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

[Oofta]

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.

If someone came to me and asked if they could play a tiefling I'd point them back to the allowed races list and have a discussion about why they want to play a tiefling. Want to have demonic blood because of the role playing opportunities? Okay. You're a cambion, but for some reason it has no mechanical effect. Why that's the case will eventually be revealed, there may or may not be some options that open up at some later date. Pick a race from my list. In the meantime let's talk about some minor physical attribute such as your eyes glowing red when you get angry.

Want to be a Kryptonian? Okay. You're from the tribe/city/island/nation of Krypton that was wiped out. As far as you know you're the last one*. What do you remember? Let's see how can I work it into my story. It might take some form of suspended animation/time jump but I'm sure we can work something out.

*Except of course for your cousin, a dog, a few dozen other survivors led by that Zod guy and depending on story line an entire city. But other than that, definitely the last one.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure. You seem to be set on the idea that all dragonborn are culturally the same, or whatever. Why not all humans? This is all chosen; fiction is creationist. Why choose humans to have diverse cultures, while forbidding them to any other species?


Because...that's what they are? Dead serious. They're sapient beings--all of them. That means they're all capable of good and evil, they all belong to a culture and an origin, they all had childhoods and challenges growing up, etc. You admit to presuming that non-humans will necessarily be over-the-top stereotypes, all cut from the same cloth, but why can't they have cultures that cut across species lines? Arkhosia, for example, was the "Dragonborn" empire in 4e--but it had many human, dwarf, elf, etc. citizens as well. That's unavoidable with an imperial culture.

A dragonborn druid devoted to the Green Faith should have far more in common with a human druid dedicated to the Green Faith than she does with a dragonborn paladin of Bahamut. The first two actually share a culture. Why should having scales, or breathing fire, completely rewrite a being's potential for culture until it must be genuinely alien? It's not like they don't value the same things (they build empires, do trade, study magic, raise children, worship, eat food, etc., etc. ad nauseam). It's not like orcs are axiomatically more interested in wearing furs and hunting mammoths than they are selling silks and counting coin.


My point is that EVERYONE can be good or evil. Instead of "it's Humans Only Club" for the good/encultured guys or "it's (what you call) Monsters Only Club" for the bad/non-cultured guys, it's...just people. Dragon-people and hairless-ape-people and bird-people and green-and-tusked-people. And there may be some humans who far more strongly identify with an orc, because they're both tribal nomads, than they would with other humans who are city-dwellers. Or whatever.

What's so special about humans that they actually develop distinct cultures? Why do only humans have cultures that can cross physiological lines, while non-humans are definitionally locked into one and only one culture because of their physiology?

Yeah, pretty much all the political bodies in my setting have a primary race and several others with whom they share some degree of culture. My semi-fascist human empire includes dwarves, halflings, lizardfolk, and elves, all of whom have different levels of investment in the core political philosophy of the human-led empire. The neighboring nation with whom they're currently at war is mostly goblin, with significant human, kobold, tiefling, elf, and orc cultural groups. All of these have different cultures cut along racial, political, and religious lines. Orcs from the four different regions likely to produce orcs in my world are quite different from each other.

 

[Neonchameleon]

We all lack actionable data here, which places everybody's preferential claims (particularly between "new" ways of DMing and the tried-and-true "old and veteran") on equal footing. It's not resolvable.

I have pointed out one piece of actionable data.

D&D's major published settings have all been kitchen sink settings by the standards of the time. The three (four if we count Golarion, five if we count the oWoD) other big fantasy settings published since 1974 outside D&D are WFRP, the Warcraft universe, and the Magic: the Gathering universe (probably taking Ravnica as the main element) - and all of them are very heavily on the kitchen sink end while having themes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I disagree. I want a DM that is 100% engaged and feels a sense of investment in their world. If that world is a kitchen sink, great. If it's goblin world and I like the concept that's fine as well. I'd much, much rather have an excited enthusiastic DM who's world feels vibrant and real than play my favorite race.

I think every player wants that on some level. But groups that marry a passionate DM with players that share that passion seem pretty good to me.

 

[jasper]

I think you missed my point.

My point is the current crop of passionate DMs are not serving the need of the expanded player base.

We are creating DMs too slow and too many are repeating the ideas of the old or veteran.

Being an old veteran dm, Attention to orders. Minigiant having brought to the attention of the DM council, that current DMS are not serving the expanded player base. Player Minigiant is now promoted to the rank of DM. DM minigiant is now given the rights and responsibilities of DM. Fail at this challenge at your peril. DM Minigiant is further authorize to promote players to DM rank without the need to of DM council input.
Done this day of 08 Dec 2020.
Signed Rotten DM.
Anyone can DM. Anyone can play.

 

[Jack Daniel]

I have pointed out one piece of actionable data.

D&D's major published settings have all been kitchen sink settings by the standards of the time. The three (four if we count Golarion, five if we count the oWoD) other big fantasy settings published since 1974 outside D&D are WFRP, the Warcraft universe, and the Magic: the Gathering universe (probably taking Ravnica as the main element) - and all of them are very heavily on the kitchen sink end while having themes.

I'd be skeptical of trying to draw an inference from one piece of data anyhow, but I'm particularly leery of using "what's been published" to say anything about "what's played." Just looking at early modules, you couldn't be faulted for thinking that early D&D campaigns were (or were supposed to be) a whole lot more like tournament games than they really were.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think every player wants that on some level. But groups that marry a passionate DM with players that share that passion seem pretty good to me.

Exactly why I nurture enthusiasm. Jazzed players RP better, and make my job easier. But jazz doesn't last forever; you gotta cultivate it.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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!"

Is it honestly a surprise to you that you described your position more accurately than the position you disagree with?

I let you describe your position. I even agreed that that is what I understand your position to be.

If you think that the position I described as my position is reasonable, than maybe the reason is... that my position is reasonable.

Otherwise, this comes off as “How dare you bring nuance to a perfectly good argument!”

 

[Oofta]

I have pointed out one piece of actionable data.

D&D's major published settings have all been kitchen sink settings by the standards of the time. The three (four if we count Golarion, five if we count the oWoD) other big fantasy settings published since 1974 outside D&D are WFRP, the Warcraft universe, and the Magic: the Gathering universe (probably taking Ravnica as the main element) - and all of them are very heavily on the kitchen sink end while having themes.

Of course the published campaigns are kitchen sink. They want you to buy more books so you can play that shiny new race.

I have players of all ages in my games (well, all adults in 5E). Limiting races other than the proverbial guy that wants to run a drow* has never been an issue. After I (politely) said no they picked a different race and we gamed together until I had to move a few years later.

*Good guy but he always, and I mean always, played a halfling rogue or (if allowed) a buxom female drow sorceress.

 

[MGibster]

I disagree. I want a DM that is 100% engaged and feels a sense of investment in their world. If that world is a kitchen sink, great. If it's goblin world and I like the concept that's fine as well. I'd much, much rather have an excited enthusiastic DM who's world feels vibrant and real than play my favorite race.

I tend to focus more on the plot of the adventure and campaign than I do in any actual world building. It's a big part of why I can shrug my shoulders and just live with eleventy billion playable races.