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

[Oofta]

I don’t really recall anybody in this thread having argued that they don’t like playing fantasy races themselves. (I’m sure there are some)

But it mostly seems that people enjoy playing weird fantasy races, they just don’t like other people playing those fantasy races.

If someone has a game that limits races I have no issue with it. I'm playing in a campaign like that right now with no reservations.

 

[cbwjm]

If someone has a game that limits races I have no issue with it. I'm playing in a campaign like that right now with no reservations.

I think a large difference between players is that some of us will ask what's in whereas others expect everything to be in.

 

[Zardnaar]

Do you have a reason for that? And are you (thinking of another thread and another poster) changing the rules after the initial character pitches so that characters who were submitted in good faith you are now saying are banned because they aren't using PHB races/classes?

PHB only "because this game is intended to be newbie friendly and we don't want to bury new players in stuff or unbalance things much" is a decent reason. "Because I say so and it's my game" is on the other hand roughly the equivalent of a kid saying "we'll play it my way because it's my ball".

Doesn't matter what the reason is. Might be the only book the DM has or they've designed their world around those 12 races.

As I said no reason is needed though.

 

[Hussar]

Creating fiction requires aesthetic choices, and I guess you can simplify motivations of such choice to 'I don't like it'. And that is a perfectly good reason for not including that element.

If you want to write fiction, go write a short story.

No.

So basically... “I don’t like the same things you like in D&D so I must be acting in bad faith”.

What gives you the authority to judge me for my own game and my own group?

You’re making a bad faith arguement in that you are telling people, without knowing anything about them, their group dynamics, and their actual experiences, what would make their games better.

Nope. "I don't like the same things you like in D&D and I'm the DM, so, my preferences trump yours for no other reason than because I'm wearing the big daddy pants" is acting in bad faith.

So if I advertise a game as phb only newbies welcome I'm a bully if I only use the phb?

Are WotC being bullied by making all the races optional?

They tried everything core didn't work.

Again, nope. Do you have a reason for only using the PHB races? Such as, you want to keep the game simpler for newbies to learn? Ok, fair enough. Decent enough reason. And certainly NOT barring them simply because you didn't like them.

Note, one more time, and I'll type slowly for the hard of reading because this is the third time I've had to explain this to you @Zardnaar, banning races can be done for perfectly fine and acceptable reasons and the DM is perfectly reasonable for doing so. However, "You can't play this character because I don't like it" is, to me, not a reasonable reason and is basically the DM overstepping his or her authority to enforce his or her preferences on someone else.

Imagine the converation:

Player: I'd like to play X race.
DM: No, you can't be X race.
Player: Why not?
DM: I don't like X race.

You might think this is kosher. I do not. I think, in this case, the DM needs to suck up his or her ego and let the player have a go. Forcing your preferences on other people is never a good thing.

 

[Oofta]

Or to be

A slightly less simple concept is "with great power comes great responsibility". Also that "Using authority to do or deny something to someone when you know they won't like it for no real reason is being a dick and possibly a bully."

So let's see.

Someone that limits races is a maladjusted king/dictator/tyrant crazed control freak who is also being a dick and a bully?

Good to know.

 

[Hussar]

So let's see.

Someone that limits races is a maladjusted king/dictator/tyrant crazed control freak who is also being a dick and a bully?

Good to know.

Wow, do you actually read the posts you respond to or just the fiction that you create in your head?

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Let's see, his wife, and multiple life long friends and work colleagues who have been gaming together for years.

Wonder why they might trust him more than the guy they just encountered at the game shop twenty minutes ago.

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

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.

And we still disagree on it.

But that was the line of thought that we were talking about the game "growing out of" not making a curated world. So, your point is still moot.


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

I think context does make A vague. But, I posed it that way on purpose. One DM might make the list because they don't want a player playing a centaur because they think it will slow the game down too much or leave the player out in many circumstances. The other DM might not want a centaur because they are not in their "curated" world. And another might just think it is stupid. But in the end, does the reason really matter? (Real question)

Yes, intent matters. I'm kind of shocked that you feel the need to even ask that question. I could give some shocking analogies, but frankly, I feel it is self-evident.

I don't watch the show. So I do not know the backstory. What I do know are the scenes that I have watched (including a clip prior to them actually becoming a show), showed players and a DM having fun - with traditional races, i.e. the PHB. So my point was it is incorrect to make sweeping generalizations about the player base being bored with the PHB's standard array. Critical Role was evidence of this.

And again, Minigiant wasn't making that claim with the intent that any given group of players would be bored.

