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

[Jack Daniel]

I'm a salesman by trade so that's why I see it that way.


That's called a monopoly.

If you are the only one providing a desired service, the urge and need to sell is lowered.

If you are the only baker in town, you are automatically the best baker in town. It has nothing about your quality. And if more bakers open up bakeries, you will have to sell the attributies of your bread and pastries or risk losing customers. If you don't ming losing certain customers,then you don't have to change nor advertise.

But if you do..

Same goes for DMing.

The laws of supply and demand don't seem particularly relevant in the absence of an economic exchange.

 

[Oofta]

The artificer and fighter in my Saturday group are both DMs whose players ditched their settings and tables because the players didn't like the setting and table and the DM couldn't find replacements.

It does happen.

DMs and Players are salesmen. And not every one of them are successful. Sometimes a product doesn't get sold.

Not everyone is cut out to be a DM. That doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. If saying "no" was the cause of the people not playing I wouldn't have players. But that hasn't been a problem for a few decades now.

In fact sometimes DMs are unsuccessful because they don't learn to say no. There was a separate thread long ago where the DM is burning out because they felt like they've lost control.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

The laws of supply and demand don't seem particularly relevant in the absence of an economic exchange.

Money isn't being exchanged here, but time is. There's no monetary price, but time spent at the table is time that could have spent on anything else; successful play groups are ones that make the exchange worth it. If there's multiple games in town and one table has warning signs that it will be a bad experience or a waste of time, people will likely go elsewhere.

 

[Gammadoodler]

The laws of supply and demand don't seem particularly relevant in the absence of an economic exchange.

Then you have not spent much time with games on Roll20. Even in the free games, game setup is 100% salesmanship.

DMs post their adventure hooks, hoping to get players they'll like, and players apply to those games they find interesting trying to present themselves as worthy applicants.

As it turns out both parties value their time, and don't want to spend it on something or with people they don't enjoy.

 

[Minigiant]

The laws of supply and demand don't seem particularly relevant in the absence of an economic exchange.

How so. Time, effort,and enjoyment are currencies as well.

The Players demand a setting.
The DMs supply the setting.

If the DM supplies something that matches the Player's demands, they play.
If the DM supplies something that doesn't matches the Player's demands, the Player so elsewhere.

The issue and core of the "argument" is when the DM supplies something that doesn't matches the Players' demands but the Player don't have another DM to go to.

 

[zarionofarabel]

How so. Time, effort,and enjoyment are currencies as well.

The Players demand a setting.
The DMs supply the setting.

If the DM supplies something that matches the Player's demands, they play.
If the DM supplies something that doesn't matches the Player's demands, the Player so elsewhere.

The issue and core of the "argument" is when the DM supplies something that doesn't matches the Players' demands but the Player don't have another DM to go to.

Tough luck for the player I guess.

 

[Minigiant]

Not everyone is cut out to be a DM. That doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. If saying "no" was the cause of the people not playing I wouldn't have players. But that hasn't been a problem for a few decades now.

Not everyone is cut out to be a DM.
Not every DM is cut out to be the DM of every group.

It's not about saying No. It's about compatibility.
I see this issue all the time in D&D community spaces. Many people are fine saying the players can go elsewhere. However they don'tlike the idea of players coming to their tables, not liking their ideas, and going elsewhere. Because if they did, these posters would not care so much.

I'm a DM who likes mindgames and using pop references and fictional characters as shortcuts to remember NPC personalities, ideas, and bonds, If a player doesn'tlike the idea of a fighter in the style of Macho Man Randy Savage playing a long game to steal their +3 longsword, I am perfectly fine with them calling my setting and character stupid. All the goliaths in that setting act like pro wrestlers and if you wanna be one, you better learn to cut a promo.

In fact sometimes DMs are unsuccessful because they don't learn to say no. There was a separate thread long ago where the DM is burning out because they felt like they've lost control.

And some DMs are successful because outside elements of the game like friendship or location have allowed them to rarely need to say Yes.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Prabe up above gave some pretty good reasons for something like the Drow to not exist. They really only exist because Lolth and Lolth is gone (I'm assuming that is the reasoning, but I believe I saw this stated before). And that seems like a good reason.

But if I came to a DM and they said, "No Gnomes. A Gnome Assassin killed my favorite character in World of Warcraft so I banned all Gnomes forever from my table"... frankly that is a stupid and childish reason to ban an option. I find gold jewerly ugly and gaudy, I'm not going to ban my players character from wearing it just because I think it is ugly.

This. 100% this.

Banning races is fine (I personally don't like it, but would accept it as a player), but you have to provide a reason for it. The reason could be as easy as "They don't exist in my world.", but any reason, even a bad reason, is better than no explanation. The DM is the runner of the game and what the DM says goes, but the DM doesn't have immunity to questioning. The DM is not the god of the table, they're the god of the game. It's okay to say no, but if the character asks for an answer, in all cases that I have experienced or seen, it is much better to have the players understand your reason than forever not know why you stopped them from having fun.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Nope.

The DM runs the game. It cannot be played without him.

If a DM does not have enough players who want to play the game he is running, then there is no group.

As I do not associate with obnoxious people in real life, I have never heard of a single instance of a DM/GM lacking for players just because they said X,Y, and Z races /classes are not options in his campaign world.

Nope.

The DM runs the game, but it cannot be played without the players.

If the DM does not have the support of the group for the campaign he wants to run and how he wants to run it, sooner or later, there will be no group.

Someone not playing at a table because of a certain race exclusion does not make them "obnoxious" it just makes them picky. Pickiness is something to work on, but it does not make someone obnoxious.

 

[ElRojo]

The artificer and fighter in my Saturday group are both DMs whose players ditched their settings and tables because the players didn't like the setting and table and the DM couldn't find replacements.

It does happen.

Ohh, look an exception!

So what.

They are either not very good DM's. Didn't put much effort into finding new players. Their campaign concept may have just outright sucked, so they experienced the natural consequences thereof. Or they live in a realllly small town...

Take your pick.

How so. Time, effort,and enjoyment are currencies as well.

The Players demand a setting.
The DMs supply the setting.

If the DM supplies something that matches the Player's demands, they play.
If the DM supplies something that doesn't matches the Player's demands, the Player so elsewhere.

The issue and core of the "argument" is when the DM supplies something that doesn't matches the Players' demands but the Player don't have another DM to go to.

That was not the argument being made.

The words were to the effect of: "The DM has no more authority than the players give him". Which is a backwards perception.

If the players truly do not have another DM to go to, I defer to Zarionfarabel's eloquent reply:

Tough luck for the player I guess.