that was transmuted into a humanoid, or something like that. IMO, RAF matters more than the stubbornness of the DMs precious and eternally unchangeable world.

You do you. When you DM it's your rules. When I DM it's mine.

If an option doesn't make sense to me and my vision of my world, it doesn't get added. The players are the master of their own stories, but the DM is the master of stage upon which it is played. If I'm not excited and convinced that an option fits into or adds to the stage I'm not going to apologize or be brow-beaten into adding it.

A DM puts far more work into the campaign than anyone else. Don't like how they run the campaign? Find a different DM.

 

[Shardstone]

I'm fairly certain that @prabe and prabe's players care.

Who cares if Prabe cares about you man. If Prabe has some good advice, take that. If Prabe is telling you your table sucks, ok Prabe, that's nice, but moving on...