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

[Chaosmancer]

Well, part of the player's problem was that the character was an elf, which comes with a lot of backstory time to fill (what has this character been doing for longer than I've been alive?); part of the problem was they used the "Your Life" crap from Xanathar's, which ... tends to provide lots of (arguably superfluous) detail. Most of my problem was that the details the player wanted/expected me to remember were ... surrounded (buried?) in that detail. In reality, it probably only took me like ten minutes to read (I read quickly); it was just that the signal-to-noise ratio (where "signal" is "important/useful stuff" and "noise" is "everything else") was so crappy.

Something structured like what you describe, that had the detail I needed centered, I wouldn't complain about.

Ah yeah, signal to noise Ratio is rough, and I've seen writing like that were a the actually important stuff is buried in a lot of nonsense.

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

Well, this is an example of false equivalency. A dog is a real thing with certain inherent qualities like mammal and carbon based life form. With the exception of the word robot, all the other words you've used to describe the dog do not change it's inherent qualities. I personally would be inclined to argue that the robot dog is actually a robot, and not a dog.

The examples I gave of Tolkien Elf and Elf On A Shelf are two things with drastically different inherent qualities. The Tolkien Elf is a fictional character in a book that has it's own fictional inherent qualities. The Elf On A Shelf is a child's toy. The word Elf alone has no inherent qualities attached to it, an Elf can be anything you want it to be. I have read several fantasy novels where the Elf was so drastically different from the description of a Tolkien Elf that the two are irreconcilable.

But just like a Wolf and German Shepherd have some connection and correlation, all elves tend to have some connections.

Long lived
Beautiful and graceful (yes, even santa's elves are sometimes shown this way)
Living in a magical land or a forest.


I'm not saying there aren't huge differences sometimes, there are, but I don't think that devalues the notion of "elf" at all. It is just a broad term. Like Fantasy.

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

As much as people don't want to admit it, the DM is the most important person in the game. The DM has the final decision for a really simple reason; if he decides to stop playing the game dies. If a player decides to stop playing, the game can go on - because there are more of them.

Hmm, going to have to say that is not always true.

In fact, literally two days ago our DM was talking with a player about him taking over the campaign while he took a break. Same characters, same setting, I'd say same plot but we are kind of just wandering around at the moment.

So, it is entirely possible that a DM quits and the game keeps going on, because the players take over DMing. It isn't common, but well, I literally have an example. And I would do the same thing for a different DM of mine who is a father of an eighth month old.

I have been both and I understand that. I've DM'ed a campaign where the players would show up late, cancel the day of or show up not prepared (i.e. without character sheets or having read the rules). As a DM, this annoyed the heck out of me.

Snipping the rest of this story, but this annoys e as a player as much as it does a DM. People being late, unprepared or no showing is just aggravating, because it delays the game. No special DM feelings here, this is just a table issue.

If the DM allows for certain races in his game and they enhance the fun for everyone, most importantly the DM's, then by all means add them in. Personally I am curious, much like the original poster, on why someone would be interested in playing a non-traditional race.

Is it power-gaming for the numbers or to explore roleplaying extremes? Is it to be disruptive (I lump excessive power-gaming into the disruptive category as well as wanting to hog the spotlight)?
From a roleplaying perspective, one can already play a human from any Earth-like background (which covers a lot of roleplaying opportunities) and demi-human cultures (which cover a lot more). Although I can see how playing a warforged with the whole Vulcan "logic-based" mindset trope is set in fantasy culture.

So, you can see that "demi-human" cultures cover ground that isn't human, so how hard is it to see that "non-traditional races" cover even more?

I can't explore the same "beast within" questions with an elf that I can with a Shifter. I can't explore the same "what is an identity" questions with a dwarf as I can with a Changeling.

Maybe I want to be a gentle giant. Sure, I could just play a big human, but as a Firbolg I can literally be massive, yet disappear into a corner and talk to mice.

It is an entirely different story to be a "fish out of water" as a halfling sailor as it is being a Triton.


And there is no reason to assume any of this is more powergaming or spotlight hogging as could be done with a human character. I don't know why this keeps getting put out there. Those issues are completely secondary to choosing a race. Assuming they are somehow related is just insulting. Sure, maybe a player will try and be a spotlight hog with their unusual race. But take away that race... and they will still try and be a spotlight hog. The race is just a tool, and it isn't even the only one they can will try and use.

