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

[prabe]

IMO if I’ve an idea for a Gnomish culture that fits really well with what’s established, and the DM can’t handle the thought of even discussing it, the DM is being overly precious about their vision, and need to get over themself.

This is true.

It is also true that the DM might have ideas that aren't in the player-facing documents, and your idea might clash with something they want to do--whether it's with gnomes, or a thematic thing, or a geographical thing. If a player can't handle that, I'd say it's not just the DM who's being precious, here.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

This is true.

It is also true that the DM might have ideas that aren't in the player-facing documents, and your idea might clash with something they want to do--whether it's with gnomes, or a thematic thing, or a geographical thing. If a player can't handle that, I'd say it's not just the DM who's being precious, here.

A geographical thing? Lol come on!

Look, if my buddy tells me they have a “plan for gnomes” that precludes anyone playing one I’m...gonna be skeptical. Have you ever seen such a thing pan out in a way that made a good story? I sure haven’t.

And what possible thematic thing? What, you can run a game with a certain tone because gnomes are in it? Lol nah.

 

[prabe]

Look, if my buddy tells me they have a “plan for gnomes” that precludes anyone playing one I’m...gonna be skeptical. Have you ever seen such a thing pan out in a way that made a good story? I sure haven’t.

There are a few races I'd at least strongly prefer to exclude from my campaigns. Some of them are because I have ideas about them--I wouldn't say I have a plan, but I still don't want them as PCs. I'm pretty sure the stories emerging from the campaigns I'm running are engaging and that the players are enjoying the hell out of them.

And what possible thematic thing? What, you can run a game with a certain tone because gnomes are in it? Lol nah.

I can see how a game might suffer for having gnomes in it. Not mine, mind--one campaign has two of 'em.

 

[Don Durito]

IMO if I’ve an idea for a Gnomish culture that fits really well with what’s established, and the DM can’t handle the thought of even discussing it, the DM is being overly precious about their vision, and need to get over themself.

This assumes the conclusion: "fits really well with what's established". Whether this is true is pretty much up to the DM's judgement.

And as for whether it's even discussed - that is so dependent on additional context as to be worthless discussing it without it.

 

[cbwjm]

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.

Maybe, I have definitely noticed a lot more people nowadays who think that just because something exists in a core book it must exist in game (could easily just be due to the prevalence of forums and social media making it seem like more though). I remember having an argument with people on Reddit who seemingly took offence at my statement that my world didn't have dinosaurs in it. They couldn't grasp that everything in the book is an option and that somewhere in the real world a game was being played where they couldn't polymorph or wildshape into dinosaurs.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Smeagol's race.
Ents.
Intelligent spider things.

Sméagol was a predecessor to the Halflings of Bilbo’s time.

There are a few races I'd at least strongly prefer to exclude from my campaigns. Some of them are because I have ideas about them--I wouldn't say I have a plan, but I still don't want them as PCs. I'm pretty sure the stories emerging from the campaigns I'm running are engaging and that the players are enjoying the hell out of them.

I can see how a game might suffer for having gnomes in it. Not mine, mind--one campaign has two of 'em.

Can you explain, because I can’t see how the existence of gnomes could be deleterious to a game.

This assumes the conclusion: "fits really well with what's established". Whether this is true is pretty much up to the DM's judgement.

ugh. No thanks. I’m very happy to have no one in my group who views the game that way.

 

[prabe]

Can you explain, because I can’t see how the existence of gnomes could be deleterious to a game.

First: I meant something more like "campaign"--something closer to "my fortnightly Saturday night game" than "D&D 5E."

Second: In principle, it's possible for any race to have a deleterious effect on a campaign by having it among the PCs. For example, aquatic humanoids--tritons, sea elves, possibly water genasi--can be problematic if the campaign isn't centered around/under water (because their racial abilities kinda demand at least some spotlight-time or the DM is negating the player's choice; and they can be problematic if the campaign is explicitly centered around water (like a pirates campaign) because their special abilities negate the primary logistical problem/threat that characters are supposed to encounter in those campaigns--the need to breathe underwater. Personally, so much of the trade on my world is by water--and it's been established in-game that lots of sailors are water genasi--that I'd almost certainly say yes; tritons and sea elves are not on my default list because I want to talk to a player who wants to play one.

Third: What themes do gnomes bring? Without looking at any books, I think of pranksters who take pleasures in their obsessions--and unfortunately tinkers, which I have worked to reduce some in their description on my world. I can see a campaign where a dedicated prankster might be unsupportable as a party member, for instance--whether because of setting or events or the other players around the table.

 

[Bohandas]

Humans are mediocre and prosaic. Not the stuff of fantasy.

 

[billd91]

I think you are missing where that argument is coming from though.

Lizardfolk would clearly never work in a Dark Sun game, right? I mean they live in swamps, abilities related to water, could never work... Except Dark Sun made the Ssurran. Desert Lizardfolk who had survived the destruction of their swamps and kill any magic user on sight.

Or, how about the Orcs? Can't have orcs in Dark Sun, they were all killed off... but the hulking ape-like Tarek were added in. A logical race that might have evolved in the mountains from yetis or even just apes, and they fill a lot of the same ideological niche as Orcs did back then. So, they had a stand-in orc that still made sense for the setting.

Arguably, this is a failure of the imaginations of the authors who created these creatures. They failed to be able to imagine a setting without lizardfolk or orcs - so they shoehorned them in.

 

[Hussar]

This is true.

It is also true that the DM might have ideas that aren't in the player-facing documents, and your idea might clash with something they want to do--whether it's with gnomes, or a thematic thing, or a geographical thing. If a player can't handle that, I'd say it's not just the DM who's being precious, here.

And, I for one totally agree with that.

Like I said, if adding X is going to dump a bunch of work into the DM's lap, the DM is perfectly fine in saying, Nope.

OTOH, if it's something like gnomes in Scarred Lands where it appears to just be an oversight, or, the DM simply hadn't thought of X, and adding X isn't going to be much work for the DM at all, I'm a lot less sympathetic to the DM.