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

[Minigiant]

Interesting. My experience was that D&D fans always wanted to play draconic, demonic, fey, etc. races, but they were too powerful and the DM said no.

My experience was that few draconic, demonic, fey, etc. races were statted up for PC until 3e. And since they were built as monsters. It was rare that you got high enough high that you could have your normal PC die and be replaced by one of them. And if they were available at level 1, the race likely was lame or sucked.

3e pushed LA and racial HD. And those where idea killers and made lame PCs.

So in my XP, either the players were asking for the DM to homebrew (at whichpoint theyDM could tone up/down the power themselves) or the player never asked as the official stats were bad.

 

[Maxperson]

My experience was that few draconic, demonic, fey, etc. races were statted up for PC until 3e. And since they were built as monsters. It was rare that you got high enough high that you could have your normal PC die and be replaced by one of them. And if they were available at level 1, the race likely was lame or sucked.

3e pushed LA and racial HD. And those where idea killers and made lame PCs.

So in my XP, either the players were asking for the DM to homebrew (at whichpoint theyDM could tone up/down the power themselves) or the player never asked as the official stats were bad.

Yeah. The games I've played in and run have gone to 15-23rd level since 3e came out, so it has been a long time since we haven't been high enough level. And again, I nixed the LA and racial HD adjustments as they did kill ideas and really didn't matter long term for the most part.

 

[Minigiant]

Yeah. The games I've played in and run have gone to 15-23rd level since 3e came out, so it has been a long time since we haven't been high enough level. And again, I nixed the LA and racial HD adjustments as they did kill ideas and really didn't matter long term for the most part.

Exactly.
It was less people now wanted to be weird races and more now they were actually playable without an extremely nice DM.

4e was the first edition where weird races:

1. Were playable at level 1
2. Were at least decent in strength
3. Had meaningful racial features
4. Had the idea of "exception based good monstrous race PCs" supported in the core fluff
5. Allowed for multiple builds

So if you skipped 4e, you could have easily missed all the gobliniod wizards and beastfolk paladins.

 

[Mecheon]

Interesting. My experience was that D&D fans always wanted to play draconic, demonic, fey, etc. races, but they were too powerful and the DM said no.

3E had playable stats for everything and folks just took that to its conclusion.

... Of course, no one ever bothered with anything that had the higher Level adjustment because that was basically nerfing your character when you could just go 'human wizard/cleric/druid' and become as gods. Or dragonwrought kobold to literately transcend mortality. I think the only absurd non-human build that hit these levels was Beholder Mage, but even then you can jury-rig yourself in there with two casts of Polymorph any Object rather than take the LA hit

 

[FrozenNorth]

The stats, in fact, really seem to be trying to wedge centaurs into a medium size - after calling them medium, they jack up the carrying capacity and state that they "tower over" other humanoids. Basically, while they are technically medium, they are about as large as you can be and still be in that category. They are an edge case. So, maybe leaning away from the technical size is warranted.

Sure, but I would say that is also true of the other races with the “Large Build” feature, including Goliaths and the other race. I don’t see people demanding a DC 15 Dex checks from Goliaths or they will break the stairs.

 

[Don Durito]

It's not quite clear how big Goliaths are - so that's a bit muddy. I will occasionally impose advantage or disadvantage on Goliaths or Halflings where their size would be an issue.

 

[FrozenNorth]

It goes to RP.

Think back to Fellowship of the Ring. The Inn of the Prancing Pony. The bartender had to bend over the bar to see the hobbits. Or your other example - DEX checks for humans to avoid tripping over halfling-appropriate barstools.

Again, think back to the beginning of the movie. Gandalf bumps his head on a ceiling beam. This wasn't even scripted; it was McKellan accidentally bumping his head on the hobbit-sized set. Why keep it? Why have that flub? Because it established the size difference.

Since this is RP of a player’s character, why not have the player fo it? It’s their character.

As the DM, I can establish the rest of the world. Let the players RP their own characters.

 

[Oofta]

Sure, but I would say that is also true of the other races with the “Large Build” feature, including Goliaths and the other race. I don’t see people demanding a DC 15 Dex checks from Goliaths or they will break the stairs.

Goliaths are 7-8 ft tall and weigh between 280-340 lbs.

Which is borderline for what a human could be*. They're also humanoid. Navigating stairs might be difficult, but less so than a horse that weighs twice as much.

On the other hand, as one example one of the PCs in CR plays a firbolg (same size) and there are times when their size becomes an issue.

*EDIT: The guy who played "The Mountain" on Game of Thrones is 6'9" and weighs 450 lbs.

 

[Scott Christian]

I think the issue is the third and fifth parts.

Some DMs are against players asking for changes or justifications.

Some players are against DMs having final say.

I'll agree with you just because I feel you may have saw something I didn't. But, I have not seen any DM in here that are against players asking why or seeing if they can play something. Maybe the number of times asking is the problem. But, is there a DM here that is against players asking?

I think, if we look, we will see some have consternation with both the statements before the last one. I expect that where one actually balks at that list highly correlates to the entrenched sides of this discussion.

