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

[Minigiant]

This is all true.

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

Did you read the Leonin one?

 

[Oofta]

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

Then that's what I do with my current campaign and we're in agreement. Which I've explained repeatedly. I will work with a player to figure out some solution that adheres to the restrictions I've established for the campaign.

However, that's not what you said:

Many DMs do this however.

Many DMs are very strict and not compromising because they know players don't like going through the trouble of finding another DM. Some DM never learn to compromise as their players never walk as the DM stays under the threshold of abandonment.

Which is the problem I have with this entire thread.
POSTER1: "It's bad DMing to do X".
POSTER2: It's not inherently bad just because we don't do it your way.
POSTER1: That's not what I said.

A couple of posts later
POSTER1: "It's bad DMing to do X".

Repeat.

Unless you can tell me how a DM not compromising means that the player compromises and plays an allowed race.

 

[Chaosmancer]

(Chunk post, still about 4 pages behind)

Typo. It was supposed to read “can’t” not “can”.

Because yeah, of course you Shibari a Centaur up the side of a cliff. It’s preposterous to propose otherwise.
Likewise, you can use rope to make the climb easier, changing effective weight distribution and allowing the centaur to more easily leverage their hind legs on the climb.

Got it, I wondered why you had said that.

Typo's the bane of us all.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Show me where I judge your table please. I stated FR, a world you had no hand in, was a mess. I said FR, a product of the game company, is a mess. If a table (which I am one of them), chooses to play it, that is okay. There is nothing wrong with that. It is fun. But, imo, it is a mess. I have not called anyone's creations here or their tables a mess. In fact, I have insisted that most of the people on here probably clean FR up.

So if you read it that way (that I am judging someone's table, you misinterpreted.

Why did you say it was a mess?

Because it was a kitchen sink and had everything in it.

Therefore, it is logical to assume that at a table where everything is in the game... that would also be a mess in your opinion. Now, if your position as that Forgotten Realms is a mess because it is a poorly handled Kitchen Sink, then you'll get no disagreement from me. But the way you expressed your opinion indicated that any kitchen sink is a mess, which many people's tables would qualify as "kitchen sinks" to many people on this thread.

Here is the question you keep asking:

When have I not answered this. I even answered it in my list. I believe if the guidelines are not clear and the DM is just banning it because they don't like it, that's wrong. I have stated this many times.

Right, and when you finally answered the question I asked, I acknowledged that you finally answered the question I asked.

However, I also noted that you answered a whole lot of questions I didn't ask. You kept adding more and more stuff on top of the question I was trying to get an answer to.

To give another analogy, this whole thing is starting to feel like a debate on farming (as a whole) and I'm trying to get your position on a single crop, and you kept adding irrigation, shipping concerns, every other crop, and a whole lot of other nonsense. And then when I get our answer, I'm not allowed to move on, because somehow trying to focus on one question at a time gets me the finger-wag of changing positions.

What I see from you is, that gets stated, and then you switch the debate to something else, like suddenly now, many of those reasons are "poor." Which really brings me to this:

I am not revealing any secret. I am noting in my response that you change your answers, and when they change, they always lean towards the DM changing, not the player. Like I said, we agree on most of it. The DM should be clear. People should communicate. The DM should listen and be open. The player should respect the DM's work. The DM should respect the player's work. But once you go down the road of debating every single reason a DM can give for excluding a race, then you are not being open. You just want the DM to bend.

My answers have not changed in response to you. You present them that way, because you somehow got it in your head that my trying to get a single answer meant that was the only answer I cared about.

And yes, my answers do tend to lean towards the DM changing, there are a few reasons for that. Wanna know the big one? Most people on this thread? Maxperson, you, Jack Daniel, Paul, Oofta, ect have put forth almost exclusively that the player should change.

In fact, the entire reason I was driving so hard on this question was because you listed all these different possibilities, but refused to list that the DM might change. All because if the DM changes there is no conflict. But, you listed the player changing and conforming to the limits... which would mean there is no conflict. So it was alright for you to eliminate the conflict one way but not the other?

