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

[Paul Farquhar]

A DM can most certainly limit you form making a specific interesting character. Multiple times.

Then make a different interesting character that fits the game the DM has created. There is an infinite number of potential interesting characters, if you can only think of one you have a serious problem.

If the DM has created a historical campaign set during the Hundred Years War you do not get to play a Tortle. If the DM has created a campaign set in the world of The Dark Crystal you do not get to play as a human.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

The thing is: if someone is raising an eyebrow, then the GM screwed up

No. If the player isn't raising an eyebrow, the DM is too predictable.

Player knowledge is limited, if they don't understand why something is happening it's because they aren't seeing the big picture. If they automatically assume the DM has done something wrong and start demanding explanations whenever something unexpected happens they are going to spoil the game for everyone.

 

[loverdrive]

Player knowledge is limited, if they don't understand why something is happening it's because they aren't seeing the big picture. If they automatically assume the DM has done something wrong and start demanding explanations whenever something unexpected happens they are going to spoil the game for everyone.

Well, GM severely limiting player's knowledge is already a kinda big red flag, but besides that: GM can and should point out weird things, in order to avoid confusion and frustration. When rogue rolls 25 and fails, saying "You start working your magic on the lock and turns out it's unexpectedly master-crafted. Whoever put it on this unassuming shack spent some big money on it. Why, I wonder?" piques interest and creates in-game mystery. Saying just "You failed" frustrates the player in real life.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Well, GM severely limiting player's knowledge is already a kinda big red flag,

So, you only like mysteries when you know who done it from the start.

News for you: RL peoples' knowledge is extremely limited, and the more you learn the more you realise how much you don't know.

 

[Minigiant]

Then make a different interesting character that fits the game the DM has created. There is an infinite number of potential interesting characters, if you can only think of one you have a serious problem.

If the DM has created a historical campaign set during the Hundred Years War you do not get to play a Tortle. If the DM has created a campaign set in the world of The Dark Crystal you do not get to play as a human.

Just because you can,doesn't mean you want to.

Remember, a DM should really want their players to enjoy playing their PCs. If you shut down their top 10 PC ideas at the time, you likely wont get their most enthusiastic performance.
It'll be much like people forced to be a class by their teammates to fix party composition in older editions.

There are plenty of characters I can make that I would not enjoy or not enjoy for a whole campaign.
I could never play a barbarian for more than a oneshot unless the class is heavily modified. Same with a standard gnome.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Then make a different interesting character that fits the game the DM has created. There is an infinite number of potential interesting characters, if you can only think of one you have a serious problem.

If the DM has created a historical campaign set during the Hundred Years War you do not get to play a Tortle. If the DM has created a campaign set in the world of The Dark Crystal you do not get to play as a human.

If the DM has created a historical campaign set during the Hundred Years War then you don't get to play a wizard. Or for that matter a cleric. Or any other spellcasting class. At which point the huge question is "Why use D&D for this when it is so clearly unsuited to the task?"

 

[Minigiant]

DM: I'm running a campaign based on the Hundred Years War.
Player: I'm out. No spellcasters.
DM: There are tons of other characters you can play.
Player: Are any of them spellcasters?
DM: No but...
Player: I'm out. I like casting spells.

Same premise. Just change spellcasters with something else.

 

[Neonchameleon]

DM: I'm running a campaign based on the Hundred Years War.
Player: I'm out. No spellcasters.
DM: There are tons of other characters you can play.
Player: Are any of them spellcasters?
DM: No but...
Player: I'm out. I like casting spells.

Same premise. Just change spellcasters with something else.

Are there "tons of other characters" mechanically?

Because we're down to three or four classes from the PHB in 5e. Fighter, barbarian, rogue, and possibly monk. Everyone has to be one of the three classes because all the other classes are spellcasters - and you also don't want Arcane Tricksters, Eldritch Knights, and Four Element monks (not that you want the latter anyway, but that's a mechanical issue).

You then have no healing magic to justify D&D's absurd hit point rules. You have no magic. Your combat is D&D Cinematic Combat with the absurd consequence-free hit points. And you've basically nothing tying you to the world.

If someone wants to run a game without spellcasters that's more than fine - there are plenty of games where you don't have roughly 40% of the player facing rulebook made up out of spells. If someone wants to do it using D&D rules that makes me seriously question their competence as a DM. It's like trying to use the claw on the hammer head as a screwdriver.

 

[loverdrive]

D&D Cinematic

Can't exactly call it cinematic. Last and only time I've seen two characters swinging swords at each other with no blood for half an hour was in Episode 3.

 

[reelo]

You want to play humans only and 3 classes? WTF are you using D&D for? It's such a poor system for doing something like that.

Are you sure about that? Maybe you meant "5E" because "D&D" most certainly can do humans only and 3 classes. It was designed that way.