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

[Chaosmancer]

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?

Sure I could.

But just because I can come up with a compelling character doesn't mean you didn't do a lot of character writing.

I mean, again, you seem to not understand what is meant by "Monoculture". Let use say that we base this off of Puritans, just because I know that decently well off the top of my head.

My character would be highly religious, believe in social order, believe they have a divine mandate from their god, they would always follow the laws, they would dress conservatively. The husband would be the spiritual head of the household, and women would be expected to obey their husband. However the women would be in charge of the taverns and inns owned by the men. My character would believe in education, that the church should guide the government, that playing cards was fine, but dancing and gambling would be doorways to sin.

And the character of the person to my right? They would also believe all of that.
And the character of the person to my left? They would also believe all of that.
And the character of the person across from me? They would also believe all of that.

Because the idea of a monoculture is a single static culture. Can I make a compelling character who is slightly different than those other players, within those limitations? Probably. But can you really look at a list of beliefs and character traits like that, and under the idea of a monoculture where every character would have to hold those same beliefs, and say that you didn't write a lot of my character for me?

I mean, that is the claim you are making. That with all of those character traits pre-determined by being in a monoculuture that I am still supposed to trivially make my character.

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?

Of course they were different people.

BUT THEY ALSO CAME FROM DIFFERENT CULTURES.

Why is this concept so difficult for you to grasp? Why do you want to insist that things that are not monocultures are monocultures?

My only answer is you didn't understand what a monoculutre was when you made your sweeping statement.

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

The point you want to make by taking people from same place with the same culture and the same cultural history is that if all of those things were different they'd be different characters?

That seems to be a poor way to make that argument.

 

[Hussar]

Dang man, c'mon. That is beyond pessimistic. You mean you couldn't sit down with friends and hang out four hours a week and enjoy playing a human cleric? Or was that hyperbole?

Might give it a one shot afternoon. But an ongoing campaign? No thanks. I have better things to do with my time. My free time is extremely limited and I've long given up on playing games I don't enjoy.

 

[Hussar]

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.

And, for those players, a limited selection of races probably won't be an issue.

But, seriously, a couple paragraphs detailing where my people live is going to spoil the mystery of exploring the setting? That's a bit extreme.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Just wanted to requote this as one of the absolute BEST D&D stories I've ever heard. That just made my day.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

That said? I think there's no less merit to the point "humans core-4-class chars are the equivalent of unflavored oatmeal" than there is to the point "non-human chars will try to coast on dull stereotypes." If I'm supposed to take the latter seriously (as numerous pro-restriction folks have said), I don't see why they get a free pass on the former--I need a reason why.


This though, 100%.

The reason is simple. I've gamed for 40 years. I've PLAYED the core races to bloody death. I'm sick and tired of playing the same role over and over and over again.

I think this is why I ADORE the 3e binder. My absolute, beyond a doubt, favoritest class. It's the class that lets you remake your character constantly. Tired of being this? Ok, bind a couple of different vestiges and you have a whole new personality. It's fantastic. Endless variation in one character. I'm the happiest player ever.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Alright, last post was too long even for me. Trimming hard this time.

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.

Perhaps it is jade-colored glasses, turning Scott's phrase, but when Zardnaar frex derides discussion with "what, do you think this is a democracy," then outright rejects the idea of negotiation in any form, what am I supposed to think? Ultimatum is not discussion.

I too read a pitch, talk to a DM, and often don't join; it is indeed fine. But the vast excluded middle remains: the "let's talk about this pitch" part. That's where the negotiation happens. That's where people decide whether the pitch--and, more importantly, the DM or player--will work for/with them. That's where you work out IF dragonborn can work in a game, or hexblades (to cite Zard's current bugaboo), or whatever else.

All of this ... is such a tempest in a teapot when it comes to real life.

Sometimes, sure. Y'all have a habit of backing down and admitting you DO talk it out and try to work with players when it comes to the quick, rather than the explicit references to dictatorial/absolute power from early in the thread. But there have also been real-life examples of the converse. It's often fine...but not always.

I didn't put a lot of thought into my pantheons<snip>
Forge deities not super common.

First: Ironic. Such talk of enormous work, deep detail, etc. And then a frank admission of not really thinking much about it. That beleaguered-victim-DM theory is sounding pretty tempest-in-a-teapot-y too.
Second: Artisan deities--teachers of constructive arts--are quite common. Creidhne, Goibniu, Kagu-tsuchi, Kurdalægon, Kyi, Lugh, the Norse Dwarves, Ptah, Svarog, and Vishvakarman are all explicitly or implicitly forge-godss/spirits/whatever (well, Kyi might not really have existed, but the others certainly). Artisans more widely, including the fine/creative arts, covers an enormous swathe of deities.

