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

[Snarf Zagyg]

The problem is, that 'should' is silly, and EGG would roll in his grave at that.

If only EGG had written books about D&D, or about roleplaying, or had answered questions on the internet .... so that we could take his own word for it, instead of relying on you channeling it.

If only! It is unfortunate that Gygax was so ... terse that he never, ever chose to write about the GM/player dynamic. Ever. Or about his conception of RPGs, and D&D.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Whatever, open-minded people will always discover the better ways to do things. D&D isn't 'designed' to do anything. I wasn't kidding when I said I have been DMing since 1975! That doesn't make me right, but it does mean I understand the core ethic that existed from the beginning, which is that you can play any darn way you want. No amount of telling me that my suggestions are badwrongfun is going to make the slightest impression.

DW is a fun game, and you are right, it has an ethos of players having a specific role that is different from what many people think is 'how D&D should be played'. The problem is, that 'should' is silly, and EGG would roll in his grave at that.

You can absolutely play any way you want, and I don't think your suggestions are badwrongfun. But MGibster is right in that D&D was designed for a specific experience that includes a baseline higher level of engagement on the part of the DM. The fact that you don't have to play that way doesn't invalidate that fact.

Also, I strongly disagree with the phrase "open-minded people will always discover better ways to do things". The kind of collaborative storytelling I think you're talking about is not "a better way of doing things" than the old way; it is just a different way.

 

[MGibster]

Whatever, open-minded people will always discover the better ways to do things. D&D isn't 'designed' to do anything. I wasn't kidding when I said I have been DMing since 1975! That doesn't make me right, but it does mean I understand the core ethic that existed from the beginning, which is that you can play any darn way you want. No amount of telling me that my suggestions are badwrongfun is going to make the slightest impression.

I don't typically tell people what they're doing is badwrongfun as I tend to take a "You go, playa" attitude. If you're having fun then you're not doing it wrong. But to say that D&D isn't "designed" to do anything is a very odd stance to take. Nobody took the trouble to write all those rules down without some sort of purpose in mind.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If only EGG had written books about D&D, or about roleplaying, or had answered questions on the internet .... so that we could take his own word for it, instead of relying on you channeling it.

If only! It is unfortunate that Gygax was so ... terse that he never, ever chose to write about the GM/player dynamic. Ever. Or about his conception of RPGs, and D&D.

If only you had READ them... Go back and read the prefatory material to the original LBBs!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't typically tell people what they're doing is badwrongfun as I tend to take a "You go, playa" attitude. If you're having fun then you're not doing it wrong. But to say that D&D isn't "designed" to do anything is a very odd stance to take. Nobody took the trouble to write all those rules down without some sort of purpose in mind.

Look, if you are, in a D&D game, unless you seriously hack the rules (and I don't think it will work) including player inputs to world building or at least narrative and content, then its not going to be governed by the rules "as-written" (whatever that even means). Its going to be a PRACTICE, and that was all I was suggesting to the OP, is that this practice can (and IMHO will, if used assiduously) alleviate a lot of the concerns that were originally presented.

I mean, I get it, the original concerns were presented as "I can't get my players to play the way I want them to" (with respect to the races they choose to play). I merely suggest that maybe the situation can be rectified by adjustment on the part of the GM. At least partly. They should all try to reach a satisfactory middle ground. I mean, maybe that can be accomplished without any input from anyone but the GM into the setting/content. If so, and that pleases everyone, then none of us has any reason to criticize it either. Experience has shown however, that mutual participation in more aspects of the game often leads to greater harmony of expectations at the table.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Well, you might ask WHY is it you "have to put limits down." Are the players not equal participants in the game, and thus equally entitled to participate in defining the genre and milieu?

Here even I would disagree. All the players are participants - but even Apocalypse World calls the GM the Master of Ceremonies. The players aren't quite equals.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

If only you had READ them... Go back and read the prefatory material to the original LBBs!

I have. Honestly, this whole shtick (including the appeal to authority ... given your audience) is getting a little old.

How about we start with Role Playing Mastery- you know, the book he wrote about how to DM and play? I would suggest concentrating first on Chapter 3. There, it explains the burden on the DM in creating the world for the players. He goes into a lot of detail about this! Here's a sample pull quote from Gygax- "The game master is the creator, organizer, and arbiter of all."

No?

Okay, how about the first use, still calling them Referees, in Men & Magic?
"If you are a player purchasing the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS rules in order to improve your situation in an existing campaign, you will find that there is a great advantage in knowing what is herein. If your referee has made changes in the rules and/or tables, simply note them in pencil (for who knows when some flux of the cosmos will make things shift once again!), and keep the rules nearby as you play."

