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

[Jack Daniel]

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.

Nah.

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.

If you think that "a character" is the player's choice of race, class, and other mechanical affectations, we are talking about something quite different.

 

[Remathilis]

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'd laugh.

First off, tritons explicitly are tuned to ocean depths: it says so right in their racial traits: (Guardians of the Depths. Adapted to even the most extreme ocean depths, you have resistance to cold damage.)

Secondly, "biological realism" is the worst reason to ban anything in D&D, just below "I don't like the artwork" and slightly above "because you asked me to play it" in terms of reasons. You already hand-waved the sahuagin gods giving them water-breathing, so that would allow the sea-elf god or the triton god to do the same. And if you want to argue "biological realism", you BETTER be ready to defend flying, fire-breathing dragons, corporal undead, owlbears, plane-touched races, sentient golems and oozes, and a host of other "a wizard/deity/demon lord did it" things. If you want to argue "biological realism", you are forfeiting the "Its magic" as an excuse for anything.

And I will leave you with a final bit of advice I learned years ago on this site (and was in my signature when such things were free):

"When consistency gets in the way of samurai gunslingers riding on dinosaurs, it's time for consistency to take a day off." - Barsoomcore.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

I believe with counting all the subraces it is hundredish. And not really the point, thirty is still an absurd amount.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

No. You aren't supposed to assume anything at all. And don't ask if I agree with you. Ask me what it is that I do in that situation. Because I don't take my ball and go hom.

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

I try to do that as well. Sometimes, though, the answer will be no.

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.

Fun doesn't always have to be compromised, though. Sometimes you can arrange it so that the player and the DM can still both have fun. Maybe not with a Dragonborn, but I'm pretty good at coming up with fun ideas that can achieve the goals of the player or things that the player wasn't even thinking of, but are better. Just because the player may have to change from the Dragonborn to something else, doesn't mean that the player has to give up fun. The player may just gain more fun through the discussion with me.

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 wasn't talking about my table at all. I was talking about DM authority and DM options in general. I brought up the possibility, because DMs out there have that option.

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.

I did say what I meant. I fully meant that in general DMs have absolute authority. They also have the option to leave if they want to. You assumed that I was talking about my table, even though I never said, "I would do..." or "This is how I..." Look for those key words that indicate that I'm talking about my game. Also look for key words like "DMs" to indicate when I'm talking about things in general.

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.

I bolded the parts that I am supporting personally. I underlined the part that I wouldn't do. That "or" isn't a part of what I personally support. It is, however, an option for other DMs.

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.

So it is a win state for the player. The player can go do something he will enjoy, rather than having to play something he doesn't. Remember, this is a white room discussion. The reality is that even if I say no, players almost always have a plan B that's just as fun. And those few times that they didn't, I worked with them to come up with something that was.

Compromise doesn't have to mean giving the player the race he asked for.

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.

I'm talking in the context of playing the PC that they want. The actual DMing experience can vary. There are DMs here who are probably very good, but DM in a style that I wouldn't enjoy, even if I played the exact race and class that I wanted.

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.

It's a Kobayashi Maru scenario. The unwinnable situation.........that really doesn't happen in real life.

 

[Oofta]

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.

"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'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 appreciated the humor of it.

Do I need to put <sarcastic hyperbole> tags around everything? I thought it was obvious when I made the catapult joke that the whole paragraph was an exaggeration.

In any case, I'm just pointing out that all DMs set limits. Some set it to any published books (WOTC or not) that are D&D specific, some WOTC published (no UA articles) only, basic rules only or race X only with other options in between. I posted a ridiculous example; but then you prove my point. You wouldn't allow The Incredible Hulk because of accessibility and balance. I don't think accessibility and balance is any more or less relevant then tone and imagery of the setting.

But yes the half dragon half vampire thing ... I have no clue how that happens. I guess he was going the Blade half vampire route and then thought it would be awesome to throw in dragon too? No clue. I will admit that I probably didn't handle it as well as I could have when I broke out in laughter. Then again this was also a replacement for a monk character that thought he could run so fast that he could create a tornado like The Flash.

