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

[EzekielRaiden]

But, it still kind of questions the fact, if it was communicated ahead of time, why the player insists on using something not on the list? Why?

I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but inspiration and passion are not something I can just invest in whatever thing I choose. They come to me spontaneously, and often whichever idea catches fire first must be severely outdone before I will abandon it for something else. It has nothing to do with wanting to do things I'm not allowed to do (I genuinely dislike breaking such rules if it is in any way avoidable), and everything to do with...well, not being able to feel enthusiastic about an idea that I'm not inspired by. If I can't feel enthusiastic about my character, believe me, you'll know, if I even let it get to that stage.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but inspiration and passion are not something I can just invest in whatever thing I choose. They come to me spontaneously, and often whichever idea catches fire first must be severely outdone before I will abandon it for something else. It has nothing to do with wanting to do things I'm not allowed to do (I genuinely dislike breaking such rules if it is in any way avoidable), and everything to do with...well, not being able to feel enthusiastic about an idea that I'm not inspired by. If I can't feel enthusiastic about my character, believe me, you'll know, if I even let it get to that stage.

And you can't just put a idea aside for a better opportunity to use it?

 

[Minigiant]

I think in most worlds you are right. But geography (here we go again ) could easily play a role. What if the setting was more like Water World,. Or the setting's world had no forests, just vast arrays of plainlands, seas, and deserts. Or, the first half of the campaign there were no forests, until the players unlock the fey. Then the player learns they have elven blood and the rush of connectivity to the fey floods the character with elven abilities, but not until 10th level - until they "unlock" the fey.

Many explanation for many different tables.

Well that's a explanation, no?

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.)

Mechanical advantage or Mechanical aspects?

Because many players take races/class combos that match in D&D because before it usually was a bad idea to not do so.

Wheher they picked the race first and matched a class to it or choose a class then a race with one of the class's primary,secondary, or tertiary ability score boosts is usually unknown to the DM.

D&D heavily discouraged picking race/class that didn't match in many editions. Your orc wizard got little with the orc's racial strength.

But to me, which race/class combo was chosen had to do with roleplaying, culture, society, tradition, and tropes te player wanted. I mean any class with a bonus to STR, DEX, or CON, made good fighters. And in 5e, they can benefit from mental stats too.

So the "players are just powergaming" thing kinda fall flat. Especially for the weird races as the weird race usually stucked and were the weakest choices. A player choosing a kobold rogue aint powergaming.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And you can't just put a idea aside for a better opportunity to use it?

Sometimes yes. Sometimes no. I can't explain it any better than that. The fire of inspiration does not like to be denied, and it will negatively affect my ability to roleplay. Believe me, it would be AMAZING to be able to say on command, "Alright, that's a cool idea, but I need to feel enthusiastic about something else right now." I consider myself fairly lucky when I can do it at all.

 

[Maxperson]

Or, they might think that something might have changed, but know it could easily be nothing. But we are getting into far too much semantics at this point. The basic point remains the same. People go into the game expecting the game rules to largely be intact.

I've played with dozens of DMs over the years and am at 100% has at least one thing changed, usually multiple things. The same with everyone I've talked to, though I'm sure now that I've said that the contrarians will pop saying, "Not me! Everyone I've played with goes 100% by the rules."

It could not easily be nothing. It's possible that it's nothing, but not easily nothing.

You realize the very first question is going to be "who" right? The moment the player wants to be a bladesinger and you change the origin of the class, they are going to want details.

If I tell someone that there are no elves and the Bladesinger is now just another subclass like Evoker, and they ask "who," they weren't listening to me.

 

[Scott Christian]

But if a player can make their counter-case to the DM, then I feel like we are agreeing.

Agreed.

Because sometimes it matters.

I had a character concept once that relied heavily on a Goddess. I had a Storm Sorcerer and I wanted his profession to be a big deal. A Jewler made the most sense to me, and I decided that a good fit was the idea that his power was obtained when he was young, living as a street urchin working for a gang, and he tried to steal a magical gem from a master jeweler. The Gem fused into his hand, and gave him his power. I then decided that The Jeweler found him the next morning, but instead of turning the kid over to the authorities, he took pity on the child and took him on as an apprentice. Since I wanted to have his profession be a big The Jeweler (and eventually my character) were also incredibly pious worshippers of Waukeen, and instilled in my character values from that religion. His life was so much better that he believed that the goddess must have taken pity on him and blessed him, so he resolved to be worthy of that blessing.

