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

[Charlaquin]

The truth is

what is considered a common race is due to tradition and the book D&D drew early influence from

The Common Four could have been:

• dwarf, elf, halfling human (Lord of the Rings)
• buffalo-man, monkey-man, pig-man, human (Journey to the West)
• human, spiderman, tabaxi, yuanti (Anansi myth)

or any other other collection of 4 races based on a book or myth. The ones chosen weren't chosen because they were humanlike. They were chosen because that book was popular at the time the gme was made. Then those races were made more human.

Centaur, Human, Minotaur, Satyr!

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So, before I write any of my usual excessively-long answers, @Maxperson , I would like to ask a simple and straightforward question.

Are you asserting that any case where someone has such an assent power is, by definition, an example of absolute authority? Even if that assent authority, if denied, would mean the end of the relationship involved?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Edit: To add a little bit of extra contribution to the thread overall, since I really do want to focus on productive stuff here rather than all the useless bickering, I have a question for all of the DMs out there who are skeptical of players who come to the table with character ideas before they know about the campaign.

Why do you, as DM, bring so many hard-line no-debate ideas to the table first? Do you truly never seek out ideas or suggestions from your players on the kind of world they would like to see? It just baffles me that so many think it's patently ridiculous for a player to bring world-building contributions to the table, yet also that it's patently ridiculous for a DM to NOT bring an EXTREMELY DETAILED world that apparently breaks at the slightest addition of something just beyond the horizon, variably known about but not often discussed because it's From Over There.

When I built my world, I actively sought out player contributions, because I know I'm not talented enough to fill an entire world with ideas. I regularly seek out advice from other DMs too, but my players are my primary source because they're the ones that will be impacted by it. As one example, when building this world originally, I had a player who wanted to play the Grim World "Slayer" class--which kinda straddles the line of Evil stuff and thus could be a Problem^TM--so I asked him how the character gets his killing fix. He proposed that he was more of a monster-hunter than a murderer, which made a lot of sense. We collaboratively built an idea of "hunters in the waste": wandering hunters, neither Nomads proper nor City-Folk, who stalk the sere landscape hunting the dangerous beasts that dwell in the wilds, both a boon and a headache for the many merchants who own a private estate in the middle of nowhere. Without that player's input, a significant (albeit not necessarily vital) portion of my campaign world simply wouldn't exist.

Does this really happen so rarely? Do DMs really get so attached to a single setting of their creation that they never try anything new or solicit player involvement for new ideas, elements, etc.?

As someone who does build worlds all on my own if left to my own devices, worlds that I’m quite fond of, I’d still rather have player input, because then they have immediate buy in to the things they helped build. They were part of the conversation that built the world.

One of my favorite characters is from a place in my buddy’s world that was fleshed out via conversations about the place in the world for forest gnomes and Goliaths, and finding a place where they might both live, and filling out culture and geography and interrelationships from there.

 

[Oofta]

Ok for reference then. I suppose. Someone should start citing stuff.

Spoiler: Choosing a race: PHB pg. 17

Humans are the most common people in the worlds of D&D, but they live and work alongside dwarves, elves, halflings, and countless other fantastic species. Your character belongs to one of these peoples.

Not every intelligent race of the multiverse is appropriate for a player-controlled adventurer. Dwarves, elves, halflings, and humans are the most common races to produce the sort of adventurers who make up typical parties. Dragonborn, gnomes, half-elves, half-orcs, and tieflings are less common as adventurers. Drow, a subrace of elves, are also uncommon.

Your choice of race affects many different aspects of your character. It establishes fundamental qualities that exist throughout your character’s adventuring career. When making this decision, keep in mind the kind of character you want to play. For example, a halfling could be a good choice for a sneaky rogue, a dwarf makes a tough warrior, and an elf can be a master of arcane magic.

Your character race not only affects your ability scores and traits but also provides the cues for building your character’s story. Each race’s description in this section includes information to help you roleplay a character of that race, including personality, physical appearance, features of society, and racial alignment tendencies. These details are suggestions to help you think about your character; adventurers can deviate widely from the norm for their race. It’s worthwhile to consider why your character is different, as a helpful way to think about your character’s background and personality.

