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

[Don Durito]

Silk Road is a really fun campaign premise.

Why does that make sense? Silk Road, so Italian city states, Constantinople with its Varangian Guards, etc.

I'm focused on the other end of the silk road. The Tarim basin under Tang Dynasty china with lots of Persian and Indian travelers.

 

[Hussar]

Silk road was not a highway to travel from Europe to China. Goods did travel usually using local intermediarys.

Basically I wouldn't be allowing Samurai in Europe or Aztecs either for a campaign even if such things exist.

I would allow a Samurai or Knight to attempt the journey however they just wouldn't get to start there.

Well, Samurai is a very specific thing, but, what about Mongol? I mean, by D&D timeframes, the Mongol Empire was certainly IN Europe. And they were there for quite a long time. Is it really that strange then, that we might have traveling wanderers?

It's kinda like how the first native Americans to greet the Puritans at Plymouth Rock already spoke English. History is a really funny thing.

But, all this about "The DM has specifically banned X" is somewhat beside the point. More often the player is asking for something that hasn't been mentioned at all. Maybe the DM never thought about it, maybe the race is something new that just came out or something obscure that the DM hasn't seen before.

In that case, it gets a lot more grey area about who is being more obstructionist. If your setting notes never mention Tortles, and tortles fit thematically into the campaign you've proposed, what's the problem with me making a Tortle?

 

[Zardnaar]

Well, Samurai is a very specific thing, but, what about Mongol? I mean, by D&D timeframes, the Mongol Empire was certainly IN Europe. And they were there for quite a long time. Is it really that strange then, that we might have traveling wanderers?

It's kinda like how the first native Americans to greet the Puritans at Plymouth Rock already spoke English. History is a really funny thing.

But, all this about "The DM has specifically banned X" is somewhat beside the point. More often the player is asking for something that hasn't been mentioned at all. Maybe the DM never thought about it, maybe the race is something new that just came out or something obscure that the DM hasn't seen before.

In that case, it gets a lot more grey area about who is being more obstructionist. If your setting notes never mention Tortles, and tortles fit thematically into the campaign you've proposed, what's the problem with me making a Tortle?

Mongols made it to Hungary and Poland, you didn't see then in England.

So it depends on the situation and world. I might want to focus on a specific area so anything from outside that area or immediate environs isn't allowed regardless if it exists somewhere on the planet.

Hell even if it exists 5 miles down the road doesn't matter in regards to if it's available for play.

Ask the DM if they say yes great if not play something else. Try picking something they've already said yes to or ask what's available.

Tortles post Tasha's are probably banned anyway if the variant ability rules are used. Here's my Tortle Bladesinger.....

 

[Don Durito]

Some Vikings just appeared in my Silk Road game in Chang'an the Chinese capital. They took a boat down the Oxus (not 100% implausible, especially if, as it's D&D, your longship is a folding boat). They got captured raiding a Persian city and sold as slaves along the silk road. Their captain just appeared having followed them the whole way in order to get his crew, his boat and his horn of valhalla back.

 

[Zardnaar]

Some Vikings just appeared in my Silk Road game in Chang'an the Chinese capital. They took a boat down the Oxus (not 100% implausible, especially if, as it's D&D, your longship is a folding boat). They got captured raiding a Persian city and sold as slaves along the silk road. Their captain just appeared having followed them the whole way in order to get his crew, his boat and his horn of valhalla back.

Vikings were plugged into the Silk Road so it's not that far out. They aquired ore from Persia/India.

That makes some amount of sense. Also it's your game so it's up to your DM or group to do whatever they like.

Exploration can make for great D&D. If you were playing X1 having a Rakasta in the party is slightly off yes if they are in the party before they go?

If the DM wants to add them after they are discovered that's a bit different.

 

[Chaosmancer]

That's not a good option. That's a good for Jimmi option. There's a difference. For me it's a bad option. How bad depends on how much I dislike sushi.

It is better for the person who dislikes it. Better again being completely subjective. It's not a solo game, though, which is why only Dragonborn get the axe in my game, and not every race that I don't like.

But it brings us right back to the thing many of us simply don't understand.

How can you dislike something so much, that even having it as an option someone might take, is unacceptable? In a game where you can fight Demons weilding flaming swords or fungus men wielding laser guns or any number of other strange options, why are there things being banned just because they aren't liked? How can you dislike an idea that much?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Entirely setting aside the fact that half the stuff you say D&D is bad at (characters who die easily, land management, mass minis combat) are things that some editions of D&D do not just well but exceedingly well, your argument still just boils down to "play the game this way and not that way, or else you're doing it wrong." Screw that noise. I can't be kind about this: screw that noise, it's a pernicious attitude unbecoming of any gamer.

