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

[Scott Christian]

You don't have to care what is good for D&D.

But D&D does. And WOTC does.

And if their plan is to expand, they need DMs willingly to offer the experiences that their additional new target consumer base wants.

I agree with this. But would like to add that is not what the argument has been about.

 

[Scott Christian]

Well, I do know of a DM who it became an open secret that he hated paladins and druids (this was 2e) and no matter what you did, he'd engineer scenario's to make you lose your status. Come to think of it, he was pretty harsh on clerics and thieves too. Never said no, just made your life miserable if you did.

You can kinda see why I'm gunshy about "trust me" DMs...

So you knew "a" DM who was not a good DM and also sounds like a jerk. And that tainted your entre view on trusting DMs? Really? I mean, I sympathize with that scenario, and it must have been terrible to be in. But, there are so many DMs out there that enjoy the hobby without a power-trip.

 

[Scott Christian]

What would be cool is if Oofta asks the potential new guy why they want to be a good Drow ranger and find a background and concept that does work in Oofta's world. Perhaps the rebellious race works better as an orc cleric here?

Not saying Oofta doesn't do this already.

Not that DMs should be forced to do it.

But to me this should start becoming the norm.

I dunno about other peeps but I like when people find a place in my world that hits their interests.

I imagine most DMs do just that. They say, no, the drow are baddies. You can't be one. But, there is a culture of humans that fits what you are looking for as far as backstory.

The when the player says, no they need the drow for their +2 or something else, then it is a problem. Because then it is not about worldbuilding or adding to the world, it is purely mechanical. And even here, I think most DMs work with the player.

But then if the player insists that Oofta open his eyes and stop being unimaginative, then who is being unreasonable.

The point is: DMs listen to players. They take suggestions. Again, in my experience, I haven't seen one not do these things in 25 years when running a campaign. But they are allowed to say no, and they are not jerks for doing so.

 

[Scott Christian]

Rarely does a player only want to play a single race or class.

I don't even want to bring this up, but there are two on this board that have argued vehemently that this is the case when they build a character. Even if, during session 0, the DM outlined the parameters. That is part of why this feels frustrating to the DMs on the board.

 

[Scott Christian]

I mean, I think its irrelevant. One's appreciation from DMing would come from playing in a game. All of this stuff he's put there is irrelevant to being a good or a bad GM. Its just worldbuilding and him sticking to it. It tells us nothing if Oofta is a good or bad DM

His world has drow as boogeymen which I personally think loses a lot of their potential. Mine attempts to tackle the chaotic good rebel thing from the other end and have drow civilisations that aren't, tailor-made to generate chaotic good rebels and have a bit more nuance to them. Both valid approaches. Neither indicative of DM skill

Yet, in the context of this thread, many have used the word "bad DM" to people who subscribe to this very logic. Hence, why I asked the asked question. (No snark there, just explaining why I asked.)

 

[overgeeked]

I'll admit I'm an old school D&D player/DM. I've never discounted a player idea in osr or 5e, but I still wonder. Turtle people (tortles) flying people (aarokara), dragon people (dragonborn)... and so on.

Why do people chose these races?

To me, elves and dwarves have a human element. But Turtle people, and cat people and demon people and dragon people seem like the new normal. Do people who play D&D now, feel more comfortable with role-playing animalistic type characters than before?

It is kind of off-putting when your player party is a bunch of bird people, elephant people, demon people, cat people... and so on. I mean are humans even relevant in D&D anymore?

Is it a role-playing thing, or just a ability bonus power-up thing?

is the normal for D&D 5e is ampthormorophic / furry role-playing? I don't think I've ever ran a group that had a single human in it.

This is going back a bit, and I’m sure it’s been pointed out by now, but most of the ones you listed were available as player options in BECMI, thanks to the Mystara Gazetteer series and Creature Crucible series. AD&D 1/2 thanks to various splats or Dragon articles. They're not new to 5E. Also, I am a human. Playing a human in a fantasy game is boring. It’s much more fun to pretend to be an orc or a birdman or an elephant person or a half-demon. When you can do anything you can imagine, it seems rather limiting to stick with something that’s only a fractionally slight variation on myself.

 

[Jack Daniel]

You don't have to care what is good for D&D.

But D&D does. And WOTC does.

And if their plan is to expand, they need DMs willingly to offer the experiences that their additional new target consumer base wants.

'Kay.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

If the ONLY reason that a DM is vetoing a player choice is that the DM just doesn't like that element, then the DM is in the wrong. Full stop as far as I'm concerned. The DM needs to step back, rein in the ego a bit and let the player play what excites that player. I would MUCH rather have excited players than players who are just trying to stroke my ego.

Nah.

If I make a campaign setting that doesn't have elves because I don't think they're thematically appropriate and doesn't have dwarves because I hate the beardy little bastards* and think most players roleplay them as annoying stereotypes, I've pre-vetoed both races. If a player asks to play either an elf or a dwarf, it's going to be a hard "no" for that campaign. You're saying that I'm in the right regarding elves but in the wrong regarding dwarves? A player excited to be Legolas is going to be just as disappointed as a player excited to be Gimli, but the latter is somehow less justifiable than the former?

* Not hypothetical. This is in fact generally why I don't include Tolkien-/D&D-type dwarves in many of my settings.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Of course. They can do all these things adventurers do in the pictures below?
View attachment 130460

Centaur: You're gonna need a bigger boat

 

[Oofta]

I mean, I think its irrelevant. One's appreciation from DMing would come from playing in a game. All of this stuff he's put there is irrelevant to being a good or a bad GM. Its just worldbuilding and him sticking to it. It tells us nothing if Oofta is a good or bad DM

His world has drow as boogeymen which I personally think loses a lot of their potential. Mine attempts to tackle the chaotic good rebel thing from the other end and have drow civilisations that aren't, tailor-made to generate chaotic good rebels and have a bit more nuance to them. Both valid approaches. Neither indicative of DM skill

There are nearly an infinite number of ways to set up campaigns, having different implementations is not the issue that I see. You have a different preference on how to handle drow, cool.

I think the real question is: would you say that someone that restricts races such as I do is automatically a bad DM. I mean, I'm probably going to disagree with most DMs on a minor thing here and there, that doesn't make them a bad DM in my opinion.

 

[Maxperson]

Sure it's possible.

So What?

No guarantees.

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

@Chaosmancer is also just making an argument for the DM to hold firm anyway. After all, there's no guarantee that the player isn't going to love some other PC race/concept more. It's just as possible as the DM suddenly liking something he knows that he doesn't like.