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

[Jack Daniel]

Such connections reinforce that this world, this campaign, belongs to everyone involved. Yes, it's "my" game, in the sense that I brought most of the pieces and run the world and know the Ultimate Secrets etc. But it's also "our" game, in the sense that I have worked to encourage every player to feel that they (as players proper, not just through their characters) have a stake in what this world is and how it works.

Fair enough. My preference is for a "lone genius" model of worldbuilding. Different strokes. Doesn't make either of us wrong (though it is an open question as to which style is more prevalent in the wider hobby at present; I don't think we have the data to arrive at an answer).

I'd like to zero in on the bit about "we all trust whoever's DMing enough to set the boundaries," as I think that gets to the heart of our different perspectives here. I see TTRPGs in general as an incredibly open space, pregnant with possibility. Setting boundaries on that space is something to do very sparingly, with clear and measured purpose. This isn't because limitations are inherently bad in some abstract or universal sense though! Limitations really can breed creativity. Rather, I think of it like an authority placing limitations on the freedom of the press, rather than an author placing limitations on her freedom to write a novel. We value limitation at the author-novel level because such limits encourage better work, e.g. how Isaac Asimov set out to prove that you could write a science-fiction mystery novel that was still a good mystery, you just had to scrupulously avoid deus ex machina and other technological "Ass Pull" scenarios (as TVTropes would put it). Yet conversely we tend to value a lack of limitations placed by authorities on what can be expressed, for exactly the same reason: by having as few such limitations as possible, it encourages many different stories and perspectives, creating a richer and fuller public forum and marketplace of ideas.

Aha, now this is a real difference in approach! I value limitations placed on character creation options because I think that constrained choices do make players more creative, both during character creation and during play. For me, limited character choices are where you find the fruitful gaps; and once play begins, the player characters having access to limited resources (spells, equipment, etc.) is what drives them to become creative problem-solvers. It's just that the time and place for the "incredibly open space, pregnant with possibility" isn't when the players are rolling up new characters; it's the moment the campaign begins, when those new characters are first turned loose in the sandbox!

But maybe we're starting to get away from the thread topic here, so I'll just leave it at that for now.

What I mean by "believable RP" is a player Rping a character as a truly unique person with a unique personality who fits the setting and not a walking stereotype of the combination of the PCs race, class, and ability scores.

If I don't have confidence in my PCs survival, my pc will be "John Smith Human Fighter" until he reaches a level where a random weapon swing doesn't make him sweat.

Right. That's very different from what I understand when I see the term "roleplaying." For me, "believable RP" isn't a doing a voice or portraying a fictional personality; it's precisely the sweat that forms on the brow of John Smith's player at the prospect of facing random weapon swings, and then the player directing John Smith, Human Fighter to behave accordingly in the face of that reality.

The Ohio request asks different things from the setting relative to what it takes for Tabaxi inclusion.

I don't think that's been demonstrated.

Not to bounce back to something that I often repeat, but this interaction is either justified or not depending on if the campaign's already going and if the players accepted the proposition. If DM #2 already led the agreeing players to lvl 8, one of them dies and shows up with a Tabaxi, then the DM is completely right. If the DM, had a whole old home-brew world before playing with these players and refuses to alter it at all to personalize the experience, I think the player can be a little miffed, but ultimately would have to accept it. If it were a new world, then I think the DM should be more open to change or options.

This is definitely an area where my perspective differs from yours, at least a little bit. For me, there's no difference at all between the campaign that's gone to level 8 and the old homebrew world being used to start a new campaign. And there might not even be a distinction to draw between either of those and the fresh new world either. It depends entirely on whether the DM is inventing this new setting to cater to those players or not.

