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

[Maxperson]

See, I think part of the issue is, some people look at the traditional D&D races as somehow more acceptable to humans than other, later added races, while, others, like myself, don't see the difference.

Elves are alien. In 5e, they are gender fluid, virtual immortal fey creatures descended from invaders from ANOTHER FREAKING DIMENSION. But, that's apparently less alien than a Tabaxi or an Orc, either of which are from this reality, are completely relatable to a human and, other than some obvious physical differences like lots of hair or honking big underbites, aren't actually all that different from your average human?

Why do you assume we all play with the 5e changes to elves? My elves are the elves of prior editions. Further, I think it's pretty obvious that a race whose appearance is just slender human with pointed ears is more relatable to humans than a fur covered cat man with claws and a tail.

And, at the end of the day, I think that's where the true issue lies. People, for various reasons, treat the Tolkien races as "acceptable" without any real question. For me, I can't really buy into that. Elves are just as alien as Tieflings. What's the difference that your ancestor was a demon from another dimension, or a fairy from another dimension? If one is capable of wandering into the local pub without any reaction from the locals, then why isn't the other?

Why can a nearly human looking race who really just has pointed ears(there are thin humans) go into a bar without reaction, but a race descended from DEMONS and has horns and other lower planar traits gets a reaction? Again, the answer is obvious, even if you don't(or choose not to) see it.

Like I said, for me, I see it as rather a bit of hypocrisy for DM's to claim that certain races are "flavor of freak" for no real reason other than they didn't appear in Tolkien.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes.

Sorry. I mean, no, I’m not sorry, I’m just right,

The DM gets overruled if the group wants to overrule them. The DM is one player at the table. The end.

Can you give an example of how a group could force the DM to do anything? I mean, they could leave HIS game and he would be alone with HIS game, but if they stayed how could they force him to do what they want?

 

[Crit]

Ultimately if you are a DM and you cut the experiences a percentage of the player base wants from your game, you cannot be confused or upset if those players walk. It's your world and your setting and your ability to accommodate those players if you want them.

I agree with this, I just want to use it as a vehicle for explanation.

A table shouldn't reach the point that tension is so great that it's walk-or-not. Sure, kick a bad player, but a DM isn't supposed to be militant because "my word is law!". You're trying to give the players a game to play, so being marginally open to accommodating other people is kind of necessary for everyone to get what they want. If they don't want to play your game, maybe consider your options. If people are actively leaving you, there might be something wrong.

Just because the DM has the final say on rules, doesn't mean that their decisions are unquestionable, infallible scripture. Neither is the PHB, to be fair. Just because the DM makes choices doesn't mean those choices are good for the group (whose wellbeing should be prioritized), etc. They should be open to changing before the walk-or-not player situation as much as the player(s), and there's no good reason that this step has to be skipped. Why must it be an ultimatum? Yes, the DM has power. Yes, the players have a voice that the DM ought to hear. If no-one wants to play Thundercats, don't run Thundercats! Is this not a situation where the DM's power should be confronted, or should everyone just skip to walking?

It's good to have heard some small tales of people trying to launch campaigns with restrictions, with negative player feedback. It kind of proves that the DM can't throw chains on the player without talking it through first, which is ultimately the thread problem.

Restrictions are fine under certain contexts, but there is no fundamental reason that a line has to be drawn at certain points. If you personally don't like a race, that doesn't mean it shouldn't be played in general or even at your table. I will push forward a little- even Worldbuilding isn't infallible, because it can be solved with some more world building. It doesn't matter if it's a class or race, giving players wiggle room isn't hard.

 

[Maxperson]

That's fine as well, if it's that big a deal I'll just offer the DM job to someone else no big deal.

If I want to run an all Drow themed game and the players don't buy in not gonna run that game.

And this is what reasonable DMs who are abiding by the social contract do. However, if you were going to be a jerk about it and insisted that it be Drow, how could they make you change it? They couldn't. They would either play in your Drow game or leave you with your Drow game and go somewhere else.

 

[TwoSix]

Like I said, for me, I see it as rather a bit of hypocrisy for DM's to claim that certain races are "flavor of freak" for no real reason other than they didn't appear in Tolkien.

I wouldn't really say it's hypocrisy; it's simply that elves, dwarves, and halflings have become part of the D&D milieu in a way that later appearing races didn't. I mean, virtually every lineal descendant of D&D style fantasy has elves and dwarves, and sometimes halflings (or another short race analogue). Look at Warhammer, or World of Warcraft, or Dragon Age as examples.

 

[Maxperson]

I wouldn't really say it's hypocrisy; it's simply that elves, dwarves, and halflings have simply become part of the D&D milieu in a way that later appearing races didn't. I mean, virtually every lineal descendant of D&D style fantasy has elves and dwarves, and sometimes halflings (or another short race analogue). Look at Warhammer, or World of Warcraft, or Dragon Age as examples.

It's also about being relatable to humans. The 1e/2e core races are much more relatable to humans, appearing mostly human with some minor physical differences. The more exotic races are far more different physically than those core PHB races, so a lot of people have a hard time relating to them.

 

[TwoSix]

It's also about being relatable to humans. The 1e/2e core races are much more relatable to humans, appearing mostly human with some minor physical differences. The more exotic races are far more different physically than those core PHB races, so a lot of people have a hard time relating to them.

Let's be honest, the real measure of a race's popularity is whether or not it would be weird if a human and the race in question did the horizontal tango. There's a reason half-elves have been in game so long, and it's not just Elrond.

 

[Maxperson]

Let's be honest, the real measure of a race's popularity is whether or not it would be weird if a human and the race in question did the horizontal tango. There's a reason half-elves have been in game so long, and it's not just Elrond.

Where do they fall on the Captain Kirk scale?

 

[Umbran]

This is the big bad internet.

...

People will judge, they will insult.

Mod Note:

No. This is not the big bad internet. This is a small corner of the internet... that is moderated. Insult is not acceptable.

And making an account and using it to be kind of aggressively rude in just one thread is very suspicious. So... you're done in this thread. If you want to continue engaging with the community, do it in some other thread, and check out our rules and note how Rule #1 is "Keep it civil." Treat people well, and with respect on this site, please and thanks.

 

[TwoSix]

Where do they fall on the Captain Kirk scale?

Heh, actually Star Trek was my other thought for how the most popular nonhuman races are the boneable ones.