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

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

Wonderful, the world isn't full of enough terrible things, might as well have racism in my gaming time too.

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

This kind of points towards a point I've made earlier.

My campaign is also very human-centric in a swords & sorcery / Science Fantasy sort of way. There are fantastic creatures and cultures and entities out there, but most of them are alien and intended to be NPCs or monsters only.

So, if I let the flood gates open with regards to option selection, I put myself in an awkward situation where I have to think logically about my human centric settlements and consider how they would react to more monstrous races.

As DM, I'd rather not role-play entire settlements treating my players' characters as Frankenstein's monsters. I'd much rather just label such races as non-playable.

Perhaps certain races can be opened up as playable, if in game the players form alliances or treaties and establish diplomatic ties. The more obscure and monstrous races can remain off limits until they have been contacted and befriended through role-playing.

But you don't have to. Okay, maybe you specifically would have to because you built a human only world first, but I'm going to ask a fairly simple question

How many times are Jedi or the Star Trek Federation Racist? I'm not terribly familiar with Star Trek, but I generally don't see them treating alien species worse than they treat humans. I've never seen the Jedi act in a racist manner... pretty much ever.

But both worlds have hundreds of alien species. The floodgates were opened... and the writers said that that happened so long ago, that most people have figured out how to live side by side.

Now, maybe you think that isn't realistic. But we are playing a Fantasy game, aren't we? Isn't it better to have things better off, with the big question being how to sneak into the evil wizard's tower, than it is to ask how we can end racism in the Forgotten Realms?

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

You claimed that the innkeeper would know because Tabaxi have been around as long as humans and when I asked how you know, you gave me the real world releases of both, which are irrelevant.

The DM can decide, but the 5e default is that Tabaxi are uncommon and outside of a metropolis like Waterdeep, are little known. If the DM homebrews that to be different for his game, the DM has to go out of his way to change the default of the game.

Nope. Tabaxi constantly travel around and explore. Says so right in their lore write up. They don't just explore big cities, they travel the world.

Also gnomes, halflings, elves and dwarves are all described as very rarely leaving home. So, they'd be even more unknown to this innkeeper, right?

Sure you can. Just not for the act of bringing it.

I did not explicitly ban Kryptonians. If you brought one to my table, we'd all have a good laugh and then I'd tell you no. If you insisted on being able to play such a clearly disruptive PC, then you'd become a disruptive player.

Mike Carr wasn't disruptive, because he didn't do that and he got told yes.

How do you know? Seriously, I looked into it. I didn't find any notes about how their conversation went down. Maybe he did insist on playing his cleric character. It was designed to be a counter to a specific threat (Sir Fang)

I guess the biggest difference is the last thing. A disruptive player isn't disruptive if the DM says yes. So, it has nothing to do with the player and what they want, and everything to do with how the DM treats them for wanting it.

A player doesn't compromise their enjoyment by playing a different character. Players enjoy a variety of character types and races. The DM on the other hand is in a true dichotomy. Either they ban the offensive race or their enjoyment is lessened/ruined. If a player can only get enjoyment from one specific race(and I've never seen it in 37 years of gamin) and no other, then that player needs to go find a game where he's not going to ruin someone else's fun by playing it.

Wrecking a player's fun(including the DM) is never an acceptable option.

I was literally rendered speechless by this. Yes, a player not getting to play a concept they were excited for has compromised their enjoyment of the game. Examples of that have been explicitly mentioned in this thread.

I mean, you are literally saying that you can't wreck a player's fun by shooting down their concept, because they will just come up with another. That is not only insensitive, but just plain wrong.

And, you keep saying that you've never met a player who can only enjoy playing one race. Obviously you have been missing this thread, because multple posters on here have been saying that they can only enjoy playing humans. And you and them seem to not find it strange at all to hate a race so completely, that its inclusion as an option for someone else will ruin the game for you.

The sheer disconnect here is almost impressive.

I never said that. I said that removing dwarves from the game isn't a mechanical change and that playing only humans works as well as having every race.

Well, guess I need to quote you back at yourself.

For context, I asked this in post #1,238
"Isn't removing dwarves a mechanical change to the game? "

Then in post #1,241, you explicitly answered that question "is it a mechanical change" with this:
"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, yes Max, you literally said that it was not a mechanical change. Your justification for it not being a mechanical change was that the game "functions just as well" with that change. Therefore a mechanical change is only present if the game no longer functions just as well with the change.

