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

[doctorbadwolf]

Honestly, I would think Elves would take over eventually as they live far longer and could work against the other races for generations. I think that's why Elves always seem to "be in decline" or have really low birth rates or whatever. Simply put the longer lived a race is the more likely they would be to conquer the world. In my humble opinion anyway.

Nah, the gnomes would take them down. Easily.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Nah, the gnomes would take them down. Easily.

It's a small world after all...

 

[Gammadoodler]

Honestly, I would think Elves would take over eventually as they live far longer and could work against the other races for generations. I think that's why Elves always seem to "be in decline" or have really low birth rates or whatever. Simply put the longer lived a race is the more likely they would be to conquer the world. In my humble opinion anyway.

This is why in my headcanon, elves physically and mentally mature really slowly and as such suffer from crazy high 'infant' mortality as the 20 year old elf gets dunked on by the 20 year old short lived humanoids.

I know the PHB says otherwise.. but I can dream.

 

[zarionofarabel]

This is why in my headcanon, elves physically and mentally mature really slowly and as such suffer from crazy high 'infant' mortality as the 20 year old elf gets dunked on by the 20 year old short lived humanoids.

I know the PHB says otherwise.. but I can dream.

I thought in the older editions they did take decades to mature into adults.

 

[Minigiant]

Honestly, I would think Elves would take over eventually as they live far longer and could work against the other races for generations. I think that's why Elves always seem to "be in decline" or have really low birth rates or whatever. Simply put the longer lived a race is the more likely they would be to conquer the world. In my humble opinion anyway.

Yeah. That human dominance makes sense for a setting being sold for mainstream casual audience.

But it's kinda silly to be repeated constantly from home use.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I thought in the older editions they did take decades to mature into adults.

They might. Haven't played in those. For 5e, they physically mature at the same rate as humans, then there's a whole bit about 'elven understanding' taking waaaay longer

 

[Minigiant]

I thought in the older editions they did take decades to mature into adults.

The editions have been confusing on the mental, physical, emotional, and social maturity of elves in their first 100 years of life.

I personally like elves having crippling attention deficit until age 100. They can't focus at all.

 

[Oofta]

Hundreds of posts and it all comes down to preference.

My advice for DMs hasn't changed.

Want to have all races? Go for it. Want to limit to humans? Fantastic. Want to have only anthropomorphic animals? Sure! Politely discuss ideas with your players but do what makes sense to you. It's your campaign world, your preferences, you have to bring that world to life and that's only going to happen if it comes to life for you first.​

​

I'm not going to tell you how to run your campaign. Just don't let yourself be bullied, pressured, or feel forced into allowing options you don't like or that don't fit your vision for your campaign world.​

The other point of view? Somewhere between (and around and variations of)

Old school dictators that never give their players any freedom are destroying the hobby by brainwashing the younger generation into being fellow fascist dictators that also dictate every move players make.. Will no one think of the children?​

and

You're somehow being rude by callously ignoring players that are begging you to play other races. You have to allow anything any player wants to be a good DM.​

I'm sorry, but if your fun is destroyed because you can't play a yuan-ti, how did you ever enjoy a game before they were published? Why is your fun being destroyed now? I get that there's a shiny new toy, that doesn't mean that I have to support it as a DM.

I like having a continuity to my campaign world from one campaign to the next. I have concrete ideas of what the cultural variances are and a history for the races (including non-playable ones) that inhabit my world. It doesn't always make a difference, but there's depth and thought behind each race. There's also a fair amount of history and precedence that I like to keep track of. I don't have hundreds of pages of history and lore, but I do have a wiki with dozens of pages for those people that care.

I don't want an anthropomorphic elephant in my campaign because they will have no history, no place in the world. Frankly, I think they're a bit silly and the image would be jarring in my campaign world. Yes, they could be from a lost island or some hidden valley, but how often can you do that? In addition, that lost island will no longer be lost.

Every PC in my campaign has a chance to go down in (campaign) history, every PC sets a precedence for future campaigns. There is no one true way to run campaigns so I'm not telling anyone else what to do, just what I do and why. For me it works well and my players enjoy my campaigns. Their only complaint is that we can't game more often.

 

[Crit]

Something something, orcs are racist stereotypes of marginalized human cultures, something something, not interested in getting banned or having the thread shut down by discussing it, something something...

I don't take anything that doesn't exist seriously! I disagree that the narrative usefulness unquestionably exists, if it did, I wouldn't question it.

Well I keep repeating that you do what you want at your table, the fact that you assign a different meaning to what I say than what I say is, frankly, a you problem.

When did I ever mention changing something to a sub-race?

Something something, not a valid point, something something, the community is bigger than forums, and those problems would easily manifest with replacement human cultures. Just because the races can be written badly doesn't mean the idea itself is at fault, it's just being poorly used. Orcs are not offensive, the way they are portrayed by certain people using them is.

