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

[Maxperson]

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.

How about we don't get into a long back and forth over this? We agree about everything important here.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Since you asked...

Ok. Whatever. Take what you want from it. I'm not sure what you what exactly you want me to engage with.

You describe how your group does things. What point are you making exactly - that every group should do things the same way? That in some group dynamics there are more specific things to say about how things need to be negotiated? Well, obviously so, I've been saying that throughout this thread - but people have just been ignoring it and talking past each other.

You had said previously,

You’re assuming all sorts of context here. If we’re going to agree to discuss a specific situation with a specific relationship between players and gm rather then anyone bringing in assumptions then we can discuss that.

But this thread has remained focused on the general so only general things can be said.

I was not actually describing the way my group did things, at least not specifically that (the process loosely corresponds to what I did, intentionally). I was trying--rather hard, actually--to speak in pretty general terms. DM gets an idea, shops around for players with a short pitch, gives the full pitch once there's enough interested parties to actually bother, answers questions and helps get the game established (session 0), gets into play.

Instead of responding to literally anything I said, you waved off the whole thing with the post above, with the statement "this thread has remained focused on the general so only general things can be said." Meaning anything even slightly specific--which I didn't think mine was specific IN THE LEAST, since I was ACTIVELY TRYING to capture a broad swathe of how campaigns happen--is apparently insufficient.

And yet early in the thread (well, various times, but this was the first), you posted this...

But my Silk road game has no elves. They really do not fit. And a human only campaign could be anywhere. It could be an aztec game. Or it might be desired because the GM wants to emulate a lot of the fantasy novels of recent years in which non-human races are increasingly not a thing. (I'm not sure this is necessarily a good idea, but people will always want to).

So evidently it's perfectly fine for you to use the highly specific situation of your game to talk about why general statements aren't fine. But it's not okay for me to go to great lengths to generalize the process of how games form (that aren't absolute pure pick-up-and-play FLGS games), because no matter how general I make it, if it isn't universal, it isn't enough.

I literally checked out of the thread for a while because I was so incredibly frustrated by your blithe dismissal of anything and everything I had had to say.

And no, you weren't the only person I was thinking about when I said this. This was just the most obvious (and frustrating) example.

 

[Oofta]

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.

I don't really follow. But I will say that the fallacy seems to be that there needs to be a universal truth other than each game that is played by a unique group of individuals may have their own unique preferences. No single preference is universal.

D&D is a set of rules for adult(ish) make believe. What that make believe world is or what restrictions there are will be up to the people involved. No amount of posturing and insinuation of bad-wrong-fun on your part is going to change a very simple fact. I restrict races and have editorial control over my player's PC's background yet my players have a lot of fun playing my game. If the group is having fun you have no right to imply that they're doing it wrong.

If that's not what you're saying, if every group, every DM has the right to run the game the way they want then we agree. If you're saying that you know how to run my game better than I do then, yes, I reject that out of hand.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

If that's not what you're saying, if every group, every DM has the right to run the game the way they want then we agree. If you're saying that you know how to run my game better than I do then, yes, I reject that out of hand.

I'm not saying either thing.

I'm saying that we can look at how at least significant portions of gaming work--particularly, those portions that actually allow for pre-game discussion and which usually involve the explicitly-described enormous amounts of effort put forward by the DM. From there, we can then try to find common ground about where we're talking, what positions we're taking, etc. so we can stop dealing with a ton of the infuriating back-and-forth.

I presented my loose model as way of saying, "Hey guys. Maybe you're thinking we're at P, while I'm still all the way back at B? That would explain the logjam we keep running into." Of course it would be petulant and irritating for a player to randomly ask, literally ten minutes into the first proper session of the game, "Oh by the way I want to play an elf, so can I do that even though you explicitly said no every time I asked before?" (likely in not so many words, but the rudeness of the request would remain.) Conversely, it would be (as far as I'm concerned) disrespectful and petty for a DM to respond to a player who's only just heard the short pitch ("Sword-and-Sandal game inspired by Greek and Persian myth," for example) and says, "ooh, I've got this great idea for a dragonborn Spartoi from Not-Thebes, or maybe an Ophiogene!" and the DM just says, "No, you can't do that. I won't tell you why, just trust me" or worse, "No, because dragonborn are stupid/don't make sense in Greek myth." (Even though, as I've stated before, the Spartoi literally were sown from a dragon's teeth, and the Ophiogenes literally were "the serpent-born.")

