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

[FrozenNorth]

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.

Most fantasy worlds I’ve heard of have a ton of conflict without relying on fantastical racism. Dark Sun has the dragon sorcerers, FR has devils, liches and vindictive gods (to cite just 4 APs), Barovia has Strahd.

Even if you’ve gotten tired of the BBEG trope, there are virulent plagues resistant to magical healing, uncontrolled magical surges that threaten the stability of reality, ancient trap-filled dungeons, and, if you really want to get political, unchecked corporate greed (good fit for Eberron!).

To get back to the basic point, if the DM includes fantastical racism in their setting, it is because they choose to. This doesn’t mean including fantastic racism is always the wrong choice...

But if the reason it is included is to discourage certain race choices because the DM doesn’t like them, then it’s the wrong choice.

 

[prabe]

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.

Erm. I'm telling you that on my world every wizard who tried to create something like the warforged was destroyed by their creations, which were then hunted down and destroyed as they rampaged across the countryside; I'm telling you that tieflings (and aasimar, and genasi) on my world more-or-less breed true and are mostly recognized as people who look different, and aren't really thought less (or more) of; I'm telling you that if there are curses that create shiter-types, they're really rare (and you need to sell me on playing a shifter, and then work with me on fitting your backstory into my world); I'm telling you that doppelgangers don't breed with (other?) humanoid races.

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.

I think some of the problem is that this dichotomy, like so many, is not entirely accurate. I think players can be the problem, if they aren't willing to work with the DM--there might be good reasons the DM doesn't automatically allow something; I think DMs can be the problem, if they aren't willing to work with their players--the player might have good reasons and/or good ideas behind their preferences.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

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.

So, one helpful thing that serves as a "common sense" check is to see if you understand other people's position.

There have been a (relatively) few people that have espoused running a human-centered (usually, human-only) campaign, such as @zarionofarabel .

But the rest of this is not, in fact, true.

What "DMs in this thread" have been saying is they restrict and add things (races, classes, magic items, backgrounds, and so on) depending on the needs, theme, and fit for the campaign. The primary argument has been between those who assert that it is somehow "unfair" or "wrong" for a DM to do so; that, in effect, a session 0 DM restriction is simply an opportunity for a player to create something not allowed and make the DM "justify" that restriction (which the DM shouldn't be able to do, because restrictions to players are anathema, and any good DM should be able to change their world to fit what the player made regardless of what the player is doing), and those who say that a session 0 DM restriction means that a player who demands to play something outside of that is an entitled and obnoxious player who needs to be booted to the curb, quick, because this is just the first sign of behavior that won't stop any time soon.

...I kid. But that's the kind of calcified and reductive arguments that we are seeing. Usually, people at a table communicate and solve these problems without all ... all of this. These arguments are fundamentally about people's experiences, play-styles, and trust. In effect, one group believes that players should abide by session 0 restrictions set by the DM, and the other group believes that the DM shouldn't have session 0 restrictions. Every thing else is just noise.

Turning to your point regarding races, most of us have stated that we often use "non-standard" or "non-core" or "exotic races" that are themed to a campaign setting. For example, in another thread I mentioned a Yuan-ti campaign I ran a while back. Others, such as @prabe , have discussed their process for adding non-standard races.

In effect, most of us (the DMs that you speak of) are saying that there are two types of campaigns ... in fact, many of us run both. Kitchen sinks, in which anything goes ... or, with some type of de minimis restriction (no UA or homebrew, or PHB + Volo's, or PHB + setting book you are in, or any official material but not Tasha's, etc.).

The other campaign is, for lack of a better word, themed. It has been designed to have a subset and/or superset of races. Perhaps some of the races have been cast aside for mechanical reasons. Or because everyone hates Kender. Or because they are elves. And maybe the DM included "Reptilians" instead of "Lizardfolk." The point being that the world is restricted/changed from the default, something that has been happening for nearly 50 years in this hobby, and that I hope never changes.

 

[MGibster]

Yeah. I'm just trying to point out that a lot of concepts can be accomodated.

Viking in Egypt-theme? How about a culture of barbarians living up the "Nile" that do a lot of river-raiding? Samurai? How about a culture of guards for the noble and powerful families with similar belief systems?

This is certainly true and your idea is great. A viking wouldn't work but what what about one of those Sea Peoples who terrorized the Mediterranean for a period of time? After their defeat some of them settle in Egypt and BOOM! You've got something close to a viking. And a character from a family known for their service to a powerful family is a great idea too.

This is what I mean when I talk about a DM taking input from their players and working it into the campaign. That's how you make the game fun for everyone.

 

[Remathilis]

"Zardnaar, your chosen theme for this game isn't really what we are interested in..."

This. Too many DMs (and I have done it myself) get married to a concept and forget that the players have a say in the concept too. Sometimes what you want isn't what the others want...

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

But this is irrelevant when the post you are replying to explicitly points out "the chief prejudice of the historical middle ages was religious and cultural"

Racial prejudice was, until the last few centuries, comparatively minor. A person could have the head of a dog but that didn't matter as much as that they worshipped the same god you did in the same way you did.

Racial prejudice became much more major starting a few hundred years ago because people knew slavery was wrong but it also made boatloads of money. So they came up with the idea that black people were subhuman to justify it. People of the past had prejudices, but it's a prejudice in itself to assume that they were the same as our conservative ones.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

But we are talking about themes, not the power. GURPS certainly has rules to represent space aliens and myriad fantastic creatures, so should all of those be allowed as characters in a historical game about Chicago mafia of 1930s?

 

[Maxperson]

"Need" is a strange word to use for a luxury entertainment pursuit in which we pretend to be elves and stuff.

There is no "need". This is all about desires, and what folks find engaging.

Okay. Let me rephrase. High magic doesn't become low magic without cat people and dragon people present. High magic is still high magic, even if all you have are dwarves, elves, humans, gnomes and halflings.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Yep. Some people seem to be confusing portraying prejudice as condoning prejudice. Commentary on prejudice tends to require portraying it!

 

[prabe]

Yep. Some people seem to be confusing portraying prejudice as condoning prejudice. Commentary on prejudice tends to require portraying it!

I don't disagree, but it needs to be handled with some care, and everyone at the table needs to be on the same page.