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

[Remathilis]

Level one stuff had some new skill challenges type stuff those races just totally bypass.

No one took a wizard so breathe water isn't reliably available (sorcerer's skipped it).

I had a half elf storm sorcerer (Mark of storm), a gnome tempest cleric, a shifter storm barbarian, a changeling rogue swashbuckler and a warforged champion fighter. Water breathing and swim speeds were common enough.

 

[Minigiant]

Is this a concept for a particular campaign or a general concept that you want to use at some point because it's D&D?

Because this is a curious thing to me. I started with 2E so I tend to think of D&D as a toolkit. After all it doesn't even have a setting! So I was running a desert themed game I may well say no water themed races. But if your concept has nothing in particular to do with the premise of the campaign I also don't see why you couldn't let it wait for a campaign where it would fit better anyway.

When I pitch a campaign idea I really want players to be keen on the premise and work with it. I don't want players who join because they want to play D&D and this'll do.

I think @Remathilis was using it in a general sense. Like If a DM had a full line of climates in their setting but bans all the races that fit in some climates and adds no cultures to the races they put in those places.

---

One a tangent but not really.

I think narrow theme settings are harder work than broader ones.
Why?

Because although the DMs get to make the setting, DMs don't get to make the PCs. That's a big No No. So when a DM creates a setting with a narrow theme like a Desert setting or a High Nobility setting or a Tolkienesque setting, they should add in as much as they take out.

Before where you could have survived with generic Desert Country of the Sandy Hats, you need to make 3 or 4 desert countries. You have to delve deeper into worldbuilding at levels some DMs are not skilled at or willing to do.

Before Appleland, Banania, and Cantoloupe could be very similiar, you now have to deeply go into how they differ. The days of Humanland, Elfland, Dwarfland,and Hobbitown is over. Doing Races of Hats and Nations of Hats with a small list is barely acceptable anymore for a lot of D&D players. Times have changed.

You aint gotta do a kithchen sink but I do't know if I have the drive to randomly do a narrow setting from a base of just liking the idea. I'd like to do a piratey game but I don't have the drive to do it right and to the point modern players expect.

 

[Zardnaar]

I had a half elf storm sorcerer (Mark of storm), a gnome tempest cleric, a shifter storm barbarian, a changeling rogue swashbuckler and a warforged champion fighter. Water breathing and swim speeds were common enough.

I forgot to mention. Alot of the stuff I'm using is mined from previous editions.

Savage tide, Ghosts of Saltmarsh, Isle of Dread, Quagmire, War Rafts of Kron etc.

So yeah more traditional stuff as well they were written when such things weren't available.

Things like dispel magic on air breathers etc. Can't really do that with h the new races.

 

[Remathilis]

I forgot to mention. Alot of the stuff I'm using is mined from previous editions.

Savage tide, Ghosts of Saltmarsh, Isle of Dread, Quagmire, War Rafts of Kron etc.

So yeah more traditional stuff as well they were written when such things weren't available.

Heh. I'm running Savage Tide. In Eberron. With help from Ghosts of Saltmarsh and Goodman Games DCCs. Still works. They're 8th level now and learning demons have resistance to the lightning damage they loaded up on. Fun times.

 

[Zardnaar]

Heh. I'm running Savage Tide. In Eberron. With help from Ghosts of Saltmarsh and Goodman Games DCCs. Still works. They're 8th level now and learning demons have resistance to the lightning damage they loaded up on. Fun times.

I just ran the start and using Sasserine as a base. Stole some ideas from later in the AP and Vanthus is a recurring baddie.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You aren't, because you can't. You've taken my words and twisted them, attributing meaning that I never even implied, then responded to your own fabrications. It's a pattern with you.

And that's a complete falsehood. I never once implied in any way, shape or form that I would leave the table. This is what I said.

I said that if there is an unfixable conflict between the DM and a player, one of the two has to leave and it should be the player. I also said that the DM only has two options, leave or have the player leave. Not that I said DM, not me. When I'm talking about "the DM", the intent is clear. It's clearly a general statement about DMs. It does not in any way state or imply what I would do. Further, I said in more than one response to you directly, that the DM shouldn't be the one to leave, because that would negatively impact the fun of everyone at the table.

You know what I say. Your intelligent, so you know what I mean. Yet you twist my words anyway.

Aren't you the DM at your table? If you are talking about the options a DM has, doesn't that include your options, since you are a DM? Or do you have special "Maxperson" options that aren't in that scenario?

I mean, you literally spell out exactly what I said you said, right here. Only this time, you are adding "an unfixable conflict" Which was not in your initial statement. Which I believe was this one:

One has to go. Negatively impacting anyone's fun is unacceptable. Between the DM and one player, the choice is obvious. If the DM leaves, all the players lose out. The player can go find a game where he can play his ideal PC without disrupting things.

