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

[prabe]

I believe the consensus answer is 'for the fun of it', but a lot of ground was covered to get there.

There was also an indication that those who want to play "non-traditional races" felt the "traditional races" had been played out--at least that some people have explored them to their own satisfaction and want to do something different.

 

[Gammadoodler]

It did turn out great!

But I don't think centaurs would have impacted Middle Earth's popularity much, if at all. So long as the books still had characters like Bilbo, Frodo, Aragorn, the Shire Boys, Gandalf, and Eowyn et al.

And it did have ents, whatever Tom Bombadil is, giant eagles, etc. Could add centaurs in as allies or enemies to the Rohirrim and I think you'd barely notice.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I guess a question for the '"focused game" limited race folks. What's the threshold where you get to "kitchen sink"? And why is that the cutoff?

Or I guess to be clearer, what number of races triggers the "lost focus"

 

[pming]

Hiya!

I'll admit I'm an old school D&D player/DM. I've never discounted a player idea in osr or 5e, but I still wonder. Turtle people (tortles) flying people (aarokara), dragon people (dragonborn)... and so on.

Why do people chose these races?

To me, elves and dwarves have a human element. But Turtle people, and cat people and demon people and dragon people seem like the new normal. Do people who play D&D now, feel more comfortable with role-playing animalistic type characters than before?

It is kind of off-putting when your player party is a bunch of bird people, elephant people, demon people, cat people... and so on. I mean are humans even relevant in D&D anymore?

Is it a role-playing thing, or just a ability bonus power-up thing?

is the normal for D&D 5e is ampthormorophic / furry role-playing? I don't think I've ever ran a group that had a single human in it.

My guess? "They look cool!". After that, it's purely the munchkin/min/max/PC-Build-Is-All-Important type people who only see the mechanical effects and could care less about anything else. Then there's the majority of people who think somewhere in between.

But, from MY EXPERIENCE, mostly the first "it looks cool" side of the equasion. It's never been a 'problem', not for long anyway.

What I mean is that my campaign is quite "old school humancentric". Humans rule the roost, so to speak. They are THE most adaptable and variable and most mutable of ALL the races in existence. It's their 'schtick', so to say. So, if a party of two Tieflings, one Half-Orc, one Dragonborn, and a Gnome walk into town...well...they are going to get the cold shoulder, mostly. The Gnome will be the one who gets addressed 9/10 times, often to the point of rudeness.

For example, the group is at a leatherworkers stall in the marketplace. The Dragonborn is looking at an unusually decorated large belt pouch with belt and asks "Is this oiled? You know, water resistant?", the vendor may give the Dragonborn a slightly quizzical look, then turn to the Gnome and say "Uh, yes, but only lightly. Does he want it?".

That kind of "human-centric", with the 'typical friends of humanity' being generally accepted as equals (re: elves, dwarves, halflings, and gnomes; half-elves and half-orcs, a bit less so, but still ok). The races that look "more something-else" than human are treated as just that...something else.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Gammadoodler]

Hiya!


My guess? "They look cool!". After that, it's purely the munchkin/min/max/PC-Build-Is-All-Important type people who only see the mechanical effects and could care less about anything else. Then there's the majority of people who think somewhere in between.

But, from MY EXPERIENCE, mostly the first "it looks cool" side of the equasion. It's never been a 'problem', not for long anyway.

What I mean is that my campaign is quite "old school humancentric". Humans rule the roost, so to speak. They are THE most adaptable and variable and most mutable of ALL the races in existence. It's their 'schtick', so to say. So, if a party of two Tieflings, one Half-Orc, one Dragonborn, and a Gnome walk into town...well...they are going to get the cold shoulder, mostly. The Gnome will be the one who gets addressed 9/10 times, often to the point of rudeness.

