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

[Maxperson]

It's never really made that promise though.

Tasha's. Everything's optional. PHB once again optional.

This is all RAW.

It not only didn't promise it, it explicitly tells the players that the uncommon races are not in all worlds.

 

[Maxperson]

People may be surprised to know that that's how it feels for both sides, in fact.

Edit: Though it's worth noting, only one side has claimed Ultimate Authority, absolute power, "my opinion [as DM] is more important," etc.
(Sorry, I misunderstood who was saying what in your post, Remathilis. I have corrected it now.)

It's not a claim, though. It's a fact per RAW. D&D gives the DM that authority where it remains unless the DM specifically cedes some of it to the players.

 

[Minigiant]

I think there's a difference between wishing there was a race that you'd like to play and expecting that the DM should replace any option you remove with a similar option. The latter is feeling entitled.

How so?

The base assumption of 5e assumes as "woodsy characters" as available as it includes wood elves, forest elves, rangers, druids, green pallys, and feylocks as option.

If a DM cuts all of that out, it's perfectly reasonable for a player to request a replacement or a good explanation from the DM.

 

[Maxperson]

How so?

The base assumption of 5e assumes as "woodsy characters" as available as it includes wood elves, forest elves, rangers, druids, green pallys, and feylocks.

It you cut all of that out, it's perfectly reasonable for a player to request a replacement or a good explanation from the DM.

The base assumption does not assume that you will have a water breathing race available to you. He was talking about every racial option type having to be available. Expecting me to replace Tritons with Sea Elves or something else if I remove them is entitlement. I just want to know why he feels entitled to having every type of race as an option.

You've also expanded what he was talking about quite a bit by adding in classes and doubling up on wood elves. Calling a wood elf a forest elf does not a new subrace make.

 

[Maxperson]

Dwarves in the Mountains, Elves in the Forests, Giants in the Hills, Mind Flayers in the darkness, Goblins in the Caves.

You're a bit behind. Mind Flayers recently petitioned to be moved from the darkness into the gloom. Apparently they were being hit by a lot of magic missiles.

 

[Jack Daniel]

This is pedantic . . . and nonsensical.

It is neither pedantic nor nonsensical to point out that D&D is not "about" the elves, dwarves, and hobbits.
Surely this is something that both the pro- and anti- factions concerning tieflings, tabaxi, dragonborn, etc. can agree upon.

More to the point, if D&D is "about" any one thing, it's kicking down doors, killing monsters, and taking their stuff. It's only "about" the elves and orcs to the extent that it's "about" every single one of its constituent elements (D&D is "about" magic, D&D is "about" swords, D&D is "about" dragons), which says nothing meaningful at all about D&D and is thus a silly claim to make.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I'm still not getting it. The argument seems to be "people expect D&D to have elves". Fine. So if I say, "my campaign of D&D doesn't have evles", then you know not to expect elves. Just like you know not to expect elves in Call of Cthulhu.

Hold up. I can't speak for anyone else, but you've skipped a step here. You've moved straight from "my campaign doesn't have elves" to "everyone is officially in the game and someone just brought me a character sheet that says 'elf' and is getting pissy about not being able to use it." The skipped step is a player asking, "Well, why aren't there elves? Isn't that, like, a central D&D thing? I know I've seen people call it 'pretend elf-games' or something like that before. And the LOTR movies were what got me into D&D in the first place!"

Perhaps it would help if I lay out what I see as the process of play (for "live" friend/associate groups, rather than purely at-FLGS/online play).
1. DM gets an idea for a campaign, or just feels like running something.
2. DM asks people she knows if they have time and interest in playing D&D, maybe gives a SUPER short blurb.
3. Once she finds enough players, DM actually pitches the campaign properly, all the bells and whistles.
4. Players think about it and, ideally, sign up.
5. Early discussions lead into Session 0 (possibly more than one such session) where wrinkles get worked out and character ideas are finalized
6. Session 1, campaign begins.

It seems to me that you're leaping straight from point 2 (or maybe point 3) to point 6 and treating the remaining points as an instantaneous assumption, which strikes me as strange. There's going to be some delay, some thinking time, simply because people need to decide if they do in fact want to join or not. During that interim period is when a player should ask things like "where are the elves," if that's a thing they care about.

What else is there to say? The DM should allow elves even if they don't want to? Why?

Being respectful to your friends/associates, more or less. You talk it out. You aren't "required" to do it any more than you're "required" to DM. Instead, I see it as a common courtesy thing. Players show courtesy to their DM by not raising a huge fuss about things (even when there's been a clearly bad call or the like), giving more than lip-service buy-in to the campaign premise, and engaging with the game to the DM's desired level of seriousness (e.g. some games are silly, some srs bidniz, some vacillate, etc.) DMs show their players courtesy by listening to their input and constructive criticism, supporting earnest enthusiasm to the best of their ability, and giving fair hearing when a potential conflict arises. Now, listening, supporting, and giving fair hearings don't strictly require you to do...anything. But I think we can agree that saying you do those things and then never actually acting on them in any capacity is disingenuous. A DM who claims to listen to player criticism and then consistently continues to do what they were going to do anyway...isn't actually listening to criticism. That's where the "required" comes in; it's not that you have to budge on any given thing, but that for things like "compromise" and "respect" to actually exist, you really do have to GIVE some of the time.

