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

[Charlaquin]

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.

This suggests that all races should be opt-out; that is to say, included unless there is sufficient justification not to include them. I rather think the opposite is the case. They should be opt-in, included only if their presence is sufficiently justified. The only reason that should be needed that dwarves don’t exist in a setting is that the setting’s creator (whether the author of an IP the game is set in or the DM) didn’t think they suited the setting. Now, the player could certainly make a case to try and justify the addition of a dwarf character, perhaps pitching a hidden colony of dwarves somewhere in this setting, or some sort of “traveler from another world” backstory for their dwarf character. And it would be polite of the DM to hear them out, and consider their perspective. But if the DM does so, and still decides they don’t think the character is appropriate to the setting, it’s the player who is being rude if they continue to push the issue after being heard out, considered, and turned down.

 

[Charlaquin]

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 player’s handbook actually tells us that the object of the game is to create exciting, memorable stories. Quote for reference:

There’s no winning and losing in the Dungeons & Dragons game—at least, not the way those terms are usually understood. Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils. Sometimes an adventurer might come to a grisly end, torn apart by ferocious monsters or done in by a nefarious villain. Even so, the other adventurers can search for powerful magic to revive their fallen comrade, or the player might choose to create a new character to carry on. The group might fail to complete an adventure successfully, but if everyone had a good time and created a memorable story, they all win.

I do think though, that there is an important distinction to be made between telling stories and creating stories. D&D is designed to facilitate the creation of emergent stories through play, not the telling of stories written outside of play.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Common decency.

That's the second time someone has tried to frame a GM creating a game setting without soliciting player input as some kind of moral or ethical issue. I feel justified in rejecting this notion out-of-hand unless someone can explain why it's not as patently absurd as it sounds.

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.

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

Yeah, I used to play that way. When I was twelve. Since then, my hobby-gaming has… how did you phrase it earlier?… grown out of it. It's widely accepted that not everybody plays D&D the way you do. That's why I've taken pains in previous posts to discuss the way I play and why in terms of what I value. I've used that term deliberately because values are known to vary between cultures.

The player’s handbook actually tells us […]

Not to be pedantic or anything, but a Player's Handbook is what's actually telling us.

I do think though, that there is an important distinction to be made between telling stories and creating stories. D&D is designed to facilitate the creation of emergent stories through play, not the telling of stories written outside of play.

I think that's close enough to what I mean when I draw a distinction between "adventure" and "story" that we're pretty much saying the same thing.

 

[Mecheon]

(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.)

This is pretty common these days because it helps people get invested in the world

All you have to do is "My pa won the Oaksbury Pumpkin Contest with a super-giant pumpkin, but we could never get that thing back home, it seemed to grow more when it was there and crushed the wagon we brought it there on" and blapo, you're done and also at some point you might have to deal with The Great Pumpkin being a thing

I'm not entirely sure what you're going on about here, but players wanting to have deep secrets sounds to me suspiciously like players who want their characters to have dramatic backstories despite starting at 1st level and 0 XP. Which isn't something I normally go for. A character's backstory is everything that happens between 1st and 4th level. If they collect some secrets along the way, cool; if they develop deep ties to the setting along the way, awesome. But at 0 XP, they're a nobody, a newcomer, a tourist in the game-world. The whole point of play is to go from being a mere tourist in the setting to one of its impactful movers and shakers.

Backstory happens before level 1. Its why your character is off adventuring

Maybe they were raised by a single parent and are setting off to discover who their other parent was. Maybe they're a bastard of a royal family who's gotten to the 'burn it all to the ground' stage of living and picking up power to do so. Maybe they're the last survivor of a mountain tribe duty-bound to keep something secret, and need to get back there to ensure their charge isn't disturbed. Or maybe they're trying to turn around their life of being a dock-rat of a kid and are now trying to turn it around by instead aiming to be the greatest of chefs, hoping to challenge the Iron Chefs to dramatic cooking battles in Kitchen Stadium

Your characters are not spat onto the world, fully-formed and a blank slate at level 1. They have a history

 

[zarionofarabel]

This is pretty common these days because it helps people get invested in the world

All you have to do is "My pa won the Oaksbury Pumpkin Contest with a super-giant pumpkin, but we could never get that thing back home, it seemed to grow more when it was there and crushed the wagon we brought it there on" and blapo, you're done and also at some point you might have to deal with The Great Pumpkin being a thing

Backstory happens before level 1. Its why your character is off adventuring

Maybe they were raised by a single parent and are setting off to discover who their other parent was. Maybe they're a bastard of a royal family who's gotten to the 'burn it all to the ground' stage of living and picking up power to do so. Maybe they're the last survivor of a mountain tribe duty-bound to keep something secret, and need to get back there to ensure their charge isn't disturbed. Or maybe they're trying to turn around their life of being a dock-rat of a kid and are now trying to turn it around by instead aiming to be the greatest of chefs, hoping to challenge the Iron Chefs to dramatic cooking battles in Kitchen Stadium

Your characters are not spat onto the world, fully-formed and a blank slate at level 1. They have a history

But what if I don't want to create a history for my PC? What if I don't want to come up with a story about a pumpkin something or other? What happens if I have zero interest in creating setting details? What happens if all I want to do is bash stuff with a sword?

 

[loverdrive]

But what if I don't want to create a history for my PC? What if I don't want to come up with a story about a pumpkin something or other? What happens if I have zero interest in creating setting details? What happens if all I want to do is bash stuff with a sword?

Then go play Diablo or Gloomhaven or somethin, what more can I say.

 

[Mecheon]

But what if I don't want to create a history for my PC? What if I don't want to come up with a story about a pumpkin something or other? What happens if I have zero interest in creating setting details? What happens if all I want to do is bash stuff with a sword?

Well then, I don't think D&D is the game for you. Especially 5E and its "Background is a thing you pick at character creation"

Given 'An animated series based on a story-based D&D game' is presently the most kickstartered thing in existence and one of the things people are expecting their own D&D experiences to be like, your expectations of the game may be different

Then go play Diablo or Gloomhaven or somethin, what more can I say.

the joke is, not even safe there. That background about being from a mountain village and having to protect a thing? That's the Barbarian's from Diablo 2

 

[zarionofarabel]

Then go play Diablo or Gloomhaven or somethin, what more can I say.

Sorry to say, but your idea of what the game should be all about is by no means the end all.

Well then, I don't think D&D is the game for you.

Now that is OneTrueWayism at its best!

 

[Maxperson]

But what if I don't want to create a history for my PC? What if I don't want to come up with a story about a pumpkin something or other? What happens if I have zero interest in creating setting details? What happens if all I want to do is bash stuff with a sword?

Then find a group of like minded people and have great fun playing that way with them.

 

[Maxperson]

Then go play Diablo or Gloomhaven or somethin, what more can I say.

Orrrrr, play D&D. You don't get to say how D&D should be played. You only get to say how YOU prefer it for YOUR games. The way he described playing is every bit as valid as your method.