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

[Crit]

But, if I was joining a group where the DM wanted to run a by-the-books Dragonlance campaign (or any other popular setting), I'd be okay with the settings existing restrictions. But if I did ask to play something "off-the-list" and was given some of the answers in this thread . . . hyuge red flag, I'd probably nope on right out of there!

Don't you know? It's MY setting and I have all of the POWER IN THE MATERIAL REALM!

Just kidding. I think your whole comment is pretty spot on, in regards to respecting restrictions and visions, but also the ease and potential of bending them. I think a campaign of people who are flexible but still meet in the middle is in for a good future.

@zarionofarabel I missed some of your whack comments on pg 94.

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.

It's a group game, when you take the lead like that, you're supposed to make everyone have fun! Treating it like an all-me show is just messed up. A DM holds the fun of all of the players in their hands, while the players mainly each hold a portion of each other's and the DM's. Also, you've never heard someone try to qualify an emotion in less-than-absolute terms? Not all things illicit the same emotion at equal strengths, it's worth trying to communicate it in portions. Eating an apple doesn't make me as happy as winning the lottery.

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

We've all pretty much always agreed on that. No one ever said it's not okay, we've been discussing when it's appropriate and how contesting desires should be handled. From the get-go, I'm pretty sure everyone on the side I'm on has green lit restrictions that players agreed to or that "need" to be in place. Regardless, no one said everything should always be on the table no matter what.

If the player is roleplaying in good faith, there's very little I won't forgive or adapt to, something I learned from my first few (ironically, pretty old-school!) DMs. Since my examples run long: long story short, we initially established elves as gender-ambiguous, and then learned they were in fact actually intersex (all of them). Later on, we had drow appear but forgot to make them also intersex, so the DM rolled with it when we remembered; it became a key point of the never-directly-discussed hostility between surface elves and drow. Perhaps ironically, this all predated the 5e description of Corellon and the like.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Really quite a good question. And applicable to my situation. As someone who rather despises both the stereotypical D&D elf and the stereotypical D&D dwarf, what would a "player's choice absolutist" say about one of my campaigns, where one of the first things I say when a new player sits down at my table is: "Elves in my game settings don't hug trees or look down on other races, and dwarves aren't violent drunkards who talk in an exaggerated brogue. If you play to one of those stereotypes (which you're of course still free to do), NPCs won't see you as just acting like an elf or a dwarf, they'll see you as being a weirdo or a jerk, and they'll react accordingly."

Sounds like my game, so we do have some common ground.

No races, even the strictly non player ones, are locked into any given stereotype.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Redacted to save space

Okay, so essentially you are saying that because you like D&D the way it is, and I don't, that means that I am wrong. Sorry, but I will continue to attack what D&D has become in the hopes that it will become more of what I want because it's what I want. You not being happy about it doesn't matter to me. The entirety of the Civil Rights Movement wouldn't exist if people didn't speak up about how they wanted things to change to be more like the way they wanted and less like they way it already was. I really hope Tasha's is a glimpse of where D&D is going because the next iteration will be a true "toolkit" and that will be better, in my humble opinion anyway.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Okay, so essentially you are saying that because you like D&D the way it is, and I don't, that means that I am wrong. Sorry, but I will continue to attack what D&D has become in the hopes that it will become more of what I want because it's what I want. You not being happy about it doesn't matter to me. The entirety of the Civil Rights Movement wouldn't exist if people didn't speak up about how they wanted things to change to be more like the way they wanted and less like they way it already was. I really hope Tasha's is a glimpse of where D&D is going because the next iteration will be a true "toolkit" and that will be better, in my humble opinion anyway.

Wow. I'm not sure if this is the most tone deaf thing I've ever read..but maybe...the Civil Rights movement???

Sorry...the Civil Rights movement???

Thought I was done..

The Civil Rights movement???


Edit: this is ignoring the irony that this comparison comes from the person who wants narrative genocide.

Edit: omg, it's even worse. It's from the person who would use their position of power to deny someone access to a game based on race..

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Well, you are the only person I have ever conversed with that measures "fun" in percentage points! Every other human I have ever met measures it in a "fun" OR "not-fun" way. This is THE strangest conversation I have ever had!!!

