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

[Swarmkeeper]

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

Dang - @prabe - looks like I'm a bit late on this one!

 

[prabe]

Dang - @prabe - looks like I'm a bit late on this one!

If it's the worst thing that happens to either of us today, neither of us is having a bad day.

 

[Scott Christian]

A few problems with this.

First, pre-made settings and Adventure Paths. Suddenly the setting isn't the creation of the DM. They didn't need to design or create anything. I could most likely run "The Red Hand of Doom" or "Die Vecna Die!" without creating much of anything.

Second, you contradict yourself, or at least you draw the line in a strange place. Because you say that the Player not only can, but should ask about creating a northern tribe for their character to have come from, and no one disagrees with that.... but people do disagree that you should create a northern tribe of Goliaths if Goliaths aren't in the setting. Or at least, some of the posters on here have said that. They have a list of races, and if you deviate from that, you have done wrong.

So how do you make sense of that? Players can and should ask about filling in the setting with their ideas, but they shouldn't propose things that the DM hasn't approved? Is that Northern tribe perfectly fine if they are dwarves, but not fine if they are Goliaths? Or shifters?

"Feel free to add what you like, as long as I like it" seems to be the truth of the matter, while at the same time, the DM might not have made anything. They could have just as easily opened a book and read the first grey box they saw, and yet that doesn't seem to make a difference in whether or not the player is overstepping by doing what you said they should do, just not in exactly the way the DM would approve.

Regarding the contradiction, I can see how you could read it like that. But, I also said DM's compromise. I said nothing about the race of the northern tribes player, so not sure where that is coming from. I said they "stole from frost giants." In this case the player wanted to create a rogue. (Again, never mentioned a race.) If the player wanted it to be a goliath, and the DM has already stated there were no goliaths, why would the player do this? It seems rude.

Now here is the compromise: If they want the mechanical effects of a goliath, I feel certain that the DM can work with them. I haven't really met a DM that wouldn't. It's just that they would need to choose a race that is on the list. See how that is compromise? The player chooses what is on the list, asks for specific request, and sits down with the DM to discuss how to achieve said request while staying in the list.

 

[Scott Christian]

IMO if I’ve an idea for a Gnomish culture that fits really well with what’s established, and the DM can’t handle the thought of even discussing it, the DM is being overly precious about their vision, and need to get over themself.

Just reverse that one for one second:

"IMO, if I, the DM, have an idea about established cultures, and the player can't handle the thought of even discussing it, the player is being overly precious about their vision, and needs to get over themselves."

See how it goes both ways.

That said, there is no one way. What fits one group might not fit another. And that is okay.

 

[Scott Christian]

A geographical thing? Lol come on!

Look, if my buddy tells me they have a “plan for gnomes” that precludes anyone playing one I’m...gonna be skeptical. Have you ever seen such a thing pan out in a way that made a good story? I sure haven’t.

And what possible thematic thing? What, you can run a game with a certain tone because gnomes are in it? Lol nah.

C'mon man. This has been explained too many times to rehash. The DM might have their reasons. They can be geographical. They can be thematic. They can involve lore. And any of those things can still produce a good story.

As a player, you can be skeptical. You can ask questions. Or you can accept the perimeters the DM gave and sit down to have fun with the hobby. If precluding gnomes means the player can't have fun, then most DM's would try to work with the player using an alternative. If the player still insists they can't have fun because "they need to be a gnome to play and have fun," then my suggestion to the player would be to sit in and watch how others play and have fun with characters other than gnomes.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Yes, absolute power DOES work like that. If I with my absolute power use it to get opinions form players, which I consider due to wanting them to be happy, that's not ceding power to the players. I still retain it. I'm just using it very benevolently. I COULD use it the next time I run to be a tyrant. I won't, but I could, because I retain that authority.

 

[Scott Christian]

I think most people don't feel entitled and it's more that people have different preferences of archetypes and like having their preferences available.

I would say the number one reason is because that race gives them a mechanical advantage they need for their class. Plain and simple. Most of this has nothing to do with roleplaying, cultures, etc. Sure, some might. But, most of it is I am stronger, faster, smarter, or more adept with these skills/combat when I play this race.
(Of course this is not true for everyone. But for most, I think it is.)

 

[Scott Christian]

DnD has been a game about Fantasy races since basically the beginning.

D&D has always been about having hundreds of gods. Yet, do you not want to play when the DM tells you in his timeline of FR there are only six gods left? Do you leave the game if the DM details in advance that if you play a character that is reliant on religion, you should pick from these six?

 

[prabe]

D&D has always been about having hundreds of gods. Yet, do you not want to play when the DM tells you in his timeline of FR there are only six gods left? Do you leave the game if the DM details in advance that if you play a character that is reliant on religion, you should pick from these six?

Do you choose not to play if the DM says there are no gods on the world?

(But all the classes work, because reasons.)

 

[Scott Christian]

Right now I am running D&D in a silk road setting. The game began in parallel world Tang Dynasty China. I have a human, two Ogre Magi*, a Kenku and a Warforged made from Terracotta. No one complained about there being no elves or dwarves.

And it does include homebrew content. I would personally think that homebrewing content is more an essential feature of D&D then elves are.

*These are the Ogre Magi from Yoon Suin rather than Japanese Oni.

I think this is a great example of a DM being clear in their expectations and asking players to work within those expectations. The thematic setting might exclude something, and that is okay with both, the DM and players.