And so, as I wound this story, and figured out who this character was, having a Goddess of Wealth, and specifically Waukeen who had the dogma that fit really well into creating what I wanted to create, was very important to that character. I could have adjusted it, but having no diety of wealth, or making it only a foul demonic force? That would have ruined the character, because I wanted the fact that they were a merchant to be first and them being a sorcerer second.

Cool concept. But, if the DM was clear, like I stated they are, then why go down that character path? Save it for another campaign. It's a good idea, but just doesn't fit that specific campaign. I have friends with hundreds of character ideas. I have twenty on the back-burner right now. It is no big deal to set one aside for the correct time and place. Heck, sometimes they morph into something better when they sit and stew in the thought process for awhile.

Oh, everyone has fun either way, but if you had to pick one side... being the highest ranked chef in the world and happily married seems to be objectively better, doesn't it? And whose side is that one again? Oh right. Your side.

I don't know... I've known a few playboys that are much happier than married men. I don't judge.

And I very clearly state both sides have fun and - neither one is "wrong."

Because sometimes that is where the story is.

Remember earlier in this thread when someone said they could say they were running a Tolkien adventurer set in Middle Earth, and no one could misunderstand what races were allowed from just that alone?

And then I posted a variety of "non-tolkien" races that could trivially fit into the setting. Like running a Shifter who was based of Beorn. Or running a plant character who was a young Ent.

You created a setting, handed it to the players, and they were inspired by something. Some connection they saw that you didn't see. I remember there was another poster a while back who said that there were no Forge Gods in their world.... because they hadn't thought of any. Does that make it bad that a player does think of it?

To this I can only explain it with these words:
That is where ONE of the stories are. It is a group game, not a solo adventure. The player in your Tolkien example literally has 100,000+ options at their disposal. Are you suggesting they can only have fun by playing an ent? That is the only story they can come up with? I am sorry, I don't get it.

I mean, for a bunch of people who are so insistent that the written books are malleable to the point where a player should have no expectations that anything is in the game, you guys sure do like to make a list that is immutable, unchangeable, and constant. It is all guidelines, until you decide it isn't, and then it is adamant law.

I think you are being a little narrow here. The DM creates the world. They have a range. They set this range based off the books D&D publishes and their own written material. Because one DM's range is a little more narrow than another's does not make them immutable or unchangeable. It means they are trying to follow their creation's parameters, whatever those may be.

And it is all guidelines, until the DM decides it isn't. Correct. They are the ones putting the work in 90% of the time. They are the ones spending money. They are the ones that the players are asking to run the game.

I mean, in a different style of game, or a table where DM's rotate every session, sure. You are correct. But a traditional D&D game has a DM. They decide things to help facilitate the campaign and encourage the story. They provide the boundaries. It is why the adventurers don't leave Rivendell and within a mile enter New York City. They set the boundary. But, I suppose in your game, if the player wanted to insist they were from New York City because they wanted to be Snake Plissken, you would say sure. Good on you. But, most DM's have boundaries that they set. Because you don't like the boundaries does not mean the DM is being hypocritical as you suggest.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Nobody here is insisting that curated games are the only way to have good games. Great games can be had with wide options. Great games can also be had with extremely limited options. Context, context, context (again). It depends on the game and the group. Surely you can't disagree with that?

I'd believe you if you had not just used examples that painted a curated game in a good light (Michelin Star Chef, Happily married man, ect) and a wide option game in a poor light ("mass audience" chef, playboy who "plays the field", ect)

So, yeah, I can agree that good games can be had either way. That is my point. However, your side seems to constantly make the comparison where your side is this higher tier of quality. Again, and again, and again. Oofta claimed that his way created deeper worlds with more integrated histories. Other people have claimed that too many options dilute the game, ruin themes, ect ect ect.

