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

[Minigiant]

And that's kitchen sink?

Nope.
It's just expanding to match some of the desires of the new base.

Like I said, my home game has the Ginyu Force in it. Traditional races but they pose and blow up stuff.

Judge Dredd's there too.

 

[Zardnaar]

Nope.
It's just expanding to match some of the desires of the new base.

Like I said, my home game has the Ginyu Force in it. Traditional races but they pose and blow up stuff.

Judge Dredd's there too.

And in your game that's perfectly fine.

It's not like WotC can come and force people to DM.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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

They aren't very good at climbing ropes or squeezing through potholes though...

 

[Minigiant]

And in your game that's perfectly fine.

It's not like WotC can come and force people to DM.

WotC however can start convincing DMs to do more with their setting, races, and monsters. And do so in ways that are not so much work.

It's not about making kitchens sinks. ATLA was a popular theory worldbuild in D&D and it's just humans. However is a lot of different humans and has spaces for a lot of concepts

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Just a few responses:

• I have an ongoing campaign world that I've been running for decades. It has an established history. I don't want to retcon that history to fit in a nation of race X

That is pretty sweet. Have some of the same players been playing with you for all that time? Is your entire world mapped out? I picture you having some amazing giant map of it on a wall somewhere - that would be neat to share if you are up for it sometime.

• How many times can you have a "one of a kind" or a PC from a "lost tribe" before it becomes trite? In addition, every time in history something really different shows up it's usually a creature from another plane of existence that is out to kill everyone. Tends to make people a bit paranoid.

The multiverse is a big place. It's up to each table to decide what's trite or not, I suppose, and/or if "trite" even impacts the fun to be had. Tropes might be considered trite, but they can also be fun to play with. Or, wait, did you mean "before it becomes a triton"? Not sure I have a good response to that.

• I don't see a need. If a potential player can only envision their PC as one race it indicates a potential issue of inflexibility and unwillingness to make a story that I and the rest of the group have decided to tell.

You can also take the converse of this: if a DM can only envision their world with a limited number of playable races... you get the point. Please note I am not saying you personally are inflexible or unwilling. Just that the logic on this bullet point is faulty and ignores the baseline assumption that everyone comes to the table to play in good faith. Jerk players/DMs can ruin any game. You are clearly not in that category if you have had an ongoing campaign for decades.

• It's a simple preference. I personally have a hard time taking kitchen sink campaigns seriously. If I had to do it all over again, I'd probably consider axing a couple of races in my own campaign.

You of course realize you have the power right now to ax any of the races in your campaign fantasy world. A very specific plague that wipes out that fantasy race is one way. The converse is also true in that you, as the creator of the world, can add any race you want - maybe even one that fits your world's theme but won't appear in any official books until fall 2021.

• Last, but not least, I can't please everyone. For everyone that would want to play a warforged in my campaign, there may well be another person that thinks warforged don't belong in a fantasy game. If I try to please everyone that could potentially join my game it's guaranteed to fail.

Of course, no DM can please every potential player. I don't think that should be anyone's goal. Players either buy-in to the campaign vision presented by the DM at session zero or a group discussion commences that pushes the campaign vision in a different direction before the characters are even created. Or, for players that might be invited to join mid-campaign, some negotiation might take place to accommodate said player in ways that don't break the campaign world.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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

Seems like a fairly ludicrous stance when we talk about good and bad DM practice all the time on this forum.

But, you agree a DM should be open to players suggestions.


You disagree that a DM should tell a player why they ban something. What do you gain but not communicating with your player? By stating "I refuse to tell you my reasons." what have you gained. Obviously you gain something, you think the very concept is "a load of naughty word" so clearly you have some value attached to the opposite position.

What is it?

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

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.)

I see quite a bit of difference. If it doesn't fit the campaign, then there are elements that don't mesh, that grind against each other. To reach that conclusion requires some thought and examination, and it is possible to take and adjust things to fit, because there is a measure.

"I don't like it" is closer to the arbitrary. Especially since, someone who is acting on a power play and throwing their weight around is more likely to ban something they don't care for rather than their favorite things.

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

Exactly. And you have not given any indication of why any of those characters cannot be human.

