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

[Gammadoodler]

Which means that if a DM limits the PCs to those in the PHB (or even a subset of those) then it's perfectly okay?

Because that's the opposite of what was said which is what I responded to, which in context of the thread I can only read as "if you don't allow any race you're doing it wrong."


As far as "furry" reference, I doubt the OP meant it as insult. I know my zootopia reference wasn't. An anthropomorphic animal campaign could potentially be a lot of fun. Probably not one I'd want to play long term because I would have a hard time taking it seriously, but that's a personal preference.

'Opposite' is pretty strong for such a vague reply, and it's not like the OP had stated that they'd limited the races available and that their players had chosen to override that. I think I take your meaning though. And yes, the game can be limited to whatever, as long as it's fun for the table (else what's the point).

 

[Neonchameleon]

Thinking of the stereotyping issue, using many of the "non-weird weird races" in D&D let me both communicate things about the character and either play into or against type very easily.

If I want to play a hulkingly large, powerful, and intimidating guy no human I can come up with is ever going to match the sheer conceptual physically imposing strength of the clawed, scaled fire-breathing dragonborn. I may want to play them because I want the power fantasy of playing strongy mcstrongguy or I may want to play against type in some way. Either works, but playing a dragonborn turns things conceptually up to 11 - and dwarves get the enduring fighters while dragonborn work really well as paladins.

By the same token if I want to play a slightly sinister dark and brooding outsider in the 90s I'd play a renegade drow, in the 10s I'd play a tiefling. (There's a minor conceptual difference between the two of course; Drow are more normally from a culture they are rebelling against while Tieflings aren't so much).

Meanwhile if I want to play an everyman it's a human.

By the numbers on D&D Beyond the core races of D&D are human, high elf, wood elf, half-elf, dragonborn, tiefling, and halfling with according to D&D Beyond numbers the genasi possibly going to challenge high elves as the magic race if they're allowed in to the core rules (and leaving the wood elves as the fast race). Whether there's enough gap between gnomes and halflings to justify both as core unless you're playing an explicit feywild is an interesting question.

But why go for the weirder ones? Warforged should be obvious. Wilden and Shardminds again are thematic to more extreme themes.

Cat people are on of the groups Ron Edwards called out in specific in his essay on Fantasy Heartbreakers (i.e. RPGs that were clearly designed by people who had only played D&D in the 90s); he mentioned that there were always humans, elves, dwarves, a strong race (currently dragonborn), a fast race (probably wood elves), and a race of pretty people that were normally either catfolk or had wings.

And tortles are the enduring side of dwarves turned up to 11. Slow, resilient, tough. Why not? Again they add obvious communication to the character to either play into or against type.

 

[zarionofarabel]

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?

Well, I'll start by saying that you got my premise wrong. I'll finish up by advising you to brush up on your logical fallacies as your example of how I was supposedly guilty of the "No True Scottsman" fallacy is also wrong.

 

[Chaosmancer]

This is interesting. It's also a great example of why I stick with reading non-fiction. I'm afraid the rabbit hole has gone too deep...

I think this really is why you are having such a hard time here. You aren't used to engaging in fiction, so the ideas common in fiction seem much stranger to you than to us.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Sure, but most DMs have Lizardfolk in their game worlds already. They are just generally atangonists instead of PC options. Same with Orcs, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Bugbears, Yuan-Ti, and Kobolds.

The biggest difference is taking those races from "always the enemy, kill on sight" to something that could be talked to, reasoned with and traded with. And considering how often in human history vicious enemies also had trade relations because they were next door neighbors? Not outside the scope of reason.

I mean, take the MM, and find every single creature with an intelligence higher than 5. Even if you take out the Undead, the extraplanar creatures, and the constructs, you have a lot of sentient beings running around your world doing things.


So, the problem never seems to be "we have too many sentient beings in the world" but is instead "we have too many beings let into the towns and cities of the world instead of being antagonists out in the wilds"

 

[Necrozius]

Funny enough I'm only interested in a hugely diverse set of "races" in a surreal, post-apocalyptic or futuristic (ie, sci-fi) setting.

