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

[Chaosmancer]

I don't think anyone disputing you could have done sort of utopia.

But one could also have WW1 fantasy trench warfare replacing the relevant sides with D&D races.

I don't really think "don't outright despise each other for their appearance" qualifies as a utopia. That is a pretty low bar to cross.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The world has a lot of war, murder, death, greed, theft, inequality, destitution, disease, natural disasters, crazy religions, horrible governments, psychotic people in positions of power, etc.... but I guess all those are 'ok'? It's only when racism (where there are ACTUAL racial differences...as in completely different species) shows up that it's suddenly "badwrongfun"? Huh. Nutty.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Disease, Death and Natural Disasters are things we can never change.

Stopping War and Murder are things we can do, and they make for good stories. Breaking up the Crazy Religion seeking to do terrible things or overthrowing the psychotic person in power or the horrible government feels good, they make for great stories.

Theft comes from inequality and destitution, and those are incredibly difficult problems, but in the simple systems of DnD, we can assume models that work, help the people we want to help. Most games gloss over it, but it is something that we, as generally poor people, can try and set examples of how to do it better.


Racism is an aspect of an individual. So we have to deal with it as individuals. I can have my character go up to a poor person, and help them find a job, and help them rise out of poverty. But to "fix" racism requires changing their mind, and that is impossible.

In fact, if these two races have been interacting for over, oh a thousand years? Then the DM is signalling that it really isn't going to be solved.


Additionally, how often do PCs stay poor? At bare minimum, a 1st level PC is expected to have 5 gold. That is a Monk with a minimum roll. That is enough to sustain a "poor" living style for twenty-five days. By around level five people start talking about having more money than they even know what to do with.

People are constantly trying to murder the PCs, but that is the nature of the game. We signed up for that, we expect that.

But Racism?

Your example was spot on. The player gets ignored, they aren't talked to. They are diminished, made less important than their peers. And that means at the table, I have to treat them as less than human. I have to ignore them, I have to mistreat them, I have to deny them things that they want and should be able to reasonably expect. I have to embarrass their characters, kick them while they are a down.

I have to do it consistently, constantly, and with the only solutions they have being to either ignore it, or to react. And by reacting they are being aggressive, and being aggressive gets them more sanctions, more mistreatment, fines, ect.


If your players have fun with that, if they like pretending to be treated as less than human in their spare time, have fun with that, but me? I want no part of that.

The world is a naughty word place, full of terrible things. I won't roleplay sexual assault or sexual aggression against female characters. I won't roleplay racism against people except in very limited, very specific situations. No matter how realistic it may be to do otherwise.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If only there were enough of them to hit up the small towns more than once or twice a generation.

Once a Generation! That is plenty frequent for people to know about them. Especially if it had been going on for two hundred or three hundred years.

If they were uncommon, sure. Turns out that they are common, so those villages we're discussing? Those have some elves, halflings, etc. living there, rarely leaving. Gnomes not so much. Those are like Tabaxi.

I'm sorry, so there are elves, halflings, dwarves and humans living in this remote village in the middle of nowhere... but a catman is going to be treated with fear and suspicion? This is a cosmopolitan town with four different races living together in harmony, yet seeing someone unusual is going to cause them to freak out?

Ignoring the fact that the Elves and Dwarves have seen multiple tabaxi over their lives, if one comes every twenty years and the those elves and dwarves are likely 200 to 300 years old.

Have you read 1e? Gygax wouldn't have been a pushover.

Not sure what Gygax has to do with Dave Arneson's Blackmoor campaign.

That's not actually true. The DM can say yes to a disruptive idea and disrupt his campaign.

So... what qualifies then?

Bringing something that doesn't exist isn't disruptive unless it is? Player's can;t be disruptive unless the DM says they are, unless they are actually disruptive?

You've talked yourself into a complete circle by this point. Mike Carr wasn't disruptive because he brought something that wasn't banned, and the DM said yes, but not being banned doesn't mean it won't be disruptive and the DM saying yes doesn't mean it won't be disruptive, which leaves us with.... Mike Carr wasn't disruptive because....

So your argument is that he's too limited creatively to have more than one concept that he would enjoy?

There are times when I dislike the fact that I can't cuss people out on this sight, and I rarely cuss. The assertion that your first option is the one you would enjoy the most, and therefore your enjoyment is impacted by the loss of that option in no way what so ever should ever indicate that you are too limited creatively to enjoy more than one thing.

