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

[Oofta]

If the only or even primary reason is that, yes. Which directly rules out any situation wherein the reason for recalcitrance is some sort of moral ambiguity or other such factor. It cannot both be a scenario wherein you refuse to compromise because it would be immoral to do so and a scenario where you have no reason not to compromise and choose not to simply because you only care about other people if they’re your friends.

No, only a situation wherein your unwillingness to compromise is determined by the fact that the person isn’t specifically your friend.

Compromise: a settlement of differences by mutual concessions; an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims, principles, etc., by reciprocal modification of demands.

Where in any of your posts has there been a discussion of the compromise being reciprocal? Because everything you say seems to be "the player gets to decide".

 

[doctorbadwolf]

@Jack Daniel perhaps we should drop it.

I believe, quite unshakably as it is a belief come to after many years of consideration and life experience, that refusal to compromise with other people unless one has to is a moral failing. You seem to view reluctance to compromise as a virtue.

Perhaps we shouldn’t continue an argument that directly touches upon a moral disagreement, on a forum that doesn’t allow political or religious debate, or direct criticism of other posters.

 

[Jack Daniel]

If the only or even primary reason is that, yes. Which directly rules out any situation wherein the reason for recalcitrance is some sort of moral ambiguity or other such factor. It cannot both be a scenario wherein you refuse to compromise because it would be immoral to do so and a scenario where you have no reason not to compromise and choose not to simply because you only care about other people if they’re your friends.

The hole in your reasoning lives right here. There can be a scenario where the reason to refuse compromise is petty or even selfish, but the substance of the compromise is something bad.

@Jack Daniel perhaps we should drop it.

I believe, quite unshakably as it is a belief come to after many years of consideration and life experience, that refusal to compromise with other people unless one has to is a moral failing. You seem to view reluctance to compromise as a virtue.

Perhaps we shouldn’t continue an argument that directly touches upon a moral disagreement, on a forum that doesn’t allow political or religious debate, or direct criticism of other posters.

Agreed. If we carry this tangent any further, we're a mere two posts away from getting into a slap-fight about intentionalism vs. consequentialism. Suffice it to say, I don't see compromise as a moral end or even a moral issue. It's neither a virtue nor a vice; it depends on the substance of the conflict at issue.

 

[reelo]

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?

Quoted for truth. I've decided that henceforth I only run OSE (with the added "Advanced" booklets) which is basically BX with a bit of AD&D. Race-as-class, high lethality dungeon- and wilderness-exploration in a homebrew setting. I'm making that clear to potential players as I invite them (so even before Session 0) There's always room for negotiationg this or that, but the basic premise remains the same.

Should I want, or have to, DM 5E, I'll use the free Basic rules exclusively, with everything else only by explicit approval.

 

[Crit]

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.

...That's a pretty strong reaction. I sure know every time I look at a Dragonborn, it's like being hit with Mind Sliver and Vicious Mockery. At this rate I'm scared to pick up the PHB.

For real though, this is just another quote showing something wrong with how you're viewing the situation. Literally no fun? Like, does this actively take away from your story, social, RP or combat experiences?

You're the only person that seems to actively suffer from the presence of a Gnome.

 

[Maxperson]

Or maybe you need to figure out why you are coming across that way. Might have something to do with saying that you don't allow selfish people at the table, then laying out how the DM can be as selfish as they want and kick the players, because the DM is more important than them.

You're the only one taking my words like this. I have several who agree with me. Your confirmation bias has you being the odd man out with this one. You're seeing what you want to see, not what is there.

Okay Max, so you at least admit that the text you quoted was not part of the 5e DMG, now you are merely saying that they included that text for a reason.

Um, no. I didn't say it wasn't a part of the 5e DMG. Every last word in the 5e DMG is literally a part of the 5e DMG. Period. What is not a part of the 5e DMG are the books you are trying to use to show that Tabaxi have claws in 5e. 5e has changed a LOT of things from prior editions. If you want to show that 5e Tabaxi have claws, you will need to quote from an official 5e source.

