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

[Remathilis]

? So now we are saying not allowing a race: a race with an independent culture, probably a sovereign nation or empire, and a race that might consist of .1% of the population is the same as playing a female?
If someone were to come up to me and say that, I would ask about Eowyn, Arwen, and Galadriel. If they insisted that we were recreating the Fellowship to see how it plays out, I might give it a go. If someone came up to me and said, my world is based off: Y The Last Man, so you have to play a female. I would give it a try.

Gender is as much a part of a PC's identity as race, class, background or alignment.

But the response was to the fact that the DM can ban anything for his personal preference. If the DM doesn't want certain races, he can ban them based on his preference. Ditto with classes (often under the guise of "low magic" settings) or alignment (no Evil is hugely common, even in AL). Background is also up to DM whim (no nobles, no far travelers). People here have argued the DM has the right to ban any and all of these things...

Why not gender? Why not sexual orientation? Why not left-handedness? Why not certain skin tones? Certainly, a DM has the right to ban or restrict those things based on preference? It could be he wants to emulate a certain genre (say, 300 Spartans or Amazons), or setting (ancient Egypt wouldn't have many Caucasians)? Maybe ask PCs are asexual because the DM doesn't want to deal with pc/npc romance? Hell, let's toss names into that mix as well: no Bob's in Feudal Japan.

Are we comfortable with the DM being able to set thier preference for any and all elements of a PC?

 

[Oofta]

Kind of a tangent, but would it be okay if someone pitched an Amazonian campaign with all women?

I'm not sure I'd personally be interested, because I don't feel like I could do a female PC. But would there be anything wrong with the campaign pitch?

 

[Scott Christian]

Gender is as much a part of a PC's identity as race, class, background or alignment.

But the response was to the fact that the DM can ban anything for his personal preference. If the DM doesn't want certain races, he can ban them based on his preference. Ditto with classes (often under the guise of "low magic" settings) or alignment (no Evil is hugely common, even in AL). Background is also up to DM whim (no nobles, no far travelers). People here have argued the DM has the right to ban any and all of these things...

Why not gender? Why not sexual orientation? Why not left-handedness? Why not certain skin tones? Certainly, a DM has the right to ban or restrict those things based on preference? It could be he wants to emulate a certain genre (say, 300 Spartans or Amazons), or setting (ancient Egypt wouldn't have many Caucasians)? Maybe ask PCs are asexual because the DM doesn't want to deal with pc/npc romance? Hell, let's toss names into that mix as well: no Bob's in Feudal Japan.

Are we comfortable with the DM being able to set thier preference for any and all elements of a PC?

Please read what I wrote. I specifically stated if someone wanted to run Y The Last Man, they have every right to. That means the PC's are female. Why is that a problem? It is their table. Players will say, yea or nay, and then play or not.

And as for your slippery slope argument, why not? If a DM proposes that everyone is to be asexual, guess what, they might find a player base. Imho, that DM will have no players. If a DM, during session zero, insists everyone is of one skin tone, okay. They can. It doesn't mean that players will play. If a DM insists on restricting names, they can. But again, they might also find they have no players.

Just like if someone restricts Hussar from playing a dragonborn or tabaxi, he can not play. He can conclude that the DM and the table is not for him. Or he could play as something else, and see what the next campaign is like. Or he could ask to DM one campaign and introduce everyone to the world's of tabaxi and dragonborn and loxodons. That is an option as well. Those players could also stop showing up. Or fall in love with the new setting. It is all individual. No right way. No wrong way.

 

[Remathilis]

Please read what I wrote. I specifically stated if someone wanted to run Y The Last Man, they have every right to. That means the PC's are female. Why is that a problem? It is their table. Players will say, yea or nay, and then play or not.

And as for your slippery slope argument, why not? If a DM proposes that everyone is to be asexual, guess what, they might find a player base. Imho, that DM will have no players. If a DM, during session zero, insists everyone is of one skin tone, okay. They can. It doesn't mean that players will play. If a DM insists on restricting names, they can. But again, they might also find they have no players.

Just like if someone restricts Hussar from playing a dragonborn or tabaxi, he can not play. He can conclude that the DM and the table is not for him. Or he could play as something else, and see what the next campaign is like. Or he could ask to DM one campaign and introduce everyone to the world's of tabaxi and dragonborn and loxodons. That is an option as well. Those players could also stop showing up. Or fall in love with the new setting. It is all individual. No right way. No wrong way.