Communication is two-way, relationships are two-way, trust is two-way. So if I see the majority of people saying that it has to be one-way, I'm going to push back and remind them, hey, the DM can change too. The DM can diffuse this conflict by letting go of their vision too. Treating this as something only the player can do, is not appropriate, because it is not true.

I admit a DM that has put in the work should be open minded. I also admit that they have the final say, and if it doesn't work for them, case closed. The player can make a different character.
But this forum has had that debate too. Players only being able to follow one character concept. I feel for those players. That has to be difficult. But, in D&D, the DM has the final say, especially if they are running their world.
But we have shown this by quoting the DMG, the PHB, Tasha's and Xanathar's. Yet, somehow, the DM not bending has been called "edgelord," "unimaginative," "pissy," "poor," "tapped," "diluted," and "dicks."
So take those words and go back to me calling FR a "mess." A mess because there are so many things in it. See if those words have the same connotation as, "unimaginative" or "pissy."

And just as many things have been leveled at players. And generally, in my perception, you guys called players things first. "Unimaginative" came when the DM side kept saying that if a player could only have a single character concept, they must be unimaginative. "Entitled" has come up a lot, "Special Snowflake", I think I've seen a few "edgelords" or "pissy" "a-holes" ect as well.

So, the complaint "we've been called names" is a little less impactful when the other side has been called names too.

For the hundredth time, it is not wrong for the DM to bend. They can and should - whether they put in the work or not. But, a DM that truly has put in the work, and a DM who hasn't, also has the right to say no to a race. I personally prefer the reasons where a DM has logic based on their work. But, I accept no from a DM who has not done that.

And if you are also asking why it's wrong for the DM to bend because the DM put in hundreds of hours of work into their world - why would a player want them to? Why would a player who is considerate of work and imagination, want their DM to have to do twenty more hours of work so they can play a single race for one campaign? Who is being selfish? It sounds like the player.

Oh right, "selfish" all of us players are selfish.

After all, when getting to the table, and having our idea for our character to be play during our game time, we should always stop and remember that we don't actually have any say in that, do we?

I mean, look at what you just did, read that set-up and deflect.

"And if you are also asking why it's wrong for the DM to bend because the DM put in hundreds of hours of work into their world - why would a player want them to?"

Why is it wrong for the DM to bend? Well why would a player even ask them to bend in the first place?

You aren't answering the question, you are putting the burden on the player. They need to have a good reason, and then you start stacking up all the work that the poor DM has done, and the all the names they've been called in this thread and all the other things the player could do.

Because you don't have an answer to the question. You set it up so the other side has to justify themselves, and then attack their justifications with all of these other things. And I think it is because as we think about it, there is only one answer to that question.

There is no reason it is wrong for the DM to bend. It most likely means a bit more work, but the DM did far more work than that, unprompted for their own amusement. There is no reason a DM can't bend.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure! Page 15 of the Ravnica book where it says that they have the lower bodies of horses and not goats. Unlike cats, which can have claws that vary, horses only have one type of hoof. Further, the picture has a horses hoof in it. The MM also shows them with horse hooves.

That said, the MM Centaur isn't fey, so the Ravnica centaur rules only apply to Ravnica centaurs, not any centaurs in other systems unless the DM adopts those rules for his game.

Right, Fey, so they aren't like horses.

Maybe fey horses ave cloven hooves. Can you prove otherwise?

Also, I'm looking at the Ravnica book, no horse hooves. And it does say they have a "horse-like body" and says "equine".

Now, that is interesting, because the Equine family extends to more than just modern horses. In fact, the ancient predeccesor to the modern horse, Eohippus, had multiple toes. Since they only need an odd-number to be in the same ungulate family, it is entirely possible that the Fey Centaur evolved from that older version of the horse, and kept multiple toes on their feet, probably as an adaption to the terrain of the Feywild rarely having the large open plains that the larger modern horse evolved into.

