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

[TwoSix]

I both agree and disagree with your second paragraph.

First of all, it is entirely possible to introduce a "single member" of a race into a campaign without giving the race as a whole a "place". My Genais Storm Sorcerer came about because he was struck by lighting in a sacred grove. His "race" is simply an extension of his power source as a Storm Sorcerer, I don't need a race of Genasi for that to work. So, on that end, I disagree with you.

Well, as I said, making the PC a singular creation (like a genasi empowered by lightning) would be an exception.

 

[Minigiant]

He would not be playing then!

Of course he wouldn't. The game lacks the type of character he likes to play.

That's the whole point of this thread.

The Thread Creator acted why some people like exotic races.
The answer is... some types and styles characters and stories cannot be created without some of those races.
It's the same as why people like playing High Strength characters.

 

[prabe]

Have 3% less fun so that the player can have 10% more fun.

How on Earth is this even a question!? How!?

Seriously, I am a very smart person, and in person I have little trouble understanding other humans in most situations. But this whole conversation just...I feel like I'm talking to people from a completely different planet!

Like...we compromise for our friends. Social interaction is compromise. Full Stop.

So, I am (honestly) willing to work with players on this. While my world has things I would really rather not change, I'm willing to try things and see how they work out, how they feel; then, if I don't like how they work they won't make to my "default yes" list.

And I'm willing to work with anyone, but I'm more willing to compromise with actual friends than I am with people I don't know who are showing up to the table I'm running in a game store, because I know and trust them more--and I think they know and trust me more than they would some rando DM.

 

[prabe]

I think it's less "not being able to play their favorite race" and "not being able to play their favorite races".

For example, my cousin only play one kind of PC.

"stab-happy, high Dex, member of discriminated race that people are forced to respect because he gets results."

He likes NPCs hating him but forced to swallow their worlds.
Drow, orcs, goblins, tieflings, a walking skeleton.

So if you ban all those he's not playing. Straight up.

He'd probably quit my game when he realized he could play a tiefling but his character wouldn't be hated for being one. Given that I don't want to play the world (as the DM) the way he seems to want it, I'd probably call that a win for both of us.

 

[Maxperson]

And this is what you aren't getting. As the DM I am not a slave, but I am also not treating my players ideas like they are toxic waste that will pollute my world. My fun is not such a fragile thing that any deviation from my "master plan" will ruin it, and I must keep my players in line and doing only what I allow them to do to keep it fun for me.

Cool. I never said anything like that.

You seem to think that this is a zero sum game. Either the DM must leave or the player must leave, because they cannot possibly find common ground. And, if this is what you propose to your players, if this is how you present it, I'm not shocked to find many players back down rather than letting you nuke the game.

Never said this, either.

I mean, I hate pizza (four years as a delivery driver will do that to you) and I fully expect that if I moved into an apartment with someone and told them "Pizza will never enter this apartment. If you don't like that, you can leave and find somewhere else to live, or if you won't leave, I'll leave and since I pay the majority of the rent, you will go into default and get evicted anyways." Then they won't order pizza, because I''ve essentially made such a huge deal out of it, that we could both end up homeless over it.

Cool! Cool! False Equivalences are false.

You need to leave your confirmation bias at the door.

I'm sorry, but again, that is not how quoting works. Every word and bit of text you quoted was an excerpt from the novel Condemnation by Richard Baker, the Third Book in the War of the Spider Queen Series. Just because an excerpt of that text was in the DMG does not mean it did not come from that novel. You can tell, because the writers of the DMG were very explicit in showing that it was an excerpt from a novel, and not the text of the DMG.

That's exactly how quoting works. I quoted what 5e decided to include in its game. There rest of that novel is irrelevant. All novels that don't involve 5e quoting them in the books are also irrelevant.

So, if you can quote a novel from the era of 3e, then my quotes should stand.

I didn't quote the novel. I quoted the 5e DMG.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So, I am (honestly) willing to work with players on this. While my world has things I would really rather not change, I'm willing to try things and see how they work out, how they feel; then, if I don't like how they work they won't make to my "default yes" list.

And I'm willing to work with anyone, but I'm more willing to compromise with actual friends than I am with people I don't know who are showing up to the table I'm running in a game store, because I know and trust them more--and I think they know and trust me more than they would some rando DM.

Sure, that makes sense.

 

[Gammadoodler]

So is this even actually a real problem in real life or is this just one of these internet things? How many of you have had your must-have character idea denied by the GM? How many of you have had players insist to make characters totally incompatible with the pitch? Because I can't really recall either of those having happened to me in real life... There may have been some discussions about could this or that work, but I really cannot remember any actual serious disagreements. I mean I have played for decades, so it is possible that something like that has happened at some point and I've just forgotten, but in my experience this doesn't really seem like a common problem.

You dare profane the internet...on the internet??
Bold..certainly...but is it wise?

And then to take a measured point of view from a reasonable perspective? Surely, you invite destruction upon us all.

 

[Gammadoodler]

That's exactly how quoting works. I quoted what 5e decided to include in its game. There rest of that novel is irrelevant. All novels that don't involve 5e quoting them in the books are also irrelevant.
I didn't quote the novel. I quoted the 5e DMG.

Ok.. This is like just a manifestly silly take.

"I didn't quote Mein Kampf, it was American History X."
"I didn't quote the Bible, it was the movie Footloose"
"I didn't quote the statutes of the state of New York, it was Law & Order"

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Y’all’ it is getting a bit too snippy & snarky in here. It is possible to disagree without being disa. Let’s all do more of that, mmmKay?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

oooh... Dang, I hadn't considered that you couldn't really do bars either, because the attack could go through that and hit the guards. Feeding the prisoners would also be risky. I'd have to do a lot of planning to figure out how they would resolve all those issues. My first gut instinct was a muzzle like device that would reflect their breath back at them, while allowing space for a fork or spoon for eating.

My idea was vertical shaft cells in sandstone, circular to avoid typical "wall jumping" shenanigans. Bottom of the entrance door is (say) 20' above the floor, maybe with a skylight at the top. Using your breath attack straight up is likely to cause blowback, and can't get high enough to hit the cell door anyway. Meals are dropped in from above. Prisoners on good behavior may be allowed to use more ordinary (but still sandstone-walled) cells. A maximum-security prisons might require masks like you suggest; I hadn't considered such a device, but it would make sense.