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

[Crimson Longinus]

I really don't think anyone has anything against discussing things, and yes the game pitch generally starts with the GM explaining what sort of game they'd like to run. And in practice I have never encountered any issues with this. Sometimes some potential players may say after hearing the pitch that they are not interested in that sort of a game. That's fine, I have done so too. Then the people who are actually interested ask more questions and create appropriate characters. Asking questions and discussing what is possible is fine, normal and required. But ultimately when players sign up to play certain sort of a game, they should accept the premise and try to create characters that fit into that. And it goes far beyond things like character races.

 

[Oofta]

I really don't think anyone has anything against discussing things, and yes the game pitch generally starts with the GM explaining what sort of game they'd like to run. And in practice I have never encountered any issues with this. Sometimes some potential players may say after hearing the pitch that they are not interested in that sort of a game. That's fine, I have done so too. Then the people who are actually interested ask more questions and create appropriate characters. Asking questions and discussing what is possible is fine, normal and required. But ultimately when players sign up to play certain sort of a game, they should accept the premise and try to create characters that fit into that. And it goes far beyond things like character races.

That's been my experience as well. Sometimes people ask for clarifications (can I play a drow?) I say no and they still join the game. Nowadays it's easier because I just post everything online including race restrictions, general campaign idea(s) and a bunch of extra info. All of this ... is such a tempest in a teapot when it comes to real life. Except for a couple of cautionary stories like @Zardnaar and the guy wanting to play a cleric of a deity that doesn't exist or the player that wanted to play that half dragon half vampire it's pretty much a non issue.

People play for different reasons and with different styles. End of story.

 

[Zardnaar]

That's been my experience as well. Sometimes people ask for clarifications (can I play a drow?) I say no and they still join the game. Nowadays it's easier because I just post everything online including race restrictions, general campaign idea(s) and a bunch of extra info. All of this ... is such a tempest in a teapot when it comes to real life. Except for a couple of cautionary stories like @Zardnaar and the guy wanting to play a cleric of a deity that doesn't exist or the player that wanted to play that half dragon half vampire it's pretty much a non issue.

People play for different reasons and with different styles. End of story.

I didn't put a lot of thought into my pantheons I just tried to put in enough deities portfolio to cover all the domains and have multiple options be for said domains.

Forge deities not super common.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I do not doubt that you would laugh. Which, generally, is the wrong way to approach someone trying to explain their views.

Did you not see where I specifically answered the question:
"Player: What about sea elves and other aquatic races?
DM: They do not exist because of the physiological reasons I gave."

Why is trying to adhere to some sense of biological realism the "worst" reason? The single sahuagin god in my example gave them an ability and they are creatures. Notice the DM also said - they DIE when out of the water. What is that PC going to do when they are out of water? See how there is a logical consistency there.
- DM: Oh, you want to be like the suahagin and be blessed by the shark god. Um... okay, but how will you trek through the desert? The forest? The city? Are the other characters carrying around an aquarium?
As for the other creatures you listed, I would think a good DM could defend those or leave them out. Necromantic magic is a strong and powerful force. Owlbears were the creation of a wizard, much like a liger, only stranger. There are no sentient golems. They are inanimate objects that are able to move through spells and components. Oozes are creatures, just like a worm, only deadly. And dragons, there is a fly spell.
I'd imagine a thorough DM would have a backstory on all of it and reasons why these creatures exist.

And I will leave you with this.

"If a spaceman showed up to help fight Sauron the book would lose all sense of realism for the reader. If a cowboy showed up and killed Ned Stark people would have stopped watching at season one. Of course, that might have been a good thing." -

The more you describe the things the DM might say to justify how things might exist in this fantasy world, the less interest I have in spending time with this DM.

As a side note, even for this crazy, control freak DM, the amount of idiotic work they are giving themselves is staggering. This person wants to spend their time explaining how fantasy monsters and fantasy magic work on their fantasy world. And they think these explanations should be relevant in game they want to share with others???

It sounds like a good book, but a miserable game.

 

[Scott Christian]

No. and I'll explain why.

A longtime friend and DM of mine came to his group one day with a campaign idea he came up with from a dream. The setting was kinda generic (PHB races and classes, this was I think either late 3e or early 4e era.) Here was the kicker: you had to pick (and play) a specific role in the story.

The roles centered around a pair of fraternal twins who were the protagonists. One of them had to be a warrior-type and the other a caster, and it was preferred they be a male and female twin. Another had to be their older mentor who helped raise them. Another was a rival character who would act as a foil (but not enemy) to one of the twins, and the last was a noble who was in love with the other twin. T

So, you got to pick whatever mechanical build you wanted, but the DM utterly designed your background and major aspects of your PC. He basically said, "you are in love with So-in-so's character" or "you have a friendly rivalry with another PC" or "you view these two PCs like your children".

