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

[Hussar]

They tried something different, blew up in their face. It's not like you could play goofy races that much in 4E either as finding a DM was semi impossible.

The goofy races exist but they're opt in.

Even saying no to PHB races can get you insulted. Got called a fun Nazi two weeks ago for considering saying no to Dragonborn. I rotate stuff can be one atm, next game maybe.

What are you talking about?

4e? Huh?

Anthro races have been part of the game since very close to the start. Lupins first made their debut in 1981. Rakasta where found in the original Isle of Dread module. As were Phanatons. Minotaurs were a playable race in Dragonlance.

What is this "blew up in their face" stuff? Are you claiming that Dragonlance or Mystara weren't popular?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And yet I hear over and over again that the point of playing a unique race is to have a unique character, based on the argument that Player Characters are unique and unusual already. What is that, if not "letting your freak flag fly"?

But—shock and horror!—not every fantasy game belongs to a genre where it would be appropriate for the main adventuring party to be the medieval equivalent of the Doom Patrol. Sometimes you just want a game where the heroes are kind of ordinary, and Frodo, Garion, Ged, and Taran strike out into the world to go be big damn heroes.

Dunno who's telling you it's about playing a "unique" race and having a "unique" character. For the vast majority of people who like these things, it's simply, "I really like X." Exactly as I said earlier in the thread. You have leaped from "person wants to play a thing I, Jack Daniel, don't consider 'normal' for fantasy" to "person must want to play something SUPER ULTRA SPECIAL," and from there to "you must want to fly your freak flag." That's both a pretty serious leap, and nothing whatsoever like why this sort of thing matters to me.

I like dragons. I like martially-inclined races that aren't allergic to magic, strategy/tactics, and "refined"/civic-culture tastes. (Despite my pacifist leanings IRL and with most chars I play; as Sun Tzu would put it, "It is only one who is thoroughly acquainted with the evils of war who can thoroughly understand how to profit from waging war.") I like charisma, diplomacy, and leadership. I like aspirations toward nobility and a truly just society, where leaders know that respect is earned rather than given and all know that trust must be sown before it will grow. I like sorcery, the idea of feeling power flowing through your veins and of magic that is a creative exercise of the will (even though IRL I'm way more like a Wizard, all precision, logic, formulae, and diagrams).

Dragonborn, and the Arkhosian culture articulated for them in 4e, hit pretty much every single one of those buttons. They're great as Paladins, Sorcerers, Fighters, and Warlords (and in 13th Age, they're also great Monks, which is neat). Their religious leanings (Bahamut, my favorite deity) and cultural heritage (a lost society of lofty ideals and great refinement in a variety of fields) are right up my alley, as is their association with History, a skill I've always valued because it lets me dig into the sweet, sweet lore of a world.

It literally has not one single thing to do with being weird, freaky, monstrous, whatever. It has everything to do with them being dragon-people, who have a cool cultural heritage, avoid a trope I really really hate (Proud Warrior Race = Dumb And Ugly Race), and are good at things I like (Paladins and Sorcerers mostly, but also Warlords, Fighters, and Monks). So saying that I do it to "fly my freak flag high"? Especially when I've already said more than half of the above? Yeah, it doesn't come across as "you do you," it comes across as ignoring any possible value non-Tolkienesque races might have other than being "weird"/"freaky"/"furry role-play."

1) So?

When someone argues, "I can't do that thing because it would disrupt the flavor of the world I've built," pointing out that several well-known settings have reinforced their flavor by including things that weren't necessarily available in them originally, or that were but were implemented very differently, is a perfectly cromulent response. It is not merely an abstract assertion, but a concrete demonstration that a DM's "vision" doesn't need to be threatened by such things. Dray (Athasian dragonborn--whom I don't find as compelling...but it's hard to argue with "playable dragon-person," dragons are just too cool!) and drakatha (the dragonborn of Eberron, from Argonnessen) are both examples from settings that definitely AREN'T just kitchen sinks that definitely always include 100% of everything no matter what, and which have long and serious in-world history.

If, on the other hand, the DM has banned gnomes because they don't want that particular cluster of modifiers and abilities to be an option available to the players, reskinning is hardly a remedy.