But, I guess this makes sense, your argument is basically that DMs are too limited creatively to accommodate more than their own vision into their work. See, I can throw around baseless insults too. Maybe we should step back and not do that.

It boils down to this. If an something will ruin or negatively impact someone's, anyone's fun, it has to go. If there is a conflict between the DM and a player, the player has to be the one to go. The DM can't be the one without spoiling everyone's fun.

I disagree. I have disagreed, I will continue to disagree. If the DM has so much authority and power, that means they need to compromise more, not shove out players who don't agree with them.

That's what I said, yes. Nothing there says, "You said that it can't be a mechanical change to the game if it works just as well."

Comprehension fail. That wasn't a justification at all. It was two separate statements. Statement 1: It's not a mechanical change. Statement 2: Human only works as well as all races being present. The game does function just as well with only humans as with all races being present.

So, it isn't a mechanical change... because why? It just isn't? Removing mechanics from the game is still changing the mechanics Max.

5e DMG, page 46.

"She drew in a sudden breath, surprised by the sight, and felt her lungs fill with something sweeter and perhaps a little more solid than air, but instead of gagging or drowning on the stuff she seemed perfectly acclimated to it. An electric thrill raced through her limbs as she found herself mesmerized by the simple act of respiration."

Which is an excerpt from Richard Baker's novel Condemnation.

Since that counts I suppose I should go ahead and post these from the DnD Lore Wiki and the Forgotten Realms Wiki.

"A tabaxi resembles a lithe, graceful, athletic human with a leopard or jaguar-like head and a tail. Instead of skin, they have beautiful spotted fur pelts that ranged in color from light yellow to brownish red. They have sharp teeth and retractable claws, which are their primary weapons in combat."

"Tabaxi were taller than most humans at six to seven feet. Their bodies were slender and covered in spotted[2] or striped[3] fur. Like most felines, Tabaxi had long tails and retractable claws."


Seems the info was sourced from the Fiend Folio and the Fires of Zatal adventure. So since an excerpt from a novel counts, these should count to support my side.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, for all intents and purposes the word "Fantasy" is devalued to the point of uselessness. What is "Fantasy" I wonder? Does it have to include Wizards and Swords? Can it include Space Ships? What about Guns? What about Artificial Gravity? Faster Than Light Travel? Star Wars has Wizards and Swords and Space Ships and Faster Than Light Travel and Artificial Gravity, is it "Fantasy" or "Science Fiction"? What about the MCU, it has all of it mixed together, "Fantasy" or "Science Fiction"? The reason all of those are mixed together under the banner "Speculative Fiction" is because the term "Fantasy" has been devalued to the point of being useless because of the overlap between "Fantasy" and "Science Fiction" and "Horror" and "Superhero" and "Steampunk" and so on.

I've read books where the Elves were plants. In others they were akin to demons. In others they were basically vampires. Sure they may have some vestigial connection, but not enough for it to be meaningful. At least not in the way that a Wolf and German Shepherd are connected.

Well, I don't find "fantasy" useless. Incredibly broad? Sure, but not useless.

Much like "Dark Fantasy" or "Urban Fantasy" paints me a picture, so to does "Elf as plant" or "Elf as Vampire". It gives me quite enough to work with to understand the concepts at play.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

Side Note -> Best take on Devils. Because even if you know they are evil in theory, it is impossible to see it in the short term of a mortal life.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

There are plenty of better ways to include conflict in your games without racism. You have literally supernatural evil seeking oblivion of all creation or subjugation and enslavement of all creation.

The most disturbing and horrific encounter I ever put anyone through involved a mindflayer colony. To the point where I sometimes wonder if I went too far. If betweeen Fiends, Undead and Abominations you can't find enough conflict to drive your world without Racism... I really don't think anyone can help you.

And using the excuse that the fantasy world is in the past, and things were meaner and crueler back then? Doesn't fly. Because again, I would not treat a female character at the table with the amount of disrespect that is "historically accurate" or "realistic" they could face. So why is treating racism any different?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

This exactly.

Yes, if someone wants to explore those themes, maybe you can figure out a way to work them in, but if they are the default mode of playing anything that doesn't look human, than if you want to play something not human, but not deal with racist themes... you can't.

It has a chilling effect on the options, just like if you told someone that if they play a dwarf they have to deal with the urge to kill people over a single gold piece, representing that famous dwarven greed. Don't want to deal with that? Guess you don't really want to play a dwarf, despite the fact that they do want to play a dwarf, just not with respect to that story, because murdering their fellow players for greed doesn't appeal to them.

