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

[Gammadoodler]

As I noted about, oh, 1200 posts ago ....

No one should ask a player to justify their decision on a PC, so long as it fits within the allowed parameters, right? Should players be forced to justify all of their decisions to the DM and the rest of the table to see if they are "good enough"

Player: I think I'll be an urchin.

DM: An urchin. Hmmm... so, I need to know a little more. What is your .... MOTIVATION ... for being an urchin?

Player: Because ... umm.... breaks down sobbing YOU HAVE ME, DM! I JUST WANTED THE SLEIGHT OF HAND! more crying I JUST WANTED THE SKILL!

That would be silly, and stupid. So long as it isn't breaking some the session 0 rules, players should choose what they want! No need to justify it.

Same with the DM. They set up the theme and setting for the campaign, and tell the players. It will probably be a conversation ("I'm running Theros, and I'd like to do X, Y, and Z. Sound fun?"). This is how normal people communicate, right?

I don't know. I see the militant anti-metagaming crowd over there sharpening their sticks..

 

[zarionofarabel]

Is the word "Dog" equally meaningless?

I mean, I've seen big dogs, medium dogs, small dogs, protective dogs, lazy dogs, vicious dogs, sweet dogs, wild dogs, disciplined dogs, robot dogs, Ect.

So, if I'm writing a story and I can't think of something other than a dog to put in it, am I just unimaginative?

Well, this is an example of false equivalency. A dog is a real thing with certain inherent qualities like mammal and carbon based life form. With the exception of the word robot, all the other words you've used to describe the dog do not change it's inherent qualities. I personally would be inclined to argue that the robot dog is actually a robot, and not a dog.

The examples I gave of Tolkien Elf and Elf On A Shelf are two things with drastically different inherent qualities. The Tolkien Elf is a fictional character in a book that has it's own fictional inherent qualities. The Elf On A Shelf is a child's toy. The word Elf alone has no inherent qualities attached to it, an Elf can be anything you want it to be. I have read several fantasy novels where the Elf was so drastically different from the description of a Tolkien Elf that the two are irreconcilable.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

If you communicate with your players or DM's the way you communicate here I bet you have a lot of bad experiences.

On a warm summer's evening
In a game bound for nowhere
I met up with Nevin
We were both too tired to sleep
So we took turns a-rollin'
On the table for a combat
The boredom overtook us
And Nevin began to speak

He said, "Snarf, I've made a life
Out of yawping barbarian yells
And knowin' what the numbers were
And how to avoid the Beholder’s eyes.
So if you don't mind my sayin'
I can see you’re out of spells
For a taste of your whiskey
I'll give you some advice."

So I handed Nevin my bottle
And he drank down my last swallow
Then Nevin bummed a cigarette
And asked me for a light
And the night got deathly quiet
And Nevin’s face lost all expression
Said, "If you're gonna play the game, Snarf,
You gotta learn to play it right.

You got to know when to roll 'em,
Know when to fold 'em,
Know when to walk away,
And know when to run.
You never count your gold pieces
When you're sittin' at the table.
There'll be time enough for countin'
When the gaming is done.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The opposite is also true. Something as simple as "I don't like X, I don't want it in my game" shouldn't be something determined to be so egregiously selfish that you are demonized for feeling that way.



Respect certainly does go both ways.

Many of my players run their own games. I respect the options and elements they include or exclude from their games in the same way. If they include or exclude something that would be a deal breaker for me, I would just excuse myself from the game (no hard feelings),, rather than expect that DM to change their campaign on my account.

I would be asking the DM to make a special case and possibly adjust or even rethink their campaign based on my own personal needs. That would be very selfish of me.

Asking for compromise is not selfish.

 

[Oofta]

hmmm I wonder if some of GG stuff has been read out of context.



Seems like your arguing with yourself. What I get out of the What's your motivation question, is a DM trying to understand what the player wants so he can do his job. Somehow you turn it into the spanish inquisition. If you'd use less over the top Hyperbole I think more of your thoughts would get through to people.

If you communicate with your players or DM's the way you communicate here I bet you have a lot of bad experiences.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well, this is an example of false equivalency. A dog is a real thing with certain inherent qualities like mammal and carbon based life form. With the exception of the word robot, all the other words you've used to describe the dog do not change it's inherent qualities. I personally would be inclined to argue that the robot dog is actually a robot, and not a dog.

