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

Jaeger said:

Surely Oofta should not have to do anything but say: "It seems like my DM style isn't for you Bro; peace out, and good luck!"

Click to expand...

I and I think pretty much everyone in this thread would agree with this statement.

Crimson Longinus said:

Define 'personal reason.'

Click to expand...

Good grief. Really?

Personal reason = I don't like this. I guess "personal preference" might be a better phrase, but, I was kinda expecting, after FOUR TIMES explaining what I meant quite clearly, that my meaning would be pretty obvious.

If the ONLY reason that a DM is vetoing a player choice is that the DM just doesn't like that element, then the DM is in the wrong. Full stop as far as I'm concerned. The DM needs to step back, rein in the ego a bit and let the player play what excites that player. I would MUCH rather have excited players than players who are just trying to stroke my ego.

There are a 101 reasons or more for vetoing an option. There's 100 good ones and one bad one. Don't be that guy that uses the bad one.

Al'Kelhar said:

There's enough irony in that statement to boost my haemoglobin count! You, sir, win the Internet!

Cheers, Al'kelhar

Click to expand...

There’s no irony at all, in the statement I made.

Hussar said:

Good grief. Really?

Personal reason = I don't like this. I guess "personal preference" might be a better phrase, but, I was kinda expecting, after FOUR TIMES explaining what I meant quite clearly, that my meaning would be pretty obvious.

If the ONLY reason that a DM is vetoing a player choice is that the DM just doesn't like that element, then the DM is in the wrong. Full stop as far as I'm concerned. The DM needs to step back, rein in the ego a bit and let the player play what excites that player. I would MUCH rather have excited players than players who are just trying to stroke my ego.

There are a 101 reasons or more for vetoing an option. There's 100 good ones and one bad one. Don't be that guy that uses the bad one.

Click to expand...

Well. I'm not gonna build a setting with elements that I don't like. If I wanted that sort of a setting I'd just use Forgotten Realms.

Thematic and aesthetic preferences are ultimately just 'I do like this/I don't like this.' If GM is not allowed to make decisions based on such they simply cannot express any sort of artistic vision.

DM Dave1 said:

The other point I brought up that I haven't seen addressed as it got buried before a tangent:

There are maybe 100 PC races/subraces in the game (I didn't bother counting the actual number - someone feel free to cite the actual number). In a typical game, you might have 4 to 8 players at the table. The DM decides what NPC and monster races the PCs will encounter in the game world. What harm would it be to have up to 8 very different individuals as PCs in the game world?

I guess what I'm getting at is the false notion that "kitchen sink" means some kind of cartoonish circus world with upwards of 100 NPC races represented. The PCs can be unique while the rest of the game world is limited in whatever way the DM sees fit.

Is that a worthy compromise? The PCs can be different than what exists in the game world because... reasons. Those reasons can be hashed out in session 0 so that everyone is on the same page for what that means. Heck, the DM can warn the players that their "weird" PCs might be at a disadvantage out of the gate in social interactions until they can build some good will or whatever.

Note that I'm not saying the DM can't or shouldn't limit the menu of player options for good reasons with player buy-in (e.g. to keep things simpler for beginners or because the theme of the campaign is all halflings from the same shire or all clerics from the same interfaith temple or... whatever). I'm just positing that a handful of "weird-raced" PCs are truly not going to break a DM's world vision.

Click to expand...

Hi DM Dave. I agree with everything you say. Especially if the DM is just going to, say, run Rise of Tiamat or some other AP.

But this excludes some DM's that have built their world, or small realm, or even just a part of a continent. They have everything set up already, with the exception of where and what the players will do. It also excludes thematic builds. If a DM is trying to do Hyboria, and make it similar to Conan's world, they don't want a loxodon running around. That doesn't make the DM a jerk.
All one side is asking is to think about it like this: For many DMs, their world is thematic, much like Conan's is. Some like the idea that a certain group is a ever present bad guy. Some want to limit the races because the theme that players will encounter (what the DM has built), follows the logic of the parameters set in session 0. To just say change it, and if you don't you are an unimaginative or bad DM, is... just not nice.

Oofta said:

I limit races but it's not out of vindictiveness or because a PC playing deep gnome destroyed my carefully plotted campaign. First, the odds of any DM making that decision are so vanishingly small that it effectively never happens. Same with a DM doing it just to "lord their power" over the puny players, browbeat players into accepting their godhood or any of the other strawmen. There are bad DMs, it has little or nothing to do with limiting races.

I establish what races are allowed when I open up my game to new people before a session 0. I try to work with players, but yes there are some hard limits. So why do I limit races?