Would you play in a campaign like that?

Spoiler: What happened

We didn't and walked from the game. First, even though we had access to whatever was in the PHB, the implications of each role placed further restriction, such as it wouldn't make sense for the mentor of a paladin and wizard to be a barbarian. Secondly, the DM kept adding "suggestions" to further expand each role, forcing us to adhere to his vision of our PCs further and further. Even though the DM was a good storyteller and longtime friend, we ultimately decided that playing HIS characters was a bridge too far for us to have fun.

So no, I wouldn't like if the DM assigned me a specific class or background any more than I did having the DM assign me a specific story-role.

If I trusted the DM, of course I would. But, I can see why a lot of players wouldn't. And they are not wrong, nor am I right.

I guess I should clarify my coin flip phrase. I am equating the DM telling a player to play a class and background to a player telling a DM to include a race in their world. To me, it basically creates the same problem - it oversteps the roles of the DM or player.

That said, can the DM ask you to play a specific class? Yes. But if the player says no, the DM should not try to force the issue. And vice-a-verse, can the player ask to play a kobold? Yes. But if the DM says no, the player should not try to force the issue.

Hopefully, that makes my point a little clearer. Sorry for any miscommunication.

 

[Oofta]

The more you describe the things the DM might say to justify how things might exist in this fantasy world, the less interest I have in spending time with this DM.

As a side note, even for this crazy, control freak DM, the amount of idiotic work they are giving themselves is staggering. This person wants to spend their time explaining how fantasy monsters and fantasy magic work on their fantasy world. And they think these explanations should be relevant in game they want to share with others???

It sounds like a good book, but a miserable game.

Yeah, all games where people put thought in their worlds are bound to be miserable. Give me a break. You can have a preference without insulting people.

 

[Scott Christian]

Creating the world doesn't actually spoil that mystery though, unless you somehow become privy to all of it. I like to refer to worldbuilding as "putting pieces on the board." I permit my players to add new pieces to the board during play, with relatively mild restrictions. But just because the player knows that piece is on the board, doesn't mean they know who controls it, or what other pieces it interacts with, or whether that piece is just one among many or a solitary entity, or...etc. Even when the players can simply straight-up create setting elements, there is almost always MORE for them to discover about those elements--the parts I bring to the table, or the ways the other players riff off of those things.

On a, it's-in-front-of-you level, you are correct. But, these scenarios people keep coming up with are, I guess, a matter of perspective at best. And I cannot see, under any stretch, how one group on here thinks that a DM limiting races is a power move or pissy move or narrow minded move or "badwrongfun" move. It makes no sense, but maybe that is because I trust the game designers to set the rules and social guidelines of the game. I mean, here is the opening of the DM's Guide:

"Know Your Players
The success of a D&D game hinges on your ability to entertain the other players at the game table. Whereas their role is to create characters (the protagonists of the campaign), breathe life into them, and help steer the campaign through their characters' actions, your role is to keep the players (and yourself) interested and immersed in the world you've created, and to let their characters do awesome things."

How anyone on here can read this and then criticize, say Oofta's DM'ing decisions, seems absurd.

 

[Scott Christian]

And I have seen people who are, whether implicitly or explicitly, saying they not only don't need to give an answer beyond "I just hate those things" or "trust me," but who are actively empowered to treat such a question as a reason to exclude a prospective player from the game.

Might be the rose colored glasses, but I think any DM who said this on here is probably short of temper for having to try and justify their view a thousand times. My guess is, in real life, they would sit down with the player and work things out. Unless, of course, there is something about the person they don't want there in the first place. But that is an out of game reason.

 

[Scott Christian]

I think in most games the DM says to the prospective player, "This is the kind of game I run <insert explanation> and this is the setting <insert explanation>." Followed by any house rules, etc. This happens before the player starts building a PC for the game. It seems silly for a player to just walk up blindly to a game and start building a PC without finding out if it's even a style of game he wants to play or even finding out if there is room.

Max is correct here. I have played in a lot of campaigns. Many states. Many different groups. I have never had a DM that wanted to run a campaign of any significant time period that has not done these things. Most go even further, such as telling us to tie in "such and such" into our character's history, or handing out lit or maps of their world, or meeting or emailing a bunch prior to session zero to talk shop about the character's design and abilities.

 

[Zardnaar]

Max is correct here. I have played in a lot of campaigns. Many states. Many different groups. I have never had a DM that wanted to run a campaign of any significant time period that has not done these things. Most go even further, such as telling us to tie in "such and such" into our character's history, or handing out lit or maps of their world, or meeting or emailing a bunch prior to session zero to talk shop about the character's design and abilities.

We use messenger in the lead up to session 0 and after.

Group chat so everyone theoretically knows what's going on.