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

[Oofta]

Love how you guys keep accusing people of that. Obviously we are willing to debate this for 60 pages in a rapidly moving thread just because we don't want to admit that we want the mechanics more than the story.

I mean, why else would we be constantly talking about the story if we didn't care about that and just wanted the mechanics.

Accusing of what? Are you seriously saying that no one ever plays a tiefling because of the bonuses? It's one of the major reasons if you read any thread on "why play a tiefling". It's the only reason that can't be replicated with background and story.

If you want to play one because of those reasons, fine. Just be honest about it. If it's because of character concept we'll work on story justification with one of the allowed races.

 

[loverdrive]

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

Uhm, no? The order is: theme -> tone -> character concepts -> world building.

Like, Superman doesn't live in Metropolis, Metropolis exists in order to support Superman.

 

[Oofta]

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?

It may not be their game, but it is their campaign world. HTH could that surprise you? Not everybody does world building by committee.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Their distinctiveness is kinda relative, though. For instance, the more conservative Mennonites eschew much modern tech, but they have cell phones (even though they dress distinctly plainly). My point being those subcultures do evolve, just ... more slowly than the mainstream culture around them.

They’ve evolved... but they’ve maintained a culture distinct from the majority they live in. The dress distinctively , they speak a different language, they have their own rituals and mores, and, which is the reason I brought them up with respect to @ScottChristian’s point, they’ve done it for several generations without large scale migration.

 

[prabe]

They’ve evolved... but they’ve maintained a culture distinct from the majority they live in. The dress distinctively , they speak a different language, they have their own rituals and mores, and, which is the reason I brought them up with respect to @ScottChristian’s point, they’ve done it for several generations without large scale migration.

While I've met Mennonites who live in Vermont, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Georgia, who all have a similar accent, even the most conservative ones I've met have all spoken English. And the other axes of distinctiveness are really more along spectra than purely bimodal.

But your point about tight in-groups existing holds, even if the Mennonites are not the best example. The Amish are a much better one--they've done it with harsher social controls and IIRC effectively no proselytizing, and they do still use their dialect of German among themselves.

 

[Oofta]

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.

So again ... if you do not run the game the one true way you're a jerk. Why should I have to "sell" anything? Join my game, don't join my game, to be honest I don't care and if I have to explain why I don't allow that new turd monkey playable race from the DMsGuild that you found. Or tabaxi or tiefling or ... well whatever.

I tell people when I open my game up or when I do an invite what races are allowed. If you can't abide by something as simple as that I don't want you at my table anyway. The only justification I need is that I don't want a kitchen sink campaign. No, I don't need to sell it to you. Don't like it? Find another DM or run a game yourself.

Gah. Now I've gotten back into the stupid-I'm-right-you're-wrong end of the pool again because I was responding to some tangents. It's a never ending argument. I don't think people are jerks for setting limitations. I think it would be incredibly rude and insulting if someone showed up at a session 0 (after being told the limitations) and said they had to play a race I don't allow*. There's nothing wrong with allowing every race ever published, it just doesn't work for me from a world building point of view. Just stop calling me a jerk by association because I don't believe in your one true way or that I have to "sell" or "justify" anything.

*Fortunately this has never been an issue and I always end up running 6 person tables (I prefer 4) because someone has a buddy or sibling that wants to join.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Are there people who only play one race and cant' have fun if that race is not allowed? Or is it something deeper? Is there some element where there are players who MUST have a wide open set of options and are adverse to a DM who presents a specific feeling or who limits options?

Except, I don’t think we are talking about a DM banning a single race here, or even for a single campaign. A lot of posters seem to be talking about a tightly curated list of races for a setting that is THEIR setting, and that they use in all their campaigns.

 

[prabe]

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?

Linguistic shorthand/shortcut. Like saying "my band" instead of "the band I'm in." Believe me, I knew well none of the bands I was in were solely mine, but I used the phrasing.

 

[loverdrive]

Linguistic shorthand/shortcut. Like saying "my band" instead of "the band I'm in." Believe me, I knew well none of the bands I was in were solely mine, but I used the phrasing.

That's within the context of "that's my game, so I can do whatever I want with it".

 

[prabe]

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.

I can imagine having a couple bad experiences with something ... further from the core, and deciding it was that something that was the problem, and feeling strongly that I didn't want to deal with it that I disallowed it, because I had never seen it not reduce the fun of the game for me. I probably wouldn't walk away as a player, but I might insist as a GM.