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

[Minigiant]

Do you have any idea how arrogant, condescending, and off-putting that statement is?

So ... the community has now "grown up" and therefore, something something reasons, the player's choices in session 0 override the desires of all other players and the DM?

That isn't growing up.

You take it this way because you thing of the idea as maturing.

I am taking it as changing.

D&D doesn't have the same demographics it used to. So the explanations that used to work in the past won't work as effectively anymore.

DMs have more demands of explanation on their settings. This isn't a loss of power, it's a gain. Because now if you give explanations, the newcomers are more likely to accept it and accept anything else in your world. And if you say "No" and give a good reason why, your fleshed out setting provides a bulwark against any complaints.

 

[prabe]

It's not that. It's more that DMs have to provide a reason that is more than a single sentence.

"I'm sorry, there aren't any of those in my setting, but you're welcome to play something else."

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Still misrepresenting the point, and that's not what we're "demanding." The DM doesn't want certain behavior, ban the behavior, not the tool which still can be used in other ways.

Just because the DM has the final say doesn't mean that what they say makes sense. If I said something silly to my group, I'd hope they'd ask for clarification on how this benefits the table. DnD is a group experience, and the party and the DM ought to be on similar pages if it's going to work. If I'm restricting something, it better be because it makes the experience for the table better, and somehow I don't think banning a PC race helps the table much.

Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson:
"We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."

I did not misrepresent any point, I used the example of evil, because you expressed incredulity that tables banned it, when I know from personal experience as well as observed experience that this is a very common table rule. And it is infinitely easier to say, "No evil alignments, no PvP" than to adjudicate tons of individual interactions.

The majority of DMs are more than happy to work with engaged players. It's funny that we keep seeing these ersatz theoretical demands made on DMs in this thread, yet people gloss over the reality of the situation.

If a DM puts together a condensed, two-page session zero book, they will be lucky if half the players read it. Two pages. All I keep seeing is repeated demands for DMs (who are in high demand) to do more work for players. Great! When a DM does that, when there is a collaboration with an engaged player, that is a wonderful thing.

But don't make demands of people's time and assume it is costless.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

DMs have more demands of explanation on their settings. This isn't a loss of power, it's a gain. Because now if you give explanations, the newcomers are more likely to accept it and accept anything else in your world. And if you say "No" and give a good reason why, your fleshed out setting provides a bulwark against any complaints.

 

[Minigiant]

"I'm sorry, there aren't any of those in my setting, but you're welcome to play something else."

That's a poor sell for your setting.

"I'm sorry, the best position for that (insert race here) is already occupied by (insert other race). I don't have a space not history for (insert race) in my setting. Try (insert other race) here for that general experience. Or of you tell me you want to be (insert race(, I can tell you how you could create something similar that already exists in my setting."

 

[Oofta]

Still misrepresenting the point, and that's not what we're "demanding." The DM doesn't want certain behavior, ban the behavior, not the tool which still can be used in other ways.

Just because the DM has the final say doesn't mean that what they say makes sense. If I said something silly to my group, I'd hope they'd ask for clarification on how this benefits the table. DnD is a group experience, and the party and the DM ought to be on similar pages if it's going to work. If I'm restricting something, it better be because it makes the experience for the table better, and somehow I don't think banning a PC race helps the table much.

So my rules are

• no evil (and no "CN" but evil in all but name)
• limited races: human, dwarf, elf (high and wild only), gnome, halfling, half orc [EDIT: forgot half-elves]
• I limit the pacts a warlock can have for campaign reasons

Simple, clear. I used to allow anything and found that it just made a jumbled mess (I finally had to draw the line at the guy who wanted to play a half dragon, half vampire).

Does it make the experience at the table better? Obviously I think so. Do I have to explain every decision I make to a potential player? No.

 

[prabe]

That's a poor sell for your setting.

"I'm sorry, the best position for that (insert race here) is already occupied by (insert other race). I don't have a space not history for (insert race) in my setting. Try (insert other race) here for that general experience. Or of you tell me you want to be (insert race(, I can tell you how you could create something similar that already exists in my setting."

So to pick an example ... I extirpated the drow in my setting because I don't like them. If someone wanted to play a drow, I'd probably point them at the shadar-kai, which I do explicitly allow--I've changed some of the lore around elves in general, and shadar-kai in particular, but if they wanna play an elf other elves don't like, that's the path I'd suggest. I almost certainly would not invite someone to make a drow character for a campaign on my world.

To pick another example, if someone wanted to play a tabaxi, I'd say I haven't put them in my setting because I don't like them enough to put them in, and they look (from the rules and what I see in Gamer Internet) to be awfully abusable, so no, I don't want to make an exception in this case, but there might be something else that will interest you if you read the player handout about the peoples of the world.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Do tables like this also ban the Evil alignment for players

I definitely ban evil players. Evil characters might sometimes be OK.

 

[Oofta]

One thought on this whole topic that may make my style a bit unusual.

I've always run a campaign in the same campaign world that I now share with my wife. Pretty much every campaign has been part of and shaped the world's history, every PC has a chance to become a legend.

I've also moved way too many times, but because I enjoy DMing I always have a game. That means, though have I've had dozens of players over the years. If I made an exception for any significant percentage of players, I would have a kitchen sink campaign, because every new race would now have a place in my world.

I don't want a kitchen sink campaign. If that's not enough explanation, sorry I'm not sorry. Also not sorry that I feel like I have to say any variation of "yes" to every idea.

 

[Dire Bare]

This reads as though you're saying a DM who disallows a PC race has issues.

Pretty much. Depends on the why.

In the type of group I like to play with, the DM takes a more collaborative approach to world-building with the players. You aren't creating a setting for a novel, or even a setting to publish as a game accessory to others, but a setting to have fun with the players at your table. The more you say "no", the less collaborative and fun your game is. IMO, of course.

Most homebrew worlds I've encountered are pretty bog-standard fantasy worlds with world-building by restriction . . . which I hate. Other than "no tortles", what's different in your world that makes it worth keeping the restriction? I remember the old ads for Talislanta that advertised "No Elves" . . . it told me what wasn't in the setting, not what was unique and interesting about it. I never picked up any Talislanta books.

Now, if a DM is trying for a certain genre, tone, or truly has an interesting and unique world to invite his players into . . . I'm okay with restrictions that logically play into that. But when a DM tells me, "no dragonborn" and responds to my "Why?" with, "Because . . . . I don't like them . . . I can't be bothered to figure out how they fit . . . . dragonborn are stupid . . . ." I'm not likely to want to play in that game. Not because I don't get to play my precious "weird" race, but because I'm tired of playing with people who think good world-building is creating a list of things that don't belong.

The world is mine.

And really, restricting "weird" races boils down to the real problem. The world isn't yours, it's a shared world with your players. Or at least, that's the DM I'd like to play with, who doesn't have control issues over the game.