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

[doctorbadwolf]

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?

I mean, since I'm not one of the people who ever said otherwise, this response is kinda odd, but sure.

Well, okay, no, we don't agree completely. I'd take that justification from a kid or a new DM, but not from one of the DMs in my current group, and I'd never let that be my only justification as a DM. I don't consider it mature and...socially ethical, for lack of a better word, to let "I don't like it" to be your only justification, especially in a situation where you hold more of the social/situational capital than the other person.

My wife didn't allow tabaxi or tortles in her CoS game, because they messed with her sense of the theme and tone of the very tightly themed adventure, which she'd never run before, which she was very excited about because she loves vampires and creepy gothic horror stuff, and because it was her first full campaign as a DM. That's an actual justification.


We absolutely could have run tabaxi and tortles in CoS without straying from the theme and tone, and nowadays she's confident that she could run that game just fine, but in that particular example, we didn't argue because she gave a justification and it seemed fair to us.

Had she said, "because it's my campaign and I don't want it.", we would have politely pushed back and reminded her that it's a group activity, not "hers".

Had her justification been, "There are reasons that may or may not come up in play, but that would be spoilers to fully explain, but to allow tabaxi would require that I rewrite things I don't want to have to rewrite", we would have respected the authorial discretion of a good secret, and accepted the call.

"I don't like tabaxi"....oh well. I don't like clerics, elves, I used to strongly dislike halflings before I realised that the notion of a second small race needing at all to "justify" it's "place" in the game (and gnomes are more interesting, no halflings will always be the second small race) was nonsense, I refuse to use lizardfolk lore as written, and I'd love to play games with no humans, but when I have a player who wants to play them, I get over myself.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

but they are truly exceptional members of a folk that are explicitly described as unadventurous under most circumstances.

The scouring of the shire tells us that while they had become exceptional by the end of the books, it wasn't by leaps and bounds. Hobbits in general, when roused, were dangerously fierce and competent.

 

[Zardnaar]

I mean, since I'm not one of the people who ever said otherwise, this response is kinda odd, but sure.

Well, okay, no, we don't agree completely. I'd take that justification from a kid or a new DM, but not from one of the DMs in my current group, and I'd never let that be my only justification as a DM. I don't consider it mature and...socially ethical, for lack of a better word, to let "I don't like it" to be your only justification, especially in a situation where you hold more of the social/situational capital than the other person.

My wife didn't allow tabaxi or tortles in her CoS game, because they messed with her sense of the theme and tone of the very tightly themed adventure, which she'd never run before, which she was very excited about because she loves vampires and creepy gothic horror stuff, and because it was her first full campaign as a DM. That's an actual justification.


We absolutely could have run tabaxi and tortles in CoS without straying from the theme and tone, and nowadays she's confident that she could run that game just fine, but in that particular example, we didn't argue because she gave a justification and it seemed fair to us.

Had she said, "because it's my campaign and I don't want it.", we would have politely pushed back and reminded her that it's a group activity, not "hers".

Had her justification been, "There are reasons that may or may not come up in play, but that would be spoilers to fully explain, but to allow tabaxi would require that I rewrite things I don't want to have to rewrite", we would have respected the authorial discretion of a good secret, and accepted the call.

"I don't like tabaxi"....oh well. I don't like clerics, elves, I used to strongly dislike halflings before I realised that the notion of a second small race needing at all to "justify" it's "place" in the game (and gnomes are more interesting, no halflings will always be the second small race) was nonsense, I refuse to use lizardfolk lore as written, and I'd love to play games with no humans, but when I have a player who wants to play them, I get over myself.

And my pushback is find another game or run it yourself. You can't force a DM to run, it's not hard to replace players.

I'm going to run my game how I see fit. You can do that as well no big deal.

A potential player is welcome to ask questions with what to expect.

 

[Arilyn]

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.

Except the Tooks. They are viewed by other hobbits with suspicion for their adventurous ways and eccentric behaviour. There's Took blood running through the Baggins and Merry's mother was a Took. And, of course, Pippin. In Tolkien, isn't there a story of fairy blood running through the Tooks?

 

[Micah Sweet]

The scouring of the shire tells us that while they had become exceptional by the end of the books, it wasn't by leaps and bounds. Hobbits in general, when roused, were dangerously fierce and competent.

I can't argue that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Except the Tooks. They are viewed by other hobbits with suspicion for their adventurous ways and eccentric behaviour. There's Took blood running through the Baggins and Merry's mother was a Took. And, of course, Pippin. In Tolkien, isn't there a story of fairy blood running through the Tooks?

There was a suggestion in The Hobbit that a Took must have once taken a fairy wife. Not really serious, of course, but they are an unusual brand of hobbit. Not as respectable, but undoubtedly richer.

