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

[Maxperson]

Okay, Fiend Folio. They've existed since DnD 1e, just as long as humans have been in the game of Dungeons and Dragons.

OD&D with humans came out in 1974. 1e was 1977. The Fiend Folio was 1981. So Tabaxi came out 7 years after humans in D&D, and even 4 years after 1e came out. None which isn't relevant to whether or not an innkeeper in the boonies would recognize a Tabaxi or not.

So player is only disruptive if they are bringing something that exists but was deemed to not fit into the world?

A player is disruptive if they are trying to disrupt the game by bringing in a race that is explicitly not in that game world. They are disrupting play and the group to try and get their way, which is childish. Just pick another race and move on, or find another group and move on. Don't disrupt the game.

So the player who wants to play a Nihme, a race that has never appeared before in any product is being less disruptive to the game?

During the design of the game, yes. I bet they bandied about lots of class and race ideas that never made it into the game. We know about the ones that made the cut.

Or, like I asked, are we saying that players today must be held to a different standard than players of the older editions, because DnD is older now, and we don't want to have as much player input as we used to have?

Players overall have much more input into the game than they used to have. Back in the day, players didn't question the DM as often or ask for as much. If the DM said no, the idea was tossed away and they just moved on. There wasn't a 62 page debate over it.

The DM assumed that their ban would increase enjoyment of the table. It doesn't. Therefore they are wrong.

Why doesn't the DM's enjoyment count?

Isn't removing dwarves a mechanical change to the game?

No. It's not. D&D requires race to function. It does not require all races to function. It functions just as well with only humans as it does with every race.

So you agree it is preposterous.

But, let's go back to that "not often" of innkeepers responding to heavily armed humans.

The idea of a Tabaxi getting a cold or hostile reception is... just a matter of course, obviously it would happen, because they are so strange and potentially dangerous.

But a group of heavily armed humans walking into a bar... They might get a cold reception. It is possible, but unlikely. Despite the very clear and present danger they present.

There's a difference here. The Tabaxi is walking in with his weapons out and is a complete unknown behavior wise. Armed humans aren't walking in with their weapons out. Were I running the game and human PCs walked into the bar with weapons out, things would be said and they would be treated VERY differently than when they walk in with them away.

And you think all of those worlds are richer and deeper than any world created by a group instead of an individual?

Yes and no. Depends on the individual and the group. I've known committees that could screw up making orange juice, and individuals with creative genius.

 

[zarionofarabel]

My experience has been the opposite.

A good half of the human PCs I've seen are players playing themselves in the class chosen with with own personalities exaggerated or with a minor quirk. John the Player is playing Jack the Human Fighter like John if John were a noble knight. They can write up a whole background but a good half the humans are the players isekaied into the world by session 3. Many lean hard on their own self and "cheat" to get depth.

But for the nonhumans, if the players actually remember they are another race they actually play someone different from themselves. Especially if the DM actually gives the nonhuman factions and NPCs actully personalities, ideals, and motives themselves.

Playing "themselves" vs playing "someone else" in a TTRPG has nothing to do with narrative depth. How the player portrays their character in regards to what happens in the narrative is what determines narrative depth.

I have no problem with players playing "themselves" in a game as it usually means they get more emotionally involved in the narrative. They tend to take what happens to their character more seriously and react in a naturalistic way.

Players that play "someone else" mindsets usually have unnatural reactions to the narrative and often fall back on stereotypes to inform those reactions. This often leads to disruptive actions and the But That's What My Character Would Do! crap that disruptive players like to prattle on about.

 

[Oofta]

...
You can do those stories in other ways, but that doesn't devalue doing them this way.

Never said otherwise. I have no problem with other campaigns allowing every race under the sun. Just that I don't see that limiting race ever really hampered anyone's story creativity significantly. So if someone comes to me and says the only way the PC's story works is their PC is race X my BS meter is going to go off*. If you want to play a race because you like the mechanical benefits, fine. Just admit it. I simply don't think race stands in the way of telling just about any story you can imagine.

