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

[Maxperson]

But, D&D half elves are not related to Tolkien at all though. Elrond is not a D&D half-elf, despite the name. So, right off the bat, you're deviating from Tolkien. And, if half-elves are acceptable, why not a shifter then? After all, what is Beorn if not a shifter? And, frankly, in a Tolkien sense, what does "no evil races" mean, since Men are quite capable of being evil.

My point is, it's almost never cut and dried.

He didn't say Tolkien races, though. He said Tolkien INSPIRED races, which the D&D Half-elf certainly is. Again, look at movies inspired by real life events. They deviate by a huge margin and sometimes are not even recognizable as that event without you being told by the blurb at the beginning.

 

[Maxperson]

If we're going to be banning stuff based on art, then 5E halflings should be getting the axe before most anything

And 2e Planescape would have been completely unplayable.

 

[Monayuris]

See, this is a serious misreading of what's being said. Time and again, everyone in this thread has agreed that there are perfectly reasonable, understandable and even positive reasons for adding limitations to the game.

For example, if adding something to the game is going to force the DM to rewrite large swaths of the campaign and cause all sorts of work for the DM, I doubt anyone here would have a problem with the DM saying no. For example, I had a player in a Scarred Lands campaign that wanted to play an elven cleric. Thing is, the main schtick of elves in Scarred Lands is that they have no god and that they are a dying race because of it. If you could simply pick a new god, it pretty much causes the entire raison d'etre of elves in Scarred Lands to fall apart. So, I veto'd the idea.

Or, if you're running a hexploration game where tracking supplies, and things like disease and exhaustion are a major threat in the campaign, a warforged character (particularly 3e) is too powerful - they don't sleep, don't eat and are immune to disease. Again, the player is asking the DM to rewrite a huge part of the campaign, and, well, that's not fair to expect of the DM.

OTOH, if you're running that same hexploration game, and I step up with a Tabaxi character, even though you hadn't added tabaxi to your world, it's not really a huge deal. A couple of paragraphs about how Tabaxi fit into the setting and poof, problem solved. If the only reason that someone is saying "NO TABAXI" is because they have this mental block that anything that isn't chained to the corpse of Tolkien is somehow not something that should be in D&D, then, well, it might be time to step back and do a bit of self evaluation as the DM and think, "Is this really a hill I need to die on?" Because, frankly, an energized, enthusiastic player is probably the best thing to bring to the table. Pooh poohing their enthusiasm just because I happen not to like it is a pretty dick move.

Well, if I'm running a casual Saturday Night Special that is intended to just be a night of playing D&D as a one shot then anything goes.

But my campaign that started after the playtest was at first Basic Rules only (all we had at the time) and then Players Handbook only. The only other D&D supplement I own is Xanathars and some of that gets used but under review first.

It is completely fair for a DM to decide what content is available in their game. When I introduce new players to my campaign, I clearly state what is available as player options. I have a short google doc with available content and the small number of house rules I use.

I'm not ambushing anyone. I am clear and upfront on what options are available.

If someone wants to join my campaign and brings an option that they know is not available, then I expect that they may have a difference in expectations.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I can show the ones who agree with me. Where are yours?

What is this a contest? But fine, I've noticed a lot of agreement from from EzekielRaiden, DoctorBadWolf, Minigiant, occasionally Prabe, and one or two others who bow in and out.

Edit: Mecheon

Now are you going to try and win some fake popularity contest by saying even more people agree with you?

The DM having that authority is a fact.

Yep.

Never said that.

When you make stuff up, you can make it sound selfish.

I'd go and quote you, but there are two problems with that. 1) I'm certain you'll fall behind the fact that I summarized, and that your exact words weren't those exact words and your definition of those words means that you actually meant something that isn't what your definition of my exact words mean. 2) Quoting your own words never seems to convince you that you said what you said.

