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

[Jack Daniel]

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

Why?

This—

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.

—is a description of the phenomenon in question, not an explanation for why it's bad or wrong.

 

[Minigiant]

Why?

This—

—is a description of the phenomenon in question, not an explanation for why it's bad or wrong.

Because it's a matter of trust.
If the DM is willing to harm theme, tone, genre, or style for purely personal reasons, then they might be willing to do it again.

And if I am signing up for a theme, tone, genre, or style, it is a bad thing if I am not given it.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Because it's a matter of trust.
If the DM is willing to harm theme, tone, genre, or style for purely personal reasons, then they might be willing to do it again.

And if I am signing up for a theme, tone, genre, or style, it is a bad thing if I am not given it.

Okay, but that doesn't logically follow from the issue at hand. @Hussar stated that restrictions imposed solely for personal reasons = "the DM forcing his personal tastes on the player" = "DMing fail." I don't concede that restrictions based on the DM's personal whims will necessarily or even frequently do injury to theme, tone, genre, or style. So what you're saying may be true in general terms, and it may even suffice as an explanation for the limited case where the DM's restriction is somehow at odds with the rest of the campaign, but it's not an adequate explanation for how DM-imposed limitations based on personal preferences alone are always a failure of… something (I'm still unclear on that part).

 

[overgeeked]

Okay, but that doesn't logically follow from the issue at hand. @Hussar stated that restrictions imposed solely for personal reasons = "the DM forcing his personal tastes on the player" = "DMing fail." I don't concede that restrictions based on the DM's personal whims will necessarily or even frequently do injury to theme, tone, genre, or style. So what you're saying may be true in general terms, and it may even suffice as an explanation for the limited case where the DM's restriction is somehow at odds with the rest of the campaign, but it's not an adequate explanation for how DM-imposed limitations based on personal preferences alone are always a failure of… something (I'm still unclear on that part).

Every call the DM makes is based on personal preferences. A preference for following the rules-as-written. A preference for verisimilitude. A preference for house rules. A preference for gonzo. A preference for the rule of cool. A preference for whatever. I think these posters are using this argument as a mask for “the DM won’t let me do whatever I want so they’re a fail DM”.

 

[Jack Daniel]

I think these posters are using this argument as a mask for “the DM won’t let me do whatever I want so they’re a fail DM”.

I'm not going to make uncharitable accusations like that. But I would like to suss out the underlying reason for the belief. People don't usually make bald assertions unless those assertions make sense to them. I want to interrogate the train of thought behind this one.

 

[overgeeked]

I'm not going to make uncharitable accusations like that. But I would like to suss out the underlying reason for the belief. People don't usually make bald assertions unless those assertions make sense to them. I want to interrogate the train of thought behind this one.

I would be more inclined to a charitable reading of the argument if they hadn’t spent the last dozen or so pages avoiding answering these same questions whilst simultaneously telling everyone who doesn’t agree with them that they lack imagination, are terrible DMs, and are playing the game wrong.

 

[Minigiant]

Okay, but that doesn't logically follow from the issue at hand. @Hussar stated that restrictions imposed solely for personal reasons = "the DM forcing his personal tastes on the player" = "DMing fail." I don't concede that restrictions based on the DM's personal whims will necessarily or even frequently do injury to theme, tone, genre, or style. So what you're saying may be true in general terms, and it may even suffice as an explanation for the limited case where the DM's restriction is somehow at odds with the rest of the campaign, but it's not an adequate explanation for how DM-imposed limitations based on personal preferences alone are always a failure of… something (I'm still unclear on that part).

Like I said, It isn't an issue of banning one race.

The issue people like @Hussar is bringing up from what I think isn't "the DM forcing his personal tastes on the player".
The issue is "the DM forcing his personal tastes on the player by saying it doesn't fit the theme even though the theme doesn't match the DM stated"

AKA Clarity.The lack of.

Basically D&D has expanded in audience to the point that general vague statements don't narrow down much. And lack fclarity leads to problems at start and down te road.

 

[Maxperson]

Because it's a matter of trust.
If the DM is willing to harm theme, tone, genre, or style for purely personal reasons, then they might be willing to do it again.

And if I am signing up for a theme, tone, genre, or style, it is a bad thing if I am not given it.

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.

Those two things don't add up. If the DM is banning a race because he dislikes it, it DOES cause him discomfort. It reduces his enjoyment of the game which is a comfort issue.

 

[Minigiant]

Those two things don't add up. If the DM is banning a race because he dislikes it, it DOES cause him discomfort. It reduces his enjoyment of the game which is a comfort issue.

Not neccessarily in all cases.
One can ban a race for not liking them without it causing discomfort.

And again, this is not a case of banning a single race. A player dropping or declining a game because of a single race ban is 99.9% being ridiculous.
If 7 official races cause you discomfort then either there is something else at play OR such discomfort sound be descrribed to the players so that they don't bring that uniting aspect to the game.

 

[Oofta]

Like I said, It isn't an issue of banning one race.

The issue people like @Hussar is bringing up from what I think isn't "the DM forcing his personal tastes on the player".
The issue is "the DM forcing his personal tastes on the player by saying it doesn't fit the theme even though the theme doesn't match the DM stated"

AKA Clarity.The lack of.

Basically D&D has expanded in audience to the point that general vague statements don't narrow down much. And lack fclarity leads to problems at start and down te road.

Banning one race is kind of pointless. Without even going into sub-races, there are around 40 different races (not counting the fish people). Banning one or two hardly makes a dent if you don't want a kitchen sink campaign.

Is it okay if a DM just says "these are the allowed races"? Because that, to the best of my knowledge is what everyone says they do. There's no lack of clarity, no "gotcha" DMing, no backsies on what can be played. Bad DMing and limiting races are not the same thing.

People keep saying "you aren't the problem" and claim they aren't telling others how to DM. But then the line gets drawn a the mud and never gets clearly defined other than "for the wrong reasons". What is a good justification? If I'm running a "traditional" D&D game (which for the most part I do) but I think halflings are silly and don't have them on the allowed list, is that justification enough? Who gets to decide? How is any decision made by the DM not