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

[EzekielRaiden]

I can see where you're both coming from. I don't agree, though, because anyone truly new to the game isn't going to have hard expectations of it, and anyone experienced with D&D has assuredly run into, well…

That modifying the rules is mentioned in the books is rather a non-sequitur for what people can reasonably expect to be on offer unless told otherwise.

You have, literally always, been allowed to simply not serve rice when cooking teriyaki for friends and family. No cooking police are going to swoop in and tell you you have to eat rice. No cookbook would ever dream of suggesting that you're not allowed to not offer rice. Yet despite all of that, people will expect rice unless you tell them you aren't serving any. There would not be a single error or even wrinkle in judgment for them expecting rice, even though "chicken teriyaki" doesn't actually say "rice" anywhere in the name, nor is rice technically part of the dish itself, but rather the staple side that goes with it (and, in general, nearly all Japanese cooking).

People keep conflating "the books say the rules can, and even should, be modified as needed" with "having expectations of what D&D is or contains is crazy talk," and that's just not valid. The two are different things.

This is why I kept harping on the published books--very specifically the PHB--being the "common starting point." The rules that are specifically and explicitly meant for presentation to the players. That's square one. It is not irrational, inappropriate, rude, excessive, demanding, or any other pejorative adjective you might like to volunteer, to have "the stuff in the core player rulebook is there for players to pick" as a built-in assumption.

But D&D, unlike most other games, is a journey without a singular, fixed destination. You can choose where you want to walk. And you can choose to pick a different starting point. You, as DM, are encouraged to do so if you can make it work for you and your group. But you're still needing to re-center things. The PHB options are, to use a mathematical analogy, the origin on a Cartesian plot: the natural and presumed starting point. Just because it is natural and presumed, though, does not mean it is required. Many things--even many vitally important things--never touch it (consider y=eˣ). But just because it isn't required in some absolute sense, doesn't mean people won't look for it, nor experience (often momentary) confusion if you fail to include it in a plot. Likewise, especially with options as famous and storied as (Tolkien-esque) elves, you should assume that your players will expect their presence unless informed both reasonably comprehensively and reasonably early.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Ah, my mistake. I was assuming that you weren't resorting to argumentum ad populum. I'll be sure not to give you the benefit of the doubt concerning logical fallacies in the future.

How else to you propose to support the position of something that people believe... without referencing what people believe? Do you expect me to use math to show it? Perhaps physical structures in the brain would tell us how people see DnD?

Or... you know, we could talk about what people believe.

The logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum is that something is objectively true simply because it is popular. Such as claiming the Emoji Movie is good because a lot of people went to go see it. But if you want to argue that a lot of people went to see the Emoji Movie.... showing that a lot of people went to see it is not a logical fallacy to support that position.

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

Generally I don't do refluffing.

Besides maybe the DM wants to see these new races in action. Seeing refluffed elf boring.

Eg "I want to see a satyr but not in every game".

I don't do it =/= It doesn't work

And they might see the new races in action. There are only two, with three reprints and humans. Just because one player does something that isn't one of the two new races doesn't mean that others won't use them

Finally, since when is "I find your character concept boring" a good reason for a DM to shoot down a players idea? It isn't your character.

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

What was the point of this tangent? I missed the origin of this line of discussion, but I’m quite interested in it.

Not least because it’s the only thing so far that I’ve seen where I agree with you.

D&D is definitely able to be adapted to just about anything.

What @Jack Daniel missed in their journey back (by about three posts, as I clicked backwards) was that there was a position from @Remathilis that was in this post.

I always ask then, what are you replacing elves with?

My biggest pet peeve is when a DM takes away an option but doesn't replace it with anything. You want to make elves mysterious and unheard of? Fine. What race are you adding to make up for the loss of an iconic race? Maybe someone who wants to be an ethereal magical being could select aasimar, or someone wanting to be a nature guardian can take firbolg. If you're not allowing drow, maybe another "dark" race can fill that role like tiefling, shadar-kai (human variant) or such. No orcs? How about goliath as the bruiser race?

Unfortunately, time and again in this thread, the alternative to the removed race is nothing. There are no fey races. There are no PC monstrous races. There are no planar races. There are no animal races. There are no aquatic races.

That's what I think is my issue. When whole categories of races are cut off and that limits your types of options. It's less about a specific race, and often more about the archetype being removed that bothers me.

This, combined with people constantly saying "Well no one complains that there aren't elves in Call of Cthulu" , led to the point that there is a set of expectations when you play DnD. If I sit down to play DnD I am not expecting to sit down and play Call of Cthulu, or Maid: The RPG, or Mutants and Masterminds. Not only are the mechancis different so to are the genres and the tone. And because of that, people don't expect there to be playable races in Call of Cthulu, but they do have expectations of multiple races for players in DnD. It is part of what makes DnD actually DnD and not something else.

