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

[Maxperson]

Okay....how do you do that?

I........don't even begin to understand that question.

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

Simple. By not assuming it. I assume instead that the DM has altered things and that I need to find out what, rather than just assuming that any given thing is how it is written.

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.

I agree. You can't know what has changed until the DM tells you. That's why you don't assume that any given thing unchanged and ask the DM.

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...

I don't think we really disagree on this subject. We both agree that there is a baseline and that we should assume that something in it has changed. To me, that means that I don't assume that elves are there. I mean, they're probably there, but I should talk to the DM to find out. It would suck to spend time on a character to find out the hard way.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

What if I brought Pete Best?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't assume that elves are there. I mean, they're probably there, but

These two statements directly contradict each other.

If you think they're probably there, you're presuming the baseline, but open to it being changed. You are NOT assuming absolutely nothing whatever, which is what you've been talking about. You are not, "Oh, cool, European fantasy setting. Wait, are there people living there? Oh okay good, I didn't want to assume there were any actual people. Are there humans? Good, okay, cool." etc. etc. ad nauseam. You do presume the baseline, but you don't presume that it is some kind of fixed, immutable state.

 

[Maxperson]

These two statements directly contradict each other.

No, they don't. If I assumed that they were there, then I would not also think that they are probably there. There wouldn't be any doubt. That's what an assumption is. You are assuming that something is true. By expressing doubt, I am explicitly NOT assuming that they are there. I acknowledge that it is likely, but I'm not going to assume that it is true.

You are not, "Oh, cool, European fantasy setting. Wait, are there people living there? Oh okay good, I didn't want to assume there were any actual people. Are there humans? Good, okay, cool." etc. etc. ad nauseam. You do presume the baseline, but you don't presume that it is some kind of fixed, immutable state.

I would assume that there are people there, yes. I assume the necessity of some sort of people as a fact of the game. I would not assume that elves are there, even though the Sidhe would likely be a part of a fantasy European setting. Nor would I assume that I could play one if they were there.

Edit: And there's no need to asking about each individual possible change like you have up there in that quote. You simply say, "Hey DM. What changes have you made to your game that I should know about?"

 

[JiffyPopTart]

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.

The more I read this thread the more I realize that my way of seeing PC backstory creation is NOT the way other people see it. This would be such an easy sell to me....

Backstory Time
Me being the first man on the moon you would think I was set for a life of celebrity. I would have to. But, in my short time on that barren surface I saw things man wasn't meant to see, and I feel it's my duty to let the people know what's coming their way.

Three months, and one magazine interview later I find myself at the controls of an A4 Skyhawk barreling wavetop towards the Red River Delta on my third wild weasel mission this week.

Just another example of a corrupt Uncle Sam keeping the sheep ignorant to the truth.
End

There is your Cthulhu 1970 Nam campaign moon walking astronaught.

 

[billd91]

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.

Gonna disagree with this a bit. Jazz musicians can be extremely protective of jazz within their jazz bands - but they play a lot outside of their jazz circles to pay the bills because jazz pretty much won't. So, yeah, the jazz band isn't going to suddenly become jazz/heavy metal fusion just because a heavy metal guitarist shows up, rather, it's the jazz musician who's likely to venture outside of the jazz band to cross pollinate something else. All you have to do is look at the way people like Satchmo or, more recently, Branford Marsalis have been treated by the jazz community for evidence.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No, they don't. If I assumed that they were there, then I would not also think that they are probably there. There wouldn't be any doubt. That's what an assumption is. You are assuming that something is true. By expressing doubt, I am explicitly NOT assuming that they are there. I acknowledge that it is likely, but I'm not going to assume that it is true.

.....
.........
............

Are you serious here? I just...

An assumption can include doubt. There is literally nothing wrong with that. An assumption does not have to be an ironclad, unassailable, unshakable conviction that something is true. That's literally what a "prior" (as in, prior probability distribution) is: an assumption about the probabilities of things, with the expectation that it not only can, not only will, but SHOULD change unless you got super lucky.

Assumptions are not incompatible with doubt, and I'm deeply confused as to why you would think otherwise. Dictionary.com's usage guide even explicitly says, "Probably the most common meaning of assumption in use today is for indicating a supposition, an estimate, a conjecture—that is, something taken for granted." (Emphasis in original, referencing that "assumption" in English has changed a lot, but always kept a central concept of something being "taken.") I don't know about you, but "conjecture" and "estimate" don't strike me as completely devoid of doubt!

 

[Don Durito]

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").

I assume this nonsense is referring to me. Look I responded with honest confusion about what exacty you expected me to engage with. And I remain confused about what you were expected from that exchange. I suggest your purpose what not as clear as you thought it was.

You don't have to respond. But then to turn around and mischaracterise the exchange is rude and dishonest.

 

[Maxperson]

.....
.........
............

Are you serious here? I just...

An assumption can include doubt. There is literally nothing wrong with that. An assumption does not have to be an ironclad, unassailable, unshakable conviction that something is true. That's literally what a "prior" (as in, prior probability distribution) is: an assumption about the probabilities of things, with the expectation that it not only can, not only will, but SHOULD change unless you got super lucky.

Assumptions are not incompatible with doubt, and I'm deeply confused as to why you would think otherwise. Dictionary.com's usage guide even explicitly says, "Probably the most common meaning of assumption in use today is for indicating a supposition, an estimate, a conjecture—that is, something taken for granted." (Emphasis in original, referencing that "assumption" in English has changed a lot, but always kept a central concept of something being "taken.") I don't know about you, but "conjecture" and "estimate" don't strike me as completely devoid of doubt!

The bolded part is what I am talking about. By saying, "Elves are probably present in the game." I am most certainly NOT taking it for granted that they are there. An assumption is assuming something as true. Taking it for granted.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The bolded part is what I am talking about. By saying, "Elves are probably present in the game." I am most certainly NOT taking it for granted that they are there. An assumption is assuming something as true. Taking it for granted.

You are taking for granted that they likely will be in the game.

That is literally what you are doing. You do not need to assume something is true. You can--as my EXPLICIT EXAMPLE of priors, which is a thing REAL ACTUAL STATISTICIANS DO, demonstrates--assume that something is likely or unlikely.