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

[Chaosmancer]

Well, there have been a lot of claims that unless you run a kitchen sink campaign or give players carte blanche to do world building that the game will be automatically boring.

You have no clue if my campaign is boring. My players certainly don't think so. It may not be the campaign for you, but yes I get tired of baseless accusations. Want to do kitchen sink? Go for it if you have fun. Tell me my campaign is crap or that my player's PCs are cardboard cutouts because I don't run it exactly like you do? Yeah, you're going to get pushback.

There is no one true way to run games. Every DM, every group, needs to develop a style that works for them.

Sort of how we keep pushing back when you insult our gaming?


But more seriously, I think you of all people would appreciate that the poster who said that (Hussar I think?) said that a human only world with onlu three classes (which wasn't your example, right?) would be boring for them.

Aren't you constantly saying that the insults you level our way is just how you see the situation? Just how you would react to that proposal?

I don't normally call out reactions, but I see @Jack Daniel and @Crimson Longinus liked this post. Didn't you to also say things like that? That the centuars are stupid because of anatomy, and Tiefling players just want to power game the system?

Kind of curious how you who use this defense all the time of it just being your opinion, and everyone is entitled to their opinion, is so outraged by someone doing the same thing, just on the opposite side.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't normally call out reactions, but I see @Jack Daniel and @Crimson Longinus liked this post. Didn't you to also say things like that? That the centuars are stupid because of anatomy, and Tiefling players just want to power game the system?

I'm not sure I follow you. I mainly liked Oofta's post for the sentence "There is no one true way to run games. Every DM, every group, needs to develop a style that works for them," with which I agree completely. So if someone wants to run a centaur world game, more power to them!

There has been some insulting language in this thread that, like calling people 'control freaks' etc, and I certainly do not approve that.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I hate how my computer keeps eating my posts. An hour's worth of typing and responding, and POOF

And this is less and less worth the effort to redo

 

[cbwjm]

Out if curiosity, because I can't keep up with this thread, are restrictions on races actually making players quit a game? My sample size may be small but when I said only X races my players were sweet with it and rolled up some characters. When my friend started up a game, I asked what was in and when told, rolled up a character. Other games were limited to PHB only but that was due to what was available rather than any actual restrictions or had no restrictions because the DM didn't care. If everyone's been told right at the start which races are in, is it really a problem and players are unhappy or leave the game or do players tend to roll something up and play?

 

[JiffyPopTart]

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.

Would you interpret the statement below as someone saying the players should have ZERO world building input on the game that the GM brings to the table?

(Just speaking personally, though, even if it's a tangent only, if I sat down at a game table expecting to play some D&D and the DM asked me to introduce some detail into the game world? I'd get up again and leave. I wouldn't want to play with a DM who delegates the basics of the job.)

 

[Oofta]

Out if curiosity, because I can't keep up with this thread, are restrictions on races actually making players quit a game? My sample size may be small but when I said only X races my players were sweet with it and rolled up some characters. When my friend started up a game, I asked what was in and when told, rolled up a character. Other games were limited to PHB only but that was due to what was available rather than any actual restrictions or had no restrictions because the DM didn't care. If everyone's been told right at the start which races are in, is it really a problem and players are unhappy or leave the game or do players tend to roll something up and play?

Other than the guy that wanted to play a half dragon half vampire? No.

 

[Zardnaar]

Centaur world I would look at that. I don't really want centaurs in a normal game but Greece, Centaur world or even steppe based game sure.

I think it requires more effort to design a limited world than do whatever and drop in isolated village or traveller type back ground.

Even then it's not to bad as long as everyone doesn't do it.

Eg everyone agrees to say Theros and someone wants the play an elf.

Then everyone else decides to play whatever and the DM has prepped Theros but no one's really playing any attention.

That's a problem espicially if the game was advertised as Theros.

Session zero or asking the players what they want to deal before session 0 helps. I didn't by mind players shooting down my pitch before I've put much effort into it.

Once I've made that effort though that's where things are gonna get annoying.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I'm not sure I follow you. I mainly liked Oofta's post for the sentence "There is no one true way to run games. Every DM, every group, needs to develop a style that works for them," with which I agree completely. So if someone wants to run a centaur world game, more power to them!

There has been some insulting language in this thread that, like calling people 'control freaks' etc, and I certainly do not approve that.

You use strong language toward one hypothetical person and everyone takes it personally..

I should know better.. hypothetical people matter.

More seriously. I do regret using such strong language as it appears to have diverted attention away from what I was trying to say.

 

[Zardnaar]

Out if curiosity, because I can't keep up with this thread, are restrictions on races actually making players quit a game? My sample size may be small but when I said only X races my players were sweet with it and rolled up some characters. When my friend started up a game, I asked what was in and when told, rolled up a character. Other games were limited to PHB only but that was due to what was available rather than any actual restrictions or had no restrictions because the DM didn't care. If everyone's been told right at the start which races are in, is it really a problem and players are unhappy or leave the game or do players tend to roll something up and play?

Generally players roll up something else.

It's mostly an online arguement.

Might be a generational thing. Younger people don't like the word no, parents used to say "because I said so" and if you pushed it the strap was an option.

So got used to the word no.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Mechanics mechanics mechanics.

Can't you do anything without mechanics?!

It's a role playing game, the DM sets the tone, and the players need to buy into it or not play.

The mechanics are the things that allow you to say you are playing 5e vs. Pathfinder vs. Warhammer. You could run a campaign set in any of those three "worlds" and use any of the three systems to run it.

But when you sit down at the table and have a 4 hour block of roleplaying that doesn't include anything written on your character sheet or rolling any dice then you aren't even playing a system, you are just storytelling. Its just narrative and its system independent.

So, if YOUR games are 80% mechanics free then maybe its not that big a deal to you that its not a good fit, because you are not using mechanics to run your sessions anyway. For someone else that has lots of combats and skill checks and other character sheet facing ties then 5e probably ISN'T the best rules system to represent a real-world historical game.