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

[Scott Christian]

What if I offered up the following character in your campaign....

Drow Anyclass (stats unimportant): Thrown into the river for being sickly and not expected to live the child Charname was expected to die like all the others. The goddess X took pity on the child and had it caught up on some floating debris to ride its way to the surface. A passingby farming family noticed the crying child on the riverbank and rushed to save it.

Upon climbing down into the reeds the family recoiled in horror as they viewed a tiny drow, creatues of their nightmares. As the father reached down to drown the infant a vision of the goddess X appeard in the rippling waves and spoke to them.

"I have saved this ones life for my own purposes. I charge you with raising it as one of your own. To help you do this I will change her likeness to fit in with your society.

End result: I have a drow (in genetics and mechanics) raised by humans who has the appearance of a human being.

If you're going to go that far, just ask to play a human and have the drow stats. Have a dark past.

The point always comes to this: If the DM (in this case Oofta) is clear he does not want you playing a drow. Why would you make one?

Everyone on here can make an intricate backstory as to how or why you could play one. But why insist on being a drow?

Is it:
A) For the stats
B) For the background
C) Both A & B
D) To see if you can

• If it is A, talk with the DM and any DM I know will let you have the mechanics without the ears and purple skin.
• If it is B, find a comparable culture. Play that. If there isn't one, make a different character. (I mean, if you can come up with a clever way of playing a drow, you must be able to come up with another character type.)
• If it is C, combine the two above.
• If it is D, ask the DM. If they say no, save the character for another day.

You see, it all boils down to why? If a DM like Oofta, who has clear parameters (regardless of reasons), asks you to join the game - why start the campaign by trying to do something he has told you not to do?

 

[Gammadoodler]

I was trying to have a conversation to clarify what people believe because you claim I misrepresented your opinion. That's all.

So you asked me to misrepresent my own opinion?

I'll clarify my particular point of view though. I think curated campaigns are fine. I find several of the reasons provided for their curation kinda dumb.

It's like, I don't care if you choose to take trains everywhere you go, live your life. But if you're avoiding planes because you're worried about pterodactyl collisions, I'm going to point out that it's a dumb reason to avoid planes.

 

[Scott Christian]

As a "Player Advocate" (even though I GM as much as play) I am supporting the position that there should be a good reason for removing the small amount of content that a player has at their disposal to create a character they would enjoy playing. To me a "good reason" means that the GM has taken their best effort at making the character presented work in their campaign and found it literally impossible to do.

So the discussion boils down to "What is a good reason to limit the player options"?

I have seen the following listed as good reasons here, and what I think about them personally.
1. I can't have fun if a player plays a dragonborn.
- Unless its ruining the game with its abilities, just call it a mutated lizardfolk and move on.
2. My world only has the Tolkien races.
- Tolkien had all sorts of strange beings in his stories, can you not add in one or two into yours?
3. I play OD&D and the races aren't in the rules.
- Legit a good reason.
4. I don't want to have to create an intricate backstory for your race.
- You don't have to to allow a single individual.
5. My game is set in Earth Culture X and culture Y wouldn't make sense.
- Let me play my Culture Y character if I can make it make sense. You could play a "viking" in an Egyptian campaign, but you would be a seafaring raiding culture from the Mediterranean shores.

So again, even though there are clear parameters on what the character is supposed to play to join a particular table, the DM should bend? Even when the player starts the game by doing something directly opposed to the initial offering? All of these leave out session zero or leave out the player step:

DM: I do not like dragonborn. They just ruin it for me. It is hard to explain.
Player: I want to play a dragonborn!

DM: I run a Middle Earth game. Hobbits, Numenor, Dunelendings, Rohan, Sylvan, Sindar and Noldor Elves, and Dwarves are all on the table.
Player: I want to play an Istari! Wait - I want to play an orc!