My view is that it's not a question of should for a DM to create a setting with or without player input. That's entirely dependent on the DM's worldbuilding method and whatever social expectations the DM and the players have between them concerning the invention of settings and the start of new campaigns. But saying that DMs should always strive to accommodate the characters that players want to play is too universal a claim. Rather, some DMs do, some DMs don't, and the should of the matter depends on their circumstances.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Aside from that, I don't know what to tell you other than Ohio and Cat People are different because they just are different physical things which have different impacts on a campaign from their inclusion or absence, which is relative to how they are implemented.

How so?

My quote feature is a little funky at the moment, so I'll just copy and paste.
---
I'm just still not convinced that there's a meaningful difference between DM #1 who says, "No, you can't play a human from Earth in my campaign, because portals to Earth aren't a thing, that's just how my setting works," and DM #2 who says, "No, you can't play a Tabaxi in my campaign, because anthropomorphic cat-people aren't a thing, that's just how my setting works."
---
In the end, the Human still gets to play a Human. The Ohio request asks different things from the setting relative to what it takes for Tabaxi inclusion.

Again, how so? Both are asking to include something the GM doesn't want to work with.

Not to bounce back to something that I often repeat, but this interaction is either justified or not depending on if the campaign's already going and if the players accepted the proposition. If DM #2 already led the agreeing players to lvl 8, one of them dies and shows up with a Tabaxi, then the DM is completely right. If the DM, had a whole old home-brew world before playing with these players and refuses to alter it at all to personalize the experience, I think the player can be a little miffed, but ultimately would have to accept it. If it were a new world, then I think the DM should be more open to change or options.

But what if the GM is aiming for a specific campaign premise, and that premise excludes Cat People?

 

[Oofta]

I'm try to imagine any story I could not tell with core races, or even just a non-variant human. Having a hard time coming up with anything that's not just pretty inconsequential fluff. Want to struggle against a dark background like a tiefling? Your father was a serial killer and pirate, you have a tattoo on your chest and vague memories of a ritual promising your soul to dark powers. Want to be a cat person? You're PC is obsessed with cats or believes they are a cat that was polymorphed. Feel like an outsider? Easy enough to do through straight role playing.

 

[zarionofarabel]

I'm try to imagine any story I could not tell with core races, or even just a non-variant human. Having a hard time coming up with anything that's not just pretty inconsequential fluff. Want to struggle against a dark background like a tiefling? Your father was a serial killer and pirate, you have a tattoo on your chest and vague memories of a ritual promising your soul to dark powers. Want to be a cat person? You're PC is obsessed with cats or believes they are a cat that was polymorphed. Feel like an outsider? Easy enough to do through straight role playing.

This ties in directly to my original post about how players don't really choose non-human characters for the RP, they choose them for mechanical bonuses. IMHO, the best RP always involves human PCs as depth of character must come through action within the narrative. Players of non-human PCs often seen to confuse depth of character with background fluff.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Uhm, no? Quantum ogres and other bad things are result of not following basic GMing principles (namely, "Present a meaningful choice" and "Telegraph a threat before it strikes").


Uhm, no? Important things in the world are supposed to serve the PCs development. The antagonist is supposed to be a dark reflection of one or several PCs, the supporting cast is there to provide foil for protagonists, etc.


And the aim of having an adventure is to get out of them, forever changed, hopefully as a result of a meaningful character arc.


Maybe it's a matter of personal preferences, but I think that the correct answer to a player's question like "Are there any organizations that tied up with spellcasters?", when no such organization wasn't yet shown on-screen, would be something like "Hell if I know, you tell me. What kind of organization do you want? You want to be a hunted, or, perhaps, a hunter?", since it gives the player a freedom to leave their own mark on the game world and think outside of their characters, in a broader scope.

Most of the time people ask questions, they already have an answer they want to hear, so why not just give'em freedom to answer their question themselves?

It absolutely is a matter of personal preferences. Your conception of what D&D is is not shared by everyone, and it's not supposed to be. People who don't share your views are not behind the times, and new ideas are not necessarily better than older ones. People get to play the game the way they want, as long as enough people agree to play that way.

