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

[Jack Daniel]

What players want isn’t less important than what you want.

Uncontested.

Denying them what they want requires justification, or it is at best rude, and at worst petty and selfish.

Justification allows them to make informed decisions about whether you are being fair, and gives them the assurance that you give a naughty word about your players.

Subjective to the point of irrelevance on all counts.

If you disagree, good for you. I don’t care.

It's not that I disagree. It's that I fail to see how one kind of justification can meaningfully differ from another. What makes "I don't personally like elves" different from "After careful consideration, I've judged that elves don't fit the theme of my setting", "there aren't any elves mentioned in the lore of this published setting we're using", "I personally believe that the elf mechanics aren't balanced", "we're playing a game that doesn't have rules for elves," or even "it's Tuesday and because I feel like it"? How can anyone deem any of these more or less acceptable, especially when some of them are based on what fundamentally amount to artistic rather than rational considerations?

If you take giving a naughty word and (a good faith attempt at) fairness as given, then what's left? Subjective preference and nothing else. And then we're right back to interpersonal conflict resolution, and either someone getting their way (the social contract at work bequeaths to that someone some authority, and what they want really is more important after all), some compromise being reached (the social contract is fundamentally anarchic), or the dissolution of the group (the social contract leads to impasse).

If you like, we can call these three social contract outcomes authoritative, anarchic, and dysfunctional. My contention is not that the authoritative model is right and the anarchic model is wrong. It's that the anarchic model is far from universal and not inherently superior to the authoritative model. Different groups will use whichever one works for that group. And, for a group that operates under the authoritative model (which is no more a tyranny than it is an archaism—it only works if the players voluntarily invest the DM with authority, I don't think that's at all a controversial point to make, and I say this as both a DM and a player who generally operates under such a model), the justification you demand isn't required.

 

[Scott Christian]

WHAT?!?!? Do you not live on planet Earth? Do you not watch the news?

What makes you think for even a moment that the cultures would homogenize? This doesn't even seem to happen here in reality even when the only race is the human race. You think it would get better if it was a bunch of different races?

I live on Earth sometimes.

So I stated before, without an continuous stream of immigrants of the same culture, one or two generations later, they start to blend; the new generation learns the language, they start blending names, they start to share religious knowledge, they start to blend food, song, dance and art, and they start to trade sports, holidays, and clothing.

Look at Paris. Look at New York. Look at Chicago. Look at London. Look at Miami. Cultures blends. There was a reason the term melting pot was created. (I did state that you could have severe segregation based of whatever, and that would create pockets.) But overall, people who live together start to share culture. It's what happens. I mean, if I were an adventurer and lived in Waterdeep, I am sure I would try some dwarven ale, along with elven wine, along with some halfling mead, along with some gnomish spirits. Then I would find one I like and use that for my aperitif.

 

[Scott Christian]

Why? Seems like that being true requires that the PCs have directly interacted with at least 1 of every race that is known to exist by the common folk, which seems...unnecessary.

“You all know that tabaxi live in the forest and don’t trade as much as the other folk of the region, but are seen in the cities on occasion. You may have seen one or two in your life, but unless you can justify it without direct retcon, you haven’t had direct dealings of any significance with them.”

You could plop that into any world. I could, if playing with non purists, state that in a Middle Earth game, and there are few worlds more detailed.

I am happy you can. I am happy many can. The two campaigns I play in can do just that. I am happy you could even do it in Middle Earth. But for many, it would break immersion. It would create inner discord (even if minor) in the DM. So because you can (and I have stated six times now, you can), does not mean it doesn't complicate things for others.

As stated earlier, take this logical assumption: In a world filled with monsters, vindictive gods, and even possibly inherent evil races, the common person that has heard there are tabaxi, would still be gawking. This is at a minimum. What if some guards were killed and there were claw marks? Who would they blame first? What if a house was ripped to shreds? In a world where people know about werewolves and weretigers, are they just going to trust a cat person because they have heard of them? Like I said earlier: they will either worship, fetishize, grow suspicious of, blame or grow disdain for, not just an outsider, but an outsider of which the likes they have only heard about.

Even in Middle Earth, elves were marveled at when in human towns, dwarves were treated with contempt and suspicion in human towns, and when a dwarf visited an elven land, oh boy.... I think there is a story about that.

My point is this, have the races interact and build it based on your logic. If that logic is based on whimsy, there is nothing wrong with that. As I said, I play in two campaigns that are that way. But that by no means we get to say the DM that says, it does not fit the logic of the world I built is wrong. In fact, I would say they have more ground to stand on than the person who can introduce any race whenever they feel like it.

 

[Zardnaar]

I am happy you can. I am happy many can. The two campaigns I play in can do just that. I am happy you could even do it in Middle Earth. But for many, it would break immersion. It would create inner discord (even if minor) in the DM. So because you can (and I have stated six times now, you can), does not mean it doesn't complicate things for others.