That reason being... they wanted a description of the Astral Plane. That is the section they put in there. And they felt like that novel from Third Edition was still accurate, because the Astral Plane hadn't really changed much.

Wrong. It shows that they felt that one single passage was accurate. It does not follow that anything else in that book is accurate. You can assume that and make it part of your personal game, but you cannot make it a part of 5e like the one single passage is.

 

[Oofta]

You're the only person that seems to actively suffer from the presence of a Gnome.

Well, you've never DMed me when I played a gnome. Ever heard an auctioneer (or a teenage girl I suppose) that talks super fast? That would be me playing a gnome.

Which is probably why the last time I played a gnome PC it was Living City.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The hole in your reasoning lives right here. There can be a scenario where the reason to refuse compromise is petty or even selfish, but the substance of the compromise is something bad.

Oh dear. Yeah, I can’t really get into what’s wrong here without going further down the rabbit hole of moral arguments, but...no.

 

[Crit]

I wish I could tackle this is a more efficient way...

Well, the fluff that accompanies the "evil" non-human races is supposed to be important, so changing it would be detrimental to the game, or so you claim. What would the alternative be, just say that all races can do and be all the same things, good or bad, that humans can be. If yes, then why bother with non-humans, other than appearance? Which then leads into arguments about appearance discrimination. So the idea is at fault.

The fluff is important to those who are interested in it, and it can be changed to have a different meaning. Also, nothing inherently leads to "appearance discrimination there." You also discounted the idea of just changing the culture, and the physical characteristics.

I disagree. By restricting my players to human, I free them of reliance on racial stereotypes that may restrict their ability to roleplay.

Well, you don't free them of playing stereotypes in general. Anything fictional is informed by preexisting material, or "derivative." If a player relies on stereotypes, that's their problem. Nothing here says that good RP can't be done with the other races, which properly uses whatever fluff and features in a meaningful way.

Uh...the fluff attached to non-human characters can be changed at will. If it can be changed at will what's the point of fighting so hard to have it included in a game where the DM doesn't want it included. Just change the fluff so it aligns with what the DM wants and then you can game with that DM instead of getting asked to leave. OR. Be insistent that the fluff is far too important to be changed and then get kicked out of the group. (I guess is my, more of an argument. Also, if you can't make a character concept work without one particular bit of fluff attached to it you must be very unimaginative.) I also again reject your attempts to drag me into a larger argument about the merits of fiction on a larger scale. I'm not here to debate literature, I'm here to debate Table Top Roleplaying Games.

The fluff of human characters can be changed at will too. Any part of the story can, that's how DnD works, there is no exclusive problem here. With that said, there's more to a race than their exact fluff, which means there can be flexibility in regards to including the races in other ways under new context. I'll ignore the "unimaginative" comment. I'm not dragging you anywhere, you're just refusing to look at something you really ought to. When talking about writing/RP/acting, how can you not talk about storytelling in general? I believe that looking at the situation from that lease proves my point- convenient you get to avoid it.

You can keep dissenting all you want. I will continue to restrict my players to human characters only. You keep allowing your players to play purple catfish tentacle people that can fly and poop fire. I will also continue to not allow players in my game that insist that because whatever race is in the book means I have to include it in my game. My game is my game, I will include or not include things as I see fit.

Yeah, yeah, your game is your game and I never challenged that, anyway. More casual superiority, mischaracterization and strawmanning. I won't dignify this paragraph with anything more than this as a response.

Nah. Just give DMs and players a better toolkit to build what they want specific to the game they want to play. Tasha's proves to me that classes are a thing of the past as players obviously want for more fluidity in character creation than having classes offers. Many of the discussions on this forum and others hints at how D&D just doesn't do what people want and how they continuously need to hack things to make it work. In system terms D&D is archaic and tied to a rotting corpse of past "sacred cows" that need to be thrown out. That is why as soon as I meet new players that have never played anything other than D&D I get them to look at systems that offer much better and more useful tools for gaming. Every single one pretty much instantly says "wow, this is so much better" and sometimes they hug me!

