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

[Zardnaar]

No, they haven't. In this ENTIRE thread, not one single person has stated this. You are constructing a strawman to argue against that no one has posited.

There's been posters who have directly said the DM must allow players to pick whatever they want.

Hell got called a fun Nazi elsewhere when I said I didn't allow Dragonborn (generally).

Last two me a played said no angelic/infernal/draconic type races no big deal.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Since I have explicitly told you otherwise more than once, this is now a deliberate misstatement on your part. You can't be getting it wrong accidentally.

I was clear. Were I talking about my table, I would have said so. Talking in general makes it crystal clear that I'm not specifically talking about my table.

Well, by talking in general you have made the entire point so confusing that it is moot. Especially since it might be a common situation, but in no way a guaranteed one.


Also, you seem to be ignoring the more important question, twice now, and that can't be an accident either.


If you agree that a DM should try and compromise, and that is my major position. Why are you arguing against me? My position has been very consistent, so why are you arguing against me if you also believe a DM should attempt compromise?

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

I've also pointed out 8-20 is roughly my sweet spot for races.

That's still not anything goes.

Noting that by my count, that 20 means at least half of all races in the game. Which is fairly significant.

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

It looks like you and @Minigiant are claiming that characters need to come from different cultures to be distinct. I don't think that's what you're actually saying—or at least, I hope that isn't what you're saying—but it sure looks like it.

No, good lord how are these conversations so difficult.


You have created a single culture, right? Monoculture, everyone is from that culture and shares that culture. Therefore, my character has that culture. In your Not!England does everyone go to Church? Then my character goes to Church. That is the definition of Monoculture. Single Culture.

So, before in DnD I would have had hundreds of possible characters. Even just Three different Elves with 33 different deities gives me 99 different options. In your world... I am human and I have one god. That is 1 option.

So, I have far far far fewer options. Sure, I could come up with some details for my character, but if I want to play a cleric, there is one option. Human Cleric of X. Maybe I can swing one of two different subclasses.

And since I am a human cleric of X, in a Monoculture, I have set beliefs. There aren't sects within the religion, this is a Monoculture, there is one option.

So, I am a human cleric of X, with beliefs Y, likely a member of Church X, because there is one church. Sure, I could be more scholarly, or more zealous, or more saintly, I can add details to this character, but vast swaths of that character have been pre-determined.

You have written who my character follows, what creed they believe in, what organization they are a part of, there is not a lot of room left to explore here. I can still make a character, and maybe a second cleric wouldn't be the exact same character... but they would follow the same god, be a part of the same church, have the same culture, and hold the same beliefs.

Much of the information I would research, come up with, or consider... is already written for me because you have set such a strict limit upon that game.

 

[Minigiant]

Holy moley.


It looks like you and @Minigiant are claiming that characters need to come from different cultures to be distinct. I don't think that's what you're actually saying—or at least, I hope that isn't what you're saying—but it sure looks like it.

What I am saying is that the DM has to offer enough options for the players.

So when people say "A Song of Ice and Fire has only humans" they forget that it has seven kingdoms each with their own culture. And within them are subcultures. Then you add the Iron Isles. Then you add the Targ. Then you add all of Essos. So yes it's just humans but 20+ different detailed types of humans.

aka There is no getting out of the work if you do all the worldbuilding yourself. You can use shortcut by using a race's preconceived culture and fluff tofill out your cultures and ations list.

A friend of mine is doing GOT but all the houses are of different fantasy race. Daenerys Targaryen is a full on dragonborn. The Reach is full of elves. And the Starks are dwarfs.

 

[Hussar]

There's been posters who have directly said the DM must allow players to pick whatever they want.

Hell got called a fun Nazi elsewhere when I said I didn't allow Dragonborn (generally).

Last two me a played said no angelic/infernal/draconic type races no big deal.

Citation please.

What people say elsewhere has no bearing on this conversation and should not be brought up.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, by talking in general you have made the entire point so confusing that it is moot. Especially since it might be a common situation, but in no way a guaranteed one.

It wasn't confusing, though.

If you agree that a DM should try and compromise, and that is my major position. Why are you arguing against me? My position has been very consistent, so why are you arguing against me if you also believe a DM should attempt compromise?