For example, the group is at a leatherworkers stall in the marketplace. The Dragonborn is looking at an unusually decorated large belt pouch with belt and asks "Is this oiled? You know, water resistant?", the vendor may give the Dragonborn a slightly quizzical look, then turn to the Gnome and say "Uh, yes, but only lightly. Does he want it?".

That kind of "human-centric", with the 'typical friends of humanity' being generally accepted as equals (re: elves, dwarves, halflings, and gnomes; half-elves and half-orcs, a bit less so, but still ok). The races that look "more something-else" than human are treated as just that...something else.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Having trouble parsing this. Are you saying that the 'looks cool' crowd gets weeded out because you choose to have their 'cool-looking' characters subjected to fantasy racism?

Like..is that a solution you're proposing?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I guess a question for the '"focused game" limited race folks. What's the threshold where you get to "kitchen sink"? And why is that the cutoff?

Or I guess to be clearer, what number of races triggers the "lost focus"

?

It’s not a number. It’s not like, and the DM spake, saying, "Then shalt thou count to three races no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the races shall be three. Four races shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out! Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then thou havest the proper number of races.”

“Kitchen sink” merely means that there are no real thematic (or other) restrictions on the PCs; if it’s in an official book, it’s good to go.

 

[Gammadoodler]

?

It’s not a number. It’s not like, and the DM spake, saying, "Then shalt thou count to three races no more, no less. Three shall be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the races shall be three. Four races shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out! Once the number three, being the third number, be reached, then thou havest the proper number of races.”

“Kitchen sink” merely means that there are no real thematic (or other) restrictions on the PCs; if it’s in an official book, it’s good to go.

I wasn't expecting to get answers. I was expecting to get opinions, and I was curious about the reasoning for the opinions.

There haven't been a lot of 'humans only' folks through here, so some level of diversity exists and doesn't break theme. But there do seem to be boundaries where different folks seem to think that the setting breaks thematically. I'm curious about that boundary and the break.

It's one of those things where you don't know what you don't know and so you ask.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Accusing of what? Are you seriously saying that no one ever plays a tiefling because of the bonuses? It's one of the major reasons if you read any thread on "why play a tiefling". It's the only reason that can't be replicated with background and story.

If you want to play one because of those reasons, fine. Just be honest about it. If it's because of character concept we'll work on story justification with one of the allowed races.

I'm saying that players are no more likely to play a tiefling because of the bonuses than they are to play an elf because of the bonuses. And that there's no reason to play an elf or a half-elf that can't be replicated with background and story.

If you're against players playing non-human races because of the bonuses then why do you allow non-humans at all? Why is it just peachy in your book to play an elf because of the bonuses when it isn't a tiefling?

I'm also saying that in my experience players are more likely to play a tiefling because it ties in and emphasises the character's themes - and the two races most popular for their bonuses are elves and humans.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Asking for compromise is not selfish.

I agree! However this in no way means that a compromise must be reached.

How does that affect playing a D&D elf character, though?

The example given was a false equivalence. I'm not sure where you are going with this question.

I guess a question for the '"focused game" limited race folks. What's the threshold where you get to "kitchen sink"? And why is that the cutoff?

Or I guess to be clearer, what number of races triggers the "lost focus"

I'm a cranky old guy so I want to say anything other than human and I'm unhappy. However, being D&D I guess I would allow Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling, as a matter of compromise to appease my players. The other races are a no go.

 

[zarionofarabel]

I'm saying that players are no more likely to play a tiefling because of the bonuses than they are to play an elf because of the bonuses. And that there's no reason to play an elf or a half-elf that can't be replicated with background and story.

Agreed!

If you're against players playing non-human races because of the bonuses then why do you allow non-humans at all? Why is it just peachy in your book to play an elf because of the bonuses when it isn't a tiefling?

It's not!

I'm also saying that in my experience players are more likely to play a tiefling because it ties in and emphasises the character's themes - and the two races most popular for their bonuses are elves and humans.

Themes can easily be rehashed to fit a human, fluff is fluff and can be refluffed at will.