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

[JiffyPopTart]

Except there's NPCs who know elves existed, you would stand out and the ancient enemies of said elves are still around as well.

I'm just illustrating to you how a different style of GMing can take the exact same setup and spin it a different way to allow an elf. You can give me 1000 reasons why you think you can't have an elf PC and I can come up with 1000 examples of how to include an elf PC, but that isn't going to change the fact that your game has no elves and mine has as many as players who want to play an elf because we have different views of how much you should accommodate your players.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm just illustrating to you how a different style of GMing can take the exact same setup and spin it a different way to allow an elf. You can give me 1000 reasons why you think you can't have an elf PC and I can come up with 1000 examples of how to include an elf PC, but that isn't going to change the fact that your game has no elves and mine has as many as players who want to play an elf because we have different views of how much you should accommodate your players.

That's fine but I'm the DM. My opinion matters more lol.

" Sorry mr police officer I disagree with you about smoking meth".

Some opinions are more valid.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

That's fine but I'm the DM. My opinion matters more lol.

" Sorry mr police officer I disagree with you about smoking meth".

Some opinions are more valid.

But I just stole your hook for my game so...checkmate???

 

[cbwjm]

Generally players roll up something else.

It's mostly an online arguement.

Might be a generational thing. Younger people don't like the word no, parents used to say "because I said so" and if you pushed it the strap was an option.

So got used to the word no.

We got the wooden spoon or the fly swatter to the hand.

Might be generational, earlier editions had restrictions in settings so often got used to it. Some settings still do, but not sure how many would play pure or add in anything if asked.

 

[Hussar]

We got the wooden spoon or the fly swatter to the hand.

Might be generational, earlier editions had restrictions in settings so often got used to it. Some settings still do, but not sure how many would play pure or add in anything if asked.

Really? Earlier settings were pretty much kitchen sinks where every race that got added in some module or whatnot got added to the game. Greyhawk, on it's very first day, might have been restrictive, but, that lasted about as long as the first module. Mystara has a bajillion different races. Dragonlance is pretty restrictive, but, even then, added minotaurs and completely reworked gnomes and halflings to the game. Plus, IIRC, aquatic elves.

I always had the sense that earlier settings were the starting point, not the ending point. You were expected to add to the setting since everything you bought for a given setting added more races and whatnot.

 

[Scott Christian]

When in a thread where someone is asking about why people value these things, and then we have non-fans coming in and saying "you really don't need these things you like," I don't feel like it's so weird to note that bad (or even just on the low end of mediocre) DMs are out there and do do that.

Alternatively? If we're going to assume that every DM is good, or at least on the good end of mediocre, why aren't we assuming that every player is good, or at least on the good end of mediocre?


Well, IIRC, the original example (from another poster) included elements beyond just who & where, stuff like "monk powers explained as channeling the natural powers of the creatures of my homeland."

Ezekiel, thanks for the clarification. That stuff seems cool too. I like it when players explain their powers. I think it is creative and very fun to hear during play. I even like it when it becomes a running gag.

 

[Crit]

That's fine but I'm the DM. My opinion matters more lol.

" Sorry mr police officer I disagree with you about smoking meth".

Some opinions are more valid.

Well, it's more "one person's opinion on designing" versus "four to five people's opinion's on playing."
I don't think that metaphor works here, or supports the statement following.

 

[Scott Christian]

It's a red flag for a game style I find disagreeable. Red flags aren't ironclad law, they are warning signs.

It's like the guy who flakes on a team assignment. Sure, they might not always flake, but it's behavior to be wary of. In your hypothetical, one red flag followed another, at character creation no less.

How much do you trust the guy who flakes twice...at the very beginning of the assignment?

I can't answer that. Sorry.
And I do not believe that is an appropriate analogy. But, if it is a red flag for you, and you believe that is what it leads to, then that is what you believe.

 

[Scott Christian]

If someone finds that minute, generic amount of world building too much and impermissible because I'm just a player, then those are the DMs that I find are so unreasonable that I don't think I could play in their game.

That's not true:


Oofta and others have been very, very emphatic that setting design is the sole privelege of the DM and that players are forbidden from doing it.

Hussar, read the quote above your. That is the quote that I was responding to. That person said "minute generic amount of worldbuilding." That is the context Sabathius created. I responded:
"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."
No one has denied the player's ability to do minute changes. No one has denied the player's ability to make some generic changes. No one. Not Oofta. Not me. Not anyone.
As for Oofta's quote, he is correct. It says it right there in the DM's Guide, in the opening pages no less. That doesn't mean that players are exempt from helping. It says it is the DM's job. It is their creation. They are the ones that have to run it, work with it, create the settings, NPC's, kingdoms. They are the ones that need to make it interesting. They need to give it an internal logic that doesn't make the players' noses curl. What it does not mean is that a player can't ask about creating a northern tribe for his wily rogue that steals from frost giants. The player can - and should ask this.
Again, no one here has said otherwise.
In fact, everyone here has specifically said they try to compromise. It is just sometimes a group on here doesn't like the compromise, ie, dragonborns don't exist or drow are evil no matter what or half races don't exist. Just because they say this doesn't mean they wouldn't compromise and try to work out a background for a different race or try to allow some power that the dragonborn has. That is compromise, not you "must" allow this.

 

[Crit]

I don't see it as obviously wrong. It may not feel wrong to you, and that's fine. But yes, if a loxodon walked in the door I would wonder why it was the only one in existence, where it came from, what's it's story. Because in my campaign it would be odd that there was no historical record of loxodons, no previous encounters. You can only do the "unique one off" races so many times before it would feel artificial to me.

Different strokes for different folks.

The Minotaur was a one off hybrid between a woman and a magic bull in mythos.
People can be polymorphed and cursed, or blessed, by many things.
Naturally, "Far Traveller" background.
A lot of monstrosities are just Wizards screwing around, looking to Mimics.
Harry Potter had potions that changed people which could go wrong.
Gnolls were spontaneously created by the blood of a super-demon, on rather short notice.
Surely more can be imagined. One-off freaks need not feel artificial, that wholly depends on expectation and use. I expect the monsters of the realm have some freakish origins that could set some precedent.

I agree with who you're replying to- the story is the answer to the story's problem. The setting needs to accommodate, but what you list are not necessarily mandatory questions.
IRL, weird things are relegated to History's margins. I bet a world of deep history with magic had weird things happening in the margins that led to XYZ- it would be strange if it didn't: "The only strange day on earth will be the day nothing strange happens at all." I half remembered that quote, so I may have butchered it.
The flexibility of situations like this are why I think the only theme/tone problems come from a DM's approach, or the player's RP.

"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.

I consider calling it "delegation" to be the red flag there. It may be, but that depends on why the question is asked. If the DM takes your prompt and develops it exquisitely, is it still avoiding their job, or was it just a creative choice?