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

[zarionofarabel]

This presumes that (1) the person will actually shift to looking at the other points, (b) actually think of the other points as the relevant ones, and (iii) not hold such behavior against you for later parts of the conversation.

I find that none of the three things above happens on the regular. That it's, in fact, exceedingly rare to see all three at the same time. Risking offense, dismissal, or others hounding you for points you don't actually care about, is not worth the potential of stealing the show.

It works for me.

I rather doubt that. Binary “fun” or “not fun” with no less or more fun in between is extremely abnormal.

Citation needed.

This is completely unacceptable behavior.

Says who?

 

[Maxperson]

This is completely unacceptable behavior.

I disagree. An apology was completely acceptable. His original post may not have been.

 

[Umbran]

I apologize again for making you angry. Sincerely!

Mod Note:

Not good enough.

The level of disrespect displayed in likening your preferences in a luxury entertainment to something that real people have bled and died for shows an incredible lack of empathy, discernment and discretion.

You are done in this thread.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

IF saying "I have several people who agree with me" is a strong argument... I have several people who agree with me too. Funny how a debate seems to have people on both sides who agree with each other.

But for some reason, you are the only one trying to dismiss me by saying I have confirmation bias. I mean, do you have a better defense of your position other than I'm succumbing to biases? I mean, you aren't telling me what part of your position I'm getting wrong.

I know you believe in the ultimate authority of the DM
I know you say that you don't allow selfish people at your table.
I know that you have said that anyone who would have more fun if you compromised is either getting kicked from your table, or you are canceling the campaign and refusing to run.

That third one... sounds selfish to me. Which contradicts the second point, because it is relying on the DM basically being incapable of being judged selfish, despite acting selfish.

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.

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.

An excerpt is not part of the text in the way you are claiming. Again, with my last example, that sentence about Alabama is literally in that song. But if I decided to quote that sentence, and credit that band, I would be incorrect. Even the band themselves would tell me I was incorrect. Because that line was not theirs. They were quoting someone else. And by only using the quote, I'm quoting that person.

But at this point, you've dug in your heels. Logic is never going to persuade you. So be wrong. Misuse quotes. I've shown both a clear line of logic and precedence for a position I don't even need to hold.

The Tabaxi is wearing gloves. No claws out. No reason for the racist innkeeper. And no amount of misquoting changes that, and, before you try it, yes, Gloves do exist in 5e.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What would have happened, pray tell, if the player would have refused to change their concept? What would have happened if they insisted that they get to play their Undying Paladin?

shrug

We've been best friends and practically brothers for going on 20 years. I legitimately can't imagine us not finding some way to work it out. Even if it meant me doing more work.

And I think part of it is he knew I wasn't rejecting his idea because it was stupid. I mean, I definitely didn't like his idea, but he knew I was willing to give him a fair shake. I wasn't gaslighting him, or trying to overrule him. I told him his idea had merit, but it would be a better fit for a higher level game, and he knew I was telling him the truth.

So... I'd have figured something out. Don't know what, we would have just kept brainstorming.

If by people agreeing with your position, then you get much praise as well!

Not what I mean, but nice attempt.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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."

So... what do you follow that up with? What are elves and dwarves like? Do druids and drunkards also get treated as weirdo's and jerks? Does anyone who looks down on other races get that treatment or only elves?

I realize this might sound dismissive, but it was immediately where my mind went, because some of the more memorable elf characters I've had included a Druid who became a Queen and a 500 year old Drunken Fist Monk, who was a totally lush. Which got me wondering, is it the attitude itself, or who is presenting it.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've seen the game change first hand. Back in the day when I ran Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition all the people at the game shop told stories about what was happening in the narrative of the game they were participating in. Now all the people at the game shop talk about is mechanics. I used to watch people describe how their character was shopping for new clothes or dancing at the King's Grand Ball. Now I watch them push minis around a battlemat and skip over the "boring" shopping trip. 5e was supposed to be a return to the days of old when RP mattered, except that doesn't sell minis or books full of even more mechanics. The saving grace is that I do get to watch and discuss RP as long as the players have "moved on" from D&D to systems that are less mechanics focused. D&D is the "800 pound Gorilla" as others have said. I wish it was used to increase the RP part of the hobby. The minis fights can be left to the minis combat games. I am very afraid, and not at all surprised, if 5e is the death of RP as RP and just becomes another minis combat game in the future. I don't want this hobby to die, but with D&D being always more focused on the "gameplay" crowd over the "roleplaying" crowd means it is leading the entire hobby in that direction. That makes me SAD!