So, what? They'd be more interesting if I said they were human? I mean, I just tossed concepts down, super broad strokes, and your first response was "That's boring." But somehow it would have been different if I'd said they were humans, or elves, or whatever else?

I haven't seen anyone say that.

Haven't been following the thread very closely, in my opinion, if that is the case.

One. Only changeling is not in the core rules. And you know the main reason DMs say that? It's because they cannot afford to buy additional rules. You buy them a copy of the rules you want to use and they might let you play that character.

But you are assuming that this is something the DM suddenly springs on you. That's not going to happen, any more than they suddenly tell you you are playing Call of Cthulhu. You would be told the parameters before you decide to join the game.

Great! I already own those rules. In fact, I posted a while back about a scenario where I, as a fellow DM, offer to share every book that I own or have a copy of with the DM.

So, since I already own the rule books, and that is the only problem, its resolved and the player can play what they'd like. Right?

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

No. That is not the way any DM here has set up that argument. You have the order wrong, which in any court case, is all that matters. Here let me retype it correctly:
DM: You can play A through L. 12 Races.
Player: I would like to play Z.
DM: No. You cannot play Z. I have (fill in the blank) reason.
Player: I don't agree. I want to play Z. If you don't let me, you are acting in bad faith.

That is how everyone here has set this up. You may not agree with their reasoning, but everyone has stated session zero has clear expectations. And I have not seen one person on here say "The DM doesn't need to have clear expectations. They can just decide whenever they want." Nope. Not the argument anyone has made.

You have a real bad habit of ignoring the question being asked to answer the question you want to answer.

Since you rearranged it, is it fair to assume that a you agree that a DM who puts forth that you can't play Race Z because the DM does not like Race Z is acting in bad faith?

I don't care that everyone is putting forth that the DM is being eminently reasonable and that the player is a accusing them and throwing a fit or anything else. Is a DM who bans a race for the sole reason that they do not like that race, with no other reason at all, are they acting in bad faith?

And again. I posted this earlier and you answered. I asked what it is we are arguing. Do you see what @Hussar did.

• He turned this into an argument about how the DM should allow any race.
• Then when people brought up session 0 and said the DM set clear expectations (which is what happens prior to a year long campaign), Hussar claimed the DM should listen and accept the player's choice.
• A litany of reasons was given by DM's why sometimes that doesn't work, from physiological to magical to personal. If memory serves, you accepted some of those reasons.
• Then Hussar claimed DM's just weren't using their imagination enough if they limited things. Again, reasons were given by the DM's.
• Then Hussar removes session zero from the argument and says DM's are banning a race and it surprises the player.
• The DM's explain a hundred times that is not what is happening in the argument.
• Then Hussar says DM's are banning the race for purely personal reasons. So they are being a jerk.

The DM's could go through again the valid reasons, but why? I asked the specific question because I assumed this was going to happen. He would remove session zero or keep arguing the DM is acting in bad faith.

All this, despite the evidence presented by the DM's Guide, logical and sound reasoning, and yes, personal preferences. Because in the end, D&D is a game of individual tables, and those tables all play a little differently. And that is okay. It's just not okay with Hussar.

IF

Hussar has said IF the they are banning it for purely personal reasons they are being a jerk. They have also said ad nauseum that if the DM has a different reason, a reason relating to the setting or something else, then they are not being a jerk.

Now, yes, just like a certain sub-set of this debate always wants to remind us that the Player is free to vote with their feet and leave the game, we on this side want to constantly remind people that a DM can adjust their vision, without ruining it.


I asked this once before, and you ignored me, when I put forth an option G to your little list before. Why is it that you never consider the DM altering the parameters because of the player? It isn't even listed as an option. The closest you got was a DM helping a player fit inside the parameters, but the DM has no potential to ever be convinced that they can widen those parameters?

And now the argument changes again.

No more than when you laid out your series of questions to try and find common ground.

But I guess you have a hard time extending the same courtesy to others.

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

How is forcing the DM to DM a game that will not be fun, good practice?

You know, people have put forth that a player running an idea they were not initially enthusiastic about have found that those characters became some of their favorite characters of all time.

