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

[loverdrive]

If you're trying to defeat your own argument by letting it devolve into cartoonish self-parody, well done.

But if we assume basic maturity and good faith on the part of both the hypothetical DM and the hypothetical player, no raised voices or unlikely "screeching," then the DM drawing a line in the sand at certain excluded setting elements is both assholish and idiotic because… why? Explain your reasoning.

Does your contention still have any merit if the DM is running with a different system? Let's say the DM is running the A Song of Ice and FIre RPG, and the player in question wants to play a D&D dwarf. (Not a Tyrion Lannister expy, that's a different can of worms.) Is the DM still an idiotic naughty word for saying "no"?

Just saying "no" doesn't make the situation assholish or idiotic. Refusing to explain the reasons behind a decision does.

When playing A Song of Ice and Fire or, say, Elder Scrolls or Europe in 1600s, the reasons behind dwarfs not existing is pretty obvious to anyone who is familiar with the setting -- "well, this world wasn't designed by me, so I can't exactly just add naughty word on a whim".

Otherwise, there has to be a reason for every design decision that needs to be communicated. "Dwarves disappearing a thousands years ago is an important plot point, so introducing a dwarf would break naughty word" or "I had enough of beer and beard jokes for several lifetimes, so I don't want dwarves" are pretty valid reasons.

My point is: any house rule (and banning a non-variant option from PHB is definitely a house rule) needs a reason for existing and everyone at the table need to understand that reason.

I disagree. It has been long stablished and it's not going to become irrelevant just because someone new sits down and wants to play a dwarf.

That's a thing I often encounter when I consult IT companies.
-- Why the products need feature X at all?
-- We had it since the beginning.
-- Yeah, but why?
And then silence, which is a clear indicator that said feature should be scrapped.

A situation where dwarves were banned at the start, because for the first month the events took place where dwarves are not allowed, and now no one actually remembers why dwarves were banned, or something like that is quite possible.

P.S. Just for context: I personally don't allow any non-human races, unless there's an important point to be made that can't be achieved with playing a human, because I'm not a big fan of weirdness for the sake of weirdness. But I openly and honestly communicate why certain decisions were made and make sure that everyone understands them.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Why can't the DM just say, "Sure, you're mechanically a D&D dwarf but you are basically Tyrion - born into a normal human family."

That's the sort of point thats trying to be made in this thread!

Uh… wow, not touching that. Entirely setting aside that equating D&D dwarves with real-world little people isn't terribly PC, I don't think the ASoIaF RPG even has mechanics for D&D dwarves. Children of the Forest, maybe? (EDIT: I checked; nope, no such mechanics even for them.) Regardless, that's hardly the same thing. The DM would have to invent the mechanics to accommodate that player. You're saying they should be obligated?

Just saying "no" doesn't make the situation assholish or idiotic. Refusing to explain the reasons behind a decision does.

When playing A Song of Ice and Fire or, say, Elder Scrolls or Europe in 1600s, the reasons behind dwarfs not existing is pretty obvious to anyone who is familiar with the setting -- "well, this world wasn't designed by me, so I can't exactly just add naughty word on a whim".

Otherwise, there has to be a reason for every design decision that needs to be communicated. "Dwarves disappearing a thousands years ago is an important plot point, so introducing a dwarf would break naughty word" or "I had enough of beer and beard jokes for several lifetimes, so I don't want dwarves" are pretty valid reasons.

Why? What obligates the DM to justify their design decisions? What places (say) the creators of the Elder Scrolls setting so head-and-shoulders high above an amateur worldbuilder DM?

What if the dwarves' thousand-year disappearance in the setting is a secret the DM isn't at liberty to reveal to the player, because it's meant to be found through play? How is a DM who wants to keep that secret functionally different in any way from a DM whose sole rationale is, "Because I said so, and you just have to trust me"? The player, after all, can't ever tell the difference.

But this—

My point is: any house rule (and banning a non-variant option from PHB is definitely a house rule) needs a reason for existing and everyone at the table need to understand that reason.

—that's just untenable. It's not just wrong, it's "Dr. Cox singing 'wrong' to the tune of a grandfather clock chime" levels of wrong. I've said it before in this very thread and I'll say it again: the DM's authority over the game exceeds that of the rulebooks, because (can't believe I have to explain this in 2020) the rules are and have always been mere suggestions.

 

[loverdrive]

Why? What obligates the DM to justify their design decisions?

