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

[Minigiant]

I never said there are no bad DMs. In my experience the worst ones allowed kitchen sink*. What I object to is your constant correlation of curated campaigns with established worlds with bad DMs.

There is no correlation between correlated vs kitchen sink campaigns and bad DMing. My advice is that DMs should do what makes sense to them and don't be bullied or pressured into doing something that doesn't make sense to them. Not insulting to anyone, just advice. Feel free to offer your advice instead of just telling people the obvious fact that bad DMs are bad.

*Including the guy who bragged about how hilarious BobTown was. The town where everybody's name was Bob. Hil - wait for it - larious.

I didn't said that there is a correlation with bad DMS and curated campaigns.

There are Bad DMs with kitchen sinks who can't handle the large amount of options.
There are Bad DMs with narrow theme who don't provide enough options for players.

I am just against the idea that just because a DM has the right to make anything that anything they make is good or makes sense. The better there players understand the world, the better roleplay they will provide and the fewer issues DM will have.

 

[Oofta]

I didn't said that there is a correlation with bad DMS and curated campaigns.

There are Bad DMs with kitchen sinks who can't handle the large amount of options.
There are Bad DMs with narrow theme who don't provide enough options for players.

I am just against the idea that just because a DM has the right to make anything that anything they make is good or makes sense. The better there players understand the world, the better roleplay they will provide and the fewer issues DM will have.

But that is effectively saying that only bad DMs make the final call. Still no correlation there. Some DMs are bad because they let players push them around, some DMs are bad because they run strict railroad and the players have no real freedom.

There's no "there" there except the implication that only bad DMs say "no".

 

[EzekielRaiden]

But that is effectively saying that only bad DMs make the final call.

That's...not what's said, "effectively" or otherwise.

"There exists" =/= "for all." The difference between the two is literally the most basic rule of predicate logic: "there exists an X such that Y" is not, at all, the same as "for all X, Y holds."

 

[Zardnaar]

Difference is the restrictive DMs are saying anything goes is a legit view.

The other sides saying that's bad wrongfun.

I should add a new rule to my table rules. "You may challenge the DM to fisticuffs, winner gets to DM".

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Difference is the restrictive DMs are saying anything goes is a legit view.

The other sides saying that's bad wrongfun.

I should ad a new rule to my table rules. "You may challenge the DM to fisticuffs, winner gets to DM".

You may be surprised to find that (1) no, I haven't said it's not a legit view, and (2) I'm not the one claiming "absolute power" or "my house, my castle."

One side is saying negotiation is completely verboten. The other side is saying some negotiation is reasonable, even if it doesn't actually end up changing anything. Yes, I do think that instant ultimatum IS bad. I have never, not once, said that restrictions are ABSOLUTELY bad. What I have said, repeatedly, and which you and others have repeatedly re-interpreted or misconstrued in the worst possible light, is that no-discussion dismissal and treating the desire for a conversation as offensive, both of which HAVE been explicitly said in this very thread, is bad.

Please, though. Feel free to show me where I said it was badwrongfun to have restrictions. Show me where I said that saying no is unacceptable, that the DM absolutely MUST always compromise on everything forever. I'll wait.

 

[Zardnaar]

You may be surprised to find that (1) no, I haven't said it's not a legit view, and (2) I'm not the one claiming "absolute power" or "my house, my castle."

One side is saying negotiation is completely verboten. The other side is saying some negotiation is reasonable, even if it doesn't actually end up changing anything. Yes, I do think that instant ultimatum IS bad. I have never, not once, said that restrictions are ABSOLUTELY bad. What I have said, repeatedly, and which you and others have repeatedly re-interpreted or misconstrued in the worst possible light, is that no-discussion dismissal and treating the desire for a conversation as offensive, both of which HAVE been explicitly said in this very thread, is bad.

Please, though. Feel free to show me where I said it was badwrongfun to have restrictions. Show me where I said that saying no is unacceptable, that the DM absolutely MUST always compromise on everything forever. I'll wait.

Wasn't aimed at you specifically. Others have said it's bad wrongfun to say no.

I listen to my players, you're an idiot if you don't but any new player has to get with the program. They get their say next campaign if they hang around long enough.

If they get outvoted they can play or leave at that point. DM has to have fun as well I don't think my themes are to restrictive and if they are it's buy in 1 of 5 options.

Warforged seem popular now do you think they would be that popular if they were one of 50 races vs one of 4-5 new races spotlighted in a new campaign setting?

Replace Eberron with Darksun or Krynn. I wouldn't want to mix and match Kender,Mul, Warforged.

FR. (Generic)
Eberron (magitech)
Theros (restrictive)
Ravnica (restrictive)
Greyhawk (traditional)

I might offer that. Pick 1.