How are DMs different? Are DMs so perfectly aware of everything that they know with absolute certainty that because they think halflings look stupid a game that includes Halflings can never be fun for them? They can never enjoy the game at all, in anyway, unless everything inside that game fits their personal taste to the T?

I mean, players can never know if they'll have fun, they need to just go forward and find fun, but DMs always act with perfect knowledge of how fun a certain game will be immediately.

No. The poor practice would be to force the DM to run something he doesn't like and won't have fun with in order for the player to play this fun concept, instead of that fun concept over there. The DM is not a slave to the players.

You know, you always default to that. "The DM is a not a slave to the players"

You hold that if a player wouldn't have fun, they will leave the game. You also hold though that you would try and work with a player. So, just the idea that they don't initially like something isn't enough to drive a player away, you might try and help them find another way.

But a DM who doesn't initially like something and the player insists is trying to enslave the DM? Immediately, no questions? Because that is always your rebuttal, "The DM is not your slave".

Guess they aren't a partner willing to compromise either, because their preferences are so absolute that bending them is the equivalent of enslavement.

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

I don't know - you're the one guessing that people shouldn't trust each other because they don't know them.

Not what I said. But nice try.

Yes, they know and trust their GM - they know he's got reasons for things that he does and can host a good game despite house rules/restrictions/etc.

The question is: why would you not extend the courtesy of trust to the GM at the game store when they pitch a game? Why insist on going outside or contrary to their pitch? What intent would you suppose that implies to the GM?

Because the DM refuses to explain or budge an millimeter. Because I have an idea I think fits, and they have shot me down, insisting that only their vision is what fits, and I just need to trust them completely with no explanation.

I mean, to listen to Max, my attempt to get them include something they don't like is tantamount to enslavement of the DM, how would you respond to that in person?

"I think X would be really cool?"

"No, that is not part of my vision."

"Why not? Can't we reach some compromise here"

"I am not your slave player, get with the program or leave."


Would you go "Oh, this is a person I should trust. They clearly can run a good game despite their rules?"


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

I can't agree with this even as a matter of principle. Not caring overmuch about players' desires and fishing for players that want to play my campaigns suits my style perfectly. I couldn't possibly care less about whether this is "good for D&D" as a whole, because I'm philosophically opposed to seeing "the hobby" as some sort of monolith that can be improved or damaged by the things individual hobbyists do. We're not all playing the same D&D. We're not all even participating in the same hobby, not really.

"No man is an island, entire of itself"

Whether or not you like the idea that we are all participating in the same hobby, we are. We are a subset within a subset of the same hobby.

And seeing your table as an island unto itself, is simply incorrect.

Fundamentally neither. Impossible to judge absent context.

There is no context. They ban the thing because they don't like it. Not because of mechanics, not because of power concerns. They don't like it, so they banned it.

So, you position is that that action is entirely neutral, with no positive or negative connotation?

Now it's interesting that you bring this up, because I think it's tightly intertwined with the opposed set of (gaming) values and (gaming) ethics at play here. The statement that quantum ogres abrogate player agency is often made, but why is it so? What's the underlying principle that makes that "bad DMing"?

I would contend that "quantum ogres are bad" is a statement that only makes sense if you hold to the a priori principle that the game setting must in some sense "persist" (that seems a less fraught way of putting it than "exist") outside of the game. If your campaign setting exists only as a backdrop for the sake of the player characters—the only part of the game-world that ever "exists" at any one moment is the part the player characters are looking at—then everything is a quantum ogre; and whether you move a city or an encounter into the players' path doesn't really impact their agency because that kind of agency—the players' ability to explore a persistent setting and possibly avoid encounters through their decisions and actions—wasn't a meaningful component of the game to begin with.

But if you hold to the persistent setting, open world, sandbox ethic—pithily summarized by the phrase, "the world is the world"—then the DM moving encounters or map locations around behind the scenes, on a whim rather than according to procedure or logic, just because the DM can (and maybe wants to conserve prep work, and thinks it's okay because the players haven't been there yet to "fix" the location), or because the DM wants the players to have that encounter, is doing something verboten, a veritable robbery of the very game itself from the players. It is only in this sense, when operating under principles like this (they don't have to be this set of ethics exactly, just something analogous), that we can say that quantum ogres really do detract from player agency.