So, I'm not wasting my time on that rabbit hole again. The intent of your words was fairly clear. If you and a player disagree on the limits with regards to fun, one of two things happen. Either they are told to leave the table, or you leave the table. Since you are DM, you leaving the table is an attempt to just kill the entire campaign for everybody.

Those were the actions you listed, multiple times. If you want to claim you didn't say that, whatever. It is a public record on the internet.

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

He's twisting my words. I've said that the DM has the ultimate authority, which is a fact per RAW. I've also said that IF, and it's a big if, both the DM and the player are in a spot where their fun would be negatively impacted and the player doesn't have another enjoyable option, it's not acceptable for either one of them to play like that. That's not only not selfish, it's the exact opposite. It treats both the player and the DM equally. @Chaosmancer is fixated on it only being the player not having another option, but that's only because the DM literally cannot have another option to have fun. When it comes to PCs, only the player has multiple options to pick from. I have also never said that the I wouldn't compromise if the player would have more fun. In fact, I gave examples of multiple races which I dislike, but which I compromise over and don't say boo to the players who want to play them. My dislike of those races doesn't impact my enjoyment like Dragonborn do, at least not when played by someone else. I try to find a workable compromise whenever possible.

I've also never in 37 years of playing encountered a player who can't have a ton of fun with multiple different races, so this is a non-issue in the real world and is only really a forum "problem."

Also, I never once even implied that I would just stop the campaign and leave. Not once. His confirmation bias has him inventing things for me to have done in order for me to fit his preconceived notion about this issue. That's the only thing I can think of for why he's altering my positions so blatantly in order to paint me in a negative light.

Ah, I see. So when you said that the one of the two people could leave, it never was actually the DM who could leave. You meant that the DM has no choice but to stay. Which... sure, I knew the DM was staying, because you advocated for kicking the player, but I didn't realize you meant that as the fact that the DM has no choice but to stay. Seems kind of a strange line to draw, but okay, I missed that point.

And, while you keep saying you've never encountered a player in all your years who can't have fun with different races, (okay and?) I've also only ever encountered DMs who are so disgusted by races that they cannot possibly have fun with them at their table here on forums.

And sure, I vaguely remember something like a thousand posts ago you giving a list of races you somewhat disliked, but would allow.

I also know you've advocated for Fantasy Racism, and that you have hard lines on other races. Like Dragonborn.

And, this seems to be the disconnect, because I literally cannot understand hating a race idea so much that I could not possibly run a game featuring them. I mean, I'm glad you compromise with players, I haven't seen you say that but this thread does tend to get 80 something posts every few hours. But the concept of having a race that I cannot stand to the point that including them in the game in any form would remove every ounce of joy I have from running the game (something that I enjoy on multiple levels for multiple reasons) just... it doesn't make sense to me.

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

At this point I honestly regret making this post to begin with. It started from a frustration on proliferation of race options to the point of being incomprehensible to me. It was definitely based from personal apprehension and was misguided in that it was unfairly accusatory on my behalf. I have and do apologize for that. But at a certain point the thread has morphed into a war between DM and Player rights.

I personally take umbrage at the accusation that if I limit options in my campaign I am considered selfish and viking hatted. DM's make the game happen. I DM and I don't want to eliminate anyone's fun. I do want to run a cohesive campaign that makes sense to me. I can (and have) successfully do both without being an evil selfish viking hat DM. It is exhausting having to constantly explain this to people.

It feels like DM's are universally despised on this forum (the first thought of a DM having authority on the game, as granted by the rules, is met with open hostility)... and yet people also lament that there aren't enough DM's out there.

There is already enough false information out there that tells you DM'ing is hard (it is not). DM'ing is easy. It just takes some confidence and some creativity. Why would anyone discourage that?

Okay, but dude you are missing something truly vital in that analysis.

Everyone who is disagreeing with you? We are all DMs.

