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

[Al'Kelhar]

Damn even I would think twice on using it on 4th level PCs.

Yeah, well, when you open the locked iron door in the basement of the ruined alchemist's lab - the one very clearly marked "HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT TO BE WORN AT ALL TIMES" - you kinda get what you ask for.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yeah, well, when you open the locked iron door in the basement of the ruined alchemist's lab - the one very clearly marked "HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT TO BE WORN AT ALL TIMES" - you kinda get what you ask for.

Fair enuf then.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The potential player knows the deal, and can either accept it, or move on.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with option C; Use your words and engage the DM in conversation about whatever it is you’d like added.

 

[Minigiant]

We might be talking past each other here...

If a DM states up front what the restrictions are for his game; then he is acting in good faith.

That simply cannot be construed as a bad sign, or a red flag, by any rational person.

You are either down to play campaign X, or you are not. So you move on and find a DM/Group that plays campaign Y, which allows concept Z.

Such situations surely cannot be considered controversial or malicious to an individual in any way. This is just part of the normal process of a player trying to find a group that they click with.

I voted with my feet on three different groups after a session or two before I found my current one that I have been with for over five years and regularly GM for.

What I mean is, to me:

• Race and Class Restriction Disagreement is usually a bad reason for someone to not play at a table with a DM.
• Tone Disagreement and Genre Disagreement is usually a good reason for someone to not play with a DM.
• Often Race and Class Restriction Disagreement hides the unlying Tone Disagreement and Genre Disagreement

Rarely does a player only want to play a single race or class. There is usually are enough races and class that one of a player's prefered races and classes for a character is available. Even if there is a stretch, a DM of a worked-on world should be able to fine it for the player.

Often,to me, when there are race and class issues to might make a player leave, this is really because of genre and tone. Historical vs Fantasical. Hack and Slash vs Immersive Storytelling, Low Magic, "Standard Magic" vs High Magic. Herioc Fantasy, Epic Fantasy, Sword and Sorcery, vs Mythic Fantasy. Race and Class Arguments can be hiding the real argument.

In my eyes, a player dropping a game for race and class issues should be rare and should be a sign that someone is coming to the table with ideas that will sap the fun off many people at the table. It really shouldn't happen often and if the problem isn't really tone or genre, a DM shold be able to sort it out.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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?

I agree with all of that.

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

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.

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.

So wait, a player can come to love a concept they didn't initially think they would like.

But a DM can never do that. A DM can never change. It will either be torture, or something they enjoy. It can never grow into something they enjoy.


Why? What makes being a DM so special that they can never change, their entirety is frozen in amber, unless they go to a different game system, which I assume is also frozen forever in the same state. Or, if a DM can change... why is what is good for the goose not good for the gander?

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.

90% chance that a DM has perfect knowledge of their own preferences? Again, how? What makes them different than the player?

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

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

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

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.

So, you've created yet another double standard.

If a player comes to your game, and is hesitant, they should try it out. They might enjoy it.

If a DM is hesitant, they should never attempt it, it is a longshot that should never be relied on them changing their mind.

I wish I was a DM like this mythical "general DM" you keep speaking of, perfectly able to know exactly what will be fun for myself and everyone, with almost no chance of being wrong. In my experience, things don't seem to ever be so cut and dry.


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

What did I say before about being deliberately obtuse? You know full well that world-building is one thing and the player characters affecting the game-world through in-game action is quite another. Conflating the two is at best a failure of logic and rhetoric, and at worst intellectually dishonest.

I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

So, they only refuse to let people change their world before the game starts, then it is hog wild and we can do whatever?

I believe I mentioned that possibility, of course, I'm getting used to be ignored. I also wonder how permanent those changes tend to be. Does the next game tend to find that things have reached equilibrium again? Maybe the DM wants new PCs to fight old PCs, keeping that balance of power about where it was at?

Suppose it doesn't matter, your general statements about the DM are only general until I treat them as such, then they become specific, until we treat them as such, and then they are general again.

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

No one is claiming perfect awareness for DM's.

But if a DM has laid out the terms of his campaign, he has acted in good faith.

There is no moral obligation of any kind for them to make exceptions for an individual, when other potential players had no problems conforming to the core assumptions of his campaign world.

So that potential player needs to decide what he wants to do. Abide by the campaign guidelines, or vote with his feet.

People acting in good faith have no problems with those options.

Did you happen to read Maxperson's response to me? Near perfect awareness, 90% accuracy, is exactly what he is claiming.

And again, I have to wonder, maybe the DM isn't under a "moral obligation" but is it even an option? When Scott Christianson laid out his various scenarios of where we might see things go, the DM changing the parameters of their campaign wasn't even an option. Not even a potential option.

But, if DMs aren't perfectly aware, isn't it possible that the Player comes up with something outside the DMs Guidelines that they actually like? That maybe the player and DM have more fun from the DM being more flexible.

And I know, I know, it isn't a guarantee, it isn't a "gaming this way is better" at this point I'm just sick and tired of people acting like it isn't even possible. The only thing people seem to want to talk about is the saintly DM who made their world in perfect harmony, until the mean nasty insensitive entitled player came and tried to ruin it all with by not listening to their DM like a good player should. Ruining the game not only for their poor, soon to be enslaved DM, but all those good players who listened and were happy until the bad on came along.

