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

[Maxperson]

Dude you've been in this thread for over 100 pages and are currently arguing about the hoof types of mythological creatures.

Clearly you have some tolerance for absurdity.

Touche.

However, I'm talking about in my D&D game.

 

[Scott Christian]

In this specific case of Moses the drow in Oofta's campaign.

First of all, thank you. I don't know why, maybe it was the visual image I got, but I found this hysterical and laughed about it until I almost cried. Thank you.

1. My understanding is that Oofta's drow are completely segregated from the "regular races" of society and that everyone in that society stays as far away from them as possible. That would imply (but I am inferring) that there aren't thieves guilds that deal with the drow or embassies with the drow or really any other connections with the "normal people" and the drow. My Moses the drow backstory allows me to have a tie to the drow with a character that might never encounter the drow, but also still function in society without being slaughtered on sight (because I was changed to look human but have drow magical abilites internal).

My character explores what a drow is intrinsically born into in Oofta's campaign. If he treats drow like demons, in that they are literally evil and violence incarnate and have no ability for a shade of grey then he can tell me my idea isn't going to work because I will attack the humans that get near me from a toddlers age and will never grow into a civilized adult to play as a PC. In that case I could move on to whatever else interested me in his campaign setting.

I hear what you are saying. Thank you for taking the time to explain. It is appreciated. I can't speak for Oofta and his campaign, so I can't answer why. All I can say is thank you for taking the time to explain.

2. I'm only interested in exploring the shades of grey in an "always evil, but why?" race. I don't have any flat-black-no-grey evil races in my game (except demons) because I think that's too basic of a concept to be an interesting addition. Even the races that are almost always nefarious (like yuan-ti for example) will have some individuals who are capable of being neutral or even good AND should have some ability to recognize when its worth it to become an ally. If I walked up to a yuan-ti cult, dropped off a bunch of snazzy weapons, and told them there is more in it for them if they help me out with Job X then it would be in their interests to help me to help themselves, not just loot my corpse and never see more weapons.

When you have a monolithic evil that is used as "the boogeyman" in a campaign, then unless its established and known their motivations and goals, then I am going to want to explore it. There are many interesting stories that end in "the boogeyman" being not evil at all. Ender's Game, I Am Legend, Terminator 2, Etc...

You don't have any in your game - except demons. That is the main concept I think everyone should take away - if a DM can accept demons as evil without a hint of good, it is not a far stretch to imagine any other thing as being outright evil. Including a DM saying drow.

If your true desire is to play a campaign exploring the "evil" of a race, then I would suggest DMing a campaign using only that race. WotC did it for 4e. An Underdark adventure where people played as one of the outcast houses in the drow sovereign. Your job was to either backstab your own house, raise one house so your house could become number 2, or try to bring down the other two houses. Great mini-campaign. I killed my entire party because I played a traditional drow - I backstabbed them all to increase my fortune. Even to this day, players mention it with laughs and pseudo-awe.

But to say I need to play this, bend your campaign even though you told me not to play this - eh?

3. I didn't "choose to play a drow". I offered up a character that seemed to address the major strikes against being a drow he frequently mentions (that people kill them on sight), I addressed how my character arrived in civilization instead of a different world, and even added a challenge to myself in that if I openly use any drow powers people might get suspicious and become hostile. I would even consider taking on the Sunlight Sensitivity even if Oofta told me its going to be in effect 90% of the time.

With all that stated, if Oofta still stuck to his guns and said "Still, no drow", I could easily find something else to play in his campaign. Then, if sometime later in the campaign the plot turns to "exploring why the boogeyman drow isn't as evil as everyone thinks they are" then i'm going to feel slighted because as a player that was the most interesting part of his campaign, but now i'm playing a dwarf who loves building mechanical dollhouses and doesn't give two shifts about the drow and I don't have the engagement I would have preferred.

No. Oofta, as the DM of his campaign, stated players are not allowed to play a drow. He stated specifically he would work with them if they wanted those mechanical benefits. But also clearly stated - you CANNOT be a drow.

And then your example is to - want to play a drow.

That is why one side is having such a hard time with this. Ask to play? Sure. Want the mechanical benefits? Sure. Always insisting on playing a character the DM has not listed? Not cool.

 

[Scott Christian]

Just to clarify your position....

You might allow a centaur PC.
If you did you would take away the RAW that says they can make climb checks.
You would justify doing so because a different RAW says they have horse hooves.

I don't want to speak for Max, as he and I don't always share the same opinion. But I do believe he stated clearly, if the rule was shown to him, he would use it. That said, he also said a centaur would never be part of his game.

