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

[Scott Christian]

Those are your assumptions, but they certainly don’t have any more foundation than folk being accustomed to different folk, and knowing that a taxable ain’t any more likely to be a demon than an elf is.

Taxable things are the devil!

No seriously, they aren't if they are already a staple in the world, or if as DM, you just gloss over race. But, if they were not prevalent and an elves were, then it could cause consternation.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Taxable things are the devil!

No seriously, they aren't if they are already a staple in the world, or if as DM, you just gloss over race. But, if they were not prevalent and an elves were, then it could cause consternation.

Sometimes autocorrect is not the hero we need, but the hero we deserve.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Am I as DM obliged to run games for everyone and anyone, or do I at least have a say in that? Cause after participating in this thread I have a feeling that it's better for my sanity and enjoyment that I am not obliged to do so!

...seriously? Now you're openly arguing in bad faith. LITERALLY no one has said you don't get to decide what groups you run for or whether you choose to run or whatever. It'd be nice if you actually took issue with things people were saying, and not the wacko extreme positions you feel like assigning to your opponents.

Just the gist I have gotten from participating in this thread.

Perhaps, then, take it as actually meaningful when someone says they aren't advocating for the "gist" you've gotten, and instead engage with the things they actually call for?

Well, compromise is not necessary.

In an absolute sense? I'm not sure how you can really argue that. Some amount of compromise is necessary simply to communicate with other people, and I don't for a second believe that you think DMs should never listen to a player's proposal during play. If compromise is totally unnecessary, every adventure is a railroad.

I also have a hard time with the attitude of many on the player side with the distrust they seem to hold toward DMs in general.

I don't distrust them; that's far more extreme than my actual feelings.

What I'm saying is...as I have now said repeatedly...trust is not merely given, it is earned. And this means it can be squandered. The DM is not entitled to an infinite well of trust simply for sitting behind the screen. The player is not entitled to get what they want simply for joining the game. A healthy game--one where trust exists--requires that every side at least have the potential to change their mind. That's what I meant by compromise being necessary. It is patently foolish to argue that either side MUST always compromise on ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING ALWAYS, because...uh...that's not actually compromise, is it? It's one side having dictatorial control. If you've been arguing against such an idea, I fear you've been jousting with a man of straw. Instead, "compromise is necessary" means that it necessarily must be a tool in the toolbox, that EVERYONE must be at least willing to compromise in theory. And "compromise" can take an enormous variety of forms! I won't run Evil games, for example. Not as a matter of judgment; it's because I know how difficult it is for me to "think Evil" as a player, and thus know that I won't provide an entertaining experience for outright Evil player characters.


However, I am 100% willing to look into WHY the player wants an Evil character and find ways to express it; I am not only willing but eager to have player characters who need to make difficult moral decisions, or who waffle a lot, or who occasionally do something reprehensible and feel regret/remorse/reconsideration/whatever. A character made a contract with a devil in my game, and I loved it, because it was a golden opportunity for me in numerous ways. Another character has had to consider moral choices where it wasn't clear who was right and who was wrong, with lives of people he cared about in the balance. A third has slowly come to realize that, while he may be his tribal-matriarch grandmother's grandson, he is very much also his manipulative merchant-prince grandfather's grandson (on the other side of his family), and that his scheming to win political and economic power may not be all that different from what he detests. This is all AWESOME stuff and I encourage it actively. More or less, as long as the character isn't irredeemably Evil (and there are a few things that qualify) or totally cavalier about becoming so, I can probably work with them to find something that won't violate my desires as DM, but will satisfy their desires as player.

That's compromise. Not "everyone walks away a little unhappy," but "everyone walks away feeling their side was fairly heard, and that they got what ultimately mattered." And yes, I DO believe that everyone getting a fair hearing and getting what ultimately matters to them IS necessary--for all human interactions, not just tabletop roleplay.

I reiterate, a compromise doesn't need to be reached! Would you as a player be willing to play a character given to you by a DM even if you didn't like it? If no, why not? Why not just compromise and play said character?

As noted: "Compromise is necessary" =/= "compromise needs to be reached." Or, rather, when I say that the DM side says "compromise is unnecessary," I mean that people have explicitly said that the DM never needs to meet anyone in the middle on anything, ever. That DMs not only can, not only should, but inherently MUST always be the cause of everything, with players simply receiving the

But no, I would not play a pre-written character 99% of the time. I cannot truly say I would absolutely never do so--it is truly possible, albeit very unlikely, that the DM could sell me on a really interesting prewritten character--but it's about as close as it can get to "never" without actually being "never."

I'm not sure, I'm excited for the nostalgia part I guess. I have a feeling that the non-human PCs will get played as over-the-top stereotypes and the NPC non-humans will be treated as nothing more than humans. I really hope they play up the "oh wow this is fantastic!" angle just to indulge me, but I doubt it. I'm a cynical guy and tend to surround myself with other cynical people.

