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

[zarionofarabel]

That's fine. You do realize, of course, that "I'm not interested in the ways that non-human races would differ from human races" is a very different thing to say than "All races are just humans in costumes."

Indeed.

And, if you're using your games to explore "issues" than for players to experience wonder, then, sure, I can see why you feel the way you do. That said fantasy rpgs tend to be predicated on..well..fantasy..as a key component and a lot of folks like that.

Yep they do.

As I said before, my favorite toolkit is contrasting "mundane human world" with "fantastical magical world" and non-human PCs obviously destroy that contrast. My "fantastical magical world" is still fantastical and magical though, and I find it quite a bit easier to maintain the fantastical in a fantasy game when it's not watered down. I aim for fantasy more akin to something like Game of Thrones or King Arthur: Legend of the Sword.

 

[Don Durito]

And I think this is on one the things that tilt the opinions on race, class, and settings.

Our DM base is tilting old because people with long running tables are the ones surviving long enough to try new ideas. Newcomer DMs are burning out fast or using shortcuts designed by old vets.

I wouldn't test my "War of the Pantheons" or "Age of Flight" campaigns on a new group. And it will be ulikely that they pushfor a nontraditional game with a new DM. So "Classic fake Tolkien in a bathroom sink with some Greywawk water" it is.

But that might not be what they want.

Why are we assuming restricting races necessarily means doing the AD&D races? It might because a lot of existing setting are written that way - Greyhawk etc. Even Scarred Lands, I'd be against allowing Tieflings and Dragonborn because there's enough going on in the setting already that they would just feel shoedhorned in.

But my Silk road game has no elves. They really do not fit. And a human only campaign could be anywhere. It could be an aztec game. Or it might be desired because the GM wants to emulate a lot of the fantasy novels of recent years in which non-human races are increasingly not a thing. (I'm not sure this is necessarily a good idea, but people will always want to).

 

[Minigiant]

Why are we assuming restricting races necessarily means doing the AD&D races? It might because a lot of existing setting are written that way - Greyhawk etc. Even Scarred Lands, I'd be against allowing Tieflings and Dragonborn because there's enough going on in the setting already that they would just feel shoedhorned in.

But my Silk road game has no elves. They really do not fit. And a human only campaign could be anywhere. It could be an aztec game. Or it might be desired because the GM wants to emulate a lot of the fantasy novels of recent years in which non-human races are increasingly not a thing. (I'm not sure this is necessarily a good idea, but people will always want to).

Nope. Not me anyway.

If you saw my post from earlier, it's that that many of the setting ideas described in this thread are the same 4 ideas over and over. Sure the premises are broad but they are the same ideas over and over. Which nudges me to the problem I think might be occurring.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Indeed.

Yep they do.

As I said before, my favorite toolkit is contrasting "mundane human world" with "fantastical magical world" and non-human PCs obviously destroy that contrast. My "fantastical magical world" is still fantastical and magical though, and I find it quite a bit easier to maintain the fantastical in a fantasy game when it's not watered down. I aim for fantasy more akin to something like Game of Thrones or King Arthur: Legend of the Sword.

Fair enough. Since we're no longer saying that non-humans are just funny mask humans, we're down to a matter of how you like your fantasy, which is all preference either way.

That said, I would like to draw one distinction as it relates to your preferred toolkit. Very possibly I'm wrong, so feel free to correct me. But, it looks to me like, in the worlds you like to run, the characters' sense of the fantastic draws a close parallel with the players' sense of the fantastic. It may not be to your taste, but I do think it's also interesting where a 'normal' experience for a character is a fantastic experience for the player.

Nobody in the Cantina (besides Luke) is gawking at all the aliens; they just went in for a drink, to get a job, kill a guy, etc. But for the rest of us, it's a guided tour of how big the galaxy can be. And that's something that can just be a part of down time. No epic quest or anything, just chilling for part of a day in a totally different world with some truly alien folk.

But hey, maybe that sense of wonder wears off after awhile and I just haven't gotten there yet. I dunno.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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?

And Viking or Samurai aren’t exactly that far away. It’s not like a similar culture couldn’t exist at the same time as an Ancient Egyptian style culture.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.

Sure there are things DnD can't handle. There are also a lot of things DnD can handle. If you don't even give an opportunity, how will you know which it is?

I don't get this obsession with claiming that people who are inspired by a concept and eager to explore it somehow lack imagination. I mean, people telling me this would be like me saying "Why is it a big deal that Firefly was canceled, are you so unimaginative that you can't like other science fiction shows?"

