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

[prabe]

Other factors? I guess. I don’t see the issue with the astronaut thing.

Outside if a NASA themed rpg it's kinda ludicrous.

DM might be running a Tour of Duty RPG in Vietnam. Astronaut training didn't involve being sent to the frontlines although you might be able to go the other way if you're a pilot in Nam.

It's roughly equivalent to PCs wanting to be king or emperor in their background.

Basically, this. It comes to whether an astronaut fits (as it wouldn't in Vietnam) and/or how special the PCs are supposed to be: If the campaign pitch is "everyman" and someone brings a Beatle ... there's pretty clearly a disconnect.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Modifying the rules is not only not a non-sequitur, it's relevant. In all the games I've played since 1e, I've never been in a by the book with no changes at all game. Rules changes are widely prevalent. So while I wouldn't go into a game expecting there not to be elves, I would go into it expecting things not to be exactly as the book states. If a DM did not offer up the changes, I would ask him what was changed.

Whether or not you would ask is still not relevant to whether there is or is not a common baseline to start from.

You can only ask what has changed if you have something to change from.

 

[Maxperson]

Man you guys must have had some really bad players.

Yeah. Those are really over the top and I haven't encountered that since Junior High and High School. That said, I don't allow nobles to just be picked as a background. I play a more realistic game and a noble has power and influence far beyond those of most other PC backgrounds, as well as significantly more money. I don't mind a PC who was formerly a noble and had titles stripped, but a full on noble has to be rolled for.

 

[Maxperson]

Whether or not you would ask is still not relevant to whether there is or is not a common baseline to start from.

You can only ask what has changed if you have something to change from.

Right. My point is that players should expect there to be changes and not to just assume the baseline.

 

[prabe]

Right. My point is that players should expect there to be changes and not to just assume the baseline.

I believe the point @EzekielRaiden is making, though, is that you have to know the baseline to understand the changes.

 

[Maxperson]

The rules as they exist in their baseline state is the common foundation for any discussions regarding D&D. As well, they are what we need to be looking at when analyzing the text and breaking it down into its constituent systems. It only makes sense to study the RAW; otherwise coherent discussion and analysis becomes impossible.

Sure, and I say the same thing when discussing the rules themselves. However, when discussing something like this topic, where the rules themselves give DMs permission to make changes to the rules and virtually every DM does so, stating that players should expect changes to the baseline rules isn't out of place.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Sure, and I say the same thing when discussing the rules themselves. However, when discussing something like this topic, where the rules themselves give DMs permission to make changes to the rules and virtually every DM does so, stating that players should expect changes to the baseline rules isn't out of place.

It's not "out of place," as in being irrelevant to the topic of D&D generally.

It is, however, out of place when joining a discussion where one person is saying, "Why do people even expect elves at all, whatsoever, ever? What justifies such an expectation?" and the next says, "Because there needs to be a common baseline to start from, even if you choose to shift it elsewhere."

You ARE injecting a non sequitur into THAT discussion. It IS, flatly, a non-sequitur to say "well you should expect SOME things to change" when someone is LITERALLY justifying a particularly-common expectation among players by saying that common baselines exist. Otherwise, you would have to be arguing that common baselines DON'T exist....except that your own argument vitally depends on it, so you can't be doing that either!

 

[Maxperson]

I believe the point @EzekielRaiden is making, though, is that you have to know the baseline to understand the changes.

You don't really need to understand, either, though. I've encountered several players over the decades who just would not or could not learn most of the rules. They just played and rolled when asked to. Generally the played fighters and thieves/rogues, so that they didn't have to remember lots of moving parts and had a blast. They wouldn't have known which rules were default and which were house if their lives depended on it.

Most people aren't like that, though. They're know most of the base rules and then file the DM's changes in where appropriate.

 

[Oofta]

Yeah. Those are really over the top and I haven't encountered that since Junior High and High School. That said, I don't allow nobles to just be picked as a background. I play a more realistic game and a noble has power and influence far beyond those of most other PC backgrounds, as well as significantly more money. I don't mind a PC who was formerly a noble and had titles stripped, but a full on noble has to be rolled for.

If someone wants to have a noble background in my game the first thing I ask is why their family isn't supporting them financially and won't bail them out if they get in trouble. I clarify that their retainers are the equivalent of a butler and maid, not adventuring companions (which sadly, has been an issue).

So ... black sheep of the family? Not the eldest child and expected to make your own way? You come from a noble family but it's a sham and the family is heavily in debt? Various options are allowed, but it's not an overall advantage over any other background.

 

[Maxperson]

It's not "out of place," as in being irrelevant to the topic of D&D generally.

It is, however, out of place when joining a discussion where one person is saying, "Why do people even expect elves at all, whatsoever, ever? What justifies such an expectation?" and the next says, "Because there needs to be a common baseline to start from, even if you choose to shift it elsewhere."

You ARE injecting a non sequitur into THAT discussion. It IS, flatly, a non-sequitur to say "well you should expect SOME things to change" when someone is LITERALLY justifying a particularly-common expectation among players by saying that common baselines exist. Otherwise, you would have to be arguing that common baselines DON'T exist....except that your own argument vitally depends on it, so you can't be doing that either!

Yeah. I'm not saying baselines don't exist. I'm saying that the players should expect that some of the baselines have changed and not assume that any given baseline is intact