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

[Maxperson]

Wow.

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.

That's the default that the game sets up. It gives the DM Phenomenal Cosmic Power! But the social contract keeps that in an itty bitty living space.

The reality is that while a DM CAN be a tyrant, but he's not going to keep his group that way. And generally it doesn't go the players' way all the time, either. DMs in most games will typically say yes to some things and no to other things, with a variety of reasons that they say both yes and no.

 

[Chaosmancer]

@Chaosmancer, it's difficult to follow/respond when you do the multi-quote/response thing.

As for the rest, I don't care any more.

Sorry, I've tried breaking up each response with the lines, but I hate multi-posting and sending out multiple responses in multiple separate posts

 

[Hussar]

But I can say from personal experience, I've never had anyone gripe when I open my pitch with, "This is a classic fantasy campaign, so you're all nobodies who dream about being heroes. Roll stats and pick human or halfling. Druids aren't playable and warlocks don't exist in this campaign."

Wow, really? You are very lucky then.

When I tried running a Primeval Thule campaign with no full casters, the players lost their freaking minds. Gripe doesn't begin to describe the uphill battle I had trying to get that game off the ground.

 

[Zardnaar]

My homebrew freely allows all "beastfolk" (tabaxi, lizardfolk, minotaurs, dragonborn, etc) and they've been integrated into my lore for decades. Basically, an ancient civilisation discovered a way to turn humans into strange animal-human hybrids that bred true in an attempt to create slave-races. After the fall of this empire, they all were free to go on their own path.

It is also satisfying for me on a verisimilitude level because it gives a reason for why all these nonhuman races are so "human" in their thinking. Because that's what they are, really...

Hey that's my explaination.

The ancients aren't totally gone though.

 

[Zardnaar]

As usual we have hundreds of posts that boil down to a simple argument. Some DMs and players like kitchen sink campaigns, some don't.

My personal preference is a more focused campaign with a limited set of races whether I'm playing or running. I simply have a hard time taking a campaign seriously where a cat person, a person that looks like a fiend, an elephant person, a snake person, a bird person, another bird person completely different from the first bird person walk into a tavern. The (nearly always) human patrons and bartender don't blink an eye at this.

Other people want to open it up to anything, the more the merrier. People should have the freedom to play that manufactured entity warforged if they want.

I think either approach is fine, as are variations of the themes. We all have preferences.

The problem is the hundreds of posts that if the DM doesn't support the kitchen sink approach we're playing he game "wrong".

• The DM shouldn't be such a control freak
• How dare the DM stand in the way of people having fun
• Players have the right to demand any race they want to play
• The DM is being a prima donna who believes their campaign world is a piece of art

I could continue but basically it comes down to: if you don't run a kitchen sink campaign you're doing it wrong.

Why do people feel the need to tell DMs they're doing it wrong? Can't each DM, each table, have a different take on how to run the game? If the DM and players are all having fun, why the **** do you care?

My advice? As a DM do what makes sense to you. You set the stage and the scenery. It has to make sense to you first and foremost. If you want to have the players help build the stage, fantastic! Just don't feel forced into it no matter how many people tell you you're DMing wrong.

Advice for players? If a DM's style doesn't suit you find a different DM or start your own game. No DM can be the right one for every player and vice versa.

My counter arguement is they can DM and I'll play. You did say anything is allowed right?

 

[Minigiant]

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.

They live in a big city. That's why their player's ditched them. The players had other options to go to...
Me.

Had they lived in a small town, the player might have stuck around with them as DMs and not been happy. Or ditched D&D or rpgs altogether.

They aren't bad players either. They just had really bad settings they they couldn't find players willing to roleplay in.

One because he allowed too much and the setting made no sense.
The other because he allowed too little and the setting wasn't interesting to anyone he knew.

Tough luck for those two DMs.

 

[ElRojo]

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.

Double Nope.

The players play the game, but it cannot be played without a DM to run it.

Wanna go for a triple?

...
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.
...

This is the normal state of affairs. So what?

If a player is unwilling to play the campaign the DM wants to run and how he wants to run it, then they will not play.

This is also the normal state of affairs. In other news: Water is wet.

...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.

I was not referring to players when I mentioned obnoxious people.

But pickiness can make someone obnoxious.

Opinions vary.

 

[Jack Daniel]

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

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

Time, effort, and enjoyment are not currencies. You could call them resources or even commodities in some contexts, but not currencies. They aren't fungible, they aren't media of exchange, and they don't even resemble such in a metaphorical sense when the social context is playing an RPG.

Regardless, my original point stands. When I sit down with a group of people to play a game, I'm not exchanging my time or my effort for anything, and neither am I exchanging anything for whatever enjoyment I derive from the experience. An economic exchange model simply doesn't fit the social context, and it's a painful stretch of a bad analogy to try and make it fit. Never mind your apparent claim that it's literally true.

 

[Zardnaar]

That's the default that the game sets up. It gives the DM Phenomenal Cosmic Power! But the social contract keeps that in an itty bitty living space.

The reality is that while a DM CAN be a tyrant, but he's not going to keep his group that way. And generally it doesn't go the players' way all the time, either. DMs in most games will typically say yes to some things and no to other things, with a variety of reasons that they say both yes and no.

This. I'm thinking of banning Dragonborn because they're crap mechanically. Right now though I have a Dragon Empire and there's around 10 flavours of Dragonborn you can pick from.

Next game might exclude them.

I bought Midgard and more or less limited the options to that. I spent $300 on the books and wanted to test them out. Egypt theme and still got the "can I be a viking and Samurai. Viking got a yes, Samurai no.

 

[prabe]

Egypt theme and still got the "can I be a viking and Samurai. Viking got a yes, Samurai no.

I'm curious. How'd you decide that?