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

[FrozenNorth]

What if the DM says no aquatic races.

Player: Why?

DM: The world's races are constructed in the same way that our real world races are - flesh and bone/cartilage. The world's logic follows the biology of living creatures. If you live in the deep, how do you survive on land without an extraordinary physiology that is adapted from being able to compress your lungs, hold insane amounts of protein in your cells, and have layers upon layers of blubber? Something like that survive on land for extended periods. On top of this, being aquatic, your skin would dry out and die in a few hours without a constant maintenance of moisture.

Player: How about I can just breathe underwater?

DM: That still doesn't solve the problem of being able to stay warm and the pressure and your epidermis.

Player: Well how do lizardfolk do it?

DM: In this world, they do not live underwater. They can hold their breath for ten or so minutes.

Player: How about the Sahuagin?

DM: They are creatures. Their shark god gave them this ability. With each offspring, he gives a blessing, and that allows them to do this. They also never leave the water. If they did, they would suffocate within ten or so minutes.

Player: What about sea elves and other aquatic races?

DM: They do not exist because of the physiological reasons I gave.

My question is: If the DM gave you these reasons, would it be acceptable?

I think good faith matters, and it is difficult to gauge good faith from an incomplete interaction.

A DM who cares about physiological differences may be interesting to play under. A DM who only cares about physiological differences when they limit the PCs and ignores them when they impact the rest of the world would raise a red flag to me.

What would the DM answer if I replied:

“Fair enough. How about I play an elf from a small island? They are remote from the mainland and rarely trade with other species. Because the island is small, the elves live from the sea, including sea urchins that can only be collected by hand by diving. They can’t breathe underwater, but they have a swim speed and can hold their breath for 10 min like lizardfolk.”

 

[Gammadoodler]

What if the DM says no aquatic races.

Player: Why?

DM: The world's races are constructed in the same way that our real world races are - flesh and bone/cartilage. The world's logic follows the biology of living creatures. If you live in the deep, how do you survive on land without an extraordinary physiology that is adapted from being able to compress your lungs, hold insane amounts of protein in your cells, and have layers upon layers of blubber? Something like that survive on land for extended periods. On top of this, being aquatic, your skin would dry out and die in a few hours without a constant maintenance of moisture.

Player: How about I can just breathe underwater?

DM: That still doesn't solve the problem of being able to stay warm and the pressure and your epidermis.

Player: Well how do lizardfolk do it?

DM: In this world, they do not live underwater. They can hold their breath for ten or so minutes.

Player: How about the Sahuagin?

DM: They are creatures. Their shark god gave them this ability. With each offspring, he gives a blessing, and that allows them to do this. They also never leave the water. If they did, they would suffocate within ten or so minutes.

Player: What about sea elves and other aquatic races?

DM: They do not exist because of the physiological reasons I gave.

My question is: If the DM gave you these reasons, would it be acceptable?

TBH. Taking this level of IRL consideration into it and using it this way would be a huge red flag to me. And it would be that way because it indicates that the DM cannot maintain a high enough level of suspension of disbelief to run a normal game of D&D.

If we're getting all bent out of shape over (fantasy) amphibious physiology, what happens when magic starts getting thrown around and martials attempt heroic feats of strength of dexterity? How often an I going to have a (fantasy) scientific debate before I get to do the cool fun stuff I want to do?

 

[Scott Christian]

I think good faith matters, and it is difficult to gauge good faith from an incomplete interaction.

A DM who cares about physiological differences may be interesting to play under. A DM who only cares about physiological differences when they limit the PCs and ignores them when they impact the rest of the world would raise a red flag to me.

What would the DM answer if I replied:

“Fair enough. How about I play an elf from a small island? They are remote from the mainland and rarely trade with other species. Because the island is small, the elves live from the sea, including sea urchins that can only be collected by hand by diving. They can’t breathe underwater, but they have a swim speed and can hold their breath for 10 min like lizardfolk.”

