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

Status
Not open for further replies.
First: I meant something more like "campaign"--something closer to "my fortnightly Saturday night game" than "D&D 5E."
Of course.
Second: In principle, it's possible for any race to have a deleterious effect on a campaign by having it among the PCs.
I’m not sure I agree, even in principle.
For example, aquatic humanoids--tritons, sea elves, possibly water genasi--can be problematic if the campaign isn't centered around/under water (because their racial abilities kinda demand at least some spotlight-time or the DM is negating the player's choice;
Wait...what? They do? You sure? I’m pretty big on player agency and choices mattering, and on making sure each PC gets their time to shine, but I wouldn’t change the campaign to make a water genasi’s aquatic nature be a big deal. I mean water is a pretty common thing to encounter in most places, and I don’t run a whole campaign in one environment, so their water stuff will matter at some point, but that’s about it.
and they can be problematic if the campaign is explicitly centered around water (like a pirates campaign) because their special abilities negate the primary logistical problem/threat that characters are supposed to encounter in those campaigns--the need to breathe underwater.
Um...why is that a problem? Well, first, no, they don’t negate those elements, they just make one character capable of ignoring part of sea travel, but...I can’t imagine drowning is actually the primary threat of nearly any seafaring campaign. That seems...really odd. Generally monsters and other seafaring people are the primary challenge of a pirate game.
Personally, so much of the trade on my world is by water--and it's been established in-game that lots of sailors are water genasi--that I'd almost certainly say yes; tritons and sea elves are not on my default list because I want to talk to a player who wants to play one.

Third: What themes do gnomes bring? Without looking at any books, I think of pranksters who take pleasures in their obsessions--and unfortunately tinkers, which I have worked to reduce some in their description on my world. I can see a campaign where a dedicated prankster might be unsupportable as a party member, for instance--whether because of setting or events or the other players around the table.
That isn’t at all necessary to gnomes. I’ve never even had a prankster among any of the gnomes I’ve run games for or played beside or played myself.

My current forest gnome PC is a swashbuckler of sorts, though we flavor his persuasion and performance skills as him applying intellect and understanding of how people work and what affects them to those activities, more than any natural charm. He’s also a “tinker” in the sense that he crafts mechanical toys as a hobby, and advanced crossbows and bows, and is an amateur/aspiring shipwright, and an enchanter in the sense of crafting magic items, and is an alchemist. He’s also a polytheistic animist whose religion places the Sidhe at the top of a loose and informal hierarchy of spirits worthy of devotion, and capable of transactional magic and of teaching mortals. His Wizarding magic is flavored as partly Intellectual Druidry, partly rediscovery of lost Fey magic (especially his Bladesong, and partly his creativity and intellect turned toward arcane science. To him, science and religious ritual are parts of the same thing. The Magic Circle that underpins his magic and his sword fighting is also part of his deeply esoteric and syncretic religious beliefs.
His cultural theming is a mix of pagan Irish Gaelic, and Heathen Scandinavian, culture and religion, mixed liberally with the aesthetics of modern reconstructed paganism and occultism.
He comes from a mountain kingdom that was once the one of the two twin thrones of a Fey kingdom that was lost when the greatest peak exploded and thousands of fiends poured out into the world. There is a human king to the south, but the northern folk don’t care about him or recognize his authority beyond token fealty and paying trade tariffs, and allowing him an advisory representative observer at the yearly Allthing. The dwarf and Goliath populations are descended from escape slaves of the giants, with new refugees showing up every year, and often moving on to softer, warmer lands. The mountains have magic deep in their roots from the Fey that once ruled there, and the tree line is vastly higher than it could be naturally, with scrub brush even upon the peaks, and giant redwood sized trees in the lower mountain. Broken stumps of trees as large as towns dot the landscape, with towns and Gnomish clan holds built into them, a memory of a glory long lost. Gnomes live fairly high in the mountains, as do the dwarves, with humans rarely living past what would normally be the tree line in a natural environment

My DM had a peninsula with little detail there, noting mostly the mountain with a broken peak and the demonic history. I suggested the Gnomish culture, my wife asked if her Goliath could come from the same mountains, we had several conversations from there as we made the characters and started play, and over the course of several years of play we now have a region that we are all deeply invested in, having all contributed to the development of who and what is there.

