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

[Gammadoodler]

---

Are you being facetious?

Frequently.

Though in this particular case I was attempting to describe to you precisely the reason for disagreement, since you had stated that you did not understand and were attributing this misunderstanding to use of obscure literary jargon.

Just wanted to boil it down to the simplest explanation. Since this is all you've quoted, I'll go ahead and assume there is no further confusion.

 

[Carlsen Chris]

I'll admit I'm an old school D&D player/DM. I've never discounted a player idea in osr or 5e, but I still wonder. Turtle people (tortles) flying people (aarokara), dragon people (dragonborn)... and so on.

Why do people chose these races?

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?

It is kind of off-putting when your player party is a bunch of bird people, elephant people, demon people, cat people... and so on. I mean are humans even relevant in D&D anymore?

Is it a role-playing thing, or just a ability bonus power-up thing?

is the normal for D&D 5e is ampthormorophic / furry role-playing? I don't think I've ever ran a group that had a single human in it.

Relax a little and try being a little more tolerant. Things don't have to always be what you want or expect them to be.

 

[Oofta]

Relax a little and try being a little more tolerant. Things don't have to always be what you want or expect them to be.

For a lot of DMs it's about building a believable cohesive world. Saying that it has anything to do with being "tolerant" is insulting.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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

Thinking about it, circular reasoning isn’t the correct term. It’s more of a “No True Scotsman” situation.

Your premise is that the non-human races are too alien to be played by humans.

People respond by giving examples from fiction and from their campaigns of non-human races being played (or written) by humans.

These examples are set aside because they are just thinly disguised humans i.e. No True Scotsman.

But I want to get back to your premise: “Non-humans are too alien to be played by humans”. As I pointed out before, this is a statement that has no support in either the source material (the PHB, MToF, Volo’s), other media representing non-human races, or the practice of people playing the game.

Outside of source material, other media and practice, the premise doesn’t have solid backing because elves, dwarves, etc. don’t exist.

So where does the premise that non-humans are totally alien come from and what is the support for it?

 

[Gammadoodler]

For a lot of DMs it's about building a believable cohesive world. Saying that it has anything to do with being "tolerant" is insulting.

With respect, while the OP has since modified their position, the original post smacks heavily of badwrongfun. In point of fact, nowhere in it does the OP actually assert an interest in a believable, consistent world, just that they don't understand all these "weird" races.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

With respect, while the OP has since modified their position, the original post smacks heavily of badwrongfun. In point of fact, nowhere in it does the OP actually assert an interest in a believable, consistent world, just that they don't understand all these "weird" races.

First, the "tolerant" post in question came in at #572, not right after the OP.

Second, the OP didn't "smack heavily" or even lightly of badwrongfun. What it did was state up front that the person was "an old school D&D player/DM" and that they didn't understand what was going on, and that they were asking a question. The question was in good faith, and the OP has engaged and modified their position based on thoughtful feedback.

Do you know what is even worse and more perfidious than "badwrongfun?" When people get criticized as being intolerant and badwrongfun for having the temerity to ask a question. How is anyone going to educate themselves and do better if their attempts to understand are met with disdain?

 

[Oofta]

With respect, while the OP has since modified their position, the original post smacks heavily of badwrongfun. In point of fact, nowhere in it does the OP actually assert an interest in a believable, consistent world, just that they don't understand all these "weird" races.

If you want to run a campaign where all possible options are allowed, that's perfectly fine. To say that people that set limits to fit the fiction that they envision for their campaign world is "wrong" is insulting.

As far as the actual phrasing, playing an anthropomorphic elephant is quite unusual (aka "weird") for most fantasy unless it is specifically set in an anthropomorphic animal setting.

 

[reelo]

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.

For a lot of DMs it's about building a believable cohesive world. Saying that it has anything to do with being "tolerant" is insulting.

I'm in the same camp. When a kid sets up Castle Grayskull, Snake Mountain, and Hordak's Fright Zone and invites people over to play He-Man and the Masters of the Universe, and then friends show up with Ninja Turtles and Ghostbusters, that kid has a right to be miffed, especially if he told the others they'd play MotU.

 

[Gammadoodler]

First, the "tolerant" post in question came in at #572, not right after the OP.

Second, the OP didn't "smack heavily" or even lightly of badwrongfun. What it did was state up front that the person was "an old school D&D player/DM" and that they didn't understand what was going on, and that they were asking a question. The question was in good faith, and the OP has engaged and modified their position based on thoughtful feedback.

Do you know what is even worse and more perfidious than "badwrongfun?" When people get criticized as being intolerant and badwrongfun for having the temerity to ask a question. How is anyone going to educate themselves and do better if their attempts to understand are met with disdain?

It was a response specifically to the original post. I think it's reasonable to assume that someone coming late to a thread might not have gone through 20-something pages of discussion, arguments and tangents.

Perhaps badwrongfun is the wrong term, but the tone of the original post strikes me as a combination of exasperated, mocking and also slightly disdainful. Tone on the internet is a tricky thing though and we all bring our own baggage to it.

And, while it can feel like a condescending response to a question, "Relax and try it out" can be legitimately useful advice for a person who seems exasperated by something.

 

[Gammadoodler]

If you want to run a campaign where all possible options are allowed, that's perfectly fine. To say that people that set limits to fit the fiction that they envision for their campaign world is "wrong" is insulting.

As far as the actual phrasing, playing an anthropomorphic elephant is quite unusual (aka "weird") for most fantasy unless it is specifically set in an anthropomorphic animal setting.

Again with respect, all the stuff you're talking about here isn't actually content included in the original post.

And for the record, I think the game can have one, a small number, or any number of races as long as the people playing it are having fun.

Where I happen to disagree is when one group thinks their way is "the one true way".