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

[Minigiant]

Okay, but that doesn't prevent you from making an interesting character anyway.

Yeah, someplace else.
The player is only going to come up with so many character ideas before they quit.

Ultimately, the question is whether the DM is okay with the player dropping them.

 

[prabe]

Your insistence on raining on someone else's fun because you think your opinion should hold more weight than theirs? Yeah, that would be something that needs justified.

So ... I don't think that disallowing (or at least not specifically allowing) something in my campaign is "raining on someone else's fun." I'm not sure how much justification it really needs, so long as I as the GM am willing to work with the player to come up with something they'll enjoy playing.

Saying someone else is dumb for allowing that same something? (Which I don't think anyone is saying.) I'm not sure that needs justification so much as just realizing it's kinda asshat behavior.

 

[Maxperson]

Yeah, someplace else.
The player is only going to come up with so many character ideas before they quit.

Ultimately, the question is whether the DM is okay with the player dropping them.

You're overly pessimistic about this. It's not as if the DM is sitting around waiting to poopoo your ideas. He's given you the world/campaign limitations up front. Come up with something fun and enjoy the game.

 

[Chaosmancer]

So how do you imagine professionally written setting books that are sold to people come about?

Do note that those settings are often written very broadly, with around 20 to 30 sentient races. Because when you design those sorts of settings with no input, you have to predict what people will want to play.

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

There was earlier discussion about how the GM must 'explain their decisions' and whilst discussing things is good, there is certain limits how much 'explaining reasoning' will accomplish, like this aquatic races example demonstrates. GM can explain their reasoning and the player can think that the explanation is stupid. Now what?

These are ultimately very much preference issues, and no amount of explanation will bridge certain gaps. Like to be honest, I just kinda think that centaurs and nagas look rather stupid and anatomically implausible and thus I tend not to include them into my settings. It's just how it is. Other people are perfectly free to like them, but that's not gonna affect my opinion.

But Gammadoodler was very clear that it was that precise style of explanation that they had an issue with. Which was "apply real world physics to DnD"

And, as has been discussed many times before with "Man at the Gym" conversations, or conversations about Square-Cube laws, real world physics is a poor match for DnD.

Will the DM also houserule that my fighter can't climb the cliff, ignoring the climbing rules because they are picturing trying to climb that cliff in real life?

Will they say that Elves do need to sleep, because all creatures need to sleep, biologically, and not sleeping doesn't make sense?

Will they rule that my Druid gets disadvantage if they wild shape into a bear against a particularly smelly monster, because Bear nose's are very sensitive?


If they are eliminating entire races based on real world physics, what other parts of real world physics will be applied? Are Giants and dragons still a thing? Is Fireballing tThis is a potential red flag, and this site has seen more than one discussion about the problems of trying to apply or even partially apply real world physics to DnD.

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

I'm not ignoring anything. You're just overstating your case. I've written nothing; beyond a set of stats and a species, the character remains a blank slate, one you've admitted you could fill with detail. The odds that the player sitting next to you creates an identical character, even if they roll similar stats and pick the same class as you, are vanishingly tiny unless you're both singularly uncreative or sharing some kind of psychic wavelength.

"My 1st level cleric is a withdrawn, studious young man named Richard who was raised in the church orphanage and longs for adventure because of the storybooks he read as a lad." "Damn it, Bob! I wanted my cleric to be a withdrawn, studious young man named Richard who was raised in the church orphanage and longs for adventure because of the storybooks he read as a lad!"

100% false, and if you have been reading my posts you know that. Or were you too busy patting yourself on the back at my first sentence that you didn't read the rest of my post?

Here, let us refresh what you originally said.

Bullpuckey. I could absolutely run a campaign set in a monocultural Ye Auld Medieval Not!England generic fairy-tale-land, no demihumans, where the only classes available are fighting man, magic-user, and cleric. This would not by any stretch of the imagination constitute me "creating the PCs" for the players.

I underlined and bolded the other thing you wrote. Because you didn't just give me stats and a race, you said Monoculture.

And, again, since you don't seem to understand what you said by saying that, I've given you constant examples of what a Monoculture actually is.

Like this one.

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.

So, to kind of throw it all in together, I'll bold the entire part of the character that was written by the player, and leave all the DM parts unbolded. Tell me which you see as bigger.

My 1st level human cleric is a withdrawn, studious young man named Richard who was raised in the church (there is only one Church, and the beliefs of that Church and who they worship is already determined) orphanage and longs for adventure because of the storybooks he read as a lad. Stats are Str 16, Int 12, Wis 11, Dex 9, Con 13, Cha 11. He believes in social order, believe his people have a divine mandate from their god, He believes in the rule of Law. He would dress conservatively and expect the same of others, showing too much skin would be sinful. He believes the husband would be the spiritual head of the household, and women would be expected to obey their husband. However he knows that the women would be in charge of the taverns and inns owned by the men, and handle the expenses of the household. He would believe in education, and that the church should guide the government to prevent moral failings. He would believe that playing cards was fine, but dancing and gambling would be doorways to sin.

