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

[Umbran]

Non-humans that are neither rubber forehead aliens nor simplistic caricatures? That's what I've been trying to say (evidently poorly). Instead of those two things, players giving their characters the full breadth of individual-personality and societal-culture elements that sapient beings can have, while still having physiological differences that matter and, thus, can influence their culture and outlook.

So, a question for the collected - we see GMs stating a desire that players do things a particular way.

Question: How does this pay off for the player? In what way are you (generic, not EzekielRaiden) as a GM encouraging such play by rewarding it?

 

[TwoSix]

So, a question for the collected - we see GMs stating a desire that players do things a particular way.

Question: How does this pay off for the player? In what way are you (generic, not EzekielRaiden) as a GM encouraging such play by rewarding it?

I imagine they must be the In-N-Out Burger of DMs; their limited menu is made up for by being really good at running games for the character types available.

 

[jasper]

It doesn't even have to be that extreme. If a player lost out on even 10% of his fun, I'd want him to leave so that he is able to get 100% somewhere else. I'd feel really bad for him if he played and was only at 90%. The same goes for the DM. It's equally unacceptable for him to be playing at 90% enjoyment.

100% agree. No 90% agree. One of the reasons I do Adventure League is so I can get 90% of the fun of DM. Because I got tired of having to give up my 3% fun so problem players could have their 10% fun.

 

[jasper]

I think my next game will be all Kender. No rubber forehead aliens. Only Kender!

(Ok - if really pushed I might go so as far as to allow a half kender).

Bisected left and right. Or Top and bottom halfs.

 

[FrozenNorth]

—is a sweeping claim. And a false one, because a hypothetical social situation where a compromise would be ill-advised or even immoral is trivial to describe.

I think you and doctorbadwolf are using different definitions of the word “compromise”. I think you are using the word in the sense of “arrive at an agreement regardless of how much you have to give up” whereas I think doctorbadwolf means “be willing to entertain open-minded discussion about an issue”.

 

[Oofta]

I think you and doctorbadwolf are using different definitions of the word “compromise”. I think you are using the word in the sense of “arrive at an agreement regardless of how much you have to give up” whereas I think doctorbadwolf means “be willing to entertain open-minded discussion about an issue”.

You forgot "open-minded discussion about an issue where the DM always gives in to the player's demands."

Or at least that's the impression I get. I gave an example long ago of what I would work out with a player that wanted to play a tiefling. If they want it for RP purposes then they are indeed a cambion with a fiendish parent but for purposes of the game they are some other race. We'll work the parentage into background history and it will have an impact on the game going forward. Let's make it a cool story, not just a guy with red skin and horns.

 

[Oofta]

So, a question for the collected - we see GMs stating a desire that players do things a particular way.

Question: How does this pay off for the player? In what way are you (generic, not EzekielRaiden) as a GM encouraging such play by rewarding it?

For my players? I've been told more than once that they appreciate that I've given a lot of thought to my world and how it works. That if they go into, say, an elven enclave the reactions are logically consistent with the history of the world. Or that dwarves from region X are wary of elves because of a long ago conflict while dwarves and elves from region Y get along quite well because they've been forced to cooperate over the centuries.

If someone wants to play a gnome I can tell them where the major population centers are, if they want to play a halfling I explain how their religion is different from most.

I have a persistent campaign world, so they also know that their PCs may go down in campaign history or that they may hear about the great heroes of yore that they played in a previous campaign. It's about consistency, depth, and layering of cultures and stories to make the world feel more real. That world would feel less real to me if suddenly tabaxi had always been there; do I retcon the history? Do I have to quick make up cultural norms and interactions?

I could go with the "last of the tribe" or "lost kingdom" trope but that just feels cheap and long term logically inconsistent if it happens too often. As a DM I have to believe in my world before I can sell it as a real world to anyone else.

Obviously not as big of an issue if every campaign started with a blank sheet.

 

[Umbran]

I imagine they must be the In-N-Out Burger of DMs; their limited menu is made up for by being really good at running games for the character types available.

I dunno about that.

I am more remarking that it is very easy to miss the fact that they are asking for a thing that may not be providing payoff to the player. Because, quite simply, as GMs that's the very basic way to get players to engage in a particular style - you reward desired behavior. If they aren't behaving as you want them to, maybe you should not blame the player, and you should instead examine your reward structure, and see if it is properly structured to reward what you want to see.

You do raise a question in my mind... for non-humans the request is for "the full breadth of individual-personality and societal-culture elements that sapient beings can have". And I wonder how many human rogues with bad Cockney accents an an excuse of "kleptomania" have gotten by just fine in their games.

D&D race (heritage, or what have you) carries with it tropes, and sometimes players lean into them. But those are by no means at all the only tropes around. And if the players see gruff loner rangers and spectacle-wearing absent-minded wizards with long white beards a lot, maybe they think they are fitting in reasonably well...

 

[Umbran]

For my players? I've been told more than once that they appreciate that I've given a lot of thought to my world and how it works. That if they go into, say, an elven enclave the reactions are logically consistent with the history of the world. Or that dwarves from region X are wary of elves because of a long ago conflict while dwarves and elves from region Y get along quite well because they've been forced to cooperate over the centuries.

With respect, that's not what I'm asking.

How do you reward a player for their character having, "full breadth of individual-personality and societal-culture elements that sapient beings can have"? How are you rewarding the player for not playing to an archetype?

 

[Oofta]

With respect, that's not what I'm asking.

How do you reward a player for their character having, "full breadth of individual-personality and societal-culture elements that sapient beings can have"? How are you rewarding the player for not playing to an archetype?

Maybe I'm not understanding the question because I reward good RP with inspiration (when I remember) but primarily with story and interaction with the world. It doesn't matter to me if they're playing the archetype to the hilt or subverting it, that's their choice. Isn't playing the full breadth of a PC a reward in and of itself?