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

[Minigiant]

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.

Every races is optional.
However if you cut a bunch of races out of a game in which they match the theme, tone, or genre, the theme, tone, or genre likely changes.

 

[SkidAce]

It simply boils down to some DMs think DnD is a toolbox, and build worlds.

Others think DnD is a setting with expectations of what's in it.

I lean towards #1, but the truth is likely in the middle and will vary from table to table.

You will never "solve" this issue on a forum.

 

[Umbran]

And in other news: Water is wet.

Mod Note:

And, in yet more news.... you (under a different name) were already banned from this thread. Using an alt to circumvent a thread ban earns you a vacation from the site.

Folks, play nice, or you will not be allowed to play at all.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Other than the "hail Caesar," I only quoted what actual people in this thread have made statements about. (Though that is hardly much of an exaggeration from explicit and sustained claims to "Ultimate Authority.") And, as with other things, being so reductive that all things are lumped under the singular category of "personal preference" is exactly what elides out the issue. We would do better by forking open "personal preference" and looking at the different flavors within.

For example, there is a difference between, "I don't permit half-orcs; I know their modern telling doesn't include a lot of icky stuff, but that icky history is baggage I just don't want to deal with" and "I don't permit half-orcs; it's fundamentally uninteresting to play a strong green person with tusks." The former is reflective, and shows a concern for meaningful issues (and could be rooted in any of a variety of experiences). The latter is petty and judgmental. The former is personal preference for cognizable reasons, the latter is personal preference with implicit judgment and nothing more.

Or, to use an example of my own, one of the very few things I don't permit: Evil PCs. I could say, "I don't permit Evil PCs; it's just an excuse to be a dick and I don't let that happen at my table." That's judgmental and petty though. I trust that my players truly could play Evil characters that weren't just excuses to be dickish, that were interesting and well-written, if they wished to. The problem instead is that I know I can't write good scenarios for evil protagonists. I'm far from perfect as a DM, but my players hare happy with the job I do. I could not produce the quality I do if I had to write for a world going to hell because the PCs are sending it there, and what I have already written provides far too much incentive for even "reasonable" Evil (e.g. actually-rational Lawful Evil types) to join with one or more of the bad-guy factions, guaranteeing a party split that the game couldn't survive (I'm certainly not running two separate games for two one- or two-person parties.) This has literally nothing to do with passing judgment on anyone, nor is it motivated strictly by my personal distaste and nothing more; it is motivated by my frank admission that the consequences of having Evil party members on the game I run--any campaign, but especially this specific one--would be too great.

And this is a major part of why I said I see this as pretty different from the inclusion of a particular race, as opposed to a particular alignment. Races can quite easily be from off yonder, "beyond the horizon" as I put it previously. The impact can be very slight beyond the one playable character not meeting many of their own species very often. The impact of Evil PCs, though? That can never be escaped. It will apply to every wicked antagonist, every temptation, every scenario. I can avoid or minimize the impact of a particular species existing in the world. I cannot avoid Evil PCs behaving in evil ways; it will be forced upon the narrative at every turn, inherently, and must either be continuously defused (or diffused!) or continuously risked. One person having scaly skin or hooves or a bull's head is easy enough to account for and will often (though, as I've stated, not always) have little more impact than some surprise or suspicion from NPCs, unless and until I am comfortable with having additional cultural and physiological relevance--something I can build up to slowly. Evil PCs? I'm going to have to account for that from top to bottom, with every bad-guy faction not being a rational temptation to join, every serious situation justifying why a person who values their own power/interests before all else would participate, every situation where they disagree with the non-Evil PCs risking a permanent party rift.

