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

[Snarf Zagyg]

That's the premise of "Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea" whichnis based on AD&D 1E
Granted, it has Atlanteans and Hyperboreans which are "near human", but other than that, you have only humans.
Amazonians, Vikings, Kelts, Kimmerians, Kimmeri-Kelts, Picts, Esquimaux, Ixians...all human. And the game is wonderful.

Not to mention settings were published by TSR that specifically changed or omitted the "core" races back in the day.

Lankhmar, for example, did not have the core "demi-human" races, as they were referred to back then. You could only play a human (although there was a pre-gen Nehwon Ghoul, IIRC).

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, you could. What I'm really interested in is why it's odd to think of a setting as having some purpose to it.

I don't think it's odd. Of course a setting serves to provide context for the characters. But, in my opinion, it's also a place that should at least FEEL as if it had a separate existence from the PCs. It should be logically consistent (magic A is magic A), and things should happen there regardless of player action. That's what makes a great fictional world come alive. Take Star Wars for example. That is a rich, well-detailed setting in which many, many stories can and are told that have little or nothing to do with each other, but are all part of the same world. My preferred view of setting requires these elements to work for me. Every time a setting detail that should matter gets ignored in service to a story point I wince a little. Of course, there are many ways to play and all are equally valid to the community at large, but world-building is very important to me.

 

[SkidAce]

I've played with many more players than DMs (naturally) and I by default DM. Over the years I can count on the thumbs of one hand the number of entitled players I've seen. But need fingers and thumbs from both hands to count the number of entitled DMs I've seen - and it's been far more toxic to the game.

About the same statistically for me. A few more toxic players, but that's because there are more players.

 

[TwoSix]

Maybe it's because I mostly DM, but I've seen just as many difficult players as difficult DMs. In my current campaign, I have a player that has gone through four characters, and he is so dedicated to being unique that every one of them had a laundry list of affectations he never failed to bring up in every interaction with other PCs or the world. This annoyed me, but if it hadn't also annoyed all the other players, I would have endured it. We spoke to him about it as a group, and he is trying to dial it back a little.

I think it's a two-way street, or really just a continuous process. A lot of more strict DMs have had to become so because of experiences with pushy or bullying players. Likewise, there are many players who demand a certain level of freedom because of bad experiences with overly controlling DMs.

And let's face it, there's just a lot of bad players and DMs out there, who play primarily to realize their headcanon fiction around their own character or their own setting, and see the other players and/or DMs as a tool to further their primary internal fantasies. It's tough to realize any idealized social contract if you're not in a fixed group that doesn't contain these kinds of problem players.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

And let's face it, there's just a lot of bad players and DMs out there, who play primarily to realize their headcanon fiction around their own character or their own setting, and see the other players and/or DMs as a tool to further their primary internal fantasies. It's tough to realize any idealized social contract if you're not in a fixed group that doesn't contain these kinds of problem players.

Do you know what's fun?

Having someone who shows up with a 20 page*, detailed backstory for their character. Their level one character.

I mean .... you have to appreciate the effort ... but you know this is not going to a good place.


*When it's this long, it's always single-spaced. ALWAYS!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, when trying to run a human centric campaign. You have players playing anamorphic ostrich bards and dragon men and turtle people. I have to put limits down on what is appropriate for my game.

But players expect to be able to play turtle people and cat people and elephant people. So I have to cut down access to those races. But I probably assume that these races have special abilities or powers or skills that make them superior. So I guess the problem is with WoTC and with D&D 5E.

Players always want an edge... and playing a bird person or turtle person, or dragon person, or cat person, or elephant person gives them an edge over 'boring' human.

The game encourages a typical D&D party to be something from an escaped circus troupe because mathematically they make weirdo amphomorphic races superior to any other races.

Well, you might ask WHY is it you "have to put limits down." Are the players not equal participants in the game, and thus equally entitled to participate in defining the genre and milieu? I mean, sure, you can go and say to whomever you want to have play "this is a fantasy world that only has elves, dwarves, half-ors, and humans" if you want. Are people not wanting that? Then I think the problem is you just need to adapt.