As a side note, even for this crazy, control freak DM, the amount of idiotic work they are giving themselves is staggering.

Could we not? This isn't constructive. I encourage player worldbuilding, but do a lot myself too. (All the demon/devil stuff upthread, frex.) I'm proud of it, and would feel hurt if told it was "idiotic work" that made me a "crazy control freak DM."

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.

They're judgment calls. That doesn't mean they can't be right vs wrong, it means context--including whose judgment--matters a ton. A right judgment for me may be a wrong judgment for you. Doesn't mean mine's not right; it means my me-ness and your you-ness are part of the call.

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. 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.

An excellent point, had any player asked for such a right. We've explicitly rejected asking for it. Now: What does "try to force the issue" mean? If told no sans context, does asking why and not accepting openly evasive or hinky-sounding answers make me the problem?

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.

Straight-up: I wish you would apply this logic to your own posts. Calling my style of DMing "design by committee" wasn't exactly "having a preference without insulting people."

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.

Never said that, never have. Explicitly said such limits happen, and irresolvable conflict means "player look for a new game" (or "DM pitch a new game," depending). I did say absolute arbitrary limits (like Zardnaar's "didn't think much about it" yet "no forge gods") are such. Or (frex) Zardnaar and Maxperson justifying their hardline "no" answers with "my house, my castle" and "the DM is the Absolute Authority always forever" is, openly, a "power move" as you put it.

"Know Your Players"
<snip>
How anyone on here can read this and then criticize, say Oofta's DM'ing decisions, seems absurd.

Because it comes across as NOT knowing your players: as doing things regardless of what your players like, think, or feel. Because all this talk about "the buck stops here" and such smacks of demanding, as I have said repeatedly, absolute trust--with zero accountability to boot.

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.

Yes, it does sound rosy. As for the rest? If you (generic) have pitched a thousand games and had THAT many so-called "problem" players, maybe you (generic) should look at the common denominator between all those games, instead of assuming that you (generic) are a beleaguered victim DM whose prospective players are so demanding and disrespectful.

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.

If a player tried to do that to me, I'd back him up and explain the game I run to him and THEN after he agrees to play, work with him on a PC. I'm not going to waste my time working to build a PC for a player who might not even like the game that I run.

Okay. I don't see how a single bit of this precludes the player, again I must stress in the strongest terms possible politely and positively asking for something that wasn't greenlit. As for the rest? I can't help having character ideas. It literally happens while just starting the pitch. I literally cannot NOT start having character ideas. If I were only allowed to come up with ideas after completely reading the 20-page setting story or whatever, I'd (metaphorically) die. Honest to God. And since I love dragonborn, paladins, sorcerers, etc. so much...well, those are going to be first-run ideas, because I find them interesting and enjoyable.

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.

See above, but more importantly: You're clearly going out of your way to get the most information you can about what your players want and how to get it. You AREN'T giving flat "no" answers, refusing to explain (beyond non-answers like "just trust me"/"I just hate that thing"), and casting player comment/question/criticism as disrespect.

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

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

Alright. And you've already shown you're willing to let players have things you aren't sold on at first (even if it sometimes works out poorly).

So...where is our conflict, here? It honestly seems like the only disagreement we have is that you need to have your absolute dictatorial power explicitly recognized, which...is a big part of why this comes across so badly.

 

[Zardnaar]

The reason is simple. I've gamed for 40 years. I've PLAYED the core races to bloody death. I'm sick and tired of playing the same role over and over and over again.

I think this is why I ADORE the 3e binder. My absolute, beyond a doubt, favoritest class. It's the class that lets you remake your character constantly. Tired of being this? Ok, bind a couple of different vestiges and you have a whole new personality. It's fantastic. Endless variation in one character. I'm the happiest player ever.

Some of us have barely got to play in 30 years. Stop your whining lol.

The fun is thinking up themes, settings, campaigns.

Otherwise get behind the DM screen run what you like.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Sure I could.

Then my point is made. Everything else is of no relevance to what I'm getting at.

I hope your typin' fingers aren't too tired.

 

[Zardnaar]

Alright, last post was too long even for me. Trimming hard this time.

Perhaps it is jade-colored glasses, turning Scott's phrase, but when Zardnaar frex derides discussion with "what, do you think this is a democracy," then outright rejects the idea of negotiation in any form, what am I supposed to think? Ultimatum is not discussion.

I too read a pitch, talk to a DM, and often don't join; it is indeed fine. But the vast excluded middle remains: the "let's talk about this pitch" part. That's where the negotiation happens. That's where people decide whether the pitch--and, more importantly, the DM or player--will work for/with them. That's where you work out IF dragonborn can work in a game, or hexblades (to cite Zard's current bugaboo), or whatever else.


