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

[Oofta]

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


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.

Still not relevant. There are many, many styles of play in D&D. If my particular taste and style meant I didn't have as many players as I want then maybe it would be an issue. While situations vary, in most places if you're a decent DM you will have all the players you can handle.

I don't see that pushing one style of play over another does anything, I'd rather have a DM pursuing their vision than trying to appease the vision of others.

 

[Jack Daniel]

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.

I get the frustration, but taking the low road here will illuminate nothing.

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.

Okay, then you're arguing something totally different from @Hussar, so it's probably best if I just put a pin in that for now and wait for him to explain his position.

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.

The problem with the arguments you are making here is that they're totally arbitrary.

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

What constitutes "damage"? How does banning n > 1 number of races or classes inflict this ambiguous damage, and who gets to decide what n is?

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

What counts as a "fit" or a "match"? Who's to judge any set of restrictions, but the composer of those restrictions? (We don't have to assume that the buck stops with the DM alone, but let's say so just for the sake of simplicity. Even though it may nettle the anti-authority faction.) You can't just make the blanket statement that the players "can and will" have a hand in judging the DM's restrictions against any arbitrary set of criteria, because that's situational at best—and more often than not, it's flat-out not true.

So let's refocus a little bit here. I'm interested in the whys and the wherefores. Why do you believe that race (or class) restrictions on a campaign can damage it? Is it purely a communication issue? Lack of clarity between the DM and the players?

Suppose that a DM is entirely clear and upfront—"No warlocks, no sorcerers, no tieflings, and no dragonborn in this campaign"—but offers no justification beyond brazen, personal preference. Nothing about theme, genre, or tone; merely whim. "I just don't personally like them." Why is this a problem?

 

[Minigiant]

Suppose that a DM is entirely clear and upfront—"No warlocks, no sorcerers, no tieflings, and no dragonborn in this campaign"—but offers no justification beyond brazen, personal preference. Nothing about theme, genre, or tone; merely whim. "I just don't personally like them." Why is this a problem?

Because there is a disconnect of ideas of what the them,genre, or tone is.

Suppose the DMbanned tielings and warlock because he didnt want extremely chaotic or evil PCs. He wants a heroic game and thinks that race and that class leads to C and E PCs. Well the DM didn't tell the players that. Larry asks "why?". DM says "they don't exist here." The DM doesn't have to explain more.

So Larry rolls up a human evocation wizard instead of a tiefling fiendlock... and burns down an orphanage for the lols in Session 1.

Well that's totallly on the DM for not informing Larry on the theme, genre, or tone in both the game description and why Larry asked why.

 

[Jaeger]

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.

Any DM who clearly informs the potential player beforehand of the type of campaign they are running; and any changes to the game system; has acted in Good Faith.

The premise of my position. And if I may be so bold, Oofta's position as well. Is: The best case scenario.

If all you are gonna do is bring up continual but... but... but ... exceptions. Based on situations where someone did not act in good faith, or there was a miscommunication, or just BAD DMing went down; Then you are making it obvious that you are just trying to make some point by using the same type of exception based arguments over and over.

You never have to concede a point because you can always come up with a scenario, circumstance, or situation where the DM has done something sub-par that makes a potential player feel caught-out.

Very clever of you.

I don't care about potential situations resulting from BAD DM's, or DM's who somehow miscommunicate the style, genre, changes, restrictions, or tone, of the campaign badly. Or acted in bad faith.

I am not discussing the restricting of PC races in sub-optimal situations.
.

 

[Oofta]

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.

Actually the best case is when I accurately advertise what I'm selling and then like minded people join me for the game. That way everybody at the table (including the DM) has already bought into the campaign. Easy peasy lemon squeezy. I don't go to a Toyta dealer looking for motorcycles, don't join my campaign expecting to play an evil kenku.

Because there is a disconnect of ideas of what the them,genre, or tone is.

Suppose the DMbanned tielings and warlock because he didnt want extremely chaotic or evil PCs. He wants a heroic game and thinks that race and that class leads to C and E PCs. Well the DM didn't tell the players that. Larry asks "why?". DM says "they don't exist here." The DM doesn't have to explain more.

So Larry rolls up a human evocation wizard instead of a tiefling fiendlock... and burns down an orphanage for the lols in Session 1.

Well that's totallly on the DM for not informing Larry on the theme, genre, or tone in both the game description and why Larry asked why.

So the advice is to tell everyone what type of game you're running? Okay. I tell people up front that I don't want evil characters and that I want to run a heroic campaign and my allowed races doesn't include tieflings or warlocks*.

Everything is yet another strawman. Of course people should be clear what type of campaign their running.

*Personally I allow warlocks, I also let people know patrons are limited and ask first.

 

[Minigiant]

Any DM who clearly informs the potential player beforehand of the type of campaign they are running; and any changes to the game system; has acted in Good Faith.

The premise of my position. And if I may be so bold, Oofta's position as well. Is: The best case scenario.

If all you are gonna do is bring up continual but... but... but ... exceptions. Based on situations where someone did not act in good faith, or there was a miscommunication, or just BAD DMing went down; Then you are making it obvious that you are just trying to make some point by using the same type of exception based arguments over and over.

You never have to concede a point because you can always come up with a scenario, circumstance, or situation where the DM has done something sub-par that makes a potential player feel caught-out.

Very clever of you.

I don't care about potential situations resulting from BAD DM's, or DM's who somehow miscommunicate the style, genre, changes, restrictions, or tone, of the campaign badly. Or acted in bad faith.

I am not discussing the restricting of PC races in sub-optimal situations.
.

And many times in this thread, people have firmly stated that DMs don't have to tell players anything but the allowed race and class list. And if a player doesn't like it, they can vote with their feet.

And all I've said is fine. The DM has that right however the players will have the right to judge the DM poorly due to a miscommunication. And any miscommunication could lead the player(s) to think the DM is bad whether they stay or go.

And then a bunch of people here got upset about that statement.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Because there is a disconnect of ideas of what the them,genre, or tone is.

Says who? Where's the disconnect? I didn't mention a theme, genre, or tone, so I'm not sure how you can say this.

 

[Minigiant]

Says who? Where's the disconnect? I didn't mention a theme, genre, or tone, so I'm not sure how you can say this.

Exactly. You didn't mention a theme, genre, or tone.
So there is a high chance that the theme, genre, or tone the DM is going for and the theme, genre, or tone the player wants are different.

So the advice is to tell everyone what type of game you're running? Okay. I tell people up front that I don't want evil characters and that I want to run a heroic campaign and my allowed races doesn't include tieflings or warlocks*.

Everything is yet another strawman. Of course people should be clear what type of campaign their running.

That's all I'm saying.
However some are pushing that DMs don't have to when they should be encouraging to do so.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Exactly. You didn't mention a theme, genre, or tone.
So there is a high chance that the theme, genre, or tone the DM is going for and the theme, genre, or tone the player wants are different.

But that's also true of campaigns with no restrictions on playable races whatsoever. So it follows, then, that your theme/genre/tone tangent is completely orthogonal to the question I asked.

 

[Jaeger]

And all I've said is fine. The DM has that right however the players will have the right to judge the DM poorly due to a miscommunication. And any miscommunication could lead the player(s) to think the DM is bad whether they stay or go.

And in other news: Water is wet.

Of course people should be clear what type of campaign their running.

I would wager that there is not one poster on this thread in the pro-restriction camp that does not readily agree with this.

Because the obvious is obvious.

Do we have to spell out something so obvious? We are starting to get into areas which defy credulity if that is the case.

People should stop projecting their negative past experiences as the default premise of others disagreement.

.