Your experience is very far from universal.

I've literally got 19 letters that I have written "off-screen" to send to one of my character's Fiance, which is the driving force and motivation behind... quite literally everything he is trying to do. In another game a big driver of my character's actions is that (as a noble) they have accepted their first servant into their household, and is devoting their attention into training them to be an... acceptable Head Maid (it is a long journey, perfect ain't in the cards)

RP isn't dead. Maybe it is harder for you to see in those tables right next to yours, but it is alive and well in other parts of the community.

 

[MGibster]

One thing to keep in mind regarding the frequently wearing of armor for unnecessary lengths of time is the nature of an adventurer. We're talking about a young physically fit person in the prime of their life. I can remember being able to do a lot of things without feeling ill effects when I was in my twenties.

 

[Maxperson]

IF saying "I have several people who agree with me" is a strong argument... I have several people who agree with me too. Funny how a debate seems to have people on both sides who agree with each other.

I can show the ones who agree with me. Where are yours?

I know you believe in the ultimate authority of the DM

The DM having that authority is a fact.

I know you say that you don't allow selfish people at your table.

Yep.

I know that you have said that anyone who would have more fun if you compromised is either getting kicked from your table, or you are canceling the campaign and refusing to run.

Never said that.

That third one... sounds selfish to me. Which contradicts the second point, because it is relying on the DM basically being incapable of being judged selfish, despite acting selfish.

When you make stuff up, you can make it sound selfish.

 

[Monayuris]

Chaosmancer said:
IF saying "I have several people who agree with me" is a strong argument... I have several people who agree with me too. Funny how a debate seems to have people on both sides who agree with each other.

I can show the ones who agree with me. Where are yours?

Chaosmancer said:
I know you believe in the ultimate authority of the DM

The DM having that authority is a fact.

Chaosmancer said:
I know you say that you don't allow selfish people at your table.

Yep.

Chaosmancer said:
I know that you have said that anyone who would have more fun if you compromised is either getting kicked from your table, or you are canceling the campaign and refusing to run.

Never said that.

Chaosmancer said:
That third one... sounds selfish to me. Which contradicts the second point, because it is relying on the DM basically being incapable of being judged selfish, despite acting selfish.

When you make stuff up, you can make it sound selfish.

I think @Chaosmancer is misattributing some of my quotes as yours. I have at some point in this thread made those points. Still making a gross mischaracterization of my points.

Specifically, what I think @Chaosmancer thinks you said, that I actually said...

I have made the point of the DM having final authority. Which they do, per the rules of the game.

I have also made a point that when setting up a game for a public group, wherein I have detailed acceptable race/class/options available for my game. If a significant number of people came to me wanting options that I have not allowed, that I did suggest that those players should find a different game that better suits their needs.

So I think just getting mistaken who made the points to begin with.

 

[Mecheon]

I can show the ones who agree with me. Where are yours?

Y'know I'm among the ones with Chaos on this one, Max.

RP isn't dead. Maybe it is harder for you to see in those tables right next to yours, but it is alive and well in other parts of the community.

Heck yeah. Plus the largest D&D streams on Twitch are -very- RP focused. That's where most people are going to get their D&D kicks these days, these online games, and especially these streams pulling in thousands of views a day. They colour how people see D&D

 

[Maxperson]

I think @Chaosmancer is misattributing some of my quotes as yours. I have at some point in this thread made those points. Still making a gross mischaracterization of my points.

Specifically, what I think @Chaosmancer thinks you said, that I actually said...

I have made the point of the DM having final authority. Which they do, per the rules of the game.