Negatively impacting anyone's fun is unacceptable. If such an impact would occur, the choice of who leaves is obvious. The player, because if the DM left, everyone loses.

So, the choice you laid out was that if anyone would have less fun, single player or DM, was player leave and the game continue, or DM leave and the game is done. No campaign. Which are exactly the options I said you laid out.

Sure, in this new post, you say it is only if there is an irreconcilable difference between the two. But in your original post, you made no such claim. You said any one negatively impacting fun.

So, sure, I'm a smart guy. Not a wise one though. Because despite you and Oofta constantly accusing me of twisting your words and arguing in bad faith and being this evil troll out to get you, I still try to have conversations. As pointless as that seems to be.

The DM can leave. I'm just not one of the DMs that will.

Which is not something you said before. And I get tired of trying to assume what you mean when you don't say it.

You were doing well up until that point. I've never said or implied that it did that to me. I said they bug the hell out of me and it would constantly grate on me, but the reduction was never anywhere near "every ounce." Remember what I've said repeatedly, even 10% is unacceptable, for both the player and the DM.

Sure, 10% loss in your fun, and you kick a player out. That's the part I object to. And before you tell me you didn't say that and I'm twisting your words, go back and reread what I reposted. That is exactly what you are saying. If you don't mean that, then you need to rephrase.

For the record, I'm not calling any race outside of the common races stupid.

Which I appreciate, but it is happening in this thread, from other people. People who you've been tending to agree with.

Cool. I don't think you or your ideas are stupid, either. I don't even think Dragonborn are stupid. They're just not for me. Just like Pumpkin Pie isn't for me. Can't stand the stuff. One of the most popular pies out there, though.

Cool, but again, when you are agreeing with the people who are saying that and yet I'm getting accused of twisting people's words and being anti-DM because I approach compromise differently than you do... then it sounds less like you just have a preference and more like you are judging people and exiling them from your table for impacting your fun.

Because again, if a player reduces your fun by 10% with their character, you may try and compromise, but if they don't agree to something that increases your fun again, they have to leave. That is your repeated position.

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

I would caution this with the reason they are RP focused is because it is entertainment to groups other than the people playing. Very few focus on pure dungeon crawl because it is much more boring to watch a fight happen than to watch a fight happen where the audience has a vested interest in characters.

But, that is also just how some of those tables play.

Critical Role was very much billed as "We are just continuing our game, and letting the cameras roll." You can say that they changed their playstyle because of it, but to be honest... I doubt they did early on. And there isn't a huge difference between episode one and what they do now.


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

Yes it's a happy pirates theme. I've let races like that in before. Always leads to two things.

1 their environment advantage is useless.

2. It overshadows the other PCs.

Which, I mean, I get it, but at the same time you are literally saying "These rare concepts that are perfect for a sea campaign, which is a rare campaign type, none of them are allowed to be used."


I mean, on the GiTP forums I was debating whether or not the Ranger "Beast of the Sea" needed to be buffed, because it is useless except in a fully underwater campaign. This sort of rule would be to only ban that Beast when you are doing an underwater campaign. That's what it is best suited for, so that might be the idea I'm most excited to explore now that I finally have a chance to do it right.

Just seems... strange to me to ban the concepts that fit the most.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No they were banned for environmental reasons as well.

See Warforged on Athas for example.

Not really sure why water genasi would be banned because of "environment." Primordial Adepts and Elemental Priests fit perfectly with Athas, for example.

Now, if the answer were, "there isn't any ocean for you to have lived under," which actually does apply to Athas, then that'd be a different story. That's, "a key component of your concept doesn't have any clear way to fit. Does it have to be specifically an underwater culture? Could it be underground, for example?" That's the kind of discussion I expect, neither a DM that never says no, nor a DM that instantly says no, but one that pokes and prods, looking for something satisfactory. And, as stated, sometimes that isn't possible. I think a number of people in this thread greatly exaggerate how difficult it is to find something like that though. The fact that so many immediately resorted to referring to DMs that get ridden roughshod, or petulant players demanding incredibly specific things, hasn't really helped that impression.

Edit:
And to give a different response: What about someone whose culture does come from "under the sea" while still being a "land" species? FFXIV, for example, has a sort of bubble-city under the Ruby Sea, and it's strongly implied to be just one of several such (small) cities maintained by magic on the sea floor. Would that be verboten too?

Which, I mean, I get it, but at the same time you are literally saying "These rare concepts that are perfect for a sea campaign, which is a rare campaign type, none of them are allowed to be used."

I mean, on the GiTP forums I was debating whether or not the Ranger "Beast of the Sea" needed to be buffed, because it is useless except in a fully underwater campaign. This sort of rule would be to only ban that Beast when you are doing an underwater campaign. That's what it is best suited for, so that might be the idea I'm most excited to explore now that I finally have a chance to do it right.