In our FR game the gnome PC is from Myth Drannor, her parents are a messenger and a spy/treasure Hunter, respectively, and is the closest to an inventor gnome stereotype as we have, since she is an artificer/rogue. We don’t care about canon, so conversations with her helped me determine what Myth Drannor is like in the 1490s.

We generally use gnomes as clever, tending toward optimism and healthy social adjustment, I guess, naturally curious and desirous of a challenge, creative, friendlier than many other races, etc. I have said, and the DM of the above campaign agreed to the suggestion for his world as well, that gnomes’ first expression upon birth is laughter, rather than crying.

I literally can’t imagine gnomes of the kind I’ve had at my tables having a negative impact on any game.
I mean, maybe if the DM wants grimdark crapsack world, where good people are either faking it or are doomed suckers, I guess? I’d never agree to such a campaign, of course. I’ve little respect for such media, so the thought of playing out such a story is...distasteful, to me.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Wait...what? They do? You sure? I’m pretty big on player agency and choices mattering, and on making sure each PC gets their time to shine, but I wouldn’t change the campaign to make a water genasi’s aquatic nature be a big deal. I mean water is a pretty common thing to encounter in most places, and I don’t run a whole campaign in one environment, so their water stuff will matter at some point, but that’s about it.

To be fair, I can see this. If you're doing a nautical, swash buckling campaign on ships, traipsing through jungles, and whatnot, a centaur character is going to be a serious problem. Or even just a mounted one.
 

Out if curiosity, because I can't keep up with this thread, are restrictions on races actually making players quit a game? <snip> If everyone's been told right at the start which races are in, is it really a problem and players are unhappy or leave the game or do players tend to roll something up and play?
For me, yes, when applying online. 99% of my gaming is online for several reasons. I have both been rejected for wanting to play a dragonborn (or even something less so-called "exotic") or for not wanting to play a "traditional" race. Conversations about what wasn't allowed have also induced me to withdraw just before I would've formally joined. And for the second Q: both happen. Hard numbers likely lie beyond the reach of anyone here.

Might be a generational thing. Younger people don't like the word no, parents used to say "because I said so" and if you pushed it the strap was an option.

So got used to the word no.
I call bovine feces on this one. Especially since I'm "younger people" compared to you and I absolutely got spanked as a child and told "no" MANY times--and I still push back against this.

Which, frankly, is perfectly fine. No one has any problem with any of that. "Here's a pre-approved list. Anything not on the list, ask." is not a problem.

"Here is the pre-approved list. Anything not on the list is a demonstration that you are a problem player, special snowflake attention whore who only wants to cause problems and how dare you question my authority by asking why I don't have X or Y?" is a problem and is a position that has been taken by several people in this thread.
Agreed on both counts.

That's fine but I'm the DM. My opinion matters more lol. " Sorry mr police officer I disagree with you about smoking meth". Some opinions are more valid.
1. That's not an opinion, that's a law and a formal authority enforcing it--whether you like it or not.
2. No it doesn't. You have more power as DM, but the axes of "how much power you have" and "how much you matter" are completely orthogonal.

We got the wooden spoon or the fly swatter to the hand. Might be generational, earlier editions had restrictions in settings so often got used to it. Some settings still do, but not sure how many would play pure or add in anything if asked.
Wooden spoons or just bare hands for me. Transitioned to grounding around the age of 10-ish, because it was more effective. Neither needed to be applied very often, because I was a fairly obedient child. My sister was the hellion of the family.

As Hussar says: I'd like to see these alleged old-school restrictions. Early settings tended to get Weird™ pretty dang fast. Barrier Peaks, anyone?

