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

[Maxperson]

So you go in with an absolute certainty that something was changed, but no idea what or how much it was changed.

To contrast, most people go in expecting the majority of the game to be unchanged. They figure most class abilities are the same, most races are the same, most equipment is the same, most rules are the same, most Feats are the same, ect.

In fact, I generally hear the question as "Are there any houserules?" instead of "What changes did you make?" because most people don't have the expectation that there were changes made.

If they didn't have that expectation, they wouldn't bother to ask. They ask, because it's as common as dirt for there to be house rules. I also bolded the parts that indicate that the expectation of house rules is there. If there were no expectation of house rules, those would be "all" not "most."

Bladesinger says "developed from the elves" in the lore write up, so it is still tied to them. You will need to explain how an elven art developed in a world with no elves.

And sure, change the names, ignore the fluff, rewrite it. All of that is... work. Additional work for the DM. If that Elven Demon didn't create the Ghouls, how did they come about? You if you want to establish a world without elves, you need answers to these questions, you need to rework these items. It isn't as simple as just not having elves.

Takes no work whatsoever. I just say it didn't come from elves, because there are no elves. It then just becomes another type of wizard, just the same as Diviner or Evoker.

 

[Mecheon]

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.

The other data we have suggests against this, if simply the other thread going on showing the declining number of dwarves has dragonborn at pretty good numbers throughout

Everyone agrees that Dragonborn are the weakest race in the game. If folks were chosing for stats and mechanical advantage, either Dragonborn associated classes would need to be much higher than anything else, or... People just like the aesthetic. Paladins are up, sure, but not 'everyone is rolling dragonborn pallies' big. But... Dragonborn are the third most rolled race after humans and half elf at the moment. V-humans and HElves we can certainly say are mechanically superior and it could be flavor, or it could be strength, but Dragonborn?

Folks just wanna play as dragon people. That's all it is.

 

[Scott Christian]

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

(But all the classes work, because reasons.)

Of course. And answering a question with a question does not an answer make.

 

[prabe]

Of course. And answering a question with a question does not an answer make.

I'm sorry. I was intending it as an expansion of the sorts of questions in the post I was replying to. I wasn't intending snark or argument (snarkument?).

As it happens, I described my world, but that's a different thing, I think.

 

[Scott Christian]

The two aren’t even equivalent, but also no one is suggesting that players should be able to just plop down their character 100% finished, including creating parts of the setting, without any DM input.

Pretty much everyone on the player empowerment side is advocating a discussion.

That is not what I have been reading. But maybe it's just one lone wolf I am focusing on. That could be.

 

[Scott Christian]

What if instead of the mechanics they want the lore? Or the Aesthetic?

All for it, just make them a race already in place. Again, I have never encountered this. I have only encountered the need to play something because of their mechanical benefit. But, I am sure it exists. But, it is not hard to find lore similar in most DM built worlds. I race of big people, or even a race where there are a few big people (like Sumo). Tattoo for the stripes. Pale skin from the northland. A nice resistance to cold. Make them human. Done. Have the lore that you nursed from a giant when you were young if you need the giant lore.

 

[Scott Christian]

And, we keep coming back to specific situations that are assuming that the player has full knowledge of a hard restriction that cannot be compromised, and brings it back up repeatedly. But how often is repeatedly? When did the player learn of the restriction?

This is a great point. I addressed this earlier, but this is a long thread. I know I have been guilty of letting sides or specific arguments bleed together. But here it is:

In my experience, I have never seen a DM, that is going to run a long campaign, not specify this. Over thirty years, many states, many tables, many different DM's. Never. The DM explains their world first, or at a minimum, if they have restrictions, their perimeters for players. We have discussed this quite a bit in other threads too. DM's set the tone. They set the mood. They set the logic. They set the rules. And this needs to addressed before people create their characters.

