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

[Oofta]

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"?

I will agree that we go through basic steps. Look for players, explain (or discuss) campaign, make PCs. I've never used the words "demanding" or "disrespectful" describing a player that I remember, it's reasonable for a player to ask questions, including whether an option is available. It's also reasonable for the DM to decide the answer.

Now, I have had recent experience with someone that I thought was disrespectful. The person joined my home game (knowing that it was going to be a long-term campaign) and then after the third session let us know that he just had gotten word that he was being transferred out of state. Oh, and that the transfer was overdue and he always knew he would only be able to play a few sessions but just never told me.

To me, that was disrespectful. Not that he was no longer attending my game, but it was disrespectful that he started a campaign intended to be more than a few sessions when he knew he wouldn't be around for it; that he took up a seat at my table when he knew that I had a waiting list. It wasn't just disrespectful to me - it was disrespectful to everyone at the table who were enthusiastic about establishing connections with the other PCs at the table. There's a social compact when joining a home campaign that you will give it your best shot and that you are there to support the campaign.

I think there's another implicit agreement when joining a game. That the DM is the person who makes the final decision on just about everything but what the PCs do* ... and even that has it's limits. I don't allow evil PCs so I'm never going to tell you that you can't do something, but I will let you know before you cross the line that the PC will become an NPC. It's not that a player can't question or discuss things but if it's more than a quick clarification do it outside of game time. If you disagree either accept the DM's answer or move on.

*This even extends to background and story for the PC. The DM has editorial control over NPCs, actions, events and locations. Whether that editorial control is used is up to the DM.

 

[Maxperson]

Only if the analogy is sound: something that has no connections outside itself, other than the physical surface upon which it stands. I don't think that works for species or cultures in D&D. It's too interconnected at the local level, and there's too much background context at the gaming-culture (IRL) level.

If you're putting in a ton of work either way, you're putting in a ton of work whether or not a specific race is present. Choosing to build a world that lacks elves is going to imply some extra work on your part, for example, because so much of the fiction and (IRL) culture surrounding D&D includes things like elves and halflings--you have to do more work yourself, as it were.

It's going to require no extra work at all. I will be building racial interactions when I'm creating the setting and all I have to say is, "No Elves" and I'm completely done. I will build the interactions between Halflings and Dwarves, Humans and Gnomes, etc., but I never even have to consider Elves again as they are not present in the setting.

I trust that the players are fully capable of understanding that if there are no Elves in the world, Dwarves don't have anything against Elves. I don't have to spell it out or consider what the lack of Elves does to Dwarves.

Cultures generally aren't self-contained, but rather constrained by available transportation and the like. Hence why I've (repeatedly) referenced the whole "beyond the horizon is your friend" thing. In a medieval world, even places that are physically connected (the way, say, China is physically connected to the Iberian Peninsula) can still be sufficiently "separated" that they are curious unknowns from which many strange and wondrous things could arise without, strictly speaking, being a Problem per se. Couple that with the possibility of actually developed cultures living beyond an ocean or other much-more-difficult barrier to travel, and you get a ripe opportunity for introducing things that don't need tons of foreknown and pre-established context, but can still be received with curiosity, wonder, or greed rather than hate and fear.

Yes, and if I tried to remove Elves from the Forgotten Realms or other established setting, it would be a LOT of work. Myth Drannor and its history and impact are gone. The Netherese Empire either didn't happen or happened very differently and much more. THAT would be a lot of work. In creating my own setting, though, removing a race is trivial.

Fortunately for me, Dragonborn are an addition to the Realms. They were pasted on top, so removing them was also trivial.

Again, you aren't required to do any of these things, but keeping an open mind makes so many interesting paths available to you and your group. That's all. And keeping an open mind does not mean needing to suddenly do a ton of extra work yourself. Working with your players, intentionally leaving things lightly-sketched and allowing spontaneous ideas to fill in the blanks, or stealing ideas from the players as they speculate, all great ways to lighten your burdens while still producing quality work. Or maybe you just take it a week at a time; the players can't learn every single detail about a new culture in a single session. Etc.

