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

[loverdrive]

I'm honestly absolutely not a fan of weird races as well as many customization options in general. And weird races (or, well, any races except humans) in particular -- I feel like they're a shallow shortcut for creating "uniqueness". It's easy to boil elves and dwarves and dragonborn to a bunch of stereotypes, but you can't do the same with humans -- you are basically forced to come up with some kind of culture.

 

[Charlaquin]

It's at the root of multiple things including that, yes. It doesn't have to mean that, though.

Ok, but that part was tangential to my main point, which is that cat people wouldn’t be unknown in a world that has cat people, and fearing them based on their race would by definition be a racial prejudice, i.e. racism.

 

[Maxperson]

Ok, but that part was tangential to my main point, which is that cat people wouldn’t be unknown in a world that has cat people, and fearing them based on their race would by definition be a racial prejudice, i.e. racism.

They aren't be feared based on race. They are being feared based on appearance. Fearing a humanoid cat is no different than fearing a Puma. And I already showed how outside of a metropolis, they would be relatively unknown.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

It's pretty much RAW. Those races are the uncommon ones, some of which are fairly rare.

"Scattered among the members of these more common races are the true exotics: a hulking dragonborn here, pushing his way through the crowd, and a sly tiefling there, lurking in the shadows with mischief in her eyes."

"And there, well out of the sunlight, is a lone drow-a fugitive from the subterranean expanse of the Underdark, trying to make his way in a world that fears his kind."

And from the Uncommon Races section in Dragonborn.

"The dragon born and the rest of the races in this chapter are uncommon. They don't exist in every world of D&D, and
even where they are found, they are less widespread than dwarves, elves, halflings, and humans.

In the cosmopolitan cities of the D&D multiverse, most people hardly look twice at members of even the most exotic races. But the small towns and villages that dot the countryside are different. The common folk aren't accustomed to seeing members of these races, and they
react accordingly."

So there you have it. Even in the largest cities are people what aren't accustomed to the uncommon races. In the small villages they are rare. And this is for the PHB races. For the even more exotic races from the other books, like Tabaxi, they are likely to be completely unknown in the smaller towns and villages that PCs often enter.

Oh, and the bolded portion from the first paragraph even tells the players that they may not be able to play an uncommon race, as that race may not even be in that world.



Sure. You could homebrew your game like that.

That's a valid reading of the text of the PHB, yes.

Going off of the above, I think this is where the discussion leaves the realm fo "what is" and moves into "what should be".

A lot of posts in the thread talk about worldbuilding, and the DM's vision of such, as the reason for including or excluding certain races as playable.

While at the end of the day that is entirely your prerogative, I can't help but question if some of the assumptions underlying the worlds you create aren't built on shaky ground, or are simply continuing tradition for tradition's sake.

There is a Twitter thread on the matter I found illuminating; a lot of quirks and idiosyncracies in D&D that players might just take for granted and DM's might perpetuate in their world and encounter design comes out of early editions' assumptions that the party held colonial ambitions; that one day they'd manifest some destiny and carve out a nice little fiefdom for themselves. This assumption has unconsciously been carried forward through the editions despite there no longer being any rules to support it (no rules for strongholds).

Read and Share Twitter Threads easily!

Thread Reader helps you read and share the best of Twitter Threads

threadreaderapp.com

Read the thread, and reflect on if the observed and highlighted assumptions have influenced the way you design your worlds, consciously or not.

I'll grant that the linked thread is not directly related to the current discussion, but I'd argue that its observations about the mode of play tie into why D&D holds (and perpetuates) so many assumptions about race that an outsider might see as weird or antiquated. I wonder if this feeds into the distaste for playable races outside the Original 4. Just something to think about.

 

[Gammadoodler]

So that's not a cultural description and it's every bit as much a rule as Elves have darkvision. Rules do not have to be mechanical. The game has set up common and uncommon races. That's a rule. It even organizes those races by that division.

No, it isn't. It's under a section labeled 'choosing a race' It is player facing guidance regarding what is common to expect in D&D.