Sometimes, sure. Y'all have a habit of backing down and admitting you DO talk it out and try to work with players when it comes to the quick, rather than the explicit references to dictatorial/absolute power from early in the thread. But there have also been real-life examples of the converse. It's often fine...but not always.


First: Ironic. Such talk of enormous work, deep detail, etc. And then a frank admission of not really thinking much about it. That beleaguered-victim-DM theory is sounding pretty tempest-in-a-teapot-y too.
Second: Artisan deities--teachers of constructive arts--are quite common. Creidhne, Goibniu, Kagu-tsuchi, Kurdalægon, Kyi, Lugh, the Norse Dwarves, Ptah, Svarog, and Vishvakarman are all explicitly or implicitly forge-godss/spirits/whatever (well, Kyi might not really have existed, but the others certainly). Artisans more widely, including the fine/creative arts, covers an enormous swathe of deities.


Could we not? This isn't constructive. I encourage player worldbuilding, but do a lot myself too. (All the demon/devil stuff upthread, frex.) I'm proud of it, and would feel hurt if told it was "idiotic work" that made me a "crazy control freak DM."


They're judgment calls. That doesn't mean they can't be right vs wrong, it means context--including whose judgment--matters a ton. A right judgment for me may be a wrong judgment for you. Doesn't mean mine's not right; it means my me-ness and your you-ness are part of the call.


An excellent point, had any player asked for such a right. We've explicitly rejected asking for it. Now: What does "try to force the issue" mean? If told no sans context, does asking why and not accepting openly evasive or hinky-sounding answers make me the problem?


Straight-up: I wish you would apply this logic to your own posts. Calling my style of DMing "design by committee" wasn't exactly "having a preference without insulting people."


Never said that, never have. Explicitly said such limits happen, and irresolvable conflict means "player look for a new game" (or "DM pitch a new game," depending). I did say absolute arbitrary limits (like Zardnaar's "didn't think much about it" yet "no forge gods") are such. Or (frex) Zardnaar and Maxperson justifying their hardline "no" answers with "my house, my castle" and "the DM is the Absolute Authority always forever" is, openly, a "power move" as you put it.


Because it comes across as NOT knowing your players: as doing things regardless of what your players like, think, or feel. Because all this talk about "the buck stops here" and such smacks of demanding, as I have said repeatedly, absolute trust--with zero accountability to boot.


Yes, it does sound rosy. As for the rest? If you (generic) have pitched a thousand games and had THAT many so-called "problem" players, maybe you (generic) should look at the common denominator between all those games, instead of assuming that you (generic) are a beleaguered victim DM whose prospective players are so demanding and disrespectful.


Okay. I don't see how a single bit of this precludes the player, again I must stress in the strongest terms possible politely and positively asking for something that wasn't greenlit. As for the rest? I can't help having character ideas. It literally happens while just starting the pitch. I literally cannot NOT start having character ideas. If I were only allowed to come up with ideas after completely reading the 20-page setting story or whatever, I'd (metaphorically) die. Honest to God. And since I love dragonborn, paladins, sorcerers, etc. so much...well, those are going to be first-run ideas, because I find them interesting and enjoyable.


See above, but more importantly: You're clearly going out of your way to get the most information you can about what your players want and how to get it. You AREN'T giving flat "no" answers, refusing to explain (beyond non-answers like "just trust me"/"I just hate that thing"), and casting player comment/question/criticism as disrespect.


Alright. And you've already shown you're willing to let players have things you aren't sold on at first (even if it sometimes works out poorly).

So...where is our conflict, here? It honestly seems like the only disagreement we have is that you need to have your absolute dictatorial power explicitly recognized, which...is a big part of why this comes across so badly.

I don't need to to provide a reason if I don't like something.

I don't even care if players ask in fact told them to do exactly that. 15 allowed races ask for anything else.

Once that decision has been made though I don't want to argue about it further or have it brought up every week or players try and play "gotcha".

It's also a courtesy thing. DM advertised a game says no XYZ I don't even bother asking why.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The reason is simple. I've gamed for 40 years. I've PLAYED the core races to bloody death. I'm sick and tired of playing the same role over and over and over again.

I think this is why I ADORE the 3e binder. My absolute, beyond a doubt, favoritest class. It's the class that lets you remake your character constantly. Tired of being this? Ok, bind a couple of different vestiges and you have a whole new personality. It's fantastic. Endless variation in one character. I'm the happiest player ever.

Oh, I wasn't disagreeing with you. I was saying, why is it that pro-restriction DMs dismiss the "core-four is blander than unflavored oatmeal," but have repeatedly used (so-called) "weird races are inherently stereotypes." The two have exactly the same logic, just in opposite directions.