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

[Jack Daniel]

However, none of that changes that you have written large swaths of my character. NOT ALL OF IT. I am not saying you wrote all of it. but LARGE PARTS.

If you've written, heck, let us say 60% of my character, isn't that a bit too much? 50%? You've laid out some pretty strict guidelines.

Absurd.

Monoculture Monoculture Monoculture

…And weirdly laser-focused on the least-relevant aspect of my argument.

The setup, I'll reiterate, is a D&D campaign set in a thinly-drawn generic fairy-tale kingdom. Ye Auld Castles & Princesses, Shrek-land, however you want to characterize it. Using the original D&D rules, but with no playable elves, dwarves, or hobbits, so that just the fighter, mage, and cleric classes are available. I said that I could run this campaign, and it would not constitute me creating the characters for the players. Because of course it doesn't. Hell, I'll even go one further and assert that there are still an infinite variety of playable characters with this setup. (This, despite the fact that the number of possible attribute score arrays are technically finite.)

The point is that you don't need cultural differences to make different characters any more than you need mechanical differences.

Seriously.
Many stories are not D&D style adventures. You often have to alter the premise of a storyworld to make it so.

D&D Adventurers was not a normal job in real life nor myth.

Not even a little bit relevant to whether two characters who share a race, a class, and a culture can be different characters. You straight up asserted that King Arthur's knights are all the same guy (bwuh!?) and that Ancient Greeks don't count because reasons. How about Robin Hood's Merry Men? We'll even leave out Friar Tuck (cleric) and Alan-a-Dale (bard). Are the rest of them all the same character because they're human, English, Christian, and basically all fighter/thieves to one degree or another? Locksley, Little John, Much, Will Scarlett?

You don't get to answer by asserting "not a D&D campaign," because that's not relevant. It easily can be. Easily. (Does nobody here remember the AD&D 2nd edition green-cover HR series of sourcebooks?)

 

[Scott Christian]

If you create a new world for every campaign and want to design it by committee, great. I don't. I like it when the DM has a concrete notion of what the world is, I love the feel of discovering that world through the eyes of my PC.

This could not have been said better.

Also, for those who disagree, I would ask to turn the coin. What if the DM comes up to the player and says, no you need to play this background and class? Would any player be okay with that? (I actually might because I trust most DMs.)

There are rules to the game. And, in part, those rules imply different roles for the people at the table. The player is not meta-cognizant of the setting, nor should they be. The DM is. The player controls his character's actions within the realm of the rules and setting. The DM does not. The player gets to create their character within the rules and setting. The DM does not.

 

[Maxperson]

This is basically all I've been saying, with one odd detail.

Is Dragonborn the only thing you have as a limit, or is it the only hard limit? I ask because it is the only thing you mention consistently, and it makes me wonder if you are willing to compromise on multiple fronts, and this is just the one thing you won't compromise on, or if you have only one thing that would require compromise and you won't compromise on it. Or do you see having a variant lizardfolk race with a breath weapon as a compromise on Dragonborn, basically just changing the name and the origin.

Dragonborn is the only D&D specific issue I have a hard limit on. Races like Drow may or may not be refused, depending on the setting or campaign. Sometimes they are a good fit, other times they will be disruptive. I'd also not allow someone to bring in a Terminator. I'd offer up a Warforged as a compromise, but things that are way too powerful or out of genre are going to get a hard no. But again, I'll try to offer something that is within possibility that is as similar as I can get it. So I'll attempt compromise.

But they share a lot of abilities, in fact they share the majority of their abilities. Which was the point being made. They share so much in terms of how they approach problems that they will end up feeling very samey.

They will share a lot of abilities, which will make them similar, sure. However, there are enough differences that when combined with different personalities, goals, etc, will still allow for quite a bit of individuality. I've played in all Wizard and all Fighter parties before, and DM'd for all Wizard, all Paladin and all Cleric groups. Those games went along nicely. Lots of fun.

Personally, I wouldn't play in an all Human game. Not for lack of individuality, but rather because even if I'm playing a human, which I do about 80% of the time, I want to be able to encounter elves, dwarves, gnomes, etc. as part of the adventure.

 

[Minigiant]

Not even a little bit relevant to whether two characters who share a race, a class, and a culture can be different characters. You straight up asserted that King Arthur's knights are all the same guy (bwuh!?) and that Ancient Greeks don't count because reasons. How about Robin Hood's Merry Men? We'll even leave out Friar Tuck (cleric) and Alan-a-Dale (bard). Are the rest of them all the same character because they're human, English, Christian, and basically all fighter/thieves to one degree or another? Locksley, Little John, Much, Will Scarlett?

You don't get to answer by asserting "not a D&D campaign," because that's not relevant. It easily can be. Easily. (Does nobody here remember the AD&D 2nd edition green-cover HR series of sourcebooks?)

The Authurian Knights are noble knights working for a king.
The Merrymen are a rebel group of upper, middle, and low class men in the forest.

That's my point.

The first group are men of the share social and political class and the same lot in life.
The second group is nobles, priests, commoners, craftmen, and foreigners. Many different aspects of life.

So players in the first group would have to go out of their way to differentiate themselve and exaggerate their characters. You're knight who likes the ladies because a lustful horndog who wants to get with the queen.

Or the all samurai campaign will have a character who says "honor" in ever 3rd sentence.

Unless of course the DM can go deep into English or Japanese history or mythology to describe how a knight/samurai/catapharct/hoplite for Xland is different one from Yland and one from Zland. And then you have to explain the difference to the players. Because if only you know the difference, the players will see them as all the same.

That's my whole point. If the DM cuts stuff out and doesn't put things back it or dive deeper, the players will feel constrained and develop samey characters if they aren't informed of their full list of options.

 

[Scott Christian]

Why do so many people keep seeing the word "compromise" and reading it as "I must give in to all demands"? That isn't what that word means, so why does it keep coming up again and again?

Hmm... I haven't seen anyone object to compromise. What I have seen is people object to something that does not fit the setting/theme that they worked hard to develop.
Compromise implies something on both ends, does it not. If I had a player that really wanted to be a dragonborn, and as a DM there was no room for it. Then I would point them to a culture that is similar. And then, we could work on a backstory together. If the player really likes the idea of a breath weapon. Sure, we can incorporate that into your character. Maybe you carry around oil flasks and a quick lit lighter and spew your fire a few times a day. If the player really likes the damage resistance, we can figure something out.

In return, the player needs to compromise, and say they are not a 6' tall dragon.

That is compromise. I do not hear any DM in here objecting to that.

 

[Aldarc]

For this, I think it varies by tables. Some players want to just show up, roll dice, and roleplay. They don't want to be part of the world building anymore than a reader wants to build the world of the book they are reading. They want to interact with the world. They want the ability to alter and shape it. They don't want to create it because it might spoil the mystery of exploring.

Sure, but "I wanna play a X race" implies at least a modicum, however small, of player-based setting-shaping, regardless of whether their main concern is showing up, rolling dice, and roleplaying.

 

[Minigiant]

Hmm... I haven't seen anyone object to compromise. What I have seen is people object to something that does not fit the setting/theme that they worked hard to develop.

I thought it was more people asking to explain their settings and some DMs saying they shouldn't have to.

I'm sorry, I only have that level of trust for people I know AND understand how they prefer to play.

If you say "No hobgoblins", is it evil for me ask "why?" and expect some kind of honest answer?

 

[Scott Christian]

Sure, but "I wanna play a X race" implies at least a modicum, however small, of player-based setting-shaping, regardless of whether their main concern is showing up, rolling dice, and roleplaying.

Fair enough.

 

[Oofta]

They don't have to.
However if they do, the players will understand the tone and theme of the world better.

For what races are allowed, that's in my quick 1 page overview. If I'm looking for a new group I'll give a quick pitch on what I'm thinking.

In addition I have several pages in my wiki about my world if people really want to read it. Specific campaigns set in that world will vary a bit of course, but I do stress that I prefer a heroic campaign over a murder-hobo thug campaign.

So if potential players can't get a feel for my campaign from a few dozen wiki pages I don't know what else I would add.

 

[Scott Christian]

I thought it was more people asking to explain their settings and some DMs saying they shouldn't have to.

I'm sorry, I only have that level of trust for people I know AND understand how they prefer to play.

If you say "No hobgoblins", is it evil for me ask "why?" and expect some kind of honest answer?

No. You definitely should expect an answer. I haven't seen a DM in here that wouldn't give an answer. For some, it might be vague, such as "story purposes." (I think that is what someone said earlier?) Others might give you their world guidebook and explain the map in great detail. And others fall in between. But, yes, they should give you an answer.

I was thinking about how I do one offs - anything goes. It gives players a chance to explore different combinations and just have fun with no commitment. Kind of like a one night stand. Then, contrasting that to a campaign, where the DM has put a lot more hours up front (for some), and the players have to make a long term commitments. Kind of like a long term relationship. I guess one has more rules in order to be sustaining.