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

[Remathilis]

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.

For what it's worth, I tried to walk the tightrope between "legit reason" and "virtulent hatred" just to avoid that connotation. (I also didn't want to imply that banning a race = mysoginist) But technically, even that DM has the power to make that ruling and not justify it with anything. If course, players have the right to walk as well. But it would be interesting to see if anyone would defend that DM's right based solely on "DM personal preference".

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

Yes, I would agree. People do get squeemish when things cross into the real world. It is very much how the story is set up, the trust in the DM, etc. I feel like it's the same way with movies producers. I mean Quinten Tarantino has made (many think) great stories that cross real world boundaries, even though his movies are obviously fiction/borderline gritty fantasy without the elves and dwarves.

Personally, for D&D, I like anything goes. It's too much of a cluster already to try and tighten that ship. I am also a big believer that rules should reinforce a game's setting. D&D's rules kind of do this by implying anything goes. But, it doesn't change my evaluation that a DM can limit stuff - whatever it may be. (And they are not a jerk for doing so.) If the elemental realm of fire has vanished, and wizards can no longer produce fire magically, then there are no fireball spells. A DM can say that, and I am fine with it. As a player, I am not going to get bent out of shape and say the only way I can have fun is to follow this one character creation path of a fire wizard. I'm not going to call them pissy or say they are being unreasonable. I'm just going to trust the DM and build something that fits their world.

Of course, the above would never happen because session zero would outline the expectations prior to me building my character.

 

[prabe]

For what it's worth, I tried to walk the tightrope between "legit reason" and "virtulent hatred" just to avoid that connotation. But technically, even that DM has the power to make that ruling and not justify it with anything. If course, players have the right to walk as well. But it would be interesting to see if anyone would defend that DM's right based solely on "DM personal preference".

I know of at least one table where the (all-male) people at the table have rules about no female players and (GM excepted) no cross-gender characters. That I can tell, the players aren't virulent misogynists. While I ... disagree with the rules, I have no problem with the table establishing them.

 

[Oofta]

For what it's worth, I tried to walk the tightrope between "legit reason" and "virtulent hatred" just to avoid that connotation. (I also didn't want to imply that banning a race = mysoginist) But technically, even that DM has the power to make that ruling and not justify it with anything. If course, players have the right to walk as well. But it would be interesting to see if anyone would defend that DM's right based solely on "DM personal preference".

But ultimately it still comes back to personal preference. If it's a DMs preference because they're a misogynist then they would still be a misogynist whether or not they set a limitation on gender.

 

[Zardnaar]

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?

PHB says race and classes optional.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Which one of these "I don't like it" statements is valid, if any?

A. I don't like it because if you are a centaur then many of the dungeons and boat travels and mountain climbing adventures I have might get you left out for several sessions.

lol what? You know horses can go on boats, and climb up mountains, right? Especially horses as small as a 5e centaur.

B. I don't like it because if you are a loxodon then every single town you walk into you will become a circus freak show or worse yet, be hunted by groups that see your tusks as secret ingredients and aphrodisiacs.

That's some wild nonsense that the DM could easily just not do. Sounds like an edgelord DM, or one that is just not very imaginative. Either way, not a compelling reason.

C. I don't like it because in the world I have set up the race you have chosen is the villain. They have burnt, murdered and pillaged for hundreds of years. People will not trust you. People will not like you. And in most cases, for this adventure set in a war torn city (thanks to your race), people will try to arrest you or worse, kill you. And no one will care.

Gross. And an edgy exaggeration of how people actually behave. Sure, such things happen IRL, but even in 1940 you could go shopping in plenty of places the US with a German accent without getting arrested (lol wut) or physically attacked, and if you were attacked, there was a solid chance that someone would object. If you also happened to be an obviously dangerous person, in a group of Americans and Brits who are also obviously dangerous? Chances of your being bothered are pretty low.

D. I don't like it because you are magically trapped on a continent where everything is set up. The DM has set up the kingdoms, the people, everything. They have not seen outsiders for hundreds of years. The only strange things they see are creatures. Creatures that look like your tabaxi, in the form of a weretiger. The DM explains they can't just make a race living somewhere in the unknown.

Arbitrary nonsense, and bad worldbuilding practice, unless you're maybe running a one shot or short limited campaign for strangers. Most people don't play with strangers as their primary play experience, so most of the discussion will naturally not take that scenario into account. It's neither the norm nor the ideal. But even when I ran DnD for kids at the public library, before Covid, I'd consider it a weakness as a worldbuilder and a storyteller to intentionally create a world scenario in which I "can't" add anything to the region of play.

E. I don't like it because personally, it doesn't fit within my sensibilities. It just seems silly.

Only acceptable in very tightly themed campaigns, and even then I'm gonna rib the DM a bit for not being able to past their own associations and see tabaxi as more than anime catgirls. I won't be a jerk about it, but the occasional joke will be made. In a less tightly themed game? Nah. Get over it. It shouldn't matter that you dislike tabaxi. If a person can't have fun running a game with a single race they dislike, i don't trust that person to even be fun to be around, much less run a game well.

I didn’t ban any races (except for yuan-ti, aarakra and winged tieflings for being overpowered).

None of those are at all overpowered, but okay.

I know of at least one table where the (all-male) people at the table have rules about no female players and (GM excepted) no cross-gender characters. That I can tell, the players aren't virulent misogynists. While I ... disagree with the rules, I have no problem with the table establishing them.

Virulent is an irrelevant qualifier. It'd take some pretty weird circumstance for a "no female players" rule to not be misogynist.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

PHB says race and classes optional.

5e PHB Citation? Not seeing it.

 

[Oofta]

Gross. And an edgy exaggeration of how people actually behave. Sure, such things happen IRL, but even in 1940 you could go shopping in plenty of places the US with a German accent without getting arrested (lol wut) or physically attacked, and if you were attacked, there was a solid chance that someone would object. If you also happened to be an obviously dangerous person, in a group of Americans and Brits who are also obviously dangerous? Chances of your being bothered are pretty low.
.

Tell that to the people of Japanese descent who were rounded up and put into concentration camps.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Tell that to the people of Japanese descent who were rounded up and put into concentration camps.

Oh, you mean the people covered under my statement in the god damn post you quoted that such things do happen IRL?

 

[prabe]

Virulent is an irrelevant qualifier. It'd take some pretty weird circumstance for a "no female players" rule to not be misogynist.

I might say "sexist" rather than "misogynist" but that's skittering awfully close to tomayto-tomahto territory and I'm not going to argue in favor of table rules I don't agree with (though, as I said, it's their table).