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

[Neonchameleon]

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?

This sort of thing is why GURPS has the Unusual Background advantage and multiple other toggles. Because pretty clearly what they are asking for is a very unusual background.

If someone is willing to drop enough character points on an unusual background then I'm going to either have a chat with them to see what they really want or to say "clearly you want it that much" and let them have it.

 

[Crit]

It's from DC. Those settlers created Metropolis which grew into the city that Superman eventually arrived at. There is no "inspired by" in what I said.

When it's said that Metropolis was built around superman, it's in a narrative sense, not a literal sense. What's the real world continuity that led to Metropolis? I imagine Superman came first, no?

 

[Crit]

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

At the start. If I were making a campaign using GURPS, and talking with my players about could go down prior to my development of the world, if any of them wanted to use a specific feature, I'd allow it. If I proposed a restriction they were not interested in, I would not include it. After we have agreed on a vision/restrictions, I would not allow a violation of a previously agreed upon goal.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

When it's said that Metropolis was built around superman, it's in a narrative sense, not a literal sense. What's the real world continuity that led to Metropolis? I imagine Superman came first, no?

Metropolis, as a "named city," came after the introduction of Superman.

But you have to remember that at the time, Metropolis was just a stand-in for a city name. It's literally just a large city, and was used for, inter alia, Fritz Lang's film and Upton Sinclair's novel.

Similar to Gotham City (using a nickname for NYC).

Arguably, both names were stand-ins for NYC at the beginning.

This whole tangent is kind of strange; the continuity of comics is all over the place, and different characters share the world and the continuity (although, as is always pointed out, they only do so when convenient, and notably do not show up for each other's world-threatening events, probably because they have a costume-sizing or something).

 

[Crit]

Agreed. That's another reason why I prefer to have human only campaigns. Instead of fending off the raiding orcs, it's fending off the raiding humans. Instead of the evil goblins raiding caravans, it's evil humans. The terrible evil lurking in the mountains isn't a tribe of hobgoblins, it's a tribe of humans. The scary people of the swamps aren't bugbears, they're humans.

That sounds like a problem with either your or your DM's writing. "Human only campaign" is a workaround for a writing problem that's keeping you from taking advantage of the opportunities of other races. Nothing that can be down with humans can't be done with other races, and nothing with other races can't be done with humans. It can go whichever way, it just depends on what is more inspiring for the participants. Play Human, but there's nothing actually "better" or worse about it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

In short you're telling me that every wizard who tries their hand at something approaching robotics is stupid and careless. And that magic only works in very specific ways and ways that shut down player ideas. And they work in those ways because you, the DM, who has absolute control, has decided they do that.

This all tells me that what you're looking for is excuses to say no. Me, when I DM I'm looking for excuses to say yes - and even more than that excuses to say "Yeeeesssssss..." with an evil grin.

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.

As I have pointed out I DM more than I play and even when I'm a player there are more other players at the table than there are DMs. I have also in my time only ever once run into a player where the problem was player entitlement*. I can think of a number of bad DMs I've played with
where the problem was DM entitlement and the DM deciding that they should control as much as possible on both sides of the screen to the detriment of the fun of the players.

* This is not the only potential problem of course.

 

[Neonchameleon]

When it's said that Metropolis was built around superman, it's in a narrative sense, not a literal sense. What's the real world continuity that led to Metropolis? I imagine Superman came first, no?

A metropolis is just a big city. So when they started to write Superman they wanted him somewhere called "Everycity" or the equivalent.

The name itself was famously used in a 1927 film produced in the Weimar Republic referring to a dystopian city of the future with a large gap between rich and poor with the message "The Mediator Between the Head and the Hands Must Be the Heart". (When I say famously, it's been ranked fairly high on multiple polls of the greatest 100 films ever made). The high rise imagery of Metropolis, as well as that of New York is a fairly clear influence on the Metropolis City Superman comes from.

So by calling it Metropolis they were tying Superman to real world imagery and tropes even if it's not one real place, unlike Gotham.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I am with ya. My groups play the same way. And please know, I didn't mean wishy-washy in a bad way, I meant it as a sign you could sway either way when needed. Flexible would have been the better word.