Yes, playing only humans causes the game to work just as well. But changing many mechanical facets of the game can leave the game functioning just as well. I could declare that anyone can pick any skills, instead of just their class skills, and the game would function just as well. That does not mean I did not make a significant mechanical change, just that the change did not cease the game from functioning.

I don't need to. What is written states claws. Since nothing is written about them being retractable, the DM has to make a private ruling for his game alone to allow them to retract. It's a reasonable ruling, but it has no place in discussion about what is written.

It's implied by breathing, which is mentioned in the rules. Of course, DMs being DMs, if you asked this question of 100 of us, I'm sure you'd get one who would be like, "Hmm, it would be pretty cool to have the races breathe through their skin."

Inspired by is not equates to. Just look at movies inspired by real life events. They often bear little to no resemblance to the actual events that inspired them.

I'm sorry, can you show me rules where Breathing requires lungs? You say it is implied, but just look at movies inspired by real life events. They often have little to no resemblance to the events that inspired them.

Or... we could try something kind of radical.

We could try Occam's razor. Fun little thing, basically what you go with what is more likely.

See, if we take the concept that the majority of cats have retractable claws, that big cats like Jaguars have retractable claws, that they have retractable claws because retracting them helps keep them sharp, then we take a race inspired by stories of humanoid jaguars that have sharp claws...

Then we can see that the most likely thing is that the Jaguar men share traits with Jaguars, including the Jaguar's claws, which they have, and the way to keep them sharp, because Tabaxi claws are sharp, by being able to retract them, like all jaguars can do.

Which seems to be much more logical than "they don't say they can retract them so they can't", especially since that would lead to their claws getting dulled (Cheetah's don't have retractable claws, and their claws are dull as a result) which would make them useless as a weapon, which would make them a non-threat to the innkeeper anyways.

So really, I guess I don't care which way you want to take this. Retractable claws (or wearing gloves) that hide the claws. Or claws that can't retract and are dulled as a result, and therefore not a threat to cause the innkeeper to act like a racist.

It's not factually wrong. Metropolis Island was bought from Native Americans in the 1600's by settlers and that's where they decided to live. It was around for centuries before Superman showed up.

And superman was first written in Action Comics #1, so unless Action Comics #16 came out before Actions Comics #1, then the city was created after the character.

Here, we can do another, easier one.

Arceus is the name of the Pokemon that created the pokemon world. It was created in 2006 in Japan. Pikachu was introduced in the first Pokemon game, which was created in 1996.

Pikachu existed ten years before Arceus. Yes, in the lore of the game that is not true, but in the actual world Pikachu came first, and the creators added in details later about the world of pokemon before Pikachu.

Metropolis might have been sold to settlers in the 1600's but the City didn't exist until September 1939 when Action Comics #16 was published.

 

[Zardnaar]

Ah yeah, signal to noise Ratio is rough, and I've seen writing like that were a the actually important stuff is buried in a lot of nonsense.

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



But just like a Wolf and German Shepherd have some connection and correlation, all elves tend to have some connections.

Long lived
Beautiful and graceful (yes, even santa's elves are sometimes shown this way)
Living in a magical land or a forest.


I'm not saying there aren't huge differences sometimes, there are, but I don't think that devalues the notion of "elf" at all. It is just a broad term. Like Fantasy.

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



Hmm, going to have to say that is not always true.

In fact, literally two days ago our DM was talking with a player about him taking over the campaign while he took a break. Same characters, same setting, I'd say same plot but we are kind of just wandering around at the moment.

So, it is entirely possible that a DM quits and the game keeps going on, because the players take over DMing. It isn't common, but well, I literally have an example. And I would do the same thing for a different DM of mine who is a father of an eighth month old.



Snipping the rest of this story, but this annoys e as a player as much as it does a DM. People being late, unprepared or no showing is just aggravating, because it delays the game. No special DM feelings here, this is just a table issue.



So, you can see that "demi-human" cultures cover ground that isn't human, so how hard is it to see that "non-traditional races" cover even more?

I can't explore the same "beast within" questions with an elf that I can with a Shifter. I can't explore the same "what is an identity" questions with a dwarf as I can with a Changeling.

Maybe I want to be a gentle giant. Sure, I could just play a big human, but as a Firbolg I can literally be massive, yet disappear into a corner and talk to mice.

