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

[Snarf Zagyg]

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

What? You want me to do work today? I have (checks watch) TWO HOURS before that re-scheduled Ravens-Steelers game, and this old would rather yell at some clouds during that time than start a new project, THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

Okay, but you just described saying yes.

No one is suggesting that every race have significant populations within the lands in which the campaign takes place.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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.

Worldbuilding is great and amazing, it's one of the major reasons I DM, but allowing a player to play a strange character race isn't forcing you to do any worldbuilding. In most scenarios, I make the player find the excuse for playing a race that doesn't fit. I'm not going to do their homework for their character. I'll help them along with possible ideas, but if they want to shove a Githyanki character into Theros, they're going to have a lot of explaining to do (and good explaining, not a lazy "I woke up with no memories, so you decide" or something like that), or they don't get the character. Their character can literally be one of a kind, with no other members of their race. That can be really interesting, and requires no worldbuilding whatsoever, just the building of a good backstory.

I'm not trying to tell you how to play your game or run your world. I've just have never understood the reasoning behind "If the players have more fun, it comes at the expense of me/my world". I still don't get it, and don't think it makes sense. For me, it's not a matter of "My fun vs. your fun", it's "Our/the table's fun". When another player's fun increases, so does mine.

 

[Oofta]

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.

I make the assumption that newbie DMs also read these threads (the number of visitors is far higher than posters).

I'm giving my advice and opinion for Kim who is starting up a brand new campaign and is really excited about it but feels like they get bombarded with requests to change the world they're dreaming of to include options that make no sense to them. It's easy for a DM (particularly a new one) to feel like they've lost control of the game. I'm here to say that sometimes limiting options or saying "no" is the best thing you can do for your own sanity, the campaign you're running and the game. If you don't believe in your campaign world, how can you be expected to bring it to life?

As an aside, no offense to anyone else on these message boards, but I don't give a **** what you think* of me. My players give me embarrassingly-over-the-top praise all the time. Their opinion is the only one that matters to me.

*Which is kind of funny how often I've accused of hating or being angry. I get a little cranky now and then and I'm a sarcastic SOB, but actually upset? Nah.

 

[prabe]

Okay, but you just described saying yes.

No one is suggesting that every race have significant populations within the lands in which the campaign takes place.

So, I have handout-equivalents available for players (they're in a GDrive folder that I share to everyone at the table/s), and here's what I have to say on the topic:

If there's a people not here, there are several possible reasons. Maybe the GM doesn't like them. Maybe the GM hasn't figured out where they are on the world. Maybe the GM doesn't own the sourcebook they're in. You can always ask the GM about a people you don't see here, but it's probably a good idea to have a second choice you're willing to play.

I'm not the total hardcase I might come across as, but I have had experiences where PC races turned out not to work out, both for balance reasons and for worldbuilding ones.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I really encourage people to consider building setting with fresher assumptions that just the standard Tolkien-pastiche, but I 100% support the GM's right to make the call what's in and what's out. Being a GM is a lot of work and at least to me the world building is a big part of the fun of it and something I take rather seriously. So yeah, I guess one could say that I have setting-purity or micromanaging issues. But that's just how it's gonna be. I wouldn't let a player to play a jedi in a Star Trek game and in the same way certain things simply are not part of settings of my own making. It is bizarre that this is even a least bit controversial.

 

[prabe]

I'm not trying to tell you how to play your game or run your world. I've just have never understood the reasoning behind "If the players have more fun, it comes at the expense of me/my world". I still don't get it, and don't think it makes sense. For me, it's not a matter of "My fun vs. your fun", it's "Our/the table's fun". When another player's fun increases, so does mine.

The world is mine. I'm building the world I want because I don't like the worlds on offer enough to run them. Telling me something needs to be in the world I'm making grinds my gears (which probably at least reads as "control issues").

Also, if I don't like a PC race enough to include them in my world, maybe I just don't like them. Maybe I find them deeply annoying as written up. A player setting out to play something I find deeply annoying is (or seems) likely to annoy me, whether by design or by accident.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It is bizarre that this is even a least bit controversial.

Same here.

It's the D&D equivalent of "driving from the backseat." Or as I call it, the interminable (and annoying) "Player Agency v. Rule 0" arguments.

Emergent narratives that come from the interaction of collaborative storytelling and randomization (dice, etc.) are part of what make D&D so special.

But as most people can tell you, there always tends to be an oversupply of players, and an undersupply of DMs. There are many reasons for this, but the main one is that being the DM means that you have to work more, and ... you don't play.

It should be uncontroversial that DMs should not be forced to run things that they do not want to, given the dearth of DMs (let alone quality DMs). Or as a basic matter of civility - you know, demanding that DMs create the exact campaign that the player wants, and works HARDER for the player, without regard to the DM, is just kinda sorta rude. IMO.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

The world is mine. I'm building the world I want because I don't like the worlds on offer enough to run them. Telling me something needs to be in the world I'm making grinds my gears (which probably at least reads as "control issues").

Also, if I don't like a PC race enough to include them in my world, maybe I just don't like them. Maybe I find them deeply annoying as written up. A player setting out to play something I find deeply annoying is (or seems) likely to annoy me, whether by design or by accident.

. . . The post of mine that you quoted was me saying that I'm not telling you how you should run your games. If you get angry from me basically stating "You do you", that is a you problem. I never told you how to run your game, I just said that I don't understand why people do it that way, as I personally think it is much better to do it the other way.

The world is yours, but the campaign is shared with the players. Without the players, you would just have your world and nothing to do with it (other than write novels, probably). That's why I let them have a say in the matter. I wouldn't have the ability to play the game without them, so, IMO, they deserve to be able to use their creativity in any constructive way they like.

I have never found any 5e race annoying, except for Kenku (which most people seem to agree with), so I don't really understand the last part. What races do you find annoying?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I'm here to say that sometimes limiting options or saying "no" is the best thing you can do for your own sanity, the campaign you're running and the game.

Sometimes, yes, but most times, no, IMHO. New DMs should definitely take it slow and be simple, but I've allowed every PC race at my table for every single one of my campaigns, and I am 93% sure that I am still sane. Maybe 89% sure.