Since the pandemic hit, I've become more of a player, because I'm not confident enough to run an online game, but I've been primarily a DM for the entire lifespan of 5th edition. In fact, there was a poll not too long ago, where other than 1 guy, most everyone on this forum said "yes, I have DMd"

So, if DMs are universally despised on a forum that is primarily DMs.... that would mean we hate ourselves. And I don't hate myself for being a DM. I don't despise myself for being a DM. I love being a DM.

Therefore, one must wonder, why are DMs speaking out against DM ultimate authority? Because that is what is actually happening here. DMs are telling other DMs their opinions.

And one of those opinions is the fact that limiting a race solely because you hate it, strikes us as being a bit too entitled. We have said multiple times that having a solid lore reason for banning a race can make sense. You can't just rely on "because I'm the DM and I say so" though. You want all elves to be dead or sealed, so your adventure that focuses on Elven ruins and the mysterious forces that destroyed the elven empire can work? Okay, we get that.

We would also like to point out that while that is a good reason for no elf player characters, that does not neccessarily mean that an Elf PC couldn't work or be interesting, there are ways to do it (many classic stories involve a surivor of a dying civilization being held in stasis then awakened in a new world with no knowledge of what happened to their people), but you've got a solid reason for your ban.

But time and time and time again on this thread, people have said "But I am the DM and I say so and that is all that matters, because the DM is the ultimate authority and I can make any rules I want. And I want to ban those things because I find them stupid, shallow and not worth my time." Which, not only is, again, just acting entitled, but then is calling things other people like stupid, shallow and not worth anyone's time.

We've seen people like Oofta time and time again say that their world is highly detailed, with deep lore, finely constructed cultures, ect and that that is only possible if you strictly limit the races. Allow too many races and your world is a shallow place of costumes and stereotypes that is childishly simple. And I'm sorry, but that just is not true. Maybe it is true for them, but it would mean that every official setting for 5e is that way, every homebrew with more than four or five races. Ect.

And judging our enjoyment of worlds with a lot of race options, and telling us that such things are bad, is going to get pushback. Every time. Because as proud as you guys are of your world's you have built? We are equally proud of the worlds we have built.

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

Doesn't have to be attacked on sight they're just not included.

Only 4 races and arcetypes are core so some of the stupid stuff is easy enough to leave out.

A half elf dragon sorcerer still appears as an exotic looking half elf. Might get harassed on sight sure.

You're not the spawn of the devil made flesh walking around.

Case in point @Maxperson and @Monayuris , yet again, things that other people like beyond Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Human are being called stupid.

I'm not Anti-DM, I'm Anti-Disparaging other people's likes. I'll say your limits are restrictive, maybe not thought completely through, definitely not necessary. But I will never call you stupid for liking your four Tolkien races, yet the other side of the debate seems to be more than happy to disparage our likes.

Now you're being picky.

Tolkeinesque game no monstrous races is fairly obvious what the DM wants.

Sure make that arguement if you like but the doors right there as well.

Can't follow basic instructions is often the sign if a troublesome player IME.

Clear to you.

But that Beorn example is also pretty clear. Player comes to you with the idea that they want to play Beorn, because they always wondered what would have happened if he joined the Fellowship. After all, he was the last of his kind, but that by definition means that others of his people used to exist.

Or maybe they come to you with a young Ent, through some 3pp supplement. The Ents aren't monstrous, they are good creatures and allies, and the player wonders what it could have been like to have a Young Treebeard following these characters. Are they still slow to move and think, or is being young giving them an unusual energy for how we saw Ents before?

What if they want to play the child of Gandalf or one of the other wizards, who are divine beings, and think that an Aasimar would fit well with that sort of celestial heritage. Or that the Aasimar being semi-divine is a better fit for how the Elves truly were.

Just because you sit down and say "this is absolutely clear" doesn't mean a player isn't going to show up having a completely different idea based solely on Tolkien's world.

Seems obvious.

Any player being a dick is just gonna get evicted for being a smart ass. See how that works?

Um, no it isn't obvious at all.