It is an entirely different story to be a "fish out of water" as a halfling sailor as it is being a Triton.


And there is no reason to assume any of this is more powergaming or spotlight hogging as could be done with a human character. I don't know why this keeps getting put out there. Those issues are completely secondary to choosing a race. Assuming they are somehow related is just insulting. Sure, maybe a player will try and be a spotlight hog with their unusual race. But take away that race... and they will still try and be a spotlight hog. The race is just a tool, and it isn't even the only one they can will try and use.

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



Wonderful, the world isn't full of enough terrible things, might as well have racism in my gaming time too.

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




But you don't have to. Okay, maybe you specifically would have to because you built a human only world first, but I'm going to ask a fairly simple question

How many times are Jedi or the Star Trek Federation Racist? I'm not terribly familiar with Star Trek, but I generally don't see them treating alien species worse than they treat humans. I've never seen the Jedi act in a racist manner... pretty much ever.

But both worlds have hundreds of alien species. The floodgates were opened... and the writers said that that happened so long ago, that most people have figured out how to live side by side.

Now, maybe you think that isn't realistic. But we are playing a Fantasy game, aren't we? Isn't it better to have things better off, with the big question being how to sneak into the evil wizard's tower, than it is to ask how we can end racism in the Forgotten Realms?

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




Nope. Tabaxi constantly travel around and explore. Says so right in their lore write up. They don't just explore big cities, they travel the world.

Also gnomes, halflings, elves and dwarves are all described as very rarely leaving home. So, they'd be even more unknown to this innkeeper, right?



How do you know? Seriously, I looked into it. I didn't find any notes about how their conversation went down. Maybe he did insist on playing his cleric character. It was designed to be a counter to a specific threat (Sir Fang)

I guess the biggest difference is the last thing. A disruptive player isn't disruptive if the DM says yes. So, it has nothing to do with the player and what they want, and everything to do with how the DM treats them for wanting it.




I was literally rendered speechless by this. Yes, a player not getting to play a concept they were excited for has compromised their enjoyment of the game. Examples of that have been explicitly mentioned in this thread.

I mean, you are literally saying that you can't wreck a player's fun by shooting down their concept, because they will just come up with another. That is not only insensitive, but just plain wrong.

And, you keep saying that you've never met a player who can only enjoy playing one race. Obviously you have been missing this thread, because multple posters on here have been saying that they can only enjoy playing humans. And you and them seem to not find it strange at all to hate a race so completely, that its inclusion as an option for someone else will ruin the game for you.

The sheer disconnect here is almost impressive.




Well, guess I need to quote you back at yourself.

For context, I asked this in post #1,238
"Isn't removing dwarves a mechanical change to the game? "

Then in post #1,241, you explicitly answered that question "is it a mechanical change" with this:
"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, yes Max, you literally said that it was not a mechanical change. Your justification for it not being a mechanical change was that the game "functions just as well" with that change. Therefore a mechanical change is only present if the game no longer functions just as well with the change.

Yes, playing only humans causes the game to work just as well. But changing many mechanical facets of the game can leave the game functioning just as well. I could declare that anyone can pick any skills, instead of just their class skills, and the game would function just as well. That does not mean I did not make a significant mechanical change, just that the change did not cease the game from functioning.



I'm sorry, can you show me rules where Breathing requires lungs? You say it is implied, but just look at movies inspired by real life events. They often have little to no resemblance to the events that inspired them.

Or... we could try something kind of radical.

We could try Occam's razor. Fun little thing, basically what you go with what is more likely.

See, if we take the concept that the majority of cats have retractable claws, that big cats like Jaguars have retractable claws, that they have retractable claws because retracting them helps keep them sharp, then we take a race inspired by stories of humanoid jaguars that have sharp claws...

Then we can see that the most likely thing is that the Jaguar men share traits with Jaguars, including the Jaguar's claws, which they have, and the way to keep them sharp, because Tabaxi claws are sharp, by being able to retract them, like all jaguars can do.

Which seems to be much more logical than "they don't say they can retract them so they can't", especially since that would lead to their claws getting dulled (Cheetah's don't have retractable claws, and their claws are dull as a result) which would make them useless as a weapon, which would make them a non-threat to the innkeeper anyways.

So really, I guess I don't care which way you want to take this. Retractable claws (or wearing gloves) that hide the claws. Or claws that can't retract and are dulled as a result, and therefore not a threat to cause the innkeeper to act like a racist.



