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

[Hussar]

I did though as thats my preference.

My preference is towards the AD&D races with whatever extras I add or subtract for any particular campaign.

But, again, you are not simply vetoing something based solely on your preference though. You aren't saying, "Well, I don't like halflings, so no one can play halflings."

You are saying, "Well, I'm looking for a specific feel for this campaign and in order to achieve that, here is the palate of races that I have pre-approved."

 

[Hussar]

You can't have it both ways.

?

There is no both ways here. I'm assuming the DM is being honest about their preferences. "I say no because I don't like what you like" is being honest. It's still bad DMing practices. I realize I said "bad faith" there in that second quote which is where it might cause confusion. My bad. I used the wrong phrase there.

 

[Zardnaar]

But, again, you are not simply vetoing something based solely on your preference though. You aren't saying, "Well, I don't like halflings, so no one can play halflings."

You are saying, "Well, I'm looking for a specific feel for this campaign and in order to achieve that, here is the palate of races that I have pre-approved."

I'm always after a specific feel though.

Say I run the phb +4. Those 4 races extra are probably going to be a big deal.

If you allow everything in nothing is special really.

 

[Al'Kelhar]

... "I say no because I don't like what you like" is being honest. It's still bad DMing practices...

Surely, this is entirely context-dependent, though?

See, I think what people are reacting badly to is this perception that you are being categorical about something which is very subjective.

I am in the fortunate position of having played D&D for almost 4 decades with a bunch of people who are close friends. For most of that time, I have been the primary DM, through many campaigns. Because of that, my table has a bunch of unspoken assumptions about what kind of campaigns I run - including the races that I will or will not permit.

Before session 0, I will set out a bit of a background to the campaign and some PC building rules like what races, classes, subclasses etc. are available. They've been pretty consistent over the years, although with some tweaking here and there as both rulesets change and my ideas for the campaign change.

In that background document, I don't tell the players why I haven't permitted certain races (or classes or anything else). I just say, this is what there is.

Now, I may have reasons. There are always reasons, although they might be indeterminate or ill-founded, poorly thought through, or some version of morally wrong in some deep philosophical sense. (Not that I think they are - I do have my reasons, and I personally think they're good ones. YMMV). But ultimately, whether you might choose to judge my reasons "wrong" or not is irrelevant.

The thing is, at my table, with my players, we're all happy.

Who are you to say that I'm a bad DM?

So, with utmost respect, don't be telling those of us who choose not to engage in lengthy discourse with our players about what races are permitted that we're either "engaging in bad DM practices" or "acting in bad faith". Cause, y'know, them's serious fighting words from someone who is un-ironically concerned about DMs being "bullies" or "dicks".

Cheers, Al'kelhar

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I'm always after a specific feel though.

Say I run the phb +4. Those 4 races extra are probably going to be a big deal.

If you allow everything in nothing is special really.

Is it the races of the world that need to be special or is it the PCs that need to be special? Or maybe a little of column A and a little of column B?

By the way, unless you have 100* players each playing a different race/subrace, you won't have "everything in". As DM, you control what the PCs encounter in the world.

*assuming ~100 race/subrace options for the PCs... I haven't bothered to actually count how many there are now...

 

[billd91]

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.

AAaaaaannnd the GM pitching the game at the shop has no reason to trust the players bellying up to the table either. Is there a point to this?

 

[Chaosmancer]

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

That does seem to be an incredibly thin line to draw though.


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

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

Wow, really? "If you aren't actively driving players away from the game, you are still in the safe zone" seems like a very wide margin to give the DM.

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.

Let us set aside the practicality of ever truly understanding the real intentions of a fellow human being.

Philosophically, is banning something just because you don't like it good or bad DMing?


People argue all that time that "Quantum Ogres" are bad DMing that remove player agency, yet, a player can never truly know that it has been done. Unless they can read the DM's mind or their notes, so why do we bother discussing it?

Because if we as DMs and a community all agree that something is wrong, it at least creates a kind of pressure.

And, we have these discussions all the time when discussing DMing, all the time there are things a DM can do that the players will never know, and we discuss them. Why is this so different?

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

The thing is, at my table, with my players, we're all happy.

Who are you to say that I'm a bad DM?

So, with utmost respect, don't be telling those of us who choose not to engage in lengthy discourse with our players about what races are permitted that we're either "engaging in bad DM practices" or "acting in bad faith". Cause, y'know, them's serious fighting words from someone who is un-ironically concerned about DMs being "bullies" or "dicks".

Isn't this a bit of a red herring? Of course everyone's table is happy. No one is going to come on here and say "Well, my players are miserable and think I'm a horrible DM for what I do."

But if we are talking about general good practices for DMs, then instead of getting caught up in "Well, I made this decision and my players are happy, so this similar thing can't be wrong" doesn't help us.

Let's cut through to a basic question. Is a DM who bans something for the sole reason that "I don't like it" engaging in poor practice? They can still make a good game, their players can still be happy, everyone can be completely satisfied with the status quo, I don't care.

Is that action poor practice?

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

AAaaaaannnd the GM pitching the game at the shop has no reason to trust the players bellying up to the table either. Is there a point to this?

Trust them with what?

I don't know what your point was in emphasizing the trust between lifelong friends, lovers, and colleagues in the first place was, so I don't know why you are suddenly dismissing it either.

 

[Al'Kelhar]

..
Let's cut through to a basic question. Is a DM who bans something for the sole reason that "I don't like it" engaging in poor practice? They can still make a good game, their players can still be happy, everyone can be completely satisfied with the status quo, I don't care.

Is that action poor practice?

Ah, so this is a question of what is good and poor practice by some objective standard, then. As opposed to, what works at the table to make an enjoyable game for everyone there. Nice to know DM'ing is subject to objective assessment by the hive mind.

Look, saying "every DM should be open to players' suggestions" is about as unobjectionable a statement as there can be; but also completely useless, as all motherhood statements are.

Saying "it's objectively bad practice for a DM to not advance reasons to their players about why a particular race is not permitted in their campaign", is just, well, a load of naughty word. It's a load of naughty word for my table, and that's the only table that matters to me. It's not as though I - or any other DM in the world - am being assessed against ISO 4623 Professional DM'ing Standards (2020 Ed) by the National DM'ing Complaints Tribunal.

If you've actually had a bad experience with a particular DM who's arbitrarily caused you great hurt and resentment by not letting you completely realise your amazing character concept, the solution is - as has been explained several times already - you and that DM don't get to game together. Damn. In the meantime, perhaps people should get down from their horses, get out of their trenches, and realise that this discussion is about feelings, and not objective measures of DM adequacy. Because there is no such thing.

Cheers, Al'kelhar

 

[prabe]

That does seem to be an incredibly thin line to draw though.

Seems like a pretty bright one to me. "Because I can" is purely a power play, banning something just to throw my weight around. "Because I don't like it" is about aesthetics and/or taste, it doesn't have to be a power play at all; it's not wildly dissimilar from "It doesn't fit the campaign I want to run." (There is a presumption there will be other campaigns.)

 

[Minigiant]

Here's the thing I think that should be said.

It is not good for D&D to create a situation that because DMS have to do more work than the players that they should not care about the player's desires and simply fish for players that match their desires (or browbeat players into acceptance)

The DM's desire are more important. However it is not a good idea to foster an idea that the DM shouldn't care about the player's. That just feeds the powermad and creates the bitterness from past experiences seen here.