If you want to start claiming that section as legitimate 'RAW' content, then by RAW, all of the PHB races are present in every world.

I think we're fine having a discussion about what races we think make sense or don't without planting a RAW flag.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

They aren't be feared based on race. They are being feared based on appearance.

Doesn't change that the resulting attitudes and behaviours on the part of the prejudiced are racist, no matter how they attempt to rationalize it.

 

[Minigiant]

They aren't be feared based on race. They are being feared based on appearance. Fearing a humanoid cat is no different than fearing a Puma. And I already showed how outside of a metropolis, they would be relatively unknown.

Like I said before, I would be TEN times more afraid of an elf than a tabaxi or a puma. I don't want to be swept up in Faerie for 100 years and come back as a broken man or twisted horror.

The only reason D&D people see it the other way around is because the game's default assumption has it the other way around.

 

[Charlaquin]

They aren't be feared based on race. They are being feared based on appearance. Fearing a humanoid cat is no different than fearing a Puma.

It absolutely is. In real life it would be different because cat people, unlike pumas, are unknown to science and would therefore be an especially outlandish and frightening sight. In a hypothetical world in which cat people existed, it would be different because as sapient beings, they would be capable of conducting themselves according to the social contract, and expected to do so. Granted, they would probably have claws that could easily kill someone, but a closer analogy would be fearing someone with a gun, or like, a black belt.

And I already showed how outside of a metropolis, they would be relatively unknown.

I mean, that’s a world building decision you could make. At that point though you are consciously constructing the setting to justify certain racial hostilities. Which I guess is your prerogative, but wouldn’t be my choice.

 

[zarionofarabel]

I'm honestly absolutely not a fan of weird races as well as many customization options in general. And weird races (or, well, any races except humans) in particular -- I feel like they're a shallow shortcut for creating "uniqueness". It's easy to boil elves and dwarves and dragonborn to a bunch of stereotypes, but you can't do the same with humans -- you are basically forced to come up with some kind of culture.

I agree!

I have found in my own personal experience that the more a player demands to play some strange race as a PC the more likely the PC is going to be a shallow stereotype.

The best part though is when the player of said "unique" character then goes on to continuously claim that their character is so very deep and interesting!

The deepest and most interesting characters I have encountered in D&D were always human as the player was forced to make them so through action within the narrative rather than because they had a strange appearance and/or special mechanical bonuses.

 

[Oofta]

That's a valid reading of the text of the PHB, yes.

Going off of the above, I think this is where the discussion leaves the realm fo "what is" and moves into "what should be".

A lot of posts in the thread talk about worldbuilding, and the DM's vision of such, as the reason for including or excluding certain races as playable.

While at the end of the day that is entirely your prerogative, I can't help but question if some of the assumptions underlying the worlds you create aren't built on shaky ground, or are simply continuing tradition for tradition's sake.

There is a Twitter thread on the matter I found illuminating; a lot of quirks and idiosyncracies in D&D that players might just take for granted and DM's might perpetuate in their world and encounter design comes out of early editions' assumptions that the party held colonial ambitions; that one day they'd manifest some destiny and carve out a nice little fiefdom for themselves. This assumption has unconsciously been carried forward through the editions despite there no longer being any rules to support it (no rules for strongholds).

Read and Share Twitter Threads easily!

Thread Reader helps you read and share the best of Twitter Threads

threadreaderapp.com

Read the thread, and reflect on if the observed and highlighted assumptions have influenced the way you design your worlds, consciously or not.

I'll grant that the linked thread is not directly related to the current discussion, but I'd argue that its observations about the mode of play tie into why D&D holds (and perpetuates) so many assumptions about race that an outsider might see as weird or antiquated. I wonder if this feeds into the distaste for playable races outside the Original 4. Just something to think about.

So because Gygax had some strange ideas (he was a product of his time, not that that justifies it) .... every DM who doesn't allow every race under the sun has what, colonialist prejudices?

Good grief.