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

[doctorbadwolf]

Good point, he was also a professor of English Language and Literature for 44 years. That alone would make his opinion pertinent, and worth considering, even if he hadn't written the works. I always found it odd that in my masters Literature classes that the professors seemed to be so dismissive of what the Author's had to say. It almost seemed like they were offended when the Authors words didn't agree with their groupthink so they had to beat them down. I will say there are far too many people with doctorates and masters that only believe what they were taught and unfortunately never learned to analyze and think on their own. GroupThink in Acadamia is like mildew you just can't get rid of it.

You say that last part as if it’s an Academia problem, and not simply a People problem.

The same behavior is just as prevalent everywhere else. It’s just people.

 

[Crit]

I know it's not real.

The implications of this thread are that Players are playing Non-Humans for reasons other than mechanical bonuses, or so they can do something other than disguise themselves with funny hats.

I say this is impossible as we are Humans, and we cannot be Non-Humans.

Other posters implied that this is not the case, that they can indeed be Non-Humans.

Sorry you came into an argument at the half way point and failed to understand what I was saying.

Smh, I'm honestly gonna let this go because this isn't going anywhere.

Personhood is a relatable experience beyond Humans. Your idea of "Humanity" is not limited to "Humans." I can imagine and relate to a Neanderthal or artificial human because they are people but not Human, so why not an Elf? We can play that role, and have a meaningful experience.

"Disguise with funny hats" is intellectually dishonest because you're approaching the opponent as if they are already invalid ("Funny hat"), and trying to do things that they are not ("Disguise"). A player doesn't disguise themself with a funny hat because they're playing an alternate race, it would only be because they are bad at roleplaying.

I find it humorous that you're critical of another person's understanding, while struggling with it yourself.

 

[zarionofarabel]

The point of roleplaying is exploring your own psyche by imagining exceptions to it.

I'm afraid I disagree. As far as I can tell the whole point of roleplaying differs for the individual.

For example, for me the point of roleplaying is to elicit emotional responses from my players by getting them immersed in the shared imagination space and emotionally invested in the imaginary life of their character.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Personhood is a relatable experience beyond Humans.

I disagree, as all the people I have ever met have been human, and all the experiences of people I have ever heard of are those of humans.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm afraid I disagree. As far as I can tell the whole point of roleplaying differs for the individual.

For example, for me the point of roleplaying is to elicit emotional responses from my players by getting them immersed in the shared imagination space and emotionally invested in the imaginary life of their character.

Eh, tomato, tomahto. I’d argue that the revelation of the psyche through immersive roleplay is the source of that emotional response. But regardless, my broader point is that the purpose of playing a non-human character isn’t to create a realistic simulation of a non-human person. It’s to have a particular kind of emotional experience, which the exercise of imagining “myself, but” facilitates.

 

[zarionofarabel]

It’s to have a particular kind of emotional experience, which the exercise of imagining “myself, but” facilitates.

To me "myself, but" is translatable to "donning a costume" or "wearing a funny hat" as in "I am me, but I am wearing a funny hat" thus allowing me to pretend to not be me.

 

[Charlaquin]

To me "myself, but" is translatable to "donning a costume" or "wearing a funny hat" as in "I am me, but I am wearing a funny hat" thus allowing me to pretend to not be me.

I mean, I guess if you insist on presenting it that reductively, sure. I stand by my assertion that it’s a bad analogy because the purpose of roleplaying is different than the purpose of wearing a costume, but at this point the language is just becoming a distraction. You said you didn’t understand the appeal of playing non-human races, but I’d argue you do. It’s the same as the appeal of playing medieval people, or people with magic powers, or people with incredible physical aptitude. It’s a particular form of imagining “myself, but,” meant to illicit a particular emotional response.

 

[zarionofarabel]

I mean, I guess if you insist on presenting it that reductively, sure.

A side effect of being a philosophical reductionist.

I stand by my assertion that it’s a bad analogy because the purpose of roleplaying is different than the purpose of wearing a costume, but at this point the language is just becoming a distraction. You said you didn’t understand the appeal of playing non-human races, but I’d argue you do. It’s the same as the appeal of playing medieval people, or people with magic powers, or people with incredible physical aptitude. It’s a particular form of imagining “myself, but,” meant to illicit a particular emotional response.

For this I reference my earlier post...

Same with a costume. In a nutshell, Tolkien Elves appear to act (and think and feel and literally BE) the same as Humans. How could this be possible? Well, because Tolkien's very Human mind imagined them.

I don't for a moment believe that players in TTRPGs are trying to examine what it would be like to actually be a person that has lived for hundreds or thousands of years. Would that even be possible as all experience is limited by our Human nature? My opinion is no. If it were, then the greatest works ever written wouldn't always be limited to those experienced by Humans.

I do believe that players in TTRPGs want mechanical statistics to differentiate their PCs from other PCs. For some reason D&D especially has become focused on this aspect in recent editions by allowing a plethora of, I hate to say it, Humans With Funny Hats! Sure the dragonperson is cool looking and you made up some goofy nonsense culture for it, but how come it acts (and thinks and feels) the way a Human would. Oh yeah! Cause it's mind is a Human mind.

Plus, considering the content of some recent discussions regarding D&D and the various Humanoid races in the game and how they reflect upon the game, maybe it would be best to eliminate all Humanoids that aren't Human from the game. Nuff Said!!!

As a side note, I personally have found that only allowing Human PCs and reducing the reliance on mechanics to differentiate PCs is a very good thing for the roleplaying aspects of the game. For some reason players seem to work just a little bit harder at differentiating their characters through action when they don't have mechanical statistics to differentiate them.

Anywho, sorry for the huge rant. Hopefully it helped clarify my position, and dislike of, Non-Human PCs.

The bold parts are why I don't understand the appeal of playing Non-Humans.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't for a moment believe that players in TTRPGs are trying to examine what it would be like to actually be a person that has lived for hundreds or thousands of years. Would that even be possible as all experience is limited by our Human nature? My opinion is no. If it were, then the greatest works ever written wouldn't always be limited to those experienced by Humans.

Then do you believe that the players are actually trying to examine what it would be a human being in a weird pseudo-medieval world in which magic actually works and their character is able to wield it? Would it be even be possible to us modern scientifically-minded humans?

 

[Charlaquin]

A side effect of being a philosophical reductionist.

For this I reference my earlier post...

The bold parts are why I don't understand the appeal of playing Non-Humans.

Yes, I have read your posts, you don’t have to keep re-quoting them. Let’s try to move the discussion forward, please.

The only portion of your quoted post that actually addressed why you don’t understand the appeal is “I personally have found that only allowing Human PCs and reducing the reliance on mechanics to differentiate PCs is a very good thing for the roleplaying aspects of the game. For some reason players seem to work just a little bit harder at differentiating their characters through action when they don't have mechanical statistics to differentiate them.” And really, that only explains why you prefer players to play human characters only. The rest was just reiterations of things you believe, with no reasons given for why you believe them.