I guess as a gamer I should bring golf clubs to the Football game so I can make a three point shot? Recognizing that a game has limits, and that if you want to play something past those limits you should play something else is not unbecoming of a gamer. Just like recognizing that a jack hammer might not be the best tool for cleaning the sink. You can do it, but there are far easier ways to accomplish what you want.

Heck, I know that DnD can't be anything I want without a ton of work, because I've beaten my head against economics and crafting systems repeatedly. And, on this very forum, the very idea of wanting a crafting system was met with skepticism by some, who didn't understand why you wanted to do something so out of line with what DnD was made to do. I believe the common refrain was "Your characters are adventurers, not laborers"

The game was designed with a goal, and the farther you get from that goal, the harder it is to run the game.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mongols made it to Hungary and Poland, you didn't see then in England.

So it depends on the situation and world. I might want to focus on a specific area so anything from outside that area or immediate environs isn't allowed regardless if it exists somewhere on the planet.

Hell even if it exists 5 miles down the road doesn't matter in regards to if it's available for play.

Ask the DM if they say yes great if not play something else. Try picking something they've already said yes to or ask what's available.

Tortles post Tasha's are probably banned anyway if the variant ability rules are used. Here's my Tortle Bladesinger.....

Ah yes, the classic Geo-Lock. Because we all know people never travel outside of their designated area. I know five miles from a border, I'd never expect to see people from that border, right? I mean they only traveled a day at most, which is six times that in DnD, and people sometimes traveled vast distances to relocate in new lands for new opportunities, and this is in the context of a series of trade routes that eventually stretched two continents, but a five mile journey? It simply can't be done.


Also, really love how it was subtly snuck in that the best way to go forward is to just pick something the DM already said yes to. After all, once there are more things banned than allowed, there really is no other way to start playing.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That D&D doesn't do every sort of campaign doesn't mean that it can do only one sort of campaign. There indeed are the sort of games D&D is unsuited for, as those campaign require rules D&D does not have. But D&D obviously can perfectly well do a campaign without elves. There is no question about it. As long as D&D has rules for most of the stuff you want to use in your campaign, you can easily use it, no matter how much the rules you are not using.

And trying to explain for the seventh thousandth time, why comparisons to other games are being made, is that a lot of use do not see D&D as setting or a genre, but a rule system.

Like I could say 'I want to run a Call of Cthulhu game' and there would be various different ruleset I could use for that, but whether I decided to use D20 version or the original percentile system or something else wouldn't ultimately significantly affect what the campaign is about or what types of characters are available.

And in the same way if I say that I want to run a fantasy game that is based on mythological version of the Chinese Three Kingdoms period, I could use numerous different rules systems for that. But I if choose to use D&D, it shouldn't be assumed that everything D&D has rules for would exist or be available in that setting any more than deciding to use GURPS for my Cthulhu game would make everything that GURPS has rules for available in that game.

 

[Remathilis]

How do you spell that airplane noise people make to accompany the "flying over your head" gesture?

Jay Aye Cee Kay Dee Aye En Eye Ee El.

 

[Oofta]

You can't be serious. (That's rhetorical, I assume you are).

More options are most certainly good. Why are there millions of different places to get a hamburger? Why are there thousands of different car makes and models? Why are there hundreds of different TV channels? Variety is the spice of life. People want to try new things. Maybe I saw the Aquaman movie and got inspired. Maybe I played a video game or read a book and want to model a PC off a character from it. Maybe I saw something in a sourcebook and it inspired me. Or maybe I'm tied of Tolkien Fellowship races and want to play a giant frickin turtle-man as a change of pace.

You may be content to play human fighters over and over again, but some of us want to try something new once and a while.

You just contradicted yourself. For some people more options are good, but if someone is content to play human fighters over and over again it is obviously not a universal good.

Besides, if you take "base races X backgrounds X classes X RP choices" there are more options than a person could play in their lifetime. The avatar you choose is only part of that.

 

[Oofta]

It's not an entitlement, it's negotiation. We, as reasonable adults, are committing to an activity. You are putting limits on my options for enjoyment. I counter that if you wish to have X (x being the removal of an option I want) than you should compromise and allow me Y (where Y is allowing an option I do want). We can go back and forth until we reach a value for X and Y we both agree with. However, if you wish to remove X and not allow Y for a compromise, you have stopped treating me as a reasonable adult and have assumed a superior position over all other players, creating an imbalance. You become dictator rather than a first among equals.

I cannot for the life of me understand why so many DMs opt for autocratic rule over their groups over compromise and negotiation...

You know, every once in a while I get told that people don't say things like "DMs opt for autocratic rule". That no one pushes a one true way. Good to know I'm not just making naughty word up.