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

[ccs]

There's been entire TV shows based on it and uh, that one time Lego had "Lion people and their allies the gorillas and eagles fighting the wolves, crocodiles and ravens". Which ended up with frozen necromancy mammoths as an enemy at the end of it. That was. A series

Hey, those Chima frozen necro mammoths were awesome!
And they sold surprisingly well at my store as well - despite their price point.

 

[Mecheon]

Hey, those Chima frozen necro mammoths were awesome!

Love 'em myself and the designs they had going on, just.... Naught can face off against the unending market dominance of Ninjago it seems

 

[ccs]

Love 'em myself and the designs they had going on, just.... Naught can face off against the unending market dominance of Ninjago it seems

But it's not really Ninjago dominance. Not counting City & licensed stuff like DC/Marvel/SW/Disney, it's just Legos typical pattern of cycling stuff.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

Ot’s funny because I’ve wanted to jump in on this argument, but I haven’t decided on which side to intervene, because each campaign is different.

If I’m running Golarion or the Realms, sure, come up with whatever character you want, and I’ll only cut races if I think they are overpowered )if it’s a power thing, I’m even OK with nerfing).

But yeah, sometimes I’ll run a tight campaign with restrictions on races and classes. If I have an idea about a low magic campaign centred around demons, there may be no full casters and races may be limited to emphasize the low magic theme.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

I don't get what playing in a good or evil campaign has to do with anything.

Unless you are saying that they don't start in the area, so they don't bother even thinking about it, but in that case why are such DMs so adamant about the vision for their world?

"My world must fit my vision, but since we are starting in Kalay, I'm not going to bother designing or thinking about anything not directly connected to Kalay and the party"

Personally, I wonder if your answer highlights exactly what I'm talking about, since it seems that building the world that the PCs aren't interacting with and may never interact with doesn't seem to even occur to you as what I was discussing.

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

The core books are the beginning, not the end.

I think that you probably should reflect on the fact that it is now evident that your play expectations and experience are quite different than that of other people you are conversing with, and perhaps you might wish to refrain from prescriptive comments about how people should run their games or build their worlds

Why does this always get so confrontational? Why are players seeking to add to a world, to build their own visions being treated like they are spweing silly string all over the Louvre?

The question asked at the beginning was "Why do people want to play something other than the core four" and your response here, to a person saying "hey, when discussing DnD as a whole, the PHB is a good list of agreed upon options." is that they should reflect on how their game expeirence is not universal and that they should not prescribe on how others run the worlds they build.

And, they did nothing of the sort. They just said that as a discussion of DnD as a whole, starting from the PHB seems like a fair starting point.

But you... you seem to insist on taking on the role of a beleaguered artist. How dare we plebian players demand of the DM who works so hard and does so much? And I'm tired, so maybe I'm being provocative and snappy, but so many DMs on this thread, who are arguing that the world's shouldn't include these races that the players want to play, they are treating the player like a nuisance, instead of a partner.

Look, I don't say yes to every idea my players come up with. I had one guy who wanted to play an immortal paladin who lost his powers and was forced to consume the souls of those he slayed as a weapon of the gods. And I told him, "man, we are starting at level 1, that is way too powerful of a concept. Maybe a different time, but that won't work here."

But I also had a young lady who thought that Tieflings were cool. And I had never put tielfings in that particular world, so we decided that since she was joining in the middle of a Fey dungeon, that she was the a last surviving tiefling, taken in by the Fey. And she was one of the best players and characters I have had the joy of running for.

Maybe you think compromise is a dirty word, a word that ruins your world and forces more burdens on your back. Maybe you don't and my exhaustion is making me unreasonably snappy. But I don't get this antagonism. Your players are not greedy children with grubby hands that need to be monitored lest they smudge the fine china. They are your partners. And if you are sick of doing the Lion's share of the work, or feel like doing more work for the sake of your partners isn't worth it, they are the ones who can help you.

A lot of the people in these threads are old enough to know how a partnership works. And maybe that is exactly how you run your tables, but there are an awful lot of comments over the last few pages that seem to be painting players with passionate ideas as a problem to be dealt with.

 

[Hussar]

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?

That's a bit apples and oranges though. In GURPS, it specifically tells you that GURPS X book is not intended to be used outside of that genre. That's WHY you get GURPS Supers, GURPS Age of Napoleon and GURPS whatever. Same goes with Savage Worlds and other generic games.

But, there's nothing really specific about D&D that says, "Hey, these new things that come along aren't really meant to be played." They just sort of accrete and most players and DM's too take the position that if it's published, it's fair game unless the DM says otherwise.

