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

[Maxperson]

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.

Cool, but it's only wrong for you. It's not inherently wrong for the DM not to want to DM something that he doesn't like and will make the game less fun for him. It IS wrong for the player to insist that the DM comply with his demands and run it, though. 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.

Sooooooo, it's not about the DM's ego. Full stop.

It's positions of yours like this, where you espouse forcing the DM to run a game that won't be fun for him just because a player will like it, that causes us to say that you are Anti-DM. I believe you complained about that earlier in the thread, so I wanted to point it out to you so that you would know why we hold that view.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

think what is very clear here is you feel the DM should allow races almost all the time. The DM should just glaze over the internal logic they may have built for their world. The DM should placate the players by not placing environments that exclude one of the players because of the player's choice. And the DM should keep their world as open as possible. And if they do not they are "edgelords-unimaginative-arbitrary- bad worldbuilders." Does this sum up your view?

This is the only portion of your post that matters at all, so I’m singling it out. The rest is just bad faith twisting of statements and jumping to wild conclusions because they fit what you want to grandstand against.

No, and the only way to reach this ridiculous conclusion is by intentionally twisting my words and making baseless assumptions.

 

[Oofta]

Good grief. Really?

Personal reason = I don't like this. I guess "personal preference" might be a better phrase, but, I was kinda expecting, after FOUR TIMES explaining what I meant quite clearly, that my meaning would be pretty obvious.

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.

There are a 101 reasons or more for vetoing an option. There's 100 good ones and one bad one. Don't be that guy that uses the bad one.

What justification could there be that would be "good enough" and who gets to decide? I posted my reasons here, are they adequate?

 

[Minigiant]

Kay.

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

Because it's fine if a few DMs don't get weird races and don't use themed that use them or use them without care.

It's bad if the vast majority are this way.

 

[Oofta]

Because it's fine if a few DMs don't get weird races and don't use themed that use them or use them without care.

It's bad if the vast majority are this way.

If you threw a "IMHO" in that last sentence I wouldn't have an issue. Without it, you're begging the question: assuming that kitchen sinks are inherently better somehow.

If I ran an ancient Greece campaign, it probably wouldn't have elves, dwarves, halflings or gnomes. It would probably have leonins and satyrs. Maybe minotaurs, centaurs and a handful of other races.

That campaign wouldn't necessarily be better or worse than a campaign that allowed anything, it's just using races that are thematically appropriate.

 

[Jack Daniel]

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.

This thread in a nutshell.
Pro-Restriction Side: We see you, we accept you, your play-style is not for us but it's valid.
Anti-Restriction Side: …

Because it's fine if a few DMs don't get weird races and don't use themed that use them or use them without care.

It's bad if the vast majority are this way.

Cool story, bro.

 

[Oofta]

This thread in a nutshell.
Pro-Restriction Side: We see you, we accept you, your play-style is not for us but it's valid.
Anti-Restriction Side: …



Cool story, bro.

Don't forget that DM's on the Pro-Restriction side just "don't get weird races". Because obviously if we were intelligent and wise enough we'd "get" them and allow them.

 

[Minigiant]

Cool story, bro

That's what it is, bro.
The majority of worlds are restrictive historical worlds, LOTR restrictive worlds, and kitchen sinks.

People who want those are served. People who don't or want to try new or weirder things are not and must sacrifice their player role to serve someone else.

D&D fans who have what they want dismissing the desires of those who don't is not healthy for the community nor the game itself.

 

[Jack Daniel]

D&D fans who have what they want dismissing the desires of those who don't is not healthy for the community nor the game itself.

Sure it is. You don't have what you want? Make it happen. Do it yourself. Be the change you want to see. There's nothing healthier than treating the hobby as a hobby.

 

[Minigiant]

If you threw a "IMHO" in that last sentence I wouldn't have an issue. Without it, you're begging the question: assuming that kitchen sinks are inherently better somehow.

If I ran an ancient Greece campaign, it probably wouldn't have elves, dwarves, halflings or gnomes. It would probably have leonins and satyrs. Maybe minotaurs, centaurs and a handful of other races.

That campaign wouldn't necessarily be better or worse than a campaign that allowed anything, it's just using races that are thematically appropriate.

You are assuming I have bias.

The majority of setting being any set of settings is bad for D&D. Making the majority of settings kitchen sinks is just as bad or worse

D&D isn't a single setting game.