Because every design decision needs to be justified, otherwise -- why in the nine hells is it needed at all?

What places (say) the creators of the Elder Scrolls setting so head-and-shoulders high above an amateur worldbuilder DM?

Nothing. The same would apply if you ran a game in my world -- the decision wasn't made by you, so you can't exactly say why it was made.

What if the dwarves' thousand-year disappearance in the setting is a secret the DM isn't at liberty to reveal to the player, because it's meant to be found through play? How is a DM who wants to keep that secret functionally different in any way from a DM whose sole rationale is, "Because I said so, and you just have to trust me"?

Well, keeping secrets is pretty bad in itself, but "dwarves are kinda important, but I can't tell more" could be a valid reason too.

—that's just untenable. It's not just wrong, it's "Dr. Cox singing 'wrong' to the tune of a grandfather clock chime" levels of wrong. I've said it before in this very thread and I'll say it again: the DM's authority over the game exceeds that of the rulebooks, because (can't believe I have to explain this in 2020) the rules are and have always been mere suggestions.

Well, no. The group's authority over the game exceed that of the rulebooks, but not the GM's. Game Master is a player like everyone else, the game can only be played smoothly if a consensus was reached, not when one dude slams a fist on the table and asserts "authority".

For the god's sake, we are talking about a hobby that basically boils down to "three to five weirdos sit around the table, chug beer, eat pizza and collaboratively write a movie that would never be shot".

 

[PsyzhranV2]

He isn't any kind of human. He's Tabaxi and an unknown.

Given that the basis for the barkeep's discrimination is "This person does not appear to be (the right kind of) human, so I refuse to provide them service," it's very clearly racism. I don't know how much more cut-and-dry a scenario you can get.

(the right kind of) is a clause that modifies the main point, which is "This person does not appear to be human, so I refuse to provide them service", modifying for the possibility that the cat person is a polymorphed human rather than an individual of a different humanoid sapient species. If that optional clause is still taken out, leaving the sentence unmodified, my point still stands.

Given that D&D races are assumed by official material to identical to humans in psychology and behaviour before modifying for culture, unless specified otherwise, the tabaxi getting kicked out of the inn by virtue of just being a tabaxi still qualifies as the tabaxi receiving racist treatment from the inn, whether the barkeep intended such or not.

EDIT: actually, even accounting for possible divergence in behaviour and psychology, the tabaxi being refused service would still qualify as being racist (or "speciest" if you're going to be that much of a pedant for definitions). It's still very much discrimination on the basis of ancestry.

EDIT2: also the qualifier of "unless specified otherwise" I used, that IIRC applies to lizardfolk and yuan-ti in 5e, absolutely draws from dehumanization narratives used by racists IRL to justify their exploitation and mistreatment of other ethnicities and cultures by slandering them as subhuman or inhuman. Which is gross.

So we should stop screening European Jews for Tay Sachs disease or black people for sickle cell, because it's racism? Doing so is racial discrimination that is not motivated by maliciousness.

Providing a completely voluntary screening for certain diseases based on hereditary risk factors is not discrimination.

By contrast, withholding proper care due to racial prejudice absolutely is discrimination. For instance, black people are often underprescribed pain management treatments due to the misconception that people of African descent all have higher pain tolerance compared to other humans.

"As John Douglas Belshaw points out in Canadian History: Pre-Confederation, there is a longstanding historical precedent for the mistreatment of Black people in healthcare... Perhaps most obvious is the 19th century belief that people of colour do not feel pain the same way as white people..." From the below article.

Navigating systemic racism in Canadian healthcare - Healthy Debate

Serena Thompson, vice-president of the Sickle Cell Association of Ontario, lives with sickle cell disease, a genetic condition that affects the shape and function of a person’s red blood cells, making them more prone to blockages in the bloodstream. When a blockage – referred to as a “crisis” –...

healthydebate.ca

But that's a discussion for another time.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Because every design decision needs to be justified, otherwise -- why in the nine hells is it needed at all?

Every design decision needs to be justified!? What? To whom? Creating a fantasy setting is first and foremost a creative endeavor. The only person anybody doing something creative needs to justify themselves to is… themselves.

Well, no. The group's authority over the game exceed that of the rulebooks, but not the GM's. Game Master is a player like everyone else, the game can only be played smoothly if a consensus was reached, not when one dude slams a fist on the table and asserts "authority".