And superman was first written in Action Comics #1, so unless Action Comics #16 came out before Actions Comics #1, then the city was created after the character.

Here, we can do another, easier one.

Arceus is the name of the Pokemon that created the pokemon world. It was created in 2006 in Japan. Pikachu was introduced in the first Pokemon game, which was created in 1996.

Pikachu existed ten years before Arceus. Yes, in the lore of the game that is not true, but in the actual world Pikachu came first, and the creators added in details later about the world of pokemon before Pikachu.

Metropolis might have been sold to settlers in the 1600's but the City didn't exist until September 1939 when Action Comics #16 was published.

I don't think anyone disputing you could have done sort of utopia.

But one could also have WW1 fantasy trench warfare replacing the relevant sides with D&D races.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I don't think anyone disputing you could have done sort of utopia.

But one could also have WW1 fantasy trench warfare replacing the relevant sides with D&D races.

Sure, and I'd be interested to see what that looks like. I believe the thrust of the point is that there's no reason that casual discrimination must exist just because the races exist.

And to your point, discrimination based on wartime conditions is earned, and more interesting, than simple racism.

 

[Jack Daniel]

I couldn't convince you a city was different than a type of organism, but I'll try to step up. The difference between a non-DnD game without elves and a DnD game without elves is that, I assume, a non DnD game doesn't have elves in the book, nor would they be easily implemented like they would be in DnD. The difference is cost and accessibility. And expectations. And what the other game even is. And how/why the restrictions are in place for the DnD end. Then we get back to things about the campaign, DM, players, which is arguably the only thing that even matters here... This is one of those things where the similarities barely exist, so defining differences becomes hard because they're so fundamental. A question so vague is almost not worth asking or answering, because no answer can be given without starting information.

My red line is at non published material- anything home-brewed, I review first, for balance. Simple. Personally, fluidity and expression add up to the most fun, so long as things stay consistent and purposeful. The "due consideration, adult conversations, willingness to compromise" are different agreements, because the first is an agreement to avoid making the game unfun for anyone, the second is an uncomfortability threshold, and the third is an ideal/expectation. All of which is meant to keep the atmosphere in a good place to facilitate the most positive experiences and the fewest negative ones. I say this within the context of all things at the table being talked out between the DM and players prior to setting things in stone. After agreements are made, they are meant to be upheld.

Not sure what you're talking about with respect to the whole city / organism thing, but then this is a weirdly fast thread. We all have to make allowances for details slipping under the radar.

What I'm seeing here, though, is that your answer to both of my questions boils down to, "because it's in the books." That there's an expectation that elves, tieflings, or generic race X ought to be permitted because it's in the book. That you draw the line around what you automatically consider vs. need to review based on what's official and in print. Is that accurate?

I will not guarantee that every player will get exactly what they ask for--because, much of the time, they won't. Instead, I guarantee that I will always listen to every genuine, non-abusive, non-coercive request, and give each idea and suggestion a fair shake. My players are clever people (they've made me sweat more than once, worried I was making too-predictable a story), but they're also kind, and I do my best to reciprocate that. Whenever possible, I will work to find the things the player actually values about the proposals they make, and work those values into the game. They may take unexpected forms, or require perspective adjustment, or be re-articulated. But if there's any way I can implement those valued things without me needing to give up the things I value that I've brought to the table, I will pursue it.

But there are limits. That, I think, is all I'm really trying to establish here. There's a line somewhere that no player's desire could tug-of-war you across despite every good faith intention to meet them in the middle in your negotiations, and for you that line lives somewhere in the vicinity of "the player wants to play something that would be abusive, coercive, disruptive, unfair, impractical, etc." My line lives closer to the mark of "the setting lore is preestablished and therefore inviolate." My point is simply this: we can't judge someone based on where their red line is, it's subjective, it's preferential, it's highly variable, and one DM drawing a tighter circle than another around the nebula of acceptability for a campaign's character options doesn't make that DM bad, tyrannical, a Viking Hat, etc. (I don't think you've gone there personally, but others in this thread definitely have.) Neither do I think that a DM who's more flexible than I am is bad, a pushover, too permissive, etc. All I've maintained is, "not in the games I'm running and playing in."

(Well, that and a healthy dose of, "How dare you presume to judge me?" that's definitely boiling off both sides in this little back-and-forth. Most of it on account of miscommunication.)