*Nearby Enormous Body Of Water, naturally

I agree. I've allowed all kinds of interesting and not by the rules requests for PCs over the years. We're all there to have fun after all.

 

[Chaosmancer]

A few things. First, people are different. What is a lot of work for one DM and a total world changer, isn't for another DM. Second, it's far easier to destroy/remove, than add/create. It takes hours to build a good card house, but 1 second and a slight bump of a pinky to bring it down. Third, how big a deal it is to add and/or remove is purely subjective. It might be a big deal to remove, but not add a race for one DM, a big deal to add, but not remove for a second DM, not a big deal for either for a third, and a big deal for both for a fourth. There is no "should" or "shouldn't" be a big deal.

So, "entirely subjective" and no way to know.

But it is therefore on the spectrum of possibility that removing a race is seen as a major change to the rules (I see it as probably the middle of the chart between major and minor) and you yourself said that you... hmm, how to phrase this so that I don't say you assume.... You would go into a game of DnD with the idea that the DM has made only minor changes to the structure of the rules. If we go forward under the concept (can't say we assume) that most players hold a similiar position of goinginto a game with the idea that the DM has made only minor changes, then they would go into the game with the position that the DM has likely not altered the races, since for a fairly large part of the player base that would been seen as a major change, and they are approaching the DM under the idea concept that the DM has only made minor changes.

Whatever. Nothing changes the fact that I wasn't assuming elves to be present.

So, what word do you use to mean "someone taking a position or holding a belief, when they are uncertain of whether or not that position or belief is true or false, yet need to take a position anyways"?

You don't believe "assume" is that word, so what word in the English language would use to describe that? I would like an answer so I can stop talking myself in circles like above to prevent myself from offending your sensibilities.

It's going to require no extra work at all. I will be building racial interactions when I'm creating the setting and all I have to say is, "No Elves" and I'm completely done. I will build the interactions between Halflings and Dwarves, Humans and Gnomes, etc., but I never even have to consider Elves again as they are not present in the setting.

I trust that the players are fully capable of understanding that if there are no Elves in the world, Dwarves don't have anything against Elves. I don't have to spell it out or consider what the lack of Elves does to Dwarves.

What do you do about the Boots of Elvenkind, the Cloak of Elvenkind and the Elven Chain? Moonblade is also heavily tied to elves. Oh, and the Bladesinger wizard.

I suppose if you are building a game from scratch you don't need to worry about the various links between the elves and the other races, but removing them from an established setting is obviously far harder. I mean, a lot of monsters are listed as having an extreme hatred of elves. Orcs, Ogres, I think Gorillion's mention dealing with elves. Ghouls paralysis specifically doesn't affect elves, and in fact their lore relies on the existance of elves, since they were created by a Demon corrupted elf. A lot of things in the Underdark mention their relations with Drow, and how the drow domesticated or gathered or subjugated that race of beings.

And this is zero research, just off the top of my head. If we dug around, how many items and monsters specifically mention involving elves?

I agree. I've allowed all kinds of interesting and not by the rules requests for PCs over the years. We're all there to have fun after all.

This part of this debate constantly has me scratching my head. Why do you seem so dead set on establishing your right to do something you don't actually want to do?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This part of this debate constantly has me scratching my head. Why do you seem so dead set on establishing your right to do something you don't actually want to do?

This cannot be over-emphasized. Several posters seem to have the position that they must have their ABSOLUTE POWER overtly recognized by their players...except that they then never exercise that power in any remotely meaningful capacity. Instead, you (e.g. @Maxperson ) engage in exactly the things I have consistently called for and which any reasonable person would call limits on "absolute" power: you consult with players about things, persuade them to get on board, wait to build consensus, ask for their input before making decisions, search for solutions that make them happy without abandoning your own wants or prior work, and just generally treat your players as equal participants (though not equal contributors, of course) rather than your totally controlled subjects who must bow to your every command without question or dissent lest they be exiled.

