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

[Maxperson]

At a lot of combat or meatgrinder tables, it was better to not give your character's histories and background unless they made it to a certain level. You'd survive to level 5 or something, then describe your brackground at campfire or a backroom of a tavern.

"Where are you from, Fighter" says Dwarf.

This is what promotes a lot of racial stereotype PCs. Because from 0e-3e, it was a bad idea to invest in a PC's story unless a DM informed you it mattered. Because levels 1-3 were super deadly.

0e to 2e. 3e was the start of the easy street D&D games. The DM could kill PCs, sure, but if giving level appropriate encounters, you had to get unlucky to die at 1st level and once you hit 2nd you had to get very unlucky.

 

[prabe]

Then you don't have to. I mean, I'd like something to work with, I played with a guy who was Human Fighter and had no backstory and... he didn't really care about the world. He was literally just there to fight things. I had a heck of a time doing anything with him, because he gave me nothing to work with. So... I tended to focus the plot on the people who gave me things to work with.

But, more to the point, what if I do want to do those things and come up with those stories, why am I being told that I'm a bad player because of it?

I have had this same experience with a player's character. It makes it difficult to connect that character to the setting and campaign when there's no there, there. OTOH, at least in my instance, the player was satisfied to back up the characters with backstories, and be tied to the campaign that way.

 

[prabe]

The unfortunate truth is, IME, there are far, far, far more players out there and DM's who think this way than think that backstory or motivation is important. I've had so many Man Without a Name characters presented to me for play. Far, far more than ones with actual thought and backstory.

And, honestly, I think it's because those players are trained from early play by DM's who insist that PC's are blank slates.

I think at least some of it is DMs who punish characters with backstories (as in, they use backstories as nothing more than a way to make the characters hurt). DMs who ignore backstories are only a little less unfun.

It's been one of the main reasons why I've pretty much given up on detailing settings over the years. Players don't give a toss and so many are just happy that the DM rolls up the plot wagon and spoon feeds the adventure du jure every session. I really wonder if I shouldn't just go through alphabetically in the Monster Manual, session after session.

After all, if the players are going to provide so little input into the game, why should I bother?

I've been fortunate that the players in the two campaigns I'm running have mostly been willing to provide backstories and chip in details. Sometimes more details than I would have preferred (one kinda planted a town and someone who should be an important NPC and a BBEG) but ... fine.

 

[Minigiant]

0e to 2e. 3e was the start of the easy street D&D games. The DM could kill PCs, sure, but if giving level appropriate encounters, you had to get unlucky to die at 1st level and once you hit 2nd you had to get very unlucky.

You could kill and TPK at level 1 and 2 in 3.0 following the rule. It became easy street earlier than 2e and 1e. But lucky shots and bad rolls could KO any non full BAB PC at level 1.

If your DM insisted on starting level 1, you couldn't be confident to "use" your backstory until 4e. So many didn't make any and made generic race/class personalities until their PCs leveledup a fewer times.

I didn't see much believable RP of level 1 PCs until 4th edition. Even for humans.

 

[Maxperson]

You could kill and TPK at level 1 and 2 in 3.0 following the rule. It became easy street earlier than 2e and 1e. But lucky shots and bad rolls could KO any non full BAB PC at level 1.

Hence my saying that you had to get unlucky.

If your DM insisted on starting level 1, you couldn't be confident to "use" your backstory until 4e. So many didn't make any and made generic race/class personalities until their PCs leveledup a fewer times.

TPKs at level one were uncommon enough that I didn't worry about it.

 

[prabe]

Hence my saying that you had to get unlucky.

TPKs at level one were uncommon enough that I didn't worry about it.

My experience is that if the DM isn't running a meatgrinder, he'll be putting in some effort to make sure there's not a TPK to start the campaign. That blows up the DM's work, as well as the players'.

My experience is also that not killing 1st-level PCs is ... occasionally tricky. The d20 can be really swingy (and I like starting things off by throwing lots of smelly stuff at a fan).

 

[zarionofarabel]

Because some players do.

I am going to echo what Chaosmancer said above. If a player comes to my game with an engaging backstory, especially one tied into what I’ve described about the campaign world, and one player is essentially a blank slate, I will be pulling hooks and sidequests from the first players’ background, and the second isn’t well-placed to argue that his character doesn’t get enough focus.

As I said, I just want to bash stuff with my sword! Story focus and background mumbo jumbo and all that doesn't matter to me if all I want to do is bash stuff with my sword.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Not adding significantly to the campaign world's story before play starts is not the same as the DM leading the players around by the nose. As a DM I set the stage, what the actors (PCs) do is up to them. If they want to collect butterflies instead of stopping Rome from burning, then Rome burns and they may have an awesome butterfly collection. It will always be their choice. At the end of every mini-arc (typically 1-3 sessions) I give the players the option of where to go to next and ask if there's something else they want to do. Then I prep whatever direction they want to head.

The PCs can have a massive impact on the world, and regularly influence the world in ways I never anticipated. For example, it was awesome when the PCs slowly converted an NPC that was supposed to be a major nemesis into an ally and a hero. But the players outside of their PC's actions? They can make suggestions but I get final say.

Oh I'm full on improv only players drive the narrative kinda GM. I don't even restrict the players to story arcs that last X number of sessions.

 

[prabe]

As I said, I just want to bash stuff with my sword! Story focus and background mumbo jumbo and all that doesn't matter to me if all I want to do is bash stuff with my sword.

I think that what some of us are saying is that in that instance, you get to bash stuff with your sword in the service of the stories of the characters that actually have them. If you're happy with that, that's fine.

 

[Oofta]

You could kill and TPK at level 1 and 2 in 3.0 following the rule. It became easy street earlier than 2e and 1e. But lucky shots and bad rolls could KO any non full BAB PC at level 1.

If your DM insisted on starting level 1, you couldn't be confident to "use" your backstory until 4e. So many didn't make any and made generic race/class personalities until their PCs leveledup a fewer times.

I didn't see much believable RP of level 1 PCs until 4th edition. Even for humans.

Getting killed at low levels with one lucky (or unlucky) roll of the die is still quite possible in 5E. Of course, I was taunting the fates by playing an elf, but I speak from experience when I say that it can happen. Which was too bad because I had an interesting back story but ... oh well. I always have more ideas for stories than I have time to play.