If they do not, then I see no way they can oppose any race, any build, any stat roll, or anything based around character development. And that includes the players adding lore to the world.

 

[Scott Christian]

What if we had a player who was handed a document, skimmed the lore section and saw an awesome hook. They go to the DM with a cool idea to take advantage of this hook, using a specific race. (1) The DM then tells them no, that race was banned, didn't they read the document? The player admits they hadn't gotten to that part yet, but they thought this was a really cool idea, can they work something out?

I would hope they could figure something out, especially if the idea was really cool. But, a banned race, in my humble opinion, was put there for a reason by the DM. It is, after all, about everyone's enjoyment. But, hopefully, they could find a workaround.

The DM tells them absolutely not, trust them, that race would ruin everything. Player says that seems a bit like an exaggeration, and they'd not want to ruin the campaign, but this seems like a wasted opportunity.

We differ here. I have never heard a DM say it would ruin everything. What I hear is the internal logic of their world, the ability to suspend disbelief, the ability to DM without being annoyed somehow on a personal level, or the ability to let players overcome a challenge without a built in win button, deters the DM from allowing the race. I have seen a lot of DM's limit a lot of things. Sometimes I think it's nonsense. Others I can see it is a personal preference, and since the game is for everyone, I respect it. Other times I see the DM has spent a lot more time and effort than most, and certainly anyone of the players that have "a cool idea" on developing their world.

At what point was the player being rude? Ask #1? #2? #3? Are they only rude if they wait a bit and then ask again later? A lot of people seem to have ironclad ideas about where the player is overstepping their limits, where are they?

I would say it is never rude to ask. But if the DM explained the reason. And gave you a short lecture. Then you question again, and they give you a longer historical version. The player should drop it. It doesn't matter of they don't agree with the argument. The DM has their world. It suits their logic. Here is an example:
In a world where creatures are created, not spawned. The DM decides to eliminate many of the more natural creatures from the MM: griffons, unicorns, etc. They also add spells to the magic user's lists that allow for said creations. If a player insists on arguing this, saying they had a lore-based image of their character wearing griffon feathers and stabbing with a unicorn horn, why is that appropriate. (I mean, it sounds cool to me. But, if the DM was clear that those creatures do not exist, only elementals, golems, etc.). I mean sure, the player can come up with ideas on how a wizard created the unicorn. It might even make more sense. But why insist? That is the question.

 

[Scott Christian]

Depends.

Why are all the other gods gone? Is it impossible to be a worshipper of one of the dead gods, many concepts still work even if the God is dead? Which gods are left? What was the reason for killing off most of the gods? Are they working in lore of various beings who would have been released by the death of certain gods?

For an example that occurred to me in three seconds. Sure, let's say it is impossible. They have been dead a thousand years. Or, better yet, the six gods created an amnesia style spell over the land. So there are ruins of those gods, but no one knows what they mean. There is a basic god for each domain in the alignment wheel. They died so their creations (the races and realms) could live. No one knows.

There are the three second answers. The real question is, again, why does it matter? If a player insists that they can't have fun or their entire character revolves around a specific god that they were told does not exist, why are they being so insistent? That is the real question.

 

[Scott Christian]

This idea that a limited setting is always at least good, if not superior in quality, has got to stop. It has no legs to stand on.

No, the opposite is true. The idea that perfection is only achieved through many many options has to stop. Options are nice. They can be beneficial in a lot of things. But they can be detrimental too. Ask any playboy who insists on having options by "playing the field" versus the person who is happily married to their one option. Ask the Michelin star chefs who choose to work with fewer (and generally their region's) ingredients instead versus chefs catering to a mass audience. Ask any player that has had a DM that decides to focus on narrow and specific themes/stories/areas/realms versus players that always live in the "cantina."

I am not saying either side is wrong. The playboy has fun. So does the husband. The Michelin chef has fun. So do the other chefs. And both sets of players have fun. But neither one is "wrong" in their approach.