You have space to add that new race, that is nice. Do you write how the other races view the shadar-kai? Their past interactions with different races and/or kingdoms? Any wars with another group or place? Their trade routes and their natural resources? How those natural resources fit into the trades of the realm? What they are known for to common folk? What they are known for to the educated or erudite? Are they isolated or everywhere? Their numbers at home? Their numbers in other cities/kingdoms? Their education system? Their currency? Do they have their own calendar or use the realm's? Their religious preferences? How do those affect daily life for the common shadar-kai? Their language? If they have a kingdom, what does their kingdom desire? Do they follow FR lore and hail from the Shadowfell? How does the Shadowfell fit into the campaign if not used before? etc.

I certainly do not need you to answer all these. (And indeed, you may have an answer for all these, I do not doubt that.) I am just merely pointing out that the second a few of these are answered, you can see how it might reach its tendrils of history into another kingdom/race. Then that might not coincide with a previous historical event you already have in place. A shadar-kai kingdom that has loads of feywood resources that builds boats might suddenly trounce the boat builders a DM already made because of the wood used. It's a quick example, but I am just showing how adding something can cause complications to a campaign world, especially one that is smaller in size or without alternate realms.

Well, that degree of detail is not yet in my world, because the focus on my world-building has been on other things. Most of the notes I mentioned are in the form of a large gazetteer document covering geography, history, and where various races and classes fit in the setting. I'll provide some detail on my shadar-kai by way of example:

I use mostly 5e lore for elves. All elves are from the Feywild and migrated to the world thousands of years ago. As they arrived, different groups explored the world further and their elfy nature changed them to forms better suited to the environment they ended up in. Those who stayed close to the original Fey crossing became high elves, those who traveled to distant forests became wood elves, aquatic elves in the sea, dark elves underground (not necessarily evil, just different), etc. True eladrin still live in the Feywild, and only occasionally visit. One traveling group of dark elves stumbled into a crossing to the Shadowfell while exploring underground, and were nearly exterminated fighting off the undead and shadow-beasts they encountered there. They came upon The Judge (a dispassionate death god in my setting, similar to the Raven Queen) and offered service in exchange for protection. He accepted, and they became the shadow elves.

I came up with that after about 20 minutes of conversation with my player and writing last week, so I don't know much else yet. If more details become important, I'll create them, but I always try to strike a balance between what my players want and what makes sense to me personally. I don't always get what I want. I had a player a while back come up with a lizardfolk idea that is definitely not the way I would have done it, but it worked and it made him happy, so the "Black Crocs of Pantano" still pop up every now and then. So far, so good.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Okay but like...honest question, why does it have to always be a human? That seems like a pretty narrow line to draw: every player must fundamentally play the same thing. That doesn't sound like openness to changing your mind at all; it sounds like "play what I've told you to play," if I'm being honest. I fear I can't recall your specific reason for not permitting non-human races, so perhaps I'm missing something there.

So...all humans are the same?!?!? I'm not convinced that non-human characters are anything other than humans who look like non-humans with some mechanical bonuses.

What about a terrible evil that is just...a variety of people? That's what I have. The Raven-Shadows are as diverse as the Safiqi priesthood whom they broke away from, long ago. The Shadow Druids (no relation, indeed no love is lost between the two groups) are carefully recruited from the population of regular Kahina, so they have no reason to be any less physiologically diverse. The Cult of the Burning Eye is older than formal human civilization, so it of necessity is not human or non-human but both and neither. And the gang run by the black dragon trying to take over the city? It couldn't possibly care less what race you are, it just wants footsoldiers in an underground war of control over money and infrastructure.

Humans can be evil. Non-humans can be good. Only those who have some clear reason to be Always Evil are so. Like the immortal supernatural beings who fought an infinitely long war of ideology for the right to force mortals to obey The Plan. Or the disturbing abominations from beyond the stars that choose to eat the brains of sapient beings in order to feed themselves. Or the hollow shades of once-living men and women, that consume the blood and life of the living in order to delay Death's embrace for ever-shrinking periods. These are Always Evil because, if they chose differently, they couldn't be the things they are. And they definitely aren't player-character material (being "devils," "mind flayers," and "vampires" specifically, though no vampires have yet appeared in the game.)