I have also made a point that when setting up a game for a public group, wherein I have detailed acceptable race/class/options available for my game. If a significant number of people came to me wanting options that I have not allowed, that I did suggest that those players should find a different game that better suits their needs.

So I think just getting mistaken who made the points to begin with.

He's twisting my words. I've said that the DM has the ultimate authority, which is a fact per RAW. I've also said that IF, and it's a big if, both the DM and the player are in a spot where their fun would be negatively impacted and the player doesn't have another enjoyable option, it's not acceptable for either one of them to play like that. That's not only not selfish, it's the exact opposite. It treats both the player and the DM equally. @Chaosmancer is fixated on it only being the player not having another option, but that's only because the DM literally cannot have another option to have fun. When it comes to PCs, only the player has multiple options to pick from. I have also never said that the I wouldn't compromise if the player would have more fun. In fact, I gave examples of multiple races which I dislike, but which I compromise over and don't say boo to the players who want to play them. My dislike of those races doesn't impact my enjoyment like Dragonborn do, at least not when played by someone else. I try to find a workable compromise whenever possible.

I've also never in 37 years of playing encountered a player who can't have a ton of fun with multiple different races, so this is a non-issue in the real world and is only really a forum "problem."

Also, I never once even implied that I would just stop the campaign and leave. Not once. His confirmation bias has him inventing things for me to have done in order for me to fit his preconceived notion about this issue. That's the only thing I can think of for why he's altering my positions so blatantly in order to paint me in a negative light.

 

[Monayuris]

He's twisting my words. I've said that the DM has the ultimate authority, which is a fact per RAW. I've also said that IF, and it's a big if, both the DM and the player are in a spot where their fun would be negatively impacted and the player doesn't have another enjoyable option, it's not acceptable for either one of them to play like that. That's not only not selfish, it's the exact opposite. It treats both the player and the DM equally. @Chaosmancer is fixated on it only being the player not having another option, but that's only because the DM literally cannot have another option to have fun. When it comes to PCs, only the player has multiple options to pick from. I have also never said that the I wouldn't compromise if the player would have more fun. In fact, I gave examples of multiple races which I dislike, but which I compromise over and don't say boo to the players who want to play them. My dislike of those races doesn't impact my enjoyment like Dragonborn do, at least not when played by someone else. I try to find a workable compromise whenever possible.

I've also never in 37 years of playing encountered a player who can't have a ton of fun with multiple different races, so this is a non-issue in the real world and is only really a forum "problem."

Also, I never once even implied that I would just stop the campaign and leave. Not once. His confirmation bias has him inventing things for me to have done in order for me to fit his preconceived notion about this issue. That's the only thing I can think of for why he's altering my positions so blatantly in order to paint me in a negative light.

Agree totally.

I think some of that user's response was based on a post I made here: D&D 5E - What is the appeal of the weird fantasy races?

if I’m playing with strangers, and the entire group tries to convince me into allowing them. I would drop the game. I made a choice for my campaign and if the entire group doesn’t like it they would be better served to find a DM with a campaign that better suits their needs

That was what I said.

My point is maybe you said something similar, but I know I did and I think the response to you was actually based on something I said. My post was merely to try to correct that.


At this point I honestly regret making this post to begin with. It started from a frustration on proliferation of race options to the point of being incomprehensible to me. It was definitely based from personal apprehension and was misguided in that it was unfairly accusatory on my behalf. I have and do apologize for that. But at a certain point the thread has morphed into a war between DM and Player rights.

I personally take umbrage at the accusation that if I limit options in my campaign I am considered selfish and viking hatted. DM's make the game happen. I DM and I don't want to eliminate anyone's fun. I do want to run a cohesive campaign that makes sense to me. I can (and have) successfully do both without being an evil selfish viking hat DM. It is exhausting having to constantly explain this to people.

It feels like DM's are universally despised on this forum (the first thought of a DM having authority on the game, as granted by the rules, is met with open hostility)... and yet people also lament that there aren't enough DM's out there.

There is already enough false information out there that tells you DM'ing is hard (it is not). DM'ing is easy. It just takes some confidence and some creativity. Why would anyone discourage that?