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

Oofta said:

On the Player authority side(?)
Honestly I'm not even sure. Can someone sum this up in 500 words or less? Without throwing in bad DM red herrings like reversing everything the player accomplishes on a whim, gotcha DMing, railroad campaigns, changing rules after session 0 without discussion, rudeness, and so on. Bad DMs will be bad DMs, it has nothing to do with running a curated world.

I'm trying to not be dismissive, but it seems to boil down to one of the following:

1. Any individual player has the right to play any character they want.
2. The DM has to justify their choice. The justification has to be for a "good" reason. The player decides if the reason is good enough.

Click to expand...

Oofta said:

I posted an honest request for explanation. You made fun of that request as "farce".

Click to expand...

1. Any individual player has the right to play any character they want.
2. The DM has to justify their choice. The justification has to be for a "good" reason. The player decides if the reason is good enough.

Oofta said:

As far as "giving me authority" they do that implicitly when they accept the invitation to my game because I'm quite clear on the style of game I run.

Click to expand...

Maxperson said:

Nobody gives him the authority, though. That's the point. The DMG gives him the authority and the players in that kind of game agree with it or don't and find a different game.

Click to expand...

Oofta said:

I posted an honest request for explanation. You made fun of that request as "farce". As far as "giving me authority" they do that implicitly when they accept the invitation to my game because I'm quite clear on the style of game I run.

Click to expand...

Maxperson said:

Nobody gives him the authority, though. That's the point. The DMG gives him the authority and the players in that kind of game agree with it or don't and find a different game.

Click to expand...

Azzy said:

The DMG is incapable of giving anyone any amout of authority regardless of what quotes you can dredge up from it. People give authority.

Click to expand...

Azzy said:

You posited.

1. Any individual player has the right to play any character they want.
2. The DM has to justify their choice. The justification has to be for a "good" reason. The player decides if the reason is good enough.

Considering that your 1 negates your 2 (if a player can be anything they want, then the DM doesn't get to choose, so what do they have to justify?). But aside from that, a DM should put in at least a minimum effort to justify their decisions (whether it's to create a "curated" theme or whatever) rather than just be dismissive. Again, IMO, it shouldn't be an individual player that decides what is good enough, but then I'm getting away from what you think other people are saying and projecting my "group authority" in there.



One should hope. If they agree to the style of game that you are clear in defining up front, then , yes, they are giving you authority when they agree to your paremeters. Unless they're masochistic or desperate, one would assume that they'd seek out a DM that has a different playstyle (or whatever) that better matches their preferences. (This extends beyond "weird" races—someone that prefers more roleplaying isn't going to enjoy a DM that's all about Gygaxian megadungeons.)

You seem to be an interesting case, as I'm inferring from your "invite" comment that you don't have a set group that you play with. I'm coming from a different situation—I have a group that I regularly play with (with some members not always playing or whatever as schedules and life dictate). There are multiple people who are willing to DM and we're not limited to D&D.

Click to expand...

Azzy said:

You seem to be an interesting case, as I'm inferring from your "invite" comment that you don't have a set group that you play with. I'm coming from a different situation—I have a group that I regularly play with (with some members not always playing or whatever as schedules and life dictate). There are multiple people who are willing to DM and we're not limited to D&D.

Click to expand...

Sabathius42 said:

I'll have a go at my opinion on it.

As a GM, you have access to all the content of every book you own for an RPG. You have the authority to do whatever you want with the content in whatever way you want to use it. You can have a begger be able to cast a Wish spell, or a Gold Dragon polymorphed into a Goldfish, or any other thing your mind can invent.

As a player, you have access to a small subset of the content of the books you own. You are expected to use the content as it is printed, not just do as you please with it and acknowledge that the GM has the right to tell you that some of that small subset is off limits.

As a "Player Advocate" (even though I GM as much as play) I am supporting the position that there should be a good reason for removing the small amount of content that a player has at their disposal to create a character they would enjoy playing. To me a "good reason" means that the GM has taken their best effort at making the character presented work in their campaign and found it literally impossible to do.

So the discussion boils down to "What is a good reason to limit the player options"?

I have seen the following listed as good reasons here, and what I think about them personally.
1. I can't have fun if a player plays a dragonborn.
- Unless its ruining the game with its abilities, just call it a mutated lizardfolk and move on.
2. My world only has the Tolkien races.
- Tolkien had all sorts of strange beings in his stories, can you not add in one or two into yours?
3. I play OD&D and the races aren't in the rules.
- Legit a good reason.
4. I don't want to have to create an intricate backstory for your race.
- You don't have to to allow a single individual.
5. My game is set in Earth Culture X and culture Y wouldn't make sense.
- Let me play my Culture Y character if I can make it make sense. You could play a "viking" in an Egyptian campaign, but you would be a seafaring raiding culture from the Mediterranean shores.

It really isn't hard at all to, as a GM, take a players concept for a character and figure out how it could work in most D&D campaigns if you are interested in making it work.

GM: This is a 100% organic campaign. All primal and nature based. Not technology.
Player: I want to be a Warforged Gunslinger
GM: OK, You are an animated thorn tree and your "guns" are actually thorns you are shooting.

GM: This is a human only low magic campaign set in ancient Greece.
Player: I want to be a Firbolg Druid
GM: OK, the goddess Diana cursed your familiy when your mom was pregnant and as a result you were born hideous and deformed but with the ability to change shapes, and with her blessing bring about natural powers.

Click to expand...

doctorbadwolf said:

What you posted was a farce. That isn't making fun, it's an apt description of the ridiculous caricature of the arguments in this thread that you posted as if they were genuinely what people have said.

The rest, like a lot of the "absolute authority" posts in this thread, come across as if it is very important to you that everyone know that you are In Charge. That is...a red flag.

As Azzy points out, that isn't possible. Beyond that, by virtue of being a voluntary group activity, any authority that exists comes from the consent of the group. That isn't avoidable or arguable. Authority is a concept that only has meaning in relation to others. You can't have authority over a void. Likewise, if no one consents to let you DM for them, you have no authority over any game, because there isn't a game.

Yes. Exactly this.

Click to expand...

Azzy said:

The DMG is incapable of giving anyone any amout of authority regardless of what quotes you can dredge up from it. People give authority.

Click to expand...

Oofta said:

So I'm wrong because I follow RAW in this case. People grant the DM as much authority as the DM has asked for (in my case world creation) when they join the game.

Good to know we can have an adult discussion on this and not make it a personal attack.

Click to expand...

Maxperson said:

Not in the case of D&D. The DM has the authority and the potential players have the choice of placing themselves under that authority or going somewhere else. They don't grant the authority to him. Should they all say no, the DM still has authority over his very lonely game.

Click to expand...