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

[MGibster]

I've got a campaign in mind and I'll be restricting races to only what's available in the PHB. Gnomes are pretty much extinct, having fallen victim to genocide at the hands of the big evil empire, but they're still a playable race with the understanding that they're unlikely to ever run into another gnome. The reason for the restriction is two fold: I have political structures for each of the PHB races and their political/social relationship with the big bad evil empire as vassal states or "protectorates." The campaign is set at the ass end of the empire and doesn't get a lot of visitors. But I'd also like the PCs to have connections to the setting via their background and classes. i.e. If you're a druid of the Circle of the Moon you belong to the Circle of the Moon and they have their own goals which hopefully the PC will share.

I'm going to pitch this idea to my players for our next campaign next year. But I'll probably be a bit flexible and open to the possibility of fitting in races outside the PHB somehow.

 

[Oofta]

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.

So I'm doing it wrong because I ban 3 dozen races depending on how you count them? Good to know.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

As long as if fits the theme, tone, genre, or playstyle described by the DM, then it is fine.

Each time the "allowed race list" or "allowed class list" doesn't match the theme, tone, genre, or playstyle, it causes a level of disconnect or lack of clarity. And if these instances pile up, it should warrant an explanation to increase clarity. It's not required but it look good.

Again a DM can do whatever they like in their settings. Players can and wll judge the DM's worlds based on their own preferences and what they know of the world.

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

You gave a theme.
Most of the banned races do not match the theme.
The one race that matches the theme but is banned had its ban explained.
That's fine.

Had you banned halflings, dwarves, and gnomes, the player could rightfully say "How is that traditional D&D?"

So I'm doing it wrong because I ban 3 dozen races depending on how you count them? Good to know.

Depends.
Did you state a theme, tone, genre, or playstyle for the campaign?

 

[Jaeger]

Many players and DMs however do have narrow preferences and can only play with certain people.

Nothing wrong with that.

Everyone has the freedom to find a game that fits them best.

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

Which is why everyone like me that concurs with Ooftas point of view has repeatedly stated that any DM acting in good faith lets a potential player know of any changes or restrictions beforehand for the type of campaign he will be running.

The reasons for those changes or restrictions are actually irrelevant when the DM has acted in good faith.

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

D&D's expansion in audience is irrelevant to this discussion.

DM: "I am running a campaign in my Nordic Mythology based homebrew setting; here are the class and race restrictions for PC's in my game."

Job done. The DM has informed the potential player of the differences between his game and what's in the core books.

The Potential player may certainly ask to play something different.

But the DM is under no obligation to agree to a request that goes against the restrictions that the potential player was informed of before play started.

.

 

[Jaeger]

...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.

This is perfectly acceptable.

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?

Yes.

Again a DM can do whatever they like in their settings. Players can and wll judge the DM's worlds based on their own preferences and what they know of the world.

Yes, and they can vote with their feet if it causes them too much "discomfort".

You gave a theme.
Most of the banned races do not match the theme.
The one race that matches the theme but is banned had its ban explained.
That's fine.

Had you banned halflings, dwarves, and gnomes, the player could rightfully say "How is that traditional D&D?"

At this point you are just playing the But, but... but... game.

Setting up a series of exceptions based on worst case scenario's, and examples of BAD DMing.

No one here who restricts races in their home game cares about your examples of worst case scenario's and Bad DMing.

Because BAD DM's gonna BAD DM.

 

[Minigiant]

Which is why everyone like me that concurs with Ooftas point of view has repeatedly stated that any DM acting in good faith lets a potential player know of any changes or restrictions beforehand for the type of campaign he will be running.

The reasons for those changes or restrictions are actually irrelevant when the DM has acted in good faith.

It's not about bad faith. People are unclear accidentally all the time.
And it will happen a lot more because...

D&D's expansion in audience is irrelevant to this discussion.

..the audience has expanded and D&D fans don't come from the same place anymore.

In 20 years, 4th edition will be 30+ years old. So if someone starts a traditional D&D game in 2040, are dragonborn assumed? What about warlocks from from 3e? And who knows what fantasy races might be popular then.

DM: "I am running a campaign in my Nordic Mythology based homebrew setting; here are the class and race restrictions for PC's in my game."

Job done. The DM has informed the potential player of the differences between his game and what's in the core books.

That's fine.
Again a DM can do whatever they want.
What they can't do is stop players from judging their worlds and them based on how they pitch their world.

 

[Oofta]

One thought on the whole "D&D is expanding" phrase. First, I can only support so many players. If I quit my day job I might be able to do more, but that's not particularly relevant. I restrict races, I always have a full table. So even if I did my expanding races wouldn't have an impact.

Second, it may not be intentional but it comes off as biased against older DMs. That if you old fogeys weren't such stick in the muds you'd get with the program and change your ways. May not be meant that way but that's what it feels like.

 

[Jaeger]

It's not about bad faith. People are unclear accidentally all the time.

Trotting out an exception based on potential worst case scenarios, and possible misunderstandings... but.. but... but...

Endlessly around in circles.

In 20 years, 4th edition will be 30+ years old. So if someone starts a traditional D&D game in 2040, are dragonborn assumed? What about warlocks from from 3e? And who knows what fantasy races might be popular then.

Who cares?

Any DM who informs the potential player beforehand of changes to the game they are running has acted in Good Faith.

That's fine.
Again a DM can do whatever they want.
What they can't do is stop players from judging their worlds and them based on how they pitch their world.

Non one is arguing against this. We are in 100% agreement.

I could personally care less about the judgement of some player who does not want to play in the campaign I am running because he can't be race x.

Because I know that I have informed the potential player beforehand of changes to the game I am running, and I have acted in Good Faith.

.

 

[Minigiant]

One thought on the whole "D&D is expanding" phrase. First, I can only support so many players. If I quit my day job I might be able to do more, but that's not particularly relevant. I restrict races, I always have a full table. So even if I did my expanding races wouldn't have an impact.

Then it's not much of a problem for you.

Second, it may not be intentional but it comes off as biased against older DMs. That if you old fogeys weren't such stick in the muds you'd get with the program and change your ways. May not be meant that way but that's what it feels like.

It's less about age and much about the expansion of popular fantasy.
WOTC is casting a wide net to make D&D fans.

It's more "cliques" than "age".
If you appeal to WOW players, you will get a lot of people who mant to play good aligned orcs, minotaurs, and undead,and lycantropes because that's fantasy to them.

 

[Minigiant]

Trotting out an exception based on potential worst case scenarios, and possible misunderstandings... but.. but... but...

Endlessly around in circles.

I work in sales. The best case is when people are actually clear, know what they want before they meet you, then tell you it.