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

[EzekielRaiden]

And sometimes that's fine, and sometimes it isn't. I figure from your previous statements that you are fine with the attempt being open. And I think that is what most people are asking for. An opportunity to work with the DM, not just a hard shut down.

Absolutely. I'm a little late to the party on this one, but I just wanted to give it a signal boost.

It sounds like both sides are making their case sound stronger than it is, and then making the other side's case sound even stronger until it's unreasonable. That is, this is how I felt the "why weird races??" group's stance was: "Never ever at my table, how dare you even suggest it, you're ruining my beautiful campaign world with your weirdo, disturbing, semi-fetishistic races that don't belong in D&D." (And yes, I have known posters who literally had that stance, so it isn't like I'm talking about a total fiction here.) But when we drill down with posters who seem to be making such a strident position, it actually cashes out as, "Well, I haven't really done any work on <race.> Would you be willing to play <foo> instead? That's an established option that resembles what you want. If not, we can look at other options, but in the end it might not work out."

And that is, quite literally, ALL I ask for: people being willing to talk it out, to have an adult conversation about preferences without casting nasty aspersions (even if no aspersions were intended--again, calling the races "weird," "furry role-play," "like Zootopia," etc. IS casting aspersions whether or not you want to!) Because, again, that's how this seems to go: everyone in favor of "campaign vision" leaps immediately to how many things they ban, how they ban things because they just dislike them, etc. etc., and never seems to give even a moment's discussion to having a patient, positive discussion with their players about what they want to play.

Maybe it's because people assume that an adult conversation is implicit and, thus, that if a problem has arisen it's because an adult conversation was incapable of resolving it. If so, that's....not a particularly accurate assumption, given my experience with looking for a table to play at. People have noted the dearth of DMs vs players, but even more important than that is the dearth of good DMs vs. not-so-good DMs. And that doesn't have to mean "bad" ones! A solidly mediocre DM may still find group after group because (a) players don't know any better and/or (b) people are willing to put up with a lot of naughty word in order to get some gaming going. And it is absolutely a risk that an adult conversation simply is never permitted to happen in the first place. I mean, hell, we literally had a blog post from an actual WotC employee (before they purged their site...the second time I think?) where it was considered completely appropriate to joke about how they just did not get how Dragonborn could ever be something people like, but they've finally come around to letting people play the weirdo things they like to play after years and years of just saying no because they personally didn't (and still don't) like them.

I think that there is a divide between those who demand RAW, and those who are baffled by that demand.

Personally, I could not imagine playing with someone who points at a book and says that the game has to be played that way because it's written down by someone else. So? That guy who wrote those words isn't at the table, and he isn't going to be slapping the dice out of MY hand.

And I can't imagine playing with someone who offers to play a game with rules, and then says "well why didn't you KNOW that I wasn't going to use several parts of the rules?"

The rules exist as the presumption of play; they're the common denominator. If a thing is in the book and you don't tell me I can't use it, I'm going to assume I can. I don't think this should be controversial.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Because being creative and having an idea should always be equated with being a special snowflake or an naughty word.

I mean, I guess I'm sorry that a pitch for a world or campaign might inspire me to create something you didn't think of first, but I don't think I'm an naughty word for having a different source of inspiration than you do.

Context and setting. If the DM says "go wild," and then every PC winds up being some flavor of freak, who cares? But if the DM has a list of restrictions meant to enforce a certain setting, theme, or tone, and the players as a group are broadly on board, isn't it just a wee bit douchey to try and actively subvert that? If the DM says "no gnomes in my universe because tone/flavor/setting history," a player asking to play a gnome artificer who portaled in from another universe isn't being creative, they're being a contrarian. And in my experience, that's not going to annoy the DM anywhere near as much as it will bug the other players who all went to the trouble of making campaign-appropriate characters.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

And I can't imagine playing with someone who offers to play a game with rules, and then says "well why didn't you KNOW that I wasn't going to use several parts of the rules?"

