Too weird for town....

[Bitbrain]

Reply to OP.

AS A PLAYER
In my experience, how my PC is treated by the inhabitants of the various towns varies depending on a number of different factors, most of which are determined by how "normal" the DM wants their world to be.

Nobody ever gave my Old Half-Elf Sorcerer a second look.

My old Half-Orc Cleric didn't have to worry about being "too weird for town", mostly because in-game he rather quickly rose the rank of "grand general" of an alliance of Rock Gnomes, Wood Elves, and Orcs that successfully liberated the Human Kingdom from clutches of the evil Hobgoblin Empire.
Within that particular homebrew world, Orcs and Half-Orcs quickly came to be seen less as savage marauders, and more as green-skinned "soccer hooligans".

My old Lizardfolk Cleric on the other hand, well yeah, the DM had the NPCs try to refuse entry into towns for him at first, but the other party members would always stand up for me.
Yes, the "Lizard-Man" had to suffer the indignity of wearing a muzzle the first few times in any given town, but through repeated interactions with the townsfolk and numerous successful adventures that ultimately benefited the local economy, he gained their respect.

AS A DM
There is no concept of "too weird for town" in my homebrew setting. Because my setting is bizarre.

Wanna be a Tiefling that looks like he came straight from the depths of the Nine Hells? Or a Drow Bard wearing a dress made of severed goblin faces?
Nobody is going to look at you twice.

My homebrew setting has a highly respected religion that essentially burns the faces of those who convert to their faith (widely considered a great honor), a noble family that consists of cyborg centaurs, a wandering circus of elves that look like a group of Slender Men in kilts, a tribe of nudist halflings that see nothing wrong with eating the corpses of the dead in public, and more.

 

[oreofox]

It all depends on the setting, and the group.

Right now, I am playing a gnoll paladin raised by a dwarf paladin since she was a monster baby. The town she grew up in accepts her because her "mother" was a respected member and they've known my character since she was brought into town. There were the bullies, of course, but overall she was accepted. When she left town to see the world, she quickly found that gnolls are not welcomed in the majority of the world. Once she gained her 2nd level of Warlock (about character level 6) she was able to cast Disguise Self at will thanks to the invocation. So she goes around as a 6.5 foot tall female dwarf that looks a lot like her mother. When asked about why she is so tall (she's 7.5 feet tall, and disguise self can only shrink your appearance by a foot), she says it was a magical mishap when a former companion cast Enlarge on her.

I have noticed over the years of message board browsing, that most DMs treat every settlement in every D&D world as though they are just like rural Mississippi, whether the settlement has 10 people or 10 million. The bigger cities would more than likely see an orc or tabaxi or goblin and have no reaction. Cities like Waterdeep and Neverwinter. Small town like Phandalin or Red Larch would probably have a bad reaction to such beings, since they would be less exposed to them, or only have bad experiences like being raided.

But hey, that's your games. Just know that not everyone who picks the less "mundane" races do it to experience the bad social interactions. Maybe they just prefer the look of that race, or want the mechanics of the race without having to deal with the negative fluff. Ask your players.

 

[Blue]

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.

"With all that means" means "with everything". As opposed to picking and choosing the parts of a race they want and and ignoring any part they don't.

If a DM is using standard races but doing rather different social spins on them, that should be explained prior to the players picking races. At which point "with all that means" is picking among the DM's options - perfectly good. A DM doesn't have to allow social discrimination among races, that's a completely valid setting choice. Just make sure to tell the players that before they pick races, just like any other change such as if dwarves (for example) face major discrimination which is outside what the players should expect.

As a side note, "I want *these* benefits* from my race but to avoid *those* penalties" is just about a perfect definition of how you can min-max race selection.

 

[Blue]

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.

The wizard has low HPs, but I am wary about bring it up too often by actually attacking him.

If a player picks something, it has benefits and detriments. If they pick a goblin, it has advantage in certain situations, and disadvantage in others. Unless they picked a goblin solely because of the game mechanics associated with it and don't actually want to play being a goblin.

Now, it could be that they want to become a major hero that is accepted even though a goblin - so give them their due when their heroics are known. But having that compared to the dirty looks and social snubbing they got first level is what makes the contrast so sweet.