So: Is it an absolute, bright-line unavoidable OBLIGATION to allow elves? No. But allowing them unless you have good reason not to--and no, I don't accept "because I just don't want to" as a reason!--is one way, among many, to demonstrate that you actually DO listen to your players. That you recognize that while the game is run by the DM, it is run for the players. That both parts of that equation are vital, and that you actually do respect them as opposed to simply ruling over them.

As for why elves in particular get this attention? Well, two reasons. Tolkien looms large over the D&D space forever, because he was THE Bad Donkey worldbuilder. And because elves are listed in the core book, which (as I argued much earlier in the thread) is a perfectly valid reason for a player to assume the option is implicitly offered, and to ask for ways to incorporate it (or a substitute) if the DM has excluded it. Doesn't mean it WILL happen. But "oh, this...is D&D, I thought that meant elves?" is NOT some wacko irrational demanding thought. It's strongly implied by the game's history, the current context of gaming, and the existence of player-accessible material. Hell, you can even argue that the PHB backs me up on this with that codswallop about "scattered among these races are the true exotics," or how "Dwarves, elves, halflings, and humans are the most common races to produce the sort of adventurers who make up typical parties."

They are a core race, you are into houserule territory there. You could do it but I would expect less player interest for that one. If you had a tier list of popular races I guess elves would be up there. I wouldn't argue with you if you said no elves though.

Elves are consistently the second-most-popular race in 5e after Humans, according to data collected from D&D Beyond. Humans are always just above 20%, elves are around 13%, and half-elves are just a hair below that. The next three races are usually dragonborn, dwarf, and tiefling in varying order; as of the most recent shared numbers I could find (from 2019), tiefling is #4 and dragonborn #5, each slightly under 10% of "active" characters on D&D Beyond IIRC.

So yeah, when almost as many characters are elves or half-elves as humans, at least from what limited data we have? You're probably gonna have issues if you exclude them from the game. Odds are extremely good SOMEONE in the party is going to want to play SOME kind of elf-related being.

 

[Remathilis]

"More options" are not a universal good. The ability to create a wide variety of archetypical player characters in an RPG is not a universal good. You value these things; you cannot assume we all value them.

You can't be serious. (That's rhetorical, I assume you are).

More options are most certainly good. Why are there millions of different places to get a hamburger? Why are there thousands of different car makes and models? Why are there hundreds of different TV channels? Variety is the spice of life. People want to try new things. Maybe I saw the Aquaman movie and got inspired. Maybe I played a video game or read a book and want to model a PC off a character from it. Maybe I saw something in a sourcebook and it inspired me. Or maybe I'm tied of Tolkien Fellowship races and want to play a giant frickin turtle-man as a change of pace.

You may be content to play human fighters over and over again, but some of us want to try something new once and a while.

 

[Maxperson]

You can't be serious. (That's rhetorical, I assume you are).

More options are most certainly good. Why are there millions of different places to get a hamburger? Why are there thousands of different car makes and models? Why are there hundreds of different TV channels? Variety is the spice of life. People want to try new things. Maybe I saw the Aquaman movie and got inspired. Maybe I played a video game or read a book and want to model a PC off a character from it. Maybe I saw something in a sourcebook and it inspired me. Or maybe I'm tied of Tolkien Fellowship races and want to play a giant frickin turtle-man as a change of pace.

You may be content to play human fighters over and over again, but some of us want to try something new once and a while.

More options being good is completely subjective, though. I hate Sushi. Those options are not good for me. People have the option to sell feces in all manner of ways on street corners. Those are not good options. Whether options are good or bad and how many are good or bad is completely a matter of opinion. That makes @Jack Daniel correct in his statement that they are not a universal good. To be a universal good, more options would have to objectively good and we know that simply isn't the case.

 

[Remathilis]

The base assumption does not assume that you will have a water breathing race available to you. He was talking about every racial option type having to be available. Expecting me to replace Tritons with Sea Elves or something else if I remove them is entitlement. I just want to know why he feels entitled to having every type of race as an option.

You've also expanded what he was talking about quite a bit by adding in classes and doubling up on wood elves. Calling a wood elf a forest elf does not a new subrace make.

It's not an entitlement, it's negotiation. We, as reasonable adults, are committing to an activity. You are putting limits on my options for enjoyment. I counter that if you wish to have X (x being the removal of an option I want) than you should compromise and allow me Y (where Y is allowing an option I do want). We can go back and forth until we reach a value for X and Y we both agree with. However, if you wish to remove X and not allow Y for a compromise, you have stopped treating me as a reasonable adult and have assumed a superior position over all other players, creating an imbalance. You become dictator rather than a first among equals.

I cannot for the life of me understand why so many DMs opt for autocratic rule over their groups over compromise and negotiation...