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

[Crit]

Virtually Identical is NOT Identical.

I disagree. Jimmy can play a human with an Elf hat, or Elf costume, or Elf disguise. Jimmy is still just Jimmy playing pretend with his friends. I know I like playing pretend with my friends, we just don't feel the need for funny hats.

They are knockoff humans because they are being played by humans. The anatomical variance and lore and etc. is all just fluff. The extra depth you perceive to exist because of the fluff can be achieved without said fluff. In my own personal experience I have found that eliminating the fluff adds depth to a PC because players are forced to create that depth through action within the narrative.

Definitely not. As I said before we have no idea if my parrot conceptualizes things the way a human does. My parrot says "Dads gotta go to work" and "Dads going shopping" and "Dads going for a walk" but I have serious doubts he conceptualizes those things the way a human would. I think he knows I leave the house and then return later, but all the other concepts that give those different statements different meanings are beyond him.

For the most part it does. I just reject your arguments and maintain my original position. Playing an Elf in an RPG means you are you with a funny hat that makes you look like an Elf. You literally just agreed to that position in your previous statement.

I understand, philosophical argument takes a lot of attention.

These points do paint a complete picture when in the context of my previous comments. Neanderthals had cultures and rituals and comparable anatomy and genetics to contemporary humans. If they act like human people in almost every regard, and have extremely comparable anatomy, were they not people? I hope you think so, because Neanderthal is a part of pretty much every human's ancestry in the modern day. I'm sure your great^28 grandpa thought he was a person, at least as much as anyone else at the time. As for alternative humans IRL, that's not something I can predict. The exponential growth of AI projects and human-simulations should be sufficient evidence that it's a coming concern.

Where does the human mind come from? It comes from the pattern of neurons and chemicals. That's where your Humanity is. And between humans, people are still Humans despite some pretty significant variation in brain features and chemicals, so there is room to accommodate "people" based on the result of their physical being rather than the body itself. If another creature has a similar physical brain plan, then it stands to say that it results in the same phenomenon of thinking and feeling.

It completely stands to say that the same chemicals in extremely similar brains function to the same effect. "Understanding" and "intellect" are the results of our physical brains, same as the rest- the same things do the same things. All of our organs connect to the same places for the same purposes, so when we see commonalities between brain structure and behavior, the only logical conclusion is that they experience what we experience. We, and all of our thoughts and behavior, are neurons in a pattern. If that "same" pattern is replicated elsewhere, by definition of "mind" as our experience coming from our brain, they are like us.

And for the record, you are playing a silly hat no matter what, human or not. The problem is you're using the phrase to demean others as "unnecessary" or inherently less serious while not acknowledging that it's a universal part of RP, and should not be used to pass undue judgement. And using "we don't have a need for silly hats" is misrepresenting the opposition. I can't quite find where you said it, but there's no point at which a Human character is no longer a costume, at least not in a way that a non-human character cannot also achieve.

I'll cap it off with a summary to the thread question. Playing alternate races is fun because you can try to walk in particularly new shoes, and it has exclusive RP potential through relevant lore and alternative physical characteristics, all while letting you still play a "person." It's usually not mechanically "more powerful" but it's still a vessel for fun. Playing fantasy races is to be expected from a game in the Fantasy genre, and it gives more than it takes, as is proven by how many people use the features without a problem. It deserves to stay in the game because players should have the option if they want, and it's easier to cut them out than to force players to make up something as basic as playing an elf for an rpg.

With that said, my schedule is building in severity. I would like to address things point by point but I must tap out. Thank you to @Chaosmancer for your input, I appreciate it.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Maybe. I agree that those are not human experiences. However I am not sure the "funny hat" applies as all situations are approached from the perspective of a Human Mind.

From my perspective...

I think everyone on this thread can all agree that Elfs, Dwarves, etc. do not really exist. That being the case, there is no official or definitive answer between “Other races have such an incomprehensibly different mindset from us that any attempt to portray them can’t be taken seriously” and “other races are a lens through which to examine humanity”.