I honestly think most DM's that offered the previous reasons would be absolutely fine with this. I know I would. And I would give the player a map and explain to them the different ecosystems of the surrounding islands that could work. Then once they chose the island, I would develop a reason, history, etc for their people being there.

But I also ran Skull & Shackles and said any race/class/etc. goes. It was a blast. But, for my own curated world, I definitely hold a much tighter grip.

 

[Crit]

You think this is a democracy? I'm offering a game this is the way it is sign up or don't.

Uh, yeah? If I'm going to impact other people's experiences, I'd like to hear what they think about it.
How do you approach DnD? Do you have people you want to play with and have a shared experience, or are you dead set on one exact idea and it's walk-or-not? I wouldn't offer only one game to my friends and tell them to leave when they don't want to.

At this point the barrier in this thread isn't player power vs. DM power, it's just how you feel about the people you play with. I want to have fun with my friends in a relaxed environment, so that's my rationale for "anything goes."

 

[Crit]

Like @Crimson Longinus, I have a persistent campaign world and have for every edition since 2E. I want a world history that makes sense and unique species popping up only to later disappear doesn't make any sense to me.

I made an exception for 4E because of eladrin, but I had to justify that with an apocalyptic event with the borders between planes of existence became "thin". Admittedly I'd been toying around with the idea for my Ragnarok campaign for a while but it was a realms shaking event. I liked the concept well enough - there was war in the feywild and some Sidhe had been exiled to become eladrin, stripped of most of their power. But it's not really something I want to repeat.

But some of the comments on this thread are so overblown. That somehow, refusing to allow a race that doesn't exist in my campaign world is somehow tantamount to firing kittens from an air cannon*. That not allowing someone to play a kenku will destroy the PC's fun, destroy friendships and prove that I have no soul.

In all honesty, the only thing that seems overblown is the ""pro DM"" side's responses. I believe everyone's misspoken, but I don't recall @Chaosmancer or @EzekielRaiden (and company) being remotely that aggressive. I know it's supposed to be hyperbolic, but hyperbole implies that there's something to exaggerate in the first place.

Give me a break. I guarantee the virtually all DMs limit what is allowed in their campaign. I had a guy who wanted to play a half dragon half vampire. The fact that there were no rules for how such a thing would work didn't slow him down a bit. I doubt anyone would allow someone to play The Incredible Hulk. Not talking about an orc barbarian here, even one with a girdle of giant strength. They want to have a PC that grows to giant size, can leap 3 miles at a time, toss around tons of rock like they were snowballs, able to lift hundreds of tons, virtually indestructible Incredible Hulk. Not in the book? Well, maybe a creative DM could compromise and figure out how to make a giant with a strength (based on lift capacity of 100 tons which is the low end) of 1,667.

"Virtually all DMs limit what is allowed in their campaign." Agreed. I don't think the Incredible Hulk example helps you reinforce that, and it's not an apt metaphor. There could be an essay about this, but I'll just focus on "accessibility and balance" being the big parts of it. The player shouldn't be strong like that out of the gate. That said, just playing a barbarian with a changing appearance (maybe Changeling race, or Goliath for powerful build with Change Appearance spells?) is more than feasible. Just level STR to get that power. Maybe coordinate with the DM for a scroll of Tenser's Transformation. Multiclassing? Bruce Banner was pretty smart, so going Wizard too would probably help get Tenser's naturally, with spells like Catapult doing that "thrown boulder" thing pretty well, and Thunderwave for the force-clap-

I'm thinking too much about this.

I've had a couple of people want to play drow, I said no, they still had a lot of fun in my campaign. Race is one infinitesimally small aspect of a character for a player, races IMHO have a fairly significant impact on world look in feel. So I'm not going to allow that half dragon half vampire in my campaign. It's never really bothered anyone I've met in real life all that much. Well, except for that half dragon half vampire guy, of course.