DM: Here is the lore I have written. 100 pages. I certainly don't expect you to read it but it isolates this specific area. Here is the map. I have everything built, from towns, to kingdoms to trade to governments to currency to culture to geography to monsters to magic. It is ready for your group of adventurers to explore. Here are the races that live there: Elf, Dwarf, three types of Humans, Tabaxi, Halfling, and Warforged.
Player: Does your world have centaurs?
DM: No. I am sorry. But they do have horse riding humans.
Player: I want to play a centaur!

DM: My game is set in a low tech/low magic gritty world. It is similar to Hyboria. It has even less technology than Hyboria. There are three cultures that exist: Gnomes, Tieflings and Dwarves. They are all separate from one another. Each of these cultures are xenophobes.
Player: I don't want to play any of those. Make something different that works for me!

That is why I keep mentioning parameters. If they are clear (and they should be), and if the DM decides to work with the player by helping them build something that fits to their world (specific quote from both the PHB and DMG), then why would any player have a problem? Or, even more so, why would a player begin the game by directly questioning the DM? (Not asking a question, like can I play this? But hearing the rules for said game and then trying to do the opposite?)

 

[Oofta]

So you asked me to misrepresent my own opinion?

I'll clarify my particular point of view though. I think curated campaigns are fine. I find several of the reasons provided for their curation kinda dumb.

It's like, I don't care if you choose to take trains everywhere you go, live your life. But if you're avoiding planes because you think you're worried about pterodactyl collisions, I'm going to point out that it's a dumb reason to avoid planes.

I was asking if you wanted to clarify.

As for the rest I guess I'd put you in the "player gets to decide what a good reason is".

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So again, even though there are clear parameters on what the character is supposed to play to join a particular table, the DM should bend? Even when the player starts the game by doing something directly opposed to the initial offering? All of these leave out session zero or leave out the player step:

DM: I do not like dragonborn. They just ruin it for me. It is hard to explain.
Player: I want to play a dragonborn!

DM: I run a Middle Earth game. Hobbits, Numenor, Dunelendings, Rohan, Sylvan, Sindar and Noldor Elves, and Dwarves are all on the table.
Player: I want to play an Istari! Wait - I want to play an orc!

DM: Here is the lore I have written. 100 pages. I certainly don't expect you to read it but it isolates this specific area. Here is the map. I have everything built, from towns, to kingdoms to trade to governments to currency to culture to geography to monsters to magic. It is ready for your group of adventurers to explore. Here are the races that live there: Elf, Dwarf, three types of Humans, Tabaxi, Halfling, and Warforged.
Player: Does your world have centaurs?
DM: No. I am sorry. But they do have horse riding humans.
Player: I want to play a centaur!

DM: My game is set in a low tech/low magic gritty world. It is similar to Hyboria. It has even less technology than Hyboria. There are three cultures that exist: Gnomes, Tieflings and Dwarves. They are all separate from one another. Each of these cultures are xenophobes.
Player: I don't want to play any of those. Make something different that works for me!

That is why I keep mentioning parameters. If they are clear (and they should be), and if the DM decides to work with the player by helping them build something that fits to their world (specific quote from both the PHB and DMG), then why would any player have a problem? Or, even more so, why would a player begin the game by directly questioning the DM? (Not asking a question, like can I play this? But hearing the rules for said game and then trying to do the opposite?)

Ugh...why do you insist on wording the player input in each exchange in the words of a tantrum? Why is it, "Make something that works for me!" and not, "There aren't any other parts of the world? No weird enclaves of a different culture in the mountains or on an island? I really just don't have any inspiration for an interesting character from any of those cultures, but I like the idea of the world otherwise."

IDK, just seems like most of the thread insist on operating on the assumption that the "other side" is just being obstinate jerks, instead of admitting the possibility that both DM and Players might...have a real conversation.

 

[Oofta]

Ugh...why do you insist on wording the player input in each exchange in the words of a tantrum? Why is it, "Make something that works for me!" and not, "There aren't any other parts of the world? No weird enclaves of a different culture in the mountains or on an island? I really just don't have any inspiration for an interesting character from any of those cultures, but I like the idea of the world otherwise."