I'm just getting exhausted from this conversation.

 

[Maxperson]

So wait, a player can come to love a concept they didn't initially think they would like.

But a DM can never do that. A DM can never change. It will either be torture, or something they enjoy. It can never grow into something they enjoy.

Didn't say that at all.

I said it's so rare as to be irrelevant to consider. It would be stupid for either a player or DM to suffer through playing for a miniscule chance that "It might turn out for the best."

90% chance that a DM has perfect knowledge of their own preferences? Again, how? What makes them different than the player?

Again, there is no difference. The player is certain and 90% likely to be correct about not liking what they don't like. And it's probably higher than 90%, but I'm throwing you a bone and downplaying it.

So, you've created yet another double standard.

No, no. That's you once again trying to invent a double standard for me that doesn't actually exist.

 

[Jack Daniel]

So, they only refuse to let people change their world before the game starts, then it is hog wild and we can do whatever?

Whatever can be accomplished in-game through playing, yes. Obviously yes.

I believe I mentioned that possibility, of course, I'm getting used to be ignored. I also wonder how permanent those changes tend to be. Does the next game tend to find that things have reached equilibrium again? Maybe the DM wants new PCs to fight old PCs, keeping that balance of power about where it was at?

If the campaign world is persistent, what happens happens. If Sir Bob the 10th level fighter builds a castle, raises an army, clears out wilderness hex 0306, and declares it the Barony of Bob, then the Barony of Bob is now part of the campaign world. If Mel the Mysterious, 15th level magic-user, flies by and levels the castle with disintegrate spells and conjured elementals, so much for the Barony of Bob. If Clarence the cleric starts a new religion, leads an army of zealots on a crusade to conquer a kingdom that the DM originally placed in the campaign world, succeeds and turns it into a theocracy, that's what happens.

Suppose it doesn't matter, your general statements about the DM are only general until I treat them as such, then they become specific, until we treat them as such, and then they are general again.

Can you point to something specific, or is this more of a free-floating whinge?

The only thing people seem to want to talk about is the saintly DM who made their world in perfect harmony, until the mean nasty insensitive entitled player came and tried to ruin it all with by not listening to their DM like a good player should. Ruining the game not only for their poor, soon to be enslaved DM, but all those good players who listened and were happy until the bad on came along.

I'm just getting exhausted from this conversation.

I'm getting tired of the false equivalence. I have met more than one entitled player married to a character concept ill-suited to the campaign. That's a thing; it's real. But I have never met a DM who imposed limitations on character creation as part of a diabolical plot to terrorize their saintly players by malevolently theming a setting, or focusing a campaign with malice aforethought.

 

[Jaeger]

But, if DMs aren't perfectly aware, isn't it possible that the Player comes up with something outside the DMs Guidelines that they actually like? That maybe the player and DM have more fun from the DM being more flexible.

And I know, I know, it isn't a guarantee, it isn't a "gaming this way is better" at this point I'm just sick and tired of people acting like it isn't even possible. The only thing people seem to want to talk about is the saintly DM who made their world in perfect harmony, until the mean nasty insensitive entitled player came and tried to ruin it all with by not listening to their DM like a good player should. Ruining the game not only for their poor, soon to be enslaved DM, but all those good players who listened and were happy until the bad on came along.

Sure it's possible.

So What?

No guarantees.

The proverbial Saintly DM is under no obligation of any kind to make it possible.

There is simply no imperative or obligation for any DM to accommodate a potential player that wants to do things different from all the other players at the table.

And quite frankly most of us have enough game running experience to make the judgement call that most 'special requests' from potential players are usually not worth the punt.

The potential players gets to ask. The DM gets to say no if he wants. There really is no real argument here.

If I have a campaign setting that I am exited to run, why would I bend backwards for potential player #1 out of 4-5 players, when with an established group I can easily recruit a new player that would be more than happy to join the game as is?

It's a no brainer. Potential player #2 for the win.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with option C; Use your words and engage the DM in conversation about whatever it is you’d like added.

Sure, the potential player is absolutely free to elucidate their reasons.

And there’s also absolutely nothing wrong with the DM still saying: "No."

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Sure, the potential player is absolutely free to elucidate their reasons.

And there’s also absolutely nothing wrong with the DM still saying: "No."

I mean...yeah, there is.

edit: I don’t even just mean that in this context. A person who refuses to compromise (ie, have a conversation that might hypothetically result in slight changes to something they want to do, if they agree to it) simply because they don’t have to, isn’t a person I want to know IRL.

I’ve had my fill of having to run that sort of person out of a group or scene so that other people that aren’t as willing to have a confrontation as I am feel comfortable and safe.

Blanket refusal to compromise unless one has to is a character flaw.

 

[Al'Kelhar]

Blanket refusal to compromise unless one has to is a character flaw.

There's enough irony in that statement to boost my haemoglobin count! You, sir, win the Internet!

Cheers, Al'kelhar