DMs who don't make room in their world for races they didn't plan for—"No, there are no tabaxi living in the blank spaces on my world map. No, not even on that far continent I haven't fully detailed yet."—are just adhering to this same sort of persistent world ethic writ large, combined with holding the "singular vision" as a value. (And good luck convincing someone that their values are wrong!) A DM who creates worlds in this manner is no more obliged to solicit player input than a painter is obliged to let an art critic touch up their canvas. For a DM like this, the singular creation of the milieu is one of the very reasons for playing D&D in the first place; and in that case, a statement like "If I didn't think of it, it's not in my world—because then, if I added it, it wouldn't be my world anymore" doesn't just make perfect sense, it's also a literal ethical principle for that DM.

(Focusing mostly on the bold part

Okay, so you see it as an ethical principle that a DM can hold that says that if they did not think of an idea, that idea cannot exist in their world, and that if they added anything it would ruin their world because it would no longer be their world.


And I suppose you are right, that we can't really force someone to change their values, but this is one of the few times that I feel the resonse "then just write a novel" is appropriate. If you really can't allow anyone to change your world, if it must be your singular vision, then a cooperative DnD world where the players can affect the entire setting and permanently change it, is not for you.

DnD is a cooperative Team Game. "The DM is a player too" means that they are part of that team. If they don't want to play a team game and cooperate with others, then why are they playing DnD?

And maybe I'm taking it a step further than you envision. Maybe they are only against their "canvass" being touched by "the art critic" when they are in session 0, and after that the players are free to do whatever they want... but I get the feeling that someone who sees the work of world-building in the manner that they are a painter working on a canvass is going to have that "whatever they want" followed by "within the limits I allow"

After all, you said it, it isn't their world anymore if other people start putting their ideas into it.

And I guess that's a bad thing.

 

[prabe]

I see quite a bit of difference. If it doesn't fit the campaign, then there are elements that don't mesh, that grind against each other. To reach that conclusion requires some thought and examination, and it is possible to take and adjust things to fit, because there is a measure.

"I don't like it" is closer to the arbitrary. Especially since, someone who is acting on a power play and throwing their weight around is more likely to ban something they don't care for rather than their favorite things.

I don't think we're as far apart as maybe you do. There may be things that cannot be adjusted to fit a campaign, and there may be things a DM can't make himself want to run. I think a DM saying "no" to something is more in good faith than saying "yes" and resenting every moment of it.

I think someone banning things as a way to throw their weight around is more likely to ban things specifically because someone else likes them than because of their own preferences. I mean, that's kinda going Full Jackhole, innit?

 

[Oofta]

Just a few responses:

That is pretty sweet. Have some of the same players been playing with you for all that time? Is your entire world mapped out? I picture you having some amazing giant map of it on a wall somewhere - that would be neat to share if you are up for it sometime.

Yes I have a big map that I had printed up and laminated at Kinkos so I can draw on it as events change. I even have my old colored pencil version somewhere but sadly my camera phone is fubar.

Unfortunately we've moved a few times, otherwise I probably would have more long term players. My wife still puts up with my DMing after more than a quarter of a century so I must be doing something right.

...
The multiverse is a big place. It's up to each table to decide what's trite or not, I suppose, and/or if "trite" even impacts the fun to be had. Tropes might be considered trite, but they can also be fun to play with. Or, wait, did you mean "before it becomes a triton"? Not sure I have a good response to that.
...

Well, my campaign is based on Norse mythology so Yggdrasil (with a few minor tweaks) describes the planar system. In addition, unless you're Ratatoskr (the squirrel that carries messages) or a god traveling between planes is somewhat restricted. After all if you could just pop into Valhalla any time you want you wouldn't need the Bifrost bridge.

On the other hand Yggdrasil is just one tree in a forest. If I ever did a spelljammer variant campaign the ships would "fly" between trees. I've considered a forest fire campaign with refugees invading Midgard ... maybe someday. I've also considered offshoot campaigns in common grounds, but it gets weird. Does each tree have it's own cosmology? A different Thor for each tree? Clones?