As stated earlier, take this logical assumption: In a world filled with monsters, vindictive gods, and even possibly inherent evil races, the common person that has heard there are tabaxi, would still be gawking. This is at a minimum. What if some guards were killed and there were claw marks? Who would they blame first? What if a house was ripped to shreds? In a world where people know about werewolves and weretigers, are they just going to trust a cat person because they have heard of them? Like I said earlier: they will either worship, fetishize, grow suspicious of, blame or grow disdain for, not just an outsider, but an outsider of which the likes they have only heard about.

Even in Middle Earth, elves were marveled at when in human towns, dwarves were treated with contempt and suspicion in human towns, and when a dwarf visited an elven land, oh boy.... I think there is a story about that.

My point is this, have the races interact and build it based on your logic. If that logic is based on whimsy, there is nothing wrong with that. As I said, I play in two campaigns that are that way. But that by no means we get to say the DM that says, it does not fit the logic of the world I built is wrong. In fact, I would say they have more ground to stand on than the person who can introduce any race whenever they feel like it.

Kinda I think it matters what you're trying to do.

If the world is built from the ground up for it makes sense. Other world's not so much.

 

[Charlaquin]

Culture is a strange term. Here in Los Angeles we'd have a Los Angeles culture. However, each minority(including variations such as Cuban, Mexican, Chinese, Japanese, etc.) would also have a culture. Then of course there are things like the Punk Culture and so on. So a Chinese American Los Angelino Punk rocker would be part of at LEAST 5 cultures. There are so many different cultures involved in even a relatively small area like Los Angeles, that the idea that there would be any sort blending into one culture is just not true. At best you'll have the strongest culture soften the edges of the others, but they aren't going to lock into a single culture.

Yeah, I think you and I are saying the same thing here: that homogenization is not accurate, but that shared cultural elements are.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If you don't want some portion of the game to devolve into "WTF are you?" on a regular basis, you at least need for the race to be somewhat knowable/known. Depending on what the player wants to do, that ignorance might grate for one of a few reasons: Among other, they might not want that kind of interaction everywhere they go; or, they might want to lean into/against a stereotype and if no on on the world knows what they are there is no stereotype.

I’m not sure what you’re responding to. I’m literally saying that the tabaxi would be known. There would be no “wtf are you”, there’d just be “oh hey a tabaxi. Ain’t seen one of them since I were a kid.”

 

[prabe]

I’m not sure what you’re responding to. I’m literally saying that the tabaxi would be known. There would be no “wtf are you”, there’d just be “oh hey a tabaxi. Ain’t seen one of them since I were a kid.”

You are correct, and I misunderstood your point and your context. I apologize.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I am happy you can. I am happy many can. The two campaigns I play in can do just that. I am happy you could even do it in Middle Earth. But for many, it would break immersion. It would create inner discord (even if minor) in the DM. So because you can (and I have stated six times now, you can), does not mean it doesn't complicate things for others.

As stated earlier, take this logical assumption: In a world filled with monsters, vindictive gods, and even possibly inherent evil races, the common person that has heard there are tabaxi, would still be gawking. This is at a minimum. What if some guards were killed and there were claw marks? Who would they blame first? What if a house was ripped to shreds? In a world where people know about werewolves and weretigers, are they just going to trust a cat person because they have heard of them? Like I said earlier: they will either worship, fetishize, grow suspicious of, blame or grow disdain for, not just an outsider, but an outsider of which the likes they have only heard about.

Even in Middle Earth, elves were marveled at when in human towns, dwarves were treated with contempt and suspicion in human towns, and when a dwarf visited an elven land, oh boy.... I think there is a story about that.

My point is this, have the races interact and build it based on your logic. If that logic is based on whimsy, there is nothing wrong with that. As I said, I play in two campaigns that are that way. But that by no means we get to say the DM that says, it does not fit the logic of the world I built is wrong. In fact, I would say they have more ground to stand on than the person who can introduce any race whenever they feel like it.

Those are your assumptions, but they certainly don’t have any more foundation than folk being accustomed to different folk, and knowing that a taxable ain’t any more likely to be a demon than an elf is.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's that I fail to see how one kind of justification can meaningfully differ from another.

Irrelevant to what I said.

Justification is required. I made no comment on the merits of any given justification. That’s for the players, in a given situation, to decide.

And, for a group that operates under the authoritative model (which is no more a tyranny than it is an archaism—it only works if the players voluntarily invest the DM with authority, I don't think that's at all a controversial point to make, and I say this as both a DM and a player who generally operates under such a model), the justification you demand isn't required.

Having operated under such a model, and even with the best DMs, what you inaccurately call anarchic just works better, I can reasonably reject that assertion out of hand.

I’m glad we agree that the DM in such a model still only has the authority granted to them by the group, though. At least you’re being reasonable about recognizing that objective fact. Boggles my mind that other folk refuse to do so.

 

[Maxperson]

Those are your assumptions, but they certainly don’t have any more foundation than folk being accustomed to different folk, and knowing that a taxable ain’t any more likely to be a demon than an elf is.

I strenuously disagree. Taxables deal very closely with the demonic. Horrid, horrid things taxes are.