 

[Scott Christian]

I think the statement more meant that the only races that absolutely have to be represented in some way are the ones played by players. Not meant as a "the world begins and ends with the players," but rather that any argument which hinges on "so now I have to justify LITERALLY every race ever???" really doesn't hold water.

Ahh... thanks for the clarification. It is appreciated.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I agree with everything you say there, although that might get stickier if we are talking about something not created. What I was referring to is your quote that you only have to have the races that the players choose. That is what I didn't understand.

You build your world exactly as you feel like it should be. Include the races you want to explore in depth leave out the ones that you aren't interested in building a detailed history about.

Then when a player wants to play some obscure race that you didn't include in your world building GM prep time you and the player pick one of the 200 examples I referred to of why their strange character can still exist in your world without changing or requiring change to the work you already did.

If your world history doesn't have tortles in it, you will only have to add in the turtles strange origin IF a player picks a tortle as a character choice.

You don't have to add in 50 new race origin stories to let your players pick from a menu of 50nraces, you only have to add in the races they chose that aren't already in your world....and by add it can be as simple as "You are a complete unknown to everyone" if that's the story you want to explore with the player.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

That depends on the DM. If the DM has created a world with all of its races and politics and interactions set, then dropping in a different race would be highly disruptive. He would have to create the world with every race detailed out in order avoid that issue. Though it's possible that a unique individual might not disrupt things.

On the planet Earth in 2020 there are still pockets of tribes that haven't had "modern" contacts. This is a planet that doesn't have underwater societies , underground societies, interdimensional travel teleportation, or other strangeness.

I'm going to challenge any GM here that claims to have a planet sized world mapped out so detailed that I couldn't find a place to drop a small population of some oddball humanoid that fits within the bounds of expected D&D tropes.

Faerun, probably the most detailed setting in D&D literally had an entire Chultan Peninsula empty enough to create enough locations to seed an entire adventure path, AND put enough unexplored sprinkled in between those areas that the entire adventure path involved exploring areas with no known maps or notes covering them.

I could build a complex society of 17 interconnected Tabaxi cities warring with each other and bury it in the blank spaces the jungles of Chult still has open.

 

[Scott Christian]

A DM that has created a world where all such things are fixed is a DM that isn't actually interested in accepting player input. That's literally what I've been arguing, repeatedly: the DM that fixes so much of the world that the players can't ever touch or change or even question it.

That is a good way to phrase your argument. Thanks. It is clear. I mean, I understood it before, but this crystalizes it.
I would defer on the touch, change or question. I do not know any DM that wants a still-framed world. They want their players' characters to interact and be able to change the world. They can touch it. They can change it. But, they do that during the adventure with their PC's, not by choosing a race during character creation.
Here is what they can change during character creation: where certain backgrounds exist, where a race can grow up, what occupations might exist in specific places, and even smaller enclaves of cultural shifts.
Here is the one thing these DM are arguing they can't change: You can't be these other races, you can only be these 4 or 8 or 12 or 16. That is it. I do not see them arguing any other thing in the world that the player can't change.

Like, is this really a thing? Do DMs really fix the "races and politics and interactions" so frequently? I thought the whole point was to play to find out what happens. What's the point of being a player in something where the DM has pre-figured so much of the world? I honestly don't feel like it would be hyperbolic to ask, "Ah, and is the DM setting the players' alignments and favorite colors, too?"

Again, they do fix things. That is how any story starts. Ten Towns has a curse on it, it is forever winter here. Xonthal's tower has kept the villagers around it safe from marauding creatures for many years. Saltmarsh is on the sea and houses many fisher-folk. The savage frontier is a place where hill giants are storming villages and gathering all the sheep, cows and grain that they can.
I do not feel like it would be hyperbolic to ask can a player understand that these settings are in place, so please work with them. If not, maybe it is a lack of imagination on the player's part, not the DM's. If that is the case, then the DM can sit down with the player and help them draft something that they would be happy with. If at the end, if they are only happy with being a mermaid from under the sea, then perhaps discuss a different game run on a different night.

And, yes, one-offs should be perfectly acceptable, if a player is looking for something particular. Just as the DM should listen and consider, the player must need to accept a spectrum of answers. If the player isn't satisfied, maybe it just doesn't work. If even a one-off is a problem for the DM, maybe it just doesn't work--but at least giving the player the time of day, letting them talk and honestly considering the possible options--doesn't seem like it's this horrible offensive thing. It doesn't need to

Agreed. A one off should be open as open can be. Because, in the end, it doesn't matter. You are not investing hundreds of hours into prep time, spending hundreds of dollars on materials, and/or building close, and maybe lifelong bonds with people.