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

[Scott Christian]

Oh I wasn't speaking to Oofta specifically about the "kill on sight" but a lot of people posted early on about how "Well, you can play a tiefling, but the towns that don't run you out for being a demon will spit on you. And if you play a Drow you are shot the moment you are seen." and other such ideas.

And I find it interesting that you mention the lizardfolk double-crossing the humans and killing them... when it is equally likely the humans will double-cross and kill them. I mean, how often do we see that in Crime dramas and spy thillers? "We had a deal!" "I'm renegotiating the terms." BAM.

Touche and true!

This just seems like it is a part of the conversation getting glossed over. Like the only sentient races that matter for world-building are the PC races, and nothing else matters. Which seems like an odd attitude.

I agree with the sentiment. In my world, most of my creatures are monsters, creatures touched or created by hideous forces. The "sentient" monsters are dwarves and humans that have been plagued and twisted, and are basically insane versions of themselves.

 

[Scott Christian]

Or, like I said, how many DMs are not saying "There are no Lizardfolk, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Bugbears or Kobolds in my game world" and are actually telling players that those races are evil and not for players to use. Again, not saying that you say that, not judging your table, and not trying to get into a discussion about the nature of evil and monsters. My point is that while people are saying that including the "weird races" in DnD like Tabaxi, Tieflfings and Dragonborn make it a "Mos Eisley Cantina" and that is too much for their belief, the wilds of DnD contain dozens of intelligent races and cultures.

The Drow Empire
The Duergar Empire
The Yuan-Ti Empire
The Mindflayer Empire
Orc Tribes
Gnoll Tribes
Goblin Tribes
Lizardfolk Tribes
Hobgoblin Empire
Kobold Tribes
Giant Clans
Sauhaguin
Locath
Grung tribes
Kuo-Toa tribes

When we are talking about "building a coherent world" are we only talking about the civilized world? Why? Even when we had only the Core Four, that wasn't the extent of all sentient life. Yet a lot of this discussion is focused solely on worldbuilding in terms of what the players can play and not... the world.

This is a good point. I would think the reason most DM's primary focus is on the other civilized areas, is because they don't want to run evil campaigns. That's true for most D&D games I know.
If you are discussing a coherent world, you can have these other empires exist. They can trade with one another. And they also enslave others. Heck, your top four are probably the biggest slavers in FR if you stick to traditional lore. If you make the elves and dwarves and humans and tabaxi and dragonborn and gnomes follow the typical societal norms that we think of, and that most DM's apply, such as killing can be punished, then those other empires are recessed in the world. They are subverts. They work underground and in the darkness. If you have a group of PC's, and most are good, they are the light that might come across these empires.
Now, if you have an evil campaign (and again, you are just using traditional lore of drow are mostly bad, etc), then odds are you start your campaign in one of these places. But, like I said, there are probably more good campaigns than evil.
Lastly, I don't believe most DM's have this many empires. I know some that have, and it bothered me. The game was still fun, but I sometimes found myself refocusing on the fun and players and enjoyment rather than the messed up logic.

 

[Scott Christian]

I generally don't care if a race fits into a world or not. If the player would have more fun as that race, why shouldn't I allow it? If it's for so called "setting purity", that's a bunch of BS. You're the DM, the literal overgod of your setting. Pull an Eberron and let the Tabaxi character be a unique cat that was transmuted into a humanoid, or something like that. IMO, RAF matters more than the stubbornness of the DMs precious and eternally unchangeable world.

I have to ask - have you not agreed with or read the reasons the DM might not want the tabaxi to exist?

Yes. It could have been wild magic. Yes, it could have a creation of a rakasta. Yes, it could have been from another world. None of that matters if the DM applies the logic that every. single. time. that tabaxi goes somewhere, they are a literal alien in the DM's world!

The other option, which has been discussed, is to simply dismiss it because you want your player to have fun. A good option for the tabaxi player. Maybe an immersion breaker for the DM or other players.

Go find an alien and traipse it around some farm towns and then some larger cities. See what happens. Heck, people with severe forms of warts are still cast out of society in some places. Imagine what people might think if there were real life hags, monsters, dragons, and demons running around. I doubt they would be friendly. (Well, a few would. And some curious. But, every town would probably turn into a skill challenge of how well can you hide.)

 

[Scott Christian]

What “sufficient numbers”? 1 is a sufficient number. It’s 1 PC.

Reading these posts, I feel like this is becoming an argument from one side that has written extensively about their world and has many layers of concrete set, and others that like more of a whimsical, impromptu approach, and can just move the dirt where they please.

 

[Hussar]

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.

Honestly, I think this is the dividing point right here. This hard line between the DM and the players that some DM's prefer vs a much more blurred approach where the players are encouraged to put their own stamp on the game.

Note, this isn't meant to be a value judgement towards either approach - although my own preferences lie far towards encouraging players to add, modify, fold, spindle and/or maul the setting to their heart's content. I want the players to take ownership over the setting, to some degree and have no problems with the players telling me that their funky race fits into the setting in such and such a way.

