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

[Jack Daniel]

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...

That seems like a perfectly fine attitude to have in a home game with a fixed roster of players and a not terribly practical one in an open table game with a rotating roster.

 

[Neonchameleon]

That seems like a perfectly fine attitude to have in a home game with a fixed roster of players and a not terribly practical one in an open table game with a rotating roster.

It's fine in an open table game with a rotating roster - remember that early open table games included rotating the DM and players moved their PCs between groups. But the themes were the ones of D&D about going out to seek fame and (more importantly) fortune and power.

 

[zarionofarabel]

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.

Hahaha! So I have a writing problem because I don't like using races other than humans! That's hilarious!

I see no advantage to using races other than humans. The fact that other races look different is meaningless. The fluff that is attached to non-human races can easily be manipulated so it can work with humans, making it meaningless.

As you say yourself, anything that can be done with non-humans can be done with humans. That's exactly the reason why I don't use non-humans, there is literally no point!

I also agree that either way is fine, it's a matter of personal preference. I have no problem with other DMs using 95 different playable races in their games, it's just I don't like to do that, so I don't.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Hahaha! So I have a writing problem because I don't like using races other than humans! That's hilarious!

I see no advantage to using races other than humans. The fact that other races look different is meaningless. The fluff that is attached to non-human races can easily be manipulated so it can work with humans, making it meaningless.

Non human races in general re-enforce and emphasise themes they were built around. Yes you can do anything with humans - but using only humans in magical fantasy fiction is like making a swiss army knife your only knife, saw and screwdrivers when building something.

I carry a swiss army knife in my pocket - and I also have ratchet screwdrivers, a couple of actual saws, and multiple knives in my toolbox because they are better at doing what they were designed for.

 

[loverdrive]

The fluff that is attached to non-human races can easily be manipulated so it can work with humans, making it meaningless.

Well, humans don't generally have daemon blood in their veins and don't live long enough to see empires crumble and generations of people pass, so I can't say that this is true.

 

[Jack Daniel]

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.

See, I don't think about "quality control" in those terms. I don't think anything must especially well-balanced just because it appears in an official rulebook, so I don't privilege it over homebrew content that way. And I don't see adding new material as particularly onerous—which means that my attitude about adding and subtracting from the core is fundamentally blasé. It's just "a thing you do when you DM." Or when you sculpt a campaign setting.

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.

No, I don't think so either. We're either talking past each other about entirely separate circumstances or quibbling over edge-cases. Which is fine. But what do you mean when you're talking about "absolute-race-choice-exclusion for the next edition"? I don't think I've been following that topic. Is someone advocating fewer races in the core rules? If so, I don't see the point of that—just because I don't run every campaign as a kitchen sink doesn't mean I never do that, or that I don't appreciate a broader toolkit to work with when I do craft a more tightly themed setting.

(And that is how I see the selection of races in D&D: tools in a toolkit. Even humans are just the trusty hammer hanging beside everyone's workbench.)

But the themes were the ones of D&D about going out to seek fame and (more importantly) fortune and power.

Yes, well, that is how I run my games. Likely with a lot of the same rules.

 

[Crit]

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.

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.

Saying "I just don't need dragon people or cat people to accomplish that" implies that we need alternate races to achieve what you can with humans- not the case. No one needs it, it's wanted because they find it fun, interesting and/or narratively useful. You aren't/haven't been listening to people's actual motives, and if you haven't already seen them when it's been explicitly explained, then there's nothing we can do to help.

Anything looks bad if you go out of your way to demean it as much as possible.
In general, you come across as having a One True Way attitude.

Hahaha! So I have a writing problem because I don't like using races other than humans! That's hilarious!

I see no advantage to using races other than humans. The fact that other races look different is meaningless. The fluff that is attached to non-human races can easily be manipulated so it can work with humans, making it meaningless.

As you say yourself, anything that can be done with non-humans can be done with humans. That's exactly the reason why I don't use non-humans, there is literally no point!

I also agree that either way is fine, it's a matter of personal preference. I have no problem with other DMs using 95 different playable races in their games, it's just I don't like to do that, so I don't.

Not what I said. If you boil down every encounter to fighting "a different fantasy race" and leave it at that, and then you swap to all human and consider it "a fight between good and bad people," the problem is the writing or your reading, not the characters involved.

You see no advantage, doesn't mean there isn't one. Appearance isn't meaningless just because you say it is. The fluff most definitely can't always be reapplied- good luck with a Centaur or feral Tiefling. And the fluff can be extremely valuable, depending on how the DM writes. I mean, of course you can come up with a rough equivalent if you try hard enough to translate each characteristic, at that point you'd just make Elf a sub race of humanity and we're basically back at the beginning, having gained nothing.

There is a point (the above responses of mine), you just don't see it- fun for others, mechanics, story, etc.

