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

[Paul Farquhar]

And now they talk and reach consensus

Every decision that raises questions, should, well, be questioned. Whether it allowing/banning certain races or NPCs the party encounters or monster's AC.

People certainly can just slam their fists on the table, but having a discussion is more productive and more engaging.

Clearly, you consider having an argument is more fun than playing D&D. And if arguments are all you love, arguments are all you will get, but the rule for D&D is the DM rules so everyone can get on with playing the game.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

A mole.

Hang whitewash!

 

[Minigiant]

I've played plenty of RPGs with only humans, and characters are plenty diverse.

If you think you purple skin and knobs on your head make your character interesting then you need to get a better imagination.

Not what I mean by diverse.

I mean a DM can have 30 shallow stereotypical races, 3 races with 10 broad expanded adventurer archetypes with them, or a single race described deeply enough for 30 completely different ideas...

you are still providing 30 very different character idea.

But if you world only allows for human knight, human sneak, human cleric of good God, human evoker, elf wizard, elf duelist, dwarf warrior, dwarf runepriest of forge god, halfling thief, gnome illusionist

That's 10.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I could see it if you you went out your way to include enough background diversity for all the types of players you want to run games for.

No one is so clever that they will do so better without any input from other people.

I mean that. Literally nothing great has ever been made by one person in a vacuum, and it is vanishingly rare for the greats to even come close to operating in anything like a vacuum.

Most DMs aren’t one of the greats. They’re better off listening to other people, learning from them, and then applying those things to what they make.

 

[Minigiant]

A mole.

And yes, this is a setting with a clear strong theme, and maintaining that theme requires some limitations. (Granted, the goliath bit was a tad confusing.)

"Dwarves are medium and see better than humans.
Moles are little and half blind. Are you willing to accept the small size and disadvantage on Wisdom and Intelligence checks based on sight? Also your races is new and have no race relations due to your god hiding dwarves underground." I'd say.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

human knight,

Wealthy landowner
Old crusader
Disenfranchised archer
Inspired peasant girl
Knighted ex-smuggler
Queen's lover
State-sponsored pirate
Hidden heir
Brilliant Tactician
Political Manipulator

That's 10.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

"Dwarves are medium and see better than humans.
Moles are little and half blind. Are you willing to accept the small size and disadvantage on Wisdom and Intelligence checks based on sight? Also your races is new and have no race relations due to your god hiding dwarves underground." I'd say.

Sounds fair.

 

[Minigiant]

Wealthy landowner
Old crusader
Disenfranchised archer
Inspired peasant girl
Knighted ex-smuggler
Queen's lover
State-sponsored pirate
Hidden heir
Brilliant Tactician
Political Manipulator

That's 10.

What crusade?
Piracy? Thar be monsters in the sea.
The queen is pure!
The king would never cheat!

Again, you can only be things if the DM has them in his or her world. Just like a race or class.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

you can only be things if the DM has them in his or her world. Just like a race or class.

Indeed. You don't need race, you don't need class to make an interesting character. You just take whatever the DM puts in the world and apply imagination.

 

[Minigiant]

Indeed. You don't need race, you don't need class to make an interesting character. You just take whatever the DM puts in the world and apply imagination.

And if the DM makes the world stale and shallow... the lever of characterization importance shifts to race and class.