Note that this section says all these races exist and in what proportions.

Also on pg. 17, @Maxperson quoted:

Spoiler: first quote

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. A group of gnomes laughs as one of them activates a clever wooden toy that moves of its own accord. Half-elves and half-orcs live and work alongside humans, without fully belonging to the races of either of their parents. 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.

Then waaay back on pg. 33 in a green box, the same type of place we get our RAW rules for dwarves being 'haughty but gracious', under Dragonborn, we get:

"The dragonborn and the rest of the races in this chapter are uncommon. They don’t exist in every world of D&D...'

So, when your quotes are uncited out of context sections of flavor text and fluff, presented as RAW, I consider you to be cherry-picking.

Zero is less than one or more. So if dragnonborn don't exist in my world they are still less common. What's your point?

I mean, not that I care. If I want to run a campaign where the only playable race is goblin and no other humanoid (monstrous or otherwise) exists, then that's the campaign I'm running. I'll let everyone know ahead of time that we're doing GoblinWorld and if that doesn't work for you don't play.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Then every race is spectacularly fast. Because by the rules halflings are only slightly better at dodging polearms from skilled wielders than dwarves are. And this is one of the few times when Syndrome's "When everyone is special then no one is" is actually appropriate.

Of course there's the D&D issue that fighters are wielding nerf bats rather than swords thanks to the way hit points work.



I'm not sure whether you've read them if that's what you think. The party breaks fairly early in part to separate the hobbits from the stronger fighters. From The Shire to Weathertop the hobbits are basically running from combat. From Weathertop to Rivendell the hobbits are running with Aragorn being able to fight back a little.

The party is only completely together from to its breaking up and in that time I recall one useful direct attack made by any of the hobbits - and that by Frodo into the foot of a thoroughly distracted troll. It's an escort mission

Then the party splits - Frodo and Sam are shown as being massively overmatched by just about everything they meet on the way except Gollum. Yes, Sam stands his ground against Shelob with the help of some magic items. But waaay overmatched. Pippin and Merry immediately become hostages, with Boromir failing to protect them (note again that Boromir does all the fighting) and the three surviving bigger folk start to hunt down the orcs.

And from then on Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli kill literally dozens of orcs each, with Legolas and Gimli even keeping score - when a single orc hunter was more than a match for Sam and Frodo in Moria, forcing them to hide. Meanwhile at the Siege of Gondor one hobbit was a page and runner, and the other was riding pillion behind someone who wasn't meant to be there. And, admittedly, made a very successful attack on a distracted Nazgul but in no way was expected to fight.

So yes I am saying that (a) the hobbits were basically non-combatants and I can only recall them raising weapons four times (once vs the Nine, leading to Frodo's blade shattering just before the river leading into Rivendell, once to a troll, once to Shelob leading to Shelob impaling itself, and once to the first of the Nine). And that (b) the Fellowship set off on an escort quest with the five protecting the hobbits. And that (c) the choice of hobbits being so small was a great narrative choice because it made the rest of the world that much more threatening for our point of view characters.

I'm also saying that part of the point being made was that skill at arms was not the only virtue. Which is just as well because the hobbits didn't have it.

You remember incorrectly, then. Running from ringwraiths doesn’t make anyone a non-combatant, and every hobbit but Frodo gets real combat experience, and even he does some fighting.

 

[prabe]

As someone who does build worlds all on my own if left to my own devices, worlds that I’m quite fond of, I’d still rather have player input, because then they have immediate buy in to the things they helped build. They were part of the conversation that built the world.

One of my favorite characters is from a place in my buddy’s world that was fleshed out via conversations about the place in the world for forest gnomes and Goliaths, and finding a place where they might both live, and filling out culture and geography and interrelationships from there.

This is why I've left blank spaces, on several scales, in my world. I actively want the PCs to be tied to the world.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Zero is less than one or more. So if dragnonborn don't exist in my world they are still less common. What's your point?

I mean, not that I care. If I want to run a campaign where the only playable race is goblin and no other humanoid (monstrous or otherwise) exists, then that's the campaign I'm running. I'll let everyone know ahead of time that we're doing GoblinWorld and if that doesn't work for you don't play.

