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

[Jack Daniel]

I guess I'd allow them to be a full self insert in a modern set RPG. But to what extent is the PC a self insert in the fantasy game? If they're literally from Ohio that could be a problem, but in a fantasy game, I'd probably take issue with the real-world location compared to their character's personality or race- ideally, all things discussed when making the campaign concept with the players. Under what context are they trying to propose this in relation to agreements about the campaign's nature (restrictions, genre etc.)? Isn't that what would change the answer more than what they're trying to do?

Even if the character were accepted as is, doesn't high fantasy often blend with the idea of inter dimensional portal magic in fantasy in general? Is "portal magic" a genre or setting? How would this even be disruptive to the setting, if the DM doesn't choose to build on it? Isn't self insert a type of character that has more range than literal player space-time displacement?

I don't know what those questions are supposed to be in service of, especially not in the context of this discussion. I can't answer them in a meaningful way without an abundance of clarifying statements which take us nowhere. Can someone explain?

I'm merely curious as to where the more accommodating DMs are willing to draw the line, if at all. How is "no humans from Ohio in my fantasy world" meaningfully different from "no tabaxi in my fantasy world"?

I would probably allow a player to play an obvious self-insert in either game if I felt the self-insert were not exploitative or coercive. That's my fundamental standard; is the player trying to gain an inappropriate advantage (exploit) or control the behavior or characters of other players against their will (coercive). However, I would try to dig into what the player wants with such a self-insert character. Do they really want that fish-out-of-water feeling? Do they want someone who will find magic shocking in a world used to it? Are they uncomfortable playing a character that is too dissimilar from themselves? My whole goal is to ensure that they're going to be enthusiastic about play, so drilling down to what they're looking for through this self-insert is vital to accomplishing that.

<snip>

I discussed this thread with one of my players earlier, and they specifically described my style of DMing as "consensus-building." I want everyone to be an enthusiastic participant. That means looking to offer things they want, and encouraging their investment into the world. Establishing a fact about the world through backstory or in-play discussion

And that is a rather alien approach to me. Even assuming good faith on the part of everyone involved (e.g. the player isn't trying to insist on a special portal fantasy character because they want to disrupt a preindustrial magical setting by developing gunpowder, they really do just want to play a fish out of water, maybe inspired by Dorothy Gale or one of the Pevensie siblings or Commander John Crichton), I… just don't see the need to build that kind of consensus most of the time. If I'm running at a game-shop, I likely don't know any players who sit down at the table well enough to care in the first place about their pet character ideas; and if I'm running at home with friends and family, "Hey, let's all play D&D!" is always enough to spark enthusiasm—and we all trust whoever's DMing enough to set the boundaries of their own game-world, knowing full well that next time around, someone different may DM and set their own boundaries for their world.

 

[Maxperson]

There is a reason I asked my question as generically as I did, so I'd like to ask it again before I continue. Are you saying that any situation where the thing works this way is "absolute authority"?

I'm only talking about the game. In the real world there are far fewer examples of absolute authority. If that doesn't answer it, please ask a different way, because I'm not getting it. I'm not trying to avoid answering.

To the best of my knowledge, yes. At least one poster (IIRC multiple) specifically talked about how DMs do way, way, way more work than players, essentially bringing the whole world to the table. And certainly early on there were comments about the DM asserting that they need to have every race with a highly well-established level of worldbuilding before it can ever be allowed, with a game that's stuck to a single world for seemingly a very long time.

I think the former argument is just saying that the DM is either first among equals or has more weight at the table than the players do by virtue of the work put in. I don't see that argument as meaning that a player who comes to the table with an idea prior to finding out the campaign has done anything wrong. If for some reason the idea is going to clash with the campaign world, then it's really easy to come up with something new. The latter argument is also similar in that the player coming to the table with a preset idea may clash with the campaign and it will be disallowed, not that the player is in the wrong for coming up with an idea ahead of time.

I can DEFINITELY say at least one player has explicitly said that this is supposed to be a bad thing. I'll go dig it up later, I'm writing this while I hang out with some friends so it'll be hard to skim through to find it and listen to them too.

I'll believe you. No need to look it up. A lot of things have been said I haven't seen and/or don't remember them all.

Needless to say, I disagree with the idea that you need to be skeptical of someone who comes to the table with an idea prepared, blind to the campaign.

Sure, and that's a great and easy thing to do when you primarily do your gaming with friends. I don't. Well, I run for friends. But I don't have a friend group meaningfully compatible with being a player in someone else's game. I have to go find campaigns online, mostly with people I don't know, and as a result I'm always going to have notions I can't simply communicate and definitely won't come in knowing the textures of a person's preferences like I would a friend's.

That definitely makes things tougher. Strangers will clash more often than friends.

 

[Maxperson]

First, the player needs to explain why they want to play a dwarf. Is it for armour proficiencies and +2 to STR and CON and they're fine with playing a dwarf reskined as a human.
Then, the GM needs to explain why they don't want dwarves. Is this because of a personal preference (and then, how deep that preference goes? Do they hate dwarves or just bearded people in general? Or artisians?) or because no one wanted to play a dwarf before, so no one thought of a place where they can originate from (so maybe a better solution would be to introduce the new PC as a far traveler from distant lands, instead of just banning dwarves outright).

If the GM starts screeching "NAH MAH WORLD I AM THE AUTHORITY" that's not just assholish, that's just idiotic.