I'm happy they still had fun, but you can't prioritize what a player feels. That depends on the player and DM-- it can be important. And even then, most races are pretty sedate in comparison, without the narrative significance or complexity of vampirism and dragons.

also @ that guy, "half dragon, half vampire"? like, 50/50? mom's a dragon, dad's a vampire? If there were rules for balanced player Vampirism, just play a Dragonborn with that condition, not that Wattpad-caliber origin. The problem here is that you can't reasonably execute this idea in a way that'll satisfy the player or the DM. Balance and accessibility, random player guy, jeez!

*I exaggerate ever so slightly here mostly to make a joke about an air cannon that shot kittens would be a catapult.

I appreciated the humor of it.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

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.

You can have a singular warfirged character in a campaign without having to create an entire 30 page backstory and anthropological history of the warforged.

You could say the singular warforged is one of a kind....and have a good plot hook when you introduce a second one.

You could say the warforged comes from a land far away and have them appear as an accident like Star Trek Voyager. This makes them one of a society but you have to devote ZERO effort to detail that society unless you need to.

You could say there are just a few warforged left in the world and they all hide in a city very few ever see or visit (The elves in LotR).

You could have them come from another plane.

You cod have them be a result of a magical curse or spell and have been human originally.

There are probably 200 ways that a character can be in your game without having to come up with a while society of that oddball race. If you offer a menu of 200 race choices, you only have to figure out the origin story of the 4-5 choices the players make, not all 200.

 

[Jack Daniel]

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.

Bullpuckey. I could absolutely run a campaign set in a monocultural Ye Auld Medieval Not!England generic fairy-tale-land, no demihumans, where the only classes available are fighting man, magic-user, and cleric. This would not by any stretch of the imagination constitute me "creating the PCs" for the players.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Like @Crimson Longinus, I have a persistent campaign world and have for every edition since 2E. I want a world history that makes sense and unique species popping up only to later disappear doesn't make any sense to me.

I made an exception for 4E because of eladrin, but I had to justify that with an apocalyptic event with the borders between planes of existence became "thin". Admittedly I'd been toying around with the idea for my Ragnarok campaign for a while but it was a realms shaking event. I liked the concept well enough - there was war in the feywild and some Sidhe had been exiled to become eladrin, stripped of most of their power. But it's not really something I want to repeat.

But some of the comments on this thread are so overblown. That somehow, refusing to allow a race that doesn't exist in my campaign world is somehow tantamount to firing kittens from an air cannon*. That not allowing someone to play a kenku will destroy the PC's fun, destroy friendships and prove that I have no soul.

Give me a break. I guarantee the virtually all DMs limit what is allowed in their campaign. I had a guy who wanted to play a half dragon half vampire. The fact that there were no rules for how such a thing would work didn't slow him down a bit. I doubt anyone would allow someone to play The Incredible Hulk. Not talking about an orc barbarian here, even one with a girdle of giant strength. They want to have a PC that grows to giant size, can leap 3 miles at a time, toss around tons of rock like they were snowballs, able to lift hundreds of tons, virtually indestructible Incredible Hulk. Not in the book? Well, maybe a creative DM could compromise and figure out how to make a giant with a strength (based on lift capacity of 100 tons which is the low end) of 1,667.

I've had a couple of people want to play drow, I said no, they still had a lot of fun in my campaign. Race is one infinitesimally small aspect of a character for a player, races IMHO have a fairly significant impact on world look in feel. So I'm not going to allow that half dragon half vampire in my campaign. It's never really bothered anyone I've met in real life all that much. Well, except for that half dragon half vampire guy, of course.

*I exaggerate ever so slightly here mostly to make a joke about an air cannon that shot kittens would be a catapult.

Speaking about overblown

The thing being discussed: "DMs should be willing to discuss the inclusion of races that have rules in the official game"

Thing Oofta responds to: "Would you allow someone to play something completely broken that has no basis in the rules whatsoever? I think not."


Do you see how your response of breaking the rules of the game has pretty much nothing to do with the assertion about being willing to allow official content in the game? No one is saying that allowing a PC with a strength of 1,667 and a bonus to hit and damage of +828 is to be allowed. But unless you can find a Player Character race that is even an 1/8 that broken, it is completely beside the point of the discussion.

