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

[prabe]

That's within the context of "that's my game, so I can do whatever I want with it".

Sorry. That wasn't exactly clear to me from your post.

Probably wouldn't scare me off. I'd be more bothered if the DM wasn't interested in tying characters to the world. If there aren't any connections, then there's probably not going to be any real narrative flow, IME, which means dungeoncrawl/hexcrawl/whatever that goes on so long the players lose track of why the characters are doing it.

 

[prabe]

Except, I don’t think we are talking about a DM banning a single race here, or even for a single campaign. A lot of posters seem to be talking about a tightly curated list of races for a setting that is THEIR setting, and that they use in all their campaigns.

There are some posters who ban some races always, yes. In my own case, I have a list of native races on my world (I've described them as "default yes") and I'm willing to listen to someone wanting something not on that list--even if I don't want to install them as a native race, my setting features porous planar boundaries and something non-native is (or can be made) plausible. I think I'd prefer the last word on that to lie with the GM, both as a player and as a GM--I don't think anyone is trying to have it both ways (I as GM get to choose what I allow; I as player must be allowed to play whatever I want).

 

[reelo]

Uhm, no? The order is: theme -> tone -> character concepts -> world building.

Like, Superman doesn't live in Metropolis, Metropolis exists in order to support Superman.

PCs aren't "Supermen" they are people that experience "adventures". PCs are exceptional because they are player-controlled, they aren't player-controlled because they are exceptional.
The DM sets the stage (including its dressing and limits) and within its bounds, the PCs act according to the will of the players.
Do you know the puddle/pothole analogy?

A puddle sits in a pothole and thinks "Gee, this pothole is great! It fits my own shape perfectly!" This is, of course, nonsense, because in reality, it's the puddle that conforms to the shape of the pothole.

 

[nevin]

PCs aren't "Supermen" they are people that experience "adventures". PCs are exceptional because they are player-controlled, they aren't player-controlled because they are exceptional.
The DM sets the stage (including its dressing and limits) and within its bounds, the PCs act according to the will of the players.
Do you know the puddle/pothole analogy?

A puddle sits in a pothole and thinks "Gee, this pothole is great! It fits my own shape perfectly!" This is, of course, nonsense, because in reality, it's the puddle that conforms to the shape of the pothole.

Depends on the game but in D&D once you are 5th ish level you are entering the arena of superheroes like the Green hornet and as you get higher level you do become supermen. In reality no one faces a dragon without a dozen missiles from miles away. That's how real men handle that kind of problem.

the analogy is flawed because your PC's are in the Puddle and measured by the rules in the puddle and are superheroes in the puddle. By that analogy Superman isn't a superhero because a comic book writer writes him so he never really did anything at all.

 

[loverdrive]

PCs aren't "Supermen" they are people that experience "adventures". PCs are exceptional because they are player-controlled, they aren't player-controlled because they are exceptional.

Superman was just an example. Here's another, still superhero (I don't know why, maybe because I'm staring at a giant BvS poster).

Batman isn't brooding and broken because he lives in dark and dangerous Gotham. Gotham is dark and dangerous, because it exists solely to make Batman as a character work.

 

[reelo]

Depends on the game but in D&D once you are 5th ish level you are entering the arena of superheroes.

Sure, but they don't make it to 5th because they are superheroes. They are superheroes because they survived adventuring up to that point. There is nothing that distinguishes a lvl 1 PC from a lvl 1 NPC except for the fact that one is player-controlled, the other not.

Batman isn't brooding and broken because he lives in dark and dangerous Gotham. Gotham is dark and dangerous, because it exists solely to make Batman as a character work.

Strictly in-universe speaking, Bruce becoming Batman was a consequence of his parents getting killed. His parents didn't get killed so he could become Batman.

But from an outside pov, Batman has been conceived and written as the character he is. That's fundamentally different from RPGs. RPGs are much more like the "War of the 5 Kings" from 'A song of ice and fire': Characters fade in, fade out, get killed, it's the story (read: campaign) that is center-stage, not the actors.

 

[Mallus]

PCs aren't "Supermen" they are people that experience "adventures". PCs are exceptional because they are player-controlled, they aren't player-controlled because they are exceptional.

Technically not true in the earlier editions of the game. PCs (and their employees) can gain class levels & additional hit dice. Regular folks can't.

 

[reelo]

Technically not true in the earlier editions of the game. PCs (and their employees) can gain class levels & additional hit dice. Regular folks can't.

Regular folk (at least in BX) are "level 0 humans". Once they gain XP, for whatever reason, they chose a class and becone first level.

 

[Maxperson]

I mean, just likewise, nothing says they can't retract their claws.

Nothing says swords don't set a nuclear blast every time they are swung, either. If it's not explicitly allowed, then it doesn't happen unless the DM okays it.

Tabaxi are specifically based on leopards and jaguars, and the one big cat species that can't retract their claws are the cheetahs. Based on inspiration and what they are, I'd say the logical thing is they can retract their claws

Which is a logical way to rule that for your game. In a general discussion about the game, though, you have to go with what is written.

 

[Maxperson]

It wouldn't be the internet without being spuriously accused of racism, and I presumed we were speaking of D&D since, you know, that's the topic of the thread. People seemed to take issue with the idea that a player might want to play a character depicted in the players handbook despite being arbitrarily blocked by the DM.

Nobody here has talked about arbitrarily blocking any race. All of the examples have been for reasons, and reason prevents arbitrary from happening. If you're going to object, you should give a reason that objects to something that is actually being discussed.