And just because they are socially disliked doesn't have to mean pushing it in their face at every opportunity. Much like in your other example with the skeleton - others overlooking it because it's a high magic city and just assuming it's under control of one of the other party members can be fine. I had something similar in the last campaign I ran where Warforged (called Dwarfforged) were not sentient - except for the PC. NPCs always assumed that the warforged with the party was a rented bodybuard (dwarves never sold them). And he could do things like deliver a crate to a ship under watch because everyone "knew" they weren't sentient and it was just following orders to load cargo.

But even more, once the goblin's heroic reputation gets around, there will be a different tune. So it's not the ongoing forever sort of thing at all.

 

[FrogReaver]

"With all that means" means "with everything". As opposed to picking and choosing the parts of a race they want and and ignoring any part they don't.

If a DM is using standard races but doing rather different social spins on them, that should be explained prior to the players picking races. At which point "with all that means" is picking among the DM's options - perfectly good. A DM doesn't have to allow social discrimination among races, that's a completely valid setting choice. Just make sure to tell the players that before they pick races, just like any other change such as if dwarves (for example) face major discrimination which is outside what the players should expect.

As a side note, "I want *these* benefits* from my race but to avoid *those* penalties" is just about a perfect definition of how you can min-max race selection.

The game is meant to be more or less balanced. All the races are more or less balanced. Adding in an unwritten severe penalty to some races and not others and then calling it min-maxing when someone complains about it is wrong.

 

[Blue]

The game is meant to be more or less balanced. All the races are more or less balanced. Adding in an unwritten severe penalty to some races and not others and then calling it min-maxing when someone complains about it is wrong.

The game is a rolE playing game before it's a rolL playing game. Trying to say "these tensions that are designed into the races don't really exist because these mechanics are roughly balanced against each other" is a false argument.

A DM is free to change their setting so there isn't racial tensions, or limit choices to races that don't have them. Run a cosmopolitan world, I'm all for it. Please, customize your settings to fit your game and your table. But saying that the DM aren't allowed to enforce racial or cultural tensions, either core book ones (or ones that they added), because the mechanics of the races are close is bunk.

"I never envisioned that when I played a goblin I would be treated like a goblin! You have no right to do so because my mechanics aren't superior to offset" just doesn't fly to me, either as a player or a DM.

I don't support saying "this player choice is meaningful" (say, drawing steel on a monarch during court) and "this player choice is meaningless" (say, picking a race seen with distrust).

 

[FrogReaver]

The game is a rolE playing game before it's a rolL playing game. Trying to say "these tensions that are designed into the races don't really exist because these mechanics are roughly balanced against each other" is a false argument.

Not at all. It's the game part of the thing because in the end this is not an improv session, it's a game. It's why we don't let players play as storm giants or start at level 20 while other players start at level 1.

A DM is free to change their setting so there isn't racial tensions, or limit choices to races that don't have them. Run a cosmopolitan world, I'm all for it. Please, customize your settings to fit your game and your table. But saying that the DM aren't allowed to enforce racial or cultural tensions, either core book ones (or ones that they added), because the mechanics of the races are close is bunk.

There are good ways to play a game with social and cultural tensions and bad ways to. Preventing a player from playing the game by restricting him being in the same towns or cities or even near NPC's that everyone else in the party can interact with is the wrong way. By all means have tensions. By all means have him roll at disadvantage on social checks with some NPC's. By all means give him advantage on talking with other monstrous NPC's that are living near "normal" society and by all means make these situations possible. There's a give and take here. You have got to give him plenty of times when his monstrous race gives real benefits.

"I never envisioned that when I played a goblin I would be treated like a goblin! You have no right to do so because my mechanics aren't superior to offset" just doesn't fly to me, either as a player or a DM.

If it's a playable race then I expect the DM to work the race into the normal areas without overtly disadvantaging the race choice in those areas. I expect the race to be playable, not some sort of self-flagellation option that the DM allows as a trap option.

I don't support saying "this player choice is meaningful" (say, drawing steel on a monarch during court) and "this player choice is meaningless" (say, picking a race seen with distrust).