My point is there is no RAW on this stuff. Saying it's RAW is bad.

 

[Maxperson]

Ok for reference then. I suppose. Someone should start citing stuff.

Spoiler: Choosing a race: PHB pg. 17

Humans are the most common people in the worlds of D&D, but they live and work alongside dwarves, elves, halflings, and countless other fantastic species. Your character belongs to one of these peoples.

Not every intelligent race of the multiverse is appropriate for a player-controlled adventurer. Dwarves, elves, halflings, and humans are the most common races to produce the sort of adventurers who make up typical parties. Dragonborn, gnomes, half-elves, half-orcs, and tieflings are less common as adventurers. Drow, a subrace of elves, are also uncommon.

Your choice of race affects many different aspects of your character. It establishes fundamental qualities that exist throughout your character’s adventuring career. When making this decision, keep in mind the kind of character you want to play. For example, a halfling could be a good choice for a sneaky rogue, a dwarf makes a tough warrior, and an elf can be a master of arcane magic.

Your character race not only affects your ability scores and traits but also provides the cues for building your character’s story. Each race’s description in this section includes information to help you roleplay a character of that race, including personality, physical appearance, features of society, and racial alignment tendencies. These details are suggestions to help you think about your character; adventurers can deviate widely from the norm for their race. It’s worthwhile to consider why your character is different, as a helpful way to think about your character’s background and personality.

Note that this section says all these races exist and in what proportions.

Also on pg. 17, @Maxperson quoted:

Spoiler: first quote

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. A group of gnomes laughs as one of them activates a clever wooden toy that moves of its own accord. Half-elves and half-orcs live and work alongside humans, without fully belonging to the races of either of their parents. 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.

Then waaay back on pg. 33 in a green box, the same type of place we get our RAW rules for dwarves being 'haughty but gracious', under Dragonborn, we get:

"The dragonborn and the rest of the races in this chapter are uncommon. They don’t exist in every world of D&D...'

So, when your quotes are uncited out of context sections of flavor text and fluff, presented as RAW, I consider you to be cherry-picking.

Nothing was out of context. You cited nothing saying that they exist on all worlds, only that the PC will be one of the races. guess what!? That's true. Your PC has to be a race, so he will be one of the races. Nothing guarantees all races are there and a specific quote says that not all races exist on all worlds.

 

[Oofta]

My point is there is no RAW on this stuff. Saying it's RAW is bad.

Now I'm really confused. Because earlier you said it was RAW. If you agree that it's up to the DM to decide what races are allowed then we're in agreement.

 

[Jack Daniel]

To add a little bit of extra contribution to the thread overall, since I really do want to focus on productive stuff here rather than all the useless bickering, I have a question for all of the DMs out there who are skeptical of players who come to the table with character ideas before they know about the campaign.

Why do you, as DM, bring so many hard-line no-debate ideas to the table first? Do you truly never seek out ideas or suggestions from your players on the kind of world they would like to see? It just baffles me that so many think it's patently ridiculous for a player to bring world-building contributions to the table, yet also that it's patently ridiculous for a DM to NOT bring an EXTREMELY DETAILED world that apparently breaks at the slightest addition of something just beyond the horizon, variably known about but not often discussed because it's From Over There.

When I built my world, I actively sought out player contributions, because I know I'm not talented enough to fill an entire world with ideas. I regularly seek out advice from other DMs too, but my players are my primary source because they're the ones that will be impacted by it. As one example, when building this world originally, I had a player who wanted to play the Grim World "Slayer" class--which kinda straddles the line of Evil stuff and thus could be a ProblemTM--so I asked him how the character gets his killing fix. He proposed that he was more of a monster-hunter than a murderer, which made a lot of sense. We collaboratively built an idea of "hunters in the waste": wandering hunters, neither Nomads proper nor City-Folk, who stalk the sere landscape hunting the dangerous beasts that dwell in the wilds, both a boon and a headache for the many merchants who own a private estate in the middle of nowhere. Without that player's input, a significant (albeit not necessarily vital) portion of my campaign world simply wouldn't exist.

Does this really happen so rarely? Do DMs really get so attached to a single setting of their creation that they never try anything new or solicit player involvement for new ideas, elements, etc.?

