EDIT - see next post.
Last edited:
D&D 5E What is the appeal of the weird fantasy races?
- Thread starter Monayuris
- Start date
- Status
EDIT - see next post.
Just to clarify, I could write
I think the real revelation is that many DMs don't realize that many other DMs are being both passionless and uncreative and boring many players by allowing exotic races AND not displaying anything of interest in their worlds.
It's one thing to say "Here's my world, play anything you want".
It's another it 50% of DMs are displaying the same boring generic kitchen sink settings and doing nothing interesting with it.
That will drive people to curated campaigns that have thought and creativity put behind them very quickly.
The thing is I would never and have never seriously written anything like that. Allowing any race does not automatically grant interest, passion or creativity to a campaign any more than a curated campaign. I don't repeatedly talk about how some day people will "realize" that not running games the way I prefer is likely to be boring.
When I talk about how to run a game I talk about how I prefer to run a campaign, what works for me and why. I try to emphasize how there are many ways to run campaigns, that DMs should do what makes sense to them. That believing in your world, being invested and passionate about it is more important than allowing anything people ask for. Is the DM's vision anything goes? Perfect. A curated world with a very limited number of races? Great. Something in between? Have fun.
Scott Christian
Hero
You have crossed the line sir. Deep dish Hawaiian is the reason to have both, deep dish and pineapple/ham on a pizza!
ewww or why some of us don't....LOLYou have crossed the line sir. Deep dish Hawaiian is the reason to have both, deep dish and pineapple/ham on a pizza!
Scott Christian
Hero
I feel I have addressed every point you have made. And then, (in my view), the argument changes. Maybe if you could clarify the argument, I could respond with less sarcasm. (And I do apologize for that. I was trying to write a program and it kept not working, and I took out my frustration by popping over here and directing at you. I'm sorry.)
So, could the player side please clarify? At what point is the DM being unreasonable?
A. Creating a list of playable and non-playable races
B. Not being clear on the expectations (race) and then changing them after the player has made their character
C. Being clear on the expectations of what is allowed (race) and not listening to the player's idea for their character because it falls outside the parameters of what was allowed
D. Being clear on the expectations of what is allowed (race), listening to the player's idea, but then deciding it does not work
E. Being clear on the expectations of what is allowed (race), listening to the player's idea, working with the player to come up with an alternative that would work within the parameters
F. Being clear on the expectations of what is allowed (race), listening to the player's idea, working with the player to come up with an alternative that would work within the parameter, yet the character still disagrees on the expectations, and wants to build their original character
I realize some people might disagree with only one or all of them. But I am curious where the struggle for us to understand each other is. Thanks.
Last edited:
Scott Christian
Hero
Best pizza place on earth is just south - Michael's, in LB.
God I miss that place!
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Long Beach is part of Los Angeles, County, so I get to claim that one, too.Best pizza place on earth is just south - Michael's, in LB.
One day I'll have to go out that way and try it.Scott Christian
Hero
I am not a fan of this sweeping generalization (boring players), nor am I a fan of it being a "revelation."
It is anecdotal. It is like me saying, out of the three groups I play with, not one player cares about being restricted in race or class. In fact, the only person that cares is the DM. So the revelation is players are fine with restrictions.
To say an old school world bores people is silly.
Critical Role, assumed to be the most popular show for D&D had this as their party's base:
Three half-elves
Two gnomes
One human
One Goliath
Did they "bore" their fanbase?
EzekielRaiden
Follower of the Way
Well, uh, you kind of left out the dragonborn sorcerer who was a founding member of the group, though his player left the show due to personal issues unrelated to the show itself. (Him and the human artificer who temporarily replaced one of the gnomes, but that's not strictly relevant.) Exandria is a lot of things, but "old school" in what options you can play isn't one of them--unless you mean "old school" in the sense that Gygax let people play what they wanted as long as they had to grow into their power.
Besides, of the characters you listed? All of one belongs to the classic "core four." If we add in the dragonborn, half the (original) party isn't even human-related, with four (dragonborn, gnome x2, goliath) clearly deviating from the human norm. Even with every member--former and current--you're looking at something where only 2/9 characters were human and not one person played an elf, dwarf, or halfling. And the second group is even further off, having included at some point two humans, two tieflings (one now deceased), a firbolg (who replaced the dead tiefling), a halfling, and an aasimar. All of two proper humans, and three characters of the "old-school" style.
Not the best example. Especially when Critical Role also included stuff like a custom "Blood Hunter" class.
doctorbadwolf
Heretic of The Seventh Circle
The very first point I made was that no, it doesn’t require any work. The work is optional.
There isn’t a gaping whole if we don’t know who invented bladesinging, or if there isn’t a god that created dwarves and gave them their work ethic.
- Status
Similar Threads