I don't really have an objection to campaigns with a multitude of races, a crossroads of worlds campaign of sorts if there's justification for it.

You can also take the converse of this: if a DM can only envision their world with a limited number of playable races... you get the point. Please note I am not saying you personally are inflexible or unwilling. Just that the logic on this bullet point is faulty and ignores the baseline assumption that everyone comes to the table to play in good faith. Jerk players/DMs can ruin any game. You are clearly not in that category if you have had an ongoing campaign for decades.

Which is why it's only an indication that there might be a problem if someone is obsessed with a specific PC. I've had ... bad experiences with that. Once bitten (or multiple times) twice shy.

You of course realize you have the power right now to ax any of the races in your campaign fantasy world. A very specific plague that wipes out that fantasy race is one way. The converse is also true in that you, as the creator of the world, can add any race you want - maybe even one that fits your world's theme but won't appear in any official books until fall 2021.

Yeah, I could. There's never been a big demand for it though. Other than half dragon, half vampire with a scarf that fluttered in the nonexistent breeze of course. A couple of people have asked about drow and moved on when I explained why they weren't a playable race. I made provisions for Eladrin and a Deva in 4E.

As far as axing existing races, they have a place now so there wouldn't really be a point.

I would just like to say that one of the things I think D&D (in particular this edition) does so well is that there is so much freedom and variation of how people can and do play. My game might not be much like yours in many ways, but we're both (hopefully) enjoying the hobby.

 

[Oofta]

I think someone banning things as a way to throw their weight around is more likely to ban things specifically because someone else likes them than because of their own preferences. I mean, that's kinda going Full Jackhole, innit?

I also think this is pretty much a strawman. Do DMs really do this? I mean, I guess some DM somewhere might. Then the players leave and it's no longer an issue. Maybe it's a stickman? Might exist somewhere but so rarely that it's not relevant?

But even if they did, it still boils down to personal preference. Since I can't read someone else's mind I don't see what difference it really makes. If someone is just being an ass, I probably wouldn't want them as a DM anyway. Bad DMs are bad DMs.

 

[Maxperson]

You know, people have put forth that a player running an idea they were not initially enthusiastic about have found that those characters became some of their favorite characters of all time.

Sure. I've seen it. I've seen far more instances where they never liked it, though. I'm willing to bet that's true overall.

How are DMs different? Are DMs so perfectly aware of everything that they know with absolute certainty that because they think halflings look stupid a game that includes Halflings can never be fun for them? They can never enjoy the game at all, in anyway, unless everything inside that game fits their personal taste to the T?

The DM doesn't have the options to just switch games if they like more than one. A comparison to the player simply choosing another PC concept that they like, would be if the DM just ditched D&D and went with a different system they liked. That doesn't work.

The DM has a true dichotomy. Endure what they dislike, making the game not fun for them, or leave the game. Neither of which is an acceptable option.

I mean, players can never know if they'll have fun, they need to just go forward and find fun, but DMs always act with perfect knowledge of how fun a certain game will be immediately.

Meh. 9 times out of 10(or close to it), they'll know. They know what they like and the long shot chance that they will suddenly like and enjoy that which they dislike isn't worth the gamble. Better to just choose a different PC concept that they will like.

You know, you always default to that. "The DM is a not a slave to the players"

If you want to force the DM to run a game that he isn't going to like...

You hold that if a player wouldn't have fun, they will leave the game.

If there is no other way, they should be the one to leave the game. The needs of the many outweigh the one.

You also hold though that you would try and work with a player. So, just the idea that they don't initially like something isn't enough to drive a player away, you might try and help them find another way.

Absolutely. The game is about everyone(including the DM) having fun.

But a DM who doesn't initially like something and the player insists is trying to enslave the DM? Immediately, no questions? Because that is always your rebuttal, "The DM is not your slave".

There is no "initially." They don't like it. This longshot idea you've concocted isn't something that should ever be relied upon. The vast majority of the time what will happen is that the game will start and run for a while, the DM will not like it after all, and have to end the campaign early. That's a far, FAR worse choice than just having the player pick something else fun to play.