Since pizza seems to be an analogy these days, I would say that the majority of America would be bored if all that was offered was pepperoni pizza. Can you disprove that by showing a household that enjoyed pepperoni pizza? Or maybe even a high school pizza party involving hundreds of people?

No. Because that shows a small subset of the main point.

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


I know @Hussar is being a bit blunt, but I find I can't really disagree with their core point.

I remember earlier on in 5e, people were talking about getting rid of the Champion Fighter, and making all fighters have some sort of mechanic like Superiority Dice. One of the big pushbacks against that were "Why get rid of something other people enjoy"

And, frankly, would we say that the DM is acting in good faith if they banned other things solely for personal taste?

"You can't play a Champion Fighter, I personally find them boring."

"You can't learn Fireball, I don't like that spell"

"You can't use Greataxes, I don't like them"

"You can't take Alert, I don't like it"




Sure, in theory a DM can ban whatever they want for any reason, but if that reason is just because they can ban it, is it really a good reason at all?

 

[prabe]

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

I'm not sure "I don't like that race" or "I don't like that class" are exactly frivolous reasons. Banning a player's favorite race because it's that player's favorite race is emphatically an asshat maneuver.

I don’t really recall anybody in this thread having argued that they don’t like playing fantasy races themselves. (I’m sure there are some)

But it mostly seems that people enjoy playing weird fantasy races, they just don’t like other people playing those fantasy races.

I'm willing to, but I'm at least as likely to play a human as not, and I'm more comfortable figuring out characters I can understand and relate to than ones I cannot. OTOH, I don't care what other people play when I'm playing (though I ban some races as a GM).

I remember earlier on in 5e, people were talking about getting rid of the Champion Fighter, and making all fighters have some sort of mechanic like Superiority Dice. One of the big pushbacks against that were "Why get rid of something other people enjoy"

And, frankly, would we say that the DM is acting in good faith if they banned other things solely for personal taste?

"You can't play a Champion Fighter, I personally find them boring."

"You can't learn Fireball, I don't like that spell"

"You can't use Greataxes, I don't like them"

"You can't take Alert, I don't like it"

Sure, in theory a DM can ban whatever they want for any reason, but if that reason is just because they can ban it, is it really a good reason at all?

There is a difference between "because I don't like it" and "because I can." One is capricious, the other is not.

 

[Zardnaar]

If you want to write fiction, go write a short story.



Nope. "I don't like the same things you like in D&D and I'm the DM, so, my preferences trump yours for no other reason than because I'm wearing the big daddy pants" is acting in bad faith.



Again, nope. Do you have a reason for only using the PHB races? Such as, you want to keep the game simpler for newbies to learn? Ok, fair enough. Decent enough reason. And certainly NOT barring them simply because you didn't like them.

Note, one more time, and I'll type slowly for the hard of reading because this is the third time I've had to explain this to you @Zardnaar, banning races can be done for perfectly fine and acceptable reasons and the DM is perfectly reasonable for doing so. However, "You can't play this character because I don't like it" is, to me, not a reasonable reason and is basically the DM overstepping his or her authority to enforce his or her preferences on someone else.

Imagine the converation:

Player: I'd like to play X race.
DM: No, you can't be X race.
Player: Why not?
DM: I don't like X race.

You might think this is kosher. I do not. I think, in this case, the DM needs to suck up his or her ego and let the player have a go. Forcing your preferences on other people is never a good thing.

No you just say that race is unavailable.

You don't need to provide a reason either.

First thing I ask DMs what do you allow. I don't ask why.

 

[Jack Daniel]

If you want to write fiction, go write a short story.

RPGs aren't stories, but they are fiction. Their elements can be governed by similar aesthetics.

You might think this is kosher. I do not. I think, in this case, the DM needs to suck up his or her ego and let the player have a go. Forcing your preferences on other people is never a good thing.

"Pro-DM Authority" Side	"Pro-Collab" Side
Attitude Towards DM Authority	Good with it	Not at my table, and not at yours either! Stop oppressing me and my game with how you DM your game!
Attitude Towards Collab	Not at my table, but if it works for you, cool.	Good with it

Sure, in theory a DM can ban whatever they want for any reason, but if that reason is just because they can ban it, is it really a good reason at all?

If the player doesn't vote with their feet, it's good enough.

But, yet again (and again and again…), who's to judge? How can you deem a DM's aesthetic preferences less valid than any other reason? How can you get into a DM's head to know for sure that any reason for doing anything does or doesn't boil down to dickish whim? You can't, so this whole line or argument is moot before it gets off the ground.