Hmm... again. So I guess I will err to your perception. But, DMs working with players? I would ask again, is there a DM here that wouldn't work with the player? If you mean, work with player, as in, they get to be the race they wanted, then I guess we disagree on what that sentence means. If you mean, work with player, player gets the mechanical benefits or similar culture, but not race, then that was my definition.

We can, of course, blow the whole thing out of the water with presenting the Dresden Files RPG. The game has an explicit step of setting/city creation, in which the players generate most of the common setting elements to be used in the campaign. This violates the very first statement in the list, showing that it is not a general truism, merely a D&D tradition.

Agreed. But it is a D&D forum. And calling this a tradition is like calling a strike in baseball a tradition. It is not a tradition, but in the rules. And like a strike, some umps may grant more leeway than others, but it is in the rulebook. Just like it is in the rulebooks for D&D.

Better said than I seem to be doing. I think there's some advice as to when some of this happens. For example I always make the parameters of the campaign clear when I initially start talking about a new campaign. By the time we're discussing actual PCs, classes, relationships (or lack therein) between the PCs, we should have agreed on what races (and any other limitations) we have. So there's details we could fill in, but I agree with the outline.

Yeah, I have said this before, maybe I am just lucky. As a player, I have never had a DM not explain the parameters ahead of time. I also have clearly stated in my arguments, that this is the premise.

The problem is we seem to keep getting caught up on both sides with examples of bad players and bad DMs. The bad player accepts the invitation knowing what the restrictions are and then argues that they must be allowed to ignore those restrictions even if everyone else is okay with it. A bad DM backtracks and bans things after the campaign started or a dozen other bad DM behaviors. To me, these are all red herrings.

I can't agree with this, sorry. The literal examples the player side uses are them hearing the parameters and then making something outside the parameters. Their examples (three or four of them now) either skip the DM parameters or insist the DM does not listen.

If the DM has final say as it states in the rules (including the option to change the rules), then I don't see what the issue is or why we're closing in on 200 pages. I think that when you say "Yes, Kelly, I want to join your campaign" you are accepting that Kelly is the referee and has final call on rules, house rules and restrictions. A player can always ask for a change, the DM can say "yes", "no" or something in between, but the DM makes the final call. The DM can and should ask for feedback, what they do with the feedback is up to them.

This. A million times over. This.
This is also the reason I say the two sides disagree on my final step - the DM has the final say. I really feel like many on the player side believe there is some paradigm that the "old school guard" can't comprehend. There isn't. And, even more so, the DMs (at least on here) are steeped in all types of games.

 

[Scott Christian]

I: And this was what we were trying to advocate for in the beginning. And this is what we keep getting told we don't actually want.

II: Because it seems that after we agree to join Kelly's campaign, nothing they do should be seen negatively. Any attempt of ours to press against the limits Kelly tells us should be seen negatively.

III: But what we really want is just an honest conversation, where Kelly is willing to bend. Maybe they don't. That is a possibility. But every time I've asked the question "why shouldn't the DM be willing to bend?" I've gotten the response "Why would the player even ask the DM whose put in so much work to bend in the first place?"

IV: If we can't even get the possibility of the DM changing to be an option on the table, without it turning into a "how dare you mere players question me" then is it really an open and fair conversation? And I'm not saying you do this Oofta, I'm not judging your campaign, I'm not calling you a bad person, I'm not saying your players don't love your game, I'm not saying that you are any of those bad words that you think I'm calling you. This is not an attack.

V: But inevitably, the conversation always seems to pivot into "well, players will accept nothing less than submission of the DM" and we are back on the back foot, instead of just everyone agreeing that having conversations where all possibilities are at least on the table, is a perfectly fine thing.

No, but you are saying I do it.

I have said it before. But maybe I can address each paragraph starting with II.

II: I have, and insist, that the player can and should ask. ("press against the limits.") C'mon. You know you have heard me say this many times. Admit it.

III: And, I see the confusion here. I have never said: why would the player even ask. I have said, why would the player insist on making a character after the DM has told them that is off limits. So clarification: The player can and should ask if they have their heart set on something the DM specifically said no to. The DM should work with the player ("bend"). My guess is your bend and my bend have different definitions.

IV: This is why I asked about specific reasons, and whether they were okay. And it is difficult to answer your question without the inference that you are referring to some DM that does not respect players, "mere players question me." As if he was a dictator. No such DM exists in any of my examples. The DM is open to change. Maybe not on their race list, but on other things. That does not make them a dictator.

V: Conversations are fine. But there has never been a D&D table where "all possibilities" are on the table. That is because D&D is a game with rules. Rules limit possibilities. As far as the DM submission, when every reason the DM states is turned down and argued against by the player, yes, that means the DM either submits or says no. In a conversation a few pages back, you know, the one where the DMs said the player could get the mechanical benefit of a drow and use a similar culture. It was still pressed against, saying that it still was not really what the player wanted. Even though the act of giving mechanics and similar culture is bending as far as one can bend, it wasn't enough. The next step is submitting. Again, that is not compromise. That is submitting.

I hope this helps clarifies things.