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

[Jack Daniel]

And I would consider it extremely rude if the GM refers to the game as theirs, since it's inherently a group activity.

Like, wtf, where's that position even comes from?

Right!? It’s just...like...what are y’all even talking about!? The DM’s game? Wtf?

And finally... I find your list flawed. Yes, a player is bigger than all of their characters. But, a campaign is not bigger than the players in it. The sum of all of the players is bigger than any single campaign world or game. I am literally trying to think of a single campaign world that is bigger than all of the people who have played in it combined... and I can't. They are the people who played in them. They can't be bigger than that sum.

All spoken like gamers whose campaigns begin and end with a relatively fixed group of players, likely friends, with whom you play one campaign after another. Consider that your perspectives may be limited by this?

(I don't concede, BTW, that a campaign is the people who play in it. In fact, I disagree with that assertion rather vehemently.)

Well, glad to know that you can't have any meaningful conversation about the expectations of 5e. Unless we are speaking about a specific setting of yours, which we won't be, then we can't really have a conversation because there is no common ground.

I couldn't give less of a naughty word what the expectations of 5e specifically are, no. But it's not like 5e is some unique and revolutionary new thing that shares no fundamental assumptions with other editions of D&D or other RPGs. And the topic of this thread ("weird" fantasy races) most definitely transcends system. This might be an area where your scope is too narrow.

Not that it actually matters. You are the only one talking about a player coming into a well-established game with a status quo. And since that is really anicllary to the discussion, I don't see much value in continuing to address it.

Just from reading through this thread, I don't think that's true at all, but you're welcome to drop that particular strand of the discussion. I can't think of a scenario more germane to the topic at hand. If we're talking about players and a DM negotiating their way through a session zero, then… they negotiate. That's not interesting at all.

I presumed we were speaking of D&D since, you know, that's the topic of the thread. People seemed to take issue with the idea that a player might want to play a character depicted in the players handbook despite being arbitrarily blocked by the DM.

If we're talking a completely different RPG then why would you think I would argue that they should be playing a D&D character in that game?

D&D being the topic of the thread does not mean that comparisons to other RPGs are out of bounds. That would be silly.

To my point: if I'm understanding you correctly (and do please correct me if I'm misrepresenting your view), you're answering my question in the negative: no, a GM running the A Song of Ice and Fire RPG is not obligated to both invent mechanics and contravene the setting lore to oblige a player who wants to play (say) an elf in their Game of Thrones campaign. Is that fair to say?

Assuming that, yes, that's a fair representation of your opinion, does your answer change if suddenly the mechanics do exist? Is a GM running a Vampire: The Masquerade campaign obligated to indulge a player who wants to play an elf in that campaign? Pulling the mechanics from Changeling; The Dreaming would be easy enough, after all.

If your answer is still no, the GM is under no such obligation, you'll have to explain to me how that's any different from a DM running a D&D campaign in a game-world where elves don't exist. Is this DM obligated to contravene the setting lore and accommodate a player who wants to play an elf, just because the mechanics obviously do exist? Is it because the mechanics are in the Player's Handbook? Is the Player's Handbook special, because reasons?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I just can’t imagine disliking a game element so much, or my sense of fun being so fragile, that having an elf in my game would make the game not fun for me.

Can I play an elf in your Call of Cthulhu game set in 1920s New England?

 

[loverdrive]

All spoken like gamers whose campaigns begin and end with a relatively fixed group of players, likely friends, with whom you play one campaign after another. Consider that your perspectives may be limited by this?

Uhm, no, I've been running open tables, con games and other games with complete strangers. People being or not being friends doesn't change the fact that the end result is a group effort, not only GM's.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Uhm, no, I've been running open tables, con games and other games with complete strangers. People being or not being friends doesn't change the fact that the end result is a group effort, not only GM's.

Fair enough, consider me soundly corrected on the facts of the matter.

And I don't contest that the "end result" of a campaign is collaborative.

But I will contend that the prior preparation doesn't have to be (and traditionally isn't). That's where a DM's nominal "ownership" of a campaign comes from.

 

[Mecheon]

So first, not all cats can bring their claws in all the way. Second, Tabaxi are catlike sure, but nothing in their write up allows them to retract their claws. Let's keep it to what is written.

I mean, just likewise, nothing says they can't retract their claws.

