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

[Oofta]

So people saying that they don't want their campaign to look like Mos Eisley's Cantina is an insult? Even when they clearly state that their personal preference has nothing to do with other people's campaigns and is no way saying that anyone else running their campaign differently is wrong?

I'm sorry, but I think people are reading things into phrases that are not intended to be, meant to be or interpreted by the vast majority of people to be an insult. Are there exceptions? Probably. But to say that there are "hundreds" of examples in this thread? Give me a break.

People use it as a handy reference because it's easily recognizable. Just because some people want to have a limited number of races, it doesn't make people who want any race in the book (or more) wrong.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I am not patronizing. I am being curt - as straightforward as possible - so as to not have any misinterpretations. Cantina is used. People say they do not like to run cantina campaigns. No one is saying cantina campaigns are wrong. No one is saying cantina campaigns should be proof to dismiss your playstyle. No one making fun of your playstyle. They are saying that it is not for them.

I'm responding to this first and foremost. The rest will come in a later post, because you were 100% being patronizing.

---

Exhibit A: "Are some of you really that hurt?"
Hurt implies seeing the other side as immature, especially on the internet. It is also seen as being an incorrect response in our modern society, as if emotions can be wrong.

Exhibit B: "Is the other side going to start throwing fits"
Implies that you view us as whiny and immature. If nothing else in the post was intended as an ad hominem, this definitely was.

Exhibit C: "This is utter and complete madness. "
Trying to dismiss us as crazy.

Exhibit D: "It is picking a fight with the kid who complimented your shoes."
Another example of viewing us as children.

Exhibit E: "Good Lord."
Trying to dismiss us as unreasonable.

---

Verdict: You attempted a "reductio ad absurdum", but ended up with an ad hominem and strawman argument.

 

[Scott Christian]

Fair enough, you always consider them.

But, you do recognize that on this thread, people say "the core four". A phrase which seems to be very much tied to Tolkien. After all, if you wanted to make the Fellowship of the Ring, all you need are humans, elves, dwarves and hobbits. A habit in the community so pervasive that even people who don't consider those four races the exclusive "core" adopt the term.

Thanks. Gotta say if I wanted to refer to Tolkien, I would just invoke Middle Earth or his name, such as "It's like Middle Earth," or "Picture Tolkien's world." Why core four came about when there is already a standard in place is beyond me.

Yeah, I'd be skeptical. Maybe not, depends on a lot of factors, but I've known people to lie to shut down conversations they don't want to have, so I try to keep that in mind.

I have read some of your experiences. And if I were in your shoes, I would be right along with you. I would be skeptical. Very skeptical. Fortunately for me, I have had almost all positive experiences.

So, I get that you don't mean them negatively, but these don't address the issue at all.

The issue at question is the DM has spent 100+ hours building their world, and how can you ask them to do more, complicating factor, the DM builds the world before the game.

So, find a different table? That DM has also built their world before the game and likely spent 100+ hours on it, so there is literally no change in your situation.

Join a different game online? Same thing, world already built. 100+ hours, you still can't ask them to change.

I just reread my post and I definitely did not make myself clear. I meant that, in my experience, there are so few DMs that have done that work (like 10-20% maybe), that the other 80% of the tables are open. They are the buffet. That has been my experience. Most DMs allow almost anything. A few have put in a a lot of work and limit things. Sorry for not being clear.
Basically, from my vantage point it is easy for a player to just go find one of the 80%ers out there.

But none of this addresses potentially changing things. And, like I said above, if the premise you are presenting is that the DM shouldn't be asked to change, because they already did so much work, then the player is kind of left with no recourse. You present this question like the player's who ask are over-stepping, but you seem to forget that the DM building alone, with no input from anyone else... has no chance to get input from anyone else. Players literally cannot ask until the DM has already put in the work, unless they get lucky enough to know a DM, who is starting to worldbuild, and is willing to listen.

That is not how it is meant to be taken. And I have probably stated fifty time (but I know, it is a long thread) that a player should ask. They should. And the DM should work with them. But view it with my 80% experience. Even if, somehow, this is the only table they can play on, and it is part of the 20% that do the work and limit races, then ask. And if the DM can't. Then ask for the inclusion of whatever race or class you want to be included in the next campaign. This way the DM has time to add them. And if they don't after having a six months to find a way to include them, then they are not the table for that player. They want a different playstyle. And that is okay.

Do you realize that adding the context of the community, drag queens, who are stereotypically known for that phrase being used in a positive light basically just proves my point?

In this community, that term has a meaning that is fairly clear to all of us who have been discussing. You aren't in a seperate community where that term is used differently, so being shocked someone took it negatively is kind of mind-blowing to me. I mean, if I went to a sunday church sewing group and talked like a drag queen, they probably aren't going to take it as a compliment.

We are in a separate community. Geeks. And ask any Geek outside of the few on this forum, ask them what the Mos Eisley's Cantina is and they are likely to hum you the song and have a smile on their face. And I used drag queens to be funny, because I just watched the show with my wife and heard the phrase. I could have just as said, Will Farrell or my niece using the phrase and the context and connotation would have the exact same equivalency - bitch being used in a positive light.

 

[Mecheon]

So people saying that they don't want their campaign to look like Mos Eisley's Cantina is an insult? Even when they clearly state that their personal preference has nothing to do with other people's campaigns and is no way saying that anyone else running their campaign differently is wrong?