If you are looking at the designer’s intent (“Dammit! I was trying to stay on topic!”), I think it is pretty clear that the designers intended different races to be “humans, but somewhat different”. I definitely don’t think it was their intent to provide playable tabaxi just for the mechanical bonuses, since they did go through the trouble of including cultural notes in the description.

That being said, the second mindset allows players to have fun and enjoy a variety of races, while the first limits you to playing humans. That being the case, why would you choose to apply the first interpretation?

Agreed. I do not believe there is any
Our experiences obviously differ as I have always seen people be constrained by extra elements being added to their characters. As an example, players playing Klingons, or actors playing Klingons in a TV show, are constrained by the idea that Klingons are honor bound and proud warriors. So they have one of two choices. They can either stick with those constraints, and be something less than human. Or they can buck those constraints. In which case, why play a Klingon? As bucking the constraints means they are no longer playing a Klingon. They are in essence, playing a human again, as they are no longer constrained as a Klingon would be.

This just isn’t the case. Let’s take three examples. Start with my Chaotic Good dwarf who left his Lawful Good society (semi-voluntarily) because they believe “the nail that sticks up gets hammered down”. This raises a bunch of interesting story questions directly linked to his race. His society is canonically Lawful Good. What does a Lawful Good society that discourages non-conformity look like? My character knows the other dwarves from his home are good people. He still loves them and tries to gently encourage them to be more open to different experiences “Come out. The stars are beautiful!”

Take another example. A half-orc foundling raised by humans. Growing up, he had a lot of trouble sitting still. He had a lot of trouble controlling his temper and even now, has difficulty concentrating, which made learning hard. He also had to put up with the townspeople acting like he was constantly about to break something. Fortunately, he was able to channel his energies into a class where his strengths were recognized and he is not constantly confronted by their shortcomings.

Third example. Despite elves being presented as the Chaotic counterpart to dwarves, in practice, elves tend to demonstrate a lot of lawful traits. For my PF2 game, I decided to play an elf and I asked myself what a Chaotic elf with links to the Feywild would look like. The elf had some decidedly bohemian and hippy aspects, but there were other areas where his thinking tended to be rigid and inflexible. For instance, since he saw himself as an heir to the Fey, incorporating Fey whimsy into his life (and those around him), he was utterly opposed to alchemy and other “unnatural” perversions of nature.

None of those examples fit the dichotomy you presented above: either play a stereotype of the race or your race is just window-dressing.

 

[zarionofarabel]

These points do paint a complete picture when in the context of my previous comments. Neanderthals had cultures and rituals and comparable anatomy and genetics to contemporary humans. If they act like human people in almost every regard, and have extremely comparable anatomy, were they not people? I hope you think so, because Neanderthal is a part of pretty much every human's ancestry in the modern day. I'm sure your great^28 grandpa thought he was a person, at least as much as anyone else at the time. As for alternative humans IRL, that's not something I can predict. The exponential growth of AI projects and human-simulations should be sufficient evidence that it's a coming concern.

Where does the human mind come from? It comes from the pattern of neurons and chemicals. That's where your Humanity is. And between humans, people are still Humans despite some pretty significant variation in brain features and chemicals, so there is room to accommodate "people" based on the result of their physical being rather than the body itself. If another creature has a similar physical brain plan, then it stands to say that it results in the same phenomenon of thinking and feeling.

It completely stands to say that the same chemicals in extremely similar brains function to the same effect. "Understanding" and "intellect" are the results of our physical brains, same as the rest- the same things do the same things. All of our organs connect to the same places for the same purposes, so when we see commonalities between brain structure and behavior, the only logical conclusion is that they experience what we experience. We, and all of our thoughts and behavior, are neurons in a pattern. If that "same" pattern is replicated elsewhere, by definition of "mind" as our experience coming from our brain, they are like us.

And for the record, you are playing a silly hat no matter what, human or not. The problem is you're using the phrase to demean others as "unnecessary" or inherently less serious while not acknowledging that it's a universal part of RP, and should not be used to pass undue judgement. And using "we don't have a need for silly hats" is misrepresenting the opposition. I can't quite find where you said it, but there's no point at which a Human character is no longer a costume, at least not in a way that a non-human character cannot also achieve.