Some tales, the whole point is the uncommon situation. Some, the whole point is an uncommon person. And some, an uncommon person in an uncommon situation is what makes it work.

Okay. Well said!

I already responded to the other point you quoted, @Jack Daniels so I hope that qualifies. Briefly, " 'compromise is necessary' =/= 'compromise will be reached,' because it's about being open to changing your mind, not about definitely always changing it."

Yes, I'd consider my question answered. There are some things I'm not open to changing my mind about, but that's okay, sometimes it's good to have an open mind and sometimes and open mind means your brain falls out. We all have to strike our own balance between being flexible (wishy-washy) and sticking to our guns (stubborn ass). (Just please watch that 's', I am not a whiskey. I'll gladly drink Kentucky bourbon but I don't touch the Tennessee stuff.)

@Jack Daniel , I believe this is the first I've interacted with you. "Tongue-in-cheek" is a bit different from open and rather aggressive condescension.

Well, you know, tone doesn't always come across in a discussion forum. Which is why I said that I was being cheeky outright. Leaves less room to misinterpret or to read aggression or condescension into words that aren't intended to convey either.
…
It's been a long thread.

As it relates to your question of what's the difference between no elves in one game vs. no elves in D&D, thematically, not a whole hell of a lot insofar as both games could easily run smoothly. That said, D&D is designed to incorporate racial diversity as part of it's core mechanics. Literally step 1 is choose a race. A subtraction from the pool is a subtraction. For games without that component to them, there is no subtraction, at least as it relates to 'official' races.

I can't agree with what you're saying here. For starters, the steps involved in character creation are not a game's core mechanics. D&D 5e's core mechanic is rolling a d20, adding a modifier, etc., etc., we all know how that song goes too. But if I do argue on the ground you've chosen, literally step 0 is "Check with your Dungeon Master." (And yes, I know that link points to a page of the 3e Player's Handbook, but I'd say it's still relevant. The phrase "rule zero," which is still in common use, comes from that list. And the phrase "session zero" might even be a descendant of "rule zero," although I'm not at all certain of the etymology or the provenance on that one. Someone please tell me if they have any recorded instances of the phrase "session zero" being used before 2000!)

 

[pming]

Hiya!

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?

No, quite the opposite, actually. It's been my experience that when a Player finds a race interesting...for whatever reasons, look, culture, 'attitude', stereotype, etc... they tend towards the "because it would be fun and cool" and not so much the "because I get all these cool bonuses and abilities".

Nobody gets 'weeded out'...just different choices for different players is all. Mine tend towards Human and the 'core and classic' (re: not so much the Dragonborn, Tiefling, etc). Although I do have one player who LOVES to be the "big, hulking berzerker barbarian"...so if a race fits that, he's in (...Goliath race, I'm looking at you! ).

Holy naughty word. Your players actually endure that? Actually, no, they probably don't because you've driven away anyone who would need to.

It's not just the shopkeeper being rude here, if this is how you treat legitimate player enthusiasm. Particularly the bit I bolded.

Er...yes? Are you saying that my players are having "badwrongfun" because they enjoy a more humancentric, classical, 'medieval' feeling to the world? Huh...ok. To each their own I guess.

That's not to say they always play Humans. They play lots of the other races...even the ones that get the 'stink eye' from most of the humans in the world. This, believe it or not, leads to a lot of fun and interesting roleplaying. The expectations of walking into a human town (most are) when you are a dwarf provides a VERY distinct feeling for the player and the other players (and me) at the table. The Dwarf would be treated as a 'stereotypical' Dwarf (likes dirt, loves to mine, fascination with hard labour and gold/precocious metals, ale and beer, etc).

For me, when I've played in other DM's worlds where the DM just had blanket "every race never judges other races", ALL of the NPC's of non-human races come across as...well... "humans in funny suits". Nothing distinguishes them. There is, literally, nothing that gives me (or the other Players/DM) any 'roleplaying meat' to bite into. If everyone accepts everyone without question, bias, judgement, preference, favouritism, etc...then everyone encountered might as we just have "Whatever" listed as several locations on the character sheet. At least, IMHO.

Wonderful, the world isn't full of enough terrible things, might as well have racism in my gaming time too.

