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

[prabe]

The sticky wicket here is the idea of DMs acting in bad faith. This is, to put it simply, a very difficult thing to picture in the context of this discussion. There are lots and lots of ways for DMs to act in bad faith (excessive fudging, railroading, illusionism, bait-and-switch, gotchas, "rocks fall," magical realm, etc. etc. etc.), but leaving elves or warlocks or whatever out of a campaign setting simply isn't one of those ways. If your thesis is some flavor of "DMs acting in bad faith are bad," again, no arguments here—but curating a setting or a ruleset isn't bad faith, and it's really really hard to imagine how it could be in a situation that isn't cartoonishly absurd.

So, it is presumably possible for a DM to decide something isn't allowed in their setting. Or at least not to include it in the base writeup. It would, I believe, be acting in bad faith for that DM not to make that information available to the players--I agree this is highly unlikely, shading to implausible, but A) it would be acting in bad faith and B) it seems some people commenting on this thread have in fact encountered DMs behaving exactly that way. It would also arguably be bad faith to pretend to listen to the player who wanted to play something "off the list" and to have no intent of ever saying anything other than "no"--this seems slightly more plausible to me. Making the list available to the players, being willing to explain your decisions t your players, being willing to work with your players to find things player and DM can enjoy in the campaign--those are all good faith actions.

 

[Jack Daniel]

The lesson, as always? Elves, like pepperoni, suck.

Pepperoni needs to be in a layer underneath the tomato sauce.

Gino's East of Chicago, represent.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Pepperoni needs to be in a layer underneath the tomato sauce.

Gino's East of Chicago, represent.

And elves, of course, need to be in a layer 6' underneath the ground.

 

[Jack Daniel]

So, it is presumably possible for a DM to decide something isn't allowed in their setting. Or at least not to include it in the base writeup. It would, I believe, be acting in bad faith for that DM not to make that information available to the players--I agree this is highly unlikely, shading to implausible, but A) it would be acting in bad faith and B) it seems some people commenting on this thread have in fact encountered DMs behaving exactly that way. It would also arguably be bad faith to pretend to listen to the player who wanted to play something "off the list" and to have no intent of ever saying anything other than "no"--this seems slightly more plausible to me. Making the list available to the players, being willing to explain your decisions t your players, being willing to work with your players to find things player and DM can enjoy in the campaign--those are all good faith actions.

Your first scenario does sound implausible, and if (B) is true and players here have encountered that (has anyone? genuinely asking), whew, red flag, that's a campaign bound for r/rpghorrorstories.

Your second scenario is, I'll admit, entirely plausible. I agree: leading a player on, even for a moment, is a dick move and DMs shouldn't do it. But it's also (unfortunately) pretty much impossible to tell whether a DM who agrees to hear a player out has every intention of giving the player's idea due consideration or not. I'm not sure what else needs to be said about that.

(That said, neither of these things are quite the same thing as "the DM curating the setting/rules." Still not sure how a DM could ever world-build or game-design in bad faith, without traipsing into the realm of the obscene.)

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Your first scenario does sound implausible, and if (B) is true and players here have encountered that (has anyone? genuinely asking), whew, red flag, that's a campaign bound for r/rpghorrorstories.

Your second scenario is, I'll admit, entirely plausible. I agree: leading a player on, even for a moment, is a dick move and DMs shouldn't do it. But it's also (unfortunately) pretty much impossible to tell whether a DM who agrees to hear a player out has every intention of giving the player's idea due consideration or not. I'm not sure what else needs to be said about that.

IME (both personally observed, and anecdotal), the biggest disconnect comes when you have a DM, often inexperienced, who does not have a written list or a well-defined idea of what is and isn't allowed.

So you get the situation where, to the DM, it seems that the rules are "established" and "common sense," but to the player, the rules seem "arbitrary" and "ad hoc."

For example, the DM might specify a setting that (in their experience or opinion) already has some sort of limit, while the player might not have the same understanding of that particular setting. That's where communication and/or having written guidelines can smooth things out.

 

[prabe]

But it's also (unfortunately) pretty much impossible to tell whether a DM who agrees to hear a player out has every intention of giving the player's idea due consideration or not. I'm not sure what else needs to be said about that.

I agree. I also suspect it's difficult to tell whether a player is genuinely willing to work with a DM to find something that works with a given setting/campaign.

 

[Oofta]

You do realize you aren't the only person I have conversations with, right? That maybe I'm also referring to things said by @Maxperson , @Scott Christian , @Jack Daniel , or any number of other people?

I have never said my way is better. None of them have said that their way is better that I have ever seen. I can't help it if you read things into posts that are not there.

I was responding to a very specific accusation

...
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.
,,,

It works better for me, I have no clue what your worlds are like or if your players care. So again: there is no one true way. My way is not "better". It may or may not be different. I've been to some high end restaurants that I thought were pretty awful. I'm sure a lot of people would turn up their nose at some of my favorite foods.

So you could just accept my clear and simple statement or continue what making accusations that are simply false.

 

[prabe]

IME (both personally observed, and anecdotal), the biggest disconnect comes when you have a DM, often inexperienced, who does not have a written list or a well-defined idea of what is and isn't allowed.

So you get the situation where, to the DM, it seems that the rules are "established" and "common sense," but to the player, the rules seem "arbitrary" and "ad hoc."

For example, the DM might specify a setting that (in their experience or opinion) already has some sort of limit, while the player might not have the same understanding of that particular setting. That's where communication and/or having written guidelines can smooth things out.

I can imagine that exact sequence of steps. I don't think "unintentional bad faith" is a legitimate sequence of descriptors, but I think it comes pretty close to covering it.

 

[Scott Christian]

Yeah I find pepperoni too greasy, personally, and prefer linguisa when I can get it, or other spicy sausage alternatives.

Ooh... I have never had linguisa on a pie before, but now I want it.

I figure Dragonborn are kinda like pineapple and ham, some old timers hate it, but it’s on most pizza menus for a reason. Difference being the expectation in 5e D&D is much stronger, so it’s more like a restaurant that has had ham and pineapple on the menu for years, and you’re buying pizza from them for a party, and you refuse to put them on even one half of a pizza, even though there will be plenty of other pizza for everyone else, just because you don’t like it.

This thread is awesome. Dragonborn analogous to pineapple and ham! I couldn't make this stuff up. But it is a solid analogy. I agree, 5e's PHB has them in for a reason, so most DM's that just use the PHB should let them in, unless you have a curated world.

 

[Scott Christian]

Because quite often we've seen this.

"Play how you want, I'll continue playing my artisanally crafted soup with only the finest and most perfected ingredients in a perfectly made bowl, and you can continue with your cupboard stew boiled in a tin pot. As long as we both have fun right?"

You see. You are mixing up two different arguments here.

The food argument is you saying that "more options is better." And the food argument counters that by saying sometimes specific menus are better.

The play how you want argument is you saying the DM should let players play what they want and make it work (in most circumstances). The counter to that is, DM's do, as long as it fits the preconstructed and clearly defined expectations.

Two different arguments. Two different rebuttals.

• more is better
• DM should allow players to play what they want