"I don't take anything that doesn't exist seriously!" Okay. Then everything in this discussion is equally invalid for seriousness, and there's still no inherent merit or lack thereof for playing a fictional Human character over anything else. Now that we've taken 0 steps forward, we can continue.

You are wrong. "Does this has value" can only be answered by "yes, by those who give it value." "This is meaningless" is a sentence that cannot ever be completely true. If something is capable of being given importance, it can have value if such is desired, and so long as someone values it, it is not meaningless. You saying it is generally "meaningless" because it can change or "it's just fluff" is wrong, because neither of those things affect the idea of meaning. "This tool isn't useful because I don't know how to use it, nor do I want to" is such a terrible way of understanding anything. "I don't know how to play a cello, so it must be meaningless wood I don't need to play music!" I say, next to an Orchestra demonstrating my bad reasoning. I believe things like "I don't need X," within the context of this whole thread and your previous comments, shows this circular perspective of yours closing your mind to approaching this at-all differently. What is your argument, beyond "this is worthless because... I feel like it is?"

I am not assigning a different meaning to your statements. You say "remove the races," I hear an idea that actively contradicts any "acceptance" of other people's fun that you are trying to present. The blatant superior tone written with "need," "can't take them seriously," "Silly hat," "worse at RP," "meaningless*," and whatever else is what undermines this tolerance you say, but do not practice. Ideas like this should not go without dissent.

Removing the races fixes nothing. It doesn't fix offensive depictions so long as the actual culture and characterization of this culture's members stay the same*. It doesn't fix RP or story because that is a symptom of a perspective-limited DM or Player, not the fault of the choice existing. It doesn't balance the game, because it's the rules given to races that are the problem, not the existence of non-human people**. Considering the noticeable lack of issue that can be actually pinned on this feature, compared to the positive reception that interested DMs and Players can get out of this, that's why it should stay in the game. And, frankly, why it has value.

If you want an all-human RPG, play your restriction-Vision campaigns or a different RPG. DnD is what it is for everyone who plays it, it already has what it has, and you don't have spit in the eye of your own fellow players.

*(Compared to what? When you say that in response to the weird races, that implies that Human is somehow meaningful by comparison, which is not the case because it's equally fantastical and vulnerable to bad writing. But you also say it's all meaningless... so if that's the case, then what is the harm of people playing as is? They get their fun, but it would impact nothing, so it can't do any harm, no?)

**(All of that offensive stuff is meaningless fluff, I thought... Do you think fluff matters or not?)

***(The weird races are mechanically weaker than the normal ones, anyway.)

 

[Crit]

Hundreds of posts and it all comes down to preference.

My advice for DMs hasn't changed.

Want to have all races? Go for it. Want to limit to humans? Fantastic. Want to have only anthropomorphic animals? Sure! Politely discuss ideas with your players but do what makes sense to you. It's your campaign world, your preferences, you have to bring that world to life and that's only going to happen if it comes to life for you first.​

​

I'm not going to tell you how to run your campaign. Just don't let yourself be bullied, pressured, or feel forced into allowing options you don't like or that don't fit your vision for your campaign world.​

The other point of view? Somewhere between (and around and variations of)

Old school dictators that never give their players any freedom are destroying the hobby by brainwashing the younger generation into being fellow fascist dictators that also dictate every move players make.. Will no one think of the children?​

and

You're somehow being rude by callously ignoring players that are begging you to play other races. You have to allow anything any player wants to be a good DM.​

I'm sorry, but if your fun is destroyed because you can't play a yuan-ti, how did you ever enjoy a game before they were published? Why is your fun being destroyed now? I get that there's a shiny new toy, that doesn't mean that I have to support it as a DM.

I like having a continuity to my campaign world from one campaign to the next. I have concrete ideas of what the cultural variances are and a history for the races (including non-playable ones) that inhabit my world. It doesn't always make a difference, but there's depth and thought behind each race. There's also a fair amount of history and precedence that I like to keep track of. I don't have hundreds of pages of history and lore, but I do have a wiki with dozens of pages for those people that care.

I don't want an anthropomorphic elephant in my campaign because they will have no history, no place in the world. Frankly, I think they're a bit silly and the image would be jarring in my campaign world. Yes, they could be from a lost island or some hidden valley, but how often can you do that? In addition, that lost island will no longer be lost.

Every PC in my campaign has a chance to go down in (campaign) history, every PC sets a precedence for future campaigns. There is no one true way to run campaigns so I'm not telling anyone else what to do, just what I do and why. For me it works well and my players enjoy my campaigns. Their only complaint is that we can't game more often.

Oofta, I think you'd find that everyone's position boils down to that first paragraph. The rest is... bleh. Either already addressed, or somewhat-to-heavily misleading. Someone else can take this up.