So, seems like it could go either way. Interesting how that works out.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where have I done this?
Here is what I said:

Do you see here where I specifically said a DM can allow this. I have even stated I would follow the rule if a player showed me.

That was not the post I was responding to, I was responding to this one:

The difference is this:

• At some tables, you can have your centaurs climb ladders. No problem. They don't care if it breaks physical laws or makes sense.
• At some tables, they want them to climb ladders, so they come up with a magical reason because they don't want them to break physical laws.
• At some tables, you can't have centaurs climb ladders because that is like doing a pullup with three hundred extra pounds strapped to your back.

Here is where it gets interesting. Most debating do not care if you say, we do "X" at our table. Great. Good for you. Many do care if you say you should do "X" at your table. Even if you only imply it by saying/arguing centaurs can climb because they are strong enough (they are not) or if you try to force logical arguments like the billygoat argument (knowing full well a castle wall is not a stepping stone of rocks). Those "insistent" reasons, when there are obvious flaws, make it seem like you are telling a DM you should do "X," not "Y." This is especially true when you never preface your argument with: Do whatever works for your table.

Note the bolded part? The part where you say those reasons have obvious flaws and you are telling the DM you should do "x" and "y".

X in this case is following the rules.
Y is changing them just because you don't like them, and think they are silly.

Which, to remind you, is the overwhelming prevalent reason people have given. "I think that rule is stupid". Well, you are allowed to change any rule you want, for any reason I suppose, but "It's stupid" is generally a poor reason to debuff a player character.

You can, I can't stop you, but I think a player has the right to protest in defense of their character's stated racial abilities.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well you didn't say that you were spinning off your own hypothetical, so it looked for all the world like you were just badly misreading mine. I still have no idea what you were trying to accomplish rhetorically by doing that. It looks to me like an utterly pointless non sequitur.

And, no, we're not "in agreement." A DM who ruthlessly undoes everything the player characters do in order to restore the setting to an earlier status quo is doing something bad in a sandbox game where player freedom is a value. A DM who does that is doing something bad in any game where the player's actions are supposed to have meaningful consequences. But it might be brilliant in an adventure path where drama is the higher good, or in a themed campaign where the DM is trying to explore impermanence and the futility of ambition. I don't know. Neither do you. As always, context is king. The point here is that without it, neither of us can make blanket statements like that.

What meaningful drama or theme can be had between two different campaigns? And, did the DM tell the players "I'm going to run a game where the point is to destroy everything you built last campaign to show the futility of ambition?" I'm going to guess no, because quite a few players would argue that their actions over the last campaign weren't futile, and they'd rather them not be cast as futile in retrospect.

Now, destroying them mid-campaign might be dramatic, but again, the DM is either going to have to be very specific "I am going to utterly destroy everything you have built to show the futility of your ambitions in the face of great power" or they are going to have to accept that the players might turn this into something else.

And, this takes away from your initial hypothetical, doesn't it? Railroading the players is very different from being a fully open world. And a DM who not only railroads the players, but highly limits character creation, is perhaps trying to control too much of the game, and would be better off writing a novel instead.

I may personally despise railroads, I may never willingly inflict them on my players, but I can't judge a group who loves them. And a group like that deserves to have its fun without being judged for it. That is real line in the sand being drawn here: not staid and traditional vs. new and exotic, not DM authority vs. player freedom, not singular vision vs. creative collaboration, not sandbox vs. story, not rules-as-written vs. homebrew, not D&D is a genre vs. D&D is a toolkit, not verisimilitude vs. rule-of-cool. It's judgmental vs. non-judgmental. "There are better and worse, right and wrong ways to DM" vs. "A wide variety of styles are equally valid."

I've said it before a few times already in this thread, and I'll say it yet again: kitchen sink campaigns are valid, rules-as-written campaigns are valid, campaigns where the DM is "just another player" are valid, campaigns where the players add elements to the game-world are valid, campaigns that ignore basic physics in favor of genre convention are valid. These are all good and genuine ways to play D&D.