Instead of literally anyone actually responding to any portion of it, it was dismissed out of hand as "too specific" or else completely ignored.

 

[Oofta]

I'm not saying either thing.

I'm saying that we can look at how at least significant portions of gaming work--particularly, those portions that actually allow for pre-game discussion and which usually involve the explicitly-described enormous amounts of effort put forward by the DM. From there, we can then try to find common ground about where we're talking, what positions we're taking, etc. so we can stop dealing with a ton of the infuriating back-and-forth.

I presented my loose model as way of saying, "Hey guys. Maybe you're thinking we're at P, while I'm still all the way back at B? That would explain the logjam we keep running into." Of course it would be petulant and irritating for a player to randomly ask, literally ten minutes into the first proper session of the game, "Oh by the way I want to play an elf, so can I do that even though you explicitly said no every time I asked before?" (likely in not so many words, but the rudeness of the request would remain.) Conversely, it would be (as far as I'm concerned) disrespectful and petty for a DM to respond to a player who's only just heard the short pitch ("Sword-and-Sandal game inspired by Greek and Persian myth," for example) and says, "ooh, I've got this great idea for a dragonborn Spartoi from Not-Thebes, or maybe an Ophiogene!" and the DM just says, "No, you can't do that. I won't tell you why, just trust me" or worse, "No, because dragonborn are stupid/don't make sense in Greek myth." (Even though, as I've stated before, the Spartoi literally were sown from a dragon's teeth, and the Ophiogenes literally were "the serpent-born.")

Instead of literally anyone actually responding to any portion of it, it was dismissed out of hand as "too specific" or else completely ignored.

Sure we can talk about how gaming works. But what works for me and my group(s) may not work for you. I've explained what I do a bazillion times.

I just don't know what more you want because there is no universal truth. You don't run your game like I do? Okay. Is your group having fun? Cool. Is my group having fun? Yep. Awesome.

End of story.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Sure we can talk about how gaming works. But what works for me and my group(s) may not work for you. I've explained what I do a bazillion times.

I just don't know what more you want because there is no universal truth. You don't run your game like I do? Okay. Is your group having fun? Cool. Is my group having fun? Yep. Awesome.

End of story.

I'm not talking about running the game. I'm talking about assembling the game. Everything up to "we just started session 1."

There are patterns here. We can, in fact, actually talk about them and try to resolve this seemingly-irresolvable conundrum. As with previous statements, it may not work. However, I generally hold out hope that two people both attempting to discuss something rationally can work out that what they thought was pure loggerheads was actually two people having slightly different starting points. Once those are accounted for, seeming logical contradictions can be resolved, rather than retreated from.

So, to re-state my previous stuff. This is my attempt at a general model for how things happen for non-pick-up play, where DMs put lots of hard work into building a world that they'd rather not just slap-dash rewrite repeatedly:
1. DM has an idea and builds it into a campaign premise
2. DM seeks out players interested in this idea (putting out a notice and accepting applications, talking to friends, whatever)
3. If enough interested (and desirable) players are found, DM gives a more fully-articulated pitch (the aforementioned 20-page primers etc.)
4. Players develop ideas, and ask the DM questions about the pitch (possibly part of Session 0)
5. DM works through any wrinkles in the final PC concepts and approves specific players to join (also possibly part of Session 0)
6. Play properly begins with Session 1

As I said before: it very much sounds to me like those DMs here who consider it "demanding" or "disrespectful" (words actually used in this thread, mind) to do something like asking to play a dragonborn are assuming this thing happens at step 5 or 6, where everything that should have been said has already been said, and it WOULD be rude to demand something different, it WOULD be a breach of agreement and social contract to pitch a fit about not getting to play an elf. Whereas for me--and most of the people who agree with me here--it seems that we're sitting at step 2 or maybe 3, where there HASN'T yet been a full-throated articulation of what's up and it's COMPLETELY reasonable for players to have ideas that aren't necessarly 100% copacetic with the DM's "vision," where expecting a little negotiation and conversation is not rude but rather polite and REFUSING to have them is what is rude.

