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

[Hussar]

View attachment 130532

Fair enough I suppose. I see a significant difference between, "Sorry, no you can't play that because it would force me to rewrite large swaths of the settings and I'm not really interested in having you dump that much work in my lap" and "No, you can't play that because I don't like it."

To me, one is perfectly reasonable and makes sense. The other is the DM forcing his personal tastes on the player and it's a DMing fail.

 

[Oofta]

Yes they are and I and others said as much. Why are you asking?

Well, just that we agree. That a reasonable DM can ban races.

Where we differ is that as much as I can justify my reasons, it really does come back to personal preference and choice. If I really wanted to I could justify any race at all. If nothing else pull a Forgotten Realms and have a grand conjunction of different versions of Midgard converging together or a worldwide storm of wild magic or ... something.

On the other hand, there are bad DMs. I don't think limiting races will ever be the sole expression of a bad DM, or at least not often enough that it matters.

So if it's okay for DMs to ban races (just be clear about it ahead of time), we agree that bad DMs are bad, that playing a curated world, a kitchen sink world, something in between are all fine then what is anyone arguing about?

 

[Oofta]

Heh.

You folks do realize that horses CAN climb ladders right? Maybe not 90 degree ones, fair enough, but, pretty steep ones. Google it.

I can see a few situations where I would call an incline steep enough that it would be slower than normal for everyone in which case most people would be at 1/2 speed and centaurs would be at 1/4 (or whatever the rules say). That's different from climbing a ladder going straight up.

 

[Jack Daniel]

To me, one is perfectly reasonable and makes sense. The other is the DM forcing his personal tastes on the player and it's a DMing fail.

I have yet to witness a campaign implode for lack of dwarves.

 

[Minigiant]

I have yet to witness a campaign implode for lack of dwarves.

It's usually not one race being banned that's causes the damage. It's usually multiple.

That's the thing. Most players have multiple character ideas they want to play. If a player drops because of race (or class) restrictions, then either

1. The race or class restrictions is a scapegoat and the theme/genre/style is the issue
2. The Player is being unreasonable and too narrow in thought
3. The DM is being unresonable and too narrow in thought
4. No discussion to resolve a minor issue was made

I think it's usually #1 or #4. #2 and #3 are rare but they do happen. Many players and DMs however dohave narrow preferences and can only play with certain people.

 

[Jack Daniel]

It's usually not one race being banned that's causes the damage. It's usually multiple.

That doesn't really address @Hussar's assertion that a DM who imposes a restriction on their campaign for reasons @Hussar deems too "personal" is in @Hussar's estimation a "DM fail."

As an opinion, it's easily discarded. As a truth-claim, it's undermined by even a single example of "DM success." And as a general principle or "Dungeon Mastering moral imperative," it relies on values I don't share (my job as a DM is to build the milieu and referee the campaign, not to facilitate the players' character concepts or cater to their personal preferences).

 

[Minigiant]

That doesn't really address @Hussar's assertion that a DM who imposes a restriction on their campaign for reasons @Hussar deems "too personal" is in @Hussar's estimation a "DM fail."

As an opinion, it's easily discarded. As a truth-claim, it's undermined by even a single example of "DM success." And as a general principle or "Dungeon Mastering moral imperative," it relies on values I don't share (my job as a DM is to build the milieu and referee the campaign, not to facilitate the players' character concepts or cater to their personal preferences).

I believe the whole thing comes down to the ideas of "themes" and "personal desires".

I knew a person who didn't like halflings, gnomes, and satyrs because he saw them as "cutesy". That's a personal preference. So if he was a DM and ran a "serious business and drama", he could claim he is banning these 3 races for the reason he is running a serious campaign and I can't get around these 3 being serious. That makes the racial bans thematic.

However I remember the first campaign he pitched. It was silly and over the top with nonsensenical elements. Now if he banned these races (I don't remember if he did as we players all noped that pitch fast), his ban of halfing, gnomes, and satyr would have been personal. It would be his complete prerogative as a DM. However it would be a strike against him if he was banning these races solely for this reason that didn't matter in this campaign. Now if he had other reasons, fine. But if you banned all the "cute" races in your "silly" world because of a reason that purely personal and didn't deal with workload/theme/genre/tone/time/style/comfortability, that's one check in the fail column.

The other isue is the lack of clarity in announcing themes. If you want to run "LOTR with the names filed off and more polytheism and wizards", just say it. Until you state the theme, people will not not know what the theme is. "It doesn't fit the theme" is a nonsense answer to matured brain unless they know what the theme is.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I feel vaguely dirty posting in a 3,000+ post thread that might be worst summarized as “... no, you’re badwrongfun for liking D&D games with those rules, I will continue to post until you agree with me”.

But I couldn’t resist sharing that Hasbro seems to think that horse hoofs is no barrier to a Dungeons & Dragons party.

 

[Jack Daniel]

However it would be a strike against him if he was banning these races solely for this reason that didn't matter in this campaign. Now if he had other reasons, fine. But if you banned all the "cute" races in your "silly" world because of a reason that purely personal and didn't deal with workload/theme/genre/tone/time/style/comfortability, that's one check in the fail column.

You're gonna have to unpack this for me, then. You assert that it's a "strike" and a "check in the fail column" without offering a reason why it's so.

And I'll leave it to @Hussar (who introduced this bit of vocabulary into the discussion) to explain "failure" at what, exactly.

 

[Minigiant]

You're gonna have to unpack this for me, then. You assert that it's a "strike" and a "check in the fail column" without offering a reason why it's so.

Because they are putting their personal desires over the theme, tone, genre, and/or style of the game they are proposing when there is no comfort, workload, or moral aspect to it.

The DM has the right to do this but it is a strike against them.

It's the same as a DM saying they are doing a serious, down to earth, gritty game but allowing a bunch unrealistic races with silly backstories because they personally like that race.