"PREPARATION FOR THE CAMPAIGN:
The referee bears the entire burden here, but if care and thought are used, the reward will more than repay him."

No?

Maybe we should look at Dragon Magazines now? I can whip them out!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Here even I would disagree. All the players are participants - but even Apocalypse World calls the GM the Master of Ceremonies. The players aren't quite equals.

I agree that they do have different roles. PbtA doesn't give players a HUGE amount of input into every aspect of the setting. It isn't like Burning Wheel where players regularly tell the GM something is in the game using a check. There are a few cases in some PbtAs where a player can do that, but not many. Still, I think the ethos of PbtA is one of collaboration in terms of developing the direction and content. Certainly DW has a pretty solid "take extensive player input at the start of the game" process.

I think it isn't going against D&D's design to do that as well there. D&D doesn't really (at least modern D&D) have a lot to say really about what happens before the start of play. OD&D just called the game a 'toolkit' and assumed there would be a dungeon map/key made by the DM, but even that was mostly implicit. Again the ethos there was mostly "use the material in these books to create your own game." There was some design, but it was pretty flexible.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I have. Honestly, this whole shtick (including the appeal to authority ... given your audience) is getting a little old.

How about we start with Role Playing Mastery- you know, the book he wrote about how to DM and play? I would suggest concentrating first on chapter Chapter 3. There, it explains the burden on the DM in creating the world for the players. He goes into a lot of detail about this! Here's a sample pull quote from Gygax- "The game master is the creator, organizer, and arbiter of all."

No?

Okay, how about the first use, still calling them Referees, in Men & Magic?
"If you are a player purchasing the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS rules in order to improve your situation in an existing campaign, you will find that there is a great advantage in knowing what is herein. If your referee has made changes in the rules and/or tables, simply note them in pencil (for who knows when some flux of the cosmos will make things shift once again!), and keep the rules nearby as you play."

"PREPARATION FOR THE CAMPAIGN:
The referee bears the entire burden here, but if care and thought are used, the reward will more than repay him."

No?

Maybe we should look at Dragon Magazines now? I can whip them out!

But you skipped over the parts where all of what is in those books is labeled 'guidelines'. The first sentence of the introduction is telling "
These rules are as complete as possible within the limitations imposed by the
space of three booklets. That is, they cover the major aspects of fantasy cam-
paigns but still remain flexible. As with any other set of miniatures rules they are
guidelines to follow in designing your own fantastic-medieval campaign." (emphasis in the original).

So, suggesting that one should restrict oneself to only a very specific set of ideas and practices which one imagines are "designed into the game" certainly goes against the spirit of the original game. Now, I am not going to dispute with you what sort of game GARY conceived to run HIMSELF, but that was his business, and sure, the material he provided is germane to that. Nobody is arguing with that. I am merely suggesting that telling people 'D&D is no good for X, use some other game' doesn't comport with the underlying spirit.

It is in that spirit that I make suggestions.

PS: yes, Dragons 11-250 are on my shelf, along with a lot of other early publications

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

But you skipped over the parts where all of what is in those books is labeled 'guidelines'. The first sentence of the introduction is telling "
These rules are as complete as possible within the limitations imposed by the
space of three booklets. That is, they cover the major aspects of fantasy cam-
paigns but still remain flexible. As with any other set of miniatures rules they are
guidelines to follow in designing your own fantastic-medieval campaign." (emphasis in the original).

So, suggesting that one should restrict oneself to only a very specific set of ideas and practices which one imagines are "designed into the game" certainly goes against the spirit of the original game. Now, I am not going to dispute with you what sort of game GARY conceived to run HIMSELF, but that was his business, and sure, the material he provided is germane to that. Nobody is arguing with that. I am merely suggesting that telling people 'D&D is no good for X, use some other game' doesn't comport with the underlying spirit.

It is in that spirit that I make suggestions.

PS: yes, Dragons 11-250 are on my shelf, along with a lot of other early publications

And you are skipping the entire thrust of this conversation!

Those of us who are saying that it's fine to have race, class, or other limits for thematic and other reasons ... are those who view the rules as guidelines. This was an argument in this thread about, oh, 400 posts ago. When I had to quote the 5e DMG and PHB saying this.

But you are being kind of insulting? By insinuating that you DMd longer than the rest of us (you haven't), by insinuating you know what EGG would say (you don't), and by implying that you are somehow more open-minded or better than people who play differently than you do.