Tabaxi are specifically based on leopards and jaguars, and the one big cat species that can't retract their claws are the cheetahs. Based on inspiration and what they are, I'd say the logical thing is they can retract their claws

 

[Neonchameleon]

Fair enough. My preference is for a "lone genius" model of worldbuilding. Different strokes. Doesn't make either of us wrong (though it is an open question as to which style is more prevalent in the wider hobby at present; I don't think we have the data to arrive at an answer).

My attitude to worldbuilding is informed by the fact that one of the most conformist cultures on the earth that I'm aware of contains everything from Elegant Gothic Lolita fashion to tattooed triad members and everything in between. If there are aren't contradictions within the setting it doesn't feel rich and real - and if there aren't multiple influences it feels flat. Even Tolkien and Frank Herbert feel a little flat to me in terms of worldbuilding when compared to the richness of the real world - and I'm no Tolkien. Therefore I relish contributions from more people than myself.

Aha, now this is a real difference in approach! I value limitations placed on character creation options because I think that constrained choices do make players more creative, both during character creation and during play. For me, limited character choices are where you find the fruitful gaps; and once play begins, the player characters having access to limited resources (spells, equipment, etc.) is what drives them to become creative problem-solvers.

It's as much about what is done as how you do it. Limited character choices may be how you find the fruitful gaps - but every single time someone has suggested "X is banned" my instinctive response has been to jump to "How can I create one of X in a way that will fit the setting and the theme?" And I'm not as bad as many - I recall one Dark Sun game I was in where I was the only player not playing some sort of arcane caster - and even then I had primal magic and ritual casting.

If you tell me I can't have something I'm going to want it. If on the other hand you tell me "X is the theme" without imposing hard limits I'm going to try and work with that theme rather than try to boundary-break it.

 

[Minigiant]

I feel it all goes back to the DM selling (or not selling) their setting.

If a DM wants to play with a specific player or group of player, the DM must sell the setting, it's race and class restrictions, and house rules to the player(a).

If the DM don't not have specific players they want then there is no need to sell.

But a DM who wants specific players but doesnt want to sell is being a jerk for lack of a better word.

And DM who doesn't sell but complains that someone decides not to play is being a hypocrite.

 

[Neonchameleon]

In general a DM who says you can play anything you like is a big clue it's going to be a short campaign.

And in general a DM who gives you a list and says "You must play something from this list" is a big clue that that DM is a martinet who's trying to run Their World and resist or ignore player input. Which means it's going to be a short and boring campaign. Now can we dispense with these insulting generalisations?

As I said in my previous post a lot is a matter of approach and immediate reactions. If you tell me I can't have something I'm probably going to want it which means my initial inspiration is going to be to try to work it in to the setting. If on the other hand you are a lot less high-handedly authoritarian and tell me that these are the themes my instinctive response is going to be to try to work with them.

And what this tells me is that the limited-list-and-ban DMs are is bad at player psychology. And they tend to be controlling.

They probably haven't put that much effort into world building. There's nothing wrong with that approach and I'm sure there's exceptions.

At least one of the games I play (Apocalypse World) explicitly tells the GM to turn up without having pre-prepared anything. But it gives you ways of helping build the world. The campaigns are short but intense and lead to good storytelling.

Another DM might do reptile world and the only races allowed are reptiles. Mammals might exist but you don't get to play them.

Now to me this is likely to be a disaster unless a lot of work has been done by the group on reptile psychology. I'm expecting the campaign to crash and burn.

Every single one of those examples is more interesting to me than play anything you want.

But not having a very limited list isn't the same as "play anything you want". In the middle is not treating the players like kids - and instead letting them build off the themes you've outlined in the campaign's pitch rather than telling them how they should do it.

As has been mentioned, limitations build ideas - but those ideas are frequently about boundary breaking to subvert those limits. On the other hand inspiration rather than martinet rules setting gets shared and bounced off each other and is inspiring.

 

[loverdrive]

In general a DM who says you can play anything you like is a big clue it's going to be a short campaign.

They probably haven't put that much effort into world building.

Well, since there's little to no point in putting effort into worldbuilding until the players have at least some character concepts, I really can't see any problem with that.

 

[reelo]

Well, since there's little to no point in putting effort into worldbuilding until the players have at least some character concepts, I really can't see any problem with that.

You have it backwards: worldbuilding/setting/tone comes FIRST, character concepts have to conform to that, not the other way around.