I mean, I get that @Charlaquin's PC had an interesting plot twist, but good DMs will be able to set up plot twists now and then no matter what race they are. For that matter since I don't allow tieflings, that PC would be a cambion but for some reason look like, have all the stats of and abilities of a human for 99% of the campaign.

*Not that this has ever happened. I've had people ask if they could play drow, I simply said no.

 

[Scott Christian]

Has certainly happened to me and folks I've played with.

Was quite the bummer to get to the end of the session and get 'nice rp-ing, good combat effectiveness, too bad your character's dead..no xp for you'

Echo. In my opinion, it is even worse to be killed at level 2 or 3, right when you are starting to get comfortable with your character.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Jack Daniel Said:

You're mixing me up with @Oofta.

So one example of the DM being morally wrong in their implementation of limits wasn't actually enough. You want specific examples that will convince you.

I rejected your first example because it wasn't an "implementation of limits" in the first place.

Does that satisify your "Seriously, just one example." criteria?

Yes, I suppose it does. Though it is a bit of a stretch. (I'm not trying to equivocate here, I admit that your second example fits the bill. I just can't envision any circumstances where it would cause problems. If the DM and all of the players are collectively ignorant of the fact that the official writeup exists, they're all factually wrong, but the DM's reasoning is still valid, leaving us to quibble over what you originally meant by "incorrect." But if even one member of that group is aware of the writeup, then surely the whole group is aware of it, or can be made so trivially, in which case the DM's ignorance as the reason they've imposed the restriction vanishes, and I can only presume that the restriction goes along with it, in which case your scenario disappears in a puff of logic.)

Yes, took the title.

DMs can be players and players can be DMs. Just because you are a DM sometimes doesn't mean you always hold the title of DM....

Except, thinking back, didn't you specifically say that you afford more respect to players that sometimes DM? Is that part of this? That you think being a DM is somehow... more than just the one time role at the table?

I was leery of the implication that the DM had somehow seized the position from the other player(s). If that's not what you meant, forget it. And, no, I haven't said anything about respecting DMs more than players; I'm curious why you think that. (Being a DM is more than just a role at the table, though. Campaign prep is part of it too, after all.)

But to your post, you might have been talking about "extant games" but most of us are talking in general. In fact, EzekielRaiden's posts quite clearly showed a preference for making a new game world with the players when they sat down, which would clearly mean the game hasn't even started yet.

So, again, that might be part of your problem in this discussion, is you are using a far narrower scope than some of the rest of us. Might be why you are getting so much pushback, if you are only looking at this under the lens of "a new player comes into a long running game" when a lot of us are only hearing "The DM gets to decide no matter what the circumstances."

I've been pretty clear the whole time about the narrow scope of where I've staked out my position. If others want to read something into my words that isn't there, that's not my "problem in this discussion".

Ah yes, I'm falling into the classic trap of assuming that the rules in the PHB mean something.

Silly me, why, I can't even assume that spells and classes exist in DnD without my benevolent DM informing me that they will allow such things to grace their table.

I mean, is that how it goes at your tables?

"DM, are fighters allowed in this game?"
"DM are longbows allowed in this game?"
"DM do longbows have the heavy property in this game?"
"DM do longbows also have the two-handed property in this game?"
"DM do longbows also use Arrows in this game?"
"DM if I use a Longbow and an arrow, does that do 1d8 damage in this game?
"DM do I get to add my Dexterity modifer to that damage in this game?"
"DM can I hold multiple arrows in a quiver in this game?"
"DM can I draw an arrow as part of an attack in this game?"
"DM if I draw and arrow and make an attack, do I attack normally withing 150 ft in this game?"
"DM if I am making an attack do I roll a d20 in this game?"

I mean, if I need permission for everything, that seems a bit excessive, doesn't it?

Handout sheets or booklets summarizing any house rules or restricted options from the core rules, including available races, classes, equipment, spells, etc., are both common and expected. They're also generally more efficient than rousing game of Twenty Reductiones ad Absurda. But, yes, in principle that's actually an accurate description of my game table. I have already explained in this thread that I don't select, adapt, or invent any mechanics until I have a reasonably fleshed out setting first. Which means that literally none of those game mechanical elements you've listed are on the table until I put them there.
Incidentally, in the campaign I'm running now, the answers are, "Yes, yes, no, yes, yes, yes, no, yes, yes, no, and yes but you hit by rolling low."

That follows the world I built and is a completely fine refereeing of the rules. But it ignores any semblance of player enjoyment, and most people would say that the DM who does this would be failing in their role as a DM. Because if you don't care about the players... what is the point?

That's moving the goal posts. You said—and I admitted—that I don't care about my players' character ideas. Not that I don't care about the players. I impose limitations on character creation in my campaigns—and build my settings by myself—precisely because I do care about my players and I want them to have fun. Limitations on available character types and settings built around a single vision IMO make for a better campaign milieu which is more fun for everyone to play in. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

The point here is that I care more about the campaign as a whole than any single player. Think of it like this: characters are created and are eventually either killed or retried, but one player is bigger than all of their characters. Players come and go from a campaign, but the campaign is bigger than the sum of all the players who participate in it. Campaigns begin and end, but the setting that those campaigns take place in persists beyond any single one of them. (And at the risk of sounding too much like I think being a DM is some super-de-duper special thing, if you have a DM who invents lots of settings, that DM is then bigger than all of them put together. But I wouldn't want you to think I'm overblowing anything here, heaven forbid.)

I'm sorry, but you yourself are one of the people who said I might be an #$%hole for trying to bring something that wasn't pre-approved to the table. Also a tool, a jerk, and I'm sure you had other wonderful names for it.

But, I can see how you missed bringing in an entire race and their story as bringing in just a single backstory. They can be one and the same from the perspective of world building.

In every instance, I've been as clear as can be: a player who persists in forcing the issue—complains, cajoles, wheedles, bargains—in the face of a DM who already had a prior restriction in place is being a problem player. A DM who stands their ground in refusing to lift an extant restriction is not. Don't move the goalposts.

A player who merely rolls up to a stranger's game table with a character sheet already in hand is not necessarily a problem player, but they are doing something baffling. How do they even know what system or edition that table is running, never mind what house rules and character creation options are in play, unless they ask first?

Also, I can't parse your second paragraph here.

Which... involves acting?

Not necessarily. Not even close to necessary.

 

[Scott Christian]

Okay, Drow are evil.

Tabaxi aren't.
Lizardfolk aren't.
Firbolgs aren't.
Goliaths aren't.

So what does Drow being evil have to do with these races?

And then the inevitable rebuttal "But I don't want to have a Mos Eisley Canteena full of all these races interacting"

To which I then respond, "But you have no problem with making the Underdark where the Drow, Duergar, Mindflayers, Grimlocks and Troglodytes are interacting? Or the "Savage lands" where the Orcs, Ogres, Gnolls, Giants, evil humans, and Yuan-ti interact? If you don't want a Canteena, why is it okay to have those set piece locations?"

To which you've been responding... well, it depends on if you are playing an evil campaign or not.... which makes no sense. It doesn't address the point.

Why is a Canteena only bad when it addresses PC options, but can be casually glossed over anywhere else? How does one cause a problem for world-building but not the other?

If that is what you got from my posts, I apologize. I will clarify:

• World building does include other races, even evil ones.
• Evil ones interact with one another. But probably not like the cantina. More like with suspicion, but needed for trade of natural resources. Many even enslave the others.
• I specifically stated the cantina could work, especially for people who abide by societal norms (don't kill anyone, respect property, etc.) But...
• If they all lived together, the culture would homogenize, not stay separate. Therefore, the culture should be about a place, not necessarily the race.

These are the things I have said. And I have followed with:

• We should have sympathy for the world builder who has spent years creating a logically cohesive world (to them and their players) to suddenly have to introduce several (or even one) new race.
• I stated everything they may have already built for their world and left out still a bunch of pieces they may have done.
• Then I gave reasons why there are complications for adding a race.

These are the things I have said.

sigh

And sometimes I get the same feeling Scott.