 

[Maxperson]

And my pushback is find another game or run it yourself. You can't force a DM to run, it's not hard to replace players.

I'm going to run my game how I see fit. You can do that as well no big deal.

A potential player is welcome to ask questions with what to expect.

For my part, I find "I don't like it" as more than enough to justify the exclusion. I say that as both DM and player. The DM is there to enjoy the game and wanting to force something he doesn't like on him seems every bit as jerkish as many are describing DM limitations. If a player really disliked some part of my game, I'd excise it. We are ALL there to be happy.

 

[Arilyn]

There was a suggestion in The Hobbit that a Took must have once taken a fairy wife. Not really serious, of course, but they are an unusual brand of hobbit. Not as respectable, but undoubtedly richer.

Thanks. Remembered something about the fairy wife, but couldn't remember if it was in "The Hobbit" or one of his texts on Middle Earth.

 

[Monayuris]

I mean, since I'm not one of the people who ever said otherwise, this response is kinda odd, but sure.

Well, okay, no, we don't agree completely. I'd take that justification from a kid or a new DM, but not from one of the DMs in my current group, and I'd never let that be my only justification as a DM. I don't consider it mature and...socially ethical, for lack of a better word, to let "I don't like it" to be your only justification, especially in a situation where you hold more of the social/situational capital than the other person.

My wife didn't allow tabaxi or tortles in her CoS game, because they messed with her sense of the theme and tone of the very tightly themed adventure, which she'd never run before, which she was very excited about because she loves vampires and creepy gothic horror stuff, and because it was her first full campaign as a DM. That's an actual justification.


We absolutely could have run tabaxi and tortles in CoS without straying from the theme and tone, and nowadays she's confident that she could run that game just fine, but in that particular example, we didn't argue because she gave a justification and it seemed fair to us.

Had she said, "because it's my campaign and I don't want it.", we would have politely pushed back and reminded her that it's a group activity, not "hers".

Had her justification been, "There are reasons that may or may not come up in play, but that would be spoilers to fully explain, but to allow tabaxi would require that I rewrite things I don't want to have to rewrite", we would have respected the authorial discretion of a good secret, and accepted the call.

"I don't like tabaxi"....oh well. I don't like clerics, elves, I used to strongly dislike halflings before I realised that the notion of a second small race needing at all to "justify" it's "place" in the game (and gnomes are more interesting, no halflings will always be the second small race) was nonsense, I refuse to use lizardfolk lore as written, and I'd love to play games with no humans, but when I have a player who wants to play them, I get over myself.

That may work in your group and that’s fine.

Just keep in mind that not every group works like yours.

I may decide to not use Tabaxi because I don’t like them; and that is the only justification I need.

I honestly would be surprised if my groups tried to then convince me into allowing them in my games. (I would consider it rude to second guess the choice of the DM running the game).

If I’m playing with friends, I know that my friends respect me enough that if I don’t want Tabaxi, then no one will play Tabaxi.

if I’m playing with strangers, and the entire group tries to convince me into allowing them. I would drop the game. I made a choice for my campaign and if the entire group doesn’t like it they would be better served to find a DM with a campaign that better suits their needs.

EDIT to add:

If I'm a player in someone else's game, I would follow their lead and their choices. If I don't find it acceptable to me, I would just not play in their game (best of luck to your game, but it is not for me).

Are there people who only play one race and cant' have fun if that race is not allowed? Or is it something deeper? Is there some element where there are players who MUST have a wide open set of options and are adverse to a DM who presents a specific feeling or who limits options?

Is there an aversion to a DM creating curated style of play that may limit options? Is it undesirable for a DM to create a homebrew campaign that has a more narrow focus?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Never said otherwise. I have no problem with other campaigns allowing every race under the sun. Just that I don't see that limiting race ever really hampered anyone's story creativity significantly. So if someone comes to me and says the only way the PC's story works is their PC is race X my BS meter is going to go off*. If you want to play a race because you like the mechanical benefits, fine. Just admit it. I simply don't think race stands in the way of telling just about any story you can imagine.

I mean, I get that @Charlaquin's PC had an interesting plot twist, but good DMs will be able to set up plot twists now and then no matter what race they are. For that matter since I don't allow tieflings, that PC would be a cambion but for some reason look like, have all the stats of and abilities of a human for 99% of the campaign.

*Not that this has ever happened. I've had people ask if they could play drow, I simply said no.

Love how you guys keep accusing people of that. Obviously we are willing to debate this for 60 pages in a rapidly moving thread just because we don't want to admit that we want the mechanics more than the story.

I mean, why else would we be constantly talking about the story if we didn't care about that and just wanted the mechanics.