 

[Oofta]

I think this really is why you are having such a hard time here. You aren't used to engaging in fiction, so the ideas common in fiction seem much stranger to you than to us.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Sure, but most DMs have Lizardfolk in their game worlds already. They are just generally atangonists instead of PC options. Same with Orcs, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Bugbears, Yuan-Ti, and Kobolds.

The biggest difference is taking those races from "always the enemy, kill on sight" to something that could be talked to, reasoned with and traded with. And considering how often in human history vicious enemies also had trade relations because they were next door neighbors? Not outside the scope of reason.

I mean, take the MM, and find every single creature with an intelligence higher than 5. Even if you take out the Undead, the extraplanar creatures, and the constructs, you have a lot of sentient beings running around your world doing things.


So, the problem never seems to be "we have too many sentient beings in the world" but is instead "we have too many beings let into the towns and cities of the world instead of being antagonists out in the wilds"

I'm not getting into the conversation of whether or not traditionally monstrous races should be allowed as PCs, there's no reason to get yet another thread shut down.

I can only say that I don't have that many humanoid monsters running around in my campaign either, certainly no more than 1 or 2 per region and even then I rarely use them.

 

[zarionofarabel]

I think this really is why you are having such a hard time here. You aren't used to engaging in fiction, so the ideas common in fiction seem much stranger to you than to us.

True that yo! My fiction days ended years ago. I still remember some of the stuff from the Forgotten Realms novels, and I still tear up thinking bout the death of Flint Fireforge and Sturm Brightblade! I haven't read fiction for many years and I really didn't read much but Star Wars books and D&D books. I did read Dune when I was 8 but the only thing I really remember from the book (not the movies) is the duel with the slow shield thing and Paul sticking his hand in the pain box. Even when I read RPG manuals I tend to skip the fiction and just read rules. Fluff in rulebooks seems to be okay, I guess it's cause it's descriptive without dealing with characters. Rulebooks written in first person or through story drive me bonkers. Thanks for detailing a bunch of stuff I am still not sure I understand!

 

[PsyzhranV2]

disregard, dropped my phone on my keyboard, post incoming

 

[PsyzhranV2]

True that yo! My fiction days ended years ago. I still remember some of the stuff from the Forgotten Realms novels, and I still tear up thinking bout the death of Flint Fireforge and Sturm Brightblade! I haven't read fiction for many years and I really didn't read much but Star Wars books and D&D books. I did read Dune when I was 8 but the only thing I really remember from the book (not the movies) is the duel with the slow shield thing and Paul sticking his hand in the pain box. Even when I read RPG manuals I tend to skip the fiction and just read rules. Fluff in rulebooks seems to be okay, I guess it's cause it's descriptive without dealing with characters. Rulebooks written in first person or through story drive me bonkers. Thanks for detailing a bunch of stuff I am still not sure I understand!

Do you not watch TV serials or movies either, or read comics, or play video games with storylines? The techniques of writing and composing do vary from medium to medium by necessity (the medium is the message), but there still exists a common (if broad) set of storytelling techniques and literary/narrative devices shared between them (unless you start going into really out-there experimental stuff).

If the answer to all the above is no, then is there any particular reason why you haven't been engaging with fiction media? I can hardly imagine living life in the 21st century without being bombarded with stories from the recreational media I enjoy, outside the life of an ascetic.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

If the answer to all the above is no, then is there any particular reason why you haven't been engaging with fiction media? I can hardly imagine living life in the 21st century without being bombarded with stories outside the life of an ascetic.

I can't speak for the person you're responding to, but I have met a disconcertingly large number of people who don't watch or read fiction.

The whole, "I only watch documentaries," or "I only watch reality TV" (a. ugh, b. that's scripted, but whatever). I don't get it either, but it's fairly common.

EDIT- I should add that I know a YUGE number of people that do not read fiction "(I only read biographies of Winston Churchill, sir, whilst drinking martinis."). I also know a large number of people that don't read at all. It's rarer, but still common, to meet people that claim not watch fiction. There are all kinds in the world; after all, I have met people that claim to love Kender.