The rules exist as the presumption of play; they're the common denominator. If a thing is in the book and you don't tell me I can't use it, I'm going to assume I can. I don't think this should be controversial.

And that’s the point I was making. If you have always played D&D with working assumption that it was DIY, and that the rules were suggestions (a belief that carries through to the written material in 5e as I have repeatedly pointed out) then the idea that anyone is surprised that a table does not accede to dogmatic invocations of the rules is ...

surprising.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And that’s the point I was making. If you have always played D&D with working assumption that it was DIY, and that the rules were suggestions (a belief that carries through to the written material in 5e as I have repeatedly pointed out) then the idea that anyone is surprised that a table does not accede to dogmatic invocations of the rules is ...

surprising.

There's nothing "dogmatic" about it.

You tell me we're going to play chess, I expect that we're going to play chess, not your houseruled alt-history version of what chess would look like if it had been mostly inspired by xiangqi rather than by shatranj. I'm going to expect that ordinary modern-chess rules, like "mad queens" and knights that can only move once diagonally, will be in place, and that there aren't any fairy-chess pieces. It's a game, with a manual. Unless you tell me that we aren't using the manual, what else am I supposed to think? Even with a "DIY"/"kit" game, you have to START somewhere! Am I really not supposed to think that a handbook specifically for players is useless trash until you deign to approve it?

 

[prabe]

There's nothing "dogmatic" about it.

You tell me we're going to play chess, I expect that we're going to play chess, not your houseruled alt-history version of what chess would look like if it had been mostly inspired by xiangqi rather than by shatranj. I'm going to expect that ordinary modern-chess rules, like "mad queens" and knights that can only move once diagonally, will be in place, and that there aren't any fairy-chess pieces. It's a game, with a manual. Unless you tell me that we aren't using the manual, what else am I supposed to think? Even with a "DIY"/"kit" game, you have to START somewhere! Am I really not supposed to think that a handbook specifically for players is useless trash until you deign to approve it?

I'm not endeavoring to speak for @Snarf Zagyg here, but I believe there's defense in the rules for considering even 5E as a kit. Even in the PHB, half-elves, half-orcs, gnomes, and tieflings are called out as potentially unavailable in a given campaign, and there are words to the effect that you should ask the DM about whatever houserules are being used (@Snarf Zagyg quoted them somewhere in this thread; I'm too lazy to find them).

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

There's nothing "dogmatic" about it.

You tell me we're going to play chess, I expect that we're going to play chess, not your houseruled alt-history version of what chess would look like if it had been mostly inspired by xiangqi rather than by shatranj. I'm going to expect that ordinary modern-chess rules, like "mad queens" and knights that can only move once diagonally, will be in place, and that there aren't any fairy-chess pieces. It's a game, with a manual. Unless you tell me that we aren't using the manual, what else am I supposed to think? Even with a "DIY"/"kit" game, you have to START somewhere! Am I really not supposed to think that a handbook specifically for players is useless trash until you deign to approve it?

Again, you are illustrating the exact difference that I was talking about.

An RPG isn’t chess. The DM is not the players adversary. And a rule book neither contains the entirety of the game world, nor is it binding on the participants.

Even if you were to view the rules as gospel, the rules themselves ... say they aren’t.

 

[Older Beholder]

As much as I run a kitchen sink setting myself, and try to let players play what they want as much as possible (especially people new to D&D) if I‘m to play in another group where there wasn’t a session 0 and I had an idea for a Yuan Ti, I’d make a back up character from the PHB core races just in case the DM doesn’t allow it.

 

[Monayuris]

To an extent. A DM that doesn't have the buy in from their players is DM that either ceases to have players or has resentful players. Part of being a DM isn't just framing a campaign, arbitrating rules, creatiing (or using published) adventures, running NPCs, etc. It's also a responsibility to be fair, evenhanded, consider the tastes of the rest of the group, and strive to create an enjoyable environment for everyone involved. If, as a DM, you want to limit certain options that the players would like to use, you should first ask all the players if that's acceptable and if it's met with reservation, try pitching the restrictions as for the campaign you're about to run only and offer to run a campaign after that that includes other options. Like any other social situation, find an equitable compromise that the entire group can get behind. A DM is not supposed to be a petty dictator, but instead a facilitator of fun.

