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

[Argyle King]

How do you feel about AL games limiting player options?

 

[Maxperson]

Need I remind you that, before he was instructed to leave the thread,

I'm confused. I didn't see him instructed to leave the thread.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm confused. I didn't see him instructed to leave the thread.

Accidentally hit "post" because my phone is a jerk. See above.

 

[Maxperson]

Need I remind you that, before they were instructed to leave the thread, Pming said exactly this sort of thing? That non-humans were subjected to open and overt racist behavior until the player ceased to be a "problem"? Your sarcasm is a bit specious when we've had this exact attitude openly and earnestly expressed in this very thread.

Arguments from one person in the thread on a side do not apply to all on that side. If he wants to ask me a question about it, fine. If he wants to approach me that way, he's going to get that response as that is the response it deserves.

 

[Minigiant]

I think this falls into the tone/playstyle, etc. As I said, though, in most cases the DM should explain, so we mostly agree here. I just don't view it as a player right.

I don't think it's a should, it's a must..
If a player asks if its a genre/tone/playstyle/etc issue, the DM must answer. The DM does not have to elaborate but they must at least say yes or no.

For example, if the DM is running a mythic game and minotaurs are banned because the only minotaur is THE minotaur, then the DM, if questioned, must state if asked that there is a genre reason for the ban.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

How do you feel about AL games limiting player options?

That isn't a DM, it's an organization. By definition, the relationship is impersonal, and its requirements are expected to be unilateral, absolute, and (in general) obdurate. But an AL game is also one where almost nothing we've discussed applies. You don't get this incredible hard work invested by the DM because these are prewritten modules in extant settings. You don't get grand DM "vision" because the adventure path is already set. Many of these choices are, formally speaking, out of the AL DM's hands. E.g. I imagine Maxperson would actively avoid running AL games, because Dragonborn officially exist in the Forgotten Realms and thus it is impossible for him to truly enjoy himself when running that world "as written." Several other settings also officially include them or an equivalent (Eberron, Dark Sun, Dragonlance, obviously 4e's World Axis), so organized play is almost unavoidably tainted for Max.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think it's a should, it's a must..
If a player asks if its a genre/tone/playstyle/etc issue, the DM must answer. The DM does not have to elaborate but they must at least say yes or no.

For example, if the DM is running a mythic game and minotaurs are banned because the only minotaur is THE minotaur, then the DM, if questioned, must state if asked that there is a genre reason for the ban.

I would absolutely answer that question under those circumstances. The only time I wouldn't answer would be if there was some sort of secret that will come out during game play, but even then I'll let them know that there is a reason and to trust me.

 

[Maxperson]

That isn't a DM, it's an organization. By definition, the relationship is impersonal, and its requirements are expected to be unilateral, absolute, and (in general) obdurate. But an AL game is also one where almost nothing we've discussed applies. You don't get this incredible hard work invested by the DM because these are prewritten modules in extant settings. You don't get grand DM "vision" because the adventure path is already set. Many of these choices are, formally speaking, out of the AL DM's hands. E.g. I imagine Maxperson would actively avoid running AL games, because Dragonborn officially exist in the Forgotten Realms and thus it is impossible for him to truly enjoy himself when running that world "as written." Several other settings also officially include them or an equivalent (Eberron, Dark Sun, Dragonlance, obviously 4e's World Axis), so organized play is almost unavoidably tainted for Max.

You called that one. I avoid AL like the plague. Both as a player and a DM. I don't want my hands bound that way, nor do I want any DM I play with to have his hands bound that way. And that's before we ever even get to the dragonborn issue.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Arguments from one person in the thread on a side do not apply to all on that side. If he wants to ask me a question about it, fine. If he wants to approach me that way, he's going to get that response as that is the response it deserves.

My point was not whether that position is widespread. My point was that dismissing the question out of hand, as though it is completely ridiculous and untenable, is inappropriate when we literally have had someone advocate exactly that thing here. Sarcastic "really now, let's not invent boogeymen" responses lose a lot of their oomph when the boogeyman has, in fact, actually popped up.

Pretending this is a strawman is silly, because this target actually has gotten up and walked around. Clarifying how and why you DON'T take that position is in fact a relevant thing for people to ask for. It may not be anyone else's position in the thread besides pming. But it's been a real position, and I haven't exactly seen any of the "wow man that's extreme don't you think" kind of responses/statements...like the ones I have given to those "on my side" that I think have gone overboard.

You called that one. I avoid AL like the plague. Both as a player and a DM. I don't want my hands bound that way, nor do I want any DM I play with to have his hands bound that way. And that's before we ever even get to the dragonborn issue.