Nor do I agree that other races are superior, mechanically. The Tabaxi I'm playing in a game now seems perfectly in line with the Mountain Dwarf I played in another game (actually the dwarf was probably quite a bit tougher). I'm no 5e rules guru, but my experience with players and the 5e rules tells me there's no strong selection based on 'optimization'.

And again, if the crowd you are playing with is such heavy optimizers that all they will do is play some theoretically ideal PC, then the problem is who you're playing with! Either cater to their desires, or find a different group.

Maybe your game focuses too much on mechanical stuff, and probably combat? I don't know, but that generally highlights optimization and encourages some of that charop mentality. Trying to horde all narrative control of the game has that effect also, as players then seek to stake out some other area where they can exert influence in the game. Try focusing more on PCs backstory, social ties, using inspiration, and less tactical play. It might help. But mostly, give them what they want! If your favorite setting doesn't mesh too well with that, either re-imagine it or go invent something else (and I would suggest doing so with the players as equal partners in the endeavor).

 

[Oofta]

C’mon, man. Accusing people who disagree with you of one-true-wayism is both unproductive and baseless.

The people still on this thread, on both sides, are prolific commenters who have earned the benefit of the doubt.

Crit isn’t going to come to your game and tell you to include satyrs any more than Zardnaar is going to Ezekial Raiden’s game to tell him not to include dragonborn.

Chaosmancer and Ezekial Raiden have said on multiple occasions that they see nothing wrong with themed campaigns that exclude certain races or classes.

Both sides have a legitimately interesting argument to make about the merits of a highly-curated (in terms of races and classes) persistent world vs. a world that empowers players to create both the characters they want to play and to take a hand in designing the world.

Or, we could go back to arguing why halflings suck. That was awesome.

Several people have stated that someone who doesn't support their particular style of play is a dictator, a bad DM, so on and so forth. That if you don't allow all races, it's wrong.

The "no one true way" goes both ways. The way I run my game works for me and my players, it has nothing to do with how anyone else runs their game. I'm only expressing my preferences while stating that every DM has to decide what they are comfortable with because there is no one true way.

So I agree. Every table does their own thing, nothing derogatory meant or intended.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

(and I would suggest doing so with the players as equal partners in the endeavor).

How about ... no?

How about ... there are other RPG systems that work infinitely better as a purely collaborative experience? And when I want that, that is what I run?*

There are other ways for people to play and run the game; this has been explained repeatedly over 1300 posts! So maybe people just want to run their games and play in a different way. And your suggestions are not well taken, because that is not the type of game we are looking for?

Cool?


*Not what I play, because those chance I get to play, I prefer not having it be collaborative. Sometimes, you just want to beer & pretzel it.

 

[Oofta]

Do you know what's fun?

Having someone who shows up with a 20 page*, detailed backstory for their character. Their level one character.

I mean .... you have to appreciate the effort ... but you know this is not going to a good place.


*When it's this long, it's always single-spaced. ALWAYS!

Or the guy that shows up at the table with a 7 ft tall albino elf*. His "power"? That has no basis in the rules? His power is that when he walks into the room everyone is afraid of him. Then when you get into combat he has no weapons and has to borrow a dagger from one of the other PCs. All while being slightly confused as to why his PC is not dominating the game. Because everyone should be afraid of him.

*Back in the 2E days before elves were ever taller than 5'6"

 

[prabe]

Do you know what's fun?

Having someone who shows up with a 20 page*, detailed backstory for their character. Their level one character.

I have a note in my written request for backstories, reminding players they're much closer to the beginning of their characters's stories than they are to the middle, let alone the end; one of the players in one of my campaigns sent me a 10,000-word-ish backstory. I'm probably going to edit my note to include a strongly-worded request to keep it to about 1,000 words or less (my own tend toward the 500-word range, but I'm probably more concise than most other bad writers).