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

[Minigiant]

I just...can’t imagine building a world without player input on what they’d want to play in such a world, and room to add stuff as character concepts develop.

I could see it if you you went out your way to include enough background diversity for all the types of players you want to run games for.

 

[prabe]

I could see it if you you went out your way to include enough background diversity for all the types of players you want to run games for.

I suppose, but wow that's a lot of work. Or, you want to run for a limited number of player-types. Pretty much the only player-type I don't want to run for is the type that brings a character without wanting to know anything about my world. You have ideas you want to play one of? I have dozens (the curse of the Forever GM). Let's figure something out that works for both of us. Neither of us may get our first choice; I'm cool with that if you are ...

 

[Minigiant]

I suppose, but wow that's a lot of work. Or, you want to run for a limited number of player-types. Pretty much the only player-type I don't want to run for is the type that brings a character without wanting to know anything about my world. You have ideas you want to play one of? I have dozens (the curse of the Forever GM). Let's figure something out that works for both of us. Neither of us may get our first choice; I'm cool with that if you are ...

The PHB races plus a gobliniod/orc, a beastfolk, and a "big" race covers most of the interest of most players.

And PHB class + Artificer covers most class interests.

It's really not much more that running the straight PHB. If a DM can't handle the 10 or so races in the PHB, I worry for them as a DM.

 

[Jack Daniel]

But you are still ignoring that in your example, you have explicitly written the majority of that character. Just because I get to color inside those lines doesn't mean that you didn't do that. After all, just because I can make a character doesn't mean that the guy sitting next to me didn't make the exact same character.

I'm not ignoring anything. You're just overstating your case. I've written nothing; beyond a set of stats and a species, the character remains a blank slate, one you've admitted you could fill with detail. The odds that the player sitting next to you creates an identical character, even if they roll similar stats and pick the same class as you, are vanishingly tiny unless you're both singularly uncreative or sharing some kind of psychic wavelength.

"My 1st level cleric is a withdrawn, studious young man named Richard who was raised in the church orphanage and longs for adventure because of the storybooks he read as a lad." "Damn it, Bob! I wanted my cleric to be a withdrawn, studious young man named Richard who was raised in the church orphanage and longs for adventure because of the storybooks he read as a lad!"

With all due sincerity: I am surprised to hear that. I had gotten rather the opposite impression.

What, you thought that my refusal to compromise my settings isn't still a refusal? I thought that was implicit.

I could add tabaxi to any of my settings. (The edition I play doesn't have mechanics for it, but there is a rakasta class; it could be adapted fairly trivially.) But I won't.

 

[prabe]

The PHB races plus a gobliniod/orc, a beastfolk, and a "big" race covers most of the interest of most players.

And PHB class + Artificer covers most class interests.

It's really not much more that running the straight PHB. If a DM can't handle the 10 or so races in the PHB, I worry for them as a DM.

Eh. I have a couple "big" races in my "default yes" list, but closest to "beastfolk" is dragonborn and half-orc will have to do for "goblinoid/orc" (because I'd prefer to have both of those be rarer/more mysterious than allowing them as PCs would seem to allow). And I don't allow the Artificer class.

Feel free to worry about me as a DM, if you must. ;-)

 

[FrozenNorth]

Feel free to worry about me as a DM, if you must. ;-)

I will send “thoughts and prayers”.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Serious question:
How would you feel as DM if a player (prospective or current) told you "ugh, satyrs [or whatever]? They're so stupid, just humans with furry legs who drink a lot. I don't even know why anyone would include them." I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but I suspect you would find such behavior disrespectful. You included them for a reason, I'm sure, and having a player just crap on your work for no reason other than highly arbitrary dislike would not be welcome.

Only the last bit. That really was not comparable to my opinion on centaurs, which was presented as my personal opinions and especially accompanied with an acknowledgement that other people might feel differently.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm not ignoring anything. You're just overstating your case. I've written nothing; beyond a set of stats and a species, the character remains a blank slate, one you've admitted you could fill with detail. The odds that the player sitting next to you creates an identical character, even if they roll similar stats and pick the same class as you, are vanishingly tiny unless you're both singularly uncreative or sharing some kind of psychic wavelength.

1: Perhaps "identical" is excessive, but "nearly equivalent" doesn't sound excessive to my ears. If you give a person a specified race and there are four or five players at the table, no less than 2 players must have the same class as well. Since stats inform behavioral patterns (e.g. low Wisdom is almost always understood as poor impulse control and bad observational skills), odds are fairly good that (say) two Fighters with identical stats will have suspiciously similar strengths, quirks, and limitations. And since

"My 1st level cleric is a withdrawn, studious young man named Richard who was raised in the church orphanage and longs for adventure because of the storybooks he read as a lad." "Damn it, Bob! I wanted my cleric to be a withdrawn, studious young man named Richard who was raised in the church orphanage and longs for adventure because of the storybooks he read as a lad!"

Now who's overstating a case? Nobody said the names had to be the same.

What, you thought that my refusal to compromise my settings isn't still a refusal? I thought that was implicit.

.....

Seriously? Then what in God's name have you proved by your own extraction of the "I could" bit from their post? You both have the capacity, and (implcitly) you both refuse to use it. Nothing has been gained in the conversation, unless I'm missing something big here!

Only the last bit. That really was not comparable to my opinion on centaurs, which was presented as my personal opinions and especially accompanied with an acknowledgement that other people might feel differently.

Alright. But people in this thread are defending the right to do that very thing. Even--at times--without any real thought put into it, literally just a knee-jerk "I think that's dumb" is apparently supposed to be ample justification. That's what I'm arguing against.

 

[Oofta]

Alright. But people in this thread are defending the right to do that very thing. Even--at times--without any real thought put into it, literally just a knee-jerk "I think that's dumb" is apparently supposed to be ample justification. That's what I'm arguing against.

So a DM has to justify their opinion? I mean, I think loxodons are dumb. Even if I had a more open world I just ... no. No anthropomorphic elephant people in my campaign.

Maybe when you DM it doesn't matter. It does to some people and, yes "that's dumb" is sufficient justification. No justification other than "because it's not allowed" is all that is really needed IMHO.

 

[loverdrive]

GM can explain their reasoning and the player can think that the explanation is stupid. Now what?

And now they talk and reach consensus.

Every decision that raises questions, should, well, be questioned. Whether it allowing/banning certain races or NPCs the party encounters or monster's AC.

People certainly can just slam their fists on the table, but having a discussion is more productive and more engaging.