The world has a lot of war, murder, death, greed, theft, inequality, destitution, disease, natural disasters, crazy religions, horrible governments, psychotic people in positions of power, etc.... but I guess all those are 'ok'? It's only when racism (where there are ACTUAL racial differences...as in completely different species) shows up that it's suddenly "badwrongfun"? Huh. Nutty.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Maxperson]

Tabaxi constantly travel around and explore. Says so right in their lore write up. They don't just explore big cities, they travel the world.

If only there were enough of them to hit up the small towns more than once or twice a generation.

Also gnomes, halflings, elves and dwarves are all described as very rarely leaving home. So, they'd be even more unknown to this innkeeper, right?

If they were uncommon, sure. Turns out that they are common, so those villages we're discussing? Those have some elves, halflings, etc. living there, rarely leaving. Gnomes not so much. Those are like Tabaxi.

How do you know? Seriously, I looked into it. I didn't find any notes about how their conversation went down. Maybe he did insist on playing his cleric character. It was designed to be a counter to a specific threat (Sir Fang)

Have you read 1e? Gygax wouldn't have been a pushover.

I guess the biggest difference is the last thing. A disruptive player isn't disruptive if the DM says yes. So, it has nothing to do with the player and what they want, and everything to do with how the DM treats them for wanting it.

That's not actually true. The DM can say yes to a disruptive idea and disrupt his campaign.

I was literally rendered speechless by this. Yes, a player not getting to play a concept they were excited for has compromised their enjoyment of the game. Examples of that have been explicitly mentioned in this thread.

So your argument is that he's too limited creatively to have more than one concept that he would enjoy?

And, you keep saying that you've never met a player who can only enjoy playing one race. Obviously you have been missing this thread, because multple posters on here have been saying that they can only enjoy playing humans. And you and them seem to not find it strange at all to hate a race so completely, that its inclusion as an option for someone else will ruin the game for you.

It boils down to this. If an something will ruin or negatively impact someone's, anyone's fun, it has to go. If there is a conflict between the DM and a player, the player has to be the one to go. The DM can't be the one without spoiling everyone's fun.

For context, I asked this in post #1,238
"Isn't removing dwarves a mechanical change to the game? "

Then in post #1,241, you explicitly answered that question "is it a mechanical change" with this:
"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."

That's what I said, yes. Nothing there says, "You said that it can't be a mechanical change to the game if it works just as well."

So, yes Max, you literally said that it was not a mechanical change. Your justification for it not being a mechanical change was that the game "functions just as well" with that change. Therefore a mechanical change is only present if the game no longer functions just as well with the change.

Comprehension fail. That wasn't a justification at all. It was two separate statements. Statement 1: It's not a mechanical change. Statement 2: Human only works as well as all races being present. The game does function just as well with only humans as with all races being present.

Yes, playing only humans causes the game to work just as well. But changing many mechanical facets of the game can leave the game functioning just as well. I could declare that anyone can pick any skills, instead of just their class skills, and the game would function just as well. That does not mean I did not make a significant mechanical change, just that the change did not cease the game from functioning.

Sure, or it could ruin it. Depends on how good the DM is at making mechanical changes. That has nothing to do with what I said, though. I'm talking about races being present, not mechanics.

I'm sorry, can you show me rules where Breathing requires lungs? You say it is implied, but just look at movies inspired by real life events. They often have little to no resemblance to the events that inspired them.

5e DMG, page 46.

"She drew in a sudden breath, surprised by the sight, and felt her lungs fill with something sweeter and perhaps a little more solid than air, but instead of gagging or drowning on the stuff she seemed perfectly acclimated to it. An electric thrill raced through her limbs as she found herself mesmerized by the simple act of respiration."

 

[zarionofarabel]

But just like a Wolf and German Shepherd have some connection and correlation, all elves tend to have some connections.

Long lived
Beautiful and graceful (yes, even santa's elves are sometimes shown this way)
Living in a magical land or a forest.


I'm not saying there aren't huge differences sometimes, there are, but I don't think that devalues the notion of "elf" at all. It is just a broad term. Like Fantasy.

Well, for all intents and purposes the word "Fantasy" is devalued to the point of uselessness. What is "Fantasy" I wonder? Does it have to include Wizards and Swords? Can it include Space Ships? What about Guns? What about Artificial Gravity? Faster Than Light Travel? Star Wars has Wizards and Swords and Space Ships and Faster Than Light Travel and Artificial Gravity, is it "Fantasy" or "Science Fiction"? What about the MCU, it has all of it mixed together, "Fantasy" or "Science Fiction"? The reason all of those are mixed together under the banner "Speculative Fiction" is because the term "Fantasy" has been devalued to the point of being useless because of the overlap between "Fantasy" and "Science Fiction" and "Horror" and "Superhero" and "Steampunk" and so on.