It is also completely beside the point about whether or not I would allow a player to roll a d20 that only had 20's on it. Because we aren't talking about that.

 

[Minigiant]

Bullpuckey. I could absolutely run a campaign set in a monocultural Ye Auld Medieval Not!England generic fairy-tale-land, no demihumans, where the only classes available are fighting man, magic-user, and cleric. This would not by any stretch of the imagination constitute me "creating the PCs" for the players.

Chances are there is more that one culture and subculture in your Ye Auld Medieval Not!England generic fairy-tale-land because you are pulling from Not!England. It's a realnot!real not!country afterall.

That's the point. The more narrow you get, the more cultures you have to add or the deeper into individual cultures you must go. The only way around that is if you and your players are extreme fans of the theme or genre or the players compromise their fun to play with you.

However if you make a shallow and narrow setting without access to a already waiting to play player base, you likely wont find excited players to play with you.

And Ive seen some shallow narrow settings both on the net and real life.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You think this is a democracy? I'm offering a game this is the way it is sign up or don't.

And (I suppose I should keep emphasizing this) as a DM I think that is the wrong way to treat things.

If "This is what I am offering, don't like it, there is the door" is your first and last response to this, what else will it be the response to? If I'm playing a blacksmith, will I not be able to design my own weapons? If I'm playing a noble, will I not be able to determine my own valets?

Would I get shown the door for making my familiar a weasel (not an option officially allowed)?

How many "My way or the highway" moments am I going to encounter? Why do I even want to play in a tyranny?

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

It doesn't matter. If I'm talking about general DM options, it's flat out wrong of you to assume which options I might take. Stop doing it. Unless I sau, "I do X", ask me what I do instead of assuming. You're wrong about 95%(no exaggeration) of the time.

Except that I said that to you in no less than two posts, three if you count the latest one. Look at what I say, not at what you want me to have said.

Don't assume. Ask. I talk in general game terms a lot. If I don't tell you what I do, you need to ask instead of assume. If you had asked, I would have told you. You're really bad at assuming. Like wrong 95% of the time bad. If you stop and just ask me(and apparently Oofta), perhaps we wouldn't think you twist our words so much.

So, I am supposed to assume that you agree with me, while you are arguing against me? Oh wait, sorry, I am supposed to ask if you agree with me while you are arguing against me and telling me I am wrong.

Because, my position is to seek a compromise. To talk to your players. To try and find common ground.

You seemed to argue against that, you held that a DM in the position where fun had to be compromised AT YOUR TABLE would ask the player to leave. At your table. Not at General DnD tables. Not at the table of the guy who sits three tables down from you. YOUR table.

But you weren't talking about how you would actually act? You described how your table, where you are the DM, and you believe you have the ultimate authority to do anything, would play out... but that wasn't what you would actually do? Why even bring it up then? Because it was one possibility?

I just... why the heck would I have even asked you if you describing your table meant that you were describing what you would do? If that isn't what you would do, then why are you saying that is how your table would act?

Maybe instead of waiting for someone to ask you what you mean, you could actually say what you mean, instead fo having six layers of "well actually" between your stated position and your actual position.

It's not an eviction. It's a parting of the ways. This is a situation where the differences are irreconcilable. It's not okay for a player to have to sacrifice and lose out on game play enjoyment. It's equally wrong to expect that of me. The only reason it has to be the player and not the DM, is because of the other players in the game. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. I'm not going to punish 3 players by leaving, when 1 can go and find just as much fun somewhere else or doing something else.

I'm sorry Max, when you say "me" do you mean that you are actually talking about yourself this time? Because I want to make sure here, since I seem to always assume.

Because it looks like when you say "The only reason it has to be the player and not the DM, is because of the other players in the game" You are saying exactly what I said you were saying. It has to be the player who leaves, or the DM would have to cancel the entire game. But you keep telling me that's wrong, that isn't what you are saying. So, why are you saying it here? Again? I mean, you also say it here " I'm not going to punish 3 players by leaving, when 1 can go and find just as much fun somewhere else or doing something else." Again, the DM cannot be the one to leave the game, unless they wish to nuke the entire campaign.