Yet, it seems approaching DnD with the idea that DnD means something and isn't as generic as Fate or Powered by the Apocalypse means that I am foolish, and people feel sorry for me because I don't treat DnD as an infinite game engine that can play any possible genre with ease.


Edit: I would also add, I've been on these forums for quite a bit and I've seen more than a few threads about someone trying something in DnD that the system is just not set up to emulate. People constantly complain that HP makes their "truly gritty" games feel like pillow fights. People complain that you can't do effective horror, because the PCs kill the monster, people complain about not being able to easily run low magic. People complain about not being easily able to run crazy insane magic or true Shonen bonkers time fights.

And this is all because DnD has an intended play style. It has something it was designed to do. It is not a generic game engine that attempts to do everything.

 

[Remathilis]

This, combined with people constantly saying "Well no one complains that there aren't elves in Call of Cthulu" , led to the point that there is a set of expectations when you play DnD. If I sit down to play DnD I am not expecting to sit down and play Call of Cthulu, or Maid: The RPG, or Mutants and Masterminds. Not only are the mechancis different so to are the genres and the tone. And because of that, people don't expect there to be playable races in Call of Cthulu, but they do have expectations of multiple races for players in DnD. It is part of what makes DnD actually DnD and not something else.

Yet, it seems approaching DnD with the idea that DnD means something and isn't as generic as Fate or Powered by the Apocalypse means that I am foolish, and people feel sorry for me because I don't treat DnD as an infinite game engine that can play any possible genre with ease.

Edit: I would also add, I've been on these forums for quite a bit and I've seen more than a few threads about someone trying something in DnD that the system is just not set up to emulate. People constantly complain that HP makes their "truly gritty" games feel like pillow fights. People complain that you can't do effective horror, because the PCs kill the monster, people complain about not being able to easily run low magic. People complain about not being easily able to run crazy insane magic or true Shonen bonkers time fights.

And this is all because DnD has an intended play style. It has something it was designed to do. It is not a generic game engine that attempts to do everything.

It's probably a tangent, but my biggest problem with D&D as a generic RPG system is that it handles things that aren't D&D rather poorly.

In the 90s, TSR released a rather novel setting called Masque of the Red Death, which was Ravenloft 2e in 1890s Earth. Supposed to emulate Victorian Gothic Horror using 2e AD&D rules. And the amount of work your needed to do to make AD&D run low magic, grim and gritty realistic Earth with monsters style gaming was massive. All new classes, modified ability scores, a huge overhaul of magic, it was a very complicated system. And it had some glaring omissions (like no replacement for armor when calculating AC, despite the lack of armor in the setting). It was novel, but it would have been better served with a different system that could do the kind of magic and combat systems a modern-ish Horror setting needed, not one made for medieval fantasy dungeon crawls.

So while the d20 System can be modified and kit bashed to run a lot of different things, D&D itself is bad for more than it's intended setting and by the time you're into M&M or SWSaga level changes, you're really not playing "D&D" anymore. And in some cases, there are better systems to do what you are trying.

Tangent over

 

[Hussar]

I wonder if the primary issue might be modeled this way:

Some gamers (DM's and players) view players as consumers. The DM produces a product, the players consume that product and play progresses. As consumers, the players are not expected to have a significant amount of input in what the producer produces, so long as the consumers are happy with what is produced. The players come to the session, play during that session and once the session ends, they don't play again until the next session and have very little interest in the production side of the equation.

Other gamers, myself among them, view everyone at the table as collaborators. Sure, the DM is likely going to do more work than any single player, fair enough. But, the players expect and are expected to contribute outside of the game. During play, sure, we play in character and whatnot. But, once play stops, the players put on their contribution hats and supply various elements - NPC's, possible connections, discussions about the future direction of the campaign, goals etc - to the campaign.

Does this make sense? If you're a "Players as consumers" type DM, then, player input isn't really sought or expected. You have your campaign, your world and the players can take it or leave it. OTOH, if you're a "Players as collaborators" type DM, not only do you welcome player input in the design of the campaign world, you expect it.

 

[Oofta]

I wonder if the primary issue might be modeled this way:

Some gamers (DM's and players) view players as consumers. The DM produces a product, the players consume that product and play progresses. As consumers, the players are not expected to have a significant amount of input in what the producer produces, so long as the consumers are happy with what is produced. The players come to the session, play during that session and once the session ends, they don't play again until the next session and have very little interest in the production side of the equation.

Other gamers, myself among them, view everyone at the table as collaborators. Sure, the DM is likely going to do more work than any single player, fair enough. But, the players expect and are expected to contribute outside of the game. During play, sure, we play in character and whatnot. But, once play stops, the players put on their contribution hats and supply various elements - NPC's, possible connections, discussions about the future direction of the campaign, goals etc - to the campaign.