For the god's sake, we are talking about a hobby that basically boils down to "three to five weirdos sit around the table, chug beer, eat pizza and collaboratively write a movie that would never be shot".

Fundamentally disagree. I don't think there's any argument you could make that would get me to accept that "the GM is just a player like anyone else." They're not. They're the game referee and (often but not always) the setting worldbuilder. Those activities are not "just playing." Sure, if the gaming group consists of "three to five weirdos" who are all social peers, they're all basically equal participants—until one of them is designated the GM for the campaign they're going to play, at which point that individual is not a player at all, they're the GM.

And for the sake of whatever good you see in the universe, we're also talking about a hobby where ten to twenty complete strangers in the wargame room of a game shop get together and play a serious-ass game of AD&D but otherwise never interact with each other socially. The three to five weirdos being vaguely more common these days doesn't invalidate that.

 

[loverdrive]

Every design decision needs to be justified!? What? To whom? Creating a fantasy setting is first and foremost a creative endeavor. The only person anybody doing something creative needs to justify themselves to is… themselves.

Well, yes, as long as you're doing it alone sitting in your room in front of a typewriter.

When you bring in other people -- you need to work with them and you can't exactly work with people if no one can understand your thinking process.

The game world doesn't just exist. It exists to drive forward stories of the PCs (and explore and reinforce the theme of the campaign) -- and you need to openly establish constrains, reasons why these constrains are put and keep your vision clear.

Imagine developing a video game, where the game designer doesn't communicate with a writing team. Good luck with making a game in that situation.

Fundamentally disagree. I don't think there's any argument you could make that would get me to accept that "the GM is just a player like anyone else." They're not. They're the game referee and (often but not always) the setting worldbuilder. Those activities are not "just playing." Sure, if the gaming group consists of "three to five weirdos" who are all social peers, they're all basically equal participants—until one of them is designated the GM for the campaign they're going to play, at which point that individual is not a player, they're the GM.

The GM controls one or more characters in order to tell a story. Player controls one or more characters in order to tell a story. Can't see any particular difference.

The GM's sole authority over the game world was an important thing, but the hobby has grown out of it. Now it's widely accepted that worldbuilding is everyone's job -- players can and should introduce details, factions and locations, GMs can and should ask their players for input -- it's their game and their world too, after all.

 

[Maxperson]

A situation where dwarves were banned at the start, because for the first month the events took place where dwarves are not allowed, and now no one actually remembers why dwarves were banned, or something like that is quite possible.

If I encountered a game as a player where none of the players and the DM could remember why Dwarves were banned, I'd find another game. That's a bad sign. It's also not a situation that I've come across in the last 37 years of gaming, so I'm not really concerned about it.

 

[Zardnaar]

If I encountered a game as a player where none of the players and the DM could remember why Dwarves were banned, I'd find another game. That's a bad sign. It's also not a situation that I've come across in the last 37 years of gaming, so I'm not really concerned about it.

It's a trust thing. The DM might have reasons but may not reveal those reasons until later in the game.

That might also be part of the big reveal.

The only thing I care about is the DM is consistent.

 

[Maxperson]

Because every design decision needs to be justified, otherwise -- why in the nine hells is it needed at all?

But it doesn't have to be justified to you. If the DM knows that it's solid, he doesn't need your approval.

Well, keeping secrets is pretty bad in itself, but "dwarves are kinda important, but I can't tell more" could be a valid reason too.

No, secrets aren't bad. Discovery is like, a thing. A huge swathe of gamers like to discover secrets in game. Who are you to tell them that they are having bad wrong fun?

Well, no. The group's authority over the game exceed that of the rulebooks, but not the GM's. Game Master is a player like everyone else, the game can only be played smoothly if a consensus was reached, not when one dude slams a fist on the table and asserts "authority".

Not in D&D. D&D explicitly gives the DM and DM only the authority over the rules. He can cede that to the players, but they cannot take it and are not entitled to it.

 

[Zardnaar]

But it doesn't have to be justified to you. If the DM knows that it's solid, he doesn't need your approval.

No, secrets aren't bad. Discovery is like, a thing. A huge swathe of gamers like to discover secrets in game. Who are you to tell them that they are having bad wrong fun?

Not in D&D. D&D explicitly gives the DM and DM only the authority over the rules. He can cede that to the players, but they cannot take it and are not entitled to it.

This. The big reveal is totally a thing " I am your father".

I'm not allowing flyers or aquatic races working up to the big reveal.