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

[doctorbadwolf]

Well, there have been a lot of claims that unless you run a kitchen sink campaign or give players carte blanche to do world building that the game will be automatically boring.

No, there haven't been.

It's possible there has been one or two, but I haven't seen them.

You have been condescending and insulting to other people quite a lot, though.

 

[Hussar]

What is with this bizarre assumption that availability of a race for PCs = presence in the setting?

It's obviously wrong.

Why won't it die?

Because there is no such assumption? No one assumes that all races exist in all settings and this is some bizarre rabbit hole that people have constructed as an argument.

Such things exist you just don't get to play it.

For example let's say my world half elves exist along with the language.

People know that there were ancient wars against the great evil.

Elves disappeared not to long after the great wars.
/snip

Or XYZ was genocided 3000 years ago. Who did it is returning or still around and you're next.

And, AGAIN, everyone agrees that there are perfectly reasonable reasons for nixing a race. Someone taking an elf in this case would cause problems for the DM. Ok, fair enough, don't play an elf. EVERYONE AGREES WITH YOU. Is that clear enough?

Now, OTOH, if your setting simply didn't have any details about elves, and I brought an elf to the table, are you going to have the same reaction?

I remember years ago playing Scarred Lands and realizing during a Session 0 that there were no gnomes in the setting. They simply didn't exist and weren't mentioned anywhere. ((They were added later in a later supplement, but, I didn't have that one at the time)) When the player said, "Can I play a gnome?" ((Which is when I realized that there were no gnomes in the setting)) I allowed it because, well, there wasn't any particular reason to disallow it even though the setting itself didn't contain any information and I had to add it in. Or, rather, I let the player add it in.

 

[Zardnaar]

Because there is no such assumption? No one assumes that all races exist in all settings and this is some bizarre rabbit hole that people have constructed as an argument.



And, AGAIN, everyone agrees that there are perfectly reasonable reasons for nixing a race. Someone taking an elf in this case would cause problems for the DM. Ok, fair enough, don't play an elf. EVERYONE AGREES WITH YOU. Is that clear enough?

Now, OTOH, if your setting simply didn't have any details about elves, and I brought an elf to the table, are you going to have the same reaction?

I remember years ago playing Scarred Lands and realizing during a Session 0 that there were no gnomes in the setting. They simply didn't exist and weren't mentioned anywhere. ((They were added later in a later supplement, but, I didn't have that one at the time)) When the player said, "Can I play a gnome?" ((Which is when I realized that there were no gnomes in the setting)) I allowed it because, well, there wasn't any particular reason to disallow it even though the setting itself didn't contain any information and I had to add it in. Or, rather, I let the player add it in.

If I said nothing elf is fine along with any other PHB race.
I might say something if it's 3pp or splatbook.

It's why I say this is what you're allowed, ask for anything else. Atm that's PHB, aasimar, yuan ti, Warforged.

I don't care what other DMs do. If they say anything goes I'm not gonna lecture them and I would play in such a campaign.

Probably wouldn't go much lower than 6 or so a'la Ravnica/Theros.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Would you interpret the statement below as someone saying the players should have ZERO world building input on the game that the GM brings to the table?

(Just speaking personally, though, even if it's a tangent only, if I sat down at a game table expecting to play some D&D and the DM asked me to introduce some detail into the game world? I'd get up again and leave. I wouldn't want to play with a DM who delegates the basics of the job.)

"Speaking personally" means that I'm speaking about my personal preferences. They are what they are. You're trying to make a point by turning my "is" into an "ought." Cut it out.

 

[Don Durito]

Because there is no such assumption? No one assumes that all races exist in all settings and this is some bizarre rabbit hole that people have constructed as an argument.

When you write that it's easy to find a place for a race somewhere in a setting as if that will resolve all issues then yes, you are making that assumption.

 

[Don Durito]

I remember years ago playing Scarred Lands and realizing during a Session 0 that there were no gnomes in the setting. They simply didn't exist and weren't mentioned anywhere. ((They were added later in a later supplement, but, I didn't have that one at the time)) When the player said, "Can I play a gnome?" ((Which is when I realized that there were no gnomes in the setting)) I allowed it because, well, there wasn't any particular reason to disallow it even though the setting itself didn't contain any information and I had to add it in. Or, rather, I let the player add it in.

Yes. You can do that. Or you cannot do that.

Neither is doing it wrong.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

It's why I say this is what you're allowed, ask for anything else. Atm that's PHB, aasimar, yuan ti, Warforged.
/snip

Which, frankly, is perfectly fine. No one has any problem with any of that. "Here's a pre-approved list. Anything not on the list, ask." is not a problem.

"Here is the pre-approved list. Anything not on the list is a demonstration that you are a problem player, special snowflake attention whore who only wants to cause problems and how dare you question my authority by asking why I don't have X or Y?" is a problem and is a position that has been taken by several people in this thread.

 

[Hussar]

When you write that it's easy to find a place for a race somewhere in a setting as if that will resolve all issues then yes, you are making that assumption.

Huh? Just because it's easy to slot in a race into a setting doesn't mean that I think all races should exist in the setting at the same time.

Note, as a disclaimer, I am stating that there are several perfectly reasonable reasons why a DM might ban a given race. If adding that race is going to be a PITA for me as a DM and force a bunch of work on me, then that will get a hard no from me. Just like @Zardnaar's elf example above. Adding in a PC elf just doesn't work in that setting. No problems.

But, "I can't add this race because there's no room for it in my setting" is a lame duck excuse. To me, it raises all sorts of questions because, "there's no room for it in the setting" suggests a degree of inflexibility in the DM that raises warning flags that I will likely not enjoy playing with this DM.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

"Speaking personally" means that I'm speaking about my personal preferences. They are what they are. You're trying to make a point by turning my "is" into an "ought." Cut it out.

You do you, man. I really don't care how you play your game and I hope you have fun playing it the way you enjoy it. Your opinion being different from mine in NO WAY impedes either of our abilities to have fun gaming because we aren't playing at the same table.


I'm responding to @Scott Christian who claimed...

Again. For maybe the hundredth time, there is not one DM on here that has ever said anything remotely close to that. Not even in the slightest. Not even a little. Not even a microscopic cell's worth. Not even an atom's worth.

...in reaction to me saying that I wouldn't want to play with a GM who thought me making up a village and a reskinning ki into a primal power source was too much intrusion on their world.

Your words tell me that you, personally, are a DM here that has said something remotely close to, slightly, a little, a microscopic cells worth, and even an atoms worth of words that implied that you thought player worldbuilding isn't how the game is supposed to be played. It is possible you don't feel this way, but I wouldn't say my interpretation is out of left field based on your quoted statement.

 

[prabe]

I can see how bad experience could color that view. It just seems odd to me to associate that problem with a chosen fantasy race rather than with the particular player. If I squint, I guess I could see it as a 'red flag' kind of deal.

I can see two reasons: Either you've had more than one bad experience with the same race, or you've dealt with at least one player who was only a problem playing that one race (or plausibly class, but that's not the topic, really).