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

The truth is

what is considered a common race is due to tradition and the book D&D drew early influence from

The Common Four could have been:

• dwarf, elf, halfling human (Lord of the Rings)
• buffalo-man, monkey-man, pig-man, human (Journey to the West)
• human, spiderman, tabaxi, yuanti (Anansi myth)

or any other other collection of 4 races based on a book or myth. The ones chosen weren't chosen because they were humanlike. They were chosen because that book was popular at the time the gme was made. Then those races were made more human.

Oofta said:

So because Gygax had some strange ideas (he was a product of his time, not that that justifies it) .... every DM who doesn't allow every race under the sun has what, colonialist prejudices?

Good grief.

Click to expand...

That's an overly reductive reading of the thread (and my post). Try again. Particularly this part:
Why do monsterfolk get slaughtered? To make way for the original "win state". Why do you still accumulate obscene, national economy damaging levels of wealth? Because of the original "win state". Why are maps still PHB race focused? Because the "wilderness" needs to exist to allow for the space for the original "win state".

Oofta said:

So acknowledging that some people would probably be racist ***holes, what, means that it's a reflection of the DM's attitudes? I'm really trying to understand where you're going with any of this.

Click to expand...

I was commenting on Charlaquin and Max's discussion about the tabaxi who gets denied service at a bar simply on account of being a tabaxi. Max was arguing that said denial of service wasn't racist due to the barkeep's aversion being rooted in the tabaxi's physical appearance. I offered a rebuttal from the sidelines, saying that it doesn't matter what the barkeep's rationalization of his prejudice is, it's still racist. That's all there was to it (at least on my end).

Minigiant said:

The Common Four could have been:

• dwarf, elf, halfling human (Lord of the Rings)
• buffalo-man, monkey-man, pig-man, human (Journey to the West)
• human, spiderman, tabaxi, yuanti (Anansi myth)

Click to expand...

Sure. And if a GM wants to run a game based on Journey to the West then the person who demands that they must be able to play a Legolas-clone would be disruptive, just like the person who demanded to play a Tabaxi in a LotR pastiche. If you don't like the GM's premise then politely decline instead of trying to force them to change it into something else.

Crimson Longinus said:

Sure. And if a GM wants to run a game based on Journey to the West then the person who demands that they must be able to play a Legolas-clone would be disruptive, just like the person who demanded to play a Tabaxi in a LotR pastiche. If you don't like the GM's premise then politely decline instead of trying to force them to change it into something else.

Click to expand...

Absolutely. If you don't like the premise (or potentially the game itself), say so. Either the GM will change something or they won't; then you'll know if you'll play or if you won't. There's no reason to join a game you know from the start you won't like.

PsyzhranV2 said:

That's an overly reductive reading of the thread (and my post). Try again. Particularly this part:
Why do monsterfolk get slaughtered? To make way for the original "win state". Why do you still accumulate obscene, national economy damaging levels of wealth? Because of the original "win state". Why are maps still PHB race focused? Because the "wilderness" needs to exist to allow for the space for the original "win state".

I was commenting on Charlaquin and Max's discussion about the tabaxi who gets denied service at a bar simply on account of being a tabaxi. Max was arguing that said denial of service wasn't racist due to the barkeep's aversion being rooted in the tabaxi's physical appearance. I offered a rebuttal from the sidelines, saying that it doesn't matter what the barkeep's rationalization of his prejudice is, it's still racist. That's all there was to it (at least on my end).

Click to expand...

I read the article and it was interesting, but assumed too much. Creating a stronghold was optional and only one way the game could go when you hit name level, which rarely happened due to the death rate in 1e/2e. It was A "win state" I suppose, but it was not the only one. You could, and almost everyone I saw that made it there did, ignore it and keep on trucking. It was a lot more fun to battle demon lords and ancient dragons on other planes of existence, than to build a house and do book keeping, with an occasional war. Strongholds were boring. As was clearing land to build one.

Back on topic, that has nothing really to do with the world building being discussed here. I don't like dragonborn, so they don't exist in my world. It has nothing to do with what was talked about in the article. I just don't like the diminishment to dragons and seeing them reduced to dragonpeople bugs me. I keep dragons as a grand and rare thing in my games. I also don't like Warforged as a race, so they don't exist as a race in my game. If a player wants to play one, no problem. He's going to be a unique wizard's experiment, newly reawakened former servant of an ancient empire, or something similar.

PsyzhranV2 said:

That's an overly reductive reading of the thread (and my post). Try again. Particularly this part:
Why do monsterfolk get slaughtered? To make way for the original "win state". Why do you still accumulate obscene, national economy damaging levels of wealth? Because of the original "win state". Why are maps still PHB race focused? Because the "wilderness" needs to exist to allow for the space for the original "win state".

Click to expand...

