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

[Hussar]

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.

DM's who are excluding options for frivolous or purely personal reasons are acting in bad faith.

 

[Zardnaar]

DM's who are excluding options for frivolous or purely personal reasons are acting in bad faith.

Not really. There's no such thing as bad faith in D&D as long as you communicate that.

Basic D&D 4 races and classes. That's not bad faith hell wotc is giving that away.

You're essentially trying to browbeat people into playing your way.

 

[Oofta]

DM's who are excluding options for frivolous or purely personal reasons are acting in bad faith.

It's a game. Aren't all reasons purely personal?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

DM's who are excluding options for frivolous or purely personal reasons are acting in bad faith.

Setting are created for mostly personal reasons. If I'm bored with the traditional Tolkien races and want to create a setting without them, then that's a personal reason. And a perfectly valid one.

 

[Zardnaar]

Setting are created for mostly personal reasons. If I'm bored with the traditional Tolkien races and want to create a setting without them, then that's a personal reason. And a perfectly valid one.

This. I don't care if you want to use everything that's purely your personal preference. I kind of look at it as tiers.

1. Very basic. 4 races, Elf, Dwarf, Human, Halfling
2. Adds the AD&D options
3. Anything in PHB
4. Mixed it up but still has a somewhat finite options. Might have 15-20 races or replace PHB ones.
5. Anything goes.

Right now I'm at 4.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Yup, and in doing so is acting in bad faith.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yup, and in doing so is acting in bad faith.

So WotC is acting in bad faith with the basic rules?

 

[Hussar]

Not really. There's no such thing as bad faith in D&D as long as you communicate that.

Basic D&D 4 races and classes. That's not bad faith hell wotc is giving that away.

You're essentially trying to browbeat people into playing your way.

Nope.

I'm saying that DM's who force their personal preferences on the players for no other reason than, "I just don't like X" are poor DM's and are acting in bad faith.

Open up the mind and be accepting of other people's preferences makes for better DM's and better games.

 

[Zardnaar]

Nope.

I'm saying that DM's who force their personal preferences on the players for no other reason than, "I just don't like X" are poor DM's and are acting in bad faith.

Open up the mind and be accepting of other people's preferences makes for better DM's and better games.

You forgot an IMHO on that.

You're basically saying if we disagree with you it's badwrongfun.

It's up to the DM if a player even gets to play at their table.

 

[Hussar]

So WotC is acting in bad faith with the basic rules?

This is a complete misreading of what I said.

Is WotC limiting to 4 races because of a personal preference? They don't like the other races so have banned everything but those four races? No? Then they are not acting in bad faith.

Is a DM limiting races for OTHER reasons than simply personal preference? Then that DM is not acting in bad faith. Is the DM solely banning race options because the DM doesn't like that particular race? Then yes, that DM is acting in bad faith. The DM is forcing his or her preferences onto the players and displays a lack of open mindedness about other people having preferences.