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

[Maxperson]

(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.

No. You don't have to account for something that has only a .0000whatever chance of being true. I also don't know why you're talking about refusing a service. The situation is this, "Some being/creature that I'm not familiar with just walked it. I have no idea what its motivations are, but it has very sharp teeth and claws(that's a bad sign in D&D by the way). I'd better be cautious and wary of it(wisdom in the D&D world)." That results in treatment different than humans get with no racism involved.

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.

First, where do you get "assumed by official material to be identical to humans in psychology and behavior..."? Second, the innkeeper is not a player or DM, so he has no idea what is or is not a D&D PC race. Third, the innkeeper doesn't even know what the Tabaxi is, given that he's in a very small town and has never seen or heard of one. For that matter, how is someone supposed to tell the difference between a Tabaxi and some sort of Rakshasa that just walked into the tavern?

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

It absolutely is. They are selecting individuals for different treatment based on race. That's discrimination. It's just not bad 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.

That's an example of bad discrimination, yes. That doesn't stop the first example from being discriminatory.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Yep. If you can't trust your DM, you have no business playing in that game.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yep. If you can't trust your DM, you have no business playing in that game.

Last DM advertised a game no angelic, infernal or draconic races.

Had something to do with the ruling classes. We never found out why but basically it meant no aasimar, Tieflings or Dragonborn.

That's the invitation or offer.

Don't like it don't sign up. It's the equivalent of saying I'm serving up chocolate ice cream not vanilla.

If you're playing with friends you'll have to figure it out. Nothing wrong with anything goes either.

 

[loverdrive]

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

And then how does he expect me to collaborate in building a story, if he keeps me in the dark? How am I supposed to work on a game if I don't know what kind of design process is in place?

 

[Zardnaar]

And then how does he expect me to collaborate in building a story, if he keeps me in the dark? How am I supposed to work on a game if I don't know what kind of design process is in place?

You don't need to no. Miight even be part of the theme.

No Gnomes. But then you encounter Gnomish undead. Could mean they were genocided and whoever did it is still out there and wants to repeat the process.

 

[Maxperson]

And then how does he expect me to collaborate in building a story, if he keeps me in the dark? How am I supposed to work on a game if I don't know what kind of design process is in place?

There are ten billion(more really) ways to build a story in D&D. You don't need to know about dwarves to build one playing the game with the DM. Your story will just not involve dwarves.

 

[Jack Daniel]

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.

Middle-Earth and Tékumel were created for languages first, and things like stories and games a distant second. Game worlds (such as they are) can and do just exist (for a certain offbeat diegetic value of "exist"). And what's more, these kinds of worlds are the good ones. They're richer and deeper than worlds created just for the sake of playing a game, or worse yet, created by committee. The sort of fantasy world that only exists when the PCs are looking directly at it, meanwhile, isn't just likelier to be shallow and incoherent; it's also more forgiving of quantum ogres and other dirty tricks of DM illusionism.

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 controls a whole lot more than just NPCs, and the aim of playing D&D, at least, is to have adventures, not tell stories.

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.

Holy baseless assertions, Batman! The condescension is strong with this one.

(Just speaking personally, though, even if it's a tangent only, if I sat down at a game table expecting to play some D&D and the DM asked me to introduce some detail into the game world? I'd get up again and leave. I wouldn't want to play with a DM who delegates the basics of the job.)

 

[doctorbadwolf]

What obligates the DM to justify their design decisions?

Common decency.

 

[loverdrive]

The sort of fantasy world that only exists when the PCs are looking directly at it, meanwhile, isn't just likelier to be shallow and incoherent; it's also more forgiving of quantum ogres and other dirty tricks of DM illusionism.

Uhm, no? Quantum ogres and other bad things are result of not following basic GMing principles (namely, "Present a meaningful choice" and "Telegraph a threat before it strikes").

And what's more, these kinds of worlds are the good ones. They're richer and deeper than worlds created just for the sake of playing a game, or worse yet, created by committee.

Uhm, no? Important things in the world are supposed to serve the PCs development. The antagonist is supposed to be a dark reflection of one or several PCs, the supporting cast is there to provide foil for protagonists, etc.

The GM controls a whole lot more than just NPCs, and the aim of playing D&D, at least, is to have adventures, not tell stories.

And the aim of having an adventure is to get out of them, forever changed, hopefully as a result of a meaningful character arc.

(Just speaking personally, though, even if it's a tangent only, if I sat down at a game table expecting to play some D&D and the DM asked me to introduce some detail into the game world? I'd get up again and leave. I wouldn't want to play with a DM who delegates the basics of the job.)

Maybe it's a matter of personal preferences, but I think that the correct answer to a player's question like "Are there any organizations that tied up with spellcasters?", when no such organization wasn't yet shown on-screen, would be something like "Hell if I know, you tell me. What kind of organization do you want? You want to be a hunted, or, perhaps, a hunter?", since it gives the player a freedom to leave their own mark on the game world and think outside of their characters, in a broader scope.

Most of the time people ask questions, they already have an answer they want to hear, so why not just give'em freedom to answer their question themselves?

 

[Maxperson]

Uhm, no? Important things in the world are supposed to serve the PCs development. The antagonist is supposed to be a dark reflection of one or several PCs, the supporting cast is there to provide foil for protagonists, etc.

One True Wayism at its best. There are a number of ways to play that are all fun and work for people.

And the aim of having an adventure is to get out of them, forever changed, hopefully as a result of a meaningful character arc.

Or you just get treasure and accolades, and maybe a title or some other reward.

Maybe it's a matter of personal preferences, but I think that the correct answer to a player's question like "Are there any organizations that tied up with spellcasters?", when no such organization wasn't yet shown on-screen, would be something like "Hell if I know, you tell me. What kind of organization do you want? You want to be a hunted, or, perhaps, a hunter?", since it gives the player a freedom to leave their own mark on the game world and think outside of their characters, in a broader scope.

It absolutely is a matter of personal preferences. What you are describing is one style of play, but not everyone likes that style.

Most of the time people ask questions, they already have an answer they want to hear, so why not just give'em freedom to answer their question themselves?

Personal preferences.