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

[Monayuris]

Nope. "I don't like the same things you like in D&D and I'm the DM, so, my preferences trump yours for no other reason than because I'm wearing the big daddy pants" is acting in bad faith.

As I already stated.
You have no knowledge or experience about me or my group or how my game dynamics work. You certainly aren’t qualified to make a judgment.

If you are so offended about how I play D&D, such that you feel the need to make unfounded assertions as to my attitudes then I don’t know what to tell you.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In that background document, I don't tell the players why I haven't permitted certain races (or classes or anything else). I just say, this is what there is.

That isn’t really relevant, though.

What’s relevant is whether you give a reason if a player asks for one.

A DM who doesn’t, I don’t really care about all the “bad DM” stuff, I’d just not want to spend time with that DM, at or away from the table.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Wow, love how I could throw two words together and you can tell they are obvious and boring. What was that entire discussion before about how a player could do anything with a human?

Exactly. And you have not given any indication of why any of those characters cannot be human.

And I'm not being paranoid. I'm literally going off of the conversations from this thread. Plenty of people put forth "Core four or Bust"

I haven't seen anyone say that.

or"PHB or Nothing" both of which will cut off at least two if not all of those examples.

One. Only changling is not in the core rules. And you know the main reason DMs say that? It's because they cannot afford to buy additional rules. You buy them a copy of the rules you want to use and they might let you play that character.

But you are assuming that this is something the DM suddenly springs on you. That's not going to happen, any more than they suddenly tell you you are playing Call of Cthulhu. You would be told the parameters before you decide to join the game.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So WotC is acting in bad faith with the basic rules?

Uh...no? WotC is a company. Providing the basic rules at all was a special dispensation. Companies aren't DMs, and (as people have been extremely keen to remind literally everyone, including in this very thread once or twice) homebrewing your own options is supposed to be a Big Deal in 5e. Moreover, the basic rules don't say you cannot play anything else. They simply don't provide rules for anything else--it's on you to build something new, unless you feel like buying more rules.

I'm...honestly really confused why you would even draw the comparison. The company selling the rulebooks and the DM telling players what they are and aren't allowed to play are extremely different things, almost incomparable.

No, all of those outside the Goliath are inside 5e's PHB. This is what I talked about in my other post. <snip>
Am I misreading?

I definitely did not get the impression you were saying "the PHB in its entirety, including tieflings and dragonborn" from what you said. Especially since you specifically used the phrase "old school world" immediately before talking about Exandria and the character choices of the Critical Role crew. I did not get even the slightest notion that you were trying to capture the whole of the PHB by saying that. In fact, even going back and looking at the post you responded to, it very much seemed to me that the intent WASN'T that the whole PHB list was on offer, but rather that a much smaller subset (typically the so-called "core four") were it. At least, the implication of the "the same 5-6 settings" line, as it reads to me, is that people are sticking to settings with extremely long already-defined history (as in, literal decades, plural, of regular play) where it may be just humans in one, just the core four in another, etc.

I apologize for sounding like I was trying to argue out of both sides of my mouth. That wasn't my intent. I was mostly just a little confused at the non-mention of the dragonborn character, because it had been sort of a Thing for me that one of the players chose to play one right at the start. I don't actually watch Critical Role myself, but it has a big impact on the wider gamer-sphere, and a LOT of dragonborn wizard fanart cropped up after Critical Role took off.

 

[Zardnaar]

Uh...no? WotC is a company. Providing the basic rules at all was a special dispensation. Companies aren't DMs, and (as people have been extremely keen to remind literally everyone, including in this very thread once or twice) homebrewing your own options is supposed to be a Big Deal in 5e. Moreover, the basic rules don't say you cannot play anything else. They simply don't provide rules for anything else--it's on you to build something new, unless you feel like buying more rules.

I'm...honestly really confused why you would even draw the comparison. The company selling the rulebooks and the DM telling players what they are and aren't allowed to play are extremely different things, almost incomparable.

I definitely did not get the impression you were saying "the PHB in its entirety, including tieflings and dragonborn" from what you said. Especially since you specifically used the phrase "old school world" immediately before talking about Exandria and the character choices of the Critical Role crew. I did not get even the slightest notion that you were trying to capture the whole of the PHB by saying that. In fact, even going back and looking at the post you responded to, it very much seemed to me that the intent WASN'T that the whole PHB list was on offer, but rather that a much smaller subset (typically the so-called "core four") were it. At least, the implication of the "the same 5-6 settings" line, as it reads to me, is that people are sticking to settings with extremely long already-defined history (as in, literal decades, plural, of regular play) where it may be just humans in one, just the core four in another, etc.

I apologize for sounding like I was trying to argue out of both sides of my mouth. That wasn't my intent. I was mostly just a little confused at the non-mention of the dragonborn character, because it had been sort of a Thing for me that one of the players chose to play one right at the start. I don't actually watch Critical Role myself, but it has a big impact on the wider gamer-sphere, and a LOT of dragonborn wizard fanart cropped up after Critical Role took off.

So how about the PHB saying that each extra race is optional and Tasha's also saying everything is optional?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

So how about the PHB saying that each extra race is optional and Tasha's also saying everything is optional?

I have gone on record in several different forums, IIRC including this one, that the presentation of those parts of the books was a very poor job. Especially because it doesn't actually make it sound like the "core four" are optional when they totally should be. Even humans.

More importantly, this goes right back to what I said before. The books are the common starting point. Especially for pick-up play, where ALL YOU HAVE is the books and maybe a short campaign pitch and play begins PDQ, the player should not be the one at fault for assuming operating under the notion that the options presented in the PHB are probably available until evidence suggests otherwise. (Because "assuming" isn't okay!)

 

[Minigiant]

The core to discussion is a person not understanding the appeal of exotic races. It has shifted to an idea that DMs should not attempt to understand the appeal of weird races because only their preferences matter since they do 99% of the worldbuilding and work.

And to me, that idea isn't healthy for the game.

It might be alright for some tables, but it's bad to push both absolute authority and lack of empathy in the DM base. Forcing players to give up playing to introduce new ideas for plays is counterproductive. Then there is the whole "absolute power corrupts" saying.

Anyway. I guess that's why the "Forever DM" memes exist. Players DMing with ideas yearning to be able to play them as PC, but unable to find a DM who allows such ideas but themselves.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The core to discussion is a person not understanding the appeal of exotic races. It has shifted to an idea that DMs should not attempt to understand the appeal of weird races because only their preferences matter since they do 99% of the worldbuilding and work.

No. It can just as easily be that the GM understands the appeal of 'weird fantasy races' builds a setting around them, and it is the player who doesn't attempt to understand that and insists to play Legolas XVII.

 

[Minigiant]

No. It can just as easily be that the GM understands the appeal of 'weird fantasy races' builds a setting around them, and it is the player who doesn't attempt to understand that and insists to play Legolas XVII.

Of course a DM could understand the appeal of weird races.

The point is the players don't make the setting unless the DM allows it. The DM makes the setting so it is the responsibility to convince the player of the appeal of their world first not the other way around if the DM wants that particular player to play. If they have no care if a particular player plays, of course they neither need to convince nor understand.

 

[Remathilis]

It's a game. Aren't all reasons purely personal?

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?"

So WotC is acting in bad faith with the basic rules?

WotC was offering a sample of the game for free and chose the iconics. They were never going to give away the whole PHB like they did in 3e. The point was always to give just enough to get people want to buy the PHB, not to have a complete game in and of itself..