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

[Hussar]

If you want to play a fantastical character, and the campaign on offer is gritty realism then you aren't going to enjoy that campaign. Find a different game, don't try and spoil it for everyone else.

It's not a case of "shutting down" it's a case of defining the parameters of the campaign. If the player is incapable of creating a character they want to play that fits within the parameters of the campaign then they won't like the campaign. Take your toys and go play somewhere else.

No one in this thread is taking this position though. Obviously restrictions are fine. No one is claiming different.

What is being questioned is when the player, in good faith, makes a character that DOES fit with the campaign, is embedded in the setting, but, was not on the "approved list" of DM's races, and the DM automatically veto's it because of the DM's personal preferences.

What's being said is that in that case, where the player is making the effort to fit the character into the setting, perhaps the DM could unclench his or her ego just a smidgeon and give the player the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Zardnaar]

No one in this thread is taking this position though. Obviously restrictions are fine. No one is claiming different.

What is being questioned is when the player, in good faith, makes a character that DOES fit with the campaign, is embedded in the setting, but, was not on the "approved list" of DM's races, and the DM automatically veto's it because of the DM's personal preferences.

What's being said is that in that case, where the player is making the effort to fit the character into the setting, perhaps the DM could unclench his or her ego just a smidgeon and give the player the benefit of the doubt.

If the player makes a race not on the approved list by default it doesn't fit the setting.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Citation please @Oofta. NO ONE HAS CLAIMED THIS. This is a bugaboo of entirely your own creation.

The worst thing I said was that if the DM's world is "entirely my own" then it leads to Man with No Name characters because the players are not allowed to create any elements of the game world. Since you allow your players to create elements of the game world, then this criticism doesn't apply to you.

 

[prabe]

No one in this thread is taking this position though. Obviously restrictions are fine. No one is claiming different.

What is being questioned is when the player, in good faith, makes a character that DOES fit with the campaign, is embedded in the setting, but, was not on the "approved list" of DM's races, and the DM automatically veto's it because of the DM's personal preferences.

What's being said is that in that case, where the player is making the effort to fit the character into the setting, perhaps the DM could unclench his or her ego just a smidgeon and give the player the benefit of the doubt.

So, if the player brings this to campaign without talking to the GM first, I am inclined to question the extent of that player's good faith. There's a difference between a conversation that begins "I see you don't have [race] listed as a PC race on your world--can I play one?" and one that begins "I know you don't have [race] listed as a PC race on your world, but I've written up on as my PC"--at least from the GM's perspective.

 

[Hussar]

I mean...it’s a useless unhelpful comment, though, and come across condescending, because obviously the plank guy knows that pickups exist. They aren’t using one for a reason.

Would it be a problem to inquire what that reason is? And would it be a problem to offer alternatives that may or may not work better? In what way is that unhelpful?

Or, to put it another way, look at this thread. I said that using D&D for a human only, 3 class game was a bad idea. I got pointed to OD&D. Ok, fair enough. That's certainly a different game from 5e D&D. And a clarification. IOW, the solution to using 5e for this game would be to excise 90% of the material and use OD&D.

Now, if someone continued to insist on using 5e for this game, would it be unhelpful and condescending to point them to OD&D?

 

[Hussar]

If the player makes a race not on the approved list by default it doesn't fit the setting.

That's ludicrous.

Unless your DM has detailed out every square foot of the setting, there is always space for something new to be added. Good grief, the most detailed settings out there like Forgotten Realms or Farland have new races being added constantly.

But, now we're seeing the attitude. "I didn't approve of this, therefore it doesn't fit" means that the DM has pretty much already made up his or her mind. Not the level of flexibility that I believe makes for a much better DM.

 

[Hussar]

So, if the player brings this to campaign without talking to the GM first, I am inclined to question the extent of that player's good faith. There's a difference between a conversation that begins "I see you don't have [race] listed as a PC race on your world--can I play one?" and one that begins "I know you don't have [race] listed as a PC race on your world, but I've written up on as my PC"--at least from the GM's perspective.

Maybe. Although, to me, that's more an issue of the DM's ego than substance. "How dare you go ahead and be creative about MY world without consulting me first?" is what that sounds like.

I mean, if you posit a Theros world, and I as a player do my due diligence, read the background material, read the list of approved races and then think, "Hey, I have an idea that's off the list but I think would fit within the parameters of the setting" and then goes ahead and hands you a character that DOES fit within the parameters of the campaign, (I don't know enough about Theros to give an example) but is off the menu, I'm not terribly sympathetic to the DM who just says, "Nope. My game world. You cannot be creative in my game world."

Especially when it comes to a race. One of the easiest things in the world to add to a D&D game.

 

[Don Durito]

What is with this bizarre assumption that availability of a race for PCs = presence in the setting?

It's obviously wrong.

Why won't it die?

 

[prabe]

Maybe. Although, to me, that's more an issue of the DM's ego than substance. "How dare you go ahead and be creative about MY world without consulting me first?" is what that sounds like.

I mean, if you posit a Theros world, and I as a player do my due diligence, read the background material, read the list of approved races and then think, "Hey, I have an idea that's off the list but I think would fit within the parameters of the setting" and then goes ahead and hands you a character that DOES fit within the parameters of the campaign, (I don't know enough about Theros to give an example) but is off the menu, I'm not terribly sympathetic to the DM who just says, "Nope. My game world. You cannot be creative in my game world."

Especially when it comes to a race. One of the easiest things in the world to add to a D&D game.

I think attempting to present the DM with a fait accompli is probably not the best way to start the conversation, what with DMs being people and all. Obviously, the extent to which the player knows the DM will also matter some; if nothing else if you know the DM you might know that the reason he's not allowing something is because the last campaign was all that something.

 

[Zardnaar]

That's ludicrous.

Unless your DM has detailed out every square foot of the setting, there is always space for something new to be added. Good grief, the most detailed settings out there like Forgotten Realms or Farland have new races being added constantly.

But, now we're seeing the attitude. "I didn't approve of this, therefore it doesn't fit" means that the DM has pretty much already made up his or her mind. Not the level of flexibility that I believe makes for a much better DM.

Such things exist you just don't get to play it.

For example let's say my world half elves exist along with the language.

People know that there were ancient wars against the great evil.

Elves disappeared not to long after the great wars.

They survived but are in hiding, perhaps in extra dimensional pocket.

The twist is the Elves were the great evil and the survivors spent that time burying that information then sodding off to hide.

So yes elves exist but are unavailable to be played even if you could get creative trying to justify why you get to play one.

Note the DM doesn't want to reveal the fact they're still around. Not hard to figure out they were around.

Or the DM wants to focus on the politics of the 8-12 races they allow.

Can you theoretically play one eg do they exist. Yes.

Should you play one. No.

Classic Drow can fit into that category.

Or XYZ was genocided 3000 years ago. Who did it is returning or still around and you're next.