• I have an ongoing campaign world that I've been running for decades. It has an established history. I don't want to retcon that history to fit in a nation of race X.
• I like to put thought into what race and cultures are like in different areas. I know that while the elves from here share quite a bit in common with elves from there (such as appearing to be haughty because they dont want to get too attached to short lived races) but I also know how they are different and why. I know why elves from A distrust dwarves and elves from B prefer dwarves to humans.
• How many times can you have a "one of a kind" or a PC from a "lost tribe" before it becomes trite? In addition, every time in history something really different shows up it's usually a creature from another plane of existence that is out to kill everyone. Tends to make people a bit paranoid.
• Some races (drow) do have a place in my world, but it's as the bogeyman.
• I don't see a need. If a potential player can only envision their PC as one race it indicates a potential issue of inflexibility and unwillingness to make a story that I and the rest of the group have decided to tell.
• It's a simple preference. I personally have a hard time taking kitchen sink campaigns seriously. If I had to do it all over again, I'd probably consider axing a couple of races in my own campaign.

Let's say a cat person, a different type of cat person, a bird person, a different kind of bird person, a snake person, a golem person, a half horse person, an elephant person and a cow person walk into a bar. The bartender, a pile of sentient rock from a previous edition that's now retired asks them what they'd like to drink.​

​

That sounds to me like the start of a bad joke. Other people might think it sounds like a normal Thursday game night because different people have different preferences and seek different things from their games.​

• Last, but not least, I can't please everyone. For everyone that would want to play a warforged in my campaign, there may well be another person that thinks warforged don't belong in a fantasy game. If I try to please everyone that could potentially join my game it's guaranteed to fail.

Just to be clear there is no wrong or "better" way to run a game if you and your group are having fun. All of the above is just personal preference.

Click to expand...

I am sorry everyone. But how can anyone read this and still think Oofta is a bad DM? That is a serious question for those out there against something like this. I truly, even after reading all this, do not understand.

Chaosmancer said:

You have a real bad habit of ignoring the question being asked to answer the question you want to answer.

Since you rearranged it, is it fair to assume that a you agree that a DM who puts forth that you can't play Race Z because the DM does not like Race Z is acting in bad faith?

I don't care that everyone is putting forth that the DM is being eminently reasonable and that the player is a accusing them and throwing a fit or anything else. Is a DM who bans a race for the sole reason that they do not like that race, with no other reason at all, are they acting in bad faith?

Click to expand...

So this this is the argument now? I just need to be clear. Because what you are saying is it doesn't matter if the DM sets expectations up or not - it only matters that they ban a race.

I just want to be clear so everyone knows. The only thing we are debating here is whether a DM is good or bad based on whether they allow races or limit races. Is that a defined description of what you have been arguing?

Chaosmancer said:

IF

Hussar has said IF the they are banning it for purely personal reasons they are being a jerk. They have also said ad nauseum that if the DM has a different reason, a reason relating to the setting or something else, then they are not being a jerk.

Click to expand...

Wrong.
You have simplified his argument and multitude of responses to a single:
- He only said a DM is bad if they go out of their way to ban a race because they are being spiteful towards the player.
That is just so wrong on so many levels.

Chaosmancer said:

I asked this once before, and you ignored me, when I put forth an option G to your little list before. Why is it that you never consider the DM altering the parameters because of the player? It isn't even listed as an option. The closest you got was a DM helping a player fit inside the parameters, but the DM has no potential to ever be convinced that they can widen those parameters?

Click to expand...

Yup. This is what I listed in my "little list."

Scott Christian said:

D. Being clear on the expectations of what is allowed (race), listening to the player's idea, but then deciding it does not work
E. Being clear on the expectations of what is allowed (race), listening to the player's idea, working with the player to come up with an alternative that would work within the parameters

Click to expand...

There are many times a DM could change their parameters, but that is not what the debate is about. If all the DMs here said suddenly, "Oh, well I would just add the race," then there would not be an argument. So, and here is the important part, I was trying to find where the conflict was. I am not trying to find the point where if the DMs change, then suddenly everyone agrees. We all already know that point. Instead I am trying to find the point of contention. That is why it is a question that I asked, and not a declarative statement.
Please feel free to respond to this with some snarky, triple down on your logic, statement. But if the above, after being explained, is not clear to you, then my gut feeling is you don't want to find where the problem is, you just want the DMs to say they are wrong.

Scott Christian said:

I am sorry everyone. But how can anyone read this and still think Oofta is a bad DM? That is a serious question for those out there against something like this. I truly, even after reading all this, do not understand.

Click to expand...

