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

[Gammadoodler]

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.

Sure, and if that page number is 11,472 of combined make-believe geography/history/sociology/physics/etc.world-building book, it's going to take quite a lot for a player to get there..or the DM would have to intervene.

As for how many "well actually you're character wouldn't/couldn't do that thing because in my world..."s is healthy, I don't know, but I'm gonna go with "not many".

 

[Gammadoodler]

A dodge is a dodge.

Pot and kettle..pot and kettle.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, and if that page number is 11,472 of combined make-believe geography/history/sociology/physics/etc.world-building book, it's going to take quite a lot for a player to get there..or the DM would have to intervene.

Do you honestly think that's what he's talking about?

 

[Maxperson]

Pot and kettle..pot and kettle.

Um. You haven't provided me with any post in this thread that I've dodged. Perhaps you aren't familiar with the meaning of that statement.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Do you honestly think that's what he's talking about?

The examples provided were detailed 'scientific' reasons for disallowing a player to do something. 'Science' is a poor choice of reasons to adjudicate things in D&D for a number of reasons. The biggest one is that, with few exceptions, D&D games are set in explicitly fictional worlds with fictional cosmology, where magic exists. And like it or not, magic trumps science.

A separate one is that using science this way can backfire when the player uses it to justify things the DM does not intend, leaving the DM with the choice to go along with it, or to engage in an imaginary science debate at the table. Which might be fun, but kinda pointless.

So in answer to your question, I don't know if that's what he's talking about specifically. But it does indicate a table where there is a significantly higher onboarding burden, and already some, to me, intrusive DMing.

 

[Maxperson]

The examples provided were detailed 'scientific' reasons for disallowing a player to do something. 'Science' is a poor choice of reasons to adjudicate things in D&D for a number of reasons. The biggest one is that, with few exceptions, D&D games are set in explicitly fictional worlds with fictional cosmology, where magic exists. And like it or not, magic trumps science.

A separate one is that using science this way can backfire when the player uses it to justify things the DM does not intend, leaving the DM with the choice to go along with it, or to engage in an imaginary science debate at the table. Which might be fun, but kinda pointless.

So in answer to your question, I don't know if that's what he's talking about specifically. But it does indicate a table where there is a significantly higher onboarding burden, and already some, to me, intrusive DMing.

His examples didn't go anywhere close to thousands of pages being required. Just a little realism applied to the game, which is fine if that's how you like to play. Nothing is going to backfire on any of his players, because he's going to be finding players that like more realism.

Again, his way is no better or worse than yours. It's just different.

Edit: But thank you for giving a genuine answer.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Um. You haven't provided me with any post in this thread that I've dodged. Perhaps you aren't familiar with the meaning of that statement.

Max, you're history with citation is pretty dubious, to put it generously. And, IMHO, I've actually provided a response to the original question.

But, to address your specific request for where you "dodged", I'll refer you to our conversation in this thread where you assertef that certain racial distributions are RAW. You know, the one where you cobbled together uncited PHB quotes from two non-rules parts of the PHB (sections 16 pages apart and separated by unrelated content) no less. I believe that thread ended when you moved on to "Yes, they were in context", rather than addressing that they weren't rules. (For the record, they were out of context, unless context now includes 16 pages of unrelated material)

So, this is the limit for my engagement in this line of conversation. If you don't like it, that's unfortunate.

 

[Gammadoodler]

His examples didn't go anywhere close to thousands of pages being required. Just a little realism applied to the game, which is fine if that's how you like to play. Nothing is going to backfire on any of his players, because he's going to be finding players that like more realism.

Again, his way is no better or worse than yours. It's just different.

Edit: But thank you for giving a genuine answer.

I said originally, that it raised red flags to me, and then that it raised more red flags.

But to your point, certainly that is a matter of taste.

 

[Maxperson]

Max, you're history with citation is pretty dubious, to put it generously. And, IMHO, I've actually provided a response to the original question.

But, to address your specific request for where you "dodged", I'll refer you to our conversation in this thread where you assertef that certain racial distributions are RAW. You know, the one where you cobbled together uncited PHB quotes from two non-rules parts of the PHB (sections 16 pages apart and separated by unrelated content) no less. I believe that thread ended when you moved on to "Yes, they were in context", rather than addressing that they weren't rules. (For the record, they were out of context, unless context now includes 16 pages of unrelated material)

So, this is the limit for my engagement in this line of conversation. If you don't like it, that's unfortunate.

Whether something is common, uncommon or rare is a rule. The racial commonality rule is every bit as much a rule as magic item commonalities. Rule =/= mechanic.

 

[Gammadoodler]

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.

I believe my comments were directed toward a hypothetical DM. I apologize if I've hurt that hypothetical DMs feelings.

My position at the start of the post was precisely that I would have no interest in gaming with this hypothetical person. It sounds miserable to me.