So, if people stopped making the comparisons to paint one side as superior to the other, I'd stop calling them out on it.

I don't see what's so hard to understand about it. Text is always mutable; that's the nature of text. It's subject to all manner of interpretation, emendation, addition, deletion, etc. Whether by the hand of a DM acting alone or a DM acting with the express consent and input of all players, the text can always be altered to suit the group, because it has no power over the people using it. Rules-as-written only have as much authority as the people implementing those rules choose to grant.

Rules-in-force, which is to say the actual game as it's played, are necessarily less mutable, because, well, the decisions have all been made. "These are the written rules we're using, those are the house-rules we're implementing, this is how the DM makes rulings in corner-cases, that is the set of precedents that inform rulings, etc." The rules-in-force cover everything from the finalization of those early decision-points (again, regardless of whether they're made by the DM alone or with player input) right up through the very present moment when the game is being played (under which circumstances it is nearly always the DM alone implementing and adjudicating rules, deciding "what happens" in the fiction as a response to player decisions, and for the most part acting in those exact circumstances as the one inalienable "authority" over the game).

And this "play-in-the-moment" is actually the least mutable thing of all, because you obviously can't change what's happening as it's happening without dissolving the whole game into a miasma of meaningless, chaotic discontinuity. Once a thing has happened in the game—once the DM has made a ruling—it has to stand in order for the game to have anything like causality and an arrow of time.

Now, here's the rub: setting lore is no different from game rules. Call one fluff and the other crunch if you like, but there's really no difference between them for the purposes of this discussion. A published setting guide has no more authority over my table than a published rulebook. But once I've made the decision—and again, you can say "I" meaning the DM or "we" meaning all the players here, and the argument doesn't change—it stands. It has to. If I've (we've) decided that I'm (we're) playing the 1983 edition of Basic D&D, but with a house-rule granting maximum hit points at 1st level, that's how my (our) game world works. If I (we) decide that I'm (we're) playing a setting with no elves and no tieflings, that's how my (our) game world works. Simple as that.

Next, understand that for some DMs, creating the setting (and writing mechanics and implementing house rules) very much is tantamount to finalizing those decisions that turn the mutable rules-as-written into the immutable rules-in-force. Hell, if the setting is persistent between campaigns, every aspect of creating the setting, deciding what happens in the campaign world between campaigns, advancing the fantasy world's timeline—that's gameplay, as surely as the 0.5 seconds of present moment that it takes a DM to adjudicate what happens when a player thrusts a 10'-pole into the nozzle of an oil-trap.

And that is how we go from changeable guidelines to adamant law. Who has the authority to make these final decisions will vary from group to group depending on the social contract, but for most groups by far, the longstanding traditional norm has been that this authority rests with the DM. It doesn't have to; it just often does.

You seem to have talked around the point I was making.

If we were to bring up that in the Forgotten Realms X, Y or Z is true, we would immediately be brought to task that all things are mutable and that the game empowers us to make any change we want.

But, when DM A comes to us with a setting where X, Y or Z is true... it is unmutable, unchangeable, and the very attempt to change it is an overreach of the players.

And the players should approach the rules as being infinitely mutable... by the DM, because what the DM says is going to be absolute, so they simply should ask what the real rules are.


So, you can see the disconnect I'm talking about, right? Actual Rules? Changeable. DMs rules? Completely unalterable.

Seems an odd position to take that the rules are completely changeable... until you as the DM tell us that it isn't.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And you can't just put a idea aside for a better opportunity to use it?

Considering it can be as long as a year in-between character creations, and inspiration will hit again for that new game... you are essentially asking us to abandon the idea and never run it.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I've played with dozens of DMs over the years and am at 100% has at least one thing changed, usually multiple things. The same with everyone I've talked to, though I'm sure now that I've said that the contrarians will pop saying, "Not me! Everyone I've played with goes 100% by the rules."

It could not easily be nothing. It's possible that it's nothing, but not easily nothing.

One thing? In a game set with hundreds of thousands of rules? (After all, lore is rules too) How... exactly like I said. The game would be mostly intact.