I mean, I think its irrelevant. One's appreciation from DMing would come from playing in a game. All of this stuff he's put there is irrelevant to being a good or a bad GM. Its just worldbuilding and him sticking to it. It tells us nothing if Oofta is a good or bad DM

His world has drow as boogeymen which I personally think loses a lot of their potential. Mine attempts to tackle the chaotic good rebel thing from the other end and have drow civilisations that aren't, tailor-made to generate chaotic good rebels and have a bit more nuance to them. Both valid approaches. Neither indicative of DM skill

doctorbadwolf said:

lol what? You know horses can go on boats, and climb up mountains, right? Especially horses as small as a 5e centaur.

Click to expand...

Of course. They can do all these things adventurers do in the pictures below?

I am going to cut you off before you make some argument about how the DM is a bad DM if they use environments a centaur can't navigate. That is an entirely different argument. I am simply responding to your notion that centaurs are able to navigate terrains like any other adventurer. Which, for anyone that has traveled through terrain with a horse, is the most absurd notion in existence. And it makes it even more absurd when you add indoor spaces.

doctorbadwolf said:

That's some wild nonsense that the DM could easily just not do. Sounds like an edgelord DM, or one that is just not very imaginative. Either way, not a compelling reason.

Click to expand...

There it is again. The DM is an "edgelord" or "not imaginative" if they insist on keeping the internal logic of their world consistent. So, to put it another way, the DM should just not have the natives of their world act in a consistent manner. I play in a campaign like that. It is fun. But it also makes race little more than bonus to stats. Mentioned once and forgotten. D&D can be played that way - it can also be played with consistent logic from the DM, where NPCs act in accordance to what they know and understand.
As has been said a hundred times, neither way is right or wrong. Unless of course the DM is being an "edgelord" or "unimaginative."

doctorbadwolf said:

Gross. And an edgy exaggeration of how people actually behave. Sure, such things happen IRL, but even in 1940 you could go shopping in plenty of places the US with a German accent without getting arrested (lol wut) or physically attacked, and if you were attacked, there was a solid chance that someone would object. If you also happened to be an obviously dangerous person, in a group of Americans and Brits who are also obviously dangerous? Chances of your being bothered are pretty low.

Click to expand...

I want to be sensitive to RL people. I do not like to use them in a fantasy world. We draw inspiration from cultures we know, and most of the time, mash three or four of them together to get a fantasy culture. That is where, imho, the connections cease to end. If the orcs are compelled to be warlike by Gruumsh, the deity, in a DM's world, so be it. If the drow really do worship Lolth and hold her ideals as "the one and only way," in a Dm's world, so be it. If the githyanki, through their culture and upbringing, despise and are at war with githzerai, and torture, kill, maim, and do all sorts of evil things to them in a DM's world, so be it.
But what you are saying is there can always be one or a group that doesn't follow the norm. Yes. That is true. But it doesn't mean the rest of the world believes that. Tell that to the githzerai kingdom that just had half of their outlying posts killed.
Yet you insist, just like in the last statement, that the DM just glaze over it with sugar coating. Have the githzerai treat every githyanki as an individual. It breaks internal logic.

doctorbadwolf said:

Arbitrary nonsense, and bad worldbuilding practice, unless you're maybe running a one shot or short limited campaign for strangers. Most people don't play with strangers as their primary play experience, so most of the discussion will naturally not take that scenario into account. It's neither the norm nor the ideal. But even when I ran DnD for kids at the public library, before Covid, I'd consider it a weakness as a worldbuilder and a storyteller to intentionally create a world scenario in which I "can't" add anything to the region of play.

Click to expand...

Wow. So a place like Shadowfell is "arbitrary nonsense" and "bad worldbuilding." Good to know.

doctorbadwolf said:

Only acceptable in very tightly themed campaigns, and even then I'm gonna rib the DM a bit for not being able to past their own associations and see tabaxi as more than anime catgirls. I won't be a jerk about it, but the occasional joke will be made. In a less tightly themed game? Nah. Get over it. It shouldn't matter that you dislike tabaxi. If a person can't have fun running a game with a single race they dislike, i don't trust that person to even be fun to be around, much less run a game well.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't disagree here. I wouldn't make jokes either. But, sure, people have their own preferences.

I think what is very clear here is you feel the DM should allow races almost all the time. The DM should just glaze over the internal logic they may have built for their world. The DM should placate the players by not placing environments that exclude one of the players because of the player's choice. And the DM should keep their world as open as possible. And if they do not they are "edgelords-unimaginative-arbitrary- bad worldbuilders." Does this sum up your view?