I'll cap it off with a summary to the thread question. Playing alternate races is fun because you can try to walk in particularly new shoes, and it has exclusive RP potential through relevant lore and alternative physical characteristics, all while letting you still play a "person." It's usually not mechanically "more powerful" but it's still a vessel for fun. Playing fantasy races is to be expected from a game in the Fantasy genre, and it gives more than it takes, as is proven by how many people use the features without a problem. It deserves to stay in the game because players should have the option if they want, and it's easier to cut them out than to force players to make up something as basic as playing an elf for an rpg.

With that said, my schedule is building in severity. I would like to address things point by point but I must tap out. Thank you to @Chaosmancer for your input, I appreciate it.

We don't know what the brain patterns of Neanderthal are like, we do know that the physical makeup of their brains was significantly different. From the standpoint of intellect and understanding, Neanderthal would be so far removed from modern humans as to be completely alien to us. The fact that they are part of our ancestry is irrelevant.

I do continue to think non-human fantasy races are unnecessary. I own a large number of fantasy RPGs that do not have non-human races available as PCs and they work just fine.

 

[Crit]

We don't know what the brain patterns of Neanderthal are like, we do know that the physical makeup of their brains was significantly different. From the standpoint of intellect and understanding, Neanderthal would be so far removed from modern humans as to be completely alien to us. The fact that they are part of our ancestry is irrelevant.

I do continue to think non-human fantasy races are unnecessary. I own a large number of fantasy RPGs that do not have non-human races available as PCs and they work just fine.

You're lucky I didn't log out yet, so I'll reply.

My "similar" and your "different" are on different scales. If a gorilla has observable parallels to the Human brain, you can bet something much more related to us would be even similar. They were similar enough to us to assimilate populations effectively. There's nothing alien about them, especially if even far removed ancestors like wild dogs and cats aren't even completely alien. They had every lobe in in the right place, and had the same brain chemicals as the rest of Animals, they had a parallel culture, and merged with Humanity. If they had all of this in common, not to mention similar lifestyles and childhoods, then there's no way they weren't directly comparable.

On necessity. Technically nothing is necessary, but any change would cease to make the product what it is. I could play a game with every race minus human and get by without a hitch, but that would be at the cost of something to the players. You may not like these features, but just because it doesn't effect your table doesn't stop it from affecting almost everything else about the product and community and beyond. In that sense, it's necessary. It's fine that you play without them, but you must know that it's a personal preference, and not based on some empirical improvement or fault in the game or its player base.

 

[zarionofarabel]

From my perspective...

I think everyone on this thread can all agree that Elfs, Dwarves, etc. do not really exist. That being the case, there is no official or definitive answer between “Other races have such an incomprehensibly different mindset from us that any attempt to portray them can’t be taken seriously” and “other races are a lens through which to examine humanity”.

A Human playing an Elf can't be taken seriously as a Human has absolutely no idea of what it would be like to live for hundreds or thousands of years.

If you are looking at the designer’s intent (“Dammit! I was trying to stay on topic!”), I think it is pretty clear that the designers intended different races to be “humans, but somewhat different”. I definitely don’t think it was their intent to provide playable tabaxi just for the mechanical bonuses, since they did go through the trouble of including cultural notes in the description.

Cultural notes are nothing but fluff, thus the only difference between humans and non-humans is the mechanical bonuses. Hence my position stating that the only reason to play non-human races is the mechanical bonuses. The designer obviously agrees with me as you just pointed out, non-human races were intended to be human with differences in fluff.

That being said, the second mindset allows players to have fun and enjoy a variety of races, while the first limits you to playing humans. That being the case, why would you choose to apply the first interpretation?

Because the non-human races are actually the restricted party as you must adhere to cultural stereotypes. If you don't, then what's the point of playing a non-human race? Oh I know, mechanical bonuses!