If I tell someone that there are no elves and the Bladesinger is now just another subclass like Evoker, and they ask "who," they weren't listening to me.

So, you aren't listening to me. You are just going to make your world more shallow by not replacing the lore you removed. "It just is, no one cares why"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agreed.

Cool concept. But, if the DM was clear, like I stated they are, then why go down that character path? Save it for another campaign. It's a good idea, but just doesn't fit that specific campaign. I have friends with hundreds of character ideas. I have twenty on the back-burner right now. It is no big deal to set one aside for the correct time and place. Heck, sometimes they morph into something better when they sit and stew in the thought process for awhile.

Because that isn't how my brain works.

I get excited about an idea, it develops in my head, I'm excited to work with those concepts... I can't just turn that off. I can't just say "Man, this is going to be so cool, and now I don't care because there is a new idea that is going to be equally cool."

And, in that particular instance I had the ideas cascade while I was helping another player create their character. I went down that path and had that character almost fully written, before finding out that the DM hadn't included Waukeen, and we had to talk about how or if to include her.

I don't know... I've known a few playboys that are much happier than married men. I don't judge.

And I very clearly state both sides have fun and - neither one is "wrong."

No. You are making a judgement. A quality judgement. "Fun" is not a measure of I care about from your example, because it is beside the point for how you judged the two sides.

To this I can only explain it with these words:
That is where ONE of the stories are. It is a group game, not a solo adventure. The player in your Tolkien example literally has 100,000+ options at their disposal. Are you suggesting they can only have fun by playing an ent? That is the only story they can come up with? I am sorry, I don't get it.

The DM can only come up with one world? That is the only world they can come up with, aren't there literally 100,000+ options at their disposal?

I'm sorry, I don't get it.

I think you are being a little narrow here. The DM creates the world. They have a range. They set this range based off the books D&D publishes and their own written material. Because one DM's range is a little more narrow than another's does not make them immutable or unchangeable. It means they are trying to follow their creation's parameters, whatever those may be.

And it is all guidelines, until the DM decides it isn't. Correct. They are the ones putting the work in 90% of the time. They are the ones spending money. They are the ones that the players are asking to run the game.

I mean, in a different style of game, or a table where DM's rotate every session, sure. You are correct. But a traditional D&D game has a DM. They decide things to help facilitate the campaign and encourage the story. They provide the boundaries. It is why the adventurers don't leave Rivendell and within a mile enter New York City. They set the boundary. But, I suppose in your game, if the player wanted to insist they were from New York City because they wanted to be Snake Plissken, you would say sure. Good on you. But, most DM's have boundaries that they set. Because you don't like the boundaries does not mean the DM is being hypocritical as you suggest.

Max was talking earlier that a player should enter the game with the expectation that any or every rule in the game has been changed. So, a player should enter the game with the expectation that every rule is mutable...

Except that they should never question the rules set down by the DM, or attempt to have those rules changed.

This is a perception problem, isn't it? The Players need to go in with the idea that anything could have been changed, but they also need to go in with the idea that the rules cannot be changed because they want them to be.

And, I'm a player here recently. I've definitely put in more money than my DM. I've put in a lot of work. The DM asked me to play, not the other way around. It is much closer to a collaboration.

 

[Maxperson]

One thing? In a game set with hundreds of thousands of rules? (After all, lore is rules too) How... exactly like I said. The game would be mostly intact.

All, some, mostly, whatever. If you can't being 100% about the rules, you have to ask the DM what has been changed. It's very simple.

So, you aren't listening to me. You are just going to make your world more shallow by not replacing the lore you removed. "It just is, no one cares why"

There's no lore to replace. Elves didn't exist in my world, so that lore is simply non-existent. It won't make my world more shallow at all. To be more shallow, it has to have had lore that existed, removed. For instance, I can make the Forgotten Realms lore more shallow by removing elves, but I can't make a world that never had elves more shallow by removing elves.

Max was talking earlier that a player should enter the game with the expectation that any or every rule in the game has been changed. So, a player should enter the game with the expectation that every rule is mutable...

I never said every. Could any rule be changed? Yep. Will some rules be changed? Almost surely. Will every rule be changed? Not even close.