So, I'll ask again, if that isn't what you mean, why do you keep saying it?

And, if you do mean it, think about what that means to the negotiating position. The player is trying to find a way to appease the DM, but the DM can shut down the game if they don't feel like continuing to negotiate. They can "part ways" with the player, or just stop running the adventure. The player's only option other than negotiating is to leave... which you have stated like that is a "win state" for the player.

I keep coming back your "If fun is reduced by even 10%" number. That means a 90% satisfaction rate it unacceptable. And the DM in your example, can reacheive 100% satisfaction if the player leaves the game. But the player? They are gambling. They have (in theory) 90% satisfaction here, but what will their satisfaction be in the mystery game? They have no idea.

So, we are left with this situation. If the DM chooses to end the game, everyone loses, but the DM has that option, no one else does. If the player leaves the DM gets what they want, and the player does not, for them, it is the same as the game ending. So the only way the player can get what they want is by negotiating, but the DM can get what they want by not negotiating or negotiating, their preference.

Or the player can just swallow their displeasure, banking that a 90% satisfaction rating is better than they might get if they had to find a new game.

It's not about my fun. It's about OUR fun. That's what you keep overlooking. It would be a mutual parting, because of irreconcilable differences, not a unilateral eviction.

I'm sorry, that sounds like what I've been advocating for. That you should try and compromise, find common ground, and care about the fun of both parties. But you've been telling me I'm wrong. In fact, you said that if either the player or DM's fun was reduced, then that could lead to the situation.

So, if the player's fun is impacted, but the DM's isn't, and the player wanted to negotiate, but the DM doesn't (because they don't have an issue) then the player's only option is to leave the game or deal with it.

And additionally, if the DMs fun is impacted, but the player's isn't , and the DM wants to negotiate... well the player is either going to negotiate or they are going to be asked to leave the game. It doesn't matter that they don't see the issue, because the DM has the full authority to ask them to leave if they don't negotiate.

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

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.

Okay, I keep seeing this, and it bugs the heck out of me.

Ignoring Subraces, there are only 40 races in the entire game. Four of them are one offs, like the Tortles, Grung, Locath, ect.

Most of these races don't have subraces let alone ones that would be majorly different, so by my count if you include all of those... that is 45. (Duergar, Drow, Eladrin, Snirvfelbin, Shadar-Kai)

So, if someone was asking for 100 races, they are adding more 3pp races than exist in the entire game.

Take out Ravnica, Theros, one-offs and the Aarcroka because of flight and the number of races in the game including the major sub-races gives you That leaves 33 races.

So, no. There are not a hundred different PC races. Including monsters that have player options, you have 33 options in the game. That is it.

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

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."

I'm not doing more than one, but if you followed that line of conversation backwards you would have seen this from Zardnaar. It isn't the only example, but I'm not going thread trawling.

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.

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

Bullpuckey. I could absolutely run a campaign set in a monocultural Ye Auld Medieval Not!England generic fairy-tale-land, no demihumans, where the only classes available are fighting man, magic-user, and cleric. This would not by any stretch of the imagination constitute me "creating the PCs" for the players.

Really?

Because I know that from the hundreds of thousands of potential characters, I'm now down to a human fighting man, a human magic-user or a human cleric.

If I assume these map to 5e classes, that is a Human Battlemaster (by fighting man I am assuming that you want no magic. Champion holds no interest for most people, so it is battlemaster) Human Wizard and Human Cleric.

Considering the monoculture and the Not England vibes, I am likely only going to have a single diety to pick from for the cleric. Likely a diety of Light, Law and good things. So, a Cleric of Light or a Cleric of Life would be the only options.

Probably can't have a necromancer either, leaving only the other seven wizard subclasses from the PHB (this definetly sounds like a PHB only game)

So, that is what? Ten possible characters? Out of the potential hundreds of thousands of options in the game? When you reduce avaiable options by 99%, you are basically making the characters for them.