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

[doctorbadwolf]

While I'm certainly not saying that's fair of the the DM, or that the kind of passive-aggressive behavior you're describing is a good way to handle it, the fact remains that if the players insist on playing something the DM doesn't like, everyone's enjoyment of the game is reduced.

Not IME.

People play stuff I don’t like and I just...get over myself and play the game.

 

[Oofta]

What allegations?

The allegation that I said or implied that because I mentioned someone might notice the difference in thumb structure that they would think they were not human along with the multiple negative replies.

I just mentioned an article I thought was an interesting . I have no idea what got your grundies in a bundle so I'm done bickering. Have a good one.

 

[prabe]

Not IME.

People play stuff I don’t like and I just...get over myself and play the game.

So, I don't entirely disagree with your broader point, but if the GM has created (or is creating) their own setting, the player insisting on playing something the GM doesn't want in that setting is asking more of the GM than I'm comfortable handwaving away.

 

[Mecheon]

As members of genus Homo, Neanderthals are humans too.

That's.... Not how 'Homo' is used.

I'm referring to 'Human' in terms of 'Anatomically modern human', so, applicable to 'Homo sapiens'. H. neaderthalensis is, by definition, not 'human' in that sense. Of course we're getting into the whole debate of what consists of 'species', given that's a biiiig debate

If 'Homo' means human, then you're saying H. floresiensis or H. habilis count as human specifically which.... Isn't what most people would define as 'human', especially given H. floresiensis is an offshoot with nothing to do with human evolution

 

[zarionofarabel]

I don't see how they can end up being "something less than human". That seems like you are seeing only the box. Unfortuantely, I'm not incredibly familiar with Star Trek.

All non-human characters are stereotypes of humans, thus they are less than human. The stereotype exists specifically to highlight how they are not human.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

All non-human characters are stereotypes of humans, thus they are less than human. The stereotype exists specifically to highlight how they are not human.

At this point you’re just declaring things and ignoring counterpoints and counter examples.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

That's.... Not how 'Homo' is used.

I'm referring to 'Human' in terms of 'Anatomically modern human', so, applicable to 'Homo sapiens'. H. neaderthalensis is, by definition, not 'human' in that sense. Of course we're getting into the whole debate of what consists of 'species', given that's a biiiig debate

If 'Homo' means human, then you're saying H. floresiensis or H. habilis count as human specifically which.... Isn't what most people would define as 'human', especially given H. floresiensis is an offshoot with nothing to do with human evolution

'Homo' literally means human. When we talk about other species of the genus homo, they're often referred to as 'archaic humans' or 'extinct human species'. If 'human' automatically would mean just homo sapiens, you wouldn't need to use terms like 'anatomically modern human' to make the distinction.

 

[Gammadoodler]

All non-human characters are stereotypes of humans, thus they are less than human. The stereotype exists specifically to highlight how they are not human.

I'm reasonably certain this is not the correct usage for the word "stereotype". Not to mention a top rope generalization.

Its especially strange, because, as written, it would comprise all fiction so any non-human character, anywhere, is less than any human character anywhere..ever.

It's just so weird to me this perspective that because we cannot actually know what being a thing is like, that we should not try and imagine what it might be like. Like, that's not just valuable for fun and empathy, it's also a reasonable exercise that can advance human knowledge and understanding (e.g. imagining existence in different dimensional space)

Also, it's a strange take that our RPG characters should need to be 'taken seriously'. Perhaps my tables have been outside the norm, but thus far they've been consistently structured as group storytelling experiences in explicitly fictional and fantastical worlds using the organizing mechanics of a game. None of my games so far have been job interviews or court testimony. Is that a standard we should be looking for?

 

[zarionofarabel]

Your reasoning comes off as somewhat circular: all non-human races are completely alien, therefore a person who is playing a non-human race is just playing a human with funny ears.

That is my point. I have no idea how you think this is circular reasoning in any sense of the term.

 

[zarionofarabel]

They were not alien to us.

Ten thousand years ago maybe not. Now they would be completely alien to us. In addition to not having any of the understanding a modern human has, we have no idea if they would be capable of understanding things the way modern humans do. Considering their brain had significant physical differences to the brain of modern humans I would posit that they may not be capable of the understanding modern humans have and thus would remain alien to us.