 

[Mallus]

Halflings unsuited to adventuring, due to their depiction in Tolkien's works?!?!?!

This is now my favorite example of gamers overthinking things.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm try to imagine any story I could not tell with core races, or even just a non-variant human. Having a hard time coming up with anything that's not just pretty inconsequential fluff. Want to struggle against a dark background like a tiefling? Your father was a serial killer and pirate, you have a tattoo on your chest and vague memories of a ritual promising your soul to dark powers. Want to be a cat person? You're PC is obsessed with cats or believes they are a cat that was polymorphed. Feel like an outsider? Easy enough to do through straight role playing.

It depends on how abstract you’re willing to get with the story. The serial killer one captures the dark heritage element of Tieflings, but it excises the fiend element. How important that element is will vary from player to player and from story to story. My first Tiefling character was a warlock who made his pact to take revenge against his abusive father, and that story would have been entirely workable as a human. But, my DM for that game introduced a twist - the character he thought was his father was adoptive, and when we killed him about halfway through the campaign, it didn’t satisfy the terms of the pact. It turned out his biological father was literally Asmodeus, and now we needed to kill him. Awesome twist that I don’t think would have worked half as well with a human character. Good on him for taking my character’s race and making it more relevant to my character’s arc than I had originally written it to be.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Neither. I'm asking who says Tabaxi have been around for as long as humans have.

Okay, Fiend Folio. They've existed since DnD 1e, just as long as humans have been in the game of Dungeons and Dragons.

False Equivalences are false. There's a rather marked difference between, "We know dwarves exist and have decided for X reason that they don't exist in this world, yet you're trying to be disruptive by playing one anyway." and "We just started making this game and hey, that's a cool idea. Let's make it."

So player is only disruptive if they are bringing something that exists but was deemed to not fit into the world?

So the player who wants to play a Nihme, a race that has never appeared before in any product is being less disruptive to the game?

Or, like I asked, are we saying that players today must be held to a different standard than players of the older editions, because DnD is older now, and we don't want to have as much player input as we used to have?

Or am I still doing false equivalences, because you can't compare the game now to the game back then?

The DM banned them for a reason. How can he be wrong? You can disagree with that reason, but I don't see how he can be wrong about it.

Well, lets go with a basic one.

The DM assumed that their ban would increase enjoyment of the table. It doesn't. Therefore they are wrong.

That's the equivalent of a mechanical rules change. It's not the same as not having dwarves, because a great plague killed every last one of them 3400 years ago.

Isn't removing dwarves a mechanical change to the game? If we picture character creation as a video game model, then removing an option is the same as any other change to the code.

Or are you trying to make this a "fluff changes are different than mechanical changes" bit?

It depends on what's being done. For things of lore, he's is right, even if you hate what he did. If it's a rules change/addition/subtraction, it can work out very badly for the game. DMs are often make the wrong decision when they alter things mechincally.

Not often, but it has happened.

Heh. I threw that in there to see if anyone would catch that.

So you agree it is preposterous.

But, let's go back to that "not often" of innkeepers responding to heavily armed humans.

The idea of a Tabaxi getting a cold or hostile reception is... just a matter of course, obviously it would happen, because they are so strange and potentially dangerous.

But a group of heavily armed humans walking into a bar... They might get a cold reception. It is possible, but unlikely. Despite the very clear and present danger they present.


So... what do we call it when one person is treated with more suspicion and hardship than other people, based solely upon their appearance? Because it can't be the threat they potentially pose. I described nothing about the Tabaxi's outfit. They could be dressed in anything. But I was very clear about the humans being heavily armed and clearly equipped to kill people. So the Humans are clearly the much more clear and present danger.

Yet one group is guaranteed different treatment.

Lots of homebrew game worlds. I've made several over the years, but none in the last 20 or so. All of those worlds were created by me and me alone. And I don't think I'm unique in this. I think a lot of DMs who make their own worlds do so alone.

