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

[Minigiant]

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.

Because it goes both ways. For both kitchen sinks and themed worlds.
Many of the argument over race (and class) are really about theme/genre/tone/style. But players and DMs frame it around race and class.

My guess is because race and class are one of the few things mentioned in both the PHB and DMG. Themes, genres, tones,and playstyle is often only in the DMG and it is easy for a DMG to ignore it or forget it.

And without a shared language, people talk over each other.

 

[Minigiant]

And in other news: Water is wet.

Then some people don't think the water is wet. There are people out there and on here that DMs being stingy on info is perfectly fine.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Because it goes both ways. For both kitchen sinks and themed worlds.
Many of the argument over race (and class) are really about theme/genre/tone/style. But players and DMs frame it around race and class.

My guess is because race and class are one of the few things mentioned in both the PHB and DMG. Themes, genres, tones,and playstyle is often only in the DMG and it is easy for a DMG to ignore it or forget it.

And without a shared language, people talk over each other.

We are definitely talking past each other here.

Forget genre/theme/tone for a moment. The question at hand has been specifically about DMs who impose race (or class) restrictions on campaigns for reasons of personal preference/whim only, which means that considerations of genre, theme, and tone are already and automatically precluded. The hypothetical DM in this situation is specifically banning the race in question without considering its impact on any of those things.

Put another way, let's imagine that a DM has settled on genre X, theme Y, and tone Z, and clearly communicated that to all of the players. The players have heard, understood, and agreed to all three. They're on board. Also, in addition to that, and separate from that, the DM has said, "No elves in this campaign, because I just don't like elves." That's the scenario I've been talking about for the past three pages or so.

Do you believe that this is a (getting back to the root of the subject) "DM fail"?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Do you believe that this is a (getting back to the root of the subject) "DM fail"?

Personally? Yes. It's being petty for no reason other than (as others have said) "my house, my castle, my game." Even if it isn't said in so many words, it absolutely sounds like, "I rule this sandbox; no one will get to use those dumb options in MY game." With the bonus of expecting a "hail Caesar!" in response.

 

[Oofta]

Personally? Yes. It's being petty for no reason other than (as others have said) "my house, my castle, my game." Even if it isn't said in so many words, it absolutely sounds like, "I rule this sandbox; no one will get to use those dumb options in MY game." With the bonus of expecting a "hail Caesar!" in response.

So again with the crazy control freak?

I get that you aren't accusing everyone, but going from no elves to DM acting as supreme ruler is not a justified leap.

Ultimately most races that are not allowed comes down to personal preference. Or maybe it's just misdirection because of some secret that will be revealed later.

 

[Minigiant]

Put another way, let's imagine that a DM has settled on genre X, theme Y, and tone Z, and clearly communicated that to all of the players. The players have heard, understood, and agreed to all three. They're on board. Also, in addition to that, and separate from that, the DM has said, "No elves in this campaign, because I just don't like elves." That's the scenario I've been talking about for the past three pages or so.

Do you believe that this is a (getting back to the root of the subject) "DM fail"?

Like I said before, if it's a single race and even a few races, it is likely not a big deal. Players are supposed to come to a nonleague table with blank sheets and multiple character ideas. If might raise an eyebrow but it is nothing worth leaving a table for.

Again, if it is more than a few races then it is highly likely the DMs is betraying genre X, theme Y, and tone Z. It might be on purpose. It might be on accident. But it is a fail. It is difficult for a solely personal ban list to not affect the assumptions of genre X, theme Y, or tone Z.

 

[Oofta]

Like I said before, if it's a single race and even a few races, it is likely not a big deal. Players are supposed to come to a nonleague table with blank sheets and multiple character ideas. If might raise an eyebrow but it is nothing worth leaving a table for.

Again, if it is more than a few races then it is highly likely the DMs is betraying genre X, theme Y, and tone Z. It might be on purpose. It might be on accident. But it is a fail. It is difficult for a solely personal ban list to not affect the assumptions of genre X, theme Y, or tone Z.

So I've failed because I don't run a kitchen sink campaign.

Good to know.

 

[prabe]

Again, if it is more than a few races then it is highly likely the DMs is betraying genre X, theme Y, and tone Z. It might be on purpose. It might be on accident. But it is a fail. It is difficult for a solely personal ban list to not affect the assumptions of genre X, theme Y, or tone Z.

Are we talking "more than a few races" from the PHB, or are we talking "more than a few races" from optional books, including settings? Some of the settings read to me as though the lists of available races in the books are supposed to be exhaustive, and some of the settings have races that sure read as though they're supposed to be pretty-much exclusive to their respective settings.

 

[Minigiant]

Are we talking "more than a few races" from the PHB, or are we talking "more than a few races" from optional books, including settings? Some of the settings read to me as though the lists of available races in the books are supposed to be exhaustive, and some of the settings have races that sure read as though they're supposed to be pretty-much exclusive to their respective settings.

I'm talking PHB + options books minus ones from settings books that are not from generic fantasy. Like minotaur is from Ravnica and Theros but is common enough to be in several themes and genre.

If you cut out a lot of the beastfolk from an Epic Greece game because you don't like them, you are very likely changing the theme, genre, or tone.

So I've failed because I don't run a kitchen sink campaign.

Good to know.

didn't say that.
I said a large pesonal ban list can easily betray a given theme, genre, or tone if the list is too big. This can happen with kitchen sinks.

 

[prabe]

I'm talking PHB + options books minus ones from settings books that are not from generic fantasy. Like minotaur is from Ravnica and Theros but is common enough to be in several themes and genre.

If you cut out a lot of the beastfolk from an Epic Greece game because you don't like them, you are very likely changing the theme, genre, or tone.

The optional books--Volo's, etc., are explicitly optional. No DM is under any obligation to include anything from them, or to give any reason for not doing so. The setting books--if I'm explicitly not running Eberron, or Theros, or Ravnica, I don't feel as though I need to explain why I'm not including anything from those worlds.

Yes, if you are running a themed campaign and you are cutting out things that support that theme (such as beastfolk from a Mythic Greece-themed campaign) you're at a minimum not embracing all the theme contains; "doing damage" is possibly stronger than I want to go, but in that direction. But if I'm not running a campaign with those themes (other than sort of in the structure of D&D itself) I'm not doing my campaign any harm by excluding them.