I still haven't heard a peep from anyone on the opposite side of this discussion willing to step up and say that campaigns where the DM holds full authority over the world-building and the character creation parameters, or games where the DM is scrupulous about verisimilitude and realistic physics, are also valid, good, and genuine ways to play D&D. I could leave the thread happy if just one of you lot could admit that. But I'm not holding my breath.

Treating personal preference as universal good is a problem endemic to only one side in this discussion.

Your horse is a bit high, when your side still name-calls the other side.

But sure, I'll admit that a game where the DM railroads the players and hands them pre-generated characters to play can be good, and are a valid way to play DnD.

"Can be good" doesn't mean "will be good" and most DnD Horror stories seem to involve exactly those situations, where the DM tried to control too much, but considering that is exactly what happens at Con games, and I've had some incredibly good con games, then I can't deny it can work.

Case in point:

I have a problem with this. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise. "An all-evil campaign worked well this one time" does not lead to a broader conclusion like "evil campaigns can always work" or "evil characters can always work", so I fail to see how it can lead to the conclusion that @Hussar actually draws, namely that DMs should "trust your players over your own preferences." If Hussar learned a lesson about being more flexible that works for his own group and his own table, well and groovy, but there's no good reason to believe that that holds for all groups and all tables.

There can be practical DMing advice in there—"Hey, if you want to run an all-evil campaign, help the players to figure out for themselves that cooperation is better than backstabbing!"—but it's just not the case that every group wants or needs every great new DMing tip'n'trick to run their table.

But, it does lead to the conclusion that Hussar actually put forth.

"all-evil campaigns can work" that is factually true, they can work. And if your players want to play an all evil campaign, and you want to say no just because you are holding the false premise that "all-evil campaigns can never work" then you should trust your players more than your instincts.

Because they can work. They can also be a hell a of fire and backstabbing, so can any campaign. But, it seems like there is a common mentality in the DM community, that if they tried it once and it didn't work, they should never try it again, because it will always fail. They seek to ban things, hoping to prevent future bad things from happening, and only allowing a narrow slice of the game, under the assumption that that is the best part of the game, because it hasn't exploded in their face nearly as dramatically.

@Hussar 's entire point, as I understand it, is that that is unnecessary though. You can trust your players, and that can lead to great game without you needing to monitor them for any bad actors.

(And this isn't because I respect the players. This isn't because I want the players to trust me. It's because I hold to a particular philosophy for how I want my games to work, and the respect and the trust follow from that. DMing philosophy —> how I run my games —> earning the players' respect and trust. To start with respect and trust as a prior predicate is, to me, to get the order of operations precisely backwards. But that's neither here nor there, unless we want to start a spinoff thread.)

Perhaps this is a point of conflict, but I don't really see this delineation. At least, I very much don't see my philosophy for DnD as being separate from how I run my games. And how I run my games is almost parrallel or sideways from my player's trust.

And none of it addresses the point that I see my job as a DM as ensuring my players have the maximum amount of fun. I suppose that could be considered my philosophy in a lot of ways. I don't see a strong value in banning races, because it chips away at the point that I want to facilitate my player's enjoyment.

To me, trust and respect in the sense that matters for a game of D&D (which is to say, not the basic respect we're supposed to give our peers in all social situations) is something that must be earned first. Any player who sits down at my table starts with a score of "0" in both categories, and I have no expectation that I rate any higher in their eyes until they've actually played my game.

And yet, the expectation of many posters has been that Player's should default to trusting and respecting the DM before they even sit down for session 0.

So, if you believe both sides start off with a 0 for each other, then you would agree it is not appropriate to demand trust and respect from the Players towards the DM?

