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

[CleverNickName]

I just read all 150+ pages of this thread. What a ride.

I think that explaining "the appeal of the weird fantasy races" first requires us to define what is meant by "weird." And according to the original post, we are asked to assume that "weird" means any character race that is anthropomorphic or monstrous--basically anything that couldn't pass as human. (Specifically mentioned: "turtle people, flying people, dragon people, and so on." "Turtle people and cat people and demon people and dragon people." "Anamilistic type characters," "bird people, elephant people, demon people, cat people, and so on." "ampthormorphic/furry")

So to answer the question, I first must accept that "not human-passing = inappropriate for a fantasy setting." And I firmly disagree with that assumption. They aren't weird to me, and they never have been, so the discussion ends before it can start.

Regarding monstrous or anthropomorphic heroes, there are plenty of references in real-world mythology and religion to draw inspiration from, and a lot of folks have pointed some of them out. I think they only get "weird" when the players' expectations don't match the expectations of the DM, that's all. Like, if the current campaign is based on Lord of the Rings, having dog- and cat-headed people walking around will definitely be strange...but if the campaign is based on ancient Egyptian mythology, they'll fit right in.

TL;DR: There aren't any weird fantasy races, there are only weird fantasy settings.

 

[Maxperson]

Allowing everything and doing a good job with everything you have are not both guaranteed when together.

Just like many say, having a smaller race roster allows a DM to dive deeper into their races' stories and make them impact their worlds.

The issue is that many of the "themed worlds" don't don't have the weird races and the kitchen sinks often only cover the surface of theme.

You can't guarantee a good job, no. That applies to any combination of races and classes.

Because how can a DM really write the story for a race if they don't get the appeal for it?

I get the appeal of Dragonborn just fine. I just can't stand them. I could write a great story for them, but I wouldn't ever want to run it.

 

[overgeeked]

Seems like this argument, and a few others around here right now, comes down to DM authority vs player entitlement. Both should be flexible and willing to listen, but also accept that not every DM is a good fit for every player. No player is entitled to have a DM run for them, and no DM is entitled to have players automatically buy into their world or reasoning. So find a DM who’s interested or find players who are interested. Nothing says everyone should always be able to play with everyone else in the hobby. It’s too big for that.

 

[Scott Christian]

This is the only portion of your post that matters at all, so I’m singling it out. The rest is just bad faith twisting of statements and jumping to wild conclusions because they fit what you want to grandstand against.

No, and the only way to reach this ridiculous conclusion is by intentionally twisting my words and making baseless assumptions.

I don't get it then Doctor. I don't understand. Sorry. Didn't mean to cause you any grief or headaches. But I guess I truly do not understand.

All I did was read your answers. I tried to take them for what they were, and focused on the negative language against the DM imposing restrictions. I guess there was more to it that I didn't see.

So then, to be clear: The DM should not allow races most of the time? The DM should not glaze over the internal logic they may have for their world? The DM should not placate players by placing them in environments that exclude them based on the player's choice? The DM should not keep the world as open as possible?

Like, I am truly trying to get exactly what your position is.

• You say it's preposterous to not allow centaurs based on environment. Why?
• You say it's "nonsense" and "unimaginative" if the DM tries to have a consistent community (realm) response to an exotic race (loxodon). Why?
• You say it is an "exaggeration" for a group in a fantasy world to act the same. Why?
• You say it is "arbitrary nonsense" and "bad worldbuilding" if the DM has a realm that is isolated. Why?

I guess, that is what I am trying to understand. Those are your words to describe those DM acts. And I can't figure out why any of those things are wrong.

 

[Zardnaar]

Allowing reality to intrude.

You're running a themed world my last campaign was Egypt. Most anthromorphic stuff was fine.

Potential player 1 doesn't get with the program wants to play Warforged or whatever, Elf. Insists on it.

Potential player 2 just wants to play and is looking at a leonal, tabaxi, or Ravenfolk.

Gee wonder which one gets the nod.

 

[Scott Christian]

The point is that some people who can get something close to what they want as a player downplay the plight of those who can't or dodge the subject.

A person who wants to explore roleplaying a race with natural weapons and how the natural weapons would impact their race's culture and history would have fewer places to go than a person who wants to play and equally weapon orientated dwarf. The latter person would more likely be able to get that as a player.

Again, I think this example ignores the fact that every DM here would work with that player. But, it is a good point and a solid example.

 

[Scott Christian]

The issue is that many of the "themed worlds" don't don't have the weird races and the kitchen sinks often only cover the surface of theme.

I would take exception to this. Many of the curated worlds I have seen often have a few exotic races, along with standard faire. And the exotics are always very different: tabaxi and warforged in one (along with the PHB races), and in another yuan-ti, aasimar, and goliaths (along with PHB races). And that was from the same DM.
The point is, we have no way of knowing if DMs do or do not allow weird races.

But again, that is beside the point. The argument laid forth is DMs are bad if they limit races. For some, if they limit them no matter the reason. For others, they can limit but only if it falls within their line of reasoning.

 

[Zardnaar]

I would take exception to this. Many of the curated worlds I have seen often have a few exotic races, along with standard faire. And the exotics are always very different: tabaxi and warforged in one (along with the PHB races), and in another yuan-ti, aasimar, and goliaths (along with PHB races). And that was from the same DM.
The point is, we have no way of knowing if DMs do or do not allow weird races.

But again, that is beside the point. The argument laid forth is DMs are bad if they limit races. For some, if they limit them no matter the reason. For others, they can limit but only if it falls within their line of reasoning.

I like the weird races I just don't want an all you can eat buffet.

 

[Jack Daniel]

The issue is that many of the "themed worlds" don't don't have the weird races and the kitchen sinks often only cover the surface of theme.

Because how can a DM really write the story for a race if they don't get the appeal for it?

That argument is such a strawman, it wants to ask the Wizard for a brain.

 

[Minigiant]

But again, that is beside the point. The argument laid forth is DMs are bad if they limit races. For some, if they limit them no matter the reason. For others, they can limit but only if it falls within their line of reasoning.

Never made that argument.

My argument is "Why do are all the themed settings with minotaurs Greek but elves are not limited to only Norse and Celtic settings? If elves and dwarves can trancend culture, can the DM community think about doing so to other races?"

Can't minotaurs and hoplites be seperated sometimes and thought about as distinct things deeply?