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

[Gammadoodler]

Words have been used like this. Not from you. But they have. I know you don't hold that view, just like some of Max's views I might disagree with. However, they have been said.

Correct-ish. I used the term 'crazy control freak' to refer to a hypothetical DM..once. Oofta has chosen to internalize this in a way that was unintended.

 

[Azzy]

This thread just keeps going round and round.

On one side we have DM authority that I'd summarize as:

1. As a DM I wear many hats including referee and final arbiter of the rules.
2. The DM is responsible for making the best game they can for everyone at the table. That includes all 4-6 players and themselves.
3. Much of DM is collaborative gameplay, but the DM is still primarily responsible for world building and establishing restrictions and limitations. That may include restricting races and/or classes.
4. Accept that their style and their campaign may not be for everyone. However if you try to please everyone you often please no one.
5. As much as it may suck for the player cannot find a DM that will allow a specific race, that's not the DM's responsibility. Most DMs have limited time and space for a limited number of players, usually 6. DMs are not responsible for every potential player that could possibly join their game. It's only an issue if the DM cannot attract or retain players for the games they're willing to run.
6. Last, but not least, being a good DM includes being enthusiastic and excited about their world. If the world doesn't live and breath for the DM how can he make it come to life for the players?

There's a lot of variation in there, it's completely up to the DM to share responsibility as they see fit. In some case that may mean that up to the point of character creation the DM has full control or may mean a collaboratively built world or anything in between. Obviously there should be discussion, but the DM is under no obligation to change anything.

There is no one right way, although in general the players should have complete control over their PCs once they are created. Exceptions would be things like whether you allow PVP combat, stealing from party members and similar.

Am I missing anything critical?

On the Player authority side(?)
Honestly I'm not even sure. Can someone sum this up in 500 words or less? Without throwing in bad DM red herrings like reversing everything the player accomplishes on a whim, gotcha DMing, railroad campaigns, changing rules after session 0 without discussion, rudeness, and so on. Bad DMs will be bad DMs, it has nothing to do with running a curated world.

I'm trying to not be dismissive, but it seems to boil down to one of the following:

1. Any individual player has the right to play any character they want.
2. The DM has to justify their choice. The justification has to be for a "good" reason. The player decides if the reason is good enough.

I'm pretty sure your "On the Player authority side(?)" description is a farce, but I'll leave that to others.

But I reject both "sides" as you define them. Instead, I propose the "Group Authority" side:

1. The group allows one member to take the reins of the DM/GM/Referee/Storyteller/whatever the specific game calls that role (DM, hereafter).
2. The group gives the DM as much authority as they collectively agree upon.
3. The DM respects the limits of authority that the group has given them.
4. The players respects the authority that the group agreed to give the DM.
5. The DM and players act with respect towards each other, seek to create an enjoying game and atmosphere for everyone in the group, play fairly, not be annoying, and whatever else the group agrees to.
6. Both the DM and players are accountable to the group as a whole.
7. Both the DM and players remember that it's a bloody game, not high art project, so they both need to compromise their "artistic vision" for the sake of an enjoyable experience.

 

[Remathilis]

Might have to ban the dragonborn again. Reason they stink mechanically.

Unless your game is hyper-competitive trials and raids and require PCs'to have specific builds to meet DPS, tanking and healing thresholds, letting a PC choose an underpowered race is fine. If they have concerns, discuss it but I don't see a reason to ban it just because it's a weaker race on the tier list.

 

[Oofta]

I'm pretty sure your "On the Player authority side(?)" description is a farce, but I'll leave that to others.

But I reject both "sides" as you define them. Instead, I propose the "Group Authority" side:

1. The group allows one member to take the reins of the DM/GM/Referee/Storyteller/whatever the specific game calls that role (DM, hereafter).
2. The group gives the DM as much authority as they collectively agree upon.
3. The DM respects the limits of authority that the group has given them.
4. The players respects the authority that the group agreed to give the DM.
5. The DM and players act with respect towards each other, seek to create an enjoying game and atmosphere for everyone in the group, play fairly, not be annoying, and whatever else the group agrees to.
6. Both the DM and players are accountable to the group as a whole.
7. Both the DM and players remember that it's a bloody game, not high art project, so they both need to compromise their "artistic vision" for the sake of an enjoyable experience.

