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

[Jack Daniel]

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 haven't seen anyone call that "being a bad player," but it could absolutely make a player a poor fit for a campaign with a table-culture that doesn't value backstory. Plenty of campaigns work that way: "0 XP" means exactly what it says on the tin, that nothing particularly noteworthy or extraordinary has happened in the character's life prior to the start of the campaign. That's the definition of 0 XP for that table. And what's more, trying to introduce certain personalized motivations (e.g. the stereotypical revenge plot) into a campaign might not mesh well at all with some campaign structures (e.g. a classic site-focused dungeon-delve).

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.

The desire to "see believable RP" at any level reminds me that we're not just playing different games, we're possibly participating in different hobbies.

I have no desire to watch people who aren't improvisational actors attempt improvisational acting. I do want to see players role-play, which is to say, make decisions as if they themselves were in their character's shoes, while treating the fantasy world as if it were a real place their characters actually inhabit.

 

[Minigiant]

I suspect that varied some by table. None of the 3E-ish games I was involved in that started at 1st-level experienced anything like the low-level mortality you describe.

3e didn't have a very high mortality rate but you could at least fear death at low levels.

But my 2e and 1e games all had deaths before someone got to level 5. Maybe it was the DMs. Maybe it was the players. Maybe it was the game.

But I did have a AD&D character with the name "Elf #3".

 

[Minigiant]

The desire to "see believable RP" at any level reminds me that we're not just playing different games, we're possibly participating in different hobbies.

What I mean by "believable RP" is a player Rping a character as a truly unique person with a unique personality who fits the setting and not a walking stereotype of the combination of the PCs race, class, and ability scores.

If I don't have confidence in my PCs survival, my pc will be "John Smith Human Fighter" until he reaches a level where a random weapon swing doesn't make him sweat.

 

[Micah Sweet]

PHB cultural descriptions are not rules, and, as such, are not RAW.

True, but multiple people on this thread have used 5e lore to support their opinions (nature of elves for example). The sword cuts both ways.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

What I mean by "believable RP" is a player Raping a character as a truly unique person ....

Umm..... autocorrect?

 

[Minigiant]

Umm..... autocorrect?

Autocorrect doesn't like "RPing"

 

[Crit]

I would like to apologize for the "Jack Daniels" typo.

Aside from that, I don't know what to tell you other than Ohio and Cat People are different because they just are different physical things which have different impacts on a campaign from their inclusion or absence, which is relative to how they are implemented.

My quote feature is a little funky at the moment, so I'll just copy and paste.
---
I'm just still not convinced that there's a meaningful difference between DM #1 who says, "No, you can't play a human from Earth in my campaign, because portals to Earth aren't a thing, that's just how my setting works," and DM #2 who says, "No, you can't play a Tabaxi in my campaign, because anthropomorphic cat-people aren't a thing, that's just how my setting works."
---
In the end, the Human still gets to play a Human. The Ohio request asks different things from the setting relative to what it takes for Tabaxi inclusion.

Not to bounce back to something that I often repeat, but this interaction is either justified or not depending on if the campaign's already going and if the players accepted the proposition. If DM #2 already led the agreeing players to lvl 8, one of them dies and shows up with a Tabaxi, then the DM is completely right. If the DM, had a whole old home-brew world before playing with these players and refuses to alter it at all to personalize the experience, I think the player can be a little miffed, but ultimately would have to accept it. If it were a new world, then I think the DM should be more open to change or options.

 

[Crit]

The players can respond, but they can't force any change. I respond to what I feel are bad rulings all the time. If the DM refuses to change it, though, I either have to accept it and move on or leave the game. I can remove myself from his authority by quitting, but I cannot take away any of his authority.

Yes. I have not denied/do not deny this.

 

[Maxperson]

3e didn't have a very high mortality rate but you could at least fear death at low levels.

Sure, but because it was low, I didn't fear making a background at level 1. Nor did I fail to roleplay meaningfully at level 1.

But my 2e and 1e games all had deaths before someone got to level 5. Maybe it was the DMs. Maybe it was the players. Maybe it was the game.

It was the edition. Save or die poisons started at level 1 and energy drain not much after that. If you didn't go out of your way to keep the PCs alive, they rarely made it to or past 6th or 7th level.

 

[Dire Bare]

In the OSR game Adventurer, Conqueror, King, halflings are depicted as in Tolkien, but because of that, they're not playable. Halflings are unsuited to adventuring both due to physical issues and mindset. It took a later supplement to make halfling classes (ACKS has race as class), and even then it was due to popular demand from fans. So that kinda hits both sides.

Halflings unsuited to adventuring, due to their depiction in Tolkien's works?!?!?!

That makes absolutely no sense. Adventuring hobbits are the main characters in both "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings".