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

[FrozenNorth]

Let's go to rural Kentucky and ask around.

Isn’t the stereotype about rural places that they give directions based on landmarks that haven’t existed in generations ? (Yeah, you turn left at the old Blockbuster Video and....)

If anything, the time a cat person peddlar came to town and sold Grandma her good china would be repeated for generations...

And, this is the important part, this would be even more the case in a pre-TV world where oral history is so important.

 

[Neonchameleon]

You aren't changing any mechanics. The mechanic of race + class = PC is as intact with one race as it is with twenty. That the races have bubbles of mechanics associated with them doesn't alter the mechanics of game play at all. Think of it like this. We both go out and buy the same make, model and year car. You don't want blindspot sensors so you get a model without them. The car still functions as a car just as well as mine does, even though mine has those sensors. Did you remove something mechanical? Yes. Did you alter the ability of the car to drive? Not at all.

A better analogy here would be to remove the seat adjustors and headrests from all seats other than yours. The car still functions as a car despite you removing something mechanical. But there are people who are going to be a lot less comfortable in the car just because you don't want the aesthetics changed at all. And some are going to be fine while others are going to have their knees jamming into things.

 

[Neonchameleon]

As is, I don't see how having a default race would really change things for the better- I think it's best to leave it as is.

Having a default race allows for stronger character theming in two ways.

• People who want to play either an everyman character, an inconspicuous character, or someone arising from humble beginnings can take it to further emphasise that part of their character's themes
• People who want to play someone notably special often think "when everyone's special then no one is" and having a default race lets them feel their character is more special

One race (normally humans) having the position of default therefore emphasises a lot of character themes people want. I see this as a good thing.

Having an exclusive race for a campaign setting on the other hand I see as weakening things significantly because it prevents you playing with certain contrasts.

 

[Minigiant]

Having a default race allows for stronger character theming in two ways.

• People who want to play either an everyman character, an inconspicuous character, or someone arising from humble beginnings can take it to further emphasise that part of their character's themes
• People who want to play someone notably special often think "when everyone's special then no one is" and having a default race lets them feel their character is more special

One thing I don't get is why 99% of DMs default to humans. Making humans everyman tends to dilute their culture as they need to be generic to be everyman. Therefore only barbaric, "exotic", or evil humans get any culture.

 

[Umbran]

I want to watch Kipo and the Age of Wonderbeasts. I'm betting there are aspects of that story that are going to rely on non-human characters. In fact, I'll probably turn on the first episode here soon. I've heard good things.

Kipo is wonderful, if somewhat... ragingly positive for many people. And yes, the story relies on non-human characters. In fact, no spoilers here, the basic conflict in the series is in the question, "Can humans get along with non-humans?"

 

[Neonchameleon]

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.

If it weren't about power then the DM wouldn't be able to ban the players from playing what they want to play. The idea that this is other than about the power of the DM and how and when it should be used is ridiculous.

 

[Neonchameleon]

One thing I don't get is why 99% of DMs default to humans. Making humans everyman tends to dilute their culture as they need to be generic to be everyman. Therefore only barbaric, "exotic", or evil humans get any culture.

Which other race would you rather use than humans for the default? Humans are what we know and what we all are.

 

[Maxperson]

Isn’t the stereotype about rural places that they give directions based on landmarks that haven’t existed in generations ? (Yeah, you turn left at the old Blockbuster Video and....)

If anything, the time a cat person peddlar came to town and sold Grandma her good china would be repeated for generations...

And, this is the important part, this would be even more the case in a pre-TV world where oral history is so important.

Sure, with stories that are embellished for effect, retold, embellished some more, etc. I grew up in rural Michigan before moving to Los Angeles. A cat person wouldn't be history, it would be a story and by the time 20-30 years had passed, the Tabaxi would be called a Taxi and it would be 15 feet long, able to stand up on it's hind legs, have 2 tentacles coming out of its arse and another two on its head, and eat babies while singing She'll be Coming Round the Mountain When She Comes.

 

[Maxperson]

A better analogy here would be to remove the seat adjustors and headrests from all seats other than yours. The car still functions as a car despite you removing something mechanical. But there are people who are going to be a lot less comfortable in the car just because you don't want the aesthetics changed at all. And some are going to be fine while others are going to have their knees jamming into things.

No. That's very poor analogy as it causes discomfort that racial removal doesn't cause. The reason for the inclusion or not of races other than human is purely preference. You LIKE it, not because the game gets clunky and uncomfortable with or without them. The proper analogy was the one I gave where it's purely an aesthetic choice.

 

[Umbran]

The proper analogy was the one I gave where it's purely an aesthetic choice.

Yes. But then it becomes - the GM gets to have their aesthetic choices, and someone else doesn't get to have theirs. That doesn't sound terribly fair.

The common counter is "Yes, but he GM has to put in more work, and gets to have more say in the results".

The counter to the counter is that the player only has one thing they get to choose the aesthetics on, so maybe they ought to be allowed that, hey what?

Taking the logic a touch farther because it may be illustrative - why don't we just give all the players pregenerated characters that are absolutely sure to fit the GM's aesthetic? Because they may not find what we give them aesthetically pleasing, or enjoyable, because it may not be what they want to play, right? Because they are supposed to have some choice?

So, why draw a hard line in one place, rather than another? Seems pretty arbitrary.

Thus, the argument comes down to defense of an arbitrary choice, and we then see why it cannot be resolved.