Actions are always more meaningful.

 

[iserith]

"With all that means" means "with everything". As opposed to picking and choosing the parts of a race they want and and ignoring any part they don't.

If a DM is using standard races but doing rather different social spins on them, that should be explained prior to the players picking races. At which point "with all that means" is picking among the DM's options - perfectly good. A DM doesn't have to allow social discrimination among races, that's a completely valid setting choice. Just make sure to tell the players that before they pick races, just like any other change such as if dwarves (for example) face major discrimination which is outside what the players should expect.

In my games, the races that will be universally discriminated against aren't an option for player characters.

As a side note, "I want *these* benefits* from my race but to avoid *those* penalties" is just about a perfect definition of how you can min-max race selection.

Even if I accept your definition of "min-max race selection," what does it matter? People choose their character races or any other game options for lots of reasons that are really none of my business.

 

[Blue]

In my games, the races that will be universally discriminated against aren't an option for player characters.

And I honestly support that. Make the game you want to run, adjust your setting to support your vision. I'm 100% with that.

The only place I could have problems with that is if a DM waited until after character creation to share their vision of the races, so a player's concept of their character is out of sync with how the DM wants them in the setting. But reading about your games there seems to be a great amount of people being on the same page, so I don't think even that small cavaet could apply to you.

Just because it's the internet so sometimes things don't come across, there is no snark or sarcasm in what I just said.

Even if I accept your definition of "min-max race selection," what does it matter? People choose their character races or any other game options for lots of reasons that are really none of my business.

"Min-max" was a bit of inflammatory language on my part, I mean picking a race solely because of it's mechanical aspects and not actually wanting to play that race.

But it's absolutely the DM's business what race a player picks because it impacts how the the world interacts with them. Not just in negative ways. Just like a character being young or old, or whatever choice, can impact how some NPCs see them.

In other words, if the choice of race or culture has a meaning in the world, that is part an parcel of that race in addition to the mechanics. If a player chooses a race just because of the mechanics but does not want the RP implications of playing that race, you need to care as a DM because you have player and DM expectations that are out of sync.

One wanting race and culture to matter while the other does not causes an issue.

Talking to players, as you've mentioned before, is a good way to deal with it. We're just starting from opposite sides - my DMing style will rejoice in the differences and expects the players to pick a race knowing that, and they can talk to me if that's a problem.

 

[Blue]

There are good ways to play a game with social and cultural tensions and bad ways to. Preventing a player from playing the game by restricting him being in the same towns or cities or even near NPC's that everyone else in the party can interact with is the wrong way. By all means have tensions. By all means have him roll at disadvantage on social checks with some NPC's. By all means give him advantage on talking with other monstrous NPC's that are living near "normal" society and by all means make these situations possible. There's a give and take here. You have got to give him plenty of times when his monstrous race gives real benefits.

I'm pretty much in agreement here. There definitely are wrong ways to do it, just like there are wrong ways to do almost anything on the DM side of the screen. There needs to be balance with times it's not a detriment and times when it's a positive.

As I've mentioned several times, I often use default racial tensions before the characters have started to make a name for themselves, something to provide a contrast from "dirty goblin" to "folk hero" to "Guardian of the Realm". What I haven't mentioned is the times when because the PC is a goblin that hobgoblins were tricked, or goblin clans convinced, or other times that it was useful to be a goblin. And you are right, those need to exist and in sufficient quantities.

If it's a playable race then I expect the DM to work the race into the normal areas without overtly disadvantaging the race choice in those areas. I expect the race to be playable, not some sort of self-flagellation option that the DM allows as a trap option.

And this is an example of a bad way to do it. But pointing out that it can be run badly doesn't mean it shouldn't exist at all. That argument could be used that there shouldn't be adventures because some could be railroads.

Actions are always more meaningful.

A generic wizard who running into melee and swings a greatsword wearing heavy armor will find that their class choice is much more meaningful in terms of their melee offense and defense then their action.

But even if there is a difference, as long as you agree that both choices have some meaning then hopefully can you see that taking that meaning away from the player in either case is incorrect.