The one is a relatively small insertion into worldbuilding. It really isn't the enormous work most characterize it as--especially since most DMs don't actually go to the work of building truly realistic (as in, actually-resembling-reality, not merely verisimilitudinous) cultures, they make single-species monocultures with Planet of Hats tropes that rely heavily on pre-existing literature to have more than the vaguest hints of culture present. Catering to a party with even one Evil PC though? That's going to define the whole game, guaranteed, every time, no matter what options the DM does or doesn't allow. I'm not capable of doing that. I sincerely respect those DMs who are, but it's just not something I can do. I can't just lean on literature, the problem element is a player character not a nebulous behind-the-scenes thing I can assign details to very nearly at my leisure.

And note my initial statement about flavors, plural: there may be yet other things reductively disappeared by condensing all motive down to "personal preference," and I cannot say in advance whether they are good, bad, or indifferent.

 

[Jack Daniel]

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.

Well thank you, at least, for answering the question in a straightforward manner. I find it curious that you ascribe both an attitude (pettiness) and a motive ("MY etc.") to what was otherwise a minimal-context example. Might I ask why (and specifically, why the assumption of a negative attitude and a controlling motive)?

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.

Well okay then. I don't agree, but I also don't think we can carry the topic any further than this.

For example, there is a difference between, "I don't permit half-orcs; I know their modern telling doesn't include a lot of icky stuff, but that icky history is baggage I just don't want to deal with" and "I don't permit half-orcs; it's fundamentally uninteresting to play a strong green person with tusks." The former is reflective, and shows a concern for meaningful issues (and could be rooted in any of a variety of experiences). The latter is petty and judgmental. The former is personal preference for cognizable reasons, the latter is personal preference with implicit judgment and nothing more.

Let's say I cop to all of this. Here's the question I really want answered—the thing I've been badgering Hussar and Minigiant about—why is the latter a bad thing for a DM to do? What's the reason this is something to avoid?

 

[MGibster]

For example, there is a difference between, "I don't permit half-orcs; I know their modern telling doesn't include a lot of icky stuff, but that icky history is baggage I just don't want to deal with" and "I don't permit half-orcs; it's fundamentally uninteresting to play a strong green person with tusks." The former is reflective, and shows a concern for meaningful issues (and could be rooted in any of a variety of experiences). The latter is petty and judgmental. The former is personal preference for cognizable reasons, the latter is personal preference with implicit judgment and nothing more.

I'd roll my eyes if a DM told me they'd excluded half-orcs because of the icky stuff and wouldn't consider it any more valid than the other reason. But I would accept the decision and after my eye roll I'd just finish up my character and move on.

 

[Dire Bare]

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.

Ponies, little ones at that. Totally different. Ponies are magical creatures and can do ANYTHING.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Some people out there think water is wet. They're wrong. The adjective describes objects covered with liquid and not the liquid itself

There are people out there who KNOW that DMs being stingy with info is fine. Those are the ones who have fun playing that play style.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Citation please? Or, are we back to making baseless accusations?

 

[Hussar]

Let's say I cop to all of this. Here's the question I really want answered—the thing I've been badgering Hussar and Minigiant about—why is the latter a bad thing for a DM to do? What's the reason this is something to avoid?

Because, in effect, you are telling your player, "Sorry, your imagination isn't good enough for my table. My imagination is better than yours. If you want to play at my table, you have to accept that my imagination trumps yours". ((Note, the "you" here is a generic "you" not you specifically, reader.)) The DM in question cannot imagine that the player will take that option and make it interesting enough at the table that it enhances other people's enjoyment of the game. It shows an inherent lack of trust in the player's ability to take something and make it fun.

Essentially, the DM is vetoing something, not because of thematic or aesthetic reasons, but because the DM cannot imagine that the player will do anything interesting with it. And that judgement is based on the DM's dislike of whatever that element is. It's not based on previous experience (I'm not going to let Bob play weird races because the last time he did it it was a disaster - perfectly reasonable reason), it's not based on thematic issues (I'm not going to let Bob play this weird race because it doesn't fit into the campaign). It's purely based on the DM's lack of faith in the player's ability to make that race choice interesting to the table.

That's why it's a bad thing.