In my current Neverwinter campaign, I restricted the option of races and subclasses to the PHB and SCAG only. The player were fine with this. The next campaign I run will likely be set in Eberron and will allow a much wider selection of options (likely most official sources). Also, since the players had no previous experience with Eberron, I pitched the idea to them first to see if they'd be interested in it (they were). If they hadn't been, I would have run something else—there's no point in running a game that the players won't enjoy. At some point, I'm going to have to convince them to play Cyberpunk RED (I like to switch up things so that I don't get sick of playing the same game over and over again). However, if I don't get their buy-in for that then I'll have to come up with something else (and then go cry myself to sleep ).

After that, I will probably run a homebrew setting of my own setting that incorporates the "exotic" races as inherent to the setting rather than an add-on. I'll also alter the lore of many of the races and such. Might run a Star Wars game at some oint, too (not sure which version of the game I'll use (D6, D20, or the new FFG version). But I digress.

Well, no. The DM is like the President. Sure, they have the veto, but the veto can be overruled, and the POTUS can be kicked out.

The DM only has the authority that the group as a whole allows.

As I said. It is important for everyone DM and Players to act in good faith and work together to create a fun, safe, and engaging gaming environment.

But at the end of the day, if a decision needs to be made, if a final determination needs to be given. The DM is the final authority.

I'm not sure why this is an argument. Every version of D&D ever produced has clearly stated this. Read the 5E Player's Handbook Introduction.

Your DM might set the campaign on one of these worlds or on one that he or she created. Because there is so much diversity among the worlds of D&D, you should check with your DM about any house rules that will affect your play of the game. Ultimately, the Dungeon Master is the authority on the campaign and its setting, even if the setting is a published world.

This is understood by anyone who plays the game. I've never seen a mass exodus of players in my 30 years of gaming because a DM didn't want to allow a certain race/option/thing in their game. If a player is going to be resentful because the choices I make as a DM in my campaign, then I'd rather not have that player at my table.

 

[Oofta]

@EzekielRaiden you seem to have real heartburn by my one time mention of zootopia. I was saying that a world full of anthropomorphic animals would feel like zootopia to me. I mean, I would have said a campaign with a bunch of anthropomorphic animals was like Alan Dean Foster's Spellsinger but I doubt many people would have gotten the reference.

How is it insulting or derogatory? A world with a bunch of humanoids that look like animals wouldn't be my cup of tea, but saying it would look like a movie (or novel series) I enjoyed being offensive is kind of a head scratcher. No one can possibly know what every individual in existence will find offensive.

On the other hand imagery and world-fiction is important to me. It helps me believe in my world. Sure, we can (and should) have an adult conversation about options but sometimes the answer is going to be "no". I cover what races are allowed along with a few rules when I extend an invite. If the limitations are a deal breaker, I'm not the DM for that player. It has yet to be an issue.

As far as what other people do in their own campaign, whatever turns their crank. There is no one true way.

 

[TwoSix]

There's nothing "dogmatic" about it.

You tell me we're going to play chess, I expect that we're going to play chess, not your houseruled alt-history version of what chess would look like if it had been mostly inspired by xiangqi rather than by shatranj. I'm going to expect that ordinary modern-chess rules, like "mad queens" and knights that can only move once diagonally, will be in place, and that there aren't any fairy-chess pieces. It's a game, with a manual. Unless you tell me that we aren't using the manual, what else am I supposed to think? Even with a "DIY"/"kit" game, you have to START somewhere! Am I really not supposed to think that a handbook specifically for players is useless trash until you deign to approve it?

I think it's quite possible to have a mindset where you go into any new game and assume both
a) that the PHB is the baseline from which the game will operate, and
b) that the DM will have deviations from the baseline, and those deviations may include exclusions of PHB material.

These sort of things are why we do character creation by email weeks to months before Session 1.