Less slippery slope and more "where does the DM's ability to control PC creation actually end"? Right now, it appears to be between "the DM can restrict any part of the character creation process" and "the DM can give players pregenerated characters with backstory and personality traits included" as the two fenceposts.

 

[prabe]

Less slippery slope and more "where does the DM's ability to control PC creation actually end"? Right now, it appears to be between "the DM can restrict any part of the character creation process" and "the DM can give players pregenerated characters with backstory and personality traits included" as the two fenceposts.

In some contexts (cons come to mind) even your far fencepost is acceptable, I think. As far as other situations, I think there's a lot of variation from table-to-table (and even at the same table--I was part of a long-standing table that did a bunch of tightly-themed things for a while, and that also did some kitchen-sink things for a while; some of the tight theme decisions came from the players and caught the GM off-guard).

 

[Oofta]

Less slippery slope and more "where does the DM's ability to control PC creation actually end"? Right now, it appears to be between "the DM can restrict any part of the character creation process" and "the DM can give players pregenerated characters with backstory and personality traits included" as the two fenceposts.

Assuming they are clear up front before people join the game, the DM can set up any rules they want. Nobody is forcing players to join their game. There is no slippery slope, if the DM cannot get people to join their game they may want to reconsider their restrictions.

It's actually fairly common for intro or one-shot games to hand players pre-gen PCs.

 

[Scott Christian]

Less slippery slope and more "where does the DM's ability to control PC creation actually end"? Right now, it appears to be between "the DM can restrict any part of the character creation process" and "the DM can give players pregenerated characters with backstory and personality traits included" as the two fenceposts.

So this is the argument? Where does the DM control over character creation end?

It doesn't. I have seen tables that hand players their character sheet - complete with backstory. In fact, D&D even encouraged it in their 4e Wednesday night sessions. If a new player showed up, the DM was encouraged to give them a character that "helped round out the party."

But don't mistake my point. The DM can do this. I personally do not think they will have players. Even aesthetically I find it a stretch. But, here is another quote from Tasha's:

"DM's Tools
Each player has options when it comes to choosing a character race, class and background, though you may restrict certain options that are deemed unsuitable for your campaign."

 

[Remathilis]

So this is the argument? Where does the DM control over character creation end?[/I]

In essence. I was curious if there was a line (personal or otherwise) where a DM shouldn't be allowed to intervene or interfere with chargen. A "This is MY PC, not yours!" threshold.

Clearly, there is no official limit on what a DM can do, only how much a player is willing to tolerate or buy into. Also interestingly is that personal taste seemed to get squeemish at limits on areas that have "real world" implications; most players might not balk at a "no orcs" campaign but less so at a "no girls" game, even if it didn't affect them personally.

 

[Oofta]

In essence. I was curious if there was a line (personal or otherwise) where a DM shouldn't be allowed to intervene or interfere with chargen. A "This is MY PC, not yours!" threshold.

Clearly, there is no official limit on what a DM can do, only how much a player is willing to tolerate or buy into. Also interestingly is that personal taste seemed to get squeemish at limits on areas that have "real world" implications; most players might not balk at a "no orcs" campaign but less so at a "no girls" game, even if it didn't affect them personally.

I wouldn't want to play an all evil PC campaign either. People have personal preferences, what's your point?

There's a vast array of players, DMs and campaigns. That shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone, nor is it a bad thing.

EDIT: a main reason I wouldn't play a LOTR campaign is because I'd be concerned that it would be a railroad. I'm not "squeamish" about anything, I just have preferences.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

In essence. I was curious if there was a line (personal or otherwise) where a DM shouldn't be allowed to intervene or interfere with chargen. A "This is MY PC, not yours!" threshold.

Clearly, there is no official limit on what a DM can do, only how much a player is willing to tolerate or buy into. Also interestingly is that personal taste seemed to get squeemish at limits on areas that have "real world" implications; most players might not balk at a "no orcs" campaign but less so at a "no girls" game, even if it didn't affect them personally.

The problem here really is not the limitation, it is what might imply about the person issuing it. 'No female characters' might indeed imply that the GM is a virulent misogynist, but then again, this could just be a GM wanting to run a historically accurate themed game focusing on some specific subset of people who were all male. But the issue with virulent misogynist is not the character limitations they issue; they might easily allow making female characters and I still wouldn't want to play in their game or indeed associate with them in any way.