D&D 5E (2014) What is the appeal of the weird fantasy races?

[prabe]

Well, yeah. There will always be jerks and bad DMs. Those are so few and far between in real life, though, that I don't consider them when I'm making a statement like that. It goes without saying that a bad DM might do that.

I think the very good and the very bad GMs are both rare; I think most of us swim at various depths in a sea of mediocrity.

 

[Maxperson]

I think the very good and the very bad GMs are both rare; I think most of us swim at various depths in a sea of mediocrity.

I've encountered 4 very good, even great DMs. One of whom DMs and plays for special events(including by WotC) that get streamed. I've hit maybe 2 bad DMs, so yeah, pretty darn rare. Bad DMs seem to be a bit rarer than good ones.

 

[Scott Christian]

I believe my comments were directed toward a hypothetical DM. I apologize if I've hurt that hypothetical DMs feelings.

My position at the start of the post was precisely that I would have no interest in gaming with this hypothetical person. It sounds miserable to me.

As I stated earlier, then it wouldn't be the table for you. But if a DM came up and said, I made a world. There are no "half" races because they can't reproduce. Play anything you want, just no half-races. Would your red flags be raised? Would you ask for clarification? Would you be suddenly uninterested because the DM used science to explain the rationale that two separate species were unable to reproduce?

 

[Scott Christian]

Might give it a one shot afternoon. But an ongoing campaign? No thanks. I have better things to do with my time. My free time is extremely limited and I've long given up on playing games I don't enjoy.

Time is limited and I respect that.

 

[Scott Christian]

And, for those players, a limited selection of races probably won't be an issue.

But, seriously, a couple paragraphs detailing where my people live is going to spoil the mystery of exploring the setting? That's a bit extreme.

Sorry Hussar, I am confused. I don't think I ever mentioned anything about not giving the player the history, locales, geography, etc of their home if they asked. I am pretty certain I said the exact opposite. I was speaking about players that don't want those things. They want no part of it. If you are referring to them writing a paragraph or two. Sure, it'd be welcomed. I don't know of any DM that would turn that down either as long as it followed the theme/premise/etc. of the world. For example, this is like Hyboria, then the player insists on them being from a crashed spaceship. Cool idea. But if the DM shot it down, they should be fine with it.

 

[Scott Christian]

They're judgment calls. That doesn't mean they can't be right vs wrong, it means context--including whose judgment--matters a ton. A right judgment for me may be a wrong judgment for you. Doesn't mean mine's not right; it means my me-ness and your you-ness are part of the call.

Good grief. Do you ever go back and read all the posts you wrote. It is as if you argue to argue.

Yes, it does sound rosy. As for the rest? If you (generic) have pitched a thousand games and had THAT many so-called "problem" players, maybe you (generic) should look at the common denominator between all those games, instead of assuming that you (generic) are a beleaguered victim DM whose prospective players are so demanding and disrespectful.

Again, what are you even talking about? I get the feeling you are so agitated that you are reading what you want or mistaking the tone. My response is not a DM justifying his creation to players, but to a group on this board that insists one way is the "right" way. Here is my quote:

"Might be the rose colored glasses, but I think any DM who said this on here is probably short of temper for having to try and justify their view a thousand times."

See above, but more importantly: You're clearly going out of your way to get the most information you can about what your players want and how to get it. You AREN'T giving flat "no" answers, refusing to explain (beyond non-answers like "just trust me"/"I just hate that thing"), and casting player comment/question/criticism as disrespect.

I will not take credit, as I was discussing people who DM me as a player. Personally, in my D&D campaigns, I do not care how many races, class/build/etc. It does not matter because I just use D&D's generic world. I haven't built a D&D world since 2nd edition. But I have built other worlds for other games, and those matter greatly. I still do the things above, and have hundreds of pages lore and history and maybe 500 pages in adventures for those worlds. But D&D is such a monstrosity to pin down, that it hardly seems worth it imho. Yet, knowing how I feel about the other worlds and the time I have invested in them, I feel I can clearly see the other side here in this debate, and whole-heartedly concur with their views to limit things when they feel the need.

 

[Scott Christian]

Your contention was that I was saying this was true of any world the DM put thought into. It wasn't. It was you misstating and exaggerating my position.

And this particular hypothetical DM appears to want to play the 'is it realistic?' game. Frequently, the 'is it realistic game' includes bonus rules, unmentioned in any book, known only to the DM, where anything can be vetoed if it doesn't meet the DMs standards of fantasy realism.

The DM certainly can present any justification they like for things existing or not existing or how the world behaves. I find "scientific" justifications suspicious. Thus, 'in this particular' example.

I despise calling out fallacies, because every argument not grounded in ones and zeros has many of them. So basically anything in real life is full of them. But, that is a huge jump you took. A DM details physiological reasons for a group of races to not exist, and you say he will also add bonus rules known only to him and abuse some mythical veto power during the game. That is not right.

 

[Scott Christian]

If someone finds that minute, generic amount of world building too much and impermissible because I'm just a player, then those are the DMs that I find are so unreasonable that I don't think I could play in their game.

Again. For maybe the hundredth time, there is not one DM on here that has ever said anything remotely close to that. Not even in the slightest. Not even a little. Not even a microscopic cell's worth. Not even an atom's worth.

 

[Scott Christian]

Here is the opening of the DM's Guide:

"Know Your Players
The success of a D&D game hinges on your ability to entertain the other players at the game table. Whereas their role is to create characters (the protagonists of the campaign), breathe life into them, and help steer the campaign through their characters' actions, your role is to keep the players (and yourself) interested and immersed in the world you've created, and to let their characters do awesome things."

I really feel like this answers everyone's questions.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well, yeah. There will always be jerks and bad DMs. Those are so few and far between in real life, though, that I don't consider them when I'm making a statement like that. It goes without saying that a bad DM might do that.

When in a thread where someone is asking about why people value these things, and then we have non-fans coming in and saying "you really don't need these things you like," I don't feel like it's so weird to note that bad (or even just on the low end of mediocre) DMs are out there and do do that.

Alternatively? If we're going to assume that every DM is good, or at least on the good end of mediocre, why aren't we assuming that every player is good, or at least on the good end of mediocre?

Sorry Hussar, I am confused. I don't think I ever mentioned anything about not giving the player the history, locales, geography, etc of their home if they asked. I am pretty certain I said the exact opposite. I was speaking about players that don't want those things. They want no part of it. If you are referring to them writing a paragraph or two. Sure, it'd be welcomed. I don't know of any DM that would turn that down either as long as it followed the theme/premise/etc. of the world. For example, this is like Hyboria, then the player insists on them being from a crashed spaceship. Cool idea. But if the DM shot it down, they should be fine with it.

Well, IIRC, the original example (from another poster) included elements beyond just who & where, stuff like "monk powers explained as channeling the natural powers of the creatures of my homeland."