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

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

A: Probably not, though IMO this is a "there is as yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer" situation. It is possible to create a world just to be petty, after all. I'm not saying it happens any more than "rarely," but I've at least heard people (proudly!) claim to do just that.

B: Definitely being unreasonable. E.g., if I was given a list of options that have previously been played in this setting, I would not presume that that meant "these are the only things allowed," I would presume it meant "there's backstory to these things that you should know about."* If the DM then fails to take up the issue until very late in the game-prep process, I would feel justified in being annoyed about that.

C: This one can be tricky. I do feel like not even letting the player make a case is a bad sign. It isn't strictly unreasonable, but it reflects a lack of important respect from the DM. E.g. it's been repeatedly said that the focus here is often on something close to pick-up play. I would feel a distinct lack of trust if the DM shot down an idea I had without even hearing about it--I would worry that that means they won't listen later, when we actually play. However, it IS possible to have some ideas that are sufficiently extreme that no explanation would work, so I don't want to make it sound like literally 100% of all ideas EVER must be given a hearing. "Listen, I want to play a deity" is an example of something just too extreme unless I've been given a reason to think the player can approach something like that seriously.

D: Very likely not unreasonable, but not guaranteed so. As noted, sometimes, DMs take perverse glee in shutting down player ideas they don't like, especially when those ideas depend on aesthetics the DM finds immature, unrefined, or melodramatic. In the vast majority of cases, though, it is perfectly reasonable for a DM to say no. I certainly would prefer that this DM say "no but" rather than just a flat "no," and I certainly am of the opinion that it is better DMing practice to try for "no but" rather than flat "no," but it isn't an unreasonable action inherently.

E: Extremely reasonable, and the approach I genuinely think is best for all parties involved. The exact compromise will (and should) vary from one situation to another. Sometimes only a minor tweak is needed. Sometimes it's a major overhaul. Since the player is the one asking for special consideration, it behooves them to be prepared for greater concessions, but neither side should go into that discussion expecting to change nothing whatsoever unless the discussion breaks down.

F: The player is the one being unreasonable most of the time here. If the DM has made a good-faith effort to meet in the middle and the player still isn't happy with that, they should politely bow out and look for a game compatible with their interests. Compromise doesn't always work. I do believe it SHOULD be sought, IF it is in fact possible. But sometimes it isn't, and any player asking for special dispensation SHOULD go into that conversation prepared for the possibility that it won't be possible--but hoping, nonetheless, that it will be.

*As an example, all Clerics native to the Tarrakhuna, the home region of my Dungeon World campaign, are of the Safiqi faith. There is no other major organized religion in that area. If someone wanted to play a Cleric--we don't have one, so it's implicitly open--they would either need to build a Safiqi character, or sell me on their character that comes from some other land with a different religion. Likewise, all Wizards in the region are members of the Waziri Order, which also trains various professional-level non-mages like lawyers and accountants. If someone wants to play a Wizard, they should know what that will entail. Druids and Shamans are closely linked, Rangers and Slayers are known for hunting dangerous beasts in the wilds, etc.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

No, all of those outside the Goliath are inside 5e's PHB. This is what I talked about in my other post. Where is the debate? According to the post I responded to, players would be "bored" if the DM restricted race. Here, the most popular show used only races from the PHB, except for one anomaly. My question was: Did they bore their audience because they didn't have an aasimar and firebolg and tiefling? No, they did not. Were the players at the table bored? No, they were not. Was the DM bored? No, he was not.
What I present is a clear example of the opposite of what minigiant said. Please show me a group of bored players that are bored because of their limited racial choice.
I present evidence. Then you counter with: but half aren't even human. Again, shifting sands. I never said the world had to be human. I was responding to a broad sweeping generalization that players are bored if they only use the PHB. (One of the "5-6 settings" that minigiant talks about.) He says it pushes people to warforged and catfolk really quickly. Why? He says because they are bored with the setting. I responded with countering evidence.
This is why I wanted clarification on what we are debating. Minigiant says players are bored with the traditional 5-6 settings. So (and this is implied), the DM is not doing it right and boring his players, if he/she limits the race.
Am I misreading?

 

[Minigiant]

You have crossed the line sir. Deep dish Hawaiian is the reason to have both, deep dish and pineapple/ham on a pizza!

You'll mess up the savory, salty, sweet ratios in deep dish, man.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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?

Interesting example, given that campaign 2 has:

1 Tiefling
1 custom Tiefling (cold resistance instead of fire resistance)
1 Firbolg
2 Humans
1 Goblin
1 Half-Orc
1 Aasimar.

Seems that the conclusion is that players (and spectators) enjoy watching a variety of different races, including representation of “exotic” races.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Sure I do. I just don't accept your assumptions to be part of the subclass. Not one word of what you said is written or implied. All that is said is the one sentence I quoted. Yes, assuming that elves get it due to their ability with magic is reasonable, but then so is assuming that human war wizards developed it. Your reasonable assumptions are not superior to other reasonable assumptions.