The examples I gave of Tolkien Elf and Elf On A Shelf are two things with drastically different inherent qualities. The Tolkien Elf is a fictional character in a book that has it's own fictional inherent qualities. The Elf On A Shelf is a child's toy. The word Elf alone has no inherent qualities attached to it, an Elf can be anything you want it to be. I have read several fantasy novels where the Elf was so drastically different from the description of a Tolkien Elf that the two are irreconcilable.

How does that affect playing a D&D elf character, though?

 

[Mecheon]

Nothing says swords don't set a nuclear blast every time they are swung, either. If it's not explicitly allowed, then it doesn't happen unless the DM okays it.

Don't you reductio ad absurdum your own argument here. You're the one saying "People will be threatened by these jaguar/leopard men and their claws that can tear a man apart" and using the lack of it explicitly saying "They can retract their claws" or "They can, y'know, hold their hands in a neutral stance" as that. Which, I should add, is the same as saying Lizardmen can't close their mouth because nothing in the rules say they have lips, and they always have their teeth on display (As someone who follows paleontology, certain extinct reptiles having or not having lips is. A thing)

Which is a logical way to rule that for your game. In a general discussion about the game, though, you have to go with what is written.

And nothing written says that "They are unable to retract their claws and must be careful about this". So right back at you on that one

 

[Mallus]

Yet it turned out pretty decent and I'm not sure that it would have been improved by C. S. Lewis pressuring Tolkien to put centaurs in Middle-Earth...

It did turn out great!

But I don't think centaurs would have impacted Middle Earth's popularity much, if at all. So long as the books still had characters like Bilbo, Frodo, Aragorn, the Shire Boys, Gandalf, and Eowyn et al.

 

[Longetalos]

As much as people don't want to admit it, the DM is the most important person in the game. The DM has the final decision for a really simple reason; if he decides to stop playing the game dies. If a player decides to stop playing, the game can go on - because there are more of them. I have been both and I understand that. I've DM'ed a campaign where the players would show up late, cancel the day of or show up not prepared (i.e. without character sheets or having read the rules). As a DM, this annoyed the heck out of me. Much like everyone else at the table, I have the right to make my own choices for my own actions. So instead of arguing with everyone and creating hard feelings, I retired as a DM and became a Player. After a five month hiatus, someone else from the group took over the DM reins and started a new campaign which I am now a Player in. Now I need to cater to the new DM's fiats -- which I don't always agree with, but, assuming we cannot come to a mutually beneficial accommodation, my options are to stick around or leave.

If the DM allows for certain races in his game and they enhance the fun for everyone, most importantly the DM's, then by all means add them in. Personally I am curious, much like the original poster, on why someone would be interested in playing a non-traditional race.

Is it power-gaming for the numbers or to explore roleplaying extremes? Is it to be disruptive (I lump excessive power-gaming into the disruptive category as well as wanting to hog the spotlight)?
From a roleplaying perspective, one can already play a human from any Earth-like background (which covers a lot of roleplaying opportunities) and demi-human cultures (which cover a lot more). Although I can see how playing a warforged with the whole Vulcan "logic-based" mindset trope is set in fantasy culture.

 

[Gammadoodler]

As much as people don't want to admit it, the DM is the most important person in the game. The DM has the final decision for a really simple reason; if he decides to stop playing the game dies. If a player decides to stop playing, the game can go on - because there are more of them. I have been both and I understand that. I've DM'ed a campaign where the players would show up late, cancel the day of or show up not prepared (i.e. without character sheets or having read the rules). As a DM, this annoyed the heck out of me. Much like everyone else at the table, I have the right to make my own choices for my own actions. So instead of arguing with everyone and creating hard feelings, I retired as a DM and became a Player. After a five month hiatus, someone else from the group took over the DM reins and started a new campaign which I am now a Player in. Now I need to cater to the new DM's fiats -- which I don't always agree with, but, assuming we cannot come to a mutually beneficial accommodation, my options are to stick around or leave.

If the DM allows for certain races in his game and they enhance the fun for everyone, most importantly the DM's, then by all means add them in. Personally I am curious, much like the original poster, on why someone would be interested in playing a non-traditional race.

Is it power-gaming for the numbers or to explore roleplaying extremes? Is it to be disruptive (I lump excessive power-gaming into the disruptive category as well as wanting to hog the spotlight)?
From a roleplaying perspective, one can already play a human from any Earth-like background (which covers a lot of roleplaying opportunities) and demi-human cultures (which cover a lot more). Although I can see how playing a warforged with the whole Vulcan "logic-based" mindset trope is set in fantasy culture.

I believe the consensus answer is 'for the fun of it', but a lot of ground was covered to get there.