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

[Azzy]

And, um, actually . . . goliaths debuted in 3rd Edition.

Ooh, I didn't know that. Thanks for the heads up.

 

[Voadam]

Again, you're pointing to elements that carry actual in-play problems. No kender (for the stealing aspect), no tinker gnomes (because they can totally derail a campaign and potentially kill their own group) and no Gully Dwarves (for all sorts of very good reasons).

Could be.

Or they don't like small characters in their imaginative space.

But, imagine that the DM instead bans Knights. No Solamnic knights in the Dragonlance game because I hate horses.

Is that fine?

Of course.

There is lots to do and be in Dragonlance without knights. You can easily do the Dragonlance Saga as a PC party without Sturm and have it be cool. Caramon and Raistlin go back in time and do Wizard and Gladiator stuff as an adventure set involves zero knights. Elves in the Kinslayer wars would be great. Many of the original modules do not involve the Solamnic knights.

I would be fine if the reason he dislikes it is he hates horse characters in D&D so he is banning 1e cavaliers (and centaurs ), or the feudal class elitism inherent in knights, or the specific solamnic honor stuff, or other reasons. The reason is not that big a deal.

If they don't like it, they don't like it. I might ask why or ask about ways I might work with a problematic concept I am jazzed up about so it is not problematic for them, but in the end as a general matter I don't really want to push something they will dislike. Ideally the game includes a Venn diagram of elements that the group mutually enjoys.

I like playing a viking character concept regularly, they fit into tons of fantasy settings seamlessly as established elements and I enjoy a bunch of norse stuff. It is not the only character concept I can go with however. I can work with other people's sensibilities and would not look down on someone offering to run a game with no viking PC options because they don't like that one concept that is my favorite to play. I could see a friend telling me in a non-jerk way that they are overloaded on my vikings so they created a whole world with NO VIKINGS specifically to get a break. I would simply go with something different. I've played an Achilles based super hero, a D&D fiendish troll, a D&D 3rd party race of spiritual light, an elvish trickster beguiler, humans of defined or not defined ethnicity, and a ton of other concepts, and had fun doing so. I'm playing a Vistani turned flesh golem currently.

I can generally have fun in a D&D game even without access to any specific element of D&D.

 

[Mecheon]

Ooh, I didn't know that. Thanks for the heads up.

Races of Stone, the dwarf/gnome race book, is where they're from. They were pretty much just Half Giants genericified with the psionics stripped off, however.

Because 3.5E is when Half Giants went medium after Half Ogre happened, y'see

 

[Dire Bare]

Ooh, I didn't know that. Thanks for the heads up.

Goliaths were introduced in Races of Stone. We got killoren (later renamed wilden in 4E) and raptorans in Races of the Wild, and illumian in Races of Destiny. The goliath survived the test of time, the others really didn't. Which is a shame, I wasn't a fan of the raptorans, but I loved the other new (at the time) races.

 

[billd91]

Because 3.5E is when Half Giants went medium after Half Ogre happened, y'see

Well, it makes sense. Before 3e, being large wasn't necessarily a consistent benefit. Some weapons did a little less damage, but some of them did more - a lot more. In 3e, however, you might have had a slightly penalized attack bonus and AC/improved grapple, but you got reach and that was a pretty consistent and notable benefit.
So they worked to keep PC races down to medium or smaller.

 

[Azzy]

Suppose I'm running Cyberpunk 2020 and I don't like running extended netrunning sessions so I say "No PC netrunners". That's not really a "bad reason" since, if the players push it, I'm simply not going to run a game I find onerous. Granted, this is a bit of a loaded example since the type of play between netrunners and most other characters is very different, but it is a counterexample to your blanket statement. Some preferences can put a burden or impose complications on someone else and refusing a burden/complication because you don't like it isn't a naughty bad no-good reason.
I can, as easily, say no corporates because I don't want someone playing a character with access to corporate resources or, in the most recent edition, no lawmen because I don't want anybody with backup resources they can call on or because I find a cop-inclusive campaign to be problematic.

You keep saying that imposing preferences on someone else is a bad thing, but only characterize that as a DM's offense. That goes both ways. If I don't like elves and design a campaign world without them, don't impose your preference to play elves on me. If the game as pitched doesn't work for you, just say so and move on. We can have a frank talk about why and I'll be up front about it (as I should be) because that's a respectful approach, but players should extend the same respect and not try to wheedle and cajole the DM into relenting.

Well, netrunning CP2020 has poorly designed rules (I eventually created my own variant rules), so I don't think that anyone could blame you there. I've heard that the rules in CP RED are a lot better, but I haven't really looked into it (the hardback is out of stock and I'm not paying $30 for a PDF—when the physical book comes back in stock, you bet I'm going thrown my eb at it, choomba).

Limiting accesse to resources of corp and lawmen characters shouldn't be too difficult, though—there's always rivals, bosses, and beauracrcy to fowl things up).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That party song scenario sounds more like a player trying to veto NPC kender in the middle of the game when they show up, which seems a different situation.

A DM seems like the host having a set list and saying he did not include a specific song because he did not like it. I want to add this song you don't like at your party seems equivalent to I want to play a kender race you don't like in your game. Except instead of 3 minutes and its over it is for hours every week for months.

I would consider a host who won’t let guests add songs to the playlist to be acting poorly as a host.

As for the time element, that’s just nitpicking.

 

[Hussar]

Except that I specified that I don't like running netrunner-type stuff. If I liked it, if it were my preference, I'd do it. See how it relates? Same with corporates - I can run a game with them in the group if I wanted to, no problem. It's not about balance - you're not paying attention to my statements - you're assuming something else that I did NOT say. I'm saying I don't prefer them so I prefer to leave them out.

I'm not assuming anything. You specifically mentioned the issues- balance issues and play time issues as the reasons.

I don't like running extended netrunning sessions so I say "No PC netrunners".

I don't want someone playing a character with access to corporate resources

 

[Paul Farquhar]

If nitpicking wasn't allowed internet forums would be deserted.

 

[Hussar]

I have no interest in that aspect of the hobby whatsoever.

Whereas, for me, there's not point in playing an RPG without roleplaying.