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

[zarionofarabel]

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.

I wish I could see the world in such a optimistic light, but even the great "melting pot" that is the US suffers from massive amounts of problems because of a clash of cultures, and not just limited to immigrants. The North vs South is a common theme, especially in US politics.

Personally I think my own country of Canada with our "multicultural" society does slightly better, but not by much. Quebec vs The Rest Of Canada is a normal theme here, and as far as I understand most French Canadians are not recent immigrants.

The existence of "Chinatowns" the world over is my example of how even on a city level cultures clash. The idea that the "melting pot" is a thing that actually happens is ludicrous.

 

[Zardnaar]

I wish I could see the world in such a optimistic light, but even the great "melting pot" that is the US suffers from massive amounts of problems because of a clash of cultures, and not just limited to immigrants. The North vs South is a common theme, especially in US politics.

Personally I think my own country of Canada with our "multicultural" society does slightly better, but not by much. Quebec vs The Rest Of Canada is a normal theme here, and as far as I understand most French Canadians are not recent immigrants.

The existence of "Chinatowns" the world over is my example of how even on a city level cultures clash. The idea that the "melting pot" is a thing that actually happens is ludicrous.

New Zealand here. Similar problems. We're still figuring out how to live togather with the Maori let alone anyone else.

We avoid the extremes of America but yeah not perfect.

 

[zarionofarabel]

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.

So "It's my campaign and I don't want Cat People or Dragon People in it!" is justified?

Then if the player in question decides they have to have Cat People or Dragon People in a campaign they are participating in can always decide not to play in said campaign?

So...we agree?

 

[Jack Daniel]

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.

Well, no you can't, not if you're making some positive claim to objective fact that's universally true for everyone. You're offering anecdotal evidence and personal testimony only, and I wish you'd acknowledge that (as I've striven to do when I talk about something that works for me and my group, not necessarily for all gamers everywhere throughout the history of gaming). It seems to me that one of us is staking out a reasonable position and the other is claiming One True Way.

If "anarchic" (literally "without a ruler") isn't a good term, what would you propose? I had considered "libertarian," but that has more distasteful baggage (and so does its proper antonym, "authoritarian").

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.

That's because it requires getting into the group dynamic level of the social interaction rather than the campaign dynamic or game rules level, something I've hesitated to do before now because bringing "social contract" lingo into a discussion like this tends to eat it up. But at some point, you have to acknowledge, that's what's going on. Those who claim the DM has authority are right—the DM has authority, at the level of campaign/gameplay dynamics, vested in them by the consent of the other players. Those who claim the DM has no authority are also right—the DM is, in that sense, just another participant and has no authority over their fellow players at the group dynamic/social interaction level (unless your DM happens to be, like, your boss or your C.O. or literal royalty in your country). The disconnect comes from conflating the two levels (and perhaps some differences in view concerning whether something like "which races are allowed in the campaign" is a thing that lives more on the group dynamic level or the game dynamic level), and it isn't just one side in the argument making that mistake.

 

[Zardnaar]

So "It's my campaign and I don't want Cat People or Dragon People in it!" is justified?

Then if the player in question decides they have to have Cat People or Dragon People in a campaign they are participating in can always decide not to play in said campaign?

So...we agree?

Yes that's justified.

In general a DM who says you can play anything you like is a big clue it's going to be a short campaign.

They probably haven't put that much effort into world building. There's nothing wrong with that approach and I'm sure there's exceptions.

DM number 2 does let in different races might be simple PHB+ 4 races.

But each of those races are tied to the world, have a basic history etc.

DM 2 likely has put more effort into the world.

Another DM might do reptile world and the only races allowed are reptiles. Mammals might exist but you don't get to play them.

Or Egyptian themed. Anthromorphic races are fine if not encouraged.

Every single one of those examples is more interesting to me than play anything you want.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I have written approximately 100 pages on my current campaign setting, and am on my second campaign. When I first wrote it up, I included about a dozen races, all of which had a place in the theme of the story. My players have regularly come to me with races that were not on my initial list, and when they do I find a way to accommodate them, because to me it's really not that big a deal. When I make those accommodations, a new piece of world-building falls into place, and that bit of lore is just as "set in stone" as any I wrote up before the campaign started. If someone wants to play a shadar-kai, and I decide what shadar-kai are based on a conversation with that player, that's what shadar-kai are from now on. As a result, I've never had to change a piece of my existing lore. I just add stuff as needed and work it into the setting. I have no hard restrictions, just elements that aren't important to my game (until they are) and thus go undefined.

I find this threads the needle for me between player agency and DM authority. I have played in many games that espouse a different philosophy, and I've had fun in those games too.

 

[Oofta]

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.



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.

So if I say that tabaxi don't exist in my world because they've never existed? Is that "justification" or are you going to argue?

Because it's that simple. I don't want a kitchen sink campaign. If I added every option from every edition (my campaign started with AD&D) it would be.

I have an established world, established history, established fiction that does not and has never included a multitude of races. Not sure what kind of"justification"could work for you. Because it sounds like "you must allow anything I want or you're being a jerk".

 

[Micah Sweet]

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

That makes absolutely no sense. Adventuring hobbits are the main characters in both "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings".

To be fair, on paper halflings don't seem the adventurer type, as others have mentioned upthread. In LotR, they spend much of their time carried by one group or another, and Merry and Pippin are literally used as plot devices (Pippin's awakening of the Balrog leads directly to Gandalf's fall and resurrection, and both of them get the ball rolling on the Ents). They all have some heroic moments as the story progresses, and certainly they've "leveled up" by the time they have to stop Saruman and the ruffians back in the Shire at the end, but they are truly exceptional members of a folk that are explicitly described as unadventurous under most circumstances. That's not a description elves, dwarves gnomes, and humans are usually labeled with.

 

[FrozenNorth]

The existence of "Chinatowns" the world over is my example of how even on a city level cultures clash. The idea that the "melting pot" is a thing that actually happens is ludicrous.

I agree with you. Mennonites, Quakers, Amish, Orthodox Jews, there are a large number of communities that continue to maintain their distinctiveness even within a larger culture.

 

[prabe]

I agree with you. Mennonites, Quakers, Amish, Orthodox Jews, there are a large number of communities that continue to maintain their distinctiveness even within a larger culture.

Their distinctiveness is kinda relative, though. For instance, the more conservative Mennonites eschew much modern tech, but they have cell phones (even though they dress distinctly plainly). My point being those subcultures do evolve, just ... more slowly than the mainstream culture around them.