While I'm sure there are lots of groups who collaborate on setting creation, it seems to me that the norm is more of an informal, "What would we all like to play?" where campaign ideas and character ideas are spitballed until the group arrives at a working consensus.

That's not how I've ever done things. It could have been, when I was a kid playing AD&D in my friend's basement, back when we all had all the time in the world to invent settings. But back then, we didn't bother collaborating on settings because we didn't value settings as an end unto themselves. It was just sort of assumed that whoever was taking their turn to DM would incidentally invent a setting designed to facilitate a particular plot. Heavily influenced by computer and console RPGs, we valued plot back then: the setting was just a tool that served the game, and the game served the DM's plot.

We were kids. We didn't "get" AD&D, and we didn't know what the hell we were doing with it.

Nowadays, looking back and understanding how badly we mangled those old games, it feels like such a lost opportunity. ("But weren't you having fun? Isn't that what really matters?") Yes and no. Yes, we were having fun, but no, we weren't really playing D&D, and I know that we would have had a great deal more fun if only we'd been armed with a little additional knowledge and understanding.

As an adult, my understanding of D&D is quite different. (As a kid, I couldn't imagine why anyone would want a 1st edition Dungeon Masters Guide over a 2nd edition one. I get it now.) The setting comes first. The fantasy milieu is an end unto itself, and if the milieu is gameable, then you select or adapt or invent mechanics to play in it. (Maybe the system winds up being some flavor of D&D; maybe it doesn't.) The point is that the game is a tool that serves the setting; not a plot, not a cast of characters, not even a group of players. The setting is foundational; the rest is incidental.

When I was a kid, whoever among us was DMing would invent a setting without input to keep plot details secret from the other players (the point of playing was to reveal the plot). As an adult, I invent my own settings without input to keep setting details secret from the other players (the point of playing is to reveal the game-world by exploring it). My values have shifted off of narrative arcs and character arcs and onto worldbuilding and (in-game) player agency.

Could I incorporate players' ideas into a setting? Even surface-level ideas, things that aren't there to be sussed out through exploration, things that everyone in the setting knows (e.g. "Elves exist and they live Over There")? In theory, sure. As a matter of practicality, how would that even work? I don't even decide on mechanics until I've already got an idea for a setting mostly fleshed out. Then it's onto hex maps and graph paper (whether that means high fantasy continents and dungeon levels, or star systems and ship schematics, or whatever). Then, once I have something reasonably workable and complete, that's maybe when players first hear about it.

To me, to do things any other way seems pointless and self-defeating. The primary source of fun derived from play is discovery; but for every setting element that the players have had a hand in defining, that's one less thing for them to discover. Player collaboration would literally be subtracting fun from the game, bit by bit. I don't want my players to have a hand in defining my setting elements for the exact same reason that I keep a dungeon map hidden behind a DM screen while playing.

=====

Since nobody wants to address a question that I've been asking and asking ("How is a D&D campaign without elves meaningfully different from a V:tM campaign without elves?"), let me reframe it.

Lots of RPGs take place in the present day, in some version of the real world, and presume ordinary human characters. A modern-day Call of Cthulhu campaign, for example. DMs who are big on collaboration and accommodation, would you allow a player to play an obvious self-insert in such a campaign?

Now let's shift the scenario over to a high fantasy setting. (Maybe it's D&D, maybe it isn't, but the point is that the game's setting is pure high fantasy—an invented fantasy world with no connection to Earth, unlike portal fantasy or low fantasy.) Would you allow a player to play an obvious self-insert in this sort of campaign? A displaced Earthling human (the presence of which literally shifts the genre of the game and its world from high fantasy to portal fantasy)?

I'm incredibly curious about this.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Now I'm really confused. Because earlier you said it was RAW. If you agree that it's up to the DM to decide what races are allowed then we're in agreement.

I understand. The short version

Max: RAW these races are rare, fantasy unfamiliarity (don't call it racism) is in the rules.

Me (not looking at the actual rules): dude, those aren't rules.

Max: sure they are, just as much as darkvision

--------Twisty road later----------

Me (after finding the original quotes): dude, those aren't rules.