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

[Remathilis]

Did you play the same story? Or start a new one with the same players? If the same, did the old DM hand over his notes (along with his ceremonial DM key, assumedly)? If they didn't, how did you continue the campaign? Was it a published adventure?

Would it blow your mind to say I've started new campaigns as the DM because a player left?

 

[Remathilis]

It's not a matter of percentages, but it since you insist...

I will lose 100% of my fun if I have to run a game where there are rubber forehead aliens.

The player will lose 100% of their fun if they can't play a rubber forehead alien.

What is the solution? I don't want to lose 100% of my fun, cause it's my fun.

For a person that claims to be smart, you sure can't seem to understand a very simple concept!

Again, what is your solution for me not wanting to lose 100% of my fun?

Why is your fun more important than mine?

This reminds me of the episode of the Office where Michael decides to have a morale booster buy throwing a birthday party for Meredith and orders an ice cream cake despite the fact she's lactose intolerant because he likes them. His happiness comes before that of his guests and even though he is happy, others are miserable. He even says to her if he couldn't eat ice cream, he would die.

Guess who is the "bad guy" in that episode?

 

[Umbran]

Maybe I'm not understanding the question because I reward good RP with inspiration (when I remember) but primarily with story and interaction with the world. It doesn't matter to me if they're playing the archetype to the hilt or subverting it, that's their choice.

I will repeat, for I think the third time, that my point is in reaction to EzekielRaiden:

"Non-humans that are neither rubber forehead aliens nor simplistic caricatures? That's what I've been trying to say (evidently poorly). Instead of those two things, players giving their characters the full breadth of individual-personality and societal-culture elements that sapient beings can have, while still having physiological differences that matter and, thus, can influence their culture and outlook."

If you don't care how the players are playing their characters, my question isn't for you.

Isn't playing the full breadth of a PC a reward in and of itself?

Maybe. My point is that it depends on context.

If your game is really a beer-and-pretzels thing, no, it likely isn't a reward. Bothering to go into the depth suggested above will not just lack any payoff, it may be actively frustrating to yourself and the other players, and get in the way of the best ways to have fun at that table.

So, I ask the question of those demanding certain types of play from those playing non-humans - what is the payoff for the player? Are you sure you are rewarding that behavior you are claiming to want to see? How are you doing so? If you cannot state how, and instances where you have done so... you probably aren't.

I hope that's more clear.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I imagine they must be the In-N-Out Burger of DMs; their limited menu is made up for by being really good at running games for the character types available.

I think that's not too far off. About 14,893 comments ago in this thread (numbers are approximate), I brought up the "Asian fusion" example.

But another way to think of it is ... well, I remember that in the late 90s, I had a large group of friends, and we would get together to eat. Now, if there was a subset of us, we would go to get authentic food at some hole-in-the-wall, and this was pre-Yelp (pho, sashimi, Ehtiopian, etc.). But if all of us were together in a massive group? No way. We'd probably end up at a Cheesecake Factory. Not because their food was the best. But because everyone could find something they liked. Pizza, salad, Asian fusion, burgers, tex-mex, etc.

We often think about this in terms of our personal experiences as well. If I show up to a random sushi joint (Sushi-2-go), I'll just order what I want. I'll have it, to quote the King of Burgers and Frank Sinatra, MY WAY. On the other hand, when I go to a really good place (like the sadly closed R23, or Morimoto's, or Nobu, etc.) I'd get the omakase. I want to see what the chef is making! I want to partake in the experience!

The analogy isn't perfect, as TTRPGs are participatory in a way that fine dining isn't. But the basic impulse remains the same; something that is curated, that has a purpose, can be special.

As I have written many times, I would much rather play with a DM who is invested. Who cares. Who creates an omakase. If the DM is taking the time to invest themselves in world creation, I want to give that a try. Because there will always be other games*, and I can always find an "anything goes campaign," and try some character concept another time. But invested DMs ... those are hard to find.


*Admittedly, as the skeletal fingers of time close in around me and I no longer buy green bananas, this statement may not be as true as it used to be.

 

[Remathilis]

And yet, a mechanical change was made, because the option of taking a Dwarf was removed. Which also removes the ability to take any feat related to dwarves, the dwarvish language, removes the option of attuning to dwarf specific items... you know, mechanical changes.

See Max, I agree with you. I quoted this out of your post and since it was in your post, you said it and I agree with you.

Isn't removing sources from quotes fun?

 

[Maxperson]

See Max, I agree with you. I quoted this out of your post and since it was in your post, you said it and I agree with you.

Isn't removing sources from quotes fun?

Sure. I absolutely did quote him saying that in my post. I fully admit it and embrace it. That was in my post.

The designers chose that one specific statement for their 5e book. They did not choose anything else from that book(that I know of). Nor did they choose these other books that @Chaosmancer wants to incorrectly attribute to 5e. I am not going to that book for my quote. I am going to 5e for that quote. Where they got it isn't relevant to the fact that the quote being in the 5e book is proof that 5e considers lungs to be in their game. If Chaosmancer can show me a quote from a 5e book stating that Tabaxi have retractable claws, that will be an equivalence. Until then, trying to equate a quote from a 5e book with a quote that is not in a 5e book is a to prove what 5e is saying is in their game will remain a False Equivalence.

You are also engaging in a False Equivalence by the way. Quoting a passage for inclusion in a game product is different from quoting someone to respond in a debate.

 

[TwoSix]

As I have written many times, I would much rather play with a DM who is invested. Who cares. Who creates an omakase. If the DM is taking the time to invest themselves in world creation, I want to give that a try. Because there will always be other games*, and I can always find an "anything goes campaign," and try some character concept another time. But invested DMs ... those are hard to find.

Oh, absolutely. I'm a huge fan of DMs making major changes in the hopes of generating a novel type of game. I think that's great fun, and I'm happy to get on board.

I think what causes the divisiveness in this thread is that the same tool (restricting player options) can be used for multiple reasons. There are definitely games where the DM is restricting options to create a new game experience, but there are also games where the options are restricted simply because the DM has a blinkered view of what D&D should be like. The former is, I would argue, good DMing, the latter is much more problematic.

 

[Umbran]

As I have written many times, I would much rather play with a DM who is invested. Who cares. Who creates an omakase.

So, do you figure the measure of whether they are invested and cares is whether they create an omakase world?

Because I think that world-creation is a rather particular skill and creative act - not all GMs particularly care for it, or are good at it. So, what is the GM who cares about their game, is invested in the enjoyment of the players at the table... but who knows that world-creation isn't their strong point, to do?

 

[Oofta]

I can only speak for myself but if I were running a beer and pretzels game, creating a new world every campaign or doing primarily dungeon crawls I probably wouldn't restrict races.

However, I don't, so I want a little more control of what races show up in that world. Once the PCs are there they can do pretty much whatever they want, but they have to come from the world I've established.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Would it blow your mind to say I've started new campaigns as the DM because a player left?

Not at all. I've just never of a campaign continuing without its DM, and I was intrigued. Starting new campaigns happens all the time, for a lot of reasons.