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

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

I meant to respond to this and forgot. The aforementioned story about our tiefling bard's heritage really couldn't work any other way. It has very expressly tied into an innate dark power, something that can last for thousands of years, and which can be passed from one person to another but only under special conditions. A simple curse wouldn't work, because the power itself isn't inherently bad/evil per se, and it wouldn't explain the apparent "cultivation" of the character's paternal bloodline that has gone on for so long. It also wouldn't explain how multiple supernatural entities inherently recognize the character as an authority over them because of something supposedly bad.

I really did tailor this part of the story specifically to being a tiefling. Ironically, racism hasn't really been part of it! It's been all about "what am I really," authority over powers one finds detestable in concept but fascinating/fun/useful in practice, legacies hidden for centuries yet still directed by a single cunning mind, helping others shackled to that blood, etc.

As a somewhat different example: dragonborn, in the standard 4e cosmology, do not have a single creation myth for their race. The dragons favor the version that says that dragonborn were created simultaneously with dragons by Io, with dragons being the "greater" spirits and dragonborn the "lesser" spirits (implying that dragons rule, dragonborn serve.) Another tale says that dragonborn came from the scattered drops of Io's blood when he was slain by the primordial Erek-Hus; this may be interpreted as saying dragons are distinct and better, but it can easily be turned the other way, saying that dragonborn are semidivine. The last basically flips the first myth, saying Io created dragonborn first, and then created the dragons as mere engines of destruction; this was popular during Arkhosia's reign, but subversive since the nation was ruled by a dragon emperor (the Golden One, who basically ruled Dragon-Rome, complete with a founding confederation of seven city-states).

You...really can't have this same kind of story if you completely cut the "dragon" part out. I guess you could maybe have like, giants or something take their place? But that doesn't have nearly as strong a theme to it, I'd argue--you're definitely diluting things by choosing to use something that isn't dragons. And even then, you're still tying it to something not-human, it just happens to be "fantastically BIG human-like person" rather than "fantastical scaly flying flamethrower person." Likewise with the above tiefling story, you could maybe do something with like, a fey lord I suppose, but that's positing something that's definitely bigger and grander than just "player character elves."

 

[Micah Sweet]

Honestly, why can't both sides respect the preferences of the other? If I really don't like some aspect of the game as a player, I would probably avoid a game in which that aspect was featured, if there wasn't a reasonable way to not have to deal with it. If I wanted to play something that the DM doesn't care for, I would play something else instead as a sign of respect. Plenty of great character ideas out there.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

So, I just had an interesting example of something that is in the background, but rarely examined, happen this weekend!

I was invited to a game by a new DM (long story) that was to take place in Ravnica. This was the DMs first time in running a game, and they were very excited to run it in Ravnica. They said they wanted to run a "base Ravnica" game with the races and the guilds- PHB + GGTR.

So we get together. I'm not a MtG player, so I had read up a little, and made my selections- I've never been a huge Ravnica fan, but this was a favor to the new DM. Another player who was invited had selected a Satyr genie pact warlock. And the character had the name of a 20th century avant garde artist/singer, and the same personality and accent. Because of course.

So instead of accepting the premise of the campaign, the player chose a race/class combination that the DM had put on the list not to be used (and was not familiar with). The DM's inability to say, "Hey, maybe not ..." allowed this player to bully their way into the game with their desired player concept, and the DM's lack of experience and lack of facility with the rules around this class/race caused the game to slow down, making it worse than it should have been. In addition, the "problem" players .... devotion .... to their anachronistic concept and roleplaying did not play well with the DM's guild-specific campaign, and ruined the immersion for the rest of us.

In short, it was a botched campaign. Because of one player. And the sad thing is, this new DM was really, really excited to run a campaign. I'm sad because I rarely get to play, and I was looking forward to relaxing and playing for a while.

Anyone who has played for a while has met the bad DM. No one enjoys a bad DM, and no game is better than a bad game.

But all of this is presupposing that it is only the DM that can be bad, or abusive. It is a truth that we are all familiar with- people suck. All people. DM people, and player people.

Many campaigns are "kitchen sink" campaigns. And those are great! More power to them. But if the DM is restricting races and classes for some reason- lack of familiarity with the rules, because they want to keep it simple (PHB only, or PHB plus the setting), or because they've designed the setting and these are the playable races and classes ... well, if a player can't be bothered to design a character within those limits that respect the DM's choices (knowing that whatever super-awesome idea they have can be used in the next game at some other time), then maybe it's not the DM that is the problem.

Personally, I find it bizarre that anyone would demand to play a race/class that isn't within the allowable ones for the campaign setting. But that's me. If your table, and your fun, consists of playing things that are not allowed, then more power to you! On the other hand, I am not sure why it is so weird that other table enjoy having respectful limits that are enforced.

