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

[Scott Christian]

The thing is though, this can literally happen with any character. Just taking the Egypt example for a brief second, most Egytian style characters would likely have a belief in the sacredness of the Pharoah, it was a pretty big deal.

100%

What if a character wanted to play a former servant from the Palace, who did not believe in the Divinity of the Pharoah? What about, since the example of "but they'd be killed on sight" comes up a lot, the character wanted to play a servant who was supposed to be killed and buried in their Pharoah's tomb, but escaped and stole an item of great worth? They'd be a criminal hunted by the God-King of the land.

I like the thought, although that sounds like an adventure from the start. If you are going to go that far and allow your character to have:

• One of the most precious gifts of the land
• Escape the divine proclamation of the Pharaoh himself
• Outwit or outlast the Pharaoh's guards

Why not ask the DM to run a solo session that sets something like that up or something similar? This way, at least they are part of your entire story which is going to alter things quite a bit. Plus, it would allow them to build off of the story, like creating an antagonist who is always searching for you.

But I don't want to belabor a specific example. There can always be difficulty with a character if the DM looks for it. That's why, in the comment you replied to, I stated four. Those were four right off the top of my head. The DM should try to find solutions. But they also have the final say.

In then end, I have seen very few examples where the DM found a problem. Most do not look for a problem with their players' characters. Then again, most players do not insist of creating a character that is outside the parameters the DM placed.

 

[Chaosmancer]

In then end, I have seen very few examples where the DM found a problem. Most do not look for a problem with their players' characters. Then again, most players do not insist of creating a character that is outside the parameters the DM placed.

This was the point I was trying to focus on though.

Even within the parameters, there might be problems based on backstory or personality, or something else entirely.

If the problem is that the player might be too honorable, banning the samurai might not help, they may create an equally honorable character within the parameters.

You are discouraging an expression of the thing you see as a problem, but not the problem itself. Which could still come up, just through a different means. And, you could still allow the character that is outside parameters, but talk to them about the issue you are actually concerned with.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

That said, he should listen, talk with you, work with you, and bend (imho). But, I would ask this:
Did you know you were playing an Egyptian style game? Did he ask you to make an Egyptian style character? Were the parameters set prior to you making your character?

I am not accusing with the questions above, I am legitimately curious, as I do not remember if you said that information. Thanks.

Note, the Egypt example was not mine, I was just using it for illustration.

To be 100% honest, I wouldn't do this as a player. I'm a big believer that, as a player, my job is to work with the DM to make the game more interesting for everyone at the table. So, I deliberately make characters that are embedded in the setting. For example:

Darksun campaign (4e) - a trading house noble from Rom (is that the name of the city?) who was serving in the city military.
Dragonlance Campaign (5e) - human knight of Solamnia.
Forgotten Realms - Storm King's Thunder - human forge priest of Kossuth
Forgotten Realms - Dungeon of the Mad Mage - human paladin who was the former cook at the inn the PC's opened during Dragon Heist.

So, yeah, I'm all about working with DM's. And, yes, I understand completely the frustration that DM's can have when it comes to players bringing up characters that don't fit. Heck, I disbanded my last group for pretty much exactly this reason - I got so sick of players who simply wouldn't expend any effort to embed themselves into the campaign and expected me to do everything for them, rolling up the plot wagon week after week and spoon feeding the action. I got so frustrated that I stopped enjoying the game entirely, and finally, just quit the group.

Yeah, I get it.

But, there is the other hand too. The player who makes oddball characters that just add so much to the game. The gnomish sorcerer in the Dragonlance campaign (despite that being very much non-canon) wound up being a central character of the campaign. The awakened skeleton in our Dragon Heist game (I DM'd) that became a big side plot to get him citizenship papers to prevent him from being killed on sight by any cleric who happened on by - very shades of Terry Pratchett. Same player made an orc who wrote a self-help book in our Saltmarsh game because a central figure when he decided to start freeing slaves from the Scarlet Brotherhood.

So, yes, I get the point that players need to get with the program. I do. I totally understand. OTOH, I also see DM's stifling player creativity all the time too. DM's who cannot see past their own creations to allow players to add spices (to use your analogy) to their chicken soup. It's a nuanced issue.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So, yes, I get the point that players need to get with the program. I do. I totally understand. OTOH, I also see DM's stifling player creativity all the time too. DM's who cannot see past their own creations to allow players to add spices (to use your analogy) to their chicken soup. It's a nuanced issue.

Agreed. Compromise and progress require both sides to want to meet in the middle.

 

[Yardiff]

Though it is worth noting, "flexibility" never has meant (and never should mean) being a doormat for your players. I have seen the negative impact that can have on others. It wasn't my game, but it was the game that inspired me to DM. (Because no matter what I might think about my DMing skills, I was certain I could do better than that.)

As I use the term, "flexibility" means, "Alright, you want X. I don't currently have X in my world. What are you looking for from X? What parts of it are vital to you, and what parts are just trappings?" If we can narrow things down to the essential elements, I can determine whether we can form a compromise or not. In the vast, vast, vast majority of cases, we can, simply because I leave room in my worlds for there to be stuff I haven't planned for yet.

I'd almost call the opposite--inflexibility, where you as DM already know all the content of the campaign world, definitively--a little irresponsible? It prevents so much, and what happens if you forget something, or leave a conflict by accident and only discover it later?

So its irresponsible to play a game different from the way you prefer it to be played?

 

[Gammadoodler]

So its irresponsible to play a game different from the way you prefer it to be played?

I mean, this is just the adjective game. "You have a criticism of a style you don't prefer and dare describe it negatively?"

Without agreeing or disagreeing, @EzekielRaiden provided their reasoning for the criticism and how it could be deemed irresponsible, and that it was an opinion.

If you don't like the characterization, wouldn't it be more impactful to discuss the reasoning rather than just going..."oooooo..They said a naughty word"?

 

[Yardiff]

I mean, this is just the adjective game. "You have a criticism of a style you don't prefer and dare describe it negatively?"

Without agreeing or disagreeing, @EzekielRaiden provided their reasoning for the criticism and how it could be deemed irresponsible, and that it was an opinion.

If you don't like the characterization, wouldn't it be more impactful to discuss the reasoning rather than just going..."oooooo..They said a naughty word"?

Not really no.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Not really no.

Then what's the point?

They say "I think x behavior is irresponsible and here's why"

You say "So you think a behavior you don't like is irresponsible"

Is this supposed to be some kind of trap to force someone to admit to they have an opinion?

 

[Hussar]

Saying that a DM being inflexible leads to a poorer game is hardly contentious is it?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So its irresponsible to play a game different from the way you prefer it to be played?

No. But if you feel like actually engaging with what I said, rather than pretending like a rather mildly-worded paragraph is irrational One True Wayist screeching, I'm sure we could have an actual conversation. If not, that's disappointing but I'll live.

Saying that a DM being inflexible leads to a poorer game is hardly contentious is it?

At this point, I'm beginning to believe that just about anything one can say, short of unqualified agreement, is controversial. For goodness' sake, even the idea that DMs and players are human beings who have a relationship between them, as opposed to merely being defined rules-entities with specified responsibilities and powers, is apparently controversial.