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

[Maxperson]

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.

So there's no "control freak" there. Nor is there an "idiotic" amount of work. What there is, is a different style of play than you like. It's really telling that you'd attack someone else that way for preferring a different style of play than you do.

Don't play in it, but don't insult it, either. It's no better or worse than your preferred style.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

So that style of DM is not for you.

As for the DM's answers, he was asked by the player (in this case the poster). So he gave answers. If the DM couldn't answer these things, I would probably wonder why they couldn't. But I would still play, in part, because I assume it will still be fun.

And honestly, you think a DM that has thought out their world's monsters is a "crazy control freak" - really?

 

[Zardnaar]

I take crazy control freak DM to probably have a tighter game in regards to options and to be a bit of a hard ass with their preferences.

Just ask them what they prefer and tailor expectations accordingly.

If you can't don't play.

 

[Gammadoodler]

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.

This is an amazing response to something I did not say (not that you've demonstrated a particular care for what folks actually say when you reply to them). I appreciate your defense of the honor of this hypothetical DM/author though.

This, again, hypothetical DM, has taken it upon themselves to try and invent both a fantasy world and all the fantasy science to go with it..and that's not really a problem.. until you expect your players to internalize both the world and the science, in order to act realistically within that fantasy world.

This particular set of expectations invites constant DM intervention in a way that's unhealthy.

 

[Maxperson]

This particular set of expectations invites constant DM intervention in a way that's unhealthy.

Citation and proof needed. To me it just seems like it's something YOU don't like.

 

[Gammadoodler]

So that style of DM is not for you.

As for the DM's answers, he was asked by the player (in this case the poster). So he gave answers. If the DM couldn't answer these things, I would probably wonder why they couldn't. But I would still play, in part, because I assume it will still be fun.

And honestly, you think a DM that has thought out their world's monsters is a "crazy control freak" - really?

I think that the DM that governs their D&D game by "what's physically realistic" is often going to find themselves at odds with the crazy/heroic things D&D characters are likely to attempt and which they should be capable of.

As mentioned in an earlier reply to this series of posts, if we're all bent out of shape over amphibian physiological mechanics, what happens when your adventures start slinging spells and running up walls, etc.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Citation and proof needed. To me it just seems like it's something YOU don't like.

An ironic request is ironic.

 

[Maxperson]

I think that the DM that governs their D&D game by "what's physically realistic" is often going to find themselves at odds with the crazy/heroic things D&D characters are likely to attempt and which they should be capable of.

At odds only if there's a conflict in the playstyle between the DM and players. If they are on the same page, then there is no conflict. That's why it's so important to form a group of like minded individuals.

 

[Maxperson]

An ironic request is ironic.

A dodge is a dodge.

 

[Crit]

In any case, I'm just pointing out that all DMs set limits. Some set it to any published books (WOTC or not) that are D&D specific, some WOTC published (no UA articles) only, basic rules only or race X only with other options in between. I posted a ridiculous example; but then you prove my point. You wouldn't allow The Incredible Hulk because of accessibility and balance. I don't think accessibility and balance is any more or less relevant then tone and imagery of the setting.

Which is accepted, never contested.

Separately: I think accessibility and balance are more concrete, measurable, direct and controllable than something flexible, subjective and interpretive like tone and imagery. The Hulk's power is much more logistically and narratively problematic than the perspective with which you view him from. Story, as Zarion would say, is much more changeable. I focused on the gameplay impact because the narrative aspect is too vague to consider valid or not, because it depends on the writing of people involved, or can otherwise be manipulated by the DM.