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

[Hussar]

See, I think part of the issue is, some people look at the traditional D&D races as somehow more acceptable to humans than other, later added races, while, others, like myself, don't see the difference.

Elves are alien. In 5e, they are gender fluid, virtual immortal fey creatures descended from invaders from ANOTHER FREAKING DIMENSION. But, that's apparently less alien than a Tabaxi or an Orc, either of which are from this reality, are completely relatable to a human and, other than some obvious physical differences like lots of hair or honking big underbites, aren't actually all that different from your average human?

And, at the end of the day, I think that's where the true issue lies. People, for various reasons, treat the Tolkien races as "acceptable" without any real question. For me, I can't really buy into that. Elves are just as alien as Tieflings. What's the difference that your ancestor was a demon from another dimension, or a fairy from another dimension? If one is capable of wandering into the local pub without any reaction from the locals, then why isn't the other?

But, many DM's, when world building, don't bother looking at the wider D&D additions to race that have been going on for decades. They stick with the base five or six and figure that that's job done and then get pissy when players want something different. I mean, good grief, races like Lupins have a pedigree in the game almost as long as gnomes. But, while taking a gnome wouldn't even cause the slightest reaction from most DM's (with a couple of setting exceptions), if I came to the table with a Lupin, I'm apparently a "problem player" who wants a "flavor of freak" character.

Like I said, for me, I see it as rather a bit of hypocrisy for DM's to claim that certain races are "flavor of freak" for no real reason other than they didn't appear in Tolkien.

 

[Zardnaar]

See, I think part of the issue is, some people look at the traditional D&D races as somehow more acceptable to humans than other, later added races, while, others, like myself, don't see the difference.

Elves are alien. In 5e, they are gender fluid, virtual immortal fey creatures descended from invaders from ANOTHER FREAKING DIMENSION. But, that's apparently less alien than a Tabaxi or an Orc, either of which are from this reality, are completely relatable to a human and, other than some obvious physical differences like lots of hair or honking big underbites, aren't actually all that different from your average human?

And, at the end of the day, I think that's where the true issue lies. People, for various reasons, treat the Tolkien races as "acceptable" without any real question. For me, I can't really buy into that. Elves are just as alien as Tieflings. What's the difference that your ancestor was a demon from another dimension, or a fairy from another dimension? If one is capable of wandering into the local pub without any reaction from the locals, then why isn't the other?

But, many DM's, when world building, don't bother looking at the wider D&D additions to race that have been going on for decades. They stick with the base five or six and figure that that's job done and then get pissy when players want something different. I mean, good grief, races like Lupins have a pedigree in the game almost as long as gnomes. But, while taking a gnome wouldn't even cause the slightest reaction from most DM's (with a couple of setting exceptions), if I came to the table with a Lupin, I'm apparently a "problem player" who wants a "flavor of freak" character.

Like I said, for me, I see it as rather a bit of hypocrisy for DM's to claim that certain races are "flavor of freak" for no real reason other than they didn't appear in Tolkien.

Well 5E was designed to appeal to everyone.

Only 4 core races.

Just gave to find a DM offering something close to what you want.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

I’ve played without a DM, actually.

gotta love the hyperbolic misrepresentations of other people’s stance on the topic, though.

Was there a specific system/supplement you used to run 5e GMless?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't know what to tell you. That is not how it works for my group.

I have already mentioned that group dynamics get handled fine in my games. Everyone (DM included) is coming to the table in good faith with everyone's best interest in mind. Players and DMs come with new homebrew stuff they want to try, or tweaks to the rules, or they want to change up their character. It is reviewed and is normally not a problem. Even in the middle of games a player can state well "I think I should have succeeded at X because of Y". Often they're right and the ruling is changed.

But the ultimate authority is the DM.

This is something that I make clear in the Session 0. A player who feels they can not enjoy the game under that environment is free to not play.

