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

[Oofta]

Would you feel the same if someone said "to recreate the feeling of the Fellowship of the Ring, Il won't be allowing female PCs. All characters must be male?"

A DM is free to make any restriction they want. If I disagree I won't play their game. In this case I would not.

See also: strawman.

 

[Zardnaar]

A DM is free to make any restriction they want. If I disagree I won't play their game. In this case I would not.

See also: strawman.

I wouldn't play that one either but yeah if DM wants to do that.

 

[Scott Christian]

I am saying that if any DM is so wrapped up in their own personal preferences that they flat out veto a player's choice for no other reason than, "I don't like it" then that is a bad DM.

Hussar,
By saying this, and using your own logic of argumentation, we'll have to expand on the "I don't like it." (I mean, nothing is ever straightforward or black-&-white with you. So let's expand on this notion of "I don't like it."

Which one of these "I don't like it" statements is valid, if any?

A. I don't like it because if you are a centaur then many of the dungeons and boat travels and mountain climbing adventures I have might get you left out for several sessions.
B. I don't like it because if you are a loxodon then every single town you walk into you will become a circus freak show or worse yet, be hunted by groups that see your tusks as secret ingredients and aphrodisiacs.
C. I don't like it because in the world I have set up the race you have chosen is the villain. They have burnt, murdered and pillaged for hundreds of years. People will not trust you. People will not like you. And in most cases, for this adventure set in a war torn city (thanks to your race), people will try to arrest you or worse, kill you. And no one will care.
D. I don't like it because you are magically trapped on a continent where everything is set up. The DM has set up the kingdoms, the people, everything. They have not seen outsiders for hundreds of years. The only strange things they see are creatures. Creatures that look like your tabaxi, in the form of a weretiger. The DM explains they can't just make a race living somewhere in the unknown.
E. I don't like it because personally, it doesn't fit within my sensibilities. It just seems silly.

 

[Scott Christian]

DM can say no to a race because of any criteria they like. DM always wins because a player at the end of the day gets with the program or leaves.

If player acts in bad faith eg plays anyway and tries to undermine the game they get booted.

Very simple concept.

Let's quote the most lenient book for 5e there is, Tasha's:
Session Zero
"Establish boundaries. And if anyone crosses them, speak up. If they don't listen, there's always cloudkill." - Tasha
Then it goes on to say in more serious terms:
"...session zero... to establish expectations, outline the terms of the social contracts, and share house rules. Making and sticking to these rules can help ensure that the game is a fun experience for everyone involved."
and then the important stuff:
"Often a session zero includes building characters together. As the DM, you can help players during the character creation process by advising them to select options that will serve the adventure or campaign that awaits."

 

[Scott Christian]

Imagine the converation:

Player: I'd like to play X race.
DM: No, you can't be X race.
Player: Why not?
DM: I don't like X race.

No. That is not the way any DM here has set up that argument. You have the order wrong, which in any court case, is all that matters. Here let me retype it correctly:
DM: You can play A through L. 12 Races.
Player: I would like to play Z.
DM: No. You cannot play Z. I have (fill in the blank) reason.
Player: I don't agree. I want to play Z. If you don't let me, you are acting in bad faith.

That is how everyone here has set this up. You may not agree with their reasoning, but everyone has stated session zero has clear expectations. And I have not seen one person on here say "The DM doesn't need to have clear expectations. They can just decide whenever they want." Nope. Not the argument anyone has made.

 

[Scott Christian]

And again, Minigiant wasn't making that claim with the intent that any given group of players would be bored.

Since pizza seems to be an analogy these days, I would say that the majority of America would be bored if all that was offered was pepperoni pizza. Can you disprove that by showing a household that enjoyed pepperoni pizza? Or maybe even a high school pizza party involving hundreds of people?

No. Because that shows a small subset of the main point.

Reverse it. Can you disprove something I gave evidence for? You cannot.