 

[Zardnaar]

As for fewer races remember GoT was basically human's only and lotr is 4 maybe 5?

Notice that there's no real epic work of fantasy with a massive amount of D&D races and the protagonists are usually human?

Sure it might be because we're humans ourselves but that also applies to game logic.

Even at 30 races that's kinda annoying let alone 100 odd.

I had 30 odd but in Midgard and then kind of narrowed it down to the starting region and surrounding areas.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

I agree with everything you say there, although that might get stickier if we are talking about something not created. What I was referring to is your quote that you only have to have the races that the players choose. That is what I didn't understand.

 

[Scott Christian]

I'd laugh.

I do not doubt that you would laugh. Which, generally, is the wrong way to approach someone trying to explain their views.

First off, tritons explicitly are tuned to ocean depths: it says so right in their racial traits: (Guardians of the Depths. Adapted to even the most extreme ocean depths, you have resistance to cold damage.)

Did you not see where I specifically answered the question:
"Player: What about sea elves and other aquatic races?
DM: They do not exist because of the physiological reasons I gave."

Secondly, "biological realism" is the worst reason to ban anything in D&D, just below "I don't like the artwork" and slightly above "because you asked me to play it" in terms of reasons. You already hand-waved the sahuagin gods giving them water-breathing, so that would allow the sea-elf god or the triton god to do the same. And if you want to argue "biological realism", you BETTER be ready to defend flying, fire-breathing dragons, corporal undead, owlbears, plane-touched races, sentient golems and oozes, and a host of other "a wizard/deity/demon lord did it" things. If you want to argue "biological realism", you are forfeiting the "Its magic" as an excuse for anything.

Why is trying to adhere to some sense of biological realism the "worst" reason? The single sahuagin god in my example gave them an ability and they are creatures. Notice the DM also said - they DIE when out of the water. What is that PC going to do when they are out of water? See how there is a logical consistency there.
- DM: Oh, you want to be like the suahagin and be blessed by the shark god. Um... okay, but how will you trek through the desert? The forest? The city? Are the other characters carrying around an aquarium?
As for the other creatures you listed, I would think a good DM could defend those or leave them out. Necromantic magic is a strong and powerful force. Owlbears were the creation of a wizard, much like a liger, only stranger. There are no sentient golems. They are inanimate objects that are able to move through spells and components. Oozes are creatures, just like a worm, only deadly. And dragons, there is a fly spell.
I'd imagine a thorough DM would have a backstory on all of it and reasons why these creatures exist.

And I will leave you with a final bit of advice I learned years ago on this site (and was in my signature when such things were free):

"When consistency gets in the way of samurai gunslingers riding on dinosaurs, it's time for consistency to take a day off." - Barsoomcore.

And I will leave you with this.

"If a spaceman showed up to help fight Sauron the book would lose all sense of realism for the reader. If a cowboy showed up and killed Ned Stark people would have stopped watching at season one. Of course, that might have been a good thing." -

 

[Minigiant]

Nah.


If you think that "a character" is the player's choice of race, class, and other mechanical affectations, we are talking about something quite different.

I used the word culture for a reason.

Culture and the society within affect a character's personality greatly.

If a DM limits the cultures of their game to a few and those cultures aren't deep, there is less to work from.

Remember, many of the works that have single cultures are books with hundreds of pages. Often multiple books dripping with info of the people within. And the info books usually detail subcultures inside as well.

DMs must shy away from the pride of comparing their setting to those created by award winning authors. Even comparing one's settings to that of full on setting books is dangerous as the DM likely hasn't written a full book on their monoculture setting.

 

[Minigiant]

As for fewer races remember GoT was basically human's only and lotr is 4 maybe 5?

Notice that there's no real epic work of fantasy with a massive amount of D&D races and the protagonists are usually human?

Because books are written to be sold to the public for money?

Just because books are written for the everyman doesn't mean only the everyman has a story.

The stories I made up for my niece at bedtime would not sell to anyone but her. And she has no money.