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

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

That's Forgotten Realms lore. Not gonna apply other settings anyway.

 

[Jack Daniel]

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.

Then replace "a DM's rule" with "the group consensus's rule" and "that the DM wants to implement" with "that the group wants to implement," and you'll get where the other side is coming from.

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?

Well, no, precisely because it's published rules that aren't sacred and table rules that are (for a certain value of "sacred"—obviously sometimes rules do get changed between sessions or even mid-session if they aren't working, and that's not at all what I'm talking about here). What makes them "sacred" in this limited sense is that everyone is using them—that one way or another, they've been agreed upon.

So again, try to think of this not in terms of the mean old DM dictating the rules, and reframe it as a standing group consensus. (For many tables, the group consensus is that the DM dictates the rules, and the rest of the players are basically cool with that, but we can equally envision a more democratic setup where all of the players vote on whether to implement any house-rules or not.) In this situation, why can't a player come to the game and propose some new alteration? Obviously, nothing is stopping a player from making the proposal. But if everybody else is already happy with the way things are, that proposal isn't likely to get any traction. If everybody else collectively has veto power and chooses to exercise it, the proposed change isn't happening.

A situation where the DM has been invested by the group with exclusive veto power is nothing more than a special case of the previous, more general situation.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Just for the heck of it, I went and looked at the "lore" from Tasha's. It's ONE LINE. It says, "Originally created by elves this tradition has been adopted by non-elf practitioners, who honor and expand on the elven ways."

So I could literally replace those three instances of elf and replace them with <insert race here" and have as much depth. I literally laughed out loud when I saw this "depth of lore" you are talking about.

So, with about 10 seconds of work, "Originally created by Tabaxi this tradition has been adopted by non-Tabaxi practitioners, who honor and expand on the Tabaxi ways."

And now my new world has as much depth. Or the player could just accept that it's just another wizard subclass like Evoker.

 

[Oofta]

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.

First, I don't see anyone calling curated campaigns "better"*. On the other hand people that have curated campaigns have been called tyrants, dictators, crazy control freaks, greybeards holding back the hobby and so on.

As usual you are twisting my words (shocker). For my game, my campaign, I find that it makes more sense for me personally and yes helps me create a deeper campaign. For me. That has absolutely nothing to do with your campaign or anyone else's. For that matter, a lot of groups don't really care all that much about depth or history. There is no wrong way if you and your group are getting out of the game what they want.

So I will repeat yet again. Do what makes sense for you and your campaign. If a kitchen sink works for you, great. If a curated world works better, fantastic. If it varies from one campaign to the next, go for it.

*Admittedly I skim this subject now, it's just gone around and around never ending. I happened to catch that you threw false accusations without actually notifying me because you left the "@" sign off.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

In this case, if the DM was not clear on their expectations, they should work with you or just let you do what you want. Timelines can be tricky beasts. Most tables I know, before embarking on a serious campaign that will take awhile, have a session zero where the DM lays stuff out. But to not lay it out means the players have free range in my opinion.

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.

You don't get it? Here, I will explain it:

The difference is the player puts in one hour. The DM may have put in hundreds. So there is a difference. The player creates a backstory. The DM comes up with a history of the world. So there is a difference. The player aligns a race with a class with a background. The DM aligns all the races with all the classes. So there is a difference. The player writes, what, on average, 200-300 words. The DM can write as many as 100,000. So there is a difference.

The fact that you don't get that, and insist the player has as much right to create the world as the DM almost makes it seem like you want to play a different game, not D&D.

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.

These two things are not the contradictions you imply. The rules are mutable. The DM can tell the table which rules are in use and which ones are not. If a DM said to you: "Hey, we are going to use the flanking rule, so if you flank you get advantage." That is not the DM being a contrarian to telling the players their are no elves. It is the same thing.

And, as I have said, a player can ask: "Wait, I am a rogue, so that flanking rule makes my power a bit mundane. I don't like it." And then they can discuss it. Have a table vote. Or let the DM decide. Or agree with the rogue. It doesn't matter. But, in the end, it is the DM's world; this goes for rules, lore, everything. And (we agree on this), if the DM is clear and concise up front, then there should never really be an issue.

 

[Older Beholder]

First, I don't see anyone calling curated campaigns "better"*.

Your very first post in this thread described any world not curated as ‘silly’

So I'm a bit torn here. On the one hand, as a DM I don't want a silly cartoon universe. Even limiting as I do(there aren't that many "monstrous" humanoids running around either) it still feels too crowded.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Cool concept. But, if the DM was clear, like I stated they are, then why go down that character path?

As I said earlier to others: Inspiration IRL sometimes just doesn't work that way. Sometimes one idea is just so compelling, it covers the ground like a gorram kudzu and nothing else can grow. I wish it didn't work that way; I genuinely wish that I could always spin out seven character concepts and feel equally inspired to play all of them. Sometimes it does work that way, which is great! It means if an irresolvable conflict arises, I can just try another idea instead. Sometimes it doesn't though, and no matter how awesome it would be, no matter how much I try to MAKE another idea catch hold, it won't work. I have no control over when or even whether this happens. It just does.

Think of it like writing poetry. Sometimes a particular image catches your mind and won't let go. If you asked a friend for commentary and they really didn't like that image, it's extremely difficult to just rip it out and replace it with some other "path." Not just because of the structural constraints, but because when a certain turn of phrase just HITS you, everything else pales in comparison.

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.

