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

[Zardnaar]

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."

I'll own that I said it lol you don't have to go digging to prove it.

I'm not saying anything goes is wrong, sometimes I do it sometimes I don't.

I don't appreciate people telling me my preferred way is wrong.

In 27 years if DMing players that keep pushing once no has been said is probably going to create other problems down the road.

If a DM advertised a game and has specifications I tend to listen. If it's not something that interests me I just don't sign up.

If you're to specific odds are you won't get players.

 

[Jack Daniel]

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.

I really do not understand this. You can't see two human clerics who follow the same deity being different characters? With different backgrounds, personalities, psychologies, mannerisms, etc.? All of the stuff that makes a character a character?

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.

Culture is not character. Otherwise, it wouldn't be possible to run an all-Viking campaign or an all-samurai campaign or an Arthurian knights campaign….

 

[Scott Christian]

Why would it be either/or?

Ok, the PC's go off to that desert. Now, let's posit that the desert is fairly big - something that takes a few weeks to cross or more. That's thousands of square miles. The PC's could meet this, that and the other race and still have lots of empty space that the PC's haven't gone to. Do you actually map out, to the square mile, the entire desert before you use it in game? I doubt it. You have the desert, you have a couple of settlements and you have an adventure or two. The players do their stuff in the desert and then bugger off to the islands.

Again, do you have every single island detailed? There are no islands anywhere in your entire game world that isn't detailed?

Unless you have a grasp of your game world that would make Greenwood blush, you have virtually no details about 99% of your game world There are all sorts of completely undetailed areas on your game world map. Good grief, look at worlds like Farland or Forgotten Realms - even after decades, tens of thousands of pages of material, there are still vast open spaces in either one and new stuff being added all the time.

I strongly doubt anyone's home game is even remotely as detailed as either of those settings.

I hear you. But I don't know. Many game worlds I have played in are smaller in scope, much more like a smaller version of Hyboria than FR. I think many of their square miles are known by the DM. And the ones that are not known by players are inhabited by something sinister that keeps regular folk out.
But if it is huge. You are 100% correct.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Look at some of the real world religions with just one God. They are not one church or one culture and do not hold all the same beliefs, even though all are human. Some of those churches following the same God are in opposition to one another.

I imagine it could be the same in his game.

 

[Maxperson]

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."

I'll go over this in more detail tomorrow when my mind isn't tired mush, but it appears that you may have quoted the wrong post. If you did, correcting it will make it easier to respond when I get back to the forum.

 

[Minigiant]

Culture is not character. Otherwise, it wouldn't be possible to run an all-Viking campaign or an all-samurai campaign or an Arthurian knights campaign….

Culture is important to character.

It is what your PC's bonds, ideals, flaws, and personality are built from.

So if your cultures are shallow or your setting has few cultures, then the PC's personalities are limited. Especially if the players cannot worldbuild to make sense of a divergent attitude.

So if you make a single shallow culture where everyone is a knight, all the PCs will think the same and only their quirks will differentiate them.

An all samurai campaign would be boring as heck to me. You'll all be human fighter samurais with the same ideas, bonds, and traits. Just a different flaw.

 

[Minigiant]

Look at some of the real world religions with just one God. They are not one church or one culture and do not hold all the same beliefs, even though all are human. Some of those churches following the same God are in opposition to one another.

I imagine it could be the same in his game.

then it's not monoculture, is it?
However if you are going for Fairytale Not!England, you likely only have one religion and one church.

Hence why I don't run Single Country campaigns. Before certain points in histoty, there isn't that much internal diversity. And when it is, it takes up all the air of the game's tone and becomes the game.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Look at some of the real world religions with just one God. They are not one church or one culture and do not hold all the same beliefs, even though all are human. Some of those churches following the same God are in opposition to one another.

I imagine it could be the same in his game.

I 100% agree with this statement. When you discuss the roleplaying aspects of race/class/background choices a party of 5 human rogues could easily have 5 very distinct characters. Look at any war movie with a squad of soldiers.

But....

When the dice, maps, and minis come out and the stuff on your character sheet starts getting consulted, a party of 5 Human Rogues is going to be pretty one note.

 

[MGibster]

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.

That's not how cultures work though. I'm an American, a Southerner living in Arkansas to be specific, and while I share many cultural touchstones with my fellow countrymen we don't all have the same beliefs or habits. I don't like grits, have refused chocolate gravy for breakfast anytime it's offered, would rather own a car than a pickup truck, I spend my Sundays sleeping in, and I don't use Coke to refer to any soda pop I only use it when referring to Coca-Cola. (And I use the word soda pop which is weird down here.)

For one of my campaigns, I modeled the pantheon off of those wacky Greeks. There was one pantheon in the setting. Gnomes, elves, orcs, humans, etc., etc. all worshiped the same gods, though they might favor and be favored by one particular god. And priests dedicated to the same god didn't have to be alike. There was a difference between the LG priest of the storm god who did his best to placate the angry god and the CE priest of that same storm god who sought to unleash his destruction on others.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

My question is: If the DM gave you these reasons, would it be acceptable?

The DM doesn't have to give reasons. "Because I said so" is plenty, and if a player can't accept that they need to find a different game.