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

[Maxperson]

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.

I don't want to eliminate possible character types and the kinds of bonuses for a noble PC that I am talking about are not inherently disruptive to most of my campaigns. They are however, significant enough that I'm not going to allow them to just be chosen. I have a social status chart if they want to try and roll it, otherwise they can just pick anything else on the list.

 

[Don Durito]

I wonder if the primary issue might be modeled this way:

Some gamers (DM's and players) view players as consumers. The DM produces a product, the players consume that product and play progresses. As consumers, the players are not expected to have a significant amount of input in what the producer produces, so long as the consumers are happy with what is produced. The players come to the session, play during that session and once the session ends, they don't play again until the next session and have very little interest in the production side of the equation.

Other gamers, myself among them, view everyone at the table as collaborators. Sure, the DM is likely going to do more work than any single player, fair enough. But, the players expect and are expected to contribute outside of the game. During play, sure, we play in character and whatnot. But, once play stops, the players put on their contribution hats and supply various elements - NPC's, possible connections, discussions about the future direction of the campaign, goals etc - to the campaign.

Does this make sense? If you're a "Players as consumers" type DM, then, player input isn't really sought or expected. You have your campaign, your world and the players can take it or leave it. OTOH, if you're a "Players as collaborators" type DM, not only do you welcome player input in the design of the campaign world, you expect it.

Not really. No. Players as consumers is just bad gming.

Choosing a suitable character for a campaign is collaboration. If we're a jazz band and you jam with us then there's going to be collaboration, but if you're basically a heavy metal guitarist then you're not going to fit in - we're not going to suddenly turn into a jazz/heavy metal fusion band just because you came along.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

This is why I hate these discussions. Obviously if someone makes a point about an example that relies on no specific campaign theme beyond what has been stated, you can find something hyper-specific "tour of vietnam" concept to counter it, but that's a BS tactic. That campaign isn't "a 1960's America inspired campaign", it's both vastly more specific in premise, and is a literal real world campaign, which is inherently different from a game inspired by a period and region of the world.

This is the absolutely worst type of discussion to be engaging in these sorts of arguements, that are designed to try to outmanuever a rhetorical opponent, not to further a genuine discussion.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Not really. No. Players as consumers is just bad gming.

Choosing a suitable character for a campaign is collaboration. If we're a jazz band and you jam with us then there's going to be collaboration, but if you're basically a heavy metal guitarist then you're not going to fit in - we're not going to suddenly turn into a jazz/heavy metal fusion band just because you came along.

Most really good musicians I know, know better than to dismiss the idea of a heavy metal guitarist joining a jazz band. Or to dismiss the idea of shifting the focus and theme of the band based on one really really good member.

If a power metal guitarist with a knowledge of jazz and blues guitar (which describes every single metal guitarist I've ever met who could do power metal well, which is very hard) wants in the band, they're probably gonna be an asset.

Very few good jazz musicians are rigidly opposed to change and collaberation and compromise. It's literally hard to be good at jazz with that sort of mindset.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

But would you expect those changes to be massive, or relatively minor?

Do you expect to have entirely new subsystems utilizing new dice mechanics, or that the DM made a call that Invisibility gives a free stealth check?

Because, in my experience, one side of that spectrum is far more likely.

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

Huh.

Alright, I guess I just am not gonna understand your POV on this. I can’t fathom why not just let a PC be part of a crew that did the incredible but very possible feat of crossing beyond the known world without dying. I mean, it happened IRL, in various centuries and places. Why should it only be an option if the PC wants to play out that journey?

I want to pop this out for a second, because there is a key point about this that is vital for the debate between doctorbadwolf and @Zardnaar

The CREW did something incredibly impressive, but that doesn't mean that the CHARACTER did. Magellan's crew were the first people to sail entirely around the world (and make a record of that journey). The actual first man to make that journey was a slave, who had been taken from his home island and was returned to it during the journey.

But the Cabin Boy whose only job was scrubbing the decks also made that journey. They didn't have any skills that helped, but a crew or a caravan is a massive group of people, and sometimes the epic journey of a single man drags along a few non-descripts with him.

I mean, the first guy was a slave taken half way around the world against his will, not exactly an "epic" backstory in terms of "accomplishments of Great Men" History.

