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

[Crit]

... and the alignment options are in the book.

Again, this may be a shock to you, but just because something is in a book, even a core book, doesn’t mean it gets used in a campaign.

And I will reiterate again, whatever standard you are using for “fun-impacting” decisions, you might want to apply for “make the DM work more and do things she doesn’t want to do” decisions. Because you seem to treat those cavalierly (and not in the sense of the class).

I know that the parts of the system can be omitted, but the core books are a communally referenced standardized rule set. Most DnD games use some combination of most DnD official rules, so it's fair to revert to "default DnD expectations" until you reach a specific case that has to pull parts out.

Fun impacting decisions is simple- does the player want to do something that they find to be fun, and would this decision impact it? As for the DM work, that's as flexible as the DM wants it to be. Even if you're serious on world building, there's lore to take inspiration from, the narrative device of "lost history" or whatever else you want to do. A lazy mind is capable of great invention. Even if you just take "Gith" and make it an occasional type of Elf, problem solved. You put in what you want. I can respect someone who wants to go full force on the world building, but I don't think that is the standard. This may just be me, but I'd think that a world builder wouldn't have a big problem doing more of what they already like. The situation for this being a problem seems kind of specific- a DM would want to hard-build an element-restricted setting, and not have talked with the players enough before hand to get them on board with the restriction.

Like I've said, restrictions for a "vision" is fine, and this would be that case. We can't say that every option restriction is done under those circumstances, especially if "Monster races shouldn't be playable" is a semi-prevalent topic separate from setting.

 

[Crit]

Well, that's your preference. To me as a player, a list of options like that is not merely acceptable but good. It means that the things on that list have had some thought put into them. If elves are on the list, the DM has actively chosen to include elves, which means elves have a defined place in the world and its history and culture. An elf PC will be connected to those elements in the setting, not just jammed in all anyhow.

I pretty much always play casters, usually human. But if I joined a campaign and was told, "Everyone is a tabaxi and your only class options are fighter and barbarian"--hey, that sounds interesting. I can roll with that. Cat warriors it is.

Cat warriors sounds insane and potentially amazing. With that said, things like that should be decided by an agreement by player and DM. It would be kind of messed up if a DM showed up with a restricted world without notice.

In a session 0, this is when the world and the PCs get made. The world building hasn't happened yet, so in theory this is when the Players should have leverage to either accept restrictions or have the world accommodate their race choices. I think this is something we ought to figure out though- when is the player asking to play a race in relation to the world building happening? This seems kind of important to decide who's hypothetically in the wrong, the player violating an existing agreement or the DM refusing to accommodate the party. I think upholding consistency is fine, but once a new campaign starts, races should be freed up for choice.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I know that the parts of the system can be omitted, but the core books are a communally referenced standardized rule set. Most DnD games use some combination of most DnD official rules, so it's fair to revert to "default DnD expectations" until you reach a specific case that has to pull parts out.
.

The core books are the beginning, not the end.

I think that you probably should reflect on the fact that it is now evident that your play expectations and experience are quite different than that of other people you are conversing with, and perhaps you might wish to refrain from prescriptive comments about how people should run their games or build their worlds

 

[Crit]

The core books are the beginning, not the end.

I think that you probably should reflect on the fact that it is now evident that your okay expectations and experience are quite different than that of other people, and perhaps you might wish to refrain from prescriptive comments about how people should run their games or build their worlds

In a thread about "I don't understand why players make certain character choices," I find it ironic that this is where understanding comes back in. I would like direct you to me most recent comment, where it's more explicit that I'm not telling anyone how to run their games, rather considering how constructive their interactions with the players are.

 

[Viking Bastard]

I think you gave yourself the answer you needed- the "weird" races leave more room for interpretation, on top of whatever they individually offered.

My point is that to me, they don't offer much.

For example, I don't really have much an issue with a lot of "monstrous" races. When I first threw a goblin in front of my players, they knew what a goblin was immediately from context outside of D&D. A "goblin" required no explanation. This is what I value in a race.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

In a thread about "I don't understand why players make certain character choices," I find it ironic that this is where understanding comes back in. I would like direct you to me most recent comment, where it's more explicit that I'm not telling anyone how to run their games, rather considering how constructive their interactions with the players are.

it’s great that you are “considering how constructive their interaction with the players are.”
But you obviously don’t understand what people have told you. Whether it’s as simple as rules about evil PCs, or home brew, or in the most recent example, this statement-



“In a session 0, this is when the world and the PCs get made. The world building hasn't happened yet, so in theory this is when the Players should have leverage to either accept restrictions or have the world accommodate their race choices.”

Again, have you not noticed that many homebrew campaign settings are not just some ad hoc thing created extemporaneously after session 0 - that it is created well ahead of time?

I’m not even going to comment on the use of the word leverage. I can’t imagine being at that table.

 

[Crit]

My point is that to me, they don't offer much.

For example, I don't really have much an issue with a lot of "monstrous" races. When I first threw a goblin in front of my players, they knew what a goblin was immediately from context outside of D&D. A "goblin" required no explanation. This is what I value in a race.

I mean, I can't speak for each, but a snake-y buddies Yuan Ti have that going for them. Warforged either being robots or people-inside-machines can be fun. Gith, to me, are fun based on the connection to my favorite side of DnD- the aberrations, the far/astral realm, etc. Tortles are much more easygoing/lighthearted and basically Oogway so that offers that. The rest, others would have to speak for.

I personally wouldn't get much from playing a lot of the races in DnD, but I can envision ways that they offer something to someone. Same with classes. This will sound like a weird hill to die on, but I will not play paladin right now. I can see why people would want to, though.

 

[Shardstone]

Hope no one here ever learns about my setting that's only Shadar-Kai, Yuan-Ti, Loxodons, Ghostwise Halflings, Tortles, and Mountain Dwarves.

 

[Viking Bastard]

I mean, I can't speak for each, but a snake-y buddies Yuan Ti have that going for them. Warforged either being robots or people-inside-machines can be fun. Gith, to me, are fun based on the connection to my favorite side of DnD- the aberrations, the far/astral realm, etc. Tortles are much more easygoing/lighthearted and basically Oogway so that offers that. The rest, others would have to speak for.

I see it with the Warforged (they're robots/golems and I like them), and I can kinda see it for Yuan Ti as generic "snake people" if you squint hard enough, but my main issue with a lot of the races is that they are too unique to D&D or when adapted to D&D they were given too much of a spin. Good for IP, bad for immediate playability.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Hope no one here ever learns about my setting that's only Shadar-Kai, Yuan-Ti, Loxodons, Ghostwise Halflings, Tortles, and Mountain Dwarves.

I know you’re joking, but I’d totally play in that.

I will always play with a DM that is invested. That makes some choices. That’s cares. The worst games I’ve ever had is when the DM just runs everything by the book, with no thought or creativity or effort.