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

Status
Not open for further replies.

log in or register to remove this ad


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.
Leaving balance issues aside ... Worldbuilding is a large part of my fun as DM. Forcing me to figure out how and why there are (to use your example) lizardfolk in "civilization" in sufficient quantities as to allow some to be PC, telling me that it doesn't matter if I don't like lizardfolk as a PC race--I must allow them and write them as a PC race into my world, is telling me how to build my world.
 

Leaving balance issues aside ... Worldbuilding is a large part of my fun as DM. Forcing me to figure out how and why there are (to use your example) lizardfolk in "civilization" in sufficient quantities as to allow some to be PC, telling me that it doesn't matter if I don't like lizardfolk as a PC race--I must allow them and write them as a PC race into my world, is telling me how to build my world.
What “sufficient numbers”? 1 is a sufficient number. It’s 1 PC.
 

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...
I care if @prabe likes me, actually quite a lot ...

And I don't think I'm saying anyone else's table sucks, because they allow races I don't. Or, frankly, if they don't allow races I do. I certainly don't intend to say that.
 

Oofta and Snarff, yall know you both too old to care about some forum insults about your settings.

I know it sucks that you spend a lot of time on your settings and ppl online don't see or get your vision. But this argument is going in circles and I don't think anyone knows what's going on anymore.
 


What “sufficient numbers”? 1 is a sufficient number. It’s 1 PC.
If there's one, the player needs to buy into it coming from somewhere else, somehow--or be willing to work with me to explain how this one unique member of an NPC/monster race came to be. It's really the blithe insistence that everything be a default "yes"--that "no" cannot be a valid answer--that grinds my gears.
 

I have nothing against disallowing something from a D&D table. I have done it, and will continue doing it for my campaigns. However, I do it for very different reasons than others in this thread do, it seems. I do it for balance issues and design problems. I don't allow Yuan-Ti Purebloods at my table, as they are way OP, I don't allow the Order of the Scribes due to how the subclass is designed, and I don't let people play Wild Magic Sorcerers at my table, due to them being capable of accidentally screwing up other characters, which could ruin the fun of the game.

I never disallow something because of the world. Never. D&D worlds are infinite and imaginative. There are always the core or base races of a world (like Humans, Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings in FR/Greyhawk/Dragonlance), but there are always outliers, and the characters are supposed to be outliers. It doesn't diminish the definition of my world if I allow a character to play a tiefling in a world where tieflings literally don't exist. It's their character. It's my world. If they want to play a strange/unique race, I'm not going to stop them. People will be constantly giving them strange looks, which is a side effect for playing a strange race. It doesn't hurt me or my world to let my players have fun.
 

I care if @prabe likes me, actually quite a lot ...

giphy.gif


I got yet back!
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top