D&D General Oh, the Humanity! Exotic Races, Anthropocentrism, Stereotypes & Roleplaying in D&D

[Snarf Zagyg]

The issue isn't explaining exotic races in your setting.

It's getting your players to like the explanation.

"All the uncommon and rare races are refuges" might work for some people. Other people might see this as lame or and excuse to roleplay an exotic race like a walking caricature.

Because if the DM doesn't really care how the they make the exotic races fit into their world, they can't really complain about how the player roleplays them.

So, a few issues that I see, IMO.

The first is one that might be peculiar to the area I am in, but seems to be somewhat common. Despite the fact that enworld attracts DMs like Citizen Kane attracts proponents of the auteur theory, there tends to be a lot more people that want to play D&D than want to run D&D. Which means that, for the most part, the issue really is explaining the exotic races.

In other words, it's about the work involved. If a DM is running the game, and creating a setting, they may not want the additional cognitive work, or any additional work, in adding more exotic races and explanations into the game.

In many (most?) cases, this might not be a big deal. In a kitchen-sink setting, it can just be ignored. After all, who would notice one more alien in the background of Mos Eisley? On the other hand, if the setting is more themed, or has more tight integration, politics, etc., it might be more difficult.

I think the formulation in your last sentence is interesting. Couldn't it also be stated, "If the players can't be bothered to roleplay exotic races well, then the DM shouldn't be bothered to make them fit into their world?" Is either that formulation or yours accurate?

I reminded of what I wrote in my conclusion-

For the most part, I think the fault lines tend to go down the usual sides- it's the whole "DM sets the rules and strictures for the campaign" v. "Player Agency, you don't tell ME what to do" arguments that get repeated, just with a new coat.

 

[jasper]

I have newer players think out of box all the time. Sometimes I have to shut them down because I am running Adventure League rules. But 5E has been the edition I did the least homebrew rules.

 

[Minigiant]

.

I think the formulation in your last sentence is interesting. Couldn't it also be stated, "If the players can't be bothered to roleplay exotic races well, then the DM shouldn't be bothered to make them fit into their world?" Is either that formulation or yours accurate?

I reminded of what I wrote in my conclusion-

For the most part, I think the fault lines tend to go down the usual sides- it's the whole "DM sets the rules and strictures for the campaign" v. "Player Agency, you don't tell ME what to do" arguments that get repeated, just with a new coat.

Well how can the players roleplay wrong if the DM allows the exotic races but doesn't integrate them?

I believe the DM has the final authority of the setting. The players cannot play what is banned. The DM states the world, its history, its geography, its time, and its theme THEN the players add their PCs. If the DM allows for an empty void for players to be silly, it's their own fault. They made the world and sold it to the players. The players bought the product and are free to use what is given.

If the DM says Yes, they said Yes. So Jimmy is a a silly catman.

 

[Laurefindel]

I needed some time and space to delve into a topic that I have been thinking about for some time (...)

In the end, I am equivocal on the issue.

Yeah, I too have been struggling with stereotypes vs caricature (and other forms of disrespectful treatment, conscious or otherwise), but in the end, I've made my peace with a certain level of stereotyping. A race/species/culture becomes only relevant with a certain number of quintessential traits, and these inevitably become stereotypes do various degrees. You cannot avoid preconcieved ideas about something you describe in a few sentences and paragraphs, and you cannot be an expert in every human cultures. The trick, i believe, is to allow for (and normalize) variations in the individuals of the said race/species/culture.

Some of those variations too can be included in the description of a race/species/culture - if only as examples of how individuals can deviate from what is considered the norm - without making a character that is completely antithesis to its race/species/culture. But between the default PHB "here are your choices, pick one and stick to it" and Tasha's (perceived) "everything goes!" approach, I think a good middle ground can be achieved with setting-specific options.

The character building mini-game is something I do enjoy in D&D and it loses some of its raison d'être when permutations become too generous

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Well how can the players roleplay wrong if the DM allows the exotic races but doesn't integrate them?

I believe the DM has the final authority of the setting. The players cannot play what is banned. The DM states the world, its history, its geography, its time, and its theme THEN the players add their PCs. If the DM allows for an empty void for players to be silly, it's their own fault. They made the world and sold it to the players. The players bought the product and are free to use what is given.

