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

[Chaosmancer]

Says who?

I mean, are you asking about who decides that the Tabaxi are native to the world? Are you asking for specific Tabaxi lore from the Forgotten Realms?

I mean, if you are building a world, and you specifically make the existence of Tabaxi a new thing from the last
years, so that people will treat them with fear and suspicion... seems kind of like a jerk move?

Looking into some scanning of the FR lore, they've existed on their continent basically forever, and they have a long history of going out and exploring the world. In fact, the Tabaxi write up specifically says from Volos "In this manner, the Tabaxi remain isolated, but never ignorant of the world beyond their home." And if they aren't ignorant of the World, the World isn't ignorant of them.

It's not racism.

You can keep saying that. But you seem to be the only one who believes that judging and fearing a person solely based on their appearance isn't some form of Fantasy Racism.

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

Well I'd love to hear even one example of how the DM setting limits on character creation could possibly make them incorrect or constitute ceding the "moral high ground" without venturing into the realm of the absurd. Seriously, just one example.

Well, what if we take the thing I was just talking to Max about.

A DM hears that their player wants to play a race, lets say a Tabaxi. So they Add them as a brand new race to the world, something never before seen. That way they can have every single town and village turn out the pitchforks and torches, every shop jacks up their prices, every crime is blamed on them, and they are generally treated as being unwanted and despised in every single place they go.

Does that rather minor limit of who is allowed to have been a race back when the kingdoms were established, with the explicity reasoning of treating the PC as horribly as possible count for you? You did ask for only one example, and people in this very thread have proposed doing exactly that. So I'm not even proposing something absurd.

Two people sit down to play a game of D&D. One wants to have dwarves in the game. One wants the opposite. The conflict will be resolved by however these two individuals would ordinarily resolve such a conflict. The scenario is otherwise meaningless absent context.

A more realistic scenario, of the sort I've been discussing, is this: a DM has been running a campaign for three months at the local game shop. The DM's campaign setting happens not to have dwarves. All of the other players at the table are cool with this; after all, they've been playing for three months without problems. A new player sits down, asks to join the game, and receives a list of allowed options from the DM. "Dwarf" is not on the list, but the player asks if they can play a dwarf anyway. (At this point, the player has not done anything wrong, obviously!)

The DM says no, because there aren't any dwarves in the setting. (At this point, in my view, the DM is merely maintaining the coherence of the game-setting and has not done anything wrong either. Someone will have to explain to me how refusing to spontaneously add dwarves to the game-world constitutes a moral failing.)

What happens next depends on how attached the player is to the idea of playing a dwarf, and how mature the involved parties are. (The DM's attachment to the setting is taken as a given. Presumably, after months of play, the existing players are at least somewhat invested in it too—and their opinions outweigh that of the new player as assuredly as the DM's opinion does!) 99% of players would just drop the issue and create a different character, but maybe this player really really wants to play a dwarf and tries to press the issue; and maybe the DM is willing to have that discussion, or maybe they aren't. But if they aren't, that doesn't make the DM an obstinate jerk. It does make a player who keeps insisting (at best) a poor fit for the campaign and (at worst) pushy and rude. And again, as I've already admitted, players who act like this are rare.

So, you set this up as a "more realistic" scenario, and yet you stacked everything away from my point.

Firstly, you expanded it beyond two people. Secondly, you stated that this game has been ongoing for three months, which gives weight to the status quo. Thirdly, you have at no point brought those other people that you added in for no reason except for the weight of the status quo, to give their opinions on the matter.

So, sure, I'll concede that in a scenario of one player vs four other players and the DM in an established game that they've been playing for months, the status quo might be seen as a good thing to maintain. That is so far from my point that conceding that does nothing.

So, let's go back to my point.

Two people sit down to play a game of DnD. They are at the start of character creation. One of them wants Dwarves. One of them does not. Why should the one who took the title of DM get their way automatically, while the one who is the player does not?

If you don't feel comfortable with two people, we can make it four. The DM and one player against two other players.