 

[Jack Daniel]

I'd believe you if you had not just used examples that painted a curated game in a good light (Michelin Star Chef, Happily married man, ect) and a wide option game in a poor light ("mass audience" chef, playboy who "plays the field", ect)

I didn't.

You seem to have talked around the point I was making.

If we were to bring up that in the Forgotten Realms X, Y or Z is true, we would immediately be brought to task that all things are mutable and that the game empowers us to make any change we want.

But, when DM A comes to us with a setting where X, Y or Z is true... it is unmutable, unchangeable, and the very attempt to change it is an overreach of the players.

And the players should approach the rules as being infinitely mutable... by the DM, because what the DM says is going to be absolute, so they simply should ask what the real rules are.

So, you can see the disconnect I'm talking about, right? Actual Rules? Changeable. DMs rules? Completely unalterable.

Seems an odd position to take that the rules are completely changeable... until you as the DM tell us that it isn't.

No, that's actually exactly the point I was getting at. Everything is changeable until whoever is making the final decision finalizes it and the rules/lore actually get used in play. That's not an oddity, it's a necessity. Doesn't matter whether we're talking about a house-ruled Player's Handbook, a set of entirely novel homebrew game mechanics, an altered-from-canon Forgotten Realms, or a homebrew campaign setting. (Or playing everything RAW and by the book, for that matter; that's just as much of an active decision on the part of who ever is/are the "decider(s)".)

You just seem to be drawing an arbitrary distinction between a unitary DM making those decisions and a DM and player collaborating on them.

What if a hypothetical devil's advocate were to counter your point with the following? — "Actual rules? Changeable. Group's rules? Completely unalterable. Seems an odd position to take that the rules are completely changeable… until all the players by group consensus agree that they aren't."

 

[Chaosmancer]

There's no lore to replace. Elves didn't exist in my world, so that lore is simply non-existent. It won't make my world more shallow at all. To be more shallow, it has to have had lore that existed, removed. For instance, I can make the Forgotten Realms lore more shallow by removing elves, but I can't make a world that never had elves more shallow by removing elves.

Just because you never had Elves doesn't mean you didn't remove existing Bladesinger lore when you transferred it over. But you refuse to see that, and I'm not in the mood to keep beating dead horses.

I never said every. Could any rule be changed? Yep. Will some rules be changed? Almost surely. Will every rule be changed? Not even close.

But it could be, right? Every single rule could be changed, so you can't go into a game assuming any rule is stable. Unless the DM says something, then that rule is completely unalterable.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn't.

Ah, apologies. I mixed you and Scott Christian up.

No, that's actually exactly the point I was getting at. Everything is changeable until whoever is making the final decision finalizes it and the rules/lore actually get used in play. That's not an oddity, it's a necessity. Doesn't matter whether we're talking about a house-ruled Player's Handbook, a set of entirely novel homebrew game mechanics, an altered-from-canon Forgotten Realms, or a homebrew campaign setting. (Or playing everything RAW and by the book, for that matter; that's just as much of an active decision on the part of who ever is/are the "decider(s)".)

You just seem to be drawing an arbitrary distinction between a unitary DM making those decisions and a DM and player collaborating on them.

What if a hypothetical devil's advocate were to counter your point with the following? — "Actual rules? Changeable. Group's rules? Completely unalterable. Seems an odd position to take that the rules are completely changeable… until all the players by group consensus agree that they aren't."

But that isn't what people are saying. People are saying that a player who asks for a DM's rule to be changed is rude, a problem player, ect.

Yet at the same time, that player has to be ready and willing to accept any change to the rulebooks that the DM wants to implement, because they are all changeable.

Don't you think it makes sense that if you tell people constantly that any rules can be changed, that no rule is sacred and cannot be altered... that they are going to look at the DMs rules in the same light? That they are not sacred and can be altered?

Sure, maybe you won't alter a rule mid-session, but if a DM implements a houserule, and sees it isn't working, then they can and probably will alter it mid-adventure, right? So, why can't a player come to them before the game, or even mid-adventure and ask about changing a different rule?