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

[prabe]

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?

It's not evil, but it's plausible that even an honest answer might be a veil drawn over "because I don't want them." Or, really complicated.

To take your example of hobgoblins: I'm old enough to be taken aback that anyone would want to play one. I'm not convinced that WotC put as much thought into balancing any of the "monstrous races" in Volo's as they did the ones written ground-up to be PCs. On my world, they've been without their Gods for ~1000 years; most tribes are either withdrawn and inward-looking or outward-looking and trying to bring their Gods back by Conquering More; I'd really feel better keeping that aspect of my world on the DM side.

It's possible that most or all of my reasons would come out in a conversation, if I got what felt like an honest response to "Why do you want to play one?" I don't mind explaining, and I don't mind listening.

 

[Jack Daniel]

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.

Depends on the player, not the DM.

I have mentioned earlier in this thread that many players have an annoying tendency to portray the Tolkien demihumans as stereotypes. This too is entirely in the hands of the player, not the DM.

The solution is not to exaggerate quirks. It's to replace caricature with character.

 

[Minigiant]

Depends on the player, not the DM.

I have mentioned earlier in this thread that many players have an annoying tendency to portray the Tolkien demihumans as stereotypes. This too is entirely in the hands of the player, not the DM.

The solution is not to exaggerate quirks. It's to replace caricature with character.

My point is that if you limit race, class, subrace, subclass, social class, and hometown, you've stripped a lot from the players' hands to make a PC. And fantasy world don't have the freedom of the modern world.

The more you limit, the more likely you get caricatures. Caricatures of what makes them different or the same.

If you make a NYC game and the player doesn't know the differences between the boros and neighborhoods, you likely will get a NooYawker caricature as a PC.

 

[Remathilis]

And here's where we get into DM's that have curated campaigns and "badwrongfun". A DM doesn't have to justify their choices to you or anyone. I don't make decisions based on "whims", but yes, I do make decisions based on personal taste. There is no game without a DM, if the DM doesn't embrace the core concepts of the campaign I don't see how that campaign will be fun for everyone. I chat with players all the time about tone and direction, but ultimately the buck stops with me.

I've taken to the opinion that while the DM has a larger share in the say in a campaign, he isn't (nor should be) the be-all-end-all. I mean, if the DMs NPCs are all-powerful and never be defeated or the DM's plot is so tight the PCs cannot meaningfully affect it, we consider it a problem. If the DM's world is so tightly designed that it cannot accommodate new options, isn't that almost as bad?

As far as players being replaceable, what can I say? I've never had problems forming a group or keeping players once we've gotten going. Life sometimes interferes with gaming and I've never had a problem replacing those that have left. I also acknowledge that I'm not the right DM for every player and vice versa. When did it become a moral obligation for a DM to allow whatever a player wants?

This is where you and I have widely different expectations. While the DM has an inordinate amount of control over the campaign, all that control is worthless without happy players. I've never lived in a place where players were plentiful, so a good player was worth bending a little to keep. There is such a thing as bending too far and I never said DMs should cater to any-and-all player whims either, but I have found in my day that "my-way-or-highway" DMs always bled players and frequently didn't last too long, while a DM willing to work with a player about fitting a concept that they might not have planned for tends to make people more engaged and interested. Give and take is all I've ever advocated.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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, some players want to create, some don't.

But there are a lot of people here who are putting forth the idea that those players who might have an interest in creating are bad players because they are ruining the DMs perfectly curated world by trying to add something different to it.

Which seems like a very negative reaction to that kind of proto-DMing.

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

Absurd.

Which part? The part where you laid enough restriction that you wrote half my character for me or the part where a character might be more than their personality and love of soup?

…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.

Yeah, I'm focusing on the part of your set-up that you clearly did not understand or communicate well.

Heck, you want Shrek-land? Let's see we have Shrek and his Swamp, Farquad and his kingdom, Happily Ever After ruled by Fionna's Father, Camelot.

That is already four different sections of the map with four different cultures. And those are just the big ones I remember off the top of my head.

So, when you said "Monoculture" you didn't mean that. Without a Monoculture or a single kingdom that rules everything, you have a much wider set of options.

Heck, you want Ye Auld Castles & Princesses? The Knights of Camelot went to different lands constantly. Many had interactions with Fey Courts or foreign knights. Which gives us options, other cultures and ways of thinking.

And this was the point, if you take out a dozen options to narrow down on one option, then you need to make sure that option has enough details and hooks to replace the options you took out.

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?)

And you keep ignoring that they all come from different places.

You want to say that the Ancient Greeks should count for a monoculture, but you named men from Three different Kingdoms. Again, you might as well say that all Europeans are the same and that France, Germany and England have the same culture. It is insultingly untrue, so I don't get why you keep putting it forth as your argument.

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

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.

I find myself confused by this post. You say that the player gets to create their character, and yet you are also asking (and saying if you would be okay with) a DM coming up to a player and telling them what their Background and Class has to be?

I might listen to a DM, if they had a very incredibly good reason for it, but if they just said "Trust me, it will be awesome if you play an Urchin Wizard" I'm going to press for a lot more information, because that is a major ask from a DM.