Absolute power doesn't work like that. Absolute power treats challenge or disagreement as a threat to be eliminated. Constrained power treats challenges as a problem to resolve, and only resorts to elimination as a last-ditch effort when all other, more-constrained options have failed.

 

[MGibster]

We all know only Siths speak in absolutes.

 

[prabe]

We all know only Siths speak in absolutes.

That seems like an absolute statement, dunnit?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That seems like an absolute statement, dunnit?

There is great debate as to whether this is Kenobi being his "from a certain point of view" self, or whether he's actually making a very subtle point through irony. (That is, by making an absolute statement himself, he's admitting that absolutes are not inherently wrong, instead saying that ranting and raving about them and violently enforcing them on others is the Sith way, while working to understand and communicate them to others is the Jedi way.)

More simply, it's not clear if he's just used an ice cream koan or a real koan. The latter is apparent antinomy designed to provoke re-evaluation and thus lead to wisdom. The former is just lazy pseudo-philosophy.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

We all know only Siths speak in absolutes.

Wait a second. Isn't what you just said an absolute? Uh-oh, folks, I think we've just found Darth Gibster!

 

[Maxperson]

So, "entirely subjective" and no way to know.

But it is therefore on the spectrum of possibility that removing a race is seen as a major change to the rules (I see it as probably the middle of the chart between major and minor) and you yourself said that you... hmm, how to phrase this so that I don't say you assume.... You would go into a game of DnD with the idea that the DM has made only minor changes to the structure of the rules. If we go forward under the concept (can't say we assume) that most players hold a similiar position of goinginto a game with the idea that the DM has made only minor changes, then they would go into the game with the position that the DM has likely not altered the races, since for a fairly large part of the player base that would been seen as a major change, and they are approaching the DM under the idea concept that the DM has only made minor changes.

I would go into the game assuming that changes were made. I would not assume that they would be minor or major, but only that changes are made. I would then find out what changes were made.

So, what word do you use to mean "someone taking a position or holding a belief, when they are uncertain of whether or not that position or belief is true or false, yet need to take a position anyways"?

You don't believe "assume" is that word, so what word in the English language would use to describe that? I would like an answer so I can stop talking myself in circles like above to prevent myself from offending your sensibilities.

Okay fine. You got me. I assume that there's a possibility that elves might not be there.

What do you do about the Boots of Elvenkind, the Cloak of Elvenkind and the Elven Chain? Moonblade is also heavily tied to elves. Oh, and the Bladesinger wizard.

Bladesinger is no longer tied to elves. Anyone can be one, and I don't need to do anything about the rest but change a name. Boots of Walking Quietly and Cloaks of You Can't See Me, Neener Neener will most likely still be present in a setting.

I suppose if you are building a game from scratch you don't need to worry about the various links between the elves and the other races, but removing them from an established setting is obviously far harder. I mean, a lot of monsters are listed as having an extreme hatred of elves. Orcs, Ogres, I think Gorillion's mention dealing with elves. Ghouls paralysis specifically doesn't affect elves, and in fact their lore relies on the existance of elves, since they were created by a Demon corrupted elf. A lot of things in the Underdark mention their relations with Drow, and how the drow domesticated or gathered or subjugated that race of beings.

All you have to do is ignore the fluff on monsters. And I already said it would be a lot of work to remove a race like Elves from an existing setting.

This part of this debate constantly has me scratching my head. Why do you seem so dead set on establishing your right to do something you don't actually want to do?

Because sometimes I need to say no, and I have the authority to do so. If you notices, I was also arguing from a RAW standpoint. RAW gives the DM absolute authority.

 

[prabe]

There is great debate as to whether this is Kenobi being his "from a certain point of view" self, or whether he's actually making a very subtle point through irony. (That is, by making an absolute statement himself, he's admitting that absolutes are not inherently wrong, instead saying that ranting and raving about them and violently enforcing them on others is the Sith way, while working to understand and communicate them to others is the Jedi way.)

I just figure it's Star Wars, being typically unaware of what it's saying.