He already said it was pre-established that they don't exist in the campaign. Reskinning is a whole other can of worms. Some DMs are okay with that and others aren't. If the human race with its mechanics means something, then reskinning is going to result in a non-human human, which won't work. If racial mechanics don't mean anything, then the DM will probably say yes.

 

[PsyzhranV2]

It's not racism.

Given that the basis for the barkeep's discrimination is "This person does not appear to be (the right kind of) human, so I refuse to provide them service," it's very clearly racism. I don't know how much more cut-and-dry a scenario you can get.

There is an erroneous assumption held by some people that "racism" is of malicious and specific intent, and that any prejudiced behaviour that is not motivated by said maliciousness and clarity of intention is not racism.

That assumption is wrong. Discrimination on the basis of ancestry/heritage, whether individual or systemic, is racism, no matter the underlying motivation. "Fear of the unknown" can and has been used to rationalize and justify racist actions in the past.

 

[loverdrive]

He already said it was pre-established that they don't exist in the campaign. Reskinning is a whole other can of worms. Some DMs are okay with that and others aren't. If the human race with its mechanics means something, then reskinning is going to result in a non-human human, which won't work. If racial mechanics don't mean anything, then the DM will probably say yes.

Then there's a reason why dwarves don't exist in the campaign -- a reason that must be clear for everyone at the table. And a reason that is worth questioning, especially in a long-running campaign -- because over time it may become irrelevant, or no one even remembers why the restriction was put in the first place.

Technically, yes, that's up to GM to decide what's allowed and what's not, but they either can keep open and honest communication or they can be an naughty word control-freak.

 

[Maxperson]

Given that the basis for the barkeep's discrimination is "This person does not appear to be (the right kind of) human, so I refuse to provide them service," it's very clearly racism. I don't know how much more cut-and-dry a scenario you can get.

He isn't any kind of human. He's Tabaxi and an unknown.

There is an erroneous assumption held by some people that "racism" is of malicious and specific intent, and that any prejudiced behaviour that is not motivated by said maliciousness and clarity of intention is not racism.

That assumption is wrong. Discrimination on the basis of ancestry/heritage, whether individual or systemic, is racism, no matter the underlying motivation. "Fear of the unknown" can and has been used to rationalize and justify racist actions in the past.

So we should stop screening European Jews for Tay Sachs disease or black people for sickle cell, because it's racism? Doing so is racial discrimination that is not motivated by maliciousness.

 

[Jack Daniel]

First, the player needs to explain why they want to play a dwarf. Is it for armour proficiencies and +2 to STR and CON and they're fine with playing a dwarf reskined as a human.
Then, the GM needs to explain why they don't want dwarves. Is this because of a personal preference (and then, how deep that preference goes? Do they hate dwarves or just bearded people in general? Or artisians?) or because no one wanted to play a dwarf before, so no one thought of a place where they can originate from (so maybe a better solution would be to introduce the new PC as a far traveler from distant lands, instead of just banning dwarves outright).

If the GM starts screeching "NAH MAH WORLD I AM THE AUTHORITY" that's not just assholish, that's just idiotic.

If you're trying to defeat your own argument by letting it devolve into cartoonish self-parody, well done.

But if we assume basic maturity and good faith on the part of both the hypothetical DM and the hypothetical player, no raised voices or unlikely "screeching," then the DM drawing a line in the sand at certain excluded setting elements is both assholish and idiotic because… why? Explain your reasoning.

Does your contention still have any merit if the DM is running with a different system? Let's say the DM is running the A Song of Ice and FIre RPG, and the player in question wants to play a D&D dwarf. (Not a Tyrion Lannister expy, that's a different can of worms.) Is the DM still an idiotic naughty word for saying "no"?

 

[Maxperson]

Then there's a reason why dwarves don't exist in the campaign -- a reason that must be clear for everyone at the table. And a reason that is worth questioning, especially in a long-running campaign -- because over time it may become irrelevant, or no one even remembers why the restriction was put in the first place.

I disagree. It has been long stablished and it's not going to become irrelevant just because someone new sits down and wants to play a dwarf.

Technically, yes, that's up to GM to decide what's allowed and what's not, but they either can keep open and honest communication or they can be an naughty word control-freak.

A player insisting on playing something that has been long established not to be allowed is also being a jerk. Players are not entitled to be disruptive.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

If you're trying to defeat your own argument by letting it devolve into cartoonish self-parody, well done.

But if we assume basic maturity and good faith on the part of both the hypothetical DM and the hypothetical player, no raised voices or unlikely "screeching," then the DM drawing a line in the sand at certain excluded setting elements is both assholish and idiotic because… why? Explain your reasoning.

Does your contention still have any merit if the DM is running with a different system? Let's say the DM is running the A Song of Ice and FIre RPG, and the player in question wants to play a D&D dwarf. (Not a Tyrion Lannister expy, that's a different can of worms.) Is the DM still an idiotic naughty word for saying "no"?

Why can't the DM just say, "Sure, you're mechanically a D&D dwarf but you are basically Tyrion - born into a normal human family."

That's the sort of point thats trying to be made in this thread!

 

[Zardnaar]

Wonder where I got in? I don't mind exotic races but dot like a'la carte play whatever.

Ravnica and Theros is come mind. I prefer spotlight. This setting has these races, this theme allows that.