And minigiant clarified, although, go back and read his original post. His clarification reads different. I am fine with that. We all can't write everything with perfect clarity. So it's fine. I accept his new interpretation. But my response was to his original post.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Session Zero
"Establish boundaries. And if anyone crosses them, speak up. If they don't listen, there's always cloudkill." - Tasha
Then it goes on to say in more serious terms:
"...session zero... to establish expectations, outline the terms of the social contracts, and share house rules. Making and sticking to these rules can help ensure that the game is a fun experience for everyone involved."
and then the important stuff:
"Often a session zero includes building characters together. As the DM, you can help players during the character creation process by advising them to select options that will serve the adventure or campaign that awaits."

See, I read that as a two-way street. The DM advises what is off-limits to them (more in the vein of slavery, harm to children, etc. rather than “halflings”), and the players do likewise.

Even the last paragraph, I read that as happened in my last Session Zero “hey guys, this campaign is set in fantasy Arabia and you will be fighting gnolls and in desert and mountainous environments. Because it is hot, bear in mind that wearing heavy armor could be a challenge”.

To quote Tasha’s, I “advised” the players that certain characters were more appropriate and I “encouraged” the players to make characters with a personal link to the adventure. I didn’t ban any races (except for yuan-ti, aarakra and winged tieflings for being overpowered).

And no one was cloudkilled.

 

[Zardnaar]

See, I read that as a two-way street. The DM advises what is off-limits to them (more in the vein of slavery, harm to children, etc. rather than “halflings”), and the players do likewise.

Even the last paragraph, I read that as happened in my last Session Zero “hey guys, this campaign is set in fantasy Arabia and you will be fighting gnolls and in desert and mountainous environments. Because it is hot, bear in mind that wearing heavy armor could be a challenge”.

To quote Tasha’s, I “advised” the players that certain characters were more appropriate and I “encouraged” the players to make characters with a personal link to the adventure. I didn’t ban any races (except for yuan-ti, aarakra and winged tieflings for being overpowered).

And no one was cloudkilled.

I cloudkilled the party last week (lvl 6, CR6 conjuror)

It's a crap spell. Well 3/5 had resistance and the other two proficiency in con saves.

 

[Scott Christian]

I know @Hussar is being a bit blunt, but I find I can't really disagree with their core point.

I remember earlier on in 5e, people were talking about getting rid of the Champion Fighter, and making all fighters have some sort of mechanic like Superiority Dice. One of the big pushbacks against that were "Why get rid of something other people enjoy"

And, frankly, would we say that the DM is acting in good faith if they banned other things solely for personal taste?

"You can't play a Champion Fighter, I personally find them boring."

"You can't learn Fireball, I don't like that spell"

"You can't use Greataxes, I don't like them"

"You can't take Alert, I don't like it"




Sure, in theory a DM can ban whatever they want for any reason, but if that reason is just because they can ban it, is it really a good reason at all?

And again. I posted this earlier and you answered. I asked what it is we are arguing. Do you see what @Hussar did.

• He turned this into an argument about how the DM should allow any race.
• Then when people brought up session 0 and said the DM set clear expectations (which is what happens prior to a year long campaign), Hussar claimed the DM should listen and accept the player's choice.
• A litany of reasons was given by DM's why sometimes that doesn't work, from physiological to magical to personal. If memory serves, you accepted some of those reasons.
• Then Hussar claimed DM's just weren't using their imagination enough if they limited things. Again, reasons were given by the DM's.
• Then Hussar removes session zero from the argument and says DM's are banning a race and it surprises the player.
• The DM's explain a hundred times that is not what is happening in the argument.
• Then Hussar says DM's are banning the race for purely personal reasons. So they are being a jerk.

The DM's could go through again the valid reasons, but why? I asked the specific question because I assumed this was going to happen. He would remove session zero or keep arguing the DM is acting in bad faith.

All this, despite the evidence presented by the DM's Guide, logical and sound reasoning, and yes, personal preferences. Because in the end, D&D is a game of individual tables, and those tables all play a little differently. And that is okay. It's just not okay with Hussar.

 

[Oofta]

I cloudkilled the party last week (lvl 6, CR6 conjuror)

It's a crap spell. Well 3/5 had resistance and the other two proficiency in con saves.

Obviously you just didn't cast it at high enough level, the conjurer should have had epic levels like Tasha.