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't really think "don't outright despise each other for their appearance" qualifies as a utopia. That is a pretty low bar to cross.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Disease, Death and Natural Disasters are things we can never change.

Stopping War and Murder are things we can do, and they make for good stories. Breaking up the Crazy Religion seeking to do terrible things or overthrowing the psychotic person in power or the horrible government feels good, they make for great stories.

Theft comes from inequality and destitution, and those are incredibly difficult problems, but in the simple systems of DnD, we can assume models that work, help the people we want to help. Most games gloss over it, but it is something that we, as generally poor people, can try and set examples of how to do it better.


Racism is an aspect of an individual. So we have to deal with it as individuals. I can have my character go up to a poor person, and help them find a job, and help them rise out of poverty. But to "fix" racism requires changing their mind, and that is impossible.

In fact, if these two races have been interacting for over, oh a thousand years? Then the DM is signalling that it really isn't going to be solved.


Additionally, how often do PCs stay poor? At bare minimum, a 1st level PC is expected to have 5 gold. That is a Monk with a minimum roll. That is enough to sustain a "poor" living style for twenty-five days. By around level five people start talking about having more money than they even know what to do with.

People are constantly trying to murder the PCs, but that is the nature of the game. We signed up for that, we expect that.

But Racism?

Your example was spot on. The player gets ignored, they aren't talked to. They are diminished, made less important than their peers. And that means at the table, I have to treat them as less than human. I have to ignore them, I have to mistreat them, I have to deny them things that they want and should be able to reasonably expect. I have to embarrass their characters, kick them while they are a down.

I have to do it consistently, constantly, and with the only solutions they have being to either ignore it, or to react. And by reacting they are being aggressive, and being aggressive gets them more sanctions, more mistreatment, fines, ect.


If your players have fun with that, if they like pretending to be treated as less than human in their spare time, have fun with that, but me? I want no part of that.

The world is a naughty word place, full of terrible things. I won't roleplay sexual assault or sexual aggression against female characters. I won't roleplay racism against people except in very limited, very specific situations. No matter how realistic it may be to do otherwise.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Once a Generation! That is plenty frequent for people to know about them. Especially if it had been going on for two hundred or three hundred years.



I'm sorry, so there are elves, halflings, dwarves and humans living in this remote village in the middle of nowhere... but a catman is going to be treated with fear and suspicion? This is a cosmopolitan town with four different races living together in harmony, yet seeing someone unusual is going to cause them to freak out?

Ignoring the fact that the Elves and Dwarves have seen multiple tabaxi over their lives, if one comes every twenty years and the those elves and dwarves are likely 200 to 300 years old.



Not sure what Gygax has to do with Dave Arneson's Blackmoor campaign.



So... what qualifies then?

Bringing something that doesn't exist isn't disruptive unless it is? Player's can;t be disruptive unless the DM says they are, unless they are actually disruptive?

You've talked yourself into a complete circle by this point. Mike Carr wasn't disruptive because he brought something that wasn't banned, and the DM said yes, but not being banned doesn't mean it won't be disruptive and the DM saying yes doesn't mean it won't be disruptive, which leaves us with.... Mike Carr wasn't disruptive because....



There are times when I dislike the fact that I can't cuss people out on this sight, and I rarely cuss. The assertion that your first option is the one you would enjoy the most, and therefore your enjoyment is impacted by the loss of that option in no way what so ever should ever indicate that you are too limited creatively to enjoy more than one thing.

But, I guess this makes sense, your argument is basically that DMs are too limited creatively to accommodate more than their own vision into their work. See, I can throw around baseless insults too. Maybe we should step back and not do that.



I disagree. I have disagreed, I will continue to disagree. If the DM has so much authority and power, that means they need to compromise more, not shove out players who don't agree with them.




So, it isn't a mechanical change... because why? It just isn't? Removing mechanics from the game is still changing the mechanics Max.



Which is an excerpt from Richard Baker's novel Condemnation.

Since that counts I suppose I should go ahead and post these from the DnD Lore Wiki and the Forgotten Realms Wiki.

"A tabaxi resembles a lithe, graceful, athletic human with a leopard or jaguar-like head and a tail. Instead of skin, they have beautiful spotted fur pelts that ranged in color from light yellow to brownish red. They have sharp teeth and retractable claws, which are their primary weapons in combat."