I'd almost argue that if they don't want a game where "A whole heap of races" is the default, D&D may not be the game for them.

Sapient enough to be playable races have been a thing in D&D for yonks. Even just looking at orcs, they've been there since the beginning and are clearly sapient enough to be playable.

D&D's standard is that Cantina atmosphere. Its why we have colour-coded dragons, regional-themed giants, and subraces for days. D&D just naturally leans into it, and fighting against that is going to cause friction

 

[Umbran]

I am not patronizing.

Mod Note:

With respect, when you referred to people as "throwing fits" and "picking fights with the kid with..." you set yourself up as mature, and everyone who disagrees with you as immature - so, yes patronizing. And haven't walked that back yet.

When someone is not okay with how you use language, getting defensive and accusing them of being the problem (however you feel it may be true) is not a step towards understanding. You won't easily move forwards that way. If you are busy asserting your "right" to use words as you desire, you cannot learn why they don't seem to mean what you think they mean.

If I may, next time try something like the following:

"Oh, geeze, I'm sorry. I didn't mean it like that.

I admit I don't really understand. What about it is problematic?"

You may then listen, and decide whether they are correct, but still move forward by avoiding the issue with this particular person, regardless. You may walk away still feeling like the other person is a wrongheaded gasbag, if you wish, but the conversation can move forward without seeing moderators come in with red text disrupting things.

And who knows? Maybe if you listen, you'll learn something.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Will you please quote someone saying: "You use cantina style, you are wrong." Because saying a race is weird does not equate to someone is playing a game "wrong."

Again, the beginning of your quote I am okay with. Many people have said they do not like the cantina style play. When have they used it to "dismiss" your playstyle? I have not seen it, especially from a group of people. In fact, almost everyone on here says - you do you.

I agree. I don't care for the phrase. Used it here because that is what some people are using.

No one is picking on you or cantina. That's what I am saying. You are literally listening to someone say: "Nice shoes. I like all the colors. I wouldn't wear them because it's not my style. But they're cool" And then equating them not liking to your style to them hating your shoes. And then you take it a step further and think they are trying to get you to stop wearing the shoes. That is literally what is happening.

I am not patronizing. I am being curt - as straightforward as possible - so as to not have any misinterpretations. Cantina is used. People say they do not like to run cantina campaigns. No one is saying cantina campaigns are wrong. No one is saying cantina campaigns should be proof to dismiss your playstyle. No one making fun of your playstyle. They are saying that it is not for them.

I might have to look pretty hard for a direct "you are wrong" quote.

I can say for certain, in this thread, that the desire for fewer 'weird' races has been directly attributed DM's settings having 'depth' 'history' and 'culture'.

Directly and acontextually as in.. "I want fewer races" = "My setting has depth, history and culture"

It's also been used contrastingly as in "If you want more diversity, your setting has less depth history, and culture".

And that's ignoring some of the true zealots who have been more explicit in their tastes (and booted from the thread)

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I can say for certain, in this thread, that the desire for fewer 'weird' races has been directly attributed DM's settings having 'depth' 'history' and 'culture'.

Directly and acontextually as in.. "I want fewer races" = "My setting has depth, history and culture"

It's also been used contrastingly as in "If you want more diversity, your setting has less depth history, and culture".

Yep. Which seems downright backward to me. The more races I have in my setting, the more culture, history, and depth are added to my world.

 

[Minigiant]

I'd almost argue that if they don't want a game where "A whole heap of races" is the default, D&D may not be the game for them.

Sapient enough to be playable races have been a thing in D&D for yonks. Even just looking at orcs, they've been there since the beginning and are clearly sapient enough to be playable.

D&D's standard is that Cantina atmosphere. Its why we have colour-coded dragons, regional-themed giants, and subraces for days. D&D just naturally leans into it, and fighting against that is going to cause friction

Yeah, D&D from the start has always had a mixture of different races. It just at the start had Races A, B, C, D, E, &F as playable and Races L, M, N, O, P, Q, R, S, T ,U ,V, W, X, Y, & Z. And used flimsy reasoning why that only worked for people who wanted a LOTR like flavor.

But as the year went on and more people joined the game, that reasoning showed it wear. And many DMs did not take up the mantles to shine it up or create new reasoning.

Now it seems many people don't like the fact that has a base assumption of all these races and a reasoning for the stratifaction of them doesn't work for a the majority anymore.

 

[Oofta]

I might have to look pretty hard for a direct "you are wrong" quote.

I can say for certain, in this thread, that the desire for fewer 'weird' races has been directly attributed DM's settings having 'depth' 'history' and 'culture'.

Directly and acontextually as in.. "I want fewer races" = "My setting has depth, history and culture"

It's also been used contrastingly as in "If you want more diversity, your setting has less depth history, and culture".

And that's ignoring some of the true zealots who have been more explicit in their tastes (and booted from the thread)

Depth (or caring about such things) isn't necessarily correlated with number of races. Some DMs find it easier to build depth with fewer races, but it is a preference not a prerequisite.

I'd rather have depth than width, but if I could have both that would just be having my cake and eating it too.

It's just a question of style and every DM, every table, should do what makes sense for them.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I'd rather have depth than width, but if I could have both that would just be having my cake and eating it too.

You can have both depth and width, they're not opposites. I probably have over 100 race options in my homebrew world (I haven't counted), and all of them have a ton of depth. It takes more time, but it isn't impossible to have both depth and width.