Neither the players nor I can be lazy. We can't presume that a dragonborn is a good guy or an orc is a bad guy. It's only things that are blatantly one thing or another--something so far beyond the pale that there's no going back--that you can respond with "kill it!" and not be an awful person. And even the "bad guys" often have a great deal of nuance! The Raven-Shadows are a literal murder cult, who find transcendence in the moment of a person unexpectedly facing Death. Yet they have also defended the mortal world from HORRIBLE nightmarish things that would have loved to infiltrate and destroy mortal-kind. The black dragon gang's low-level members are often just poor folk struggling to make ends meet, who get an amazingly generous offer at just the right time, and don't realize the error of their ways until far too late. The Shadow Druids--those who haven't been absorbed into the fungal hive-mind, anyway--are disgruntled, disaffected folk who pine for an age that was brutal but in which the Kahina were the succor and guide of mortal-kind. Only the Burning Eye cultists aren't nuanced, and that's just because I chose to make them (essentially) Cthulhu worshippers who throw themselves into blood frenzies; the rank-and-file aren't so much evil as truly insane, with only the thinnest veneer of sanity keeping them from being discovered.

Even "always evil" can be nuanced. My devils aren't like ordinary ones. Frex, D&D devils are lying, cheating, swindling, rules-lawyer idiots who embrace their reputation for conniving lies. Mine know that a rep of cheating/lying costs you business, so they're hella scrupulous...with business. Further, each devil WANTS every contract completed. Contract failure is failure, with a lame consolation prize (a mortal soul). And devils don't give blatantly offensive contracts. They're almost always tailored to the signer, so they'll want to complete it. (E.g., assassination contract to kill wicked devil-worshippers that have killed children.) Outright repulsive contracts are colossally stupid, and thus always avoided. This is smart, effective evil, not Dick Dastardly losing the race because he can't bear to win fairly.

Uh...okay...all the fluff you include in your responses makes it difficult for me to figure out the point you are trying to make. I think you are trying to make a point about how humans can be good or evil. I do this too, I just don't need Dragon People or Cat People to accomplish that. As for the otherworldly horrors and such, well I use monsters in my games, and not all of them are evil with a capital E, though most monsters are there to antagonize the PCs.

 

[Crit]

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?


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."

It's not just because it is in the books, it's also because it could very easily be in a now-starting campaign, which should be somewhat flexible to start with, if you're DM-ing players with sway on events. Nothing is lost, as nothing is in place "to lose."
I do draw the line at official material because of potential balance issues, and personally I want to keep players from stepping too far outside the fantasy genre in general. I trust that I can manage anything in a book to a reasonable extent, but Homebrew doesn't have quality control, so I feel like I have to step in much more. I DM to play off my players, so in the end I'm fine with most of their stories brought to the table, though I make judgment on a case by case basis.

I can't speak for others, but I have said there are limits, too. The DM has the final say, what they do impacts the campaign canon and they decide what the players can and can't do. I'm fine with the red line being anywhere, only for as long as an agreement has been reached with those that must abide by it, rather than it being prescribed from the beginning. IMO, campaigns in some capacity are always run for its players to experience.

I don't know if there was vocabulary for Session 0 prior to 2000, but I doubt that something similar didn't exist before hand. The idea had to come from somewhere, and "what do you want to do next" is a pretty commonly asked question.

The only real difference between our approaches is that you write the campaign setting before player selection, while I do it after. You offer a choice at all, which is good, which is more than some other DMs in this thread do, mentioned long ago. This whole thing is coming off the heels of a lot of other topics, from someone's thoughts on absolute-race-choice-exclusion for the next edition (which I believe to be to the community's detriment, which you probably would agree with), to Races are just for power gamers, to the Player vs. DM fun prioritization, to Halflings, to Ohio's Tabaxi, to storytelling, to Superman and Metropolis... it's easy to see how things could get muddled here. In the end, most are not arguing over positions that are very different in practice.