I have fun playing 5e, but i've had more fun playing other systems. I don't find 5e unfun, but there are things about it that could change to make it more fun. If I had to give it a score I would say I have 70% fun if I am forced to use 5e as a system (GM or player). Very few things in my life are so binary as to be labeled fun or unfun.

Your stance, which @doctorbadwolf finds strange along with myself, is that as a GM you can only have fun when your desires are met 100% by the players and in which you do not have to compromise your desires and vision in any sort of way of you walk.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

*As opposed to DMs that ban elves, which is a sure-fire sign of quality!

What if I told you I had an entire campaign where elves were stricken with a "Sleeping Sickness" which eventually they never woke from forcing the PCs to intervene and save the world......all because I hate the fact that elves get so many goofy special benefits (like not sleeping for some stupid reason) and I wanted to take it out on them a whole?

I was a little disappointed when the PCs chose to use the super powerful MacGuffin to fix the Sleeping Sickness rather than something more useful for themselves.

#elveshavetoomanystupidpowers

 

[zarionofarabel]

I missed some of your whack comments on pg 94.

So I'm wack now?

It's a group game, when you take the lead like that, you're supposed to make everyone have fun!

Nope. The players are responsible for their own fun. My job is to run the game. If I run a game they find fun, yay! If I run a game they don't find fun, they should leave and find a game they do think is fun. My job is NOT to dance around simply for the amusement of the players!

Treating it like an all-me show is just messed up.

I don't. I don't run preplanned adventures of any kind. I don't use plots of any kind. I improv everything and let the players drive the narrative. My games are as far from a me show as you can get. I've had two dozen different people on several different forums tell me that very recently.

A DM holds the fun of all of the players in their hands, while the players mainly each hold a portion of each other's and the DM's.

Nope. I don't care at all about others having fun or not, that's up to them to do things that they find fun. If the game becomes something I no longer find fun then it's up to me to find a different game where I will have fun.

Also, you've never heard someone try to qualify an emotion in less-than-absolute terms?

Yes. However, having fun in a game might include various emotional states. You could be happy and sad in the same game, but have fun either way.

Not all things illicit the same emotion at equal strengths, it's worth trying to communicate it in portions. Eating an apple doesn't make me as happy as winning the lottery.

This has nothing to do with finding and activity fun or not. Some people find being scared is a fun activity. Others find being scared not fun at all.

I'm sorry, but you will never convince me that I should run a game I don't enjoy running just to make a bunch of other people happy. I want to run games that make me happy. Same as when I am a player. I won't play in a game where I don't get to run a character I want to run. I won't run a character that the DM created just because the DM wants me to play that particular character. I know you agree with me on that point. My hobby and leisure time is used exclusively to make me happy. No player is a special snowflake that must be catered to! And yes, before you try to throw it in my face, in the context of this discussion, I am the special snowflake because I'm me! It's my fun that matters! The players having fun or not is incidental.

 

[zarionofarabel]

#elveshavetoomanystupidpowers

This made me laugh, thank you!

 

[zarionofarabel]

Wow. I'm not sure if this is the most tone deaf thing I've ever read..but maybe...the Civil Rights movement???

Sorry...the Civil Rights movement???

Thought I was done..

The Civil Rights movement???


Edit: this is ignoring the irony that this comparison comes from the person who wants narrative genocide.

Edit: omg, it's even worse. It's from the person who would use their position of power to deny someone access to a game based on race..

A philosophy professor told me once, when trying to make a point, use the most extreme example you can think of for shock value! Sorry if it bothers you.

EDIT: You also completely missed my point I guess, which was about speaking up about the change you want to see rather than staying silent because your opinion might cause dissent. It has nothing to do with racism.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Your stance, which @doctorbadwolf finds strange along with myself, is that as a GM you can only have fun when your desires are met 100% by the players and in which you do not have to compromise your desires and vision in any sort of way of you walk.

Sorry, but my fun time is used to run games I find fun. If I want to run a human only game and a player wants to play an Elf, the player gets the boot. I will not stop them from finding a GM that will run a game that has elves in it, in fact I would encourage them to find such a game!