It is implied, but whatever Max, I guess nothing matters if it isn't written down in the books.

Oh wait, that doesn't matter either because the Dungeon Master changes anything they want. So... I guess none of DnD matters unless the DM says it does.

I'm getting really sick of these arguments where it must be written down in the book, but then that can be changed, but it can't be changed in this way because that's too hard, but changing it in this way is so trivially easy.

Because 1d4 is better than 1d6 or 1d8?

Sure Max, weapons deal more damage. Thank you for that cutting insight. I'd ask you if you don't think they might develop use of their claws for those times they are, oh I don't know, unarmed, but you see, it isn't specifically written down that they might use their claws in combat. So, I guess you win Max. The books don't tell me otherwise.

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

Don't be obtuse. That is not an accurate picture of this discussion.

The discussion as a whole? Of course not.

At the time that was being posted though we had people like @Maxperson arguing stringently that the DM was an Ultimate Authority who could not be questioned. It took me nearly three days of arguing to finally get him to say that he would compromise with his players, and that he was just talking "generally"

(And I'm aware I'll yet again get insulted and derided for twisting words, but at this point I'm kind of getting sick and tired of this whole thing)

So, those posts were talking about that position. The subset of the "curated world" position who believed that the only reason a DM needed to ban something was because they were the DM. You might even be aware that posters who were taking that more extreme position started getting banned from the thread. Like Pming and Zarianofbabel


But, I guess I'm just too dumb and obtuse to remember that there were more extreme people at both sides of the spectrum, and that was the conversation happening at the time.

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

Setting aside they are all obvious and boring ideas, you are being paranoid. The only one that would be likely to been banned is the changling from a non-Eberron game.

Wow, love how I could throw two words together and you can tell they are obvious and boring. What was that entire discussion before about how a player could do anything with a human?

And I'm not being paranoid. I'm literally going off of the conversations from this thread. Plenty of people put forth "Core four or Bust" or"PHB or Nothing" both of which will cut off at least two if not all of those examples.

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

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.

So, I think everyone agrees there is a problem at B and C.

At this point after pulling teeth for a week, it seems that everyone is on board with D and E. D is a bit mutable, but seeing as how we are talking generally, and people will bring up half-dragon vampires and the like, I can assume that the listening part includes enough discussion to be reasonable.

F is tricky, because without knowing why the conflict is occurring it is hard to say who I would agree with. A is also tricky for me, because there is little context, it is also in a vaccuum. Making a list isn't a problem, how you use it might be.


But, I also just noticed something. There is no option for the DM to change the parameters. Why is that? I mean, you listed at least five different scenarios, but you did not list the potential that the DM might change the parameters they laid out. The closest is working with the player to fit inside the parameters. So, if we assume that is G on the list, why do you disagree with that potential?

No, all of those outside the Goliath are inside 5e's PHB. This is what I talked about in my other post. Where is the debate? According to the post I responded to, players would be "bored" if the DM restricted race. Here, the most popular show used only races from the PHB, except for one anomaly. My question was: Did they bore their audience because they didn't have an aasimar and firebolg and tiefling? No, they did not. Were the players at the table bored? No, they were not. Was the DM bored? No, he was not.
What I present is a clear example of the opposite of what minigiant said. Please show me a group of bored players that are bored because of their limited racial choice.
I present evidence. Then you counter with: but half aren't even human. Again, shifting sands. I never said the world had to be human. I was responding to a broad sweeping generalization that players are bored if they only use the PHB. (One of the "5-6 settings" that minigiant talks about.) He says it pushes people to warforged and catfolk really quickly. Why? He says because they are bored with the setting. I responded with countering evidence.
This is why I wanted clarification on what we are debating. Minigiant says players are bored with the traditional 5-6 settings. So (and this is implied), the DM is not doing it right and boring his players, if he/she limits the race.
Am I misreading?

Okay, but you are missing a lot of different factors here.

First of all, you are ignoring the fact that the entire game is run by and played by professional actors. That is a big factor in people's entertainment.

Secondly, many of the cast members (if memory serves) would say that the game they are playing is their first time playing DnD. I know Matt played before, and Liam was the one who proposed the game, but I'm pretty sure that Sam played for the first time when he made Scanlan. Might have been the same for the others.

Minigiant on the other hand, seems to be a person who, like a few of the people on this thread, have been playing DnD consistently for decades. They might be bored playing an elf, because they've been playing for 20 years. They've seen dozens of elves.

Finally, Tal'Dorie, the world, is not restricted in the same sense. Between Exandria and Wildemount, I think the majority of the options are there explicitly.