If the DM says Yes, they said Yes. So Jimmy is a a silly catman.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean about "roleplay wrong" (my emphasis).

I wrote a pretty long and detailed post about my thoughts. Different people play for different reasons. Heck, the same person might, at different times, be really into roleplaying, and might not later.

Even the zeitgeist can change things. Concepts of "good roleplaying" in the 70s and 80s (when there was also a premium placed on 'skilled play') were often different than what we think of as "good roleplaying" today, in much the same way that Brando and Steiger were both engaged in "good acting" in On the Waterfront, yet ... very different.

The ideas of "wrong" (or as you later put it, "fault") seem kind of odd. I would say that it is more accurate to say that some people engage in caricature when it comes to non-human races, and that these caricatures can either be annoying or, in some cases, offensive. But that there are also countervailing reasons to play non-human characters.

I'm not sure why you think the player's decisions in roleplaying (or roleplaying "wrong") is the fault of the DM; if anything, such a view would make it more likely for DMs to choose to ban all non-human races.

 

[Ancalagon]

The issue isn't explaining exotic races in your setting.

It's getting your players to like the explanation.

But that's not unique to exotic races. In Dark Sun, halflings (a non exotic race) are cannibals. What if you don't like it? Don't play a halfling!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

But that's not unique to exotic races. In Dark Sun, halflings (a non exotic race) are cannibals. What if you don't like it? Don't play a halfling!

And that's not unique to Dark Sun.

In Krynn, halflings (a non exotic race) are Kender. What if you don't like it? Well, then you're a normal, well-adjusted gamer.

 

[Minigiant]

I'm not sure what exactly you mean about "roleplay wrong" (my emphasis).

I wrote a pretty long and detailed post about my thoughts. Different people play for different reasons. Heck, the same person might, at different times, be really into roleplaying, and might not later.

Even the zeitgeist can change things. Concepts of "good roleplaying" in the 70s and 80s (when there was also a premium placed on 'skilled play') were often different than what we think of as "good roleplaying" today, in much the same way that Brando and Steiger were both engaged in "good acting" in On the Waterfront, yet ... very different.

The ideas of "wrong" (or as you later put it, "fault") seem kind of odd. I would say that it is more accurate to say that some people engage in caricature when it comes to non-human races, and that these caricatures can either be annoying or, in some cases, offensive. But that there are also countervailing reasons to play non-human characters.

I'm not sure why you think the player's decisions in roleplaying (or roleplaying "wrong") is the fault of the DM; if anything, such a view would make it more likely for DMs to choose to ban all non-human races.

My point is there is no "roleplaying wrong" if the race is allowed but the race is given no place in the world. If the table breaks from the default and there are no guidelines for some races, then there are no guidelines for some races.

Because D&D has expanded over the last few decades, many more ideas of how races act and think have be introduced to the game. Therefore unfortunately more work is put on DMs who allow more into their worlds. The sell for a setting is more involved and harder than before.

 

[Ancalagon]

My point is there is no "roleplaying wrong" if the race is allowed but the race is given no place in the world. If the table breaks from the default and there are no guidelines for some races, then there are no guidelines for some races.

Because D&D has expanded over the last few decades, many more ideas of how races act and think have be introduced to the game. Therefore unfortunately more work is put on DMs who allow more into their worlds. The sell for a setting is more involved and harder than before.

In Yoon-Suin (an excellent campaign setting you should look up), you can be a human, a dwarf, a slugman or a crabman.

That is all...

... UNLESS you are a foreigner, arriving in Yoon Suin after several months of travel from "generic fantasy land otherwise non-specified". And then you play whatever race you want.

It's really not hard!

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

My point is there is no "roleplaying wrong" if the race is allowed but the race is given no place in the world. If the table breaks from the default and there are no guidelines for some races, then there are no guidelines for some races.

I disagree.

First, as I wrote, I don't think there is any "roleplaying wrong." I think that there is roleplaying that can be annoying, and can be offensive.

Second, a player can roleplay a fun and memorable character regardless of the "fit" in the campaign world- it doesn't matter whether there's 500 pages of lore tying the race to the setting, or an explosion of Handwavium opened a portal and sucked in the world's only kenku. Once the character is allowed by the DM, it really is in the player's control.