So. Assuming that we're not talking about this allegedly-insanely-common approach, where someone puts potentially years of work into developing a setting but then solicits completely random strangers at the FLGS to play with them, does this seem reasonable to you pro-restriction folks? Does this help explain why I have pushed so hard for these polite conversations and find it flabbergasting that people refer to it as "disrespectful" or respond to them by waving around claims of "Ultimate Authority"?

 

[prabe]

As I said before: it very much sounds to me like those DMs here who consider it "demanding" or "disrespectful" (words actually used in this thread, mind) to do something like asking to play a dragonborn are assuming this thing happens at step 5 or 6, where everything that should have been said has already been said, and it WOULD be rude to demand something different, it WOULD be a breach of agreement and social contract to pitch a fit about not getting to play an elf. Whereas for me--and most of the people who agree with me here--it seems that we're sitting at step 2 or maybe 3, where there HASN'T yet been a full-throated articulation of what's up and it's COMPLETELY reasonable for players to have ideas that aren't necessarly 100% copacetic with the DM's "vision," where expecting a little negotiation and conversation is not rude but rather polite and REFUSING to have them is what is rude.

It is indeed probable that different people are putting these discussions at different places in their mental sequences of pre-campaign activities (and your list is a perfectly reasonable one). It may in fact be that some of the bad experiences are either from a GM having the player show up with a ... noncompliant character at step 6-ish, or from a player asking about something and getting shouted down at step 2-ish (clearly per each teller's own reckoning). I'll quibble a little about expecting "negotiation"--"conversation" is a different thing. I'm not going to allow a race that flies at level 1, and I'm not going to allow warforged; those aren't positions I'm going to shift from, so "negotiation" doesn't sound like the right word, is all. I'll ask why the player wants to play what they want, and I'll try to work with them to find something that hits at least some of the same buttons--starting from my "default yes" list and working outward from there. I don't think there are a lot of folks posting on this thread who won't do that (barring some tight theme of some sort, which I don't do).

So. Assuming that we're not talking about this allegedly-insanely-common approach, where someone puts potentially years of work into developing a setting but then solicits completely random strangers at the FLGS to play with them, does this seem reasonable to you pro-restriction folks? Does this help explain why I have pushed so hard for these polite conversations and find it flabbergasting that people refer to it as "disrespectful" or respond to them by waving around claims of "Ultimate Authority"?

I won't say I'm exactly common, but I wrote up my homebrew world, then took it to my FLGS and started a table; then I took it to another FLGS and started another table. I specifically wanted to game with people I didn't know, to step outside my comfort zone a little.

That said, it seems reasonable to talk to a player who wants to play something not on my "default yes" list about why, and to try to work with them to find something that'll work for both of us. If neither of us will move, though, there can't be common ground. It's not a happy outcome, but it's probably happier than it turning into a horrorshow for one or the other of us.

 

[Zardnaar]

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.

Said astronaut wouldn't be allowed to transfer to combat operations.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

This. Exactly.

Who cares? It's an example.

Actual point was clear.

The point wasn't super clear, no. The example was terrible.

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.

I get where you're coming from. However, I stand by what I said, because I say it from experience, having many friends who are jazz musicians, some who are metal musicians, and a couple that are both.

I've seen literally the scenario described, with a power metal guitarist, and the jazz band changed, because they found something none of them expected when they jammed together. It's a bona fide tragedy that new jobs and other life stuff caused the band tobreak up before they could even come up with a good name or record anything, but it was something special.

And no one balked at any part of the process except the breaking up, because adjusting their sound to a new member is just normal.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Said astronaut wouldn't be allowed to transfer to combat operations.

Presidents don't hunt terrorists on Air Force one in real life but they do in movies.

The only person stopping said astronaut from being demoted down to a wild weasel pilot is the GM who doesn't allow it. It's their world to build as they like.

As I said, we just have fundamental differences in the ideas behind character creation and the difference of what is possible, even in a full real world game.

I'm never going to be interested in a game that is just Real Life 2.0, I already live in that life and play RPGs to experience something new. I don't want hacking in an RPG to be running a script while my character eats a burrito and waits days for a result. I don't want my RPG cars unable to go 40mph over a speed bump or jumping a construction pile without trashing the suspension. I don't want my mercenary taken out of the fight because they had a flare up of a pinched nerve in his back as a result of spending the night on the couch because he had a fight with his wife about spending $800 on a new TV they didn't need.