I'm genuinely curious: why would non-human PCs exclusively cash out as over-the-top stereotypes, while human PCs exclusively cash out as deep and nuanced characters? I don't really get why people presume that non-human characters are automatically rubber forehead aliens. When I play a dragonborn character, for example, I think really hard on what cultural elements would feed into that character. Did he (I usually play dudes) grow up in an enclave that upholds the old traditions of Arkhosia, or maybe he had the immigrant experience trying to integrate into another culture, or he grew up on the road with only his sellsword father (I've seen fluff text that implies most dragonborn families don't stay together after a child hits age 3ish, instead daughters live with their mother and sons live with their father), or heck maybe he's from a merchant family so he's seen a ton of the world by living on the family ship? What's his personality like, in what ways does he deviate from stereotypes (because everyone deviates from stereotypes in one way or another)? Perhaps he's a practical joker (as opposed to the stereotype of "serious all the time"), perhaps he loves to indulge in wine and sexy partners (as opposed to the stereotype of unwavering dedication), perhaps he's a philosopher and bibliophile (as opposed to the "soldier" stereotype), etc. What little hobbies or quirks does he have? Maybe he loves to tell stories despite being a Paladin, because that's how his people remember their past and communicate their values. Maybe he loves to cook, and tries to find interesting ways to apply his fire breath to cooking (not always successfully...) Maybe he finds ancient languages fascinating, and is always looking to pick up new bits of text to translate or new scripts to learn or try to decipher. Etc.

I do this for every character I play--regardless of race. You're going to have to defend the notion that playing a non-human leads to playing stereotypically and, concurrently, that playing a human leads to playing non-stereotypically. People have floated the notion before, but without any evidence; it's just "I get the feeling people will resort to stereotypes." I see nothing about non-human races that leads to this conclusion; instead, I see it as lazy players being the problem, whatever race they choose to play. I really don't get how forcing a lazy player to play a human is going to encourage them to invent a deeper personality or backstory. They'll be (quite obviously, I'd argue) falling back on tired clichés or, worse, simply copying a character or actor they like, etc.

And...I guess I'm not sure what you mean by the second part here. Why should dragonborn (for example) be treated all that differently from humans, if they've been around a while and have both won and lost on the stage of history? As others have said before, it sounds like there's an unspoken assumption here that purely-human communities have existed since time immemorial, and are only just being exposed to these incredibly alien non-humans, when that's a pretty specific assumption that doesn't actually bear out in most settings.

 

[Scott Christian]

I have written approximately 100 pages on my current campaign setting, and am on my second campaign. When I first wrote it up, I included about a dozen races, all of which had a place in the theme of the story. My players have regularly come to me with races that were not on my initial list, and when they do I find a way to accommodate them, because to me it's really not that big a deal. When I make those accommodations, a new piece of world-building falls into place, and that bit of lore is just as "set in stone" as any I wrote up before the campaign started. If someone wants to play a shadar-kai, and I decide what shadar-kai are based on a conversation with that player, that's what shadar-kai are from now on. As a result, I've never had to change a piece of my existing lore. I just add stuff as needed and work it into the setting. I have no hard restrictions, just elements that aren't important to my game (until they are) and thus go undefined.

I find this threads the needle for me between player agency and DM authority. I have played in many games that espouse a different philosophy, and I've had fun in those games too.

That's excellent. A good DM you are.

But do you see what you did? You are literally making up a race based on the player's interpretations. They can change whatever they want of the lore. That's cool. But again, for many, it would ruin the consistency of their world.

Like I said, that is cool of you as a DM to do that. I am sure it is appreciated by your players. But for many (even many players I know), they would be put off by such interchangeable and wishy-washy lore. I mean, look at what happens when lore does get changed for some settings - you would think the world is going to end.

 

[Scott Christian]

Are there people who only play one race and cant' have fun if that race is not allowed?

Yes. They are the min/maxers. They have a concept, and they want to build their concept from start to finish. Many times (especially prior to Tasha's), a specific race is required to achieve that goal. Not faulting, just explaining.

 

[Dire Bare]

To be fair, on paper halflings don't seem the adventurer type, as others have mentioned upthread. In LotR, they spend much of their time carried by one group or another, and Merry and Pippin are literally used as plot devices (Pippin's awakening of the Balrog leads directly to Gandalf's fall and resurrection, and both of them get the ball rolling on the Ents). They all have some heroic moments as the story progresses, and certainly they've "leveled up" by the time they have to stop Saruman and the ruffians back in the Shire at the end, but they are truly exceptional members of a folk that are explicitly described as unadventurous under most circumstances. That's not a description elves, dwarves gnomes, and humans are usually labeled with.

As compared to . . . humans? Or even elves or dwarves?

How common are adventurers of any race in Middle-Earth? I'd warrant, not very common.

Hobbits are definitely given an in-universe cultural stereotype of being homebodies . . . they don't seem to have much of a martial culture. But yet, again, they are the main characters of an adventuring band in both of the main stories.

Bilbo, Frodo, and the boys may certainly be looked at as outliers by their fellow hobbits . . . but I think most adventuring humans, elves, and dwarves would be also. And, within the story, there's a reason why Gandalf keeps going back to the Shire to "hire" himself some adventurers.