When one of my players takes on the DM mantle and I become a player, I abide by the same rule and afford that DM the same authority. That DM is the final authority and I will always defer to their judgement. Even if I have my own idea on how something should work and even if the DM is in error on a ruling; that DM is the final authority of their game... it is not my place to correct them or tell them how they should do it.

I actually consider it rude to not confer the respect and authority to the person running the game.

In a given session of D&D , I reckon most of our table look about the same on all of that.

Well, no one in my group agrees with you that it’s rude to correct an erroneous ruling. We all see it as helpful, and if the DM says they know but are ruling differently in this instance because it makes more sense to them, we shrug and move on.

However, before I even get into how else my table differs from yours, let me make clear my actual point.

It doesn’t matter how the game is run at any given table. In literally any voluntary group activity, any authority granted to an individual within the group for the context of the activity is an authority that exists only as the group allows it. Period. This is literally not a thing that can rationally be argued against. It is objective fact.

Now, in your game there is a a standing agreement that the DM has that authority in the context of the game. That’s great for your group. If your group changed its mind on that, however, the nature of DM authority in your group would thus change.


That said, I also don’t buy that there is still any especially shortage of DMs. IME, that is a thing older gamers say, not something I see many younger/new gamers say. However, even if it were true, it would only mean that in the group consensus seeking system, the DM has the most individual leverage by dint of being hardest to replace. IME, most people play with friends, however, and don’t think of eachother in such terms.

Now, I have had DMs who insisted on the authority you’re talking about, and literally told one of our members* to stop trying to rules lawyer and respect the DM’s authority, because she pointed out an obvious misunderstanding about how damage on ranged attacks worked in 4e (he thought that you didn’t add Dex to damage. Not a houserule, just wrong about what the rule was), which was pretty detrimental to her character. I, veing the most outspoken and comfortable with confrontation of the group, told him not to speak to another player at the table like that, and he tried to pull the DM is God card, and got laughed at. He got mad, we told him to drop the power trip, he got more mad, we told him he could take his notes and minis and go find another game. Another time we kicked a DM out of the campaign when he tried to take someone’s character sheet and rip it up when the character died.

Both times, we continued the campaign without the DM.

The DM isn’t more important than the players. I say this as the person who DMs most in my group, and the one with the most time spent DMing for strangers in public, including at my library and local cons.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Was there a specific system/supplement you used to run 5e GMless?

Nope. We just used a published adventure, and assigned roles to different people in the group, and rotated who was in control of NPCs. Out of combat, we tended to have recurring NPCs be in the hands of the same player every time unless that Players PC was going to be in conflict with them.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Like I said, for me, I see it as rather a bit of hypocrisy for DM's to claim that certain races are "flavor of freak" for no real reason other than they didn't appear in Tolkien.

Let me just shut that nonsense down now, then, before it starts to overwhelm the conversation.

Elves are freaks too.

(Which is my tongue-in-cheek way of saying, where on Earth did I ever mention Tolkien races or a "core four" in relation to that post? Oh, right: I didn't. You just assumed that's what I was talking about.)

 

[Monayuris]

See, I think part of the issue is, some people look at the traditional D&D races as somehow more acceptable to humans than other, later added races, while, others, like myself, don't see the difference.

Elves are alien. In 5e, they are gender fluid, virtual immortal fey creatures descended from invaders from ANOTHER FREAKING DIMENSION. But, that's apparently less alien than a Tabaxi or an Orc, either of which are from this reality, are completely relatable to a human and, other than some obvious physical differences like lots of hair or honking big underbites, aren't actually all that different from your average human?

And, at the end of the day, I think that's where the true issue lies. People, for various reasons, treat the Tolkien races as "acceptable" without any real question. For me, I can't really buy into that. Elves are just as alien as Tieflings. What's the difference that your ancestor was a demon from another dimension, or a fairy from another dimension? If one is capable of wandering into the local pub without any reaction from the locals, then why isn't the other?