Small fact to highlight that point. Cleopatra, the Last Ptolemy Pharoah (and I think the last Pharaoh) lived closer to the Apollo mission landing people on the Moon than she did to the building of the Great Pyramids. Additionally, her family line was descended from one of the Generals of Alexander the Great, they weren't originally Egyptian.

The differences are vast over the.. ooh boy, after Cleopatra Egypt was ruled by Rome or the Byzatines until the 600's AD. So, if we use them being conquered by the Ottomans as the cut off we are talking three thousand four hundred and sixty eight years of history? All of it being covered by "Ancient Egypt"


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

Well, if I'm running a casual Saturday Night Special that is intended to just be a night of playing D&D as a one shot then anything goes.

But my campaign that started after the playtest was at first Basic Rules only (all we had at the time) and then Players Handbook only. The only other D&D supplement I own is Xanathars and some of that gets used but under review first.

It is completely fair for a DM to decide what content is available in their game. When I introduce new players to my campaign, I clearly state what is available as player options. I have a short google doc with available content and the small number of house rules I use.

I'm not ambushing anyone. I am clear and upfront on what options are available.

If someone wants to join my campaign and brings an option that they know is not available, then I expect that they may have a difference in expectations.

I know I'll be immediately labeled a problematic and terrible player. But if I said "Hey, I have Mordenkainen's and Volo's if you want to borrow them and include them in the game. I can even print you copies of stuff." would that allow those options too?

I mean, if the limit is solely because you don't have those resources, and I do, my first thought is if you'd like to have those resources, since I don't mind making copies or lending my books.

 

[Crit]

Okay, so essentially you are saying that because you like D&D the way it is, and I don't, that means that I am wrong. Sorry, but I will continue to attack what D&D has become in the hopes that it will become more of what I want because it's what I want. You not being happy about it doesn't matter to me. The entirety of the Civil Rights Movement wouldn't exist if people didn't speak up about how they wanted things to change to be more like the way they wanted and less like they way it already was. I really hope Tasha's is a glimpse of where D&D is going because the next iteration will be a true "toolkit" and that will be better, in my humble opinion anyway.

You got booted for the most egregious part of that comment, and others here did a good job of responding, so I don't have to address that part of the mess.

Focusing on the DnD aspect. You're wrong still. You already have what you want, and so do I, so why should the game change to become more of what you already have, despite your voice being drowned out by most players who use these features? What about YOUR table is wrong that requires the game itself to be revised? Why do you get to decide what other people get to play? I'm almost satisfied that your final comments showed what you truly thought and felt- a complete lack of respect for others. You refuse coexist with people in a community of different perspectives.

Sorry, but my fun time is used to run games I find fun. If I want to run a human only game and a player wants to play an Elf, the player gets the boot. I will not stop them from finding a GM that will run a game that has elves in it, in fact I would encourage them to find such a game!

Yes you would, because you want the game to completely stop having these features. For no reason. Other than forcing people to play like you do. If you want them to play like you do because it's fun, then you should see that people are already having fun so there's no need for the game to change like that. But considering that's not your position, and your admitted lack of care, you must have some other motive. Guess I won't find out now.

So I'm wack now?

Yeah, and I think most here agree.

Nope. The players are responsible for their own fun. My job is to run the game. If I run a game they find fun, yay! If I run a game they don't find fun, they should leave and find a game they do think is fun. My job is NOT to dance around simply for the amusement of the players!

what??? You're like, "the players impact my fun" but the DM doesn't, now? DnD is about having fun together! Why play a game with a person you don't care about?

I don't. I don't run preplanned adventures of any kind. I don't use plots of any kind. I improv everything and let the players drive the narrative. My games are as far from a me show as you can get. I've had two dozen different people on several different forums tell me that very recently.

so why would other races hurt world building if it's all improv? Why do you let the players drive the narrative if you won't let them have fun elsewhere?

Nope. I don't care at all about others having fun or not, that's up to them to do things that they find fun. If the game becomes something I no longer find fun then it's up to me to find a different game where I will have fun.

oof
like playing races they want? I think you've proved well enough that you "don't care about others having fun or not"... looking at that "did I get your attention" bit...

