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

[Snarf Zagyg]

We all want to eat food prepared with care. There was no judgment value in my statement. Read it again.

Nor was there in mine. Inapt analogies are inapt.

This isn't about new or old food; it's about allowing the person who is running the game to restrict or allow races (including "classic" races) as they see fit.

Edit- to be clear, I was being partly facetious because I don't think it has much to do with trying new dishes. Yes, some DMs restrict races to "classic" races, but as we see in this thread from numerous example, many DMs restrict races for mechanical or thematic reasons, and have added or subtracted both "classic" and "exotic" races from the list of allowed playable races.

 

[Crit]

...and some people prefer authentic dishes done well, than fusion dishes done poorly.

More importantly, I'd rather eat the food of a chef that cares about the ingredients that are used, and not the chef who does not care at all what gets tossed into the pot. "Kimchee and peanut butter and egg salad and harissa and lutekisk? Sure!"

Inapt analogies can work all sorts of ways.

@Oofta is correct. In fact, I'd go to the example that @Shardstone used- notice that no one criticized him, even though he didn't use, for example, humans, or dragonborn, or aarakocra, and he was even "preventing" drow! (Refresher- "Hope no one here ever learns about my setting that's only Shadar-Kai, Yuan-Ti, Loxodons, Ghostwise Halflings, Tortles, and Mountain Dwarves.").

This isn't really about races, per se.

Why we're not talking about Shardstone? It's because we're occupied with something else. It's obviously in jest or provocative, so no need to engage with it, and doing so wouldn't answer our discussions about why and when restrictions should or shouldn't be allowed. Not to mention, our position is more nuanced than "restriction exist bad," so Shardstone's comment has no reason to attract our attention, assuming their players are on board with it. Don't make something out of nothing.

And bold of you to say "fusion dishes done poorly." You're twisting a basic "spice of life" comment to make it seem invalid. What you imply to be "fusion dishes" are as old and ingrained in the game as your authentic ones- a distinction made only by your whim, not due to their inherent qualities. Not to mention, "poorly" is very much a matter of opinion.
Why pretend like things are radically different when they're not? All of the race choices are capable of working in tandem to make a world- hence, the "default" DnD experience having all of them. There is no fundamental disconnect, and the "care" of the dish depends on the chef's investment, not whether or not they use ingredients you like.

You're just saying things are bad, and using that as evidence for why things are bad. You butcher a tame metaphor, you prescribe qualities (like incompatibility) to things which do not have them, you imply a lack of care where there is none. If this is how you approach a topic, you could make anything seem terrible, regardless of what it is.

I'm with @Oofta, I'm basically done here.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Why we're not talking about Shardstone? It's because we're occupied with something else. It's obviously in jest or provocative, so no need to engage with it, and doing so wouldn't answer our discussions about why and when restrictions should or shouldn't be allowed.

Wasn't joking. Am starting the campaign tomorrow!

Just stop.

 

[Crit]

Just stop.

You're focusing on the wrong part of the paragraph.

We are discussing Player-DM relations. We don't know the context for Shardstone's world and the players, and frankly, I'm not interested at the moment. There's a lot of other points you ought to address, so I will restate: Don't make something out of nothing here, because this is not a necessary tangent and it won't go anywhere relevant to what we were talking about.

Even then, what I said (under your reading) still isn't wrong, because I gave two possibilities. Didn't they say "I hope no one finds out about X?" That's pretty much the "provocation" I was talking about, and so, no need to engage with it. Twice over- it still doesn't answer the discussion questions, so we wouldn't have to talk about it.

I humbly request a more comprehensive answer to the previous comment at your earliest convenience.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I humbly request a more comprehensive answer to the previous comment at your earliest convenience.

There is nothing in your prior comments to reply to.

I will direct you to the prior quotes from the PHB and the DMG. And trust that you enjoy your game, just as the people that play differently than you do enjoy theirs.

 

[Monayuris]

In certain circumstances, this may be the case. I have already said that restrictions can be fine, but only under certain pretenses.

How would this conflict of player vs. restriction happen?

If the DM and the players are not on the same page as to what the campaign is going to be, who's "right" or "wrong" depends on the context of when the restrictions were put in place and if all parties agreed to them. I'm saying that the DM shouldn't put restrictions in without consulting the players, assuming we are at the start of a group/campaign. Doing so is necessary to set player expectations, or change some attributes of the world to accommodate. No one is saying "give up your decades of home-brew." I would qualify that as an already established, already agreed upon restriction, but I doubt this is a majority of DnD sessions.

Players, understandably, use official books as a baseline and have a "right" to inquire about deviations they were not previously aware of, assuming the DM built the campaign without the player's input. Consent of the governed.

In a collaborative experience, the person with the most sway on everyone else's experience ideally should not be a control freak, whatever that constitutes. I get "Don't bite the hand that feeds" but that doesn't mean "kneel."

The DM is the final arbiter of their campaign.

Who is right or wrong comes down to the DM making the final determination.

Of course, players have a right to ask if a certain option is available in the campaign. The DM can then inform the player if that option is allowed. It is better if the DM indicates up front what material is acceptable in their game so that players know ahead of time, and make characters that are appropriate.

 

[jasper]

Crit is using the well known, well worn, and dead horse method of not getting the clue. By lots of response and lots of words but it basically boils down to.
1. They don't like the idea that others thing DM Agency is Greater than Player agency.
2. They like to debate.
3. Would not be a good fit at some of our tables.
4. Never mind it would be name calling.

 

[Marc_C]

Nor was there in mine. Inapt analogies are inapt.

This isn't about new or old food; it's about allowing the person who is running the game to restrict or allow races (including "classic" races) as they see fit.

I find it very fitting and evocative actually. Also, I'm very well aware what the discussion is about. It's up to each individual group to decide what they want to "eat" at their table.

/I'm done here. Have a good day.

 

[Crit]

There is nothing in your prior comments to reply to.

I will direct you to the prior quotes from the PHB and the DMG. And trust that you enjoy your game, just as the people that play differently than you do enjoy theirs.

I'll take this opportunity to have this conclude with a neat bow, though I do not feel like my points have been addressed. Enjoy your campaign, be it new or old.

 

[Neonchameleon]

...and some people prefer authentic dishes done well, than fusion dishes done poorly.

When it comes to authenticity Mike Mornard, in Gary Gygax's original campaign played a balrog - and on one occasion bluffed his way in as a photographer for the Balrog Times using his burning thumb as the flash. Gygax was not a fan of Tolkein, but allowed hobbits (and called them that back then) because some of his players were.

When it comes to authenticity kitchen sink is the authentic D&D. Now this doesn't mean that you shouldn't open the equivalent of a themed restaurant where you only use some specific ingredients, or the equivalent of a vegetarian restaurant where you don't use other restaurants. But you don't get to claim authenticity back to the earliest days of D&D unless you're running kitchen sink, right down to adding classes (like Monks) based on what the players find cool on TV if there's nothing that currently works.

And some people prefer authentic dishes done well to themed dishes done poorly. Many people prefer dishes that suit them done adequately to dishes they have little say over and don't really like done adequately. And many people, including me, prefer cakes fresh out of the oven to cakes that are in many ways objectively better and store bought when they were cold.

More importantly, I'd rather eat the food of a chef that cares about the ingredients that are used, and not the chef who does not care at all what gets tossed into the pot. "Kimchee and peanut butter and egg salad and harissa and lutefisk? Sure!"

Which is a strawman. The chef isn't not caring what gets tossed into the pot - they simply aren't saying "I will use only these ingredients and no others". They are saying that they will make things fit and take the odder ingredients as an Iron-Chef style challenge.