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

[EzekielRaiden]

I like to lump halfling and gnome together as hinnfolk, with halflings being those who mostly live just below ground and gnomes being those who mostly live deeper below it (and who have retained more of their fey nature because of intentionally maintaining underground fey portals). This is part of an overall simplification of a large swathe of races into an approach like classes and subclasses (or sometimes expansion, Dragonborn and Warforged get subraces in this example). I'd couple it with a separation of Culture away from Physiology as part of a character's Heroic Origin. This would combine background/theme/OUT mechanics from 4e, 13A, and 5e as a single cohesive unit that lays out how a character got their adventuring start (and would be part of where Zero Level rules are integrated, for people who want to play through the Heroic Origin rather than start with it). This would then naturally combine with the Paragon Path and Epic Destiny rules to form a single, complete, "ultimate" Hero's Journey for a character that manages to reach max level: your folk define your physiology while your class provides the adventuring tools (spells, weapons, etc.) you're guaranteed to be good at (which you can expand later); then your HO is where you tell the beginning of your story, your PP shows how your story evolved due to play, and your ED is how you set your own terms of final victory or defeat.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

My next campaign is going to be called "Requiem for an Arvandor", the only race choice is Black Tar elves.

This is the main advantage of the black tar: it makes you behave like the drunkard in some W. C. Fields movie...total loss of all basic motor skills. Blurred vision, no balance, numb tongue .... a complete severance of all connection between the body and the brain.

I'm totally playing a Black Tar Way of the Drunken Master.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I would allow Vikings in Egypt but not ancient Egypt.

But would you allow Egyptians in Viking lands?

 

[Neonchameleon]

What's even the difference? This is a good reason for getting rid of some of the races; if you put them all in the same setting there is just so much overlap.

Gnomes have struggled for an identity in D&D. They've off the top of my head played Dr. Doolittle with the ability to speak with badgers and other burrowing mammals, been the weakest human scale inhabitants of Faerie and a former slave race, been the Magic Resistant Race, and been mad tinkers. Outside 4e which as normal has the best lore they're close to a halfling/dwarf cross with some magical affinity thematically (and I suppose that does put them in the foothills).

Seems like halflings could just be half-dwarves.

Not by the D&D descriptions. Halflings are about 3' tall, and dwarves about 4'6" tall and much stockier.

 

[wingsandsword]

To me, elves and dwarves have a human element. But Turtle people, and cat people and demon people and dragon people seem like the new normal. Do people who play D&D now, feel more comfortable with role-playing animalistic type characters than before?

Well, cat people are nothing new at all.

I knew a player back in the 90's that really, really wanted to play a cat person in D&D, but there really weren't any rules for it.

She ended up joining a Star Wars RPG I was running at the time and playing a Farghul, since there was at least a catperson race that had been published for that game.

I also knew someone at that time who really liked to play Tieflings. Tieflings had been a player character option since 2e, thanks to Planescape.

I don't think this really is something THAT new, I saw a lot of these same elements decades ago.

I just think it's either a little more common, or that WotC realizes that players want this kind of diversity in character options and are catering to it.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Understood. I think of the whole concept in the opposite. There are so many people interested in playing D&D and also so many people interested in running D&D that it makes sense to take the high way.

I run my game if you don't like it you can walk... and find another DM that suits their needs better. Likewise, I'm sure to find players that are cool with the way I want to run. I know for certain locations and demographics it doesn't seem like this, but I contend that if you look, you can get the group that works for you and you can afford to let walk those who don't.


Fair enough. I don't share the same socialist approach to D&D but I'll respect that you do.

The only comment that I make is that although I am the primary DM in my group, others in my group also DM. We each have our own campaigns and each have different characters in different worlds. We each DM our campaigns separately in our own way. For me, this adds variety in that we each have our own unique approach to the game.

For me, it is the individual orchestration of each DM running their game, the way they want to, that makes each campaign interesting and unique. It is because my campaign belongs to me and others campaigns belong to them makes each campaign engaging and fresh. They are an extension of the DM's approach and personality and their autonomy in executing these campaigns make it such.

Without that autonomy and authority, a DM can't impart their own personality and creativity in making the game their own.

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.

Here’s the thing. My game is, I absolutely guarantee you without a shred of doubt whatsoever, just as unique, as is my buddy’s homebrew game, and my other buddy’s game that doesn’t use any established system, and my other buddy’s Star Wars game, and my wife’s CoS game.

I don’t know what about the differences we are talking about here makes you think that this wouldn’t be the case.

My campaigns are very, very different from the other DMs in the group. We have some houserules that we all like and thus all use, but others are unique to either a campaign or a DM’s games in general. What sorts of games we run differ, what sorts of characters fit differs, etc.

I’m the only one that tends to run tightly themed games with a short run time, like a single story arc game of mouse Paladins of different holy orders, or a “year” at a magical college in AU 1630’s Cardiff.

My wife runs published campaigns.
Etc

I build a world, and the fact that I do so with feedback from my players doesn’t make my game any less my own, any less imparted of my own creativity and personality.

Turns out, this; “Without that autonomy and authority, a DM can't impart their own personality and creativity in making the game their own.”
Just ain’t true. Or perhaps you misunderstand what I’ve been saying. Either way, I find myself shaking my head at this exchange in general.

 

[Zardnaar]

But would you allow Egyptians in Viking lands?

In the Midgard setting yes.

Real world map maybe if they wanted to explore I suppose. The ancient ones wouldn't exist in sane campaign timeframe though.

The lands there they just have to get to it.

I wouldn't allow Aztecs in Europe or vice versa unless the PCs are off to discover those lands.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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

I agree with you, and not only for the reasons you listed.

With halflings, I feel like there’s no “there” there. I mean, despite being a race as old as Tolkien, they really have no lore that make them particularly compelling to play.

Elves? Love of Nature, curiosity about magic, long life, etc. Half-Orcs? Child of two worlds, spark of chaos, face prejudice because of their parentage. Tiefling? Rejection because of their parentage, rebelling against their nature.

Even the new kids, tabaxi. What if my cat were a humanoid?

Halflings? They’re like humans, except short. Oh, they also like the comfort of home. 50 years of potential lore, 2 write-ups in 5e alone, and that is the best they have come up with.

Give me a tortle with “I carry my home on my back, so wherever I am, I’m home” any day of the week.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Even the new kids, tabaxi. What if my cat were a humanoid?

Well, as is well known, cats hang around until you die, and then eat you.

A humanoid cat would just kill you, and then eat you.

 

[Minigiant]

One obvious example was the Dungeon of Despair. The DM had spent hours constructing the thing and tended to like killer traps. The players noped out and chose to go in the other direction and run schemes of their own. Certainly vetoing the DM's choice for the next adventure.



Once again I say halflings. I find a dragonborn, a tiefling, or even a tabaxi, any of whom have more or less human physical limits whatever their skin is made of easier to relate to being one of than I do to a toddler-sized adult navigating round spaces intended for human sized creatures when the act of doing so is not meant to be a core focus of the game.

There is a reason why, despite the Tolkien influence and despite how long halflings have been part of core D&D Dragonborn and Tieflings are more popular.

I often see the tide on halflings and dragon born turning. Even among the Lotr fans or the older fans. Child-sized adults with childlike attitudes clash heavily with many adult themes. And if they sick mechanically too?

Many are turning away from the halfling and moving to preferences of dragonborn and scales.

Halflings are getting gnomed.