Really? Earlier settings were pretty much kitchen sinks where every race that got added in some module or whatnot got added to the game. <snip> I always had the sense that earlier settings were the starting point, not the ending point. You were expected to add to the setting since everything you bought for a given setting added more races and whatnot.
100% agreed. I thought it was part and parcel of the "toolkit" approach, in fact. For all Gary's talk about human supremacy and players grubbing for advantage via playing powerful undead (or w/e), he seemed in practice to be quite comfortable with non-human or even outright monstrous PCs so long as they grew into their power. Despite being the ur-example of the allegedly-restrictive DM, expanding his world to include more things never phased him.

The alleged "toolkit" approach sounds more and more like an auteur architect, unwilling to consider the smallest alteration to a design, no matter how relevant or useful. "You can host whatever events you like within this space!" Okay, maybe, but having an actual atrium would make including permanent plant fixtures a hell of a lot easier. "You can have plants ANYWHERE, you don't NEED an atrium!"

Ezekiel, thanks for the clarification. That stuff seems cool too. I like it when players explain their powers. I think it is creative and very fun to hear during play. I even like it when it becomes a running gag.
Same. Part of why I like players explaining wanted options that aren't whitelisted/green-lit. They might inspire me, dovetail with not-yet-revealed work (and feel important as a result), give me a golden opportunity to introduce things, etc. Some things I won't bend much on--necromancy is almost universally reviled and slavery is illegal/unacceptable even to the Nomads (slavery is something barbarians and wicked genies do). Or where I won't bend at all, like outright Evil PCs--but that's because I know I can't run a game for such a thing, not because I dislike it per se. I'd have a hard time believing that any reasonably-good DM is incapable of running a fun game that includes a dragonborn PC, but Evil (or any specific alignment, really; LG often equals Lawful Stupid, frex) is a whole different story. I really, honestly can't create interesting challenges for evil PCs, because I will literally get anxiety/guilt over it, and I know that won't make for enjoyable gaming for anyone, myself or my players.

It is also true that the DM might have ideas that aren't in the player-facing documents, and your idea might clash with something they want to do--whether it's with gnomes, or a thematic thing, or a geographical thing. If a player can't handle that, I'd say it's not just the DM who's being precious, here.
Granted, but surely there's give and take here, lest we fall back in the "just trust me" hole. Like Doctorbadwolf, I'm skeptical of "geographical" here--how does that work? More broadly, I guess I want to be sold on why (a) it's so important that you can't tell me anything about it except "no, sorry," and (b) it's so inflexible that we can't work out something. Like, I wouldn't allow an outright devil or demon in my game, both because I'm doing something special with them and because they'd be too powerful; but tieflings, or summoners, or warlocks with fiend-pacts, or a person with a fiendish alter-ego...I can find a lot of ways to fiend-ify a character without going the whole nine yards as it were.

E.g. part of why I like dragonborn is their dragon-y nature, but I also do like that they're reptile-like mammals and that they're a rare Proud Warrior Race that hard averts the Dumb And Ugly Warriors cliché. I could handle, say, lizardfolk re-fluffed as (or given a subculture with) that Proud (but not Dumb/Ugly) Warrior Race with an alleged (but never proven) connection to dragons. Or, say, a timelost character--the only one of his kind, struggling to comprehend how the present day could have happened and where his people have gone. (That one actually happened, btw. DM did an amazing job. I had no regrets putting my amnesiac character's backstory in his hands.) Or maybe the character is the product of an experiment...which accidentally stumbled upon the ancient ritual used to create dragon-people long ago, so he has all the biology but none of the culture (yet!). Or maybe he drank dragon blood on a dare and instead of dying in horrible pain he transformed. Or maybe he washed up on shore one day in a reed basket, Moses-style, so no one really knows what to make of him.