Or maybe six, the DM and two players versus three other players.

Your position has consistently been the DM is right. The DM has more authority and privilege towards their desires than the Players. So... why, why do they get so many special privileges.

I'm not entirely sure what you're going on about here, but players wanting to have deep secrets sounds to me suspiciously like players who want their characters to have dramatic backstories despite starting at 1st level and 0 XP. Which isn't something I normally go for. A character's backstory is everything that happens between 1st and 4th level. If they collect some secrets along the way, cool; if they develop deep ties to the setting along the way, awesome. But at 0 XP, they're a nobody, a newcomer, a tourist in the game-world. The whole point of play is to go from being a mere tourist in the setting to one of its impactful movers and shakers.

Yeah, maybe you should open up the PHB and check some backgrounds.

Like Folk Hero, who by level 1, 0XP, if they rolled defining event 6 "Broke into a Tyrant's castle and stole weaponry to arm the people." Or maybe the Acolyte who with a 6 for their bond "seeks to preserve a sacred text that my enemies consider heretical and seek to destroy." Or the Hermit Feature which is literally knowing a secret about the setting, or the Soldier who was an officer and has Bond #4 "I'll never forget the crushing defeat my company suffered or the enemies who dealt it"

Sure, you can play the game with nobody tourists who have never done anything, but the game itself does not assume that as the absolute default.

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"?


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.

I think this plays into this issue we are having in communicating.

You don't care about your player's ideas. You attribute it to not knowing them well enough, but I personally find that a bit misleading, as I have run for many years for a local guild and I've had at least one new person I've never met before a year, and I do care about their ideas.

But that is a massive disconnect between our two positions.

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

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.

So, the example given stated that they were using that world for three months. So, does that make Mike Carr a disruptive jerk? He was the guy who played the first ever cleric in DnD. Arneson would have had to create an entirely new class for this guy. I mean, he wasn't using anything even published in the game, what a huge jerk right?

In fact, it was so disruptive to the game that it altered the entire game for the rest of DnD's history.

Or does this standard only apply to modern players, and doesn't count back then?

Want to tag @Jack Daniel here too, since he literally brings up this point.

But it doesn't have to be justified to you. If the DM knows that it's solid, he doesn't need your approval.

You know Max, this is so wrong it isn't even funny. Because you are immediately assuming that the DM is correct.

I'm reminded of an event on another site that I've been frequenting recently. The site manager added a new feature without consulting everyone, where instead of having a plain text box for ideas to be written in, each post in that box made a new thread in the topic section of that page.

People hated it. Like, visceraly burning hate, because it was a feature they didn't want, weren't asked about, and broke something they had relied on and had a system built around using.

And, when asked about why he hadn't bothered to ask anyone about if this was a good idea, while one of his most popular mods was threatening to quit of this stupid stupid decision, do you know what he said?

Basically, that he didn't need to ask anyone. He knew it was a solid feature that everyone would like, so he implemented it. In fact, he didn't think the majority of people really disliked it.

Just because the DM thinks they are right, doesn't mean they are right. They might be very very wrong that their ideas are any good.

No. You don't have to account for something that has only a .0000whatever chance of being true. I also don't know why you're talking about refusing a service. The situation is this, "Some being/creature that I'm not familiar with just walked it. I have no idea what its motivations are, but it has very sharp teeth and claws(that's a bad sign in D&D by the way). I'd better be cautious and wary of it(wisdom in the D&D world)." That results in treatment different than humans get with no racism involved.

But they had no problem with the heavily armed and armored human who walked in, in a world where bandits and warlords can kill people all the time.

Or when the human with the glowing robes walked in, in a world where necromancers raise the dead and evil mages enslave towns all the time.

It was the guy with a fuzzy face and claws that triggered his "I don't know what this dangerous individuals intentions are" response?

Honest question, how many times do you have the walking armories that are your player characters get reacted to as if they were marauding bandits or attacking the village when they come in?