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.

Then you have been missing a lot of posts in this thread. Because a lot of DMs have had "No, I am the Ultimate Authority of the Game and if I say no it is no, and that player can either do something else or leave."

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.

I believe it was @Paul Farquhar most recently whose answer was "Because I am the DM" which is not an answer. So again, you seem to have missed parts of the conversation here.

 

[Minigiant]

It's not evil, but it's plausible that even an honest answer might be a veil drawn over "because I don't want them." Or, really complicated.

To take your example of hobgoblins: I'm old enough to be taken aback that anyone would want to play one. I'm not convinced that WotC put as much thought into balancing any of the "monstrous races" in Volo's as they did the ones written ground-up to be PCs.

balanced as in Overpowered or Underpowered.

Because under WOTC, monstrous races have been notoriously bad.

Like you had to play kooky builds to make them good.

On my world, they've been without their Gods for ~1000 years; most tribes are either withdrawn and inward-looking or outward-looking and trying to bring their Gods back by Conquering More; I'd really feel better keeping that aspect of my world on the DM side.

It's possible that most or all of my reasons would come out in a conversation, if I got what felt like an honest response to "Why do you want to play one?" I don't mind explaining, and I don't mind listening.

And that's a good and reasonable take.
However there are DMs who just say "because I don;t like them" then wont suggest a oath of conquest paladin or a race, tribe, or nation that has that hard military focus as alternatives.

I find that players who understand how the world works and its tone roleplay better.
Most of my time murdehoboing as a player came from places where everything is hidden or samey. We killed and robbed because we didn't really have any hooks into the world

 

[Jack Daniel]

My point is that if you limit race, class, subrace, subclass, social class, and hometown, you've stripped a lot from the players' hands to make a PC. And fantasy world don't have the freedom of the modern world.

The more you limit, the more likely you get caricatures. Caricatures of what makes them different or the same.

If you make a NYC game and the player doesn't know the differences between the boros and neighborhoods, you likely will get a NooYawker caricature as a PC.

Disagree on all counts. Everything you're saying here, I don't buy at all.

Which part? The part where you laid enough restriction that you wrote half my character for me or the part where a character might be more than their personality and love of soup?

I haven't written any of your character for you. I've stipulated a game where three classes are playable (human fighter, mage, or cleric). Let's say that I've rolled your stats, too, because it doesn't matter which of us rolls the dice: Str 16, Int 12, Wis 11, Dex 9, Con 13, Cha 11. I've given enough of a broad-strokes description of the genre/period/setting that any player I've ever met could work with it. You're telling me you can't come up with an interesting or compelling character based on that?

And you keep ignoring that they all come from different places.

You want to say that the Ancient Greeks should count for a monoculture, but you named men from Three different Kingdoms. Again, you might as well say that all Europeans are the same and that France, Germany and England have the same culture. It is insultingly untrue, so I don't get why you keep putting it forth as your argument.

You really want to hitch your wagon to that argument? That the reason, say, Achilles and Odysseus are different characters is Phthia and Ithaca, not (e.g.) rage and cleverness?

 

[Michael Silverbane]

The third(?) character that I ever played (in 1981) was an owlbear. The owlbear from the owlbear lair in the Caves of Chaos in B2 - Keep on the Borderlands. It had just eaten my previous character, (an elf, I think) and it made a sort of sense to start playing the owlbear as a character, rather than hold up play while I made a new character.

It was fun. I said, "Who Rawr!" and chewed up kobolds, and generally made a bear-sized nuisance of myself in the Caves of Chaos. I kept that up until the party went back to the keep, and then I made a new character.

I don't think that the desire to play weird or unusual characters is something new.

 

[Mecheon]

You're telling me you can't come up with an interesting or compelling character based on that?

I mean, I could. Or.... I could go and join another game that lets me try out that Fire Genasi Forge Cleric idea that's been around in my head for absolute yonks and I'm going to enjoy playing more. Or my human mage shadow sorcerer. Or my human chef monk, seeing to defeat the Iron Chefs in Kitchen Stadium. Or my lazy bugbear fighter who just wants to hit people with a polearm. Or, y'know, a human mage with decent stats

There's a whole world of games out there and time is limited. Prove your game is worth my time, because your selling points ain't selling me on anything.

You really want to hitch your wagon to that argument? That the reason, say, Achilles and Odysseus are different characters is Phthia and Ithaca, not rage and cleverness?

They are just completely different people entirely. They have different backgrounds, different histories, different places they come from. I'd say everything about them makes them different characters, not because one's clever and the other one unleashes full angry fury on the world

Monocultures are unrealistic. This is a simple argument, and I don't see how saying 'these two people, from different places, were different!' helps any counter-argument to that. You can twist monocultures to have some freedom in them? I guess. But also, you can just.... Not have monocultures in the first place.

 

[Jack Daniel]

I mean, I could.

Excellent. Bueno. Argument's over then. QED.

They are just completely different people entirely. They have different backgrounds, different histories, different places they come from. I'd say everything about them makes them different characters

The very point I'm trying to lead my interlocutors towards. Thank you for making it.