 

[Oofta]

No offense, but I'm not responding to anyone on this topic more. If a DM limiting races is a deal breaker for you I can't imagine what other things would be a deal breaker and I probably wouldn't want that player at the table anyway.

There may be stories that can't be told without a specific race but if you're so creative that you can imagine that then certainly you can come up other awesome stories that don't require it. After all, I hate to burst your bubble my campaign world isn't built just for you personally.

To DM's: stay true to what makes sense to you. Whether that's allowing every possible option or limiting to what makes sense. Listen, be respectful but don't let people bully you into something you don't believe in.

There is no one true way.

 

[Crit]

A PC I was going to play in a game that (unfortunately) didn't happen (yet) was human with keen mind feat. Abbreviated version: he and his sister had been raised by his mother, and he basically worshipped his father. Then one night he found that his father was a pirate who was conducting a ritual to sacrifice his sister, there was a dark ritual book (which found and remembers every letter because keen mind). He destroyed the book and fled while his mother held off his father and goons. He saw his mother die as he was fleeing. Oh, he also has a tattoo that he's tried everything he can to remove and all he knows is that it burns if he pours holy water on it.

Is that not dark enough? Maybe he was tricked into helping with the sacrifice or worshipped his father so much that he went along with it only to realize later what he had done. Any "dark" story you can come up with for a tiefling I can fit into a a human mold.

I don't see this as any different than someone coming to my game insisting that they must play a gunslinger (6-shooters and all) because there are optional rules for firearms. If you allow all races, good for you. I just don't believe any story a human can relate to couldn't be recreated with a human. Unless of course that story is that you can fly, in which case you're playing a bird man because of an ability.

"Is that not dark enough?" No, it's plenty dark, but this isn't a darkness contest. It's about what the background is about, and why things are the way they are for the PC. Maybe it's the same "what", but the "why" is one of the most important parts of storytelling. Being a literal devil-spawn is thematically similar to other stories, but when it's literal/true, it is a different story. And like I said, the worth of the difference depends on those whose hands are on the story's wheel. That alone gives value to these decisions that seem minor- because in interested hands, they aren't.

You can roughly simulate similar ideas across all races, sure. I won't deny that, but they're only similar. If I wrote a story about free will, and swapped the main character from a robot to a human, the emotions and ideas are different despite the same plot/theme. If you took a painting, and changed the value of certain colors while keeping everything else the same, it turns out to be a different painting.

In relation to the original prompt, this is why people may want to play these races. On some level, they offer something to explore or experience, the details of which are defined by those engaging with it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Honestly, why can't both sides respect the preferences of the other? If I really don't like some aspect of the game as a player, I would probably avoid a game in which that aspect was featured, if there wasn't a reasonable way to not have to deal with it. If I wanted to play something that the DM doesn't care for, I would play something else instead as a sign of respect. Plenty of great character ideas out there.

Most of it is attitude. When the DM walks in like Eric Cartman saying "respect mah authoritah" and arbitrarily starts banning things then they focus my attention on what they are banning. When the DM says "this entire world is mine and you can't have any corners of it to play in" then they are emphasising how much they think being the final arbiter is important to them. And the inspiration they are providing is of the things that can't be played.

Meanwhile when a DM starts off with the pitch and what they want to see and in a positive direction, and only ban things where they are a specific clash or highly antisocial concept (I don't think that anyone has a problem with Kender being banned) that focuses things in an entirely different direction - and allows for deeper worlds.

I've played with many more players than DMs (naturally) and I by default DM. Over the years I can count on the thumbs of one hand the number of entitled players I've seen. But need fingers and thumbs from both hands to count the number of entitled DMs I've seen - and it's been far more toxic to the game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Most of it is attitude. When the DM walks in like Eric Cartman saying "respect mah authoritah" and arbitrarily starts banning things then they focus my attention on what they are banning. When the DM says "this entire world is mine and you can't have any corners of it to play in" then they are emphasising how much they think being the final arbiter is important to them. And the inspiration they are providing is of the things that can't be played.

Meanwhile when a DM starts off with the pitch and what they want to see and in a positive direction, and only ban things where they are a specific clash or highly antisocial concept (I don't think that anyone has a problem with Kender being banned) that focuses things in an entirely different direction - and allows for deeper worlds.

I've played with many more players than DMs (naturally) and I by default DM. Over the years I can count on the thumbs of one hand the number of entitled players I've seen. But need fingers and thumbs from both hands to count the number of entitled DMs I've seen - and it's been far more toxic to the game.

