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

[Scott Christian]

Which I appreciate, but it is happening in this thread, from other people. People who you've been tending to agree with.

Where has this occurred? Can you quote it please?
(I am truly curious. I haven't seen it or forgot it after reading it. I have seen several people say they do not allow certain races because it does not fit their world. But I have not seen anyone call a race "stupid."

 

[Scott Christian]

Cool. I don't think you or your ideas are stupid, either. I don't even think Dragonborn are stupid. They're just not for me. Just like Pumpkin Pie isn't for me. Can't stand the stuff. One of the most popular pies out there, though.

This is the most insane and ludicrous thing I have read on this thread! How do you not like pumpkin pie?!?!?!

 

[Minigiant]

I agree with the premise that it requires more work and more thought to do a narrow setting versus kitchen sink. But I do not understand the need for say, three types of the same ecosystem. If you have a continent and there is no vast overseas or intraplanar travel or mass abilities like teleportation rings to move people from one continent to the next, why can't the DM just create one desert biome?

What I was saying is that in a setting with multiple climates and biomes, you can get away with all the desert races and desert nations having the same culture. You can paint everyone as Pseudo-Arabs or Fake-Egyptians and be done.

But in a desert only game, that would almost never fly. Every desert race needs its own culture. Every desert nation nees its only laws and history. You now have to do research to create a desert culture foreach race and nation. Because few players will let you paint the whole setting with one brush. And if they do, they likely doing have much excitement or care for the setting.

 

[Scott Christian]

Yes, but, the thing is, no one says you have to display a hundred different races. No campaign ever will, even if you say that race choice is wide open, you're only going to have as many races represented as you have players.

I am confused. Why would you only have the races that the players choose? As a DM, you might have your world set. The races are set. Why would it matter if the PC's represented one of the races you have already built?

Sorry. Just trying to understand.

 

[Scott Christian]

What I was saying is that in a setting with multiple climates and biomes, you can get away with all the desert races and desert nations having the same culture. You can paint everyone as Pseudo-Arabs or Fake-Egyptians and be done.

But in a desert only game, that would almost never fly. Every desert race needs its own culture. Every desert nation nees its only laws and history. You now have to do research to create a desert culture foreach race and nation. Because few players will let you paint the whole setting with one brush. And if they do, they likely doing have much excitement or care for the setting.

Ahh... thanks. I understand now. I must need coffee.

 

[Minigiant]

Yeah, I think there should be an option to play various archetypes and this is certainly something I think about when designing species and cultures for my settings. And I actually like the species having rather strong archetypes, and that's why I limit the roster; with hundred different intelligent species there is just too much overlap; either the archetypes become muddled or they become incredibly narrow. And of course none of the things you mention need to actually be different species, they could just be cultures within one species. Furthermore some of those could be easily even be descriptions one and same culture. For example a culture who is strong in magic using that power for empire building or tribal 'brutes' who love nature and fiercely defend it etc.

I agree with all of that.

Again I think the the problem is: There are a noticeable amount of DMs who aren't good or dedicated enough to make their own settings. And settings with very thematic and narrow tones or genre take even more skill or dedication. You need a lot of skill or time to be a hardliner.

The DMG doesn't tell DMs that narrowing the setting doesn't get you out of some work. As much as you cut out, you need to add back in.

The DM creates te setting but not the player characters. If you have too few options, you start to indirectly create the PCs by limiting what the players can make. And that's abig red flag unless the players explicitly allow that. You are only allowed to create on one side of the screen by default.

Just like a player must ask to alter the world, a DM must ask to create the PCs.

Tolkien got away with 4 races and 6 culutres by being a worldbuilding machine.

 

[Maxperson]

This is the most insane and ludicrous thing I have read on this thread! How do you not like pumpkin pie?!?!?!

I also don't like stuffing, sweet potatoes or cranberries. And I'm allergic to poultry. At least Thanksgiving has football.

 

[Scott Christian]

I also don't like stuffing, sweet potatoes or cranberries. And I'm allergic to poultry. At least Thanksgiving has football.

So, what you are saying is - you definitely have no hobbit blood in you!

 

[Maxperson]

Side Question: When/If your group orders pizza does the orderer just get whatever they like and tell people they can eat it or get their own or do they do the "Hey I'm ordering a pizza, what does everyone want on theirs?" ask around?

I ask around and then I say, "I hate anchovies(Dragonborn), so there aren't going to be anchovies on this pizza." Anchovies have a strong taste and it flavors the pizza around them, so you can't just pick it off. I also don't like mushrooms and olives(Tabaxi and Gnomes), but those can be picked off of the pizza with no problem, so it's okay if the players choose those. If someone wants anchovies badly, they can buy their own pizza(find a game they enjoy better) and have them.

 

[Maxperson]

So, what you are saying is - you definitely have no hobbit blood in you!

I do believe that halflings were on the list of races that I dislike.