And you think all of those worlds are richer and deeper than any world created by a group instead of an individual?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You claimed that it was possible for the DM to be either incorrect or immoral by disallowing certain options at character creation. Your example is not that. Still waiting.

So one example of the DM being morally wrong in their implementation of limits wasn't actually enough. You want specific examples that will convince you.

Fine, since you just want one that is incorrect, what if we gave this example.

The DM bans Centaurs because there is no official player character write up for Centaurs. They are factually wrong about that, making them incorrect. Actually, that is one where they even could have been right, but the game changed and then made it an option.

Does that satisify your "Seriously, just one example." criteria?

("took the title"?) Still meaningless without context. I've consistently been talking only about players joining extant games wherein the DM has already imposed limitations on character creation because of setting lore, campaign theme, or (at the extreme) choice of ruleset. My position has consistently been that just because an option is in a game's core book, that's no cause for a player to assume it's automatically available in every campaign; and that DMs are largely free to impose such constraints prior to the start of a campaign, for any reason, without external justification. Nothing more than that; nothing less than that. I'm not talking about a group of players and a DM negotiating the initial parameters of a campaign; that's not remotely relevant to anything I've been discussing here.

So clarify this scenario to me. "The start of character creation" is not, after all, the same thing as "the start of the campaign". How long has the DM been running this campaign? How long has the DM been using its setting? Does the DM intend for the campaign to have a specific theme that might make dwarves a poor fit for the game, even if they exist in the game world? Details, please.

Yes, took the title.

DMs can be players and players can be DMs. Just because you are a DM sometimes doesn't mean you always hold the title of DM....

Except, thinking back, didn't you specifically say that you afford more respect to players that sometimes DM? Is that part of this? That you think being a DM is somehow... more than just the one time role at the table?

But to your post, you might have been talking about "extant games" but most of us are talking in general. In fact, EzekielRaiden's posts quite clearly showed a preference for making a new game world with the players when they sat down, which would clearly mean the game hasn't even started yet.

So, again, that might be part of your problem in this discussion, is you are using a far narrower scope than some of the rest of us. Might be why you are getting so much pushback, if you are only looking at this under the lens of "a new player comes into a long running game" when a lot of us are only hearing "The DM gets to decide no matter what the circumstances."

Interesting assumptions.

Ah yes, I'm falling into the classic trap of assuming that the rules in the PHB mean something.

Silly me, why, I can't even assume that spells and classes exist in DnD without my benevolent DM informing me that they will allow such things to grace their table.

I mean, is that how it goes at your tables?

"DM, are fighters allowed in this game?"
"DM are longbows allowed in this game?"
"DM do longbows have the heavy property in this game?"
"DM do longbows also have the two-handed property in this game?"
"DM do longbows also use Arrows in this game?"
"DM if I use a Longbow and an arrow, does that do 1d8 damage in this game?
"DM do I get to add my Dexterity modifer to that damage in this game?"
"DM can I hold multiple arrows in a quiver in this game?"
"DM can I draw an arrow as part of an attack in this game?"
"DM if I draw and arrow and make an attack, do I attack normally withing 150 ft in this game?"
"DM if I am making an attack do I roll a d20 in this game?"


I mean, if I need permission for everything, that seems a bit excessive, doesn't it?

(Well that's certainly an artful way to dodge my question about Ohioans vs. tabaxi.) But, no, I suppose I really don't care, when you get right down to it.

I don't think it's in my job description to care. When I DM a game, my job is worldbuilder and referee.

Right, that is the difference.

As the DM the point of my building a world and designing plots, statting up NPCs and making the place come alive are all in service to the players having fun.

I could run the game 100% realistic and by the rules, and when the players annoy a mob boss in the city at level 3 by stopping destroying one of his shipments, they find that the next day when they drink their evening ale, they all make Con Saves DC 19 versus 12d6 poison damage, half on a success. With an average success still dealing at least 21 damage, the players that survive will be easily killed by the six Assassins that were in the kitchen.