Because you are trying to tell me that a DM is going to have complications in their world building, because they specifically left an entire area blank on their map, with a big ol' question mark about what it is over there, and then they ended up filling it in?

What is the practical difference between the player coming to the DM and asking "Hey what if there are Tabaxi in that forest?" and the DM thinking to themselves "Hey, what if there are Chitines in that forest?"

You have to answer the exact same questions. It has the exact same burden on effort, filling in the map.

I am sorry you feel that way too. If I have done anything to offend or cause frustration, please accept my apologies.

As for the map, there is a huge difference between a tabaxi in the forest and chitines. Especially if you have built lore around the chitines. Especially if they are likely to pose as antagonists to the adventurers.
Or
There is no difference. Explain to your player they can be a tabaxi from the forest. And then have to deal with the complications because the lore and logic of the world is one that no one has ever seen a tabaxi. So now every city campaign setting, every interaction with commoners, guards, tradesmen, etc. revolves around the tabaxi instead of the shared group story.
Or
There is no difference. Let the player be a tabaxi. Don't rewrite anything. Just retcon and make it up on the fly that everyone is comfortable with a cat person. And then add a bunch of cat people to the campaign so it is the norm. Then disregard the previous written lore.

These are the three options I proposed. As for the third option, I stated it seemed that was more for people who begin without a lot of their world already built. (Remember the concrete example.)

You don't?

You and all those other DMs don't use Orcs, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Bugbears, Mindflayers, Gnolls, Aboleths, Giants, Beholders, Ogres, Trolls, Lizardfolk, Dragons, ect?

Or are you saying that evil races don't get the treatment of actually mattering for worldbuilding? Because... you know, that's been the question I've been asking in this line of the conversation. What is the difference between PC races and Enemy Races when it comes to worldbuilding?

Somehow, having more than four PC races, how did you put it? "is immersion breaking, wreck, dissolves or interferes with years of work, or just pi*%#s in the face of traditional tropes and conventions"

But, those same traditional tropes and conventions also include these dozens upon dozens of enemy races, so those obviously aren't a problem.

Why not?

Not because you can play an evil campaign and therefore it matters that you start in a Drow city. I'm not asking that question, that question is entirely pointless to what I am asking.

Why does adding an enemy race to the world, have less of an impact on your worldbuilding than adding a PC race? Why are orcs, goblinoids, giants, dragons, and abberrations trivially easy to add, but adding a single PC option is not? From a world-building perspective, they are the same thing. So what do you see as different about them?

Stated many times the world is built with them in mind for many DM's. The difference is the type of interaction that occurs between these empires. The other differences for some DM's might be that many of those are not empires at all, but rather scattered tribes that are born evil.
As far as world building, I really believe you are not seeing what I am saying. Adding anything has complications. Making one of the protagonists an addition adds more complications.

 

[Charlaquin]

You're mixing me up with @Oofta.

It’s so strange to me that that still happens in the new quote system. There are no quote tags for me to mess up copying and pasting, but sometimes when I start a reply to one person and decide against it, then later quote someone else in the same thread, I get a quote box referring to the person I decided against my earlier reply to.

 

[Oofta]

It’s so strange to me that that still happens in the new quote system. There are no quote tags for me to mess up copying and pasting, but sometimes when I start a reply to one person and decide against it, then later quote someone else in the same thread, I get a quote box referring to the person I decided against my earlier reply to.

The auto-save feature maybe? Be sure to delete your drafts if you change your mind.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I feel justified in rejecting this notion out-of-hand unless someone can explain why it's not as patently absurd as it sounds.

I’ve rarely seen someone dismiss an idea out of hand without feeling justified.

What players want isn’t less important than what you want.

Denying them what they want requires justification, or it is at best rude, and at worst petty and selfish.

Justification allows them to make informed decisions about whether you are being fair, and gives them the assurance that you give a naughty word about your players.

If you disagree, good for you. I don’t care.

 

[Charlaquin]

The auto-save feature maybe? Be sure to delete your drafts if you change your mind.

That’s probably what’s doing it, yeah.