Do you see how making a Monoculture, a single, static culture with no variations, causes you to have written far more than "Human with Str 16, Int 12, Wis 11, Dex 9, Con 13, Cha 11."? Do you understand the complaint is based nearly entirely of you claiming you could make a monoculture, yet somehow miraculously not write large swaths of the character, when clearly that is not what would actually happen?

Or are you going to just keep ignoring that you made an incredibly overreaching claim, without seeming to realize it?

@Chaosmancer alleged that if I run a game of original D&D without demiumans (in which case, by the letter of the rules, the only playable character types are the "fighting man"[sic], "magic-user", and "cleric" classes, all human by default), I am somehow creating my players' characters for them. This is just factually incorrect. To the point of absurdity.

(And, I guess, there's been a lot of pointless rigmarole about how many cultures or countries there are in the setting, but again, still not relevant. You don't need multiple cultures in a setting to have distinct characters. Characters are not their cultures or even their sub-cultures, and any implication that they are is highly problematic. Grotesquely so.)

What sub-cultures? There are no subcultures in a Monoculture. THAT IS MY POINT.

We would not have any of this discussion if you had said that you could run a game set in Not!England with only humans, and the only classes being Warrior, Mage and Cleric without making their character for them.

Because then I have the full breadth of options for Not!England, a land rich with multiple influences from hundreds of years of history. The moment you make it a monoculture though, you take all of that away, give me a grey box, and say that I can use any color of the rainbow, as long as it is grey.

At that point, you have written large parts of my character. I understand that you saw that word as a throw-away, meaningless word, but it was not, it causes 90% of the problems with your claim, but you seem to want to ignore the fact that you said it.

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

I'm my "Beastroots" setting, dwarves, gnomes, and elves are banned.

Why?

Because the point of the setting is that the gods are animal spirits and the only races are men, men divinely blessed to be part beast (half man half animal), and men divinely altered to be halfling (half man half nothing or goliath (half man, half man half man).

Someone who asks to be a dwarf be be asked in return "which animal is a dwarf half of?"

If they come up with a good answer, they get to be a dwarf.

If they come up with an animal that already has a god and beastfolk, too bad.

If they can't come up with a good dwarf animal, the world stays dwarfless.

Badger or Wombat just off the top of my head.

 

[Hussar]

Seriously! If you want a campaign without elves dwarves and halflings, then don't allow them! Make it clear from the get go that this is a world of rakasta, diaboli and the lupins.

Why would I though? I'm about giving more options, not less. What's the point of playing D&D without using the stuff that D&D comes with? If I wanted a more focused, limited game, I'd play that game. Pugmire if I wanted to do furries, for example.

I really don't get the impulse to take D&D, strip out large swaths of the game, and then play. What's the point?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Why would I though? I'm about giving more options, not less. What's the point of playing D&D without using the stuff that D&D comes with? If I wanted a more focused, limited game, I'd play that game. Pugmire if I wanted to do furries, for example.

Well, you said that you had hoped that the players had made characters of those more exotic races, but they made Tolkien races instead. So that's why. Pretty straightforward.

I really don't get the impulse to take D&D, strip out large swaths of the game, and then play. What's the point?

Because there is insane amount of stuff. You can easily cut swathes of it and still have perfectly functioning game.

 

[Minigiant]

You're overly pessimistic about this. It's not as if the DM is sitting around waiting to poopoo your ideas. He's given you the world/campaign limitations up front. Come up with something fun and enjoy the game.

I'm actually not.

I'm explaining the OP's question.
I've played most of the common fantasy archetypes and personalities that I'd feel comfortable playing.
So I'd want to play something kinda weird or a little exotic. Not full on bonkers.
So I understand why people like weird races,classes, and backgrounds.

Many DMs don't dive deep into the weird or the exotic parts of their world. It's more work. Many ban it for that reason. Make it stale and never plan to step on it, allowing but never expanding it.

Because DMing is hard or time consuming. Or both.

And because of it, it is very possible and totally reasonable for someone to not find a character in a DM's world without the DM doing extra work.

 

[Oofta]

Your opinion? Not really.

Your insistence on raining on someone else's fun because you think your opinion should hold more weight than theirs? Yeah, that would be something that needs justified.

If someone can't have fun with my clearly defined parameters, world and theme they shouldn't join my game in the first place.

No DM is right for everyone. I'm up front and clear about what kind of game I offer. There's no way to please everyone and if you try you often end up pleasing no one.

 

[Hussar]

So how do you imagine professionally written setting books that are sold to people come about?

Virtually all professionally written setting books allow for pretty much any race in the game. And, they always include space for stuff to be added later.

 

[Oofta]

I'm actually not.

I'm explaining the OP's question.
I've played most of the common fantasy archetypes and personalities that I'd feel comfortable playing.
So I'd want to play something kinda weird or a little exotic. Not full on bonkers.
So I understand why people like weird races,classes, and backgrounds.

Many DMs don't dive deep into the weird or the exotic parts of their world. It's more work. Many ban it for that reason. Make it stale and never plan to step on it, allowing but never expanding it.

Because DMing is hard or time consuming. Or both.

And because of it, it is very possible and totally reasonable for someone to not find a character in a DM's world without the DM doing extra work.

You can do plenty "weird and exotic" with any race.

If you're that bored, I doubt a new avatar is going to change anything.