But, many DM's, when world building, don't bother looking at the wider D&D additions to race that have been going on for decades. They stick with the base five or six and figure that that's job done and then get pissy when players want something different. I mean, good grief, races like Lupins have a pedigree in the game almost as long as gnomes. But, while taking a gnome wouldn't even cause the slightest reaction from most DM's (with a couple of setting exceptions), if I came to the table with a Lupin, I'm apparently a "problem player" who wants a "flavor of freak" character.

Like I said, for me, I see it as rather a bit of hypocrisy for DM's to claim that certain races are "flavor of freak" for no real reason other than they didn't appear in Tolkien.

Personally, I will definitely admit a certain level of familiarity with Tolkien races. They have a rich pedigree and tons of content and thought spent on them. There is a rich lore and history that cements those races as staples of D&D. The newer races just don't have that same pedigree.

To be honest, my main area where I have problems is with the animal races. I just find it kind of lazy when designing a new race. To me, the only thought placed into them is to just take an certain animal feature set and make them humanoid and give them abilities to suit.

Elves, dwarves, halfling all take on a familiar element of human. They may be alien in actual nature (I like Dwimmermount Dwarves) but they are still reflections and connected to human.

I personally don't feel the same way about Aarocokra or Tabaxi, or Tortles. I personally have no intention of ever playing such a race and I don't really have a place for them as PCs in my campaigns. (Maybe Kenku as NPCs.. I'd run them like those robots in the garbage planet in the Transformers movie).

I'll admit it is a personal preference and as a DM I can remove them as they don't belong in my campaign.

As far as that being a problem player, to me, I'd be honest. I'd say up front when I start the campaign what races are available. If a player comes to me wanting to play a different race and I don't see that race working in my campaign, I would ask the player to change to a suitable race. If the player refused to do so, then I would suggest the player would not be a good fit for my campaign.

No real harm or foul... some people don't have the same expectations. It is better to find a group that is closer to your own expectations.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No.

The DM is the Ultimate Authority.

The DM runs the game. He does not get overruled.

Yes.

Sorry. I mean, no, I’m not sorry, I’m just right,

The DM gets overruled if the group wants to overrule them. The DM is one player at the table. The end.

 

[Zardnaar]

Personally, I will definitely admit a certain level of familiarity with Tolkien races. They have a rich pedigree and tons of content and thought spent on them. There is a rich lore and history that cements those races as staples of D&D. The newer races just don't have that same pedigree.

To be honest, my main area where I have problems is with the animal races. I just find it kind of lazy when designing a new race. To me, the only thought placed into them is to just take an certain animal feature set and make them humanoid and give them abilities to suit.

Elves, dwarves, halfling all take on a familiar element of human. They may be alien in actual nature (I like Dwimmermount Dwarves) but they are still reflections and connected to human.

I personally don't feel the same way about Aarocokra or Tabaxi, or Tortles. I personally have no intention of ever playing such a race and I don't really have a place for them as PCs in my campaigns. (Maybe Kenku as NPCs.. I'd run them like those robots in the garbage planet in the Transformers movie).

I'll admit it is a personal preference and as a DM I can remove them as they don't belong in my campaign.

As far as that being a problem player, to me, I'd be honest. I'd say up front when I start the campaign what races are available. If a player comes to me wanting to play a different race and I don't see that race working in my campaign, I would ask the player to change to a suitable race. If the player refused to do so, then I would suggest the player would not be a good fit for my campaign.

No real harm or foul... some people don't have the same expectations. It is better to find a group that is closer to your own expectations.

Generally I don't lije anthromorphic races.

Campaign setting can change that opinion though such as Midgard or Minotaurs on Krynn.

 

[Zardnaar]

Yes.

Sorry. I mean, no, I’m not sorry, I’m just right,

The DM gets overruled if the group wants to overrule them. The DM is one player at the table. The end.

That's fine as well, if it's that big a deal I'll just offer the DM job to someone else no big deal.

If I want to run an all Drow themed game and the players don't buy in not gonna run that game.