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

[Snarf Zagyg]

I think the issue is less forcing DMs who don't like (insert intelligent race here) as a PC to make them one and more forcing DMs who want (insert intelligent race here) to provide a good reason why they are in the setting but not a PC race.

Essentially, the world has changed to a point where simply "they're ugly" they're savage" or "they're exotic" are not convincing reasons for a lot of players anymore.

"It's not that we are trying to force DMs to put in races that the DM doesn't want to have, it's that when a player hears, 'No,' that's really means that we get to examine the reasons that the DM says no, and find them wanting, so that the DM is forced to put in the race that the DM doesn't want to have."

 

[Crit]

Really?

You've ... never ... run across a table that bans evil alignments?

I think I am seeing part of the disconnect.

Not personally, but that doesn't mean that expected manners and topic-restrictions, and similar things weren't in place. Still not a good place for refusing in-universe races to not be PC-able- just because most people of the X empire are bad, doesn't mean a PC X is evil too. At that point, they just enter the same territory of a good Human versus a bad one. No problem here, no problem with the others.

 

[prabe]

I agree that worldbuilding is a lot of the fun for me as a DM, but I have to ask, how much thought do you give to the Monstrous Races?

Not as an insult or an attack, but I noticed I had a problem when building my world. In the role of "roaming tribes of savage humanoids" there were... a lot. The biggest driving factor in me making Orcs a PC race is that I had too many "savage tribes" as enemies. So, I made one of them an allied race.

I assure you I do not feel insulted or attacked.

Because there are not gawds on my world--something called the Severance happened ~1000 years ago--the Monstrous Races that per the lore were ... driven, or ridden, or warped by their gawds aren't anymore. In some instances, they've entered "civilization" and changed (for instance some orcs have, and use the half-orc PC race from the PHB; some haven't and use the stats from the Monster Manual). The goblinoids have been greatly weakened overall, and are only very rarely inclined to go on conquest-raids (though their culture lingers).

Same thing with Kobolds. I really didn't have a place for them. The role of "small, sneaky, trap building enemy" was filled by Goblins, and I wanted to focus on goblins, so I didn't do anything with Kobolds. I've started figuring out a new place to put kobolds and dragonborn, but it wasn't something I started with.

So, for me, figuring out the Monstrous races and how they fit is a part of my worldbuilding, and I find it easier therefore to fit in some of the other races. Firbolgs and Goliaths are hard to work in... but I need to rewrite Giants and Fomorians anyways, so maybe I can mix and match something there to make that easier?

Yeah. Kobolds are a servitor race created by the dragons, and they reflect the attitudes of the individual dragons they serve (so the ones serving a gold dragon would act much differently from those serving a green dragon); dragonborn and goliaths were made by dragons and giants, respectively, by shaping some of the first humans to appear on my world (explicitly from elsewhere). Firbolgs are fey-ish giant-ish things that might be an offshoot of the Fomori (who were Fey and GIants, and tried to summon the Hunger Between Worlds to the Feywild, and were cursed and warped and cast out).

So, I have thought about it some.

My issue with this (because I did call this out as something that annoys me) is that I generally find that if there is something I dislike enough about the race, sometimes it is something the player either doesn't like or doesn't know about anyways.

Kenku only talking in mimicry is annoying but I also found that the guy who wanted to play a Kenku in my game fully agreed that it was annoying and had no interest in that aspect of them.

Or, the Duergar. I DESPISE the official duergar origin. Like, a firey passion of hate. I have yet to meet a player at my tables who argues that keeping that lore is a good thing, most players had no idea about it.

So, since I rewrite things anyways, my players are often willing to work with me to rewrite the race into something we both like more. Therefore, I don't see the need to deny something just because I don't like the official version of it. I'm probably working on changing it anyways.

So, by not being a default "yes" I'm making it so that if a player really really wants to play something I really really don't want to be a natural part of my world, we can work on bringing something in. I'll fully admit that my world reflects my preferences and tastes, and while I'm willing to work with players on their characters, I have found that I need the world to work in my head if I'm going to enjoy DMing it--which does mean there are limits to my flexibility.