"Tabaxi were taller than most humans at six to seven feet. Their bodies were slender and covered in spotted[2] or striped[3] fur. Like most felines, Tabaxi had long tails and retractable claws."


Seems the info was sourced from the Fiend Folio and the Fires of Zatal adventure. So since an excerpt from a novel counts, these should count to support my side.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Well, I don't find "fantasy" useless. Incredibly broad? Sure, but not useless.

Much like "Dark Fantasy" or "Urban Fantasy" paints me a picture, so to does "Elf as plant" or "Elf as Vampire". It gives me quite enough to work with to understand the concepts at play.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Side Note -> Best take on Devils. Because even if you know they are evil in theory, it is impossible to see it in the short term of a mortal life.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------





There are plenty of better ways to include conflict in your games without racism. You have literally supernatural evil seeking oblivion of all creation or subjugation and enslavement of all creation.

The most disturbing and horrific encounter I ever put anyone through involved a mindflayer colony. To the point where I sometimes wonder if I went too far. If betweeen Fiends, Undead and Abominations you can't find enough conflict to drive your world without Racism... I really don't think anyone can help you.

And using the excuse that the fantasy world is in the past, and things were meaner and crueler back then? Doesn't fly. Because again, I would not treat a female character at the table with the amount of disrespect that is "historically accurate" or "realistic" they could face. So why is treating racism any different?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This exactly.

Yes, if someone wants to explore those themes, maybe you can figure out a way to work them in, but if they are the default mode of playing anything that doesn't look human, than if you want to play something not human, but not deal with racist themes... you can't.

It has a chilling effect on the options, just like if you told someone that if they play a dwarf they have to deal with the urge to kill people over a single gold piece, representing that famous dwarven greed. Don't want to deal with that? Guess you don't really want to play a dwarf, despite the fact that they do want to play a dwarf, just not with respect to that story, because murdering their fellow players for greed doesn't appeal to them.

Fantasy racism is fine imho. Two examples I can think of in my game.

1. Elves. They're Imperialists and slave based ones at that. Currently at war with the PCs home city.

2. Knights of Vanya. Human supremists. Think Teutonic Knights mixed with Nazis. They're villains genocide and slavery etc. But it's a LN deity. There's something else going on there.

The Knights haven't really featured much and they don't like example 1. The Knights have been corrupted by a devil.

So it exists but not rubbing the PCs face in it. Bit of nuance.

Sexism is also fine but once again don't rub PCs faces in it. Lolthite Drow are matriarchal, that kingdom might have male only succession law (or female only).

So it exists but the PCs don't really have to deal with it unless they want to (we're gonna change the world).

 

[prabe]

Maybe they enjoyed a Hengeyokai character from a novel they read, and are interested in exploring that concept by finding a DnD race that matches closest to that concept.

So, that's fine, in principle, but I have a few questions for that player:

You really can't play that character with any of the races I'm offering? (This is mainly to see if they know I have a list ...)

You're really fine being the only thing like you a given person has likely seen--and with the fact the strongest reaction you'll likely get is puzzlement (people in a fantasy world plausibly see lots of things they didn't know existed)? (This is kinda getting at why they wanna play that ...)

You're OK with the fact that I have no knowledge of the source material, so your character's story in play is very likely going to differ greatly from the source material? (This is getting at why I might not be the right DM for them to try that character, though I'm game if they are ...)

 

[Oofta]

So just because new players don't question the DM, that means they will never be interested in exploring concepts other than what was "pre-approved" for DnD?

Because @Minigiant 's point is that people new to DnD might have been inspired by other fantasy works. Maybe they enjoyed a Hengeyokai character from a novel they read, and are interested in exploring that concept by finding a DnD race that matches closest to that concept. Just because they never questioned that you wouldn't allow it in the game, doesn't mean that they aren't going to be interested in it at some point.

There are a lot of tropes and ideas that D&D doesn't support or that I would not want to run. There's a My Little Pony D&D crossover, doesn't mean I want to run that campaign nor would I do a good job at it. The youngest kids I DMed for were all nieces and nephews; they're pretty mouthy so if it was an issue they would have told me.

I've found that most young people have plenty of imagination and they aren't obsessed about one particular concept.

If they do want to play some other concept that I don't want to support they can always DM themselves or find a different DM. You can't please everyone, if the DM doesn't have buy in it won't be a good game.