You have said in multiple comments here, and a few on other threads, if I read you correctly, something to the effect of removing races from the game being a good idea. This is something we actively discussed somewhere near the beginning of the thread. That position is the least "either way is fine" attitude that can be held. If you say you didn't say that, I'll accept your newfound tolerance, but I'd love to hear again how that was at-all a good idea.

 

[FrozenNorth]

...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.

If we are going to be fair, I would say that you have accurately described the “curated” position.

If I were to described the “player empowerment” position, as espoused by @Chaosmancer, @EzekialRaiden, myself and others, I would articulate it around 3 points:

• First, if the DM is going to limit races, they should explain why to their players;
• Second, the DM should listen, be flexible and open-minded if someone wants to play something different;
• Third, the DM should not mock the player or act as if they are entitled if they want to play something different, and they DM should definitely not enforce fantastic racism simply to discourage players from playing certain races.

Several of the “player empowerment side have explicitly said, several times, that they occasionally run themed campaigns with limited races and classes, so it is simply not true that the “player empowerment” side is against DM session zero restrictions.

If I have to describe what specifically is causing a strong reaction among the “player empowerment” side it is:

• the implication that the DM doesn’t owe an explanation to the players for any restrictions they may implement “because it is their setting”;
• the implication that the DM doesn’t have to listen or compromise if his players want to play something different “because the player can play something else”;
• belittling players who want to play something different by (i) suggesting they are only choosing the race for mechanical benefits; or (ii) suggesting that they can get the same effect by simply playing a human.

 

[Crit]

See, I don't think about "quality control" in those terms. I don't think anything must especially well-balanced just because it appears in an official rulebook, so I don't privilege it over homebrew content that way. And I don't see adding new material as particularly onerous—which means that my attitude about adding and subtracting from the core is fundamentally blasé. It's just "a thing you do when you DM." Or when you sculpt a campaign setting.

No, I don't think so either. We're either talking past each other about entirely separate circumstances or quibbling over edge-cases. Which is fine. But what do you mean when you're talking about "absolute-race-choice-exclusion for the next edition"? I don't think I've been following that topic. Is someone advocating fewer races in the core rules? If so, I don't see the point of that—just because I don't run every campaign as a kitchen sink doesn't mean I never do that, or that I don't appreciate a broader toolkit to work with when I do craft a more tightly themed setting.

(And that is how I see the selection of races in D&D: tools in a toolkit. Even humans are just the trusty hammer hanging beside everyone's workbench.)

Oh, I don't think the official content is perfectly balanced at all- I just know what to expect, and things are generally clustered "well enough" IME. I don't disallow home-brew, I just make a special point of checking it before allowing it. I don't have a problem with doing it at all, I just take its presence a little more seriously because it can be a kind of jack-in-the-box.

It was a short-lived thing near the 40's or 50's pages, but I don't remember exactly where- it was around the first half of this thread. That was basically what was being advocated for, and I took issue with it because it was so explicitly unhelpful.

Let me go look, I'll edit it in if I find it.

Granted, while in jest, this is the most recent instance of that idea. Even then, the joke is that Zarion is cutting Neon's comment to fit with a previous argument of his. Neonchameleon was being sarcastic, and this line from him was individually quoted and responded to. I'm afraid you'll just have to take my word that this was an actual position being argued at some point, I don't want to leaf through a thousand comments for something I remember well enough. I can look again if I need to, to prove it.

Yay! We've just proved that D&D should abolish all the core races and stick with humans.

No truer words have been spoken!!!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

If we are going to be fair, I would say that you have accurately described the “curated” position.

If I were to described the “player empowerment” position, SNIP

I think you really missed the point on that.

"I get that you are trying to be balanced, and I appreciate that you accurately described the other side, but my side is the one that is totally reasonable! So I accept your classification of one, but we have a lot of nuance!"

Look, I get it. But you did see that the other people on the "curated side" repeatedly said that they usually work with players, too, right?

A: I like peanut butter only, but will add jelly on occasion.

B: I like jelly only, but will add peanut butter on occasion.

A: ..... Well, I guess we have to go to war, then, you dirty jelly-lover.


This is a truly stupid argument, because it's not really about what it's about, as I stated. It's about player empowerment, and DM "rulings not rules," and different playstyles, and trust.

But to answer your last issue- yes, I happen to firmly believe that an entire sea of water can't sink a ship unless it gets inside a ship. I've gamed for far too long to have a bad player at my table (or to be a bad player). IMO and IME, if a DM and the table agree on a theme or "curated" setting, then the players create PCs that match the agreed-upon rules. That's how things work. Other people are welcome to play differently. To the extent that you might view that as my belief that the "player can play something else," then I cop to it.

EDIT- OTOH, if a player comes up with an idea for something that works within the setting but was not otherwise approved, then I will work with the player on it.