This just isn’t the case. Let’s take three examples. Start with my Chaotic Good dwarf who left his Lawful Good society (semi-voluntarily) because they believe “the nail that sticks up gets hammered down”. This raises a bunch of interesting story questions directly linked to his race. His society is canonically Lawful Good. What does a Lawful Good society that discourages non-conformity look like? My character knows the other dwarves from his home are good people. He still loves them and tries to gently encourage them to be more open to different experiences “Come out. The stars are beautiful!”

You could achieve the same mindset and story elements with a human character. The fact that your character is a Dwarf is irrelevant.

Take another example. A half-orc foundling raised by humans. Growing up, he had a lot of trouble sitting still. He had a lot of trouble controlling his temper and even now, has difficulty concentrating, which made learning hard. He also had to put up with the townspeople acting like he was constantly about to break something. Fortunately, he was able to channel his energies into a class where his strengths were recognized and he is not constantly confronted by their shortcomings.

You could achieve the same things with a human character. The fact that the character is an Orc is irrelevant.

Third example. Despite elves being presented as the Chaotic counterpart to dwarves, in practice, elves tend to demonstrate a lot of lawful traits. For my PF2 game, I decided to play an elf and I asked myself what a Chaotic elf with links to the Feywild would look like. The elf had some decidedly bohemian and hippy aspects, but there were other areas where his thinking tended to be rigid and inflexible. For instance, since he saw himself as an heir to the Fey, incorporating Fey whimsy into his life (and those around him), he was utterly opposed to alchemy and other “unnatural” perversions of nature.

The fact that the character is an Elf is irrelevant. All the aspects described, aside from the fluff, could be achieved with a human character.

None of those examples fit the dichotomy you presented above: either play a stereotype of the race or your race is just window-dressing.

Actually, that is how it works. In movies, in TV, in books, in all media I have ever encountered. Either the character adheres to the stereotype, or everything about them is just window-dressing.

 

[reelo]

Dwarves and elves are human characters with beards or pointed ears.

Only if they're played badly. The "otherness" of dwarves and elves is more than sufficient if played out properly. For me, anthropocentrism is still the default. But then again, I'm a fan of OSE (with the new Advanced stuff in the mix), which has race-as-class, and that, in turn, cuts down on all the weird combos.

 

[reelo]

Feats are the worst thing that has ever happened to D&D. The idea of character building has ruined the game.

Not feats — class progression. Older (TSR-era) editions had "front-loaded" classes. You got most of your abilities at lvl1, and you gradually got better at them over the course of the levels.
Now, players "map out" level progressions and each time they gain a level, they carefully pick and choose feats, level-dip, multiclass, etc. CharOp is a "sub-game" in the style of Diablo or WoW and I don't like it one bit.

 

[zarionofarabel]

You're lucky I didn't log out yet, so I'll reply.

Yay!

My "similar" and your "different" are on different scales. If a gorilla has observable parallels to the Human brain, you can bet something much more related to us would be even similar. They were similar enough to us to assimilate populations effectively. There's nothing alien about them, especially if even far removed ancestors like wild dogs and cats aren't even completely alien. They had every lobe in in the right place, and had the same brain chemicals as the rest of Animals, they had a parallel culture, and merged with Humanity. If they had all of this in common, not to mention similar lifestyles and childhoods, then there's no way they weren't directly comparable.

I reiterate, considering intellect and understanding, Neanderthal would be completely alien to us. Your adherence to the idea that similarities in brain structure means similarities in intellect and understanding does not follow. We would need to hear first hand accounts from a Neanderthal in order to assess their level of intellect and understanding.

On necessity. Technically nothing is necessary, but any change would cease to make the product what it is. I could play a game with every race minus human and get by without a hitch, but that would be at the cost of something to the players.

I agree you can get by without a hitch. I firmly disagree that it would cost the players. In my own personal experience I have seen it benefit the players. Players that have to play humans must give those characters depth through play. Players that play non-humans often play two-dimensional characters while continuously repeating the fact that their characters are somehow deeper than human characters simply because they are non-human, and this does not follow.

