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

[Crit]

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.

The book also says it is a set "guidelines" meant to be tweaked for whoever, however. The group will work however it works. If you had certain expectations of things being by the book, I recommend asking the DM how the campaign will be in order to form reasonable expectations. I'm being facetious in repeating previous arguments, but I do believe this to be true.

And "it is their creation" is half correct. What is "it?" The setting alone? The whole campaign? The DM brings the most to the table, but unless they made the Player's backstories and character traits, then it is not all theirs. Minute changes still matter here. Is this minor? Yes, but "it's MY world" has been said on this threat more than once so it's necessary to point out again.

 

[Scott Christian]

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?

I read that specifically as adding to the game world, not the character adding to the game world. I imagine (and I could be wrong, which in that case, you would be correct) he is speaking directly to world creation. I imagine Daniels would be all for creating his character after knowing about the DM's world, and then adding a piece to it. Such as:
"My rogue grew up to parents who owned one of the most lavish inns in (refers to DM on a town his race populates). I soon discovered my clepto ways did not sit well with our guests - or my parents. They kicked me out and I have been on my own ever since. I stayed in the slum area for awhile, and eventually met a partner that I could trust. We shared the love of gold almost as much as a love for each other. And that led us to seek out (refers to GM about a place treasure hunters go in the surrounding area). Two entered, yet only I left. I saw the shadows that took my friend and lover. I saw them. They were large and ghastly. And to this day they give me nightmares."
I really doubt Daniels is against adding this information to the GM's world. But maybe his is?
@Jack Daniel

 

[Scott Christian]

The book also says it is a set "guidelines" meant to be tweaked for whoever, however. The group will work however it works. If you had certain expectations of things being by the book, I recommend asking the DM how the campaign will be in order to form reasonable expectations. I'm being facetious in repeating previous arguments, but I do believe this to be true.

And "it is their creation" is half correct. What is "it?" The setting alone? The whole campaign? The DM brings the most to the table, but unless they made the Player's backstories and character traits, then it is not all theirs. Minute changes still matter here. Is this minor? Yes, but "it's MY world" has been said on this threat more than once so it's necessary to point out again.

I agree with everything you say.
The players do add to it. They should. They do it by interacting with the world, providing backstories, and even creating some lore using character history. Again, I do not think anyone has said: "My world, not a single change." What they have said is: "Hey, centaurs do not exist in my world. So you cannot be one." That is very different than a player can't add their own two cents.
Also, this has been said, if a player insists on something that the DM does not want, they are breaking the social contract. Because it is, in the end, the DM's world. And they should get the final say. But, I have only ever run into that situation once in all my years. Dm'ing at a hobby store where some young guy insisted he should be able to find a pet dragon and ride it. There was no logic, and they were only playing 1st-3rd level. So I was a jerk and never let it happen because it didn't match anything they were doing, nor was it anywhere in the adventure path I was running. I suppose I could have let him have a dragon ride, but sometimes a DM has to draw the line. For me, that was it.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

Nah.

I think it is more that in the old days, everyone signed up for "LOTR but with more magic, items and monsters".

Now that D&D has broadened its base, a DM thinking 80% of the players want the same thing he or she wants is gone.

Instead of 50% of your players coming to you hoping to be an elf, only 10% are. And 10% are coming wanting to be a catgirl or horseman.

 

[Zardnaar]

"So player one what do you"

"I scatter the dice".

There's always one.

 

[Scott Christian]

What is being questioned is when the player, in good faith, makes a character that DOES fit with the campaign, is embedded in the setting, but, was not on the "approved list" of DM's races, and the DM automatically veto's it because of the DM's personal preferences.

What's being said is that in that case, where the player is making the effort to fit the character into the setting, perhaps the DM could unclench his or her ego just a smidgeon and give the player the benefit of the doubt.

I agree with both sides of this. The DM's world is theirs. Should they be open to unclenching their fists? Sure. But the question still exists as to why the player insists on creating something outside of the DM's list?

If the DM insists there are no gnomes in their world, but anything else in the PHB is open, and the player insists on being a gnome. The question there lies with the player, not the DM. (IMHO)

 

[Scott Christian]

That's ludicrous.

Unless your DM has detailed out every square foot of the setting, there is always space for something new to be added. Good grief, the most detailed settings out there like Forgotten Realms or Farland have new races being added constantly.

But, now we're seeing the attitude. "I didn't approve of this, therefore it doesn't fit" means that the DM has pretty much already made up his or her mind. Not the level of flexibility that I believe makes for a much better DM.

And we come full circle. This has been explained many times. There are reasons some things do not exist. Because an area of the map is empty, doesn't mean a race can just spawn there. To you it does. To others it does not. To others it is another 150 pages of work and rewriting other pages because this one will bleed into the others, no matter how careful. I know you understand this. I just think you don't accept it as being a viable reason. And I am not sure why, since we all accept you being able to just add the race in an empty part of your map.

I think that is why you are getting so much pushback. Everyone here accpts your way. And then you turn around and imply that the DM is lesser.

 

[Maxperson]

No. My argument boils down to a DM choosing to force a group to play 2 fighters, a barbarian, and a rogue to be a problem DM. It's not that the players decided to do this. It's the DM mandating this that's the problem.

If the players choose to play 2 fighters, a barbarian, and a rogue there should be a discussion going forward because it does cause problems for D&D. The players may have someone change class, may be curious to see where it leads, or may be stubborn in sticking to their choices. But this is entirely different from the DM saying "You shall play fighters, barbarians, rogues, and nothing else! To try to play something else is badwrongfun. Respect mah authoritah!"

Literally nobody can be forced to play anything. They can in fact say no. If the DM sets up a non-magical campaign and they join it, they've agreed to abide by that and are in the wrong if they try to break it. If they say no, they go on their merry way.

Last time I checked:

1. Just because people believe in something doesn't make it real.
2. That doesn't mean that the type of magic and psychics they believe in resemble D&D magic. Not all magical systems are remotely the same.

In which case the setting is D&D with a light 100 years war gloss.

First, it doesn't matter whether it's real or not in the real world. In a heavy Hundred Years War campaign, there can in fact be magic. It just won't be a mirror of reality. It's certainly not a "light gloss."

Not all forms of fictional magic are the same at all. And D&D is ultra-high magic and ultra-flashy (see the "Gandalf was a fifth level magic user" argument in days of yore).

The DM is well within his rights in such a campaign to limit which spells are available to avoid that, or it can just be a D&D campaign heavily influenced by the Hundred Years War and have flashy magic. No biggie.

 

[Scott Christian]

I wonder how reasonable a concern this actually is though. If the DM controls the spotlight, it seems like they'd be in charge of what is allowed to overshadow the campaign?

That is a great point. I said it awhile back ago. What happens most often is the DM glosses over it, refers to it once, and then everyone forgets about it. The DM has to do this or else every new town the loxodon walks into becomes a circus freakshow. This, in my experience, leads to shallow roleplaying. When things are not entrenched, or noticed, or reacted to appropriately, then everything else also becomes shallow. When things are deep, reacted to with consistent behavior, and referenced often - they become important to the story and seem to promote engagement. This is only my experience. I am sure others differ.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, of course. There aren't three core 320 page rulebooks.

The MM isn't a rule book. It's full of monsters that use the rules from the other two books. The PHB as you I believe noted, is almost half spells and has a whole lot of filler fluff in it. The DMG is mostly advice. There really aren't a whole lot of rules. It's heavier than some games and lighter than others. I'd rate it at medium.