Just because I have a third and fourth favorite thing, doesn't mean that not getting my favorite thing isn't a bummer. Just because I finally want to try out a concept, doesn't mean I lack imagination.

And, back to this other oft beaten horse. Your answer here kind of just proves Minigiant's point. If there are players who are seeking things you aren't allowing, they either need to be forced to DM (meaning they can't play their concept) or they need to find someone else. And finding a DM is not as easy as you seem to think in some places.

So, again

1) DnD is big enough to cover a lot of concepts, not just one or two
2) Stop accusing people of lacking imagination.
3) Having a other options doesn't mean it doesn't suck not to get my first choice
4) "Just DM yourself if you want to play that character" misses the point and is again, not real solution.

 

[Chaosmancer]

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".

"Encouraging new DMs to follow the ideas of Old DMs" isn't about the DMs wishes and desires.

It is the New DMs seeing a debate like this and getting the idea in their heads that if they want a coherent and well-built world (why, shock! They do want to make a quality world!) the only way they can do that is by limiting the options to the core four.

After all..,. what were some of the arguments we've seen?

1) There is no story you can tell with a race that you can't tell with humans?
2) Fantasy Racism is expected and natural, because humans will freak out over unusual races
3) Anyone who wants to play something that isn't core four are just power gamers and won't admit it
4) They want to "fly their freak flag" and be special snowflakes.

These sort of arguments aren't going to show a DM they can do what they want, it is telling them "this is the best way forward, just do what I do." And that isn't fine.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Fair enough. Since we're no longer saying that non-humans are just funny mask humans, we're down to a matter of how you like your fantasy, which is all preference either way.

Oh, I'm pretty sure I will always say that non-humans are funny mask humans, and no, I'm not interested in debating it with yet another person. Yes, how we like or dislike, well, everything, is a matter of personal preference.

That said, I would like to draw one distinction as it relates to your preferred toolkit. Very possibly I'm wrong, so feel free to correct me. But, it looks to me like, in the worlds you like to run, the characters' sense of the fantastic draws a close parallel with the players' sense of the fantastic.

At times, possibly, though with the proliferation of fantasy in the media and peoples familiarity with such fantasy I doubt my players think it's like a "WOW!!! That's fantastic!" kind of thing. It's more of a narrative device so I can keep the whole experience grounded in reality. As I said, my campaigns are more like GoT than LotR.

It may not be to your taste, but I do think it's also interesting where a 'normal' experience for a character is a fantastic experience for the player.

Nobody in the Cantina (besides Luke) is gawking at all the aliens; they just went in for a drink, to get a job, kill a guy, etc. But for the rest of us, it's a guided tour of how big the galaxy can be. And that's something that can just be a part of down time. No epic quest or anything, just chilling for part of a day in a totally different world with some truly alien folk.

It was a fantastic experience for me when I was eight. Now it just makes me laugh. The proliferation of the fantastical in popular media has left most things that are meant to be fantastic fall flat. Kind of like how the Death Star Trench Run was a big deal when I was a kid, now it's poor special effects are laughable at best. Bright shiny CG monsters fighting each other is not a substitute for good storytelling. GoT didn't gain mainstream popularity because of all the nifty non-human characters running around, it gained mainstream popularity because of the character stories it was telling.

But hey, maybe that sense of wonder wears off after awhile and I just haven't gotten there yet. I dunno.

It did for me.

 

[zarionofarabel]

And Viking or Samurai aren’t exactly that far away. It’s not like a similar culture couldn’t exist at the same time as an Ancient Egyptian style culture.

Except for a millennium or two or three...no wait...four maybe.

 

[Don Durito]

And Viking or Samurai aren’t exactly that far away. It’s not like a similar culture couldn’t exist at the same time as an Ancient Egyptian style culture.

Who cares? If it's an ancient Egypt game and people want to play vikings and samurai I'd be saying "Look, what exactly are you wanting to do here? Do you really want to play an Ancient Egypt game or not?"

If they can't come up with an appropriate character then clearly they are not into it so I should run something else (or find players actually into the idea).

I mean I'd probably take this as a sign that I was just being humoured and that they really don't want to play this game.

This really sounds like passive aggressive dickish behaviour on the part of the players here. The idea that the GM should accede to this is quite bizarre.

If I'd actually put work into this on the understanding that players had agreed to the premise I would not be pleased.