I can come up with these ideas all day. Some imply an external culture. Some don't. Some imply a long-dead culture that may or may not be discoverable (or revivable). Some imply nothing more than an accident or lucky break. Some just leave a big fat ??? for the DM to fill in at her leisure. In every case, I'm giving up something from the full package, as it were. And maybe none of the specific ideas above work, but the DM has suggestions or tweaks or re-imaginings. I'll listen to whatever they've got. I'm not hard to please and I really do try very hard to reach consensus with others. If, with all the leeway and variations I can come up with, we still can't find any agreement? Yeah, I do kinda feel like it's the DM who's being precious here.
 

Sméagol was a predecessor to the Halflings of Bilbo’s time.
I think this really touches on a subject that is being debated here.

Some people have argued that more exotic races should be included, pointing to classic mythology that is flexible to include unusual nonstandard characters, like the Minotaur and Medusa.

LotR should be included in the list of “classical” settings that would allow a unique character as a result of a curse or magical experimentation, with the Uruk-hai and Gollum as examples.

I also want to second an idea proposed by someone here that in certain circumstances, it would be entirely appropriate to say that a “unique” character should take the Far Traveller background to reflect the effect their unusual appearance provokes on people.
 
Last edited:

I think this really touches on a subject that is being debated here.

Some people have argued that more exotic races should be included, pointing to classic mythology that is flexible to include unusual nonstandard characters, like the Minotaur and Medusa.

LotR should be included in the list of “classical” settings that would allow a unique character as a result of a curse or magical experimentation, with the Uruk-hai and Gollum as examples.

I also want to second an idea proposed by someone here that in certain circumstances, it would be entirely appropriate to say that a “unique” character should take the Far Traveller background to reflect the effect their unusual appearance provokes on people.
Just because such things happen is some fiction doesn't mean they happen in all fiction or in all D&D worlds.

On the other hand, I do agree that a lot of DMs don't put a lot of thought into monsters, humanoid or otherwise. So a lot of the monsters in my campaign are not intelligent or obviously not natural (fiendish, undead, outsiders). Then there's always "comes from the underdark" which in my campaign is really Svartlheim or giants that come from Jotunheim.

Anyway, different strokes for different folks.
 

Arguably, this is a failure of the imaginations of the authors who created these creatures. They failed to be able to imagine a setting without lizardfolk or orcs - so they shoehorned them in.

No, I don't think that is arguable at all. I think they looked at the setting, and imagined "what if.." and went to work. The Ssuran specifically are taking the existing pieces of the world, and saying "If A then B, so that would most likely mean C"
 

Granted, but surely there's give and take here, lest we fall back in the "just trust me" hole. Like Doctorbadwolf, I'm skeptical of "geographical" here--how does that work? More broadly, I guess I want to be sold on why (a) it's so important that you can't tell me anything about it except "no, sorry," and (b) it's so inflexible that we can't work out something. Like, I wouldn't allow an outright devil or demon in my game, both because I'm doing something special with them and because they'd be too powerful; but tieflings, or summoners, or warlocks with fiend-pacts, or a person with a fiendish alter-ego...I can find a lot of ways to fiend-ify a character without going the whole nine yards as it were.
"Geographical" here is intended to cover the possibility that where the player sees a blank space, the GM has stuff. Sure, in an ideal situation there would be flexibility--that's how the Black Field (a lava flow covering the former site of a city, across the river from the city my first campaign started in) came to house both the Stonestream Cloister (a monastic school inside a series of connected lava tubes) and the Basalt Henge (a druidic place of worship and study); but it's at least possible the GM has Big Plans.

Your comment about the "just trust me hole" is part of why I think these negotiations probably work better between people who know each other, and why I think starting off with a fait accompli is not the best approach for a player to take--asking for something the GM hasn't added is asking to be trusted.

And yes, I think negotiations involve give and take. If you insist on presenting your own write-up for a race the GM hasn't allowed, you should be willing--maybe even eager--for the GM to change that to fit things in the world that aren't immediately player-facing.
 



Status
Not open for further replies.
Remove ads

Top