First, where do you get "assumed by official material to be identical to humans in psychology and behavior..."? Second, the innkeeper is not a player or DM, so he has no idea what is or is not a D&D PC race. Third, the innkeeper doesn't even know what the Tabaxi is, given that he's in a very small town and has never seen or heard of one. For that matter, how is someone supposed to tell the difference between a Tabaxi and some sort of Rakshasa that just walked into the tavern?

Pfft.

So, wait, wait. This Innkeeper is from such a remote location that he has no idea about the sentient cat people who wander the various kingdoms on a whim, But he does know about one of the rarest and most powerful types of fiends in existance, whose main tactic of in society is to shapeshift into something human looking so they can pass unseen?

Because somehow that makes sense.

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

But what if I don't want to create a history for my PC? What if I don't want to come up with a story about a pumpkin something or other? What happens if I have zero interest in creating setting details? What happens if all I want to do is bash stuff with a sword?

Then you don't have to. I mean, I'd like something to work with, I played with a guy who was Human Fighter and had no backstory and... he didn't really care about the world. He was literally just there to fight things. I had a heck of a time doing anything with him, because he gave me nothing to work with. So... I tended to focus the plot on the people who gave me things to work with.

But, more to the point, what if I do want to do those things and come up with those stories, why am I being told that I'm a bad player because of it?

 

[zarionofarabel]

But, more to the point, what if I do want to do those things and come up with those stories, why am I being told that I'm a bad player because of it?

I think for more traditional (or old) GMs it's hard to relinquish that much narrative control. The last bit of conversation on this thread makes me sad that games like Burning Wheel aren't way more popular. Many games other than D&D do a much better job allowing for players to have narrative input because it is explicitly stated by having rules that cover such things. D&D was built on the idea that the GM provides all the details. I'm glad to see that more and more D&D players want more out of the game than to be lead around by the nose through the GM's preplanned story. Sadly D&D is way behind the times when it comes to mechanical reinforcement of player narrative input.

Also, I don't think you are a bad player for wanting to be able to add more of your own ideas into the game world. I think you are using the wrong system.

 

[Mecheon]

Orrrrr, play D&D. You don't get to say how D&D should be played. You only get to say how YOU prefer it for YOUR games. The way he described playing is every bit as valid as your method.

But just as well, if he really hates 'having to make a background' that much, then the game that has 'Background' as one of your big bits of character creation and gives you benefits is, perhaps, not the best of choices to play

Character creation asks that as a question and most of the popular stuff out there has people tying it into their stuff so its generally expected to come up. If you don't want to interact with that particular thing then.... Other games may be the solution there

 

[Hussar]

They're richer and deeper than worlds created just for the sake of playing a game, or worse yet, created by committee

Wait, what?

What Game world wasn't created by committee?

 

[zarionofarabel]

But just as well, if he really hates 'having to make a background' that much, then the game that has 'Background' as one of your big bits of character creation and gives you benefits is, perhaps, not the best of choices to play

Character creation asks that as a question and most of the popular stuff out there has people tying it into their stuff so its generally expected to come up. If you don't want to interact with that particular thing then.... Other games may be the solution there

Is "Background" something I can pick off a list with no real thought other than whatever mechanical bonuses it provides? If yes, then I would just choose whatever mechanical bonus I want!

Also, just about every TTRPG I have encountered does a much better job of mechanical reinforcement for a players desire to add details to the campaign world. It sounds like 5e might do a slightly better job than previous editions, but I have my doubts that it's anything of any real substance.

 

[Hussar]

Your characters are not spat onto the world, fully-formed and a blank slate at level 1. They have a history

The unfortunate truth is, IME, there are far, far, far more players out there and DM's who think this way than think that backstory or motivation is important. I've had so many Man Without a Name characters presented to me for play. Far, far more than ones with actual thought and backstory.

And, honestly, I think it's because those players are trained from early play by DM's who insist that PC's are blank slates.

