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

[Neonchameleon]

?

It’s not a number. It’s not like, and the DM spake, saying, "Then shalt thou count to three races no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the races shall be three. Four races shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out! Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then thou havest the proper number of races.”

“Kitchen sink” merely means that there are no real thematic (or other) restrictions on the PCs; if it’s in an official book, it’s good to go.

I'm trying to work out whether you're calling Eberron a kitchen sink setting or not here. Because there is a lot of theming in Eberron - but it also explicitly says that if it exists in D&D it exists in Eberron. For that matter Sharn is another explicit kitchen sink setting where you can play most things that can reach Sharn - but there's a lot of theming in Planescape.

Which means either (a) there are two examples of official kitchen sink settings that have pretty strong theming or (b) you can play just about anything in D&D in a setting (and an official setting no less) and not have it be a kitchen sink setting.

Which means either the designation "a kitchen sink setting" is in your world either more or less meaningless or it only refers to settings that have been done badly and isn't inherent to either the game or setting.

 

[Minigiant]

My guess? "They look cool!". After that, it's purely the munchkin/min/max/PC-Build-Is-All-Important type people who only see the mechanical effects and could care less about anything else. Then there's the majority of people who think somewhere in between.

I never got this.

Usually the not-so-human races sucked in D&D. Often lots of pena;ties bor bonsuses that don't scale or aren't worth the cost. Usually any powergaming you could get out of an ugly, rare, or furry/scaley/pointy race could be done with a prettier, common, or more human one with a lot less work.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I agree! However this in no way means that a compromise must be reached.

The example given was a false equivalence. I'm not sure where you are going with this question.

I'm a cranky old guy so I want to say anything other than human and I'm unhappy. However, being D&D I guess I would allow Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling, as a matter of compromise to appease my players. The other races are a no go.

Obviously I don't know your players. So I'm legitimately curious, you're willing to compromise with your players for these three additional races; were these compromises your players requested?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The opposite is also true. Something as simple as "I don't like X, I don't want it in my game" shouldn't be something determined to be so egregiously selfish that you are demonized for feeling that way.

Respect certainly does go both ways.

So, if a player does the same thing, it shouldn't be treated as so egregiously selfish that players are demonized for it?

Because it's been pretty clearly stated in this thread that only one side of this conversation gets to X-card things.

Many of my players run their own games.

Honestly, good for them, but irrelevant to the conversation. Every game has to have players, ergo, there are people in the player position. That a person can go create a world filled with the things they like has no bearing on "well, when I get a chance to play, I'd really like X" or "Y is a big problem for me as a player." People play this "well if you don't like it, run your OWN game that way" card as though it were so decisive and it isn't even relevant. Sometimes, people just WANT to play, and sometimes, those people have their hearts set on something. Players who have a vision should be no more demonized than DMs who have one--and both should bring that vision to the table KNOWING that it will never work out precisely as intended because that's how play works. No plan survives contact with the opposition!

I respect the options and elements they include or exclude from their games in the same way. If they include or exclude something that would be a deal breaker for me, I would just excuse myself from the game (no hard feelings),, rather than expect that DM to change their campaign on my account. I would be asking the DM to make a special case and possibly adjust or even rethink their campaign based on my own personal needs. That would be very selfish of me.

Okay, now, step back from this position WHICH WE HAVE EXPLICITLY REJECTED NUMEROUS TIMES that the player will "expect" the DM to do this. Approach it in good faith for God's sake. If you saw something you were SUPER excited to play, and which didn't seem abusive or crazy special or whatever, it just sounded really fun and cool, are you being somehow demanding for saying, "Hey DM, I'd like to talk about this, I think this would be really fun." You are quite literally doing the very demonizing you ask people not to do: treating the player as though they're a demanding little naughty word, an entitled naughty word, someone who can't just be happy with the things the DM offers them. Please, for the love of all that is holy, STOP doing that! We have enough uncharitable readings going on as it is.

It is not "very selfish" to like something and advocate for it, or dislike it and advocate against it. This applies to every side of this conversation. But it's not the player side that is making demands. It's not the player side that is saying it is literally impossible for anything they say to be unreasonable. It's not the player side laying claim to absolute dictatorial authority. I'm not making these things up; these are things explicitly said in this very thread.

When one side asserts it cannot even in principle act in bad faith, that side is the one with a problem.

 

[zarionofarabel]

So, if a player does the same thing, it shouldn't be treated as so egregiously selfish that players are demonized for it?

Because it's been pretty clearly stated in this thread that only one side of this conversation gets to X-card things.


Honestly, good for them, but irrelevant to the conversation. Every game has to have players, ergo, there are people in the player position. That a person can go create a world filled with the things they like has no bearing on "well, when I get a chance to play, I'd really like X" or "Y is a big problem for me as a player." People play this "well if you don't like it, run your OWN game that way" card as though it were so decisive and it isn't even relevant. Sometimes, people just WANT to play, and sometimes, those people have their hearts set on something. Players who have a vision should be no more demonized than DMs who have one--and both should bring that vision to the table KNOWING that it will never work out precisely as intended because that's how play works. No plan survives contact with the opposition!


Okay, now, step back from this position WHICH WE HAVE EXPLICITLY REJECTED NUMEROUS TIMES that the player will "expect" the DM to do this. Approach it in good faith for God's sake. If you saw something you were SUPER excited to play, and which didn't seem abusive or crazy special or whatever, it just sounded really fun and cool, are you being somehow demanding for saying, "Hey DM, I'd like to talk about this, I think this would be really fun." You are quite literally doing the very demonizing you ask people not to do: treating the player as though they're a demanding little naughty word, an entitled naughty word, someone who can't just be happy with the things the DM offers them. Please, for the love of all that is holy, STOP doing that! We have enough uncharitable readings going on as it is.

