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

[jayoungr]

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.

You sound a lot like one of the other GMs in my group. We've been playtesting a sci-fi setting that he created, where he's clearly put a great deal of time and thought into all this stuff and the cultures are deeply fleshed out. And the non-human characters range from near-human to super non-human. I can tell he loves thinking of these implications and is excited to be presenting such distinct and coherent cultures to us.

I like reading about these cultures, but when it comes to actually making a character, I run into a bit of a roadblock. I find it difficult sometimes to find the space to make an individual in such a pre-detailed culture. And in addition, suddenly I have to worry about playing my character wrong--to use your example, if I accidentally made a Dragonborn talk about the flower of youth, that would now be wrong because the correct term is snow. I keep hoping that if I get more familiar with the cultures, I'll internalize this stuff and it will get easier, but so far it's been an on-and-off struggle.

To summarize, I think this can be chalked up to the different things people find easy and/or exciting, and all we can do is remember that not every approach is going to work for every player.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

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.

Yes ....ish?

So it's hard to separate at the tools a DM uses from .... well, being a tool. Let me explain using two simple examples:

A. The DM says that they are running a campaign that they have designed. They send out a session 0 guide that has a list of races, classes, feats, etc. that are approved for the campaign and fit in thematically. Character creation will be done together prior to playing. Player shows up to session 0 with a pre-created character that does not use the race, class, feats that were approved, and was pre-rolled, and demands to use it.

B. DM invites everyone to come play in his Eberron campaign. People show up for the first game with their PCs. DM says, "Oh, yeah, no warforged, because they're OP, and no drow or tieflings or halflings, because they suck, and no artificers, because I don't like 'em."

These are reductive caricatures, but they also illustrate the point; people are (usually) discussing their fears. I was truly shocked to see, just this last weekend, a player derail a Ravnica game*. But it happens! People suck- player people, DM people.

But the thing is- when I say 'theme,' I mean not just the world, but also the game itself. I am reminded of an anecdote from, I think it was Of Dice & Men, when the author talked about how excited he was to play in a game run by Luke Gygax at a convention. And while it's been some time since I've read the source material, my recollection was the author was disappointed, because while the game was great for some people, it wasn't for him; the author was used to high adventure 3e-style games, and Luke was running an old-school, "skilled player" dungeon crawl.

5e is malleable; there will be DMs that are adjusting the game to a more 3e, or 4e, or 1e, or OD&D experience. Rules, races, classes, and so on; they can get removed, added, and modified. And that's good! If you like that; and not everyone will.

I mean, if someone wants to re-create their glory days of "OD&D only" options, and they have a table of willing participants, more power to them, right? That's a session 0 thing. I think that's what some of us keep getting hung up on; if you have notice of the options, but choose not to listen to it, why are you joining that game?



*And, unfortunately, the new DM isn't going to run any games, and that campaign lasted one session. Just like a lot of players have bad DM experiences, a lot of DMs have bad player experiences.

 

[TwoSix]

A. The DM says that they are running a campaign that they have designed. They send out a session 0 guide that has a list of races, classes, feats, etc. that are approved for the campaign and fit in thematically. Character creation will be done together prior to playing. Player shows up to session 0 with a pre-created character that does not use the race, class, feats that were approved, and was pre-rolled, and demands to use it.

B. DM invites everyone to come play in his Eberron campaign. People show up for the first game with their PCs. DM says, "Oh, yeah, no warforged, because they're OP, and no drow or tieflings or halflings, because they suck, and no artificers, because I don't like 'em."

I think those illustrate what really make for a problem player, no matter what side of the DM screen they're on: a lack of empathy, a lack of social grace, a lack of a desire to be a team player and compromise.

 

[zarionofarabel]

So, a question for the collected - we see GMs stating a desire that players do things a particular way.

Question: How does this pay off for the player? In what way are you (generic, not EzekielRaiden) as a GM encouraging such play by rewarding it?

They get to have me as the DM!

I don't feel the need to encourage or reward such play as that is not the point. The point is for me the DM to get enjoyment out of the experience of DMing, something I don't get if I'm running a game I don't want to run.

 

[zarionofarabel]

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

Me too!

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?

My fun is more important because it's my fun! Why, am I supposed to be the DM of a game where I don't get to have fun? Would you play in a game where you weren't having any fun just so the DM could have fun?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I disagree! I fully expect a player to not enjoy a game if they can't play exactly the character concept they wanted, I know I would! In fact, if I can't play the character I want to play I won't play!

Having your fun completely ruined by not getting exactly 100% what you want is not normal, healthy, reasonable, well-adjusted, or even socially acceptable.

This is one of the strangest conversations I’ve had all year.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I think those illustrate what really make for a problem player, no matter what side of the DM screen they're on: a lack of empathy, a lack of social grace, a lack of a desire to be a team player and compromise.

That's the point!

A lot of this isn't really a debate about the specific topic. For example, I think most of those ardent "all races, all the time, PLAYER EMPOWERMENT!" types would be happy to play in a thoughtful, all-Tabaxi campaign set on a mysterious catworld (for example).

And the "DM, my way or the highway" types would certainly listen to a pitch by an enthusiastic player and try to find some way to accommodate that player.

I think that most of this is about the fears that people have, and about (for lack of a better term) some of the heuristics we use to determine if people are going to be "problem players" or "problem DMs."

And when I'm a player, I don't mind DMs that have strict session 0 restrictions. But I do get concerned about arbitrary DMs; for the people arguing against DM restrictions or changes, that is what they are getting at (hence the desire for "justifications"). It's their shortcut. "If the DM is prohibiting things simply because the DM doesn't like it, then that's probably a bad DM."

And it's the same when I'm DMing. If I've put in the effort to build a theme for the game, and I've communicated that theme, and that theme involves restrictions or additions ... if a player shows up and demands to play something that violates what has already been communicated, then I'm pretty sure that will be a problematic player; it's a good shortcut to knowing that this a player I won't want at my table.

 

[Remathilis]

Me too!

My fun is more important because it's my fun! Why, am I supposed to be the DM of a game where I don't get to have fun? Would you play in a game where you weren't having any fun just so the DM could have fun?

I have found that games that put my fun over the fun of my players usually bleed players to the point I don't have a game to have fun with. I'd rather take a small hit on my fun to keep a game going and let everyone have fun.

 

[Oofta]

Having your fun completely ruined by not getting exactly 100% what you want is not normal, healthy, reasonable, well-adjusted, or even socially acceptable.

This is one of the strangest conversations I’ve had all year.

So it's okay if the player doesn't get to play their favorite race? Glad we agree on that.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I have found that games that put my fun over the fun of my players usually bleed players to the point I don't have a game to have fun with. I'd rather take a small hit on my fun to keep a game going and let everyone have fun.

Yep. I also find that my fun increases as the fun of my players increases.