No, it's not. Because everything else seems to fall under "don't be a dick DM" which is a red herring. There are many ways to run a game. What you outlined is fine.

But all you did was say what you do. You don't give any justification or reason as to why that makes a curated campaign wrong. After all, it's just a bloody game.

EDIT: just to clarify, I don't have any problem with depicting a third option. I just see that as being on the spectrum of the two sides. I do find it insulting that you feel compelled to throw in the "artistic vision" crap.

 

[Azzy]

No, it's not. Because everything else seems to fall under "don't be a dick DM" which is a red herring. There are many ways to run a game. What you outlined is fine.

But all you did was say what you do. You don't give any justification or reason as to why that makes a curated campaign wrong. After all, it's just a bloody game.

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that your group gives you the authority to run a "curated" game when you run it, so I don't know why you think that I believe that a "curated" game is wrong.

 

[Argyle King]

I will also note that sci fi and fantasy are different genres, and being self-consistent with its rules is typically more important to science fiction.


1. For example, the stated histories of Firefly and Star Wars as given are mutually exclusive - one is long ago in our past in another galaxy far away, the other is in our future in our own galaxy. Han Solo can't plausibly have grown up hanging around with Malcolm Reynolds.

2. Is it possible to have a character like Mal Reynolds in the Star Wars universe? Certainly, if we are flexible on some elements of the backstory....

I wouldn't agree with the part before the numbers. I think "magic" can make certain things easier to explain with some handwaving, but the same could also be said for ambiguously defined technology.

1) Is it our past? A long time ago in a galaxy far away could be construed to mean that it is in that galaxy's past -which doesn't particularly define exactly when that would be at all. Even if it were taken to mean our literal past, the timeline from that past has been advanced with newer movies -which would arguably place it into the "future" noted in the other story.

The Han/Mal hanging out scenario isn't required (nor was it expressed elsewhere).

If merging canon is problematic, I would then ask why that's not an issue for introducing a fantasy race into a setting where they don't exist.

2) I don't believe -in the context of that conversation- anything would need to change. I can see reasons why it should (or maybe even why the idea shouldn't be done at all,) but I think the explanation would be easier than something like Mr. Spock suddenly having a sister that he never mentioned.

 

[Oofta]

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that your group gives you the authority to run a "curated" game when you run it, so I don't know why you think that I believe that a "curated" game is wrong.

I posted an honest request for explanation. You made fun of that request as "farce". As far as "giving me authority" they do that implicitly when they accept the invitation to my game because I'm quite clear on the style of game I run.

 

[Remathilis]

For different reasons, I also often swap out either halflings or gnomes for something else. I don't feel that they both have enough of an identity to be included. In one of my home games, they're both viewed by the rest of the world around them as simply being two branches of the same race. I wouldn't say I dislike either, but I find their presentation a bit bland. I then tend to sub in grippli, woem (homebrew catfolk of small size,) or something else as a player option.

That's what I'm talking about! [emoji16]

You have a race that doesn't fit your setting. You replace it with a different race that fills a similar thematic niche. You preserve the view of your world without artificially limiting player options.

So I might not play Hodo Wigglebottoms, halfling rogue in your campaign, but I can retool and try you woem race as play it more alfiq like than hobbit like. You didn't say "there are no short races, play a human or something" . That's a compromise.

 

[Maxperson]

I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that your group gives you the authority to run a "curated" game when you run it, so I don't know why you think that I believe that a "curated" game is wrong.

Nobody gives him the authority, though. That's the point. The DMG gives him the authority and the players in that kind of game agree with it or don't and find a different game.

 

[Oofta]

Correct-ish. I used the term 'crazy control freak' to refer to a hypothetical DM..once. Oofta has chosen to internalize this in a way that was unintended.

So can you tell me why in 500 words or less why you believe curated campaigns are wrong? If they are not, why you argue against them?

Because I'm being quite sincere in my request from this post. Can we have an explanation that counters my logic for having a list of acceptable races?