That follows the world I built and is a completely fine refereeing of the rules. But it ignores any semblance of player enjoyment, and most people would say that the DM who does this would be failing in their role as a DM. Because if you don't care about the players... what is the point?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The exact reason I mentioned starting points for good and evil campaigns. Some DM's that have fleshed out their world have the drow as evil. They base this off the thousands of pages of lore available. And I have discussed more than enough the complications this can make on a table and player and DM level. If a DM chooses to do have all these races get along, cool. But many many many do not. You seem to disregard this point.

Okay, Drow are evil.

Tabaxi aren't.
Lizardfolk aren't.
Firbolgs aren't.
Goliaths aren't.

So what does Drow being evil have to do with these races?

And then the inevitable rebuttal "But I don't want to have a Mos Eisley Canteena full of all these races interacting"

To which I then respond, "But you have no problem with making the Underdark where the Drow, Duergar, Mindflayers, Grimlocks and Troglodytes are interacting? Or the "Savage lands" where the Orcs, Ogres, Gnolls, Giants, evil humans, and Yuan-ti interact? If you don't want a Canteena, why is it okay to have those set piece locations?"

To which you've been responding... well, it depends on if you are playing an evil campaign or not.... which makes no sense. It doesn't address the point.

Why is a Canteena only bad when it addresses PC options, but can be casually glossed over anywhere else? How does one cause a problem for world-building but not the other?

Chaos, there are times I really think you are not even reading what I wrote. I have stated a dozen times that a DM can add them. But it comes with complications, and those complications are often unfair to DM's that already have their world built, to players that lose immersion because there is a spectacle walking around with them, or to a table that chooses to not pay attention to the race, thus making it just a skin (eliminating the culture, origin, history, etc.)

sigh

And sometimes I get the same feeling Scott.

Because you are trying to tell me that a DM is going to have complications in their world building, because they specifically left an entire area blank on their map, with a big ol' question mark about what it is over there, and then they ended up filling it in?

What is the practical difference between the player coming to the DM and asking "Hey what if there are Tabaxi in that forest?" and the DM thinking to themselves "Hey, what if there are Chitines in that forest?"

You have to answer the exact same questions. It has the exact same burden on effort, filling in the map.

At some tables. Not all. Specifically because of the complications I have listed.

So are you saying that Drow don't exist in the world? That the players won't fight Orcs and Goblins?

Or do these complications only possibly exist when the character is a PC option?

You have at least 25 cultures in your world. Not me. Not many of the DM's I know.

I see your point, especially about FR. I get it. It seems with so many sentient races running around, then maybe for the small village nothing is shocking - even a mind flayer walking up to the blacksmith and asking for a horseshoe for his centaur lover. I get it. But, those are not the worlds that many DM's have built. (Not to mention the races born of evil perception, godly interference, etc.)

So I'll sum it up so I'm not misunderstood:

• DM's can add races. It is easy. Poof - you now have half yuan-ti-half elf created. Magic resistance and immunity to sleep and charm spells. It's easy.
• Adding races comes with complications. And for some (which is all I have ever asked you to be able to see), it is immersion breaking, wreck, dissolves or interferes with years of work, or just pi*%#s in the face of traditional tropes and conventions.

You don't?

You and all those other DMs don't use Orcs, Goblins, Hobgoblins, Bugbears, Mindflayers, Gnolls, Aboleths, Giants, Beholders, Ogres, Trolls, Lizardfolk, Dragons, ect?

Or are you saying that evil races don't get the treatment of actually mattering for worldbuilding? Because... you know, that's been the question I've been asking in this line of the conversation. What is the difference between PC races and Enemy Races when it comes to worldbuilding?

Somehow, having more than four PC races, how did you put it? "is immersion breaking, wreck, dissolves or interferes with years of work, or just pi*%#s in the face of traditional tropes and conventions"

But, those same traditional tropes and conventions also include these dozens upon dozens of enemy races, so those obviously aren't a problem.