It is not "very selfish" to like something and advocate for it, or dislike it and advocate against it. This applies to every side of this conversation. But it's not the player side that is making demands. It's not the player side that is saying it is literally impossible for anything they say to be unreasonable. It's not the player side laying claim to absolute dictatorial authority. I'm not making these things up; these are things explicitly said in this very thread.

When one side asserts it cannot even in principle act in bad faith, that side is the one with a problem.

Yeah, but it is the player side that seems to think that if they ask the DM side to compromise that the DM side MUST compromise.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

My guess? "They look cool!". After that, it's purely the munchkin/min/max/PC-Build-Is-All-Important type people who only see the mechanical effects and could care less about anything else. Then there's the majority of people who think somewhere in between.

But, from MY EXPERIENCE, mostly the first "it looks cool" side of the equasion. It's never been a 'problem', not for long anyway.

What I mean is that my campaign is quite "old school humancentric". Humans rule the roost, so to speak. They are THE most adaptable and variable and most mutable of ALL the races in existence. It's their 'schtick', so to say. So, if a party of two Tieflings, one Half-Orc, one Dragonborn, and a Gnome walk into town...well...they are going to get the cold shoulder, mostly. The Gnome will be the one who gets addressed 9/10 times, often to the point of rudeness.

For example, the group is at a leatherworkers stall in the marketplace. The Dragonborn is looking at an unusually decorated large belt pouch with belt and asks "Is this oiled? You know, water resistant?", the vendor may give the Dragonborn a slightly quizzical look, then turn to the Gnome and say "Uh, yes, but only lightly. Does he want it?".

That kind of "human-centric", with the 'typical friends of humanity' being generally accepted as equals (re: elves, dwarves, halflings, and gnomes; half-elves and half-orcs, a bit less so, but still ok). The races that look "more something-else" than human are treated as just that...something else.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Holy naughty word. Your players actually endure that? Actually, no, they probably don't because you've driven away anyone who would need to.

It's not just the shopkeeper being rude here, if this is how you treat legitimate player enthusiasm. Particularly the bit I bolded.

Again, @Monayuris : It's not the player side that's advocating for this kind of behavior, where someone's preferences are given lip-service approval and then shat upon until the player ceases to be a "problem" by having correct preferences, or realizes that they're simply unwelcome despite claims to the contrary.

Yeah, but it is the player side that seems to think that if they ask the DM side to compromise that the DM side MUST compromise.

Says who? I certainly haven't said that. The vast majority of people here haven't. Numerous posters on the DM side have insisted that not only is compromise unnecessary, it's outright offensive. That even to ask questions or make requests, no matter how respectfully, is such an attack on the DM as to be ground for immediate ejection. Just about the only thing from the DM side that I've said is offensive is...well, the above. DMs low-key gaslighting players who literally just go for something because they think it's cool, not for any actually harmful reason, and considering such behavior a problem to be eliminated. DMs waving their little scepters and insisting they have Ultimate Authority/Absolute Authority (capitals in original!). DMs insisting that players should just trust them regardless of what they do.

Numerous people on one side demand absolute authority, unquestioned power, unlimited trust, total avoidance of even attempted compromise, the right to insult or denigrate others' preferences whether openly or implicitly, and total control over anything and everything that strikes their fancy. The other, while I admit there have been one or two posters who take an excessive stance, has been replete with people specifically just asking for the opportunity to talk, the chance to negotiate, the offer of a good-faith attempt at compromise. I, personally, have consistently and specifically said that, and have given numerous examples of my own behavior both for saying yes and for saying no but finding a different solution.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Yeah, but it is the player side that seems to think that if they ask the DM side to compromise that the DM side MUST compromise.

I have been saying throughout the thread that no one is saying that Kender need to be accepted.

And no one is saying that the DM can't veto things. Just that they should only in exceptional circumstances.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Obviously I don't know your players. So I'm legitimately curious, you're willing to compromise with your players for these three additional races; were these compromises your players requested?

Nope. The players never asked for a compromise because I exclusively run human only games because I don't normally run D&D. However in an upcoming campaign I wish to run a D&D campaign for nostalgias sake and the compromise was that we would play a BECMI clone. I wanted to try 5e, they told me to get bent! We settled on a BECMI clone cause, well, I don't know, they offered it up cause I'm a geezer I guess.

The only available races in the clone I got are Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling. Though they are technically classes so I don't know if it counts. I think the only reason I might get non-human characters is because they are not races and are in fact classes. My players are of a like mind and think non-human characters are generally played for mechanical bonuses.

 

[zarionofarabel]

I have been saying throughout the thread that no one is saying that Kender need to be accepted.

And no one is saying that the DM can't veto things. Just that they should only in exceptional circumstances.

I like Kender!

 

[D1Tremere]

Yeah, but it is the player side that seems to think that if they ask the DM side to compromise that the DM side MUST compromise.

I guess this point kinda depends on a persons reasons, as a GM, for running the game. I run games so my friends, the players, can have fun. My job is to tell stories and adjudicate rules disputes so that the fun can be had. To that end, any restrictions should be there to increase players long term fun, not to maintain my own status quo sensibilities. In return I get the satisfaction of providing a fun time for others, which makes me happy. Their fun is my fun.

The idea of caring more about maintaining a specific (especially trivial) restriction to the exclusion of others is mind-blowing to me. Sure I could tell my friends that they can run their own games if they want to play an x, but why would I want to do that? Then I couldn't run a fun game for them, and they wouldn't feel as welcome in my games.

That isn't to say that my games have no limitations or restrictions, only that such limitations are there in service of the players enjoyment and exceptions that do not disrupt the overall enjoyment of the players are easy enough to incorporate.