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

[Neonchameleon]

Another thing I am seeing in these thread is the "sameyness" of themes.

It's always

1. Kitchen sinks
2. LotR clones
3. Human centered
4. Real World History with countries painted by races

DMs in this thread have been suggesting the same 4 family of ideas over and over.

Could the problem be that since the Player Base is bigger than the DM base, the player's preferences to uncommon racial grouping are more represented?

I get (dwarf, elf, halfling, human ) as common is traditional.

But why are every DM using it? Specially since they can change it. It's not for player familiarity as DMs can make whatever setting they want.

I'm going to add a big and important use of race that isn't in the above 4 but I've seen used a lot and have used a lot.

5. Race as a reflection of the character's inner struggles

This particularly comes into effect for the races that often don't have a separate culture, with tieflings, warforged, shifters, changelings, and to an extent vampires on the list. Changelings, who change their form and may not even have a fixed one are a natural for identity issues and issues fitting in, exploring them in ways that humans struggle to. Tieflings are visible outsiders and either reinforce dark pasts or are blamed for the sins of their family - you can do the same with humans but tieflings reinforce the theme. Shifters are about the beast within. And warforged were either (a) created for a war that's now over - now what? or (b) created illicitly and for whatever reason and are probably out of contact with their creators - now what? You can do both these stories with humans, but the metaphorical nature of warforged (right down to the name) makes the theme more immediate and relevant.

And these themes are all IME far more vivid and immediate than the Tolkien Four and as such tap aspects of RP the Tolkien ones don't.

Also all these four approaches work in part because they are rare. When a DM says that "My world only has certain races" they are telling me that there are no mad scientist high level wizards who'd create warforged even in small numbers for any reason. They are telling me there are no magical curses that would create shifters or tieflings and that there are no dark bargains that would create tieflings. They are telling me that there's no such thing as a doppelganger or half doppelganger. Even Tolkien had a shifter as an ally who would be suitable as an adventurer - Beorn.

And no, the problem isn't that the player base is bigger than the DM base. This thread isn't DMs vs players. It's DMs in favour of rich and diverse worlds and empowered players vs DMs who want pretty exclusive control over the vision of the setting.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

So do you think that in a campaign using GURPS, anything from any GURPS book should be allowed?

 

[jasper]

A human with pointy ears, you say?

Kill the space elf. He is after our airships!

 

[jasper]

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.

AMEN. By the powers invested in me by me. You are now promoted to ThreeSeven.

 

[Neonchameleon]

So do you think that in a campaign using GURPS, anything from any GURPS book should be allowed?

I no more assume that TL7 equipment or skills are available for TL3 characters than I do 7th level spells are available to 3rd level characters. GURPS comes with a lot more such toggles than D&D and is a much grittier system than D&D's near consequence free power fantasy.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Yes, the point is that the real issue isn't about the race - you can make that work if you want. It is the power that race is implied to have - the issue isn't about Kryptonians, but about how the player wants a character of effective level of 40+.

Exactly. A Kryptonian may mechanically be a human, but narratively, a Kryptonian is a person who was sent away from their dying world to a new one.

That in and of itself includes a variety of interesting plot hooks.

 

[Accaris]

In my setting, humans outnumber elfs and dwarfs 10:1, and the more exotic races 1000:1, sometimes even 10,000:1. So in the book, I strongly suggest that any adventuring party contain at least 1 human, preferably 2 or more (depending on size,) to preserve the uniqueness of those other races. For example, there are fewer than 200 living ratfolk in the setting, and fewer than 1000 "dragon folk" as well. So what's the appeal of choosing one of those races, beyond their fantastical aesthetic, unique gameplay abilities, or appeal to some kind of personal power or transformational fantasy?

For my players, it's always been the fun of introducing such a character to the rest of the world, and seeing the realm's reaction. A rodent might encounter cartoonish racism and hatred, which they'll feel compelled to subvert; or on the flip side, wonder and delight from a village's children, who think he's fascinating and cute. A dragon is a fire-breathing monster! Imagine their expression when the townsfolk see what a hero you are. (I absolutely adore story hooks where a character is assumed to be a villain, but isn't... from Dragonheart to Beauty and the Beast.) Furthermore, it allows plenty of opportunity to play against type in a classical way. Rats are puny and weak, can you prove the world wrong, Reepicheep? Can the strength of your heart shine through, Ms. Brisby?

There are a few hard and fast racial omissions from the setting, like we have no Tieflings, but I strive to provide suitable replacements cohesive with the world's themes and lore.

 

[FrozenNorth]

The players did get a say in the theme as I would have been happy to run.

Eberron
Vikings (Midgard)
Midgard (Zobeck)
FR (generic)

They picked happy pirates and couple of weeks later I had thought something up.

I think this is an interesting point that has been glossed over in these discussions, which is the getting player input and discussions can also happen before the setting is chosen.

Once we finish our current campaign, I’m planning on giving my players a choice of different campaign that I can run:

• Rime of the Frostmaiden (FR, kitchen sink, but I will encourage thematic characters);
• Legacy of Fire (Golarion, even more kitchen sink);
• Homebrew campaign based on the Diableros series (low magic, gritty, extremely limited in races and classes);
• Theros (limited races)

If my players choose a campaign with limited races or classes, I’ll hold them to it, since part of the fun of those campaigns is the theme and tone.

 

[jasper]

No, I just see distinct cultures beside each other that have never homogenized. Is German culture the same as French culture, the same as Italian culture? No? Why not? These cultures have existed together for centuries, why have they not homogenized? It's because people don't want them to and actively resist such homogenization. As long as people do that the "melting pot" will continue to be a myth.

Because none of them choose Common as their second language.

 

[nevin]

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.

It could be because anyone who has ever read a history book knows it's the biggest driver of war, inequality, unfairness in all of history. People are wired to not trust those who are different than them. There are countless studies on this, and how to make it better, if can be made better etc.

to have a game with conflict you need a reason the conflict exists. We have conflicts in this world that are race based that have been going on for almost 1000 years. If people can fight over their differences that long what's going to happen when we have dwarves, elves, and even worse the exotic races, or things like Tieflings touched by the lower planes? Not having Some level of racism is having a game without the primary driver of conflict in the universe in it.

It's a beautiful idea but, most D&D games aren't modern progressive worlds.