I'm sorry, but you will never convince me that I should run a game I don't enjoy running just to make a bunch of other people happy. I want to run games that make me happy. Same as when I am a player. I won't play in a game where I don't get to run a character I want to run. I won't run a character that the DM created just because the DM wants me to play that particular character. I know you agree with me on that point. My hobby and leisure time is used exclusively to make me happy. No player is a special snowflake that must be catered to! And yes, before you try to throw it in my face, in the context of this discussion, I am the special snowflake because I'm me! It's my fun that matters! The players having fun or not is incidental.

I am not trying to convince you to do something you don't want to in a game. As for the rest, I think it speaks for itself, and not in a positive way. I think it's for the better that this is how it ends.

Hopefully no one else in this thread comes even close to saying things like these. I trust, now, all of us at least care about the people we're spending weeks of time with.

Now I can pay more attention to the other focuses in this thread.

 

[Crit]

Thus my point. The folks that are limiting races; are you also limiting classes? Do you have the same stringent requirements?

If you allow fiend pact warlocks, suddenly tieflings aren't exactly much of a stretch. And, if your idea of a tiefling is a cambion, well, at that point, what's the difference? Potato potahto. Ok, my tiefling is called a cambion. Sure. Yeah, like that made such a huge difference.

Also, in Xanathar's Tiefling origin table, a Tiefling can come from two human parents due to dormant genes, which could easily switch to a curse or freak incident. In a world with magic and whatnot, having variations is almost to be expected, especially if it's ancient.

 

[Zardnaar]

Thing is a DM doesn't have to justify why races are excluded and it doesn't bother me if the exclude the core 4 or even change the fluff. Maybe Drow are twilight elves good aligned in the surface following a moon goddess.

Another reason is simplicity there's 100 odd races now. If a player can't generate a character in a 3 hour session 0 because they want to read every race available thats a problem.

So yeah a tight list of 6-20 isn't a bad idea. If I'm running Ravnica or Theros I would kind if want people to pick from the main books vs 5 or 6 players turn up wanting world travellers with no connection to the setting.

 

[prabe]

But fine, I've noticed a lot of agreement from from EzekielRaiden, DoctorBadWolf, Minigiant, occasionally Prabe, and one or two others who bow in and out.

Edit: Mecheon

It's kinda seemed to fall on a continuum.

1) At one extreme, the DM decides, and the players need to live with that--their preferences in this instance don't matter.

2) At the other extreme, the players bring their characters, whatever they are, and the DM lives with that--their preferences in this instance don't matter.

It's seemed to me as though there's remarkably little actual clustering at the actual extremes: I think @Maxperson and @Oofta have expressed a willingness to work with players in finding stuff that fits in the world/s they run, and @Zardnaar runs some games with tight themes and some that are anything-goes; and even some of the most ardent player-rights posters have expressed a willingness to accept (or impose, when DMing) some limitations on what is available in a given setting or campaign.

I think that what's happening mostly is that a poster says something like "I don't allow Warforged on my world because I don't want mecha in my D&D game" (it me) and people from closer to the player-rights end of the spectrum focus fire; Fact is, while that's probably the one race I'd stand hard on rejecting (along with anything that flies at 1st level), I'd talk to the player about why they want to play a warforged and poke around and see if there's something I will allow that gets at those reasons. @Chaosmancer and I had a little talk about Changelings, and I think we found some common ground that if the draw of playing a Changeling is "I look human but I'm not" then I have something already in my world that does that.

I will say that wen I set up my world, I made a specific decision to allow everything in the PHB (well, other than Drow) because those were in the core book, and it seemed reasonable that someone new to the game--I was setting up a table at my FLGS--would have that, and nothing else. I have been a bit more choosy about other things I've allowed, based on how the world has taken shape and what's made sense to me--which is almost certainly derived from my own preferences. There are races that I look at and kinda say "nope." As I have said, though, the world I'm running has porous planar boundaries, even by typical D&D standards, so something from outside can arrive; if a player is willing to work with being the only adventurer of their kind, the races I haven't written into the world are technically available for play. If they're looking to play based on some stereotype--either leaning into it or rebelling against it--that's not likely to work for, e.g., a kenku, but there are other approaches available.

 

[prabe]

Thus my point. The folks that are limiting races; are you also limiting classes? Do you have the same stringent requirements?

If you allow fiend pact warlocks, suddenly tieflings aren't exactly much of a stretch. And, if your idea of a tiefling is a cambion, well, at that point, what's the difference? Potato potahto. Ok, my tiefling is called a cambion. Sure. Yeah, like that made such a huge difference.

I do limit the subclasses available--and I make that information available to the players before campaign-start, too. While I do allow tieflings--the world had fiends running rampant across it for a few hundred years and stuff happened--I don't allow fiendlocks, because they were blamed for at least some of the damage the fiends did, and when the fiends arrived many fiendlocks found themselves unable to resist the commands of their patrons to do evil, so they basically get pitchforked by mobs if discovered at low levels and killed by adventurers at mid-to-high levels.

Heck, even GOOlocks are probably at least a hard sell in-character in either campaign I'm running, because they haven't run into anyone who's made contact with the GOO in my campaign who hasn't also been babbling polyglot gibberish--and contagiously insane.

That said, I have some third-party and homebrew stuff available here, just as I have at least one race that is quasi-homebrew.

 

[Oofta]

It's kinda seemed to fall on a continuum.

1) At one extreme, the DM decides, and the players need to live with that--their preferences in this instance don't matter.

2) At the other extreme, the players bring their characters, whatever they are, and the DM lives with that--their preferences in this instance don't matter.

It's seemed to me as though there's remarkably little actual clustering at the actual extremes: I think @Maxperson and @Oofta have expressed a willingness to work with players in finding stuff that fits in the world/s they run, and @Zardnaar runs some games with tight themes and some that are anything-goes; and even some of the most ardent player-rights posters have expressed a willingness to accept (or impose, when DMing) some limitations on what is available in a given setting or campaign.

I think that what's happening mostly is that a poster says something like "I don't allow Warforged on my world because I don't want mecha in my D&D game" (it me) and people from closer to the player-rights end of the spectrum focus fire; Fact is, while that's probably the one race I'd stand hard on rejecting (along with anything that flies at 1st level), I'd talk to the player about why they want to play a warforged and poke around and see if there's something I will allow that gets at those reasons. @Chaosmancer and I had a little talk about Changelings, and I think we found some common ground that if the draw of playing a Changeling is "I look human but I'm not" then I have something already in my world that does that.

I will say that wen I set up my world, I made a specific decision to allow everything in the PHB (well, other than Drow) because those were in the core book, and it seemed reasonable that someone new to the game--I was setting up a table at my FLGS--would have that, and nothing else. I have been a bit more choosy about other things I've allowed, based on how the world has taken shape and what's made sense to me--which is almost certainly derived from my own preferences. There are races that I look at and kinda say "nope." As I have said, though, the world I'm running has porous planar boundaries, even by typical D&D standards, so something from outside can arrive; if a player is willing to work with being the only adventurer of their kind, the races I haven't written into the world are technically available for play. If they're looking to play based on some stereotype--either leaning into it or rebelling against it--that's not likely to work for, e.g., a kenku, but there are other approaches available.

Just to be clear: I could easily come up with a setting that allowed for any race under the sun. A world that's a crossroads of sorts where people from a wide variety of worlds either are pulled in at random, it's a nexus or travel between entirely different cosmologies is just commonplace.

But those aren't the campaign worlds I happen to use. For me, there needs to be a reason for the option for the 100 or so race/subraces to make sense such as your porous world boundaries.

But that's just my game, different DMs have different preferences.