 

[billd91]

Interesting example, given that campaign 2 has:

1 Tiefling
1 custom Tiefling (cold resistance instead of fire resistance)
1 Firbolg
2 Humans
1 Goblin
1 Half-Orc
1 Aasimar.

Seems that the conclusion is that players (and spectators) enjoy watching a variety of different races, including representation of “exotic” races.

Or that player/spectator engagement can involve, but may not depend, on "exotic" races. After all, the non-exotic human presence has doubled without diluting any of the fun.
Honestly, I think if Matt Mercer had chosen to run an all human campaign for some reason, I suspect his players would still be all over it - and so would the viewers. Moreover, I suspect his players would trust him to still run a fun game no matter what they had to do to fit in with it.

 

[Jack Daniel]

At the time that was being posted though we had people like @Maxperson arguing stringently that the DM was an Ultimate Authority who could not be questioned. It took me nearly three days of arguing to finally get him to say that he would compromise with his players, and that he was just talking "generally"

So, those posts were talking about that position. The subset of the "curated world" position who believed that the only reason a DM needed to ban something was because they were the DM. You might even be aware that posters who were taking that more extreme position started getting banned from the thread. Like Pming and Zarianofbabel

Well… @Maxperson isn't wrong. At a "curated world" table, a DM can most certainly ban something merely because they feel like it. I believe I already made that point. … Back on page 64, as it turns out.

It's not that I disagree. It's that I fail to see how one kind of justification can meaningfully differ from another. What makes "I don't personally like elves" different from "After careful consideration, I've judged that elves don't fit the theme of my setting", "there aren't any elves mentioned in the lore of this published setting we're using", "I personally believe that the elf mechanics aren't balanced", "we're playing a game that doesn't have rules for elves," or even "it's Tuesday and because I feel like it"? How can anyone deem any of these more or less acceptable, especially when some of them are based on what fundamentally amount to artistic rather than rational considerations?

The claim here is not that all DMs and tables work like this. It's that for tables that do, that's valid.

 

[Scott Christian]

Interesting example, given that campaign 2 has:

1 Tiefling
1 custom Tiefling (cold resistance instead of fire resistance)
1 Firbolg
2 Humans
1 Goblin
1 Half-Orc
1 Aasimar.

Seems that the conclusion is that players (and spectators) enjoy watching a variety of different races, including representation of “exotic” races.

I completely agree. Again, I was debating the "revelation" that players are "bored" with the standard 5-6 settings, aka, the PHB. So my season one evidence has nothing to do with them playing other characters and not being bored. It has to do with them playing traditional characters and not being bored.

 

[Minigiant]

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?

I'm not saying old school bores players.
I'm saying DMs who just cut and paste the same things over and over with no expression of inspiration by definition is Not Fresh.

It's just like the other thread about traditional races and dwarves. Lazy, uninspired, or uninspiring DMs are ruining dwarves for many players. So a large percentage of dwarves are played by goofs and hardcore power gamers.

Bad DMs are ruining the player base for good DMs.
Bad Players are ruining the DM base for good players.

 

[FrozenNorth]

No, all of those outside the Goliath are inside 5e's PHB. This is what I talked about in my other post. Where is the debate? According to the post I responded to, players would be "bored" if the DM restricted race. Here, the most popular show used only races from the PHB, except for one anomaly. My question was: Did they bore their audience because they didn't have an aasimar and firebolg and tiefling? No, they did not. Were the players at the table bored? No, they were not. Was the DM bored? No, he was not.
What I present is a clear example of the opposite of what minigiant said. Please show me a group of bored players that are bored because of their limited racial choice.
I present evidence. Then you counter with: but half aren't even human. Again, shifting sands. I never said the world had to be human. I was responding to a broad sweeping generalization that players are bored if they only use the PHB. (One of the "5-6 settings" that minigiant talks about.) He says it pushes people to warforged and catfolk really quickly. Why? He says because they are bored with the setting. I responded with countering evidence.
This is why I wanted clarification on what we are debating. Minigiant says players are bored with the traditional 5-6 settings. So (and this is implied), the DM is not doing it right and boring his players, if he/she limits the race.
Am I misreading?

You are misreading.

This is what we know about Exandria: the following are playable races: humans, elves, dwarves, half-elves, dragonborn, kenku, goliaths, tieflings, goblins, half-orcs, custom tieflings (with cold resistance), genasi, tabaxi, tortles, and halflings.

The fact that the players in Campaign 1 looked at the races and decided to play 3 half-elves, two gnomes, a goliath, a dragonborn and a human. After characters are chosen, it is meaningless to say that the DM could have restricted racial choice to PHB + goliaths and it would not have made a difference, because you are not restricting choice: you are taking the choices that were made as a starting point.

It is worth noting that in the world the players play in, they ARE interacting with all the races described, which are treated as a normal part of the world.