But, especially for DM's, like @Oofta here, who prefer to reuse a single setting for years and years and years, I can see how setting fidelity is a major issue. For me, setting is entirely disposable. We are constantly changing settings and generally speaking one campaign will not have any ties to a previous campaign. Who cares about setting fidelity when the setting only needs to service a single campaign?

But, yes, I think this debate strongly highlights two competing approaches to DMing within the hobby.

 

[Oofta]

I have to ask - have you not agreed with or read the reasons the DM might not want the tabaxi to exist?

Yes. It could have been wild magic. Yes, it could have a creation of a rakasta. Yes, it could have been from another world. None of that matters if the DM applies the logic that every. single. time. that tabaxi goes somewhere, they are a literal alien in the DM's world!

The other option, which has been discussed, is to simply dismiss it because you want your player to have fun. A good option for the tabaxi player. Maybe an immersion breaker for the DM or other players.

Go find an alien and traipse it around some farm towns and then some larger cities. See what happens. Heck, people with severe forms of warts are still cast out of society in some places. Imagine what people might think if there were real life hags, monsters, dragons, and demons running around. I doubt they would be friendly. (Well, a few would. And some curious. But, every town would probably turn into a skill challenge of how well can you hide.)

Also take into consideration that in most campaigns there are literal monsters. I think it's only reasonable that people would react badly. Whether should or whether it would be good is not particularly relevant. People fear the other and the unknown. Many people will lash out when afraid.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Reading these posts, I feel like this is becoming an argument from one side that has written extensively about their world and has many layers of concrete set, and others that like more of a whimsical, impromptu approach, and can just move the dirt where they please.

Definitely not. Being willing to add things to the setting in way precludes having written a great deal about the setting.

“Concrete” is a mindset, not an amount of work put in.

 

[Hussar]

People fear the other and the unknown. Many people will lash out when afraid.

That's a debatable point. Much of human history wasn't like this. Look at the First Nation's reactions to the first European contacts - generally friendly and welcoming for the better part of a century in Canada and the Eastern US. See the Voyageurs of Canada or Plymouth Rock for more details there. Japan also initially anyway, welcomed European traders - Dutch and Portuguese - for the better part of a century before relations soured. There are numerous examples where contact between two groups was peaceful and productive.

 

[Scott Christian]

One last thought, then I will radio silence.

It should be for all of us to encourage each other's playstyles. I think what happens is, we see things changing, and that can affect a large body of work for some GM's. We should be considerate of this.

I find it absolutely fascinating, that when I am a player, I would play a shrubbery if asked. I also always ask the DM what I can play if they leave options open. Then, I go from there. But, I am older, and understand the DM puts a lot more work (at least the ones I play with) than the player. We show up, roll dice, drink and eat, and roleplay. The DM spends hours ahead of time planning. And this doesn't include the months they may have used writing their world.

So when a shift to a more player-centric game evolves, where players expect to be whatever they want, it is natural to say: "Do you not see my world? It does not fit."

But the truth of the matter is, as much as anyone says, but you're the DM, just say no, blah blah blah. That is not true. It is not true from a logic viewpoint. It is not true from an emotional viewpoint either. Nor is it true to the soul of the game - to play a fantasy roleplaying game. Because logic dictates that the books are published, so why not? Emotionally, the DM wants to make their players happy, so why not? And it is fantasy, right?

No one is right or wrong here. But, we should sympathize with many that have put tons of work into their world and then are told: change it or worse yet, you are doing it wrong. In fact, they should be encouraged to tell how their story is going. And the same is true for the other side. You can play with all the races and fifty made up ones that you made as well. More power to you. I think many would like to hear how the story is going and how it works.

 

[Crit]

So my rules are

• no evil (and no "CN" but evil in all but name)
• limited races: human, dwarf, elf (high and wild only), gnome, halfling, half orc [EDIT: forgot half-elves]
• I limit the pacts a warlock can have for campaign reasons

Simple, clear. I used to allow anything and found that it just made a jumbled mess (I finally had to draw the line at the guy who wanted to play a half dragon, half vampire).

Does it make the experience at the table better? Obviously I think so. Do I have to explain every decision I make to a potential player? No.

I can only half accept one of those points. "No evil" for me would be more about the choices of the Players in scene, not their Characters or character goals. I just wouldn't want to play limited race for anything more than a one-shot or something, and so it seems, neither would anyone with a character in mind that's outside of your restriction. I trust you're a fine DM, but I would at least like to play certain plots out if I'd like to.

Like one of the other comments said, restrictions like this (in theory) should be a middle ground between the world maker and the people who have to go through it, as with all parts of DnD. It's a shared experience, so everyone should have fun. I don't think a player showing up to play with friends being hit with "core four only" is a great experience.

As for warlock, idk. Like I said I'll accept anything that doesn't actively cause a problem for the group (and is preferably published). I think this makes for a fine experience at the table too.