Case and point:

zarionofarabel[/USER]]
But what if I don't want to create a history for my PC? What if I don't want to come up with a story about a pumpkin something or other? What happens if I have zero interest in creating setting details? What happens if all I want to do is bash stuff with a sword?

It's been one of the main reasons why I've pretty much given up on detailing settings over the years. Players don't give a toss and so many are just happy that the DM rolls up the plot wagon and spoon feeds the adventure du jure every session. I really wonder if I shouldn't just go through alphabetically in the Monster Manual, session after session.

After all, if the players are going to provide so little input into the game, why should I bother?

 

[Maxperson]

I mean, are you asking about who decides that the Tabaxi are native to the world? Are you asking for specific Tabaxi lore from the Forgotten Realms?

Neither. I'm asking who says Tabaxi have been around for as long as humans have.

So, the example given stated that they were using that world for three months. So, does that make Mike Carr a disruptive jerk? He was the guy who played the first ever cleric in DnD. Arneson would have had to create an entirely new class for this guy. I mean, he wasn't using anything even published in the game, what a huge jerk right?

False Equivalences are false. There's a rather marked difference between, "We know dwarves exist and have decided for X reason that they don't exist in this world, yet you're trying to be disruptive by playing one anyway." and "We just started making this game and hey, that's a cool idea. Let's make it."

You know Max, this is so wrong it isn't even funny. Because you are immediately assuming that the DM is correct.

The DM banned them for a reason. How can he be wrong? You can disagree with that reason, but I don't see how he can be wrong about it.

I'm reminded of an event on another site that I've been frequenting recently. The site manager added a new feature without consulting everyone, where instead of having a plain text box for ideas to be written in, each post in that box made a new thread in the topic section of that page.

That's the equivalent of a mechanical rules change. It's not the same as not having dwarves, because a great plague killed every last one of them 3400 years ago.

Just because the DM thinks they are right, doesn't mean they are right. They might be very very wrong that their ideas are any good.

It depends on what's being done. For things of lore, he's is right, even if you hate what he did. If it's a rules change/addition/subtraction, it can work out very badly for the game. DMs are often make the wrong decision when they alter things mechincally.

Honest question, how many times do you have the walking armories that are your player characters get reacted to as if they were marauding bandits or attacking the village when they come in?

Not often, but it has happened.

So, wait, wait. This Innkeeper is from such a remote location that he has no idea about the sentient cat people who wander the various kingdoms on a whim, But he does know about one of the rarest and most powerful types of fiends in existance, whose main tactic of in society is to shapeshift into something human looking so they can pass unseen?

Heh. I threw that in there to see if anyone would catch that.

 

[Maxperson]

But just as well, if he really hates 'having to make a background' that much, then the game that has 'Background' as one of your big bits of character creation and gives you benefits is, perhaps, not the best of choices to play

It doesn't really, though. Background in the PHB is little more than secondary skills and some roleplaying advice. I can pick sailor and have no idea what the PC's background is other than at some point he was a sailor, because skills. It wasn't until Xanathar's came out that a background generator was released for 5e, and that's optional.

Character creation asks that as a question and most of the popular stuff out there has people tying it into their stuff so its generally expected to come up. If you don't want to interact with that particular thing then.... Other games may be the solution there

Again, there's no need. You need no background as it is being discussed in this thread to happily play 5e D&D. Zero.

 

[Maxperson]

Wait, what?

What Game world wasn't created by committee?

Lots of homebrew game worlds. I've made several over the years, but none in the last 20 or so. All of those worlds were created by me and me alone. And I don't think I'm unique in this. I think a lot of DMs who make their own worlds do so alone.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

But what if I don't want to create a history for my PC? What if I don't want to come up with a story about a pumpkin something or other? What happens if I have zero interest in creating setting details? What happens if all I want to do is bash stuff with a sword?

At my table what would happen is that you, the player, might feel left out as the other players get to have their characters explore and resolve the various side plots tied to personal back story and goals.

Or, if you just want to throw dice and kill things, you can do that in exploration of other characters plotlines and not have to put any effort into the story.