 

[prabe]

This is why I hate these discussions. Obviously if someone makes a point about an example that relies on no specific campaign theme beyond what has been stated, you can find something hyper-specific "tour of vietnam" concept to counter it, but that's a BS tactic. That campaign isn't "a 1960's America inspired campaign", it's both vastly more specific in premise, and is a literal real world campaign, which is inherently different from a game inspired by a period and region of the world.

This is the absolutely worst type of discussion to be engaging in these sorts of arguements, that are designed to try to outmanuever a rhetorical opponent, not to further a genuine discussion.

No. Topic was "campaign set in the 60s and someone brings a PC who walked on the moon." I said whether it would work would depend on other factors. You asked what I meant. Another poster posted a post with an example that as it turned out was pretty apropos. I quoted both of you.

Not every Internet discussion needs to turn into an argument, not every post is someone keeping score.

Just most of them. ;-)

 

[Don Durito]

Most really good musicians I know, know better than to dismiss the idea of a heavy metal guitarist joining a jazz band. Or to dismiss the idea of shifting the focus and theme of the band based on one really really good member.

If a power metal guitarist with a knowledge of jazz and blues guitar (which describes every single metal guitarist I've ever met who could do power metal well, which is very hard) wants in the band, they're probably gonna be an asset.

Very few good jazz musicians are rigidly opposed to change and collaberation and compromise. It's literally hard to be good at jazz with that sort of mindset.

Who cares? It's an example.

Actual point was clear.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

Okay....how do you do that?

Honestly. How do you "not assume that any given baseline is intact"?

Because the whole point of a baseline is that it is the base. line. It is the starting point. You absolutely should expect that there will be deviations. But you can't know what they are until the DM tells you, and unless the DM is literally throwing the entire frickin' campaign premise at the player literally from second 1, there's going to be lag time between "hey you wanna play X" (or even putting up an official "I'm running X"--this isn't specific to "home" games by any means!) and knowing every single detail.

You start from the baseline. You presume it! Yes, that means it IS a presumption. And yes, you SHOULD go into that presumption expecting some part of it to change. But you have NO IDEA what MIGHT change unless you're told. So you DON'T assume ANY part of it HAS changed, UNTIL you are told.

Perhaps if I put more capital letters, my point will come across better? I hear having variation makes comprehension easier though...

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This is why I hate these discussions. Obviously if someone makes a point about an example that relies on no specific campaign theme beyond what has been stated, you can find something hyper-specific "tour of vietnam" concept to counter it, but that's a BS tactic. That campaign isn't "a 1960's America inspired campaign", it's both vastly more specific in premise, and is a literal real world campaign, which is inherently different from a game inspired by a period and region of the world.

This is the absolutely worst type of discussion to be engaging in these sorts of arguements, that are designed to try to outmanuever a rhetorical opponent, not to further a genuine discussion.

What's even worse is the roundy-round dance people not only can, not only will, but have played in this very thread. If you give a premise specific enough to talk about in meaningful terms, you'll be rejected out of hand for not covering enough bases. If you give a premise general enough to cover a reasonable set of the bases, you'll be rejected out of hand because it doesn't cover specific situation X (such as "my home game").

We literally went through this exact process, just in reverse order, in this thread. At first, the pro-restrictions crowd has pushed for "well in MY game/world" etc., meaning we couldn't speak in generalities because they can always come up with (or personally already possess) a campaign world that is too unique to be captured by any general statement short of a perfect, absolute universal one. So we then move to specifics....and then get told that people won't discuss such specific situations when we should be capturing the whole of it.

It's incredibly frustrating. Evidently, the only way to discuss things is to have a statement that is truly, perfectly universal; it must always perfectly cover both the most broadly abstracted campaign imaginable, and always perfectly cover every single participant's individual campaign. Anything short of this standard is inappropriate and fails to actually touch a single point made by those who favor tightly and rigidly themed games that cannot admit player-driven modification outside of individual character actions.

 

[Maxperson]

But would you expect those changes to be massive, or relatively minor?

Do you expect to have entirely new subsystems utilizing new dice mechanics, or that the DM made a call that Invisibility gives a free stealth check?

Because, in my experience, one side of that spectrum is far more likely.

Most of the time they are minor. Probably one in 20(or higher) are major. I would consider the addition or removal of a race to be relatively minor, though. Major to me is changing armor to be DR and hit points to be fatigue and physical body points.