 

[Oofta]

When I see Gith, Drow, Yuan Ti etc. also being mentioned, that's where I'm getting the vibe from. The options deserve to exist if people want them, and I find it hard to believe that, out of a whole race or civilization, not one can be on a journey as a PC for reasons. A party can be all Human and fight Human guards, thugs and criminals, but you can't have a good and bad Orc? Do tables like this also ban the Evil alignment for players, or is it just being the same species as the bad guys? If this is a story problem, that sounds like the author messed up. IMO there's only a problem if the DM makes it a problem. Considering I'm not a veteran of this site, I'll let the topic go now, but I don't see a reason this should be evenly contested.

The DM gets to decide whether they exist. There's no "deserve" about it, the DM is the architect of the world the PCs live in it. A campaign is better if it has a solid foundation, the only way for that to happen is if the DM embraces it. The players help shape the world based on the actions of their PCs, they can have input into modifications to the world but the DM is the final authority.

Oh, and I ban evil PCs and pretty much always have.

 

[Crit]

"It's not that we are trying to force DMs to put in races that the DM doesn't want to have, it's that when a player hears, 'No,' that's really means that we get to examine the reasons that the DM says no, and find them wanting, so that the DM is forced to put in the race that the DM doesn't want to have."

We could play the quotation game all day, but this is misinterpreting. If Orcs exist in setting, why would they not be able to be played? That's the question. We have a right to ask a question about a strange decision.

 

[Minigiant]

Seconded, and you said it better than me. If they're in the setting, then them not being playable probably won't have a good justification. Why would a whole species have to be exclusively NPCs or villains?

It's not that. It's more that DMs have to provide a reason that is more than a single sentence.

"It's not that we are trying to force DMs to put in races that the DM doesn't want to have, it's that when a player hears, 'No,' that's really means that we get to examine the reasons that the DM says no, and find them wanting, so that the DM is forced to put in the race that the DM doesn't want to have."

Much how a parent's words must change as their child turns from baby to adolescent to adult, so much a DMs words change as the community grows up.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Not personally, but that doesn't mean that expected manners and topic-restrictions, and similar things weren't in place. Still not a good place for refusing in-universe races to not be PC-able- just because most people of the X empire are bad, doesn't mean a PC X is evil too. At that point, they just enter the same territory of a good Human versus a bad one. No problem here, no problem with the others.

Yes, it is pretty much exactly the same.

Player: I wanna play Chaotic Evil. Look, it's an alignment in the book.

DM: Sorry, table rule says no.

Player: But why not? I demand you give me a reason that I can pick apart, because I get to play what I want.

It's the same with race. Or class. Or weapons. Or spells.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Much how a parent's words must change as their child turns from baby to adolescent to adult, so much a DMs words change as the community grows up.

Do you have any idea how arrogant, condescending, and off-putting that statement is?

So ... the community has now "grown up" and therefore, something something reasons, the player's choices in session 0 override the desires of all other players and the DM?

That isn't growing up.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It's not that. It's more that DMs have to provide a reason that is more than a single sentence.

Player: I want to play an aboleth.

DM: No.

Player: I DEMAND you provide more sentences, because you are not meeting the grown-up standards of the community.

DM: Okay, no you can't play one. You are welcome to find a new table to play at.

 

[Crit]

Yes, it is pretty much exactly the same.

Player: I wanna play Chaotic Evil. Look, it's an alignment in the book.

DM: Sorry, table rule says no.

Player: But why not? I demand you give me a reason that I can pick apart, because I get to play what I want.

It's the same with race. Or class. Or weapons. Or spells.

Still misrepresenting the point, and that's not what we're "demanding." The DM doesn't want certain behavior, ban the behavior, not the tool which still can be used in other ways.

Just because the DM has the final say doesn't mean that what they say makes sense. If I said something silly to my group, I'd hope they'd ask for clarification on how this benefits the table. DnD is a group experience, and the party and the DM ought to be on similar pages if it's going to work. If I'm restricting something, it better be because it makes the experience for the table better, and somehow I don't think banning a PC race helps the table much.