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

[Hussar]

Just to give an example where I believe that DM inflexibility about the setting hurt enjoyment at the table. Years ago, I was playing in a 2e game set around the Keep on the Borderlands. Fairly new group, and we're all just kind of getting to know each other, so, pretty light fare.
I ask if I can play a forge cleric (this was to become my absolute favorite PC, Korbach, who I've played in a few different campaigns under different DM's and different editions - this was his first iteration) who was an itinerent armor smith using the 2e NWP rules. The DM okayed it and off I went - spent the NWP's to be a proficient armorer and set about establishing a forge for myself and whatnot.

"Ok, I guess I want to make a suit of plate mail for the Castellan," I said to the DM in order to gain favor.
"Oh, plate mail doesn't exist in this setting. It's too advanced," said the DM.
"Umm... pardon? Plate mail predates pretty much every other PHB armor by a centuries. They made plate mail out of bronze"
"Nope. No plate mail. It's historically wrong. We're before plate mail."
"Err, how about banded?"
"Nope. Nothing better than chainmail. I'm running a historically accurate game."

So, now I'm completely baffled. Because the DM is absolutely convinced that she knows her history, I can't do something that should be no problems. She absolutely would not bend, nor would accept any contrary evidence to the history that she KNEW. Should have been giant warning signs because if the DM is that inflexible about something like that, what else is going to be a problem.

Spoiler - the entire group revolted a few sessions later and dumped her as a DM.

 

[Maxperson]

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

I don't know. I haven't been able to touch my toes in a long time, but I still run a good game.

 

[FireLance]

I don't know. I haven't been able to touch my toes in a long time, but I still run a good game.

You didn't get polymorphed into centaur, did you?

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

I agree. In this example that is very true and something the DM should consider. But I really get the feeling it was about flavor. That's why I didn't want to hyper focus on this specific example. But, I agree with you two, the DM would be better off allowing it despite their personal taste. But, if they say, that should be okay too.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

I agree with this. A lot can be added to the spirit of the game using an oddball character, including one outside the DM's initial impression or prewritten lore.

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.

I appreciate you working with the DM. But, I really just never see this in my experience, which is maybe why I am so adamant for the DMs to have the final say. I have never seen a DM do anything than bend over backwards. (Five different states, dozens of campaigns, nine different DMs, etc. That does not include the high school students I watch.) I know my experience is anecdotal and does not trump anyone else's. I am just stating what I have never seen a DM do this. (I would never really count conventions since they seem to be controlled experiments of one shots more than anything.)
And seeing past your own creations obviously, as you stated, goes both ways. The player needs to see beyond their character to other characters and to the overall game.

 

[Scott Christian]

Just to give an example where I believe that DM inflexibility about the setting hurt enjoyment at the table. Years ago, I was playing in a 2e game set around the Keep on the Borderlands. Fairly new group, and we're all just kind of getting to know each other, so, pretty light fare.
I ask if I can play a forge cleric (this was to become my absolute favorite PC, Korbach, who I've played in a few different campaigns under different DM's and different editions - this was his first iteration) who was an itinerent armor smith using the 2e NWP rules. The DM okayed it and off I went - spent the NWP's to be a proficient armorer and set about establishing a forge for myself and whatnot.

"Ok, I guess I want to make a suit of plate mail for the Castellan," I said to the DM in order to gain favor.
"Oh, plate mail doesn't exist in this setting. It's too advanced," said the DM.
"Umm... pardon? Plate mail predates pretty much every other PHB armor by a centuries. They made plate mail out of bronze"
"Nope. No plate mail. It's historically wrong. We're before plate mail."
"Err, how about banded?"
"Nope. Nothing better than chainmail. I'm running a historically accurate game."

So, now I'm completely baffled. Because the DM is absolutely convinced that she knows her history, I can't do something that should be no problems. She absolutely would not bend, nor would accept any contrary evidence to the history that she KNEW. Should have been giant warning signs because if the DM is that inflexible about something like that, what else is going to be a problem.

Spoiler - the entire group revolted a few sessions later and dumped her as a DM.

Completely 100% jerk move by the DM. Especially since you specialized in something he specifically was going to limit.

 

[Scott Christian]

Man, can I just say it sometimes feels like I am playing a completely different game than some of the people I communicate with in this community. I mean, I get the young DM having trouble at the table because they haven't honed the craft or the oddball player at the table causing friction. We have probably all seen those at some point in our gaming life.

But, when I see debates as in depth as most on this board, about playstyles, races, ASI's, DM's control, etc. it boggles my mind. I can say, in general, it seems like most people come to quick conclusions regarding specific rules - like what a polymorph can and can't do. Those questions seem to get resolved rather quickly. Yet, things like this... I have never seen a table even dream of debating a quarter of this stuff. We just sit down and play.

Just my 2 copper because I find it, at times, fascinating.

 

[Scott Christian]

It's a trope, alright. A very tired trope.

Really? You find this trope tiresome.
If it was dwarves and gnomes bickering over mining rights would it suddenly be fresh and not tired?
I am genuinely curious, in part, because I have never understood this notion of tired tropes. My reasoning is, if that road is taken then everything, and I do mean everything, is a tired trope. The road of fiction is well travelled. There are no new ideas, plot lines, etc. They are all recycled, and this includes D&D.
So I am asking with sincerity, does the gnome-dwarf suddenly make the two races having clashing views tolerable?

 

[Oofta]

Man, can I just say it sometimes feels like I am playing a completely different game than some of the people I communicate with in this community. I mean, I get the young DM having trouble at the table because they haven't honed the craft or the oddball player at the table causing friction. We have probably all seen those at some point in our gaming life.

Or at one point we were that DM. Live and (hopefully) learn.

..
But, when I see debates as in depth as most on this board, about playstyles, races, ASI's, DM's control, etc. it boggles my mind. I can say, in general, it seems like most people come to quick conclusions regarding specific rules - like what a polymorph can and can't do. Those questions seem to get resolved rather quickly. Yet, things like this... I have never seen a table even dream of debating a quarter of this stuff. We just sit down and play.

Just my 2 copper because I find it, at times, fascinating.

It does sometimes seem like we play different games, doesn't it? I mean, I know everybody's different and communicating on a message board is kind of like looking through a fun house mirror sometime, but long debates are extremely rare. Every once in a while you'll have that one guy but for the most part either the DM pitches a game or the group has a chat about what to do next and we just go with it.

 

[Maxperson]

You didn't get polymorphed into centaur, did you?

Polymorph happens much quicker I think. This transformation took years.