Again, compromise doesn't have to mean giving the player the race he wants. No dragonborn will ever grace my game. However, I will work with the player to find/create something else just as fun or more fun to play.

 

[Maxperson]

So when people say "A Song of Ice and Fire has only humans" they forget that it has seven kingdoms each with their own culture. And within them are subcultures. Then you add the Iron Isles. Then you add the Targ. Then you add all of Essos. So yes it's just humans but 20+ different detailed types of humans.

It also has elves(Children of the Forest), though they don't really mingle with the humans.

 

[Zardnaar]

Citation please.

What people say elsewhere has no bearing on this conversation and should not be brought up.

Citation this thread go find it it's there not making it up.

 

[Hussar]

Citation this thread go find it it's there not making it up.

Both you and @Oofta have made the claim that people are accusing you of badwrongfun and poor play for not including every option. I've just recently read this entire thread - I didn't skip ahead before I replied - I actually read most of the comments. And, I'm very much not seeing what you are claiming.

Now, I have seen multiple shots that anything that isn't the sort of "core 4" races is stupid, immature and only for "special snowflake" players. But no, I have not seen what you are claiming.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Since I have explicitly told you otherwise more than once, this is now a deliberate misstatement on your part. You can't be getting it wrong accidentally.

I was clear. Were I talking about my table, I would have said so. Talking in general makes it crystal clear that I'm not specifically talking about my table.

It is possible that I missed something along the way--as stated, the thread has moved incredibly fast and there are multiple 10-page spans I haven't had the time or inclination to check through. But you, certain posters no longer permitted to post in the thread, and others like Zardnaar have all at some point straight-up said some variation of the Viking Hat. "My house, my castle." "Ultimate Authority." "Do you think this is a democracy?" "If you want those races, go run a game that has them." Players choosing non-human races are a "problem," but not for long. Etc.

This wasn't a one-off event. This wasn't something that was overstated or misunderstood the first time and consistently resaid later to clear it up. This is a position that has been clearly and repeatedly made throughout the thread: A player who asks for something that isn't officially approved has erred. A player that asks to talk about any DM restriction whatsoever--no matter how honest or friendly the request--is challenging DM authority and thwarting DM vision; is failing to have any trust in the DM's judgment, and thus shouldn't play at that table; is unpleasable or demanding, incapable of accepting anything but 100% what they demand and the DM must always completely and totally compromise.

Literally not one thing from that previous paragraph hasn't been said by at least one person on the "pro-restriction" side. Sure, I've paraphrased the arguments, but I'm referencing numerous different posters here.

Whereas I have explicitly and repeatedly said that restrictions aren't inherently wrong. That openness to compromise does not entail a guarantee of it. That getting a game going is a process of negotiation and diplomacy rather than ultimatum and diktat. Each and every time someone has challenged me with a no-win scenario, I've admitted that it's a no-win scenario, that some players really just can't fit in some games or that some DMs really just aren't the right DM for a concept, or whatever. And in each and every case where the challenge has been more open-ended, such as the "sentient sword, or mecha pilot, or astromech droid, or..." list, I articulated my reasoning, and clearly demonstrated that there are things that won't fly as-is (as the pro-restriction side puts it, "saying no") but that I'm willing to hear the player out and look for what they really want (as I would put it, "finding yes") as long as the player is contributing positively (non-abusive, non-coercive enthusiasm).

I haven't seen this kind of thing from the other side. Perhaps I've missed it. Perhaps I've misunderstood it. But I'm just, flat, NOT seeing this amelioration. I'm NOT seeing the (for lack of a better term) "pro-option" side saying "NO YOU HAVE TO GIVE THE OPTIONS NO MATTER WHAT." One or two posters at most. As opposed to nearly every single one of the "pro-restriction" posters saying some variation of, "I as DM have absolute power, and if you don't like that, you can vote...with your feet."

 

[Zardnaar]

Both you and @Oofta have made the claim that people are accusing you of badwrongfun and poor play for not including every option. I've just recently read this entire thread - I didn't skip ahead before I replied - I actually read most of the comments. And, I'm very much not seeing what you are claiming.

Now, I have seen multiple shots that anything that isn't the sort of "core 4" races is stupid, immature and only for "special snowflake" players. But no, I have not seen what you are claiming.

Badwringfun is short for you must do it this way or the DM has to consent to the player.

It's an informal term conveying an idea.