The key difference here is that I have no vested interest in retaining players by enticing them with more player character options. A spouse is bound to their significant other. A minor child is dependent on a parent. A player is free to leave my table if they don't like rolling 3d6 in order for ability scores and picking from a list of classes that includes "elf" and "halfling." The draw for games like mine is not playing a role or pretending to be a non-human or portraying a personality different from the player's own—it's taking part in (and in some sense, self-inserting into) a fantasy world full of potentially adventurous situations. As it turns out, I never have a shortage of players who are on board with that.

(For what that's worth. I do hate it when I see others arguing their points based on this particular tidbit of anecdotal "evidence." But in this instance, I feel it does need to be said, if only to head off yet another snarky reply from certain posters in this thread who seem to think that pointing out a campaign is working, and working well, is the same thing as bragging about "not actively driving players away". )

I suppose this gets into that Philosophy you were talking about.

For me, if I have reached the point of "you are free to leave the game at any time" then I have failed in some aspect of my role as a DM.

It could be the player, but table management is a thing that I am supposed to handle as the DM. And if I have reached the point of expulsion, then something has gone wrong.

 

[Scott Christian]

Because most people play with their friends.

And because it isn’t that hard to bend, and compromise engenders trust.

Again. Compromise. Yes!

You want to play a drow. Drow are off limits. The compromise is - use Tasha's new variant rules and pick something else. You can also take their innate spellcasting ability. Are you okay with this?

You want to play a dragonborn. Dragonborn are not on the list. The compromise is - play this human and we'll give you a skill that lets you spit fire using oil. Are you okay with this?

You want to play an orc. Orcs are not on the list. But here is a different race with the same ASI. They are on the list. Are you okay with this?

That is compromise. Of course, since, in your example, players play with friends, they probably wouldn't go directly against their friend's request in the first place. And since bending engenders trust, and the parameters were clear to begin with, it would probably be the player that would stay within the parameters, you know, to engender trust.

Because sometimes when a friend wants tacos and everyone is going to the pizza parlor, the friend just says, "I'm out tonight. I'm just not feeling it. Hit me up the next time you go for tacos." This happens all the time. It also happens with games. Some friends want to play Conan. Others are like, "I really want to play D&D." It's not going to ruin the friendship if they don't join the Conan game.

 

[Don Durito]

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.

Well Yes. I got my current group together that way. But I also tried another game with random participants on Roll20 (something to do over lockdown) and ditched it after two sessions because the players were wanting to pick each others pockets and tedious crap like that and their only response to most NPCs was to want to kill them.

In reality, ditching your current group, assuming you have one, and finding a completely new group - is a far from guaranteed option. It certainly doesn't ensure you'll be able to run the game that "you really, really, really, want to run".

It may be easy, due to scarcity, to find players who will agree to a specific premise. That doesn't mean that the game will end up being actually fun to GM.

 

[Oofta]

Well Yes. I got my current group together that way. But I also tried another game with random participants on Roll20 (something to do over lockdown) and ditched it after two sessions because the players were wanting to pick each others pockets and tedious crap like that and their only response to most NPCs was to want to kill them.

In reality, ditching your current group, assuming you have one, and finding a completely new group - is a far from guaranteed option. It certainly doesn't ensure you'll be able to run the game that "you really, really, really, want to run".

Yeah, maybe I've just been lucky. It also seems like it may be more of an issue with online-only groups? I mean, my current group is online only but that's just because of COVID.

I guess the other thing is that I set up restrictions, no PVP, no intra-party theft, not evil murder hobos and so on. But finding a good group on Roll20 is probably a whole separate thread and not one I haven't had much experience with.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

If you're going to go that far, just ask to play a human and have the drow stats. Have a dark past.

The point always comes to this: If the DM (in this case Oofta) is clear he does not want you playing a drow. Why would you make one?

Everyone on here can make an intricate backstory as to how or why you could play one. But why insist on being a drow?

Is it:
A) For the stats
B) For the background
C) Both A & B
D) To see if you can

• If it is A, talk with the DM and any DM I know will let you have the mechanics without the ears and purple skin.
• If it is B, find a comparable culture. Play that. If there isn't one, make a different character. (I mean, if you can come up with a clever way of playing a drow, you must be able to come up with another character type.)
• If it is C, combine the two above.
• If it is D, ask the DM. If they say no, save the character for another day.

You see, it all boils down to why? If a DM like Oofta, who has clear parameters (regardless of reasons), asks you to join the game - why start the campaign by trying to do something he has told you not to do?

Because the idea of finding the shades of grey and even light in an evil boogeyman is infinitely more appealing to me than a flat black generic always evil humanoid cardboard cutout.

It is thrilling an entertaining to discover WHY the bad guys are bad and what you can do to find some common ground with them rather than just say "It's a drow, man the harpoon and aim for the head."

So, if there is room for a way to explore those shades of grey (by incorporating a human looking raised from a baby by humans drow) you give your story and villains a third dimension. I've seen Oofta describe them many times as "the boogeyman you scare your kids to sleep with" however finding out if it's genetically ingrained, magically compelled, or just culturally accepted for them to be vicious is literally oozing your curated campaign background onto the players via an engaged PC.

My proposed Drow Moses isnt created to be obstructionist to Ooftas wishes, it's an attempt at exploring one aspect of his world that's HIS creation different from the standard. I wod think as a GM you would want your players to find reason to do that more than killing them and taking their stuff.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

This is all true.

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

Depends.

I might want to be a race to explore it's niche in the fiction OR I might want to be a race that has a breath weapon and fits a theme unrelated to the fiction. It could be both.

I wanted to play a primitive warrior in ToA because having a character living in the jungles of Chult is super thematic.

I didnt want to use magic or wear armor so my best option to fit the theme was monk. I filed off the karate bits and reskinned the powers to be primal instead. I then picked Wood Elf as my race strictly for the faster move speed and useful stat bonuses.

So my character concept is half thematic and half mechanical and the end result is a PC that makes sense in the setting is effective in battle, and is fun to play outside of combat.

 

[Oofta]

Because the idea of finding the shades of grey and even light in an evil boogeyman is infinitely more appealing to me than a flat black generic always evil humanoid cardboard cutout.

It is thrilling an entertaining to discover WHY the bad guys are bad and what you can do to find some common ground with them rather than just say "It's a drow, man the harpoon and aim for the head."

So, if there is room for a way to explore those shades of grey (by incorporating a human looking raised from a baby by humans drow) you give your story and villains a third dimension. I've seen Oofta describe them many times as "the boogeyman you scare your kids to sleep with" however finding out if it's genetically ingrained, magically compelled, or just culturally accepted for them to be vicious is literally oozing your curated campaign background onto the players via an engaged PC.

My proposed Drow Moses isnt created to be obstructionist to Ooftas wishes, it's an attempt at exploring one aspect of his world that's HIS creation different from the standard. I wod think as a GM you would want your players to find reason to do that more than killing them and taking their stuff.

So you've described why you would want to play a drow from an RP perspective.

My explanation why you can't is fairly simple:

• Drow are from Svartleheim and are evil. I'm not getting into the debate beyond that other than to say that it is for magical reasons, same as fiends.
• Drow would be attacked on sight in many cases. That's not a good thing, but my campaign world can be harsh, people are afraid. They will shoot first and ask questions later. I run NPCs the way I think they would react, not to accommodate PCs.
• Disadvantage in full sunlight is something I'm not going to hand wave and it would be a huge impediment in my campaign

That doesn't mean I wouldn't work with you to figure something out. You could have been kidnapped by drow, even believed you were drow. You could be from a disgraced group of people, one that is hated (but not to the point of kill on sight). Lots of options.

 

[Jack Daniel]

@Chaosmancer:

Well for once I feel neither personally slighted nor utterly baffled by something you've written, and you've agreed that there are some ways to play D&D that you might personally dislike that others could be having fun with, so… yeah, I have no particular beef with any of this.

I'm good. Enjoy the rest of the thread, for however long it still has any steam.