I can appreciate that.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

First of all, thank you. I don't know why, maybe it was the visual image I got, but I found this hysterical and laughed about it until I almost cried. Thank you.

I hear what you are saying. Thank you for taking the time to explain. It is appreciated. I can't speak for Oofta and his campaign, so I can't answer why. All I can say is thank you for taking the time to explain.

You don't have any in your game - except demons. That is the main concept I think everyone should take away - if a DM can accept demons as evil without a hint of good, it is not a far stretch to imagine any other thing as being outright evil. Including a DM saying drow.

If your true desire is to play a campaign exploring the "evil" of a race, then I would suggest DMing a campaign using only that race. WotC did it for 4e. An Underdark adventure where people played as one of the outcast houses in the drow sovereign. Your job was to either backstab your own house, raise one house so your house could become number 2, or try to bring down the other two houses. Great mini-campaign. I killed my entire party because I played a traditional drow - I backstabbed them all to increase my fortune. Even to this day, players mention it with laughs and pseudo-awe.

But to say I need to play this, bend your campaign even though you told me not to play this - eh?

No. Oofta, as the DM of his campaign, stated players are not allowed to play a drow. He stated specifically he would work with them if they wanted those mechanical benefits. But also clearly stated - you CANNOT be a drow.

And then your example is to - want to play a drow.

That is why one side is having such a hard time with this. Ask to play? Sure. Want the mechanical benefits? Sure. Always insisting on playing a character the DM has not listed? Not cool.

I feel like we may be getting close to a breakthrough of understanding, even if we have differing opinions on specifics, so I'm going to speak to this a little farther.

Demons: The reason I even have the demons as 100% bloodthirsty evil is because it's a tool in my toolbox to use when I need something that is 100% psychotically distilled pure evil. In a sense, in my game demons are the equivalent of chaotic evil elementals. I view all the lower planes creatures as evil elementals.

Devil's are lawfully evil in that they want your soul. They will be your best buddy to get that soul, but once they have it you are their tool.

Yugoloths are mercenaries wihout conscience. They aren't going to kill you on sight but have no qualms doing so for coin or even if you are slight in their way to make coin.

Demons are chaotic destruction made incarnate. They literally have no agenda but to deliver destruction to anything that catches their attention.

Since I have three "always evil" tools, only one of which is impossible to buy loyalty from (at least in the short term) I am free to explore other facets of bad guyism in other monsters. In my evil toolbox I don't want 6 hammers when I only ever need one. I'd rather make room for a mallet and a sledge.

As far as exploring evil goes....I'm talking about uncovering the story from a players point of view. I am not wanting to explore as in play an evil character, I'm wanting to explore as a regular character with ties to an evil organization so that uncovering that lore in the game world is what my character is interested in.

Finally, as far as Oofta and drow, I'm just using him and his game as an example because he had been pretty open about how drow is one of his few lines in the sand, why those lines are there, and seems fairly lenient about other character concepts.

I am personally intrigued at his take on drow and would want to explore it in depth. This may be because that's the only part of his campaign I've picked up on, and maybe he has 300 other interesting nooks and crannies to explore, but my interest in it is why I would counter "You can't be a drow" with "What if I was drow that knew nothing about drow and lived amongst the humans"?

I am setting up my Moses character this way not to be obstinate, but to see where the wall is that keeping drow off the table intersects with player options. If Oofta doesn't want drow because their ways are unknown, my character doesn't change that. If he doesn't want drow because they are mechanicaly overpowered I could use a human or halfelf and say I was transformed. If he doesn't want me to be a drow because of some big campaign secret that even explaining why gives something away then I can respect that and back away from the privacy fence.

I think we are at the point where we mostly agree and are splitting hairs. The very fact that I'm butting up against Ooftas drow wall is because I, the player, want to explore that aspect of the game. I'm not being disrespectful clarifying it and he's not a bad GM for giving a hard no.

Where the two sides are arguing here is that the GM side is thinking the players are demanding to be allowed to play whatever without limitations (which few if any have asserted) and the player side thinking the GMs are being arbitrary in banning everything without even taking a moment to see if it can work (which few if any have asserted).

My personal style as a GM is to let people play what they are excited to play. I build my world with all sorts of nooks and crannies to have an oddball PC emerge from so while the major players are still elves/dwarves/humans/hobgoblins/orcs there is room for most concepts.

As a player I want to be engaged both mechanically and dramatically with the campaign. The more you funnel my mechanical options into fewer buckets than 5e has to offer the more you take away the only power I have for half of the gametime at the table. No amount of "but my story is awesome" will make up for the fact I'm bored playing yet another human fighter when roleplaying ends and the dice and minis come out.