If the only reason is "I don't like the stats gnomes have," well honestly that's kind of a weird stance because gnomes in 5e aren't all that powerful but surely then the issue ISN'T the flavor and reskinning can be applied in the other direction, e.g. "Well then, can I play a character that looks and behaves like a gnome, but has halfling stats?" If it's somehow BOTH "I hate anything even remotely like gnome aesthetics" AND "no you can't have gnome stats, they're busted," it doesn't sound to me like it's the player who's being kinda tool-y here.

But I will say that if, after having learned that gnomes are banned in the campaign, a player's first instinct is to try and play a gnome, and their second instinct is to try and play a reskinned gnome, they're being more than a bit of a tool.

Like...seriously? For absolute realsies? Someone at least trying to meet you in the middle--offering to adapt the character as necessary, or find some alternative solution that satisfies their interest without running afoul of the DM's preferences--means "being more than a bit of a tool" to you?

I honestly have no idea how to respond to that. You have literally just demonstrated what I spoke of earlier, that some folks will refuse to have an adult conversation about it.

Which raises the question—are you postulating a player who comes to the table with a gnome character already in mind (or even on paper), before the DM has explained the particulars of the campaign? Because that isn't the interaction I've been talking about.

Why does it matter?

Why should it matter if the player says, "Hey, I know you said gnomes aren't whitelisted for this game, but I'd really like to play one. Can we talk about it?" WHY is that a bad thing? I just cannot understand how it is offensive to you for someone to express genuine interest in something that isn't officially greenlit, and thus investigate what options might be had to find a compromise. This is exactly what those of us who raise our eyebrows at talk of DMs being the "Ultimate Authority," Capitalization Included, are skeptical of--people who turn even the idea of discussion into a reason to be offended or kick the player out!

 

[Neonchameleon]

I believe in a more individualistic approach to the game. A person running D&D makes it their own by the very nature of running it. Their own approach informs the campaign and makes it unique. No campaign can ever be the same because different people run it. Twenty DM's can run Lost Mines of Phandelver and each will provide a completely unique and extraordinary experience because the DM orchestrates the game in their own unique way with their own authority.

I'm currently running LMoP and I can 100% absolutely guarantee you that my run is unique and has never been done before.

I believe in an even more individualistic approach to the game. A person playing D&D makes it unique by the very nature of playing it. Their own approach informs the campaign and makes it unique. One DM can run Lost Mines of Phandelver for twenty different groups of players and each will provide a completely unique and extraordinary experience because the dynamic between those players is unique in its own way.

At least this is the case if the players are empowered and encouraged to come up with their own ideas and wish to do so.

And yes, the DM probably brings more to the table than any two engaged players or any four social gamers who are mostly there to hang out, eat snacks, and sling dice. But the DM isn't the only one bringing things to the table and the game is richer for it.

This doesn't mean that all concepts should be accepted but rejection is very much on a case by case basis unless there's something integral to the setting that it violates. And D&D is, as I have mentioned before, by default a kitchen sink game. It was in Gygax and Arneson's day. The Forgotten Realms are a kitchen sink setting. Eberron is a kitchen sink setting. The Nentir Vale is a kitchen sink setting. Sharn is a kitchen sink setting. The Wildemount is a kitchen sink setting. Golarion is a kitchen sink setting.

And it also doesn't mean that character concepts and races aren't vetoed on a case by case basis by even kitchen sink DMs. I've never had anyone try to play a Kender in one of my games, but if they want to they'd better have a very good justification. But that's not because they look odd (they're basically a subculture of halflings). It's because it's an anti-social archetype.

But this has been illuminating in one way. It's made me see what people claiming 5e was more empowering to DMs than 4e wanted; there's a much greater expectation in 4e of players having choice of and control over their own characters, so thank you.

 

[Minigiant]

Again it feels like people are conflicted with the thought or reality that the D&D fan community has expanded. Some are just puzzled. Others are truly confused. And others who are worse and have negativity slather over it.

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.

