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

[Jack Daniel]

There is no one true way.

Well... there is at least one true way.

OD&D(1974) is the one true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing.

 

[Gammadoodler]

@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.

I can't speak for @EzekielRaiden , but it was a comparison that I also felt was not meant to be complimentary.

I suspect that feeling is because you have presented such a setting as being ridiculous. You might play in it but you'd "have a hard time taking it seriously". If I tell you I can't take rap music seriously, it is unlikely that you would have the impression that I have either positive or neutral feelings about rap music.

Edit: And if I say that to someone who does like rap music, the message I'm communicating is "I think something you like us ridiculous", which is something people can reasonably get upset over.

Edit 2: I'm not saying your preference is wrong, just that it's not unreasonable for someone to take offense at how it's been communicated

 

[Oofta]

I can't speak for @EzekielRaiden , but it was a comparison that I also felt was not meant to be complimentary.

I suspect that feeling is because you have presented such a setting as being ridiculous. You might play in it but you'd "have a hard time taking it seriously". If I tell you I can't take rap music seriously, it is unlikely that you would have the impression that I have either positive or neutral feelings about rap music.

Different people have different preferences. It's not an insult to not like something someone else likes.

 

[Minigiant]

A lot of the conversation I see here and many other places over the years seem to nudge the idea that many people don't like taking criticism. Dungeon Masters and Players alike who have llittle issue showing dislike of settings or character ideas but afraid or defensive about the possiblity of others criticizing their settings and character preferences.

As both a DM and player, I feel both sides. But that's the deal. The DM gets to say "No". The Players get to say "Bye". If they want to play together and be happy, the DM and players either must (1) be of the same clique of the fandom or (2) sell the ideas from their clique to the other side. But as D&D expands, (1) is a lot less likely for new groups or add ons.

It's not unique to D&D. Many fan communities that expand have this issue.

I see this the the Total War community. Many of the old school Historical TW strategy fans don't get why the Warhammer fans want more weird races and not MOAR HUMANS. Whereas some the Warhammer fans don't get how one have play a game of just infantry lines of spears and occasional cavalry flanks.

Lets not get on how music fans when an artist or band changes styles.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Different people have different preferences. It's not an insult to not like something someone else likes.

Saying "I don't like that" is different than saying "I think that's silly/stupid/whatever".

I can't disagree with you on what you like or don't like, but I'll have opinions on whether something is silly/stupid/whatever.

 

[Oofta]

Saying "I don't like that" is different than saying "I think that's silly/stupid/whatever".

I can't disagree with you on what you like or don't like, but I'll have opinions on whether something is silly/stupid/whatever.

I swear, sometimes I think people are just looking for something to be upset by. You have your preferences, I have mine. I can't take a kitchen sink campaign seriously. Well, correct that. If there was a really cool story and justification behind it maybe. It could make sense in a planescape campaign for example.

I've never said kitchen sink campaigns were stupid or that people who liked them were dumb. People need to pursue their own bliss, kitchen sink campaigns are not mine. That's all.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.



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.

The PHB can say anything it wants, the truth is that the DM has authority only with the permission of the group. The end.

If the group disagrees with the DM, it’s gonna be solved in the same way as pretty much any other disagreement in that group of people.

In my group, a person who tries to hold the fake authority of a game role over the heads of the whole group, in any context, gets laughingly told “no”, and that is pretty much the end of it. In other groups, there is a clear “strongest willed person” who speaks up and resolves the conflict. In another group, everyone may agree to abide by the rules of the game even if they think it’s stupid, while others may simply have an informal vote or other means of consensus.

Regardless of method, if the DM call stands in spite of a larger group consensus against it, it is only because the group has agreed to that circumstance.

 

[ElRojo]

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.

No.

The DM is the Ultimate Authority.

The DM runs the game. He does not get overruled.

Players whishes and whims are only indulged in as much as the DM allows.

The Players are either down with how the game is going to be run, or they leave.

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.

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.

It's not an argument because there is nothing to argue about.

If the DM says "In my campaign world no Half-Orc PC's", then that's the way it is.

If you don't like it - vote with your feet.

No good DM wants potentially disruptive players at his table.

... The DM gets to say "No". The Players get to say "Bye". ...

Doesn't get much simpler.
.

 

[Dire Bare]

The DM is the Ultimate Authority.

The DM runs the game. He does not get overruled.

Players whishes and whims are only indulged in as much as the DM allows.

Wow.

The Players are either down with how the game is going to be run, or they leave.

If you don't like it - vote with your feet.

Well, I agree with this last part. There's no way I'd play with a DM who sees themselves as the "Ultimate Authority" (capitalized). Nor would I want to ever run a game that way.

 

[Oofta]

The PHB can say anything it wants, the truth is that the DM has authority only with the permission of the group. The end.

If the group disagrees with the DM, it’s gonna be solved in the same way as pretty much any other disagreement in that group of people.

In my group, a person who tries to hold the fake authority of a game role over the heads of the whole group, in any context, gets laughingly told “no”, and that is pretty much the end of it. In other groups, there is a clear “strongest willed person” who speaks up and resolves the conflict. In another group, everyone may agree to abide by the rules of the game even if they think it’s stupid, while others may simply have an informal vote or other means of consensus.

Regardless of method, if the DM call stands in spite of a larger group consensus against it, it is only because the group has agreed to that circumstance.

If a player disagrees we discuss it. But the DM puts far more work into the campaign than the players do and they always makes the final call. Someone has to have final say and that's the DM no matter what side of the DM screen I'm on. If a player tried to bully me into changing my mind they could find another game.

Don't like it? Find a different DM or start your own game. The only people who ever had a problem with this in my game was one guy that wanted to play a half vampire half dragon and another that wanted to play an evil character, something I explicitly do not allow.