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

[zarionofarabel]

Went up there one of the other (younger) DMs and asked her how she ran things as I was curious what some other groups are doing.

She said she leans towards anything goes as long as she's familiar with it and if a new player is inexperienced keep it simple.

Was going to ask the other DM but she was looked busy and the other two were afk due to end of semester so only had about 20 players tonight.

Yay! A single DM you asked runs kitchen sink games! This means what exactly? That a single DM you asked runs kitchen sink games?!?!? Oh no wait, this is definitive proof that all DMs should run kitchen sink games! Well, I'm convinced. Not.

A better analogy here would be to remove the seat adjustors and headrests from all seats other than yours. The car still functions as a car despite you removing something mechanical. But there are people who are going to be a lot less comfortable in the car just because you don't want the aesthetics changed at all. And some are going to be fine while others are going to have their knees jamming into things.

Definitely not. Removing a playable race is not an alteration of the underlying mechanisms used to run the game. Changing AC from a Defensive Bonus to Damage Reduction would be altering the underlying mechanisms used to run the game. Sorry, but not allowing a player to play Elves is not an alteration of the underlying mechanisms used to run the game!

 

[Shardstone]

I just wanted to return to something real quick.

Letter 142 from J.R.R Tolkien.

"The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism. However that is very clumsily put, and sounds more self-important than I feel. For as a matter of fact, I have consciously planned very little; and should chiefly be grateful for having been brought up (since I was eight) in a Faith that has nourished me and taught me all the little that I know; and that I owe to my mother, who clung to her conversion and died young, largely through the hardships of poverty resulting from it."

This is in reference to many dozens of pages ago when people were saying that Lord of the Rings is empty of allegory. This letter doesn't say that LotR is an allegory, but to say that there is nothing allegorical about it, like some were doing? Hmmm.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes. But then it becomes - the GM gets to have their aesthetic choices, and someone else doesn't get to have theirs. That doesn't sound terribly fair.

The common counter is "Yes, but he GM has to put in more work, and gets to have more say in the results".

It's not a matter of more work. It's a matter of conflict. It's unacceptable for anyone to have their enjoyment reduced or ruined, so if a situation comes up where inclusion of a race would do that to the DM and lack of inclusion would do that to the player, one of them has to leave the game.

The player gets the short end of that not because the DM does more work, but rather because in most circumstances, the other players then have their fun negatively impacted.

If it's not down to that conflict and the player can enjoy another character just as much as the one that would reduce the DM's fun, he shouldn't be trying to put himself ahead at the expense of the DM. That's incredibly selfish.

The counter to the counter is that the player only has one thing they get to choose the aesthetics on, so maybe they ought to be allowed that, hey what?

Not at the expense of someone else's fun.

Taking the logic a touch farther because it may be illustrative - why don't we just give all the players pregenerated characters that are absolutely sure to fit the GM's aesthetic? Because they may not find what we give them aesthetically pleasing, or enjoyable, because it may not be what they want to play, right? Because they are supposed to have some choice?

Nobody has come close to suggesting anything like this. This is about excluding a race for a reason, especially if that reason is enjoyment of the game.

So, why draw a hard line in one place, rather than another? Seems pretty arbitrary.

Thus, the argument comes down to defense of an arbitrary choice, and we then see why it cannot be resolved.

There's nothing arbitrary about it. No one is arguing that races be excluded due to a whim. They are being excluded for reasons, which precluded being arbitrary in nature.

Player enjoyment is a reason that you MIGHT relent and allow the banned race in, but it would depend on what the actual reason behind the banning is. Sometimes the inclusion would ruin the campaign. Other times it would negatively impact someone else's fun. Those are times when it's appropriate to say no.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Yay! A single DM you asked runs kitchen sink games! This means what exactly? That a single DM you asked runs kitchen sink games?!?!? Oh no wait, this is definitive proof that all DMs should run kitchen sink games! Well, I'm convinced. Not.

Definitely not. Removing a playable race is not an alteration of the underlying mechanisms used to run the game. Changing AC from a Defensive Bonus to Damage Reduction would be altering the underlying mechanisms used to run the game. Sorry, but not allowing a player to play Elves is not an alteration of the underlying mechanisms used to run the game!

I mean.. You do know @Zardnaar is pretty much on your side. Perhaps it means exactly what they said, that they asked someone about it, and got a response.

Shrill out man.

 

[zarionofarabel]

I mean.. You do know @Zardnaar is pretty much on your side. Perhaps it means exactly what they said, that they asked someone about it, and got a response.

Shrill out man.

Okay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Minigiant]

Which other race would you rather use than humans for the default? Humans are what we know and what we all are.

Any race?

Why are chained to the idea that only humans can take over the world and be populous?

 

[zarionofarabel]

I just wanted to return to something real quick.

Letter 142 from J.R.R Tolkien.

"The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism. However that is very clumsily put, and sounds more self-important than I feel. For as a matter of fact, I have consciously planned very little; and should chiefly be grateful for having been brought up (since I was eight) in a Faith that has nourished me and taught me all the little that I know; and that I owe to my mother, who clung to her conversion and died young, largely through the hardships of poverty resulting from it."

This is in reference to many dozens of pages ago when people were saying that Lord of the Rings is empty of allegory. This letter doesn't say that LotR is an allegory, but to say that there is nothing allegorical about it, like some were doing? Hmmm.

So...LotR is Tolkien's version of the Bible?!?!?

 

[zarionofarabel]

Any race?

Why are chained to the idea that only humans can take over the world and be populous?

Honestly, I would think Elves would take over eventually as they live far longer and could work against the other races for generations. I think that's why Elves always seem to "be in decline" or have really low birth rates or whatever. Simply put the longer lived a race is the more likely they would be to conquer the world. In my humble opinion anyway.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Kinda mist of the races are fine maybe slightly weak on new WotC most better than Dragonborn.

Most of the subclasses are fine, geomancer looks borked.

The spells are very spotty they got an ask first label.

The spells are...often strictly worse than other spells of their label, or so absurdly specific no sane person would ever take them unless playing a Wizard. Lots of fun stuff, ya just can’t trust their balance out of the box.

IME, unless your table is very focused on optimization, you can just play all wotc options out of the box.

Dragonborn are “weak”, you say, but IME no one is gonna notice in play the difference between them and elves or mountain dwarves or satyrs, nor is the difference that noticeable in play between rangers and Paladins, unless you get screwed on favored terrain/enemy. Official 5e stuff just isn’t outside a solid balanced power bandwidth.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I just wanted to return to something real quick.

Letter 142 from J.R.R Tolkien.

"The Lord of the Rings is of course a fundamentally religious and Catholic work; unconsciously so at first, but consciously in the revision. That is why I have not put in, or have cut out, practically all references to anything like 'religion', to cults or practices, in the imaginary world. For the religious element is absorbed into the story and the symbolism. However that is very clumsily put, and sounds more self-important than I feel. For as a matter of fact, I have consciously planned very little; and should chiefly be grateful for having been brought up (since I was eight) in a Faith that has nourished me and taught me all the little that I know; and that I owe to my mother, who clung to her conversion and died young, largely through the hardships of poverty resulting from it."

This is in reference to many dozens of pages ago when people were saying that Lord of the Rings is empty of allegory. This letter doesn't say that LotR is an allegory, but to say that there is nothing allegorical about it, like some were doing? Hmmm.

Nothing in the letter suggests, even through mild implication, allegory.