And when this happens, that's awesome. It doesn't always happen for me. Or maybe I do have a stable of 20 character ideas, but after hearing the pitch, one specific one immediately leaps out in front of all the others, distinguishing itself so thoroughly that nothing else feels right anymore. It's not a rational thing, inspiration. It doesn't obey tidy logic rules like "well BEFORE you heard the pitch, you thought all these ideas were great, so you should still feel good about them NOW, right?"

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 only story they can come up with" =/= "the only story they'll roleplay well." And even if it did, most of us aren't saying that the concept must be PERFECTLY TO THE LETTER identical. But to re-use the Waukeen-revering-Sorcerer example, it really would completely change the concept into something not only radically different but dark and evil if you substituted a demonic being in place of Waukeen. I'm not the original person, so I can't say what compromises they'd accept, but "oh you can totally have your wealth-loving patron, but they're EVIL and VIOLENT and DEBAUCHED" would absolutely be several steps too far for me. Perhaps a deity that does exist can be tweaked slightly (e.g. Erathis, goddess of invention and civilization, doesn't need much tweaking to be a goddess of wealth too). Perhaps a heterodox church of an existing deity can be employed (e.g. a church that views Moradin as a female deity, still associated with crafts, metals, wealth, etc.)

You seem to be presenting this as though the player in question cannot accept anything but one single, incredibly specific thing, and even a single dot out of place would ruin it, and that's just not true. What's being said is that there can be situations that are somewhat specific, and where some attempts at compromise (like turning a good deity of wealth into an evil demon) would fall flat. That doesn't mean every single parameter definitely has to be unchanged, because, as all of us have said repeatedly at this point, ACTUAL compromise requires ALL parties to be at least willing to CONSIDER changes, even if no changes actually happen, even if true compromise proves impossible.

I think you are being a little narrow here <snip> 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.

And, as the above indicates, I think you are likewise being excessively narrow here about our position. As for the rest: Yes, none of us have questioned this. (Though let's be honest, making a point out of "they're the ones spending money" is a bit specious; the kind of people that go do DMing are the kind who spend money on books anyway. Nobody is demanding money out of the DM's pocket here.) But I think you point out an important consideration here, a very chicken-and-the-egg question: Who's asking who?

Up to this point, it's very very much been presented--even by you!--as the DM offering to run games for others. Now you're presenting it as the players requesting the DM run a game for them. Those are rather different situations, with rather different expectations. I'm not really okay with letting things slide back and forth between the two as if they were equivalent. At the very least, if the DM is doing this because the players asked her to, I would ABSOLUTELY expect a hell of a lot more room for player-choice-freedom within the setting--because at that point it isn't JUST "DM vision" involved, the players are clearly asking that DM because they want some particular thing, and the DM agrees to offer that particular thing. Conflating "DM offers what they built, players choose to take it or leave it" with "players ask DM to run something for them, DM proposes something" WILL result in faulty arguments if not called out and addressed.

 

[Remathilis]

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

Depends. Will I get the opportunity next time I roll up a PC in your game? Will I have to wait years before I get that opportunity? Will your next game have the same restrictions as this one? Will I have to find a new gaming group to do it?

 

[Hussar]

It's basically irrelevant if they can get there or not.

DM might just want a focused game on that area. Having PCs that are local to the area helps build up their attachments.

As I said I directly told them there's in game benefits. The viking wizard didn't get access to Nurian scrolls, wizard academies etc.

The Nurian druid was tied to the setting, had help tapping the leylines and had more contacts.

I think we're largely in agreement here. So long as the character is embedded into the setting, the rest isn't all that important. The Viking Wizard from the Far Away Land who's been in the setting for 2 weeks? Yeah, screw him. He can't be bothered to work within the parameters of the game, I've got zero sympathy. Now, a Viking Wizard who grew up in the city you're starting the campaign in? Who is part of a delegation that has settled here for several years? That has numerous contacts around the city? Ok, no problems whatsoever. Step right up, the game is this way sir.

 

[Chaosmancer]

First, I don't see anyone calling curated campaigns "better"*. On the other hand people that have curated campaigns have been called tyrants, dictators, crazy control freaks, greybeards holding back the hobby and so on.

As usual you are twisting my words (shocker). For my game, my campaign, I find that it makes more sense for me personally and yes helps me create a deeper campaign. For me. That has absolutely nothing to do with your campaign or anyone else's. For that matter, a lot of groups don't really care all that much about depth or history. There is no wrong way if you and your group are getting out of the game what they want.

So I will repeat yet again. Do what makes sense for you and your campaign. If a kitchen sink works for you, great. If a curated world works better, fantastic. If it varies from one campaign to the next, go for it.

*Admittedly I skim this subject now, it's just gone around and around never ending. I happened to catch that you threw false accusations without actually notifying me because you left the "@" sign off.

Don't see anyone?

Man, I guess you didn't even read my post. Or maybe you've gotten so convinced that I'm a liar that you ignored the fact that Scott Christian posted a comparison that put the curated world as a "Michelin star chef" and a "happily married man"

Or maybe you aren't aware that a Michelin star is one of the most coveted and highest ranked accolades in the culinary world.

I mean, I can take those examples and build them out, but they all put forth the same thing. The curated world was always "better". It was more prestigious, higher quality, ect ect.

Heck, as ModernApathy has pointed out, you have made accusations many many many times



But. I'm just a lying troll that twists everyone's words, so I don't know why I'd even bother to try and explain it. You won't take anything I say seriously anyways.