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

[Scribe]

Thanks for the feedback folks, in thinking on it further its really down to the treatment of Tieflings going into 4th. I hated that development so much it really just takes a lot of the shine off for me, and the Dragonborn are mostly whatever to me, probably just guilt by association in my eyes.

Still, appreciate the responses to give me things to think about.

 

[Maxperson]

Oh Hussar...
A tabaxi causing difficulty at a tavern was just one of the many stated reasons why it might be difficult for a DM to just allow a race. The other terms used (for just this one little example) were: distrust, worship, fetishize, etc. Not everything is killed on site. But, as you know, that was one of a list of reasons why the DM might not allow the race.
I get it, you don't agree with the reasons. That's cool. Do what works for your table. Allow other tables to do what is best for them.

Killing on sight was never a reason. Possible discrimination, sure. Auto death was not.

 

[Oofta]

To be fair, the killing on sight is my ruling concerning drow. It's based on in-campaign world lore, not a general rule. If I started a different campaign with a different campaign world I'd have to reconsider things from the ground up.

 

[Chaosmancer]

A lot of people don't know why the countries hated each other and don't need an explanation. It was sufficient to know that they did. YOU might want these details, but they aren't necessary.

If "they just hate each other" was a good enough reason, it wouldn't be called lazy writing.

My point was that comparing the relationship between two groups of people to the source of a fundamental force of the universe is a poor example. You keep ducking and weaving around these points like you have some sort of personal stake in this.

Did Tolkien's full explanation of the emnity between elves and dwarves have good reasoning? Sure, seems like.

Did Tolkien write that explanation in his main works, therefore writing it in a way that people knew about and wasn't just a fairly weak trope with no seeming basis? No, he didn't.

 

[Oofta]

If "they just hate each other" was a good enough reason, it wouldn't be called lazy writing.

My point was that comparing the relationship between two groups of people to the source of a fundamental force of the universe is a poor example. You keep ducking and weaving around these points like you have some sort of personal stake in this.

Did Tolkien's full explanation of the emnity between elves and dwarves have good reasoning? Sure, seems like.

Did Tolkien write that explanation in his main works, therefore writing it in a way that people knew about and wasn't just a fairly weak trope with no seeming basis? No, he didn't.

How many works of fiction do? Many, many books have kingdom A fighting kingdom B without explaining much of the reason why. Rivalries appear all the time and the only justification basically boil down to tribalism.

As far as elves and dwarves in the current edition of D&D, it's more of acknowledging that they have a different approach to life while respecting each other's strengths. They've pretty much gotten rid of assumed serious animosity between the two.

 

[Maxperson]

If "they just hate each other" was a good enough reason, it wouldn't be called lazy writing.

Sure, but calling is lazy writing is just an opinion. I don't view it as lazy.

My point was that comparing the relationship between two groups of people to the source of a fundamental force of the universe is a poor example. You keep ducking and weaving around these points like you have some sort of personal stake in this.

No personal stake. Just a simple, "I don't see this as the big issue you seem to see it as."

 

[doctorbadwolf]

What is the overwhelming trope for Lizards or Teifling? Pre-4th, Teifling had a much better thing going imo, but neither of them at this point (Dragonkin/Teifling) have anything that screams unique to me, they just dont have enough history or weight in the world.

Which is weird for me to type, because I love playing as Teiflings, but I dont like what 4th did to them at all.

So what is the draw to Dragonkin or Teifling, beyond "I want to be a Dragon/Fiend"?

“I want to play a dragon person” is not the same as “I want to be weird/different”.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If "they just hate each other" was a good enough reason, it wouldn't be called lazy writing.

But it isn’t lazy. It’s just not putting the explanation for every little element of the world into the narrative, which is good writing.
Tolkien didn’t ever even decide some of the unanswered questions of his work, which is to the benefit of the work.

Did Tolkien's full explanation of the emnity between elves and dwarves have good reasoning? Sure, seems like.

Did Tolkien write that explanation in his main works, therefore writing it in a way that people knew about and wasn't just a fairly weak trope with no seeming basis? No, he didn't.

Nonsense. Going out of his way to explain it would have been bad writing, since it would have added nothing at all to the work.

 

[Chaosmancer]

How many works of fiction do? Many, many books have kingdom A fighting kingdom B without explaining much of the reason why. Rivalries appear all the time and the only justification basically boil down to tribalism.

As far as elves and dwarves in the current edition of D&D, it's more of acknowledging that they have a different approach to life while respecting each other's strengths. They've pretty much gotten rid of assumed serious animosity between the two.

On the 5e stuff, fair enough.

On the kingdoms, I guess it is a difference of perception.

Kingdom's fighting generally are fighting over something, or if they aren't explicitly fighting over something then they are implicitly fighting over land and resources. We have a strong context for that. You can say "Syrmka invades Helsh" and the audience immediately has a viable context for what is going on. Details make it a better story, but we instantly can pull on a lot of history to explain it.

But, all dwarves and all of their kingdoms hate all elves and all of their kingdoms, but both are on the side of good begs for an answer to "why?" They aren't fighting over land or resources, because they do not need or want the same things. They shouldn't be natural enemies, and in fact each does generally have natural enemies as well. So why do they hate each other across the globe?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Sure, but calling is lazy writing is just an opinion. I don't view it as lazy.

Sure, but if you went to any writing seminar or viewed just about anything about how to write, they would most likely call it lazy, especially from a technical standpoint. And if you want to claim otherwise and have people agree with you, you need to have reasons why it is not lazy writing to just not fill in the blanks.

No personal stake. Just a simple, "I don't see this as the big issue you seem to see it as."

Then, you could just stop arguing the point you know.

Having a conflict with no roots or source is lazy writing. Every example I can think of is either a comedy meant to show how absurd such a thing is, or it is bad writing.