Does this make sense? If you're a "Players as consumers" type DM, then, player input isn't really sought or expected. You have your campaign, your world and the players can take it or leave it. OTOH, if you're a "Players as collaborators" type DM, not only do you welcome player input in the design of the campaign world, you expect it.

In my games I'm the producer of the world and the stage. I set events (typically multiple) in motion. From the moment the players enter that stage their PCs become part of that world. Those PCs are not under my control at all. From session 1 it's a collaborative world shaped by the players through the action of their PCs. Some of those actions happen off screen if the players want. I encourage and reward people writing up stories of what happens between adventures or to fill in details about their backstory. That can include (but it's rare that a player asks to do this) new NPCs or connections.

But I still run a very sandbox campaign. After the first intro session or two, the PCs are always free to go and do what they want. I basically have 2-3 directions they can take (various plot hooks) or they can go a completely different direction. After all, I do need some prep time to figure out what's going to happen next even if I do improvise a lot.

So I don't view it as completely one or the other. To be honest, I've never had a player that voiced a desire to do much in the way of world building.

 

[prabe]

I wonder if the primary issue might be modeled this way:

Some gamers (DM's and players) view players as consumers. The DM produces a product, the players consume that product and play progresses. As consumers, the players are not expected to have a significant amount of input in what the producer produces, so long as the consumers are happy with what is produced. The players come to the session, play during that session and once the session ends, they don't play again until the next session and have very little interest in the production side of the equation.

Other gamers, myself among them, view everyone at the table as collaborators. Sure, the DM is likely going to do more work than any single player, fair enough. But, the players expect and are expected to contribute outside of the game. During play, sure, we play in character and whatnot. But, once play stops, the players put on their contribution hats and supply various elements - NPC's, possible connections, discussions about the future direction of the campaign, goals etc - to the campaign.

Does this make sense? If you're a "Players as consumers" type DM, then, player input isn't really sought or expected. You have your campaign, your world and the players can take it or leave it. OTOH, if you're a "Players as collaborators" type DM, not only do you welcome player input in the design of the campaign world, you expect it.

I'm running two campaigns at the moment. One campaign, the players spend a fair amount of time chatting about the game online between sessions; the other campaign, much less. OTOH, the PCs in both campaigns are free to change the world as their abilities meet opportunities. There isn't much explicit world-building from the players once the campaigns are going.

However, I explicitly ask for details of how the PCs got to the beginning of the campaign, and that is explicitly an opportunity for the players to build things in the blank spaces of my maps. Ideally, I get some say in that, but unless someone goes way (way, way) overboard, it's not a problem if I get something like a fait accompli.

 

[Maxperson]

That modifying the rules is mentioned in the books is rather a non-sequitur for what people can reasonably expect to be on offer unless told otherwise.

You have, literally always, been allowed to simply not serve rice when cooking teriyaki for friends and family. No cooking police are going to swoop in and tell you you have to eat rice. No cookbook would ever dream of suggesting that you're not allowed to not offer rice. Yet despite all of that, people will expect rice unless you tell them you aren't serving any. There would not be a single error or even wrinkle in judgment for them expecting rice, even though "chicken teriyaki" doesn't actually say "rice" anywhere in the name, nor is rice technically part of the dish itself, but rather the staple side that goes with it (and, in general, nearly all Japanese cooking).

People keep conflating "the books say the rules can, and even should, be modified as needed" with "having expectations of what D&D is or contains is crazy talk," and that's just not valid. The two are different things.

Modifying the rules is not only not a non-sequitur, it's relevant. In all the games I've played since 1e, I've never been in a by the book with no changes at all game. Rules changes are widely prevalent. So while I wouldn't go into a game expecting there not to be elves, I would go into it expecting things not to be exactly as the book states. If a DM did not offer up the changes, I would ask him what was changed.

 

[MGibster]

1. The world is “smaller” than the real world. People travel less than IRL, there are no intrepid explorers making journeys that pessimistic people assume are impossible, etc. As a result, You also can’t play one of the Samurai mercenaries that were in Mexico at the same time that the Spanish Inquisition was happening, because that kind of travel isn’t a thing.

Years ago I ran a Pirates of the Spanish Main campaign and one of the players asked if they could play a Chinese sailor. I had not considered anyone would make anything but a European sailor, but without hesitation, I said yes. The character concept was plausible and it fit within a campaign revolving around an international crew on a pirate ship. I did veto his idea of only being able to speak Chinese and unable to communicate with the crew effectively as I felt that would get annoying. So the character understood English but chose to speak Chinese most of the time which worked out just fine

The PCs aren’t allowed to be special at level 1. You can’t play a Marco Polo or even one of his crew, traveling to a place that hasn’t seen outsiders in generations, if ever. You can’t be a stranger from a strange land.