I mean, come on, it's not like this is a new issue. I had people wanting to play minotaurs back in 1e when Dragonlance came out. Wemics were a common request back in the day. One of the more memorable games I played in back in high school featured an Ogre PC.

Frankly speaking, I have more issues with people taking the traditional races. They take whatever trad race the DM offers solely for the power bonus and the whole "I'm not human" thing never comes up. The only way you knew Bob's character wasn't human was because it was multiclassed. When people take oddball race characters, they, IMO, put far more effort into the portrayal to make it come alive at the table.

All I know is, I've seen a bajillion elf characters that are indistinguishable from humans, but, when someone comes to the table with their small flying elephant that shoots rainbow sparkles, something magical is going to happen at the table. ((Note, I have a holyphant paladin in the group right now - it's a blast)).

 

[Azzy]

Many races have been available as playable for decades. Tortles date back to the Red Steel setting, for example.

This. Rather few of the "exotic" races actually post-date 2e. The overwhelming majority of these races have an AD&D ( or Basic D&D) origin.

Fantasy is more than just Tolkien, and different people like different things. Why do some people like superhero films and others prefer gritty gangster movies while others enjoy romantic period pieces? The point is to have options for people, not proscribe one single example of the fantasy genre.

As much of a Tolkien fan as I am—the Silmirillion completely altered the way I think about world-building—it's tiresome reusing the Tolkien template with a Renfaire overlay over and over and over and over and over and over again. Fantasy is so much more than that, and if we really want to be respectful to Tolkien we shouldn't be hidebound to his template and, instead, try to follow his example in developing a setting with depth and breadth (you needn't even need to go to the extremes of detail that Tolkien did or create fantasy languages) that is very verisimilar.

The "exotic" races are just another tool in the DM's toolbox to help create a setting that isn't the same old same old. They also allow players that have played for decades (like me) to not retread what we've played a hundred times over before and they appeal to newer players for whom Tolkien isn the cornerstone of their experience of fantasy fiction.

But, at the end of the day, it's all about having fun. And for many players (and DMs), the "exotic" races are just fun—plain and simple.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

My homebrew freely allows all "beastfolk" (tabaxi, lizardfolk, minotaurs, dragonborn, etc) and they've been integrated into my lore for decades. Basically, an ancient civilisation discovered a way to turn humans into strange animal-human hybrids that bred true in an attempt to create slave-races. After the fall of this empire, they all were free to go on their own path.

It is also satisfying for me on a verisimilitude level because it gives a reason for why all these nonhuman races are so "human" in their thinking. Because that's what they are, really...

 

[reelo]

(...) the characters are supposed to be outliers.

Maybe it's the OSE player in me that's speaking, but I don't think that is (or should be) the case per default.
They might become outliers through their actions (through survival) but I much prefer lvl1 PCs to start out as common people. They don't gain class levels because they are somehow special. They are special because they manage to gain class levels (and survive).

 

[jasper]

@Minigiant….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….. HaHA. I Jasper and I being DMing since high school. Players back in 1E did not want to accept any restrictions back then either. I was always the third degree if the dm banned anything. Including banning NPC classes as PC classes.

…D&D doesn't have the same demographics it used to. …..Hmm I am an old fart. I use to play with old farts before I became one. Youngest I played with was 6. Currently youngest is 13. Military, Retired, college student, poverty level hamburger flipper. No the demographics may have change globally, but not for me.

@Crit….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?... Answer I am the DM. I don’t like them. I not going to give you a thirty page paper on why I don’t like them as player race. You want to play one. $500. Cash. Or find a new dm. OH WAIT a minute! One the reasons I DM Adventure League, is so I can DM and player without having this third degree.

@Crimson Longus …I definitely ban evil players.. I have done so too. Lost a friend because he was goober at my table but not for other dms. Love the fact in Adventure League, I can ask a player not to sit at my table and not feel bad about it.

…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……APerson. I wish more players would see this and tolerate this viewpoint.

@Chasmancer….I've found that if you are willing to work with your players, then that is generally all the most reasonable players want…… Reasonable. Reasonable. Reasonable. Darn you for stealing most of the reasonable players. 90% of time when I worked with a player with a problem build, it was a problem player which I could not dump due to the social contract. NEW DMS. It is okay to have limits. It okay to ask your buddy to play Atari while the rest of you game. Remember NO GAMING is Better than BAD GAMING. It only took me 20+ years to learn this. Don’t be as slow as I was.

Another thing I hated about problem builds. Is over half the time, once me and the player worked the problems out; either they quit playing due to real life, or something else caught their attention.

Some of you think it is BadWrongFun for the DM to set limits. Some of you think no limits are BadWrongFun. You are both right and wrong. And need to find a group which mostly supports your view.