I disagree about the classes comment. I want a better tool kit too, but we just seem to have different ideas of what that means. More flexibility to execute whatever concepts the party has? That's my stance. Yours...?

So, if I don't play kitchen sink D&D like you do, I'm not following TheOneTrueWay?!?!?

Misrepresentation. This time, severely. I explicitly said play the game how you want, but don't force the community or players to change. Let the choices exist for everyone who uses them, if you're as tolerant as you say you are.

As a person who has introduced many players who only ever played D&D to RPGs that are not D&D I do believe it does harm. It makes players reliant on using fluff to make stereotypical characters based on said fluff. Then, when they finally get to play a game where they have to play humans, they have no idea how to portray a character as they have no stereotype to fall back on. This also includes players that play D&D humans as D&D humans are often portrayed as the "bland" alternative to the "exciting" non-humans.

Good! It's good that you introduce things to people that they like. You're still wrong for generalizing the differences between playing human and not. Character depth depends on the player's skill, not the race of what they play.

I think the offensive part matters! Do you think offensive material doesn't matter because it doesn't offend you personally?

Oh, I think it matters. I think fluff matters, as well as the way people read it. And now you do, too! Jk. I still think you dance on a weird line of things only mattering if they're negative, whereas I think it matters in all directions, depending on the player DM you ask.

What does that have to do with anything? Oh wait, if you can get me to agree that means having non-humans in the game is okay because they are mechanically weaker, right? Are you actually a powergamer that "secretly" uses arguments about how fluff is super dramatic and makes your character so very deep so you can min/max as much as possible? I don't play with powergamers, or "optimizers" as I unusually don't run D&D games, and the systems I usually use are very hard to optimize so they get frustrated and leave. This is also something I think has been VERY damaging to the hobby as a whole. The idea of "builds" and "optimization" and the focus on mechanics that D&D now has. Just look at the topics in the D&D forum versus the General forum. The D&D forum is mostly topics about mechanics with a smattering of topics about roleplaying. So many times in recent years I've talked to D&D players about what is happening in their game and all they reply with is a list of the cool feats they got or the bonuses their latest magic items got them. If I press the issue and ask them about what their character actually DID within the narrative they look at me with blank stares, the only thing that was memorable was the next mechanical bonus. It makes me sad because that means their DM has been running a game that has an empty narrative that is all but meaningless.

What? I'm saying that the obscure races are BAD for power gaming because they're not mechanically good. The only reason you'd sanely play a Dragonborn is for RP fun! And your stance against power gaming is once again disagreeable. It hasn't hurt DnD because you can still play the game however you want. If people want to play it differently, the game has them covered too. Also, there's more to fundamentally talk about with the community in regards to mechanics compared to RP. Why? Because settings and stories vary wildly, but the rules are standardized across players. It's easier to talk about my new Greatsword because it requires less context and can get direct answers compared to my PC's 40 session history. I also don't take your anecdote as proof of your position, because you can't use that as an excuse to call other players harmful or generalize or hate on their place in the community. When you call gameplay focused players harmful and demean other PC races, that's why you're a One True Way-er. You don't mean it when you say "play how you want"- the rest of what you say completely contradicts it. I mean it when I say it. I don't want the game to be different than it is in a way that stops you from being in it. I overall don't want it to change to exclude people, or to consider other tables more valid than others, which is such a neutral position that I'm surprised you struggle so much to accept it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So how can people who must to play some specific race handle official setting that do not have all races or whose take on them is very different? For example IIRC Dark Sun has no gnomes or warforged and its take on may of the other races is rather divergent too. If one wants to play an elf but their idea is some sort of a Tolkienish high and mighty refined magical super being, would they really be satisfied with Dark Sun's ragged desert elves who have practically nothing in common with that? What about settings that are not even originally D&D settings? If I want to run a game in the world of Dark Crystal, do I need to port all the standard D&D races into it if I decide to use D&D as a system for it?