In most games, just being PCs makes them special. But we're so used to that we no longer think of them as special so some people want to make their characters extra special. Which is fine. I can't honestly sit here and tell someone they're wrong for wanting to do that or a GM for allowing it. Because depending on the game being played and the campaign concept, I can see myself going either way. For my disastrous Blue Planet campaign that never launched (did you like my clever nautical pun?), the campaign revolved around exploration and strangers in a strange land was exactly what I wanted the PCs to be. I allowed one PC to be a native and the rest were recent arrivals from Earth.

This, combined with people constantly saying "Well no one complains that there aren't elves in Call of Cthulu" , led to the point that there is a set of expectations when you play DnD. If I sit down to play DnD I am not expecting to sit down and play Call of Cthulu, or Maid: The RPG, or Mutants and Masterminds.

This is the primary reason I'm hesitant to place restrictions on the players' choice of race in D&D. My secondary reason being that it doesn't really matter what race they pick so far as game play goes. The only time I limited choice in my history of playing D&D was for Curse of Strahd but I still allowed anything in the PHB.

Some gamers (DM's and players) view players as consumers. The DM produces a product, the players consume that product and play progresses. As consumers, the players are not expected to have a significant amount of input in what the producer produces, so long as the consumers are happy with what is produced.

Before starting a new campaign, I pitch 3-5 ideas to my group and they vote on which one they want to play. As part of the pitch, I give them a game system as well as some parameters for the campaign. For example: This is a Trail of Cthulhu game set in New York City during the early 1930s. Each of your characters has some connection to the NYPD (beat cop, detective, lawyer, crime beat reporter, etc., etc.) and automatically has one level in the Cop Talk skill. You're characters are "normal" humans without any abilities or knowledge of the Cthulhu mythos.

Once they accept a pitch I'm usually pretty good about taking feedback. For my Acquisitions Incorporated game, the players wanted to start out at level 5 so that's what we did. And any combination of race/class produced by WotC was fair game for character choices. But once we've all agreed on what we're doing, I expect them to make a good faith effort to make a character that fits the campaign they agreed to participate in.

 

[MGibster]

Modifying the rules is not only not a non-sequitur, it's relevant. In all the games I've played since 1e, I've never been in a by the book with no changes at all game.

It's not like I can even remember the entirety of the rules at any given second. There's a lot of them!

 

[Zardnaar]

Years ago I ran a Pirates of the Spanish Main campaign and one of the players asked if they could play a Chinese sailor. I had not considered anyone would make anything but a European sailor, but without hesitation, I said yes. The character concept was plausible and it fit within a campaign revolving around an international crew on a pirate ship. I did veto his idea of only being able to speak Chinese and unable to communicate with the crew effectively as I felt that would get annoying. So the character understood English but chose to speak Chinese most of the time which worked out just fine

In most games, just being PCs makes them special. But we're so used to that we no longer think of them as special so some people want to make their characters extra special. Which is fine. I can't honestly sit here and tell someone they're wrong for wanting to do that or a GM for allowing it. Because depending on the game being played and the campaign concept, I can see myself going either way. For my disastrous Blue Planet campaign that never launched (did you like my clever nautical pun?), the campaign revolved around exploration and strangers in a strange land was exactly what I wanted the PCs to be. I allowed one PC to be a native and the rest were recent arrivals from Earth.

This is the primary reason I'm hesitant to place restrictions on the players' choice of race in D&D. My secondary reason being that it doesn't really matter what race they pick so far as game play goes. The only time I limited choice in my history of playing D&D was for Curse of Strahd but I still allowed anything in the PHB.


Before starting a new campaign, I pitch 3-5 ideas to my group and they vote on which one they want to play. As part of the pitch, I give them a game system as well as some parameters for the campaign. For example: This is a Trail of Cthulhu game set in New York City during the early 1930s. Each of your characters has some connection to the NYPD (beat cop, detective, lawyer, crime beat reporter, etc., etc.) and automatically has one level in the Cop Talk skill. You're characters are "normal" humans without any abilities or knowledge of the Cthulhu mythos.

Once they accept a pitch I'm usually pretty good about taking feedback. For my Acquisitions Incorporated game, the players wanted to start out at level 5 so that's what we did. And any combination of race/class produced by WotC was fair game for character choices. But once we've all agreed on what we're doing, I expect them to make a good faith effort to make a character that fits the campaign they agreed to participate in.

Spanish main is a bit different than 13th century Europe.

That's when the first recorded representative made it to Europe from China . Marco wasn't the first to make it to China but left the best accounts.

Impossible no but the journey is so rare and epic that I wouldn't let them say they made it as part of a backstory.

Once sailing routes have been established it's a lot easier.