Just seems... strange to me to ban the concepts that fit the most.

Completely agreed. Being told, "I'm running a pirates campaign, but you can't use any race or feature that's specifically associated with the sea," especially if backed up with "just trust me on this"/"I've got a plan," or worse, "those things would make you OP," would definitely raise suspicions. Even if said by a good friend! Because those don't come across as assurances. They come across as either excuses or as using overall trust as a reason not to be concerned about a pretty straightforward "not sure I trust this" situation. It may not be quite "what do you trust, me or your lying eyes" level, but responding to skepticism/concern with "just trust me" is not the way to get someone to trust you!

 

[Zardnaar]

Not really sure why water genasi would be banned because of "environment." Primordial Adepts and Elemental Priests fit perfectly with Athas, for example.

Now, if the answer were, "there isn't any ocean for you to have lived under," which actually does apply to Athas, then that'd be a different story. That's, "a key component of your concept doesn't have any clear way to fit. Does it have to be specifically an underwater culture? Could it be underground, for example?" That's the kind of discussion I expect, neither a DM that never says no, nor a DM that instantly says no, but one that pokes and prods, looking for something satisfactory. And, as stated, sometimes that isn't possible. I think a number of people in this thread greatly exaggerate how difficult it is to find something like that though. The fact that so many immediately resorted to referring to DMs that get ridden roughshod, or petulant players demanding incredibly specific things, hasn't really helped that impression.

Edit:
And to give a different response: What about someone whose culture does come from "under the sea" while still being a "land" species? FFXIV, for example, has a sort of bubble-city under the Ruby Sea, and it's strongly implied to be just one of several such (small) cities maintained by magic on the sea floor. Would that be verboten too?


Completely agreed. Being told, "I'm running a pirates campaign, but you can't use any race or feature that's specifically associated with the sea," especially if backed up with "just trust me on this"/"I've got a plan," or worse, "those things would make you OP," would definitely raise suspicions. Even if said by a good friend! Because those don't come across as assurances. They come across as either excuses or as using overall trust as a reason not to be concerned about a pretty straightforward "not sure I trust this" situation. It may not be quite "what do you trust, me or your lying eyes" level, but responding to skepticism/concern with "just trust me" is not the way to get someone to trust you!

You think this is a democracy? I'm offering a game this is the way it is sign up or don't.

 

[Maxperson]

Aren't you the DM at your table? If you are talking about the options a DM has, doesn't that include your options, since you are a DM? Or do you have special "Maxperson" options that aren't in that scenario?

It doesn't matter. If I'm talking about general DM options, it's flat out wrong of you to assume which options I might take. Stop doing it. Unless I sau, "I do X", ask me what I do instead of assuming. You're wrong about 95%(no exaggeration) of the time.

Sure, in this new post, you say it is only if there is an irreconcilable difference between the two. But in your original post, you made no such claim. You said any one negatively impacting fun.

Except that I said that to you in no less than two posts, three if you count the latest one. Look at what I say, not at what you want me to have said.

Which is not something you said before. And I get tired of trying to assume what you mean when you don't say it.

Don't assume. Ask. I talk in general game terms a lot. If I don't tell you what I do, you need to ask instead of assume. If you had asked, I would have told you. You're really bad at assuming. Like wrong 95% of the time bad. If you stop and just ask me(and apparently Oofta), perhaps we wouldn't think you twist our words so much.

Sure, 10% loss in your fun, and you kick a player out. That's the part I object to. And before you tell me you didn't say that and I'm twisting your words, go back and reread what I reposted. That is exactly what you are saying. If you don't mean that, then you need to rephrase.

It's not an eviction. It's a parting of the ways. This is a situation where the differences are irreconcilable. It's not okay for a player to have to sacrifice and lose out on game play enjoyment. It's equally wrong to expect that of me. The only reason it has to be the player and not the DM, is because of the other players in the game. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. I'm not going to punish 3 players by leaving, when 1 can go and find just as much fun somewhere else or doing something else.

Which I appreciate, but it is happening in this thread, from other people. People who you've been tending to agree with.

Being on the same side doesn't mean that we agree on all things. We just broadly agree on the DM authority issue. Details will vary.

Cool, but again, when you are agreeing with the people who are saying that and yet I'm getting accused of twisting people's words and being anti-DM because I approach compromise differently than you do... then it sounds less like you just have a preference and more like you are judging people and exiling them from your table for impacting your fun.

Because again, if a player reduces your fun by 10% with their character, you may try and compromise, but if they don't agree to something that increases your fun again, they have to leave. That is your repeated position.

It's not about my fun. It's about OUR fun. That's what you keep overlooking. It would be a mutual parting, because of irreconcilable differences, not a unilateral eviction.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You think this is a democracy? I'm offering a game this is the way it is sign up or don't.

No. I think it's a negotiation, rather than an ultimatum.