IDK, just seems like most of the thread insist on operating on the assumption that the "other side" is just being obstinate jerks, instead of admitting the possibility that both DM and Players might...have a real conversation.

Seems like people are trying to have a real conversation right now and you keep throwing around words like "tantrum".

So basically you belong to the "the player gets to decide what's allowed" group. Which, fine. I disagree and it's not something I allow nor have I ever seen it in real life. But just say that.

 

[Scott Christian]

Ugh...why do you insist on wording the player input in each exchange in the words of a tantrum? Why is it, "Make something that works for me!" and not, "There aren't any other parts of the world? No weird enclaves of a different culture in the mountains or on an island? I really just don't have any inspiration for an interesting character from any of those cultures, but I like the idea of the world otherwise."

IDK, just seems like most of the thread insist on operating on the assumption that the "other side" is just being obstinate jerks, instead of admitting the possibility that both DM and Players might...have a real conversation.

C'mon Doctor. You know that I have said a thousand times that the DM should listen. The DM should try to work with the player. They should have a conversation.

But my response is to highlight the key question: Why would a player do that?

I appreciate your answer: Maybe they just can't get behind or find any inspiration from the cultures in the Middle Earth game. If that really is the case, then why should the DM bend? Why doesn't that player just find another group as opposed to insisting on trying to play something that is clearly not on the list?

I agree and sympathize that there are circumstances where there are no other groups. If that is the case, then maybe find an online group. Or offer to DM a campaign so everyone can see how much fun the non-Middle Earth setting can be. But, if we are honest, it would not hurt the player to try to play within the clearly defined parameters. It also wouldn't hurt if the DM allowed whatever race the player chose. We do what is best for the table. But, in the end, the DM has the final say.

And it is a bit like telling everyone you are ordering pizza, and one person says, no I want tacos. Sometimes, you can find a taco pizza. Sometimes you can find a place that makes both. And other times, the taco person just has to not eat dinner with the pizza people. (Yeah, that's me - bringing back the pizza analogies! )

 

[embee]

C'mon Doctor. You know that I have said a thousand times that the DM should listen. The DM should try to work with the player. They should have a conversation.

But my response is to highlight the key question: Why would a player do that?

I appreciate your answer: Maybe they just can't get behind or find any inspiration from the cultures in the Middle Earth game. If that really is the case, then why should the DM bend? Why doesn't that player just find another group as opposed to insisting on trying to play something that is clearly not on the list?

I agree and sympathize that there are circumstances where there are no other groups. If that is the case, then maybe find an online group. Or offer to DM a campaign so everyone can see how much fun the non-Middle Earth setting can be. But, if we are honest, it would not hurt the player to try to play within the clearly defined parameters. It also wouldn't hurt if the DM allowed whatever race the player chose. We do what is best for the table. But, in the end, the DM has the final say.

And it is a bit like telling everyone you are ordering pizza, and one person says, no I want tacos. Sometimes, you can find a taco pizza. Sometimes you can find a place that makes both. And other times, the taco person just has to not eat dinner with the pizza people. (Yeah, that's me - bringing back the pizza analogies! )

And now we're back at the "Can I play an elf in a human only campaign" debate.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Why doesn't that player just find another group as opposed to insisting on trying to play something that is clearly not on the list?

Because most people play with their friends.

And because it isn’t that hard to bend, and compromise engenders trust.

 

[Azzy]

Not in the case of D&D. The DM has the authority and the potential players have the choice of placing themselves under that authority or going somewhere else. They don't grant the authority to him. Should they all say no, the DM still has authority over his very lonely game.

No. In ALL social constructs (including D&D), it is people that give a person authority. Should potential players all say no, they have expressly denied giving any authority to the DM, who then has no game and no players to have authority over.