Too weird for town....

[Blue]

Do the other player's care? Has anyone said anything about it? Has anyone (other than the DM) made this an issue? If the answer is no, then, let it slide.

I've got the other way - I have a player with a chromatic Dragonborn who explicitly feared - sort of an anti-folk-hero - in his back story. And a drow that the player wants to experience "what that means".

In this case if I gloss over it I'm stealing player agency and nullifying part of what they want about their characters.

 

[iserith]

Do you disallow players from picking Drow unless everyone is feared/monstrous? Or just make all NPCs accepting of them?

Certain campaigns have some race restrictions, depending on the theme/concept. If a race is permitted, then NPCs as a whole will tend to be accepting of them. If part of the challenge I'm trying to present is discrimination that needs overcoming or avoiding, it will usually be applied to the whole party e.g. a city of monsters not caring for non-monsters.

 

[thundershot]

I used to make a big deal about this. When monstrous races entered a town, people would be edgy. My one player's weretiger would always go into town in her hybrid form. Yes, weretigers are known for being good, but it's not like they're a major race. I would have townsfolk throw rotten tomatoes at her at first, and eventually she'd win them over (she was a bard). However, the next town would produce the same problem.

The current campaign (which is technically a continuation of the same continuity as the campaign I've run since I was 13 years old, just an alternate Prime plane with some of the characters from the previous world) I'm a little more lenient since my kids are playing now, and "standard" races include Tieflings, Dragonborn, etc. This world isn't quite the Star Wars cantina, but seeing a random Kenku, Rakasta, or Warforged isn't unheard of in a town.

So the only issue we've had is my daughter's character pet Owlbear she saved the life of, but he stays outside of the town when they need to go in...

 

[Blue]

Of course I hit characters with appropriate reactions. Be it fear, wonder, adulation, surprise, etc. And, when the characters are unknowns, then yes it can be mistrust if their race is disliked by the populous of wherever they are, just like it could be distrust of an open adherent of a different religious mythos or fear of an obvious arcane caster to some.

If a player choose Drow or Tiefling, they are explicitly signalling that are interested in that. Unless they are merely saying that they care more about the race's numbers and bennies more than about roleplaying, in which case I don't have any qualms about hitting them with it either.

(Side note: this is one of the reasons I like a session 0, so that players can bounce their ideas off each other to make sure it's not impairing anyone's fun.)

I'll go as far as saying that if a DM just completely downplays that a player has chosen a "scary" race (before the character has the chance to make a reputation for themselves) that they are invalidating that player's choice and turning it into a collection of mechanics with no in-world meaning.

Choosing to play a monstrous race is no different from choosing to draw steel on a monarch during a discussion - ignoring it so that everything is "smooth" is stealing player agency.

 

[iserith]

Of course I hit characters with appropriate reactions. Be it fear, wonder, adulation, surprise, etc. And, when the characters are unknowns, then yes it can be mistrust if their race is disliked by the populous of wherever they are, just like it could be distrust of an open adherent of a different religious mythos or fear of an obvious arcane caster to some.

If a player choose Drow or Tiefling, they are explicitly signalling that are interested in that. Unless they are merely saying that they care more about the race's numbers and bennies more than about roleplaying, in which case I don't have any qualms about hitting them with it either.

(Side note: this is one of the reasons I like a session 0, so that players can bounce their ideas off each other to make sure it's not impairing anyone's fun.)

I'll go as far as saying that if a DM just completely downplays that I have chosen a "scary" race (before my character has the chance to make a reputation for themselves) that they are invalidating my choice and turning it into a collection of mechanics with no in-world meaning.

Choosing to play a monstrous race is no different from choosing to draw steel on a monarch during a discussion - ignoring it so that everything is "smooth" is stealing player agency.

If you're a player wanting to be subject to this kind of social interaction challenge, you can just tell the DM that's what you want (in so many words). I choose not to assume that's the case by default.

 

[Blue]

If you're a player wanting to be subject to this kind of social interaction challenge, you can just tell the DM that's what you want (in so many words). I choose not to assume that's the case by default.

I did tell the DM I wanted it. I picked a race - with all that means - as opposed to just a collection of game mechanics.

I choose not to assume that my players are just min-maxing by default. I instead credit them that their choice was intentional.

 

[iserith]

I did tell the DM I wanted it. I picked a race - with all that means - as opposed to just a collection of game mechanics.

I choose not to assume that my players are just min-maxing by default. I instead credit them that their choice was intentional.

What is "with all that means?" A DM's setting might not include particular forms of discrimination by default, perhaps because some players might not respond well to that sort of interaction as part of the play experience. Further, a player might not have based the choice of race on "mix-maxing." A player might just like the drow aesthetic, for example, but might not want to be hassled about his or her race when the PCs need to go to town. It doesn't seem to me to be a binary choice.

 

[Hussar]

I've got the other way - I have a player with a chromatic Dragonborn who explicitly feared - sort of an anti-folk-hero - in his back story. And a drow that the player wants to experience "what that means".

In this case if I gloss over it I'm stealing player agency and nullifying part of what they want about their characters.

Oh, totally. Obviously if this is what the player wants to deal with, then, by all means, make it an issue.

Like I said, go with what the player and the table wants and everyone's golden. Most of the time it seems to be a much bigger issue with DM's than with players. The other players often don't really care, and, after the fifteenth time they've had to deal with the ranger's pet tiger, it can get very, very stale, particularly for a group that really didn't care in the first place.

I've mentioned it before, but, a mechanic I saw in another game is the perfect solution, in my mind. It's called Backgrounding. A player gets 1-3 elements, with the permission of the GM/DM, of his or her character that get put in the Background. What that means is that while the element is there, it fades into the background and isn't a major issue. It might get mentioned in passing, but, it is never placed front and center unless the player chooses to make it so.

So, a pet simply fades to the background - either it stays outside of town or just isn't commented on, or whatever. It just becomes not a problem. Now, if the player starts using the pet in some way in game, then it's fair game. No worries. But, otherwise? The player has told the DM, "Hey, I want this because I think it's cool but, I'd rather not waste a bunch of table time on it. Can we just take it as read?"

In my Dragonheist campaign with the skeleton PC, we simply don't make it an issue. NPC's assume that the skeleton is under the control of one of the other PC's, or it's just a golem, or whatever. Again, in Waterdeep, where you have zero gravity dance halls, ghost dagger attacks, and giant golems that walk around the city, a single skeleton doesn't seem like too much of an issue.

 

[Ancalagon]

Make it a part of the characterization. Maybe the goblin obsessively hides from all witnesses, or the tiefling insists on using illusion magic to pass as a human.

I had a goblin warlock who spent his time casting disguise self to pass as a small dwarf.

 

[Hussar]

I had a goblin warlock who spent his time casting disguise self to pass as a small dwarf.

Just to be absolutely clear. This sort of thing is fantastic. It's great. It's interesting and it really brings the character to life. It's a nice schtick to hang off of a character. I love this sort of thing.

But, as a DM, I would be very, very wary about forcing it on players. If the player is groovy, then go for it. Otherwise, you really have to ask yourself, is it making the game more fun to bring up the character's disadvantage every single chance I get? Or, maybe, just save it for a few, meaningful times. Or, pass it off as a running joke. Go with what the table will find the most fun.