Maybe it's because I mostly DM, but I've seen just as many difficult players as difficult DMs. In my current campaign, I have a player that has gone through four characters, and he is so dedicated to being unique that every one of them had a laundry list of affectations he never failed to bring up in every interaction with other PCs or the world. This annoyed me, but if it hadn't also annoyed all the other players, I would have endured it. We spoke to him about it as a group, and he is trying to dial it back a little.

DMs can be protective of their worlds, but I've only run into a handful that were the "martinet DMs" you've described. Plenty of them just have preferences, and don't express those preferences in the absolutist "my way or the highway" manner I've heard mentioned. If I was in a game where the DM didn't like dwarves, I wouldn't play one. Like I said, plenty of character ideas out there. Perhaps I'm lucky, but I have no strong dislikes for anything in D&D. Makes it easy to give a qualified yes when players ask for stuff.

 

[prabe]

Most of it is attitude. When the DM walks in like Eric Cartman saying "respect mah authoritah" and arbitrarily starts banning things then they focus my attention on what they are banning. When the DM says "this entire world is mine and you can't have any corners of it to play in" then they are emphasising how much they think being the final arbiter is important to them. And the inspiration they are providing is of the things that can't be played.

I can't and won't speak for any of the other DMs who don't allow things, but among the first thing new players get is a list of what I specifically by default allow--which includes everyhing in the PHB but Drow, and a handful of others--and an invitation to talk to me if they want to play something not on that list (without a specific promise I'll say yes). I also don't allow every subclass from every book--heck, I don't allow at least one subclass from the PHB because of specific setting reasons--but I allow a variety of third-party and homebrew subclasses. I don't feel as though I'm emphasizing what I disallow--I'm certainly not trying to make people feel tightly constrained.

Meanwhile when a DM starts off with the pitch and what they want to see and in a positive direction, and only ban things where they are a specific clash or highly antisocial concept (I don't think that anyone has a problem with Kender being banned) that focuses things in an entirely different direction - and allows for deeper worlds.

I think that my choices for what I by default allow, as well as the houserules I use, point at the way I want to see the game played, the type of game I want to DM. I'd like to think there's some depth to the setting, but I suspect real complexity will take at least another year of out-of-game work and another campaign or two.

I've played with many more players than DMs (naturally) and I by default DM. Over the years I can count on the thumbs of one hand the number of entitled players I've seen. But need fingers and thumbs from both hands to count the number of entitled DMs I've seen - and it's been far more toxic to the game.

Eh. I've probably seen roughly the same number of both, but I've only recently-ish started gaming outside a fairly narrow group of friends.

 

[Minigiant]

In a sense I do sell my campaign in that when I advertise/send out invites I give a general overview, point to the "known history" page and so on. But selling specific aspects race or otherwise? Nah. My choice because it's my campaign world. I give people a lot of control over the story, but the decisions about how the world works is up to me.

If you the listed the accepted races and their histories then you did the required amount of sell. You could do more, likely explain why you picked the races and how they fit the tone but it is in no way required.

I think the real issue are DMs who explain nothing then get upset that people don't like it or have ideas how a race or class fits the theme or tone with better explanations than them.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Uhm, no? The order is: theme -> tone -> character concepts -> world building.

Like, Superman doesn't live in Metropolis, Metropolis exists in order to support Superman.

(Again with the "Uhm, no?" business?) And that's why Metropolis is flat as cardboard.

Perhaps I misunderstood, but it definitely came across as "players shouldn't contribute things to the world-story, they should only contribute to the world through the choices directly made by their characters." This seems like a pretty reasonable description of @Jack Daniel 's position; please correct me if I'm wrong, Jack.

It's a reasonable description of how I DM and how I prefer to play, yes. I won't rag on another table that does it differently, but I won't personally join a table like that either (and I certainly won't conceded to any of the claims in this thread that players making meta-contributions is an objectively better way of doing things).

Second, I can't agree that the rules are suggestions. They're a common starting point. They're what everyone gets to see, without needing to dig into the DM's brain. You are 100% correct that the DM is always free to walk away from that common starting point. But if they do so, they have an obligation to tell their players. And I absolutely think that "dragonborn is a playable option" (or whatever) is a part of that common starting point that needs a clear statement that it is being left out, and a reasonably clear statement as to why (though, as noted above, that statement can be "I really am doing something with this, I'm not just shitting on your preferences because I think they're dumb").

We attach very different weights to the rules-as-written then. Maybe that's necessary if you're playing a game with more player-facing rules and meta options than I'm used to. Suffice it to say, as far as I'm concerned, the rules-as-written are an entirely separate entity from the rules-in-force, which exist chiefly in the DM's head, are specific to a particular campaign, and consist of several elements (any written rules the DM has chosen to implement, house rules, the setting lore, and the DM's in-the-moment rulings and judgements) with coequal legitimacy. Given that, can you see how a presumptive need to justify everything could be unwieldy, impractical, and unnecessary?