For a fantasy game to include "small folk" in the world-building, but limit them from being adventuring player characters . . . makes no sense at all (to me). None.

 

[zarionofarabel]

I don't often say this, but your tastes here are objectively bad.

Kender are utterly loathed by most people because most races are built round themes - the kender theme is a mix of (a) stealing from the rest of the party and then making excuses and (b) pushing every button including the big red one whatever the rest of the party wants. They are literally a race intentionally designed to promote anti-social behaviour at the gaming table. And that is why they are despised and most DMs ban them.

Nah, Kender are innocent, that stuff just fell into their pouch! Humor aside, once long ago in a Dragonlance game I actually had a player that ran his Kender in a not disruptive fashion. To this day he is one of the best roleplayers I have ever met and his Kender was one of my favorite PCs.

I'm curious who you think is "on the player side". As polls have repeatedly shown, the overwhelming majority of people who post on ENWorld are DMs; exclusive players don't tend to get this deep into the weeds. If there are two sides it's "People who exclusively DM" and "People who both DM and play". (I know I DM as well as play)

By "player side" I meant people who seem to be arguing that a DM has no choice but to compromise by allowing a player to play what they want. By "DM side" I meant people who are advocating that the DM doesn't always have to allow PC races that they don't want in a campaign. So far this discussion seems, to me at least, be polarized along those lines.

And if that's the case then you're having a hard time with the attitude of people who can routinely see both perspectives because they don't take the DM-exclusive perspective and instead think that what the players want also matters.

What players want does matter, just not exclusively.

The default compromise is that the player gets almost complete control over their PC, the DM gets the wider world - but the players get to play what they want as long as it fits the level/power bounds. DMs who are unhappy with just getting the world surrounding the players and the far flung reaches of it make me wonder what the point even being a player is given the DM clearly doesn't want any input from them.

As a DM if I didn't want to have to deal with playing dragonborn I'd just say they were over the sea other than the one player one. And then I don't have to deal with any except the PC. Your "compromise" is the DM trying to steal what is by the rules default purely in the control of the player.

I would never stop a player from having control over the character they are playing in my game. I do restrict choice of what a player can play in my game. These two things are not one and the same.

And as mentioned this goes right back to the start. Gygax allowed hobbits because although he didn't like Lord of the Rings his players wanted to play them and he wasn't precious about his setting. He didn't play them but others could. Mike Mornard played a balrog at both Gygax and Arneson's tables. Because of level and power restrictions it was a baby balrog. But it was a balrog.

Good for Gygax, I'm not him.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's excellent. A good DM you are.

But do you see what you did? You are literally making up a race based on the player's interpretations. They can change whatever they want of the lore. That's cool. But again, for many, it would ruin the consistency of their world.

Like I said, that is cool of you as a DM to do that. I am sure it is appreciated by your players. But for many (even many players I know), they would be put off by such interchangeable and wishy-washy lore. I mean, look at what happens when lore does get changed for some settings - you would think the world is going to end.

See, the thing is, I didn't have lore for shadar-kai before, because I didn't care about them and no one wanted to play one. Now I've created lore to include, without changing anything I've done before, and that lore defines the shadar-kai from now on. Nothing wishy-washy about it. Just new stuff about the world. I don't ban things in my games (usually) for that exact reason.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Taxable things are the devil!

No seriously, they aren't if they are already a staple in the world, or if as DM, you just gloss over race. But, if they were not prevalent and an elves were, then it could cause consternation.

I don’t gloss over race, I don’t think. I’m not sure what you mean by that, though, so it’s hard to say.

But where you’re from matters in my games, and I’m certainly not out here trying to simulate a “color-blind” world.

But at any point in a campaign, I won’t have told the players every detail of the game world, so there is no way that saying there are tabaxi are part of the world would cause consternation.

 

[Scott Christian]

I wish I could see the world in such a optimistic light, but even the great "melting pot" that is the US suffers from massive amounts of problems because of a clash of cultures, and not just limited to immigrants. The North vs South is a common theme, especially in US politics.

Personally I think my own country of Canada with our "multicultural" society does slightly better, but not by much. Quebec vs The Rest Of Canada is a normal theme here, and as far as I understand most French Canadians are not recent immigrants.

The existence of "Chinatowns" the world over is my example of how even on a city level cultures clash. The idea that the "melting pot" is a thing that actually happens is ludicrous.

So there are 50 million Hispanics in the US. 85% of them speak English. Without a stream of immigrants, in two generations it would be 100%. Not saying it is right. But it is true. I ate Mexican food tonight for dinner. (It was delicious btw.) I speak a little Spanish. I understand some of the major holidays of Mexico, just as most Mexican immigrants now understand many of the US's holidays. This is the blending of cultures.

As you noted, it will take a very long time to reach 100%. But, it does not need to to say the cultures homogenize. Culture is: language, song, dance, art, laws, religion, schooling and other institutions. Most, even opposite spectrums like the silly North vs. South in the US, share most of the same culture. I mean, sure, I can't always find a great biscuits & gravy when I am in Maine, but for the most part they are the same culture.

Maybe it is a glass half full or glass half empty view we disagree on?