 

[Minigiant]

There are a lot of tropes and ideas that D&D doesn't support or that I would not want to run. There's a My Little Pony D&D crossover, doesn't mean I want to run that campaign nor would I do a good job at it. The youngest kids I DMed for were all nieces and nephews; they're pretty mouthy so if it was an issue they would have told me.

I've found that most young people have plenty of imagination to and they aren't obsessed about one particular concept.

If they do want to play some other concept that I don't want to support they can always DM themselves or find a different DM. You can't please everyone, if the DM doesn't have buy in it won't be a good game.

The issue is not making you be their DM.

The issue is people saying their wishes and desires aren't valid or sensible and encouraging new DMs to follow the ideas of old instead of the new ones.

 

[Oofta]

The issue is not making you be their DM.

The issue is people saying their wishes and desires aren't valid or sensible and encouraging new DMs to follow the ideas of old instead of the new ones.

Which is fine. The DMs also wishes and desires which are valid and sensible. I encourage DMs to do what makes sense to them, I disagree with trying to convince them to do something they don't want to because "they should".

 

[zarionofarabel]

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.

I have found, in my own personal experience, that most non-human PCs get played in a much more stereotypical way than human PCs, something I don't like. As you said, you can do anything with humans, something you can't do with other races, so I see no reason to use them. I have also found that restricting PCs to humans only gives me a much better toolkit, it allows me to contrast the "mundane human world" with a "fantastical magical world" something I much prefer to the toolkit you imply. The more aliens that are running around, the less interesting each alien becomes.

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.

In a fantasy setting I would have no problem with a human that has demon blood, or is part demon, or even part god like Hercules. They don't need horns to have demon blood, also, they don't need to be a whole different race. Also, given the existence of magic, I could see humans that have lived long enough to see the Roman Empire rise and fall. Again, they don't need to be a different race to do that, just magic!

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.

I'm glad people find non-humans narratively useful, I don't.

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.

For my table, absolutely! For your table, not at all! If you want 799 playable races, go hard! I don't! So unless you want to tell me about how I'm not following TheOneTrueWay by allowing non-humans in my games, you can sod off!

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.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.

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.

I'm not looking to gain anything other than to preserve my own fun as a DM. I don't gain any fun from having Centaur PCs. The player of a Centaur PC in a game I'm running might lose out on a lot of fun when they find out that human settlements have human sized doors, and that means the entire session that's dedicated to the King's Grand Ball sees them standing out in the street by themselves! As for the whole fluff thing, it's just fluff, to me, it is meaningless, as it can be changed on a whim and has no mechanical weight.

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

Have all the fun with non-humans as you want! I will have my fun without them!

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.

I still think not having non-humans as playable races is a good thing.

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?

I don't.

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.

If non-human characters can be whatever a human can be then why bother?!? If a Klingon can be NOT an honor bound warrior, then they are just a funny looking human. I posted a whole bunch of stuff on this earlier in the thread, feel free to go read it.

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.

So, all non-human races are just funny looking humans? If yes, what's the point of having non-humans? Funny looks and mechanical bonuses? That's what I think, that's why I don't bother using them.

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.

Missed my point. I use good humans and evil humans. I also use monsters that are not humanoid and are evil cause they are monsters. You also again reinforce my point about how non-humans are just funny looking humans, that's the essence of why I don't like using them. I got tired of rubber forehead aliens a long time ago.

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?

You sure like to read into what I'm posting. You should stop that.

 

[Minigiant]

Which is fine. The DMs also wishes and desires which are valid and sensible. I encourage DMs to do what makes sense to them, I disagree with trying to convince them to do something they don't want to because "they should".

I agree. DMs shouldn't be forced to run things they don't like.

However, from my experience, the DM base is progressing a lot slower than the Player base when it comes to ideas. I can't tell you why though.

 

[zarionofarabel]

I disagree. I have disagreed, I will continue to disagree. If the DM has so much authority and power, that means they need to compromise more, not shove out players who don't agree with them.

I disagree! I'm more than happy to tell players who won't get on board with the premise of the game I want to run to take a hike. I have no interest in using my fun time to cater only to someone else's fun. My fun time is for me to have fun!

 

[Don Durito]

If I were to described the “player empowerment” position

I think the notion that this is in some way about 'power' is really why these discussions get so toxic.

It lends a moral and political subtext to what should just be a discussion about preferences in gaming.