All of which is, well, really overblown and seems to be broadly applied to every D&D game everywhere which is B.S. The game has changed since the 70s, I can't think of a single mod that's been published in the 21st century that was about colonialism*. So it seems like you're taking the words of what someone said or thought half a century ago and saying that it's relevant ... somehow. I don't see what relevance it has to the current state of the game.

It also has nothing to do with the thread topic.

*Not that I claim any particular knowledge in this area, there are probably some somewhere.

Minigiant said:

The truth is

what is considered a common race is due to tradition and the book D&D drew early influence from

The Common Four could have been:

• dwarf, elf, halfling human (Lord of the Rings)
• buffalo-man, monkey-man, pig-man, human (Journey to the West)
• human, spiderman, tabaxi, yuanti (Anansi myth)

or any other other collection of 4 races based on a book or myth. The ones chosen weren't chosen because they were humanlike. They were chosen because that book was popular at the time the gme was made. Then those races were made more human.

Click to expand...

I posted this a while back, on the old version of the forums...

Crimson Longinus said:

Sure. And if a GM wants to run a game based on Journey to the West then the person who demands that they must be able to play a Legolas-clone would be disruptive, just like the person who demanded to play a Tabaxi in a LotR pastiche. If you don't like the GM's premise then politely decline instead of trying to force them to change it into something else.

Click to expand...

Yes. But... That's not the point I was making.

My point is that what race is considered exotic and what race is considered common in D&D came down to personal likes, cultural popularity, and chance.

If D&D was invented in Japan, tabaxi would be a common race and elf would be uncommon. Tabaxi might be a bit more nekomimi though.

Oofta said:

Huh? I mean, not @Maxperson and maybe I missed something but you stated that


So when the PHB chapter 2 says "The dragonborn and the rest of the races in this chapter are uncommon. They don’t exist in every world of D&D" that means by RAW they exist in every world? Saying otherwise is somehow "cherrypicking"?

Click to expand...

Ok for reference then. I suppose. Someone should start citing stuff.
Note that this section says all these races exist and in what proportions.

Also on pg. 17, @Maxperson quoted:
Then waaay back on pg. 33 in a green box, the same type of place we get our RAW rules for dwarves being 'haughty but gracious', under Dragonborn, we get:

"The dragonborn and the rest of the races in this chapter are uncommon. They don’t exist in every world of D&D...'

So, when your quotes are uncited out of context sections of flavor text and fluff, presented as RAW, I consider you to be cherry-picking.

Gammadoodler said:

This is really easy. Halflings are spectacularly fast. I know this because they are able to dodge polearms from skilled wielders.

Click to expand...

Then every race is spectacularly fast. Because by the rules halflings are only slightly better at dodging polearms from skilled wielders than dwarves are. And this is one of the few times when Syndrome's "When everyone is special then no one is" is actually appropriate.

Of course there's the D&D issue that fighters are wielding nerf bats rather than swords thanks to the way hit points work.

doctorbadwolf said:

Now, if you thinhk that the Hobbits were non-combatants who just needed protecting...are you sure you read the books? Because you're objectively wrong about that.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure whether you've read them if that's what you think. The party breaks fairly early in part to separate the hobbits from the stronger fighters. From The Shire to Weathertop the hobbits are basically running from combat. From Weathertop to Rivendell the hobbits are running with Aragorn being able to fight back a little.

The party is only completely together from to its breaking up and in that time I recall one useful direct attack made by any of the hobbits - and that by Frodo into the foot of a thoroughly distracted troll. It's an escort mission

Then the party splits - Frodo and Sam are shown as being massively overmatched by just about everything they meet on the way except Gollum. Yes, Sam stands his ground against Shelob with the help of some magic items. But waaay overmatched. Pippin and Merry immediately become hostages, with Boromir failing to protect them (note again that Boromir does all the fighting) and the three surviving bigger folk start to hunt down the orcs.

And from then on Aragorn, Legolas, and Gimli kill literally dozens of orcs each, with Legolas and Gimli even keeping score - when a single orc hunter was more than a match for Sam and Frodo in Moria, forcing them to hide. Meanwhile at the Siege of Gondor one hobbit was a page and runner, and the other was riding pillion behind someone who wasn't meant to be there. And, admittedly, made a very successful attack on a distracted Nazgul but in no way was expected to fight.

So yes I am saying that (a) the hobbits were basically non-combatants and I can only recall them raising weapons four times (once vs the Nine, leading to Frodo's blade shattering just before the river leading into Rivendell, once to a troll, once to Shelob leading to Shelob impaling itself, and once to the first of the Nine). And that (b) the Fellowship set off on an escort quest with the five protecting the hobbits. And that (c) the choice of hobbits being so small was a great narrative choice because it made the rest of the world that much more threatening for our point of view characters.

I'm also saying that part of the point being made was that skill at arms was not the only virtue. Which is just as well because the hobbits didn't have it.