Why not?

Not because you can play an evil campaign and therefore it matters that you start in a Drow city. I'm not asking that question, that question is entirely pointless to what I am asking.

Why does adding an enemy race to the world, have less of an impact on your worldbuilding than adding a PC race? Why are orcs, goblinoids, giants, dragons, and abberrations trivially easy to add, but adding a single PC option is not? From a world-building perspective, they are the same thing. So what do you see as different about them?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I haven't seen anyone call that "being a bad player," but it could absolutely make a player a poor fit for a campaign with a table-culture that doesn't value backstory. Plenty of campaigns work that way: "0 XP" means exactly what it says on the tin, that nothing particularly noteworthy or extraordinary has happened in the character's life prior to the start of the campaign. That's the definition of 0 XP for that table. And what's more, trying to introduce certain personalized motivations (e.g. the stereotypical revenge plot) into a campaign might not mesh well at all with some campaign structures (e.g. a classic site-focused dungeon-delve).

I'm sorry, but you yourself are one of the people who said I might be an #$%hole for trying to bring something that wasn't pre-approved to the table. Also a tool, a jerk, and I'm sure you had other wonderful names for it.

But, I can see how you missed bringing in an entire race and their story as bringing in just a single backstory. They can be one and the same from the perspective of world building.

I have no desire to watch people who aren't improvisational actors attempt improvisational acting. I do want to see players role-play, which is to say, make decisions as if they themselves were in their character's shoes, while treating the fantasy world as if it were a real place their characters actually inhabit.

Which... involves acting?

I mean, I guess you can get away with "I try to persuade the caravan leader" but it does generally help to... give some dialogue. Which involves acting as though you are trying to persuade the caravan leader.

I mean, I wouldn't even ask for a community theater level of talent, but an elementary school level amount of effort doesn't seem unreasonable.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I'm try to imagine any story I could not tell with core races, or even just a non-variant human. Having a hard time coming up with anything that's not just pretty inconsequential fluff. Want to struggle against a dark background like a tiefling? Your father was a serial killer and pirate, you have a tattoo on your chest and vague memories of a ritual promising your soul to dark powers. Want to be a cat person? You're PC is obsessed with cats or believes they are a cat that was polymorphed. Feel like an outsider? Easy enough to do through straight role playing.

And there is no story that you can tell in the faux medieval ages that you can't tell in the Modern day.

Evil Warlords? We got 'em

Murder Mystery? Entire genre

Survival in the wilderness? Again, entire genre

Exlporing old ruins? Check and Check.


So, do you have a point? Yeah, you can take out the elements that make them non-human, and tell similar stories with humans. But the devil is in the details, and that is what can make a story fun.

I mean, the Warforged story is about whether or not constructed life is true life. Changelings deal with the concept of fluid identities. Elves and Dwarves both have takes on the extreme long view. Shifters and Tabaxi talk about the various ways that animal instincts can combine with human intellect.

You can do those stories in other ways, but that doesn't devalue doing them this way.

 

[Minigiant]

This ties in directly to my original post about how players don't really choose non-human characters for the RP, they choose them for mechanical bonuses. IMHO, the best RP always involves human PCs as depth of character must come through action within the narrative. Players of non-human PCs often seen to confuse depth of character with background fluff.

My experience has been the opposite.

A good half of the human PCs I've seen are players playing themselves in the class chosen with with own personalities exaggerated or with a minor quirk. John the Player is playing Jack the Human Fighter like John if John were a noble knight. They can write up a whole background but a good half the humans are the players isekaied into the world by session 3. Many lean hard on their own self and "cheat" to get depth.

But for the nonhumans, if the players actually remember they are another race they actually play someone different from themselves. Especially if the DM actually gives the nonhuman factions and NPCs actully personalities, ideals, and motives themselves.