Race choice is part of that. The players are allowed to no like your collection of acceptable playable races. Same with they are allowed to not like your list of subraces, classes, subclasses, items, spells, and house rules. Some DMs quite frankly need to suck it up and realize that it's going to happen if you expand.

The community is diverse now: history buffs of different real life cultures, anime, manga, and manwha fans, video game fans, people whose make focus of fantasy is from TV or stories from childhood, movie fans etc.

DMs don't have to appeal to everyone (and I suggest no one not out there to make money primarily do so). However the players have the right to not like your settings and as time goes on, this will happen more often if you don't limit yourself to a small group of people.

On the same token, it's the DM's setting. It's the DM who gets to choose the races.

 

[Neonchameleon]

On the subject of weird races I'm going to say that to me the most fundamentally weird and immersion breaking race isn't anything remotely like a tabaxi, a shardmind, or a dragonborn. Instead it's one of the core four. The halfling.

At about 3 foot or 90cm tall, a fully grown halfling is about the height of an average three year old (and at 3 stone or 19kg the weight of an average eight year old). This makes a massive amount of the biophysics of combat just not work properly - and for those of you who watch pro wrestling Hornswoggle's listed height is one and a half times that of a halfling and weight about three times; he's about average height and weight for a D&D dwarf. This lack of height and mass is going to cause a lot of problems - for one thing it makes it hard to block with a shield without being lifted off your feet by a strong guy who knows what they are doing. For another you're out-reached. And dodge rolls simply do not work.

 

[Hussar]

Shhhh, @Neonchameleon. Halflings have the Tolkien Stamp of Approval, so, therefore, they are completely and utterly normal in and expected in a D&D game. Any criticisms of how various races make about as much sense as a cardboard hammer will summarily be ignored by those who abide by Tolkien Standards and Practices.

Shame that the early D&D writers weren't more into Lewis than Tolkien. Then we'd be reversing the argument right now.

 

[Crit]

Wow, really? You are very lucky then.

When I tried running a Primeval Thule campaign with no full casters, the players lost their freaking minds. Gripe doesn't begin to describe the uphill battle I had trying to get that game off the ground.

You see, this and what @Jack Daniel said is kind of an example of the problem. "We're all now going to play X" isn't the same as "Let's talk about what we should play." No wonder the players flipped out.

 

[Crit]

The players do not have to shamble along anywhere they do not want.

They can vote with their feet.

No, the DM is the final authority.

His word is law.

The players choose to place themselves under that authority because they trust that the DM will not be an asshat, and deliver a great gaming experience.

This is not a good way to approach a game. If you're trying to play with friends, the idea of reaching common ground is much more reasonable than "DMs do whatever they want and the players must either flat-out leave or accept it." No one questions that the DM has power, but we are questioning the appropriate use of that power.

 

[Crit]

Let me just shut that nonsense down now, then, before it starts to overwhelm the conversation.

Elves are freaks too.

(Which is my tongue-in-cheek way of saying, where on Earth did I ever mention Tolkien races or a "core four" in relation to that post? Oh, right: I didn't. You just assumed that's what I was talking about.)

All of them are "freaks." Everything that isn't Human is just as alien as the rest. I'm surprised you don't consider Elves to be in the core four, because I honestly think that opinion differs from the majority. How could a Halfling (Most known from Tolkien) be in the core four, if they get less representation in media across the board than Elves? From what I've seen, they're the most popular fantasy race in terms of this kind of fiction, with dwarves just behind. If my core four didn't have humans or dwarves, you'd be right to wonder how on earth I came to that conclusion.

 

[TwoSix]

This is not a good way to approach a game. If you're trying to play with friends, the idea of reaching common ground is much more reasonable than "DMs do whatever they want and the players must either flat-out leave or accept it." No one questions that the DM has power, but we are questioning the appropriate use of that power.

Being really excited about a campaign concept as a DM that your players don't buy into, or having a character concept you're excited about as a player that your DM chooses to veto, ultimately boils down to the same concept. That sometimes, in a social group, you're simply going to have to compromise.

You'll always have more concepts for campaigns and characters than you'll have time or groups to play them with, so don't get too attached to any one idea.