I've read books where the Elves were plants. In others they were akin to demons. In others they were basically vampires. Sure they may have some vestigial connection, but not enough for it to be meaningful. At least not in the way that a Wolf and German Shepherd are connected.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Hiya!

No, quite the opposite, actually. It's been my experience that when a Player finds a race interesting...for whatever reasons, look, culture, 'attitude', stereotype, etc... they tend towards the "because it would be fun and cool" and not so much the "because I get all these cool bonuses and abilities".

Nobody gets 'weeded out'...just different choices for different players is all. Mine tend towards Human and the 'core and classic' (re: not so much the Dragonborn, Tiefling, etc). Although I do have one player who LOVES to be the "big, hulking berzerker barbarian"...so if a race fits that, he's in (...Goliath race, I'm looking at you! ).


Er...yes? Are you saying that my players are having "badwrongfun" because they enjoy a more humancentric, classical, 'medieval' feeling to the world? Huh...ok. To each their own I guess.

That's not to say they always play Humans. They play lots of the other races...even the ones that get the 'stink eye' from most of the humans in the world. This, believe it or not, leads to a lot of fun and interesting roleplaying. The expectations of walking into a human town (most are) when you are a dwarf provides a VERY distinct feeling for the player and the other players (and me) at the table. The Dwarf would be treated as a 'stereotypical' Dwarf (likes dirt, loves to mine, fascination with hard labour and gold/precocious metals, ale and beer, etc).

For me, when I've played in other DM's worlds where the DM just had blanket "every race never judges other races", ALL of the NPC's of non-human races come across as...well... "humans in funny suits". Nothing distinguishes them. There is, literally, nothing that gives me (or the other Players/DM) any 'roleplaying meat' to bite into. If everyone accepts everyone without question, bias, judgement, preference, favouritism, etc...then everyone encountered might as we just have "Whatever" listed as several locations on the character sheet. At least, IMHO.



The world has a lot of war, murder, death, greed, theft, inequality, destitution, disease, natural disasters, crazy religions, horrible governments, psychotic people in positions of power, etc.... but I guess all those are 'ok'? It's only when racism (where there are ACTUAL racial differences...as in completely different species) shows up that it's suddenly "badwrongfun"? Huh. Nutty.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

No, I guess I just wonder why people insist on using racial prejudice as the 'go-to" prejudice in their oh-so authentic medieval pastiche, when the chief prejudice of the historical middle ages was religious and cultural. If you want to go authentic, it'd be better to have the elven bishop, the dragonborn templar knight, the halfling pilgrim and the gnome nun go on adventures together than a more traditional D&D party consisting of humans who all worship different gods and follow different cultural traditions.

 

[zarionofarabel]

No, I guess I just wonder why people insist on using racial prejudice as the 'go-to" prejudice in their oh-so authentic medieval pastiche, when the chief prejudice of the historical middle ages was religious and cultural. If you want to go authentic, it'd be better to have the elven bishop, the dragonborn templar knight, the halfling pilgrim and the gnome nun go on adventures together than a more traditional D&D party consisting of humans who all worship different gods and follow different cultural traditions.

Well if it's a D&D world, so the gods are real, so holding their belief in a real god against them would be strange I guess. However if I'm a human, and that guy has claws and a tail, and the other guy can breathe fire, and that girl over there is realted to a demon, well, that might be the reason.

I run a-historical games so my NPCs are biased because of the things you mentioned like different religious beliefs!

 

[Don Durito]

It's interesting how times change.

In the 90s we ran a lot of games in which there was prejudice against Orcs and the like but that was subverted. For example, the village might hire the PCs to kill some Orcs who they said were raiding them, but then they would discover that actually it was the villagers who were at fault. The Scarred lands setting by White wolf was one example where you could see (if you were actually paying attention anyway) that the attitudes toward monster races by people in the setting were somewhat questionable. Even in some TSR products it was there. The hordelands setting had some goblins that had basically become Buddhists and the unpublished Greyhawk document Ivid the Undying had some Orc mercenaries that had got tired of fighting and taken up farming.

Nowadays there seems to be a deep suspicion by some of even the idea of prejudice in a fantasy society.