Edit: I just read his response. I guess I am wrong. But I swear he said he would use the rule. Someone with faster scanning than me please look this up.

 

[Scott Christian]

So, since you've been objecting (and mischaracterizing) my posts, are you then implying that you're a DM that uses DM scarcity as a tool to completely ignore what your players like some sort of cartoon villian? Because, if you're not, your protestation seems rather curious and misplaced.

Oofta has said one thing clearly - over and over.

- No table is right. No table is wrong. Do what is best for your table.

- Do not criticize the DMs that limit races. The DMs that do limit races, do not criticize those that don't.

There is no other way to take Oofta's mantra.

Whether you agree or not with any reason to limit a race is purely a personal preference. I want to play a living giant penis in your game. Is this okay? It might be funny to some, it might be rude in others. I want to roleplay a person with a mental handicap in your game. It might be fine for some. Not fine for others. I want to play tabaxi in your game. It might be fine to some. It might not be to others.

No right or wrong. Just different tables for different folks. And sometimes, just like love, we find the table we bask in.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I don't want to speak for Max, as he and don't always share the same opinion. But I do believe he stated clearly, if the rule was shown to him, he would use it. That said, he also said a centaur would never be part of his game.

Edit: I just read his response. I guess I am wrong. But I swear he said he would use the rule. Someone with faster scanning than me please look this up.

I'm afraid as far as I've seen, you've been the only one to have assented to using the rule outside of those who haven't had any issue in the first place.

 

[Azzy]

Oofta has said one thing clearly - over and over.

- No table is right. No table is wrong. Do what is best for your table.

- Do not criticize the DMs that limit races. The DMs that do limit races, do not criticize those that don't.

There is no other way to take Oofta's mantra.

Whether you agree or not with any reason to limit a race is purely a personal preference. I want to play a living giant penis in your game. Is this okay? It might be funny to some, it might be rude in others. I want to roleplay a person with a mental handicap in your game. It might be fine for some. Not fine for others. I want to play tabaxi in your game. It might be fine to some. It might not be to others.

No right or wrong. Just different tables for different folks. And sometimes, just like love, we find the table we bask in.

I'm not criticizing DMs that limit races (heck, I do so occasionally—such as in my current campaign). I am specifically taking issue with Oofta willfully misrepresenting what I actually said and turning it back on him.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't want to speak for Max, as he and I don't always share the same opinion. But I do believe he stated clearly, if the rule was shown to him, he would use it. That said, he also said a centaur would never be part of his game.

Nope! Not even close

I change rules that don't make sense, so no centaurs climbing vertical walls or ropes. I would also allow a centaur should anyone ever ask. So far no one has, because they all like to go into dungeons on occasion.

Edit: I just read his response. I guess I am wrong. But I swear he said he would use the rule. Someone with faster scanning than me please look this up.

lol I remember someone saying that they would use the rule and I thought it was you.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Oofta has said one thing clearly - over and over.

- No table is right. No table is wrong. Do what is best for your table.

- Do not criticize the DMs that limit races. The DMs that do limit races, do not criticize those that don't.

There is no other way to take Oofta's mantra.

Whether you agree or not with any reason to limit a race is purely a personal preference. I want to play a living giant penis in your game. Is this okay? It might be funny to some, it might be rude in others. I want to roleplay a person with a mental handicap in your game. It might be fine for some. Not fine for others. I want to play tabaxi in your game. It might be fine to some. It might not be to others.

No right or wrong. Just different tables for different folks. And sometimes, just like love, we find the table we bask in.

Oofta, time and time and time and time and time again, has misread and/or misstated people's arguments and used those misstatements to form the basis of bizarre unfounded accusations.

Insofar as Oofta has had a mantra, it could just as easily be "everyone is attacking me and my game personally" as anything you've stated in your post.

 

[Scott Christian]

I'm afraid as far as I've seen, you've been the only one to have assented to using the rule outside of those who haven't had any issue in the first place.

Well that is just silly. The rule is the rule. And they did it through the character creation rules, which makes it not a rule, but a prominent rule in my opinion. I may disagree with it. But, if it is there, they intended it to be there for mechanical reasons, ie. balance. So accept it.

But in the end, the DM has the final say. Players can disagree or agree or not care either way. One thing holds true, if the DM goes outside the norm too much for their players, then the players look for another DM, act up (at the table), or stop caring.

 

[Scott Christian]

I'm not criticizing DMs that limit races (heck, I do so occasionally—such as in my current campaign). I am specifically taking issue with Oofta willfully misrepresenting what I actually said and turning it back on him.

My bad.