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

[Azzy]

Good to know we've gotten past the "the DM must do whatever a player wants" or they're a bad DM discussion.

Oh...wait.

Good to know that that you're taking my comment out of context of "a DM that uses DM scarcity to not care about what their players like" to make a hollow straw man.

 

[Oofta]

No one said that Oofta.

Caring about your players' desires is not the same as giving them exactly what they want.

Either the DM needs to change things in their campaign setup to give the players what they've asked for that was not there before or they don't.

If the former then compromise means changing basic parameters of the game. If they don't they're an insult to the game.

If it doesn't mean that, what does it mean?

 

[Don Durito]

In the real world scarcity only goes so far. Social considerations aside, you can ditch all your current players and find rando's but the chance that a bunch of randos will end up making for a game that's completely unsatifying is pretty high.

It doesn't matter if the group all signed on to play your all Dwarf - political intrigue regarding the succession of the low king - game, if the first thing they do is kill a random merchant and loot his store.

 

[Oofta]

In the real world scarcity only goes so far. Social considerations aside, you can ditch all your current players and find rando's but the chance that a bunch of randos will end up making for a game that's completely unsatifying is pretty high.

It doesn't matter if the group all signed on to play your all Dwarf political intrigue regarding the succession fo the low king game, if the first thing they do is kill a random merchant and loot his store.

I've been playing with "a bunch of randos" off and on for decades. It's never been a problem.

It's great if you have a group of friends that also happen to be gamers that have time to join your game. It's not universal, nor is "a group of randos" a bad thing, I've made some great friends that way.

 

[Minigiant]

Either the DM needs to change things in their campaign setup to give the players what they've asked for that was not there before or they don't.

If the former then compromise means changing basic parameters of the game. If they don't they're an insult to the game.

If it doesn't mean that, what does it mean?

Nope.

A player who wants to be a Dragonborn for the dragon powers could be offered the draconic sorcerer. Maybe a special item. Maybe a custom Metamagic.

A player who wants to be a Leonin for an African Savanna inspired character could be nudged to the people of the DM's world closest to that fantasy without being a literal lionman.

A player who wants to be an orc to play an ALL BEEF NO BRAINS barbarian but dislikes the dwarfs and their shortness and conservativism might be nudged to the STR bonus race the DM does allow. Or be allows the new Tasha's free stat swapping.

You can cater to your players without changing your world as a DM. It's the DM's world. Only the DM knows what's in it

 

[Maxperson]

Uh. As someone that decides what can be played (?), arbitrates rules, and such, a DM does have de facto authority over the players (who are people). Your line of argument is weird.

So if the DM told you to jump up and down for 10 minutes, would you? The DM has no authority over the players. He has authority over the game only, which includes rules, PCs, etc. At no time can he tell a player what to do. The player can always say no. He may not be playing in the game again, depending on the circumstances, but the DM can make the player do nothing and had no authority to order the player around.

 

[Maxperson]

A sacrifice is a sacrifice.

Many Players rarely get to play the type of game they really really want to play.
Almost every DMs gets to play the type of game they really really want to run.

There is a difference between, "I enjoy games A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and I, but F is my favorite. Oh, the DM is running C? Okay. I'll still have lots of fun." and "I really don't like C. Oh, the DM is running C? I think I'll do something else then." I'm talking about the latter and you seem to be talking about the former.

 

[Scott Christian]

Nope.

A player who wants to be a Dragonborn for the dragon powers could be offered the draconic sorcerer. Maybe a special item. Maybe a custom Metamagic.

A player who wants to be a Leonin for an African Savanna inspired character could be nudged to the people of the DM's world closest to that fantasy without being a literal lionman.

A player who wants to be an orc to play an ALL BEEF NO BRAINS barbarian but dislikes the dwarfs and their shortness and conservativism might be nudged to the STR bonus race the DM does allow. Or be allows the new Tasha's free stat swapping.

You can cater to your players without changing your world as a DM. It's the DM's world. Only the DM knows what's in it

This is all true.

Is there anyone on the players side that wants anything different than the mechanical effects of a race?

 

[Minigiant]

There is a difference between, "I enjoy games A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and I, but F is my favorite. Oh, the DM is running C? Okay. I'll still have lots of fun." and "I really don't like C. Oh, the DM is running C? I think I'll do something else then." I'm talking about the latter and you seem to be talking about the former.

The point is that the DM always gets to pick as they do the most work and players are encouraged to compromise or take 2nd or 3rd choices die to the fears surrounding scarcity.

It's the same issue.
The DM chooses. Players can only accept. Such a dynamic allows some DMs to be obstinate.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Seems like people are trying to have a real conversation right now and you keep throwing around words like "tantrum".

Your constant “stop attacking me by having opinions I don’t like” style posts are attempts at a real conversation?

So basically you belong to the "the player gets to decide what's allowed" group. Which, fine. I disagree and it's not something I allow nor have I ever seen it in real life. But just say that.

Yeah, going back to not interacting with you. This sort of dishonest portrayal of other people’s outlook and statements is really aggravating, and of no value.

And it is a bit like telling everyone you are ordering pizza, and one person says, no I want tacos. Sometimes, you can find a taco pizza. Sometimes you can find a place that makes both. And other times, the taco person just has to not eat dinner with the pizza people. (Yeah, that's me - bringing back the pizza analogies! )

I like pizza analogies. This is a very, very, incredibly, weird conclusion, though. Outside of allergies, either the pizza is compromised, or the taco guy just deals with a good they don’t prefer. Which happens is determined by all the same social mechanisms as any other point of contention in a group activity.