You may not like these features, but just because it doesn't effect your table doesn't stop it from affecting almost everything else about the product and community and beyond. In that sense, it's necessary.

I disagree. It is by no means necessary. D&D wouldn't suffer without non-human races. In fact, considering the ongoing conversations in the news media about non-human races in D&D being degrading stereotypes of marginalized human cultures, I think it would greatly benefit both the game and the hobby in general.

It's fine that you play without them, but you must know that it's a personal preference, and not based on some empirical improvement or fault in the game or its player base.

Agreed. I just think that removing non-human races from the game would be beneficial to both the game, and the hobby in general.

 

[Marandahir]

Isn't that kind of like the world of Dofus/Wakfu? From what I understand, each of the 'classes' in that world (who also act as 'races' in a way) are basically divine. You pick one of the twelve god to devote yourself to, and you take on certain aspects of that god. So all the Enispira look a bit Fairy like with wings, all the Osamodas are blue skin demon-like, and all the Ecaflip end up becoming cat-people... But they're all essentially the same species, just with different visible divine aspect. Each of the chosen people being their own culture too I believe.

Humm... I'll have you know the type of music being played in the cantina is called 'jizz' thank you very much!

That's cool. Never heard of Dofus/Wakfu before, I'll have to check it out. My idea was shamelessly built off the Chinese Zodiac a la something like Fruits Basket, so it's not like I expected other folks hadn't thought of it first.

I never read the novelizations of Star Wars, and now I'm disturbed by the idea they came up with for not-Jazz. The 2017 UK Junior Novelizations should never have touched that term but now it's canon. UGH.

 

[Marandahir]

Maybe an unpopular opinion, but personally I’m kind of bored of Mos Eisley Cantina worlds, or “fantasy kitchen sinks” or whatever you want to call them. Like, I totally get the desire for something more exotic than the same-old Tolkienesque fantasy fare. But I prefer a setting to be a bit more judicious with its milieu than you see in such kitchen sink settings.

Dark Sun is a great example of the kind of thing I’m looking for. There are some wild PC options in there, and even the traditional fantasy races that are present are different than how they’re usually seen. But it isn’t just anything goes. There’s a lot of stuff that just plain doesn’t exist on Athas. I’d much rather have a small number of really interesting options than a large number of options that are all over the place in terms of interest.

I hear you. It's a tug and pull between Fantasy Kitchen Sink and something with room to breathe. My goal has been more to have a setting that isn't Tolkien, but also isn't just "everyone in Explorer's Guide to Wildemount + Mythic Odysseys of Theros + Exploring Eberron. Dark Sun is a great example of a different and varied world that isn't Tolkien-esque but also isn't overwhelming like FR can get for me with its multitude of peoples.


Apologies for the double post, meant to edit these into the other reply above.

Is it 12 races only or anything goes?

That makes sense to me if you've tied them to your world.

Allowing players to pick whatever from 50 odd races or more kinda dilutes everything down for me.

Mostly I pick in mechanics, not the most powerful though otherwise I wouldn't make a halfling or goliath Fighter.

I've gone back and forth on that. The 12 peoples are core, common peoples, but for my players I'd let them justify other peoples as needed (sort of like the only one of their kind, or something).

And in that cantina they threw Luke's droid out because, "We don't serve that kind here," and didn't like Luke because all he could do was stare at everyone because they were all so different. They were also thieves and murderers that had to rely on one another's acceptance, at least in the short term, because they all needed a place to hide out.
Then there was all the drinking, drugs and jazz. Not to mention a murder based off these people not accepting one another.

It IS in the town where you'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy, after all. A less offensive example of course would be Bree from Lord of the Rings - this is a place populated by Humans, Halflings, Dwarve,s Half-Elves, and Half-Orcs. All core PHB peoples of course, but you don't really find that sort of admixture pub ANYWHERE else in Middle-earth. Another great Star Wars example is the make up of the Alliance Council in Rogue One, or the Galactic Senate during the Prequels.

A world should feel big and diverse, and a galaxy more so.