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

[Crit]

The world is what I bring to the table.

Well... it's whatever the players make of it, too. The DM makes the experience for the players, taking "control" like that isn't in the collaborative spirit of the current TTRPG experience.

 

[prabe]

Well... it's whatever the players make of it, too. The DM makes the experience for the players, taking "control" like that isn't in the collaborative spirit of the current TTRPG experience.

The characters are welcome to change the world. In one of the campaigns I'm DMing, they have already, and they're working toward doing so again. In both campaigns, the players have added to the world in their backstories--I have blank spaces in the world specifically for that purpose. I think perhaps I am more collaborative regarding the experience than you think I am.

 

[Crit]

Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson:
"We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."

I did not misrepresent any point, I used the example of evil, because you expressed incredulity that tables banned it, when I know from personal experience as well as observed experience that this is a very common table rule. And it is infinitely easier to say, "No evil alignments, no PvP" than to adjudicate tons of individual interactions.

The majority of DMs are more than happy to work with engaged players. It's funny that we keep seeing these ersatz theoretical demands made on DMs in this thread, yet people gloss over the reality of the situation.

If a DM puts together a condensed, two-page session zero book, they will be lucky if half the players read it. Two pages. All I keep seeing is repeated demands for DMs (who are in high demand) to do more work for players. Great! When a DM does that, when there is a collaboration with an engaged player, that is a wonderful thing.

But don't make demands of people's time and assume it is costless.

I'm pretty sure saying "I want to play an Aboleth" as a stand-in for us is, in fact, misrepresenting our point because it's obviously not comparable to what we ask. The race options are already there in the book, by default. We're meant to use them. "fun-impacting" decisions require a weighing of pros and cons, and there'd have to be some serious cons for stuff like that to be enacted.

Theoretical DMs, like an earlier thread participant who wanted the future of the game to be Human-intelligent only. There's people that take hard stances against these options, so it's worth questioning them.

 

[Crit]

The characters are welcome to change the world. In one of the campaigns I'm DMing, they have already, and they're working toward doing so again. In both campaigns, the players have added to the world in their backstories--I have blank spaces in the world specifically for that purpose. I think perhaps I am more collaborative regarding the experience than you think I am.

I think that's great! I got the wrong impression because "mine" implies more... sole ownership.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

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.

Neanderthals and other species of humans were "other and the unknown" to prehistoric humans, but Neanderthals and Humans interbred so much that the average modern human now has a portion of their DNA between 2-5 percent that is inherited from their Neanderthal ancestors.

Humans (and other species that act similarly) typically have one of three inherent reactions when meeting something that looks kind of like them, but is noticeably different. These reactions are:

1. Attack and/or kill that thing (typically taken when the thing looks aggressive).
2. Attempt to flee or hide from that thing (taken when the thing looks aggressive or particularly peculiar).
3. Mate with that thing (typically taken if the thing is attractive and/or doesn't appear threatening).

Sometimes none of the results occur, and sometimes two or more of those outcomes happen. The most common long-term outcomes seem to be 1 and 3, based on human history.

It appears that many D&D races follow this same pattern, some more than others. The existence of Ogrillions proves that Orcs and Ogres sometimes (if not often) take the third option. The existence of Half-Elves and Half-Orcs does the same for fantasy humans and elves. The same applies to Dragons, Fiends and any race that becomes a Half-Dragon or Cambion. The same applies to Halflings, Dwarves, and many other D&D races, according to the PHB.

Yes, some (if not most) individuals in certain parts of most D&D settings will have a hostile attitude towards a character that is "alien" in their world/region. However, it has been proven through human history that this isn't the only response. It's likely going to be a common response, and that character should get used to it, but to make it be the only response would be unrealistic. They should probably also brace themselves for flirtatious/overly-inquisitive strangers and ones that literally will not come near them.

I always give consequences when a player chooses a race that doesn't fit into the setting, but like I've said before, I never outright ban it. IME, it never creates any issues with the "identity of the world", but YMMV.

 

[prabe]

I think that's great! I got the wrong impression because "mine" implies more... sole ownership.

I can see that. The world is my ... ante (as in poker). The characters are the players'. I'm happy and willing to adjust the world to fit the characters better, but I'd strongly prefer to to it by filling in a blank space somewhere, rather than overwriting something.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The race options are already there in the book, by default. We're meant to use them.

I hate this argument. That I chose to use D&D as the rule system for my game instead of writing a completely new rules from scratch (again) doesn't mean that I need to include everything ever printed in a D&D book into my setting. Does this happen with other systems too? Do people demand to have options from GURPS Supers in a GURPS Age of Napoleon game?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The race options are already there in the book, by default. We're meant to use them. "fun-impacting" decisions require a weighing of pros and cons, and there'd have to be some serious cons for stuff like that to be enacted.
.

... and the alignment options are in the book.

Again, this may be a shock to you, but just because something is in a book, even a core book, doesn’t mean it gets used in a campaign.

And I will reiterate again, whatever standard you are using for “fun-impacting” decisions, you might want to apply for “make the DM work more and do things she doesn’t want to do” decisions. Because you seem to treat those cavalierly (and not in the sense of the class).

 

[Crit]

I'm in the camp that doesn't really get it, but for me it's more about archetypes: To me, a big appeal of playing D&D is how archetypal everything is. If I play a Dwarf, I either want to really embrace the dwarfish archetype or I want to subvert it somehow. For a lot of the more "weird" races, that doesn't really apply, because they are either original inventions or obscure.

I do get kinda annoyed at how few humans or "normal" races I see at my table with my group. But they like it and it doesn't really matter and I'm not gonna naughty word on their fun.

I think you gave yourself the answer you needed- the "weird" races leave more room for interpretation, on top of whatever they individually offered.

 

[Dausuul]

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.

Well, that's your preference. To me as a player, a list of options like that is not merely acceptable but good. It means that the things on that list have had some thought put into them. If elves are on the list, the DM has actively chosen to include elves, which means elves have a defined place in the world and its history and culture. An elf PC will be connected to those elements in the setting, not just jammed in all anyhow.

I pretty much always play casters, usually human. But if I joined a campaign and was told, "Everyone is a tabaxi and your only class options are fighter and barbarian"--hey, that sounds interesting. I can roll with that. Cat warriors it is.