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

[D1Tremere]

I agree! However this in no way means that a compromise must be reached.

The example given was a false equivalence. I'm not sure where you are going with this question.

I'm a cranky old guy so I want to say anything other than human and I'm unhappy. However, being D&D I guess I would allow Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling, as a matter of compromise to appease my players. The other races are a no go.

This mindset is very alien to me. That doesn't mean that I am saying it is wrong for anyone to have it, I just fail to identify with it. To me the whole point of a fantasy game is to be fantastic. Nothing says fantastic more than exploring fantastic races/cultures/aesthetics/biology/Etc. Sure you could wrap that all up in a human package, but why limit creativity?

 

[Gammadoodler]

Nope. The players never asked for a compromise because I exclusively run human only games because I don't normally run D&D. However in an upcoming campaign I wish to run a D&D campaign for nostalgias sake and the compromise was that we would play a BECMI clone. I wanted to try 5e, they told me to get bent! We settled on a BECMI clone cause, well, I don't know, they offered it up cause I'm a geezer I guess.

The only available races in the clone I got are Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling. Though they are technically classes so I don't know if it counts. I think the only reason I might get non-human characters is because they are not races and are in fact classes. My players are of a like mind and think non-human characters are generally played for mechanical bonuses.

Ok. So it sounds like it's a choice more tied to a system choice than something related to setting or player preference.

As far choosing to play a D&D game, are you or your players looking forward to interactions with other races?

 

[prabe]

I guess this point kinda depends on a persons reasons, as a GM, for running the game. I run games so my friends, the players, can have fun. My job is to tell stories and adjudicate rules disputes so that the fun can be had. To that end, any restrictions should be there to increase players long term fun, not to maintain my own status quo sensibilities. In return I get the satisfaction of providing a fun time for others, which makes me happy. Their fun is my fun.

The idea of caring more about maintaining a specific (especially trivial) restriction to the exclusion of others is mind-blowing to me. Sure I could tell my friends that they can run their own games if they want to play an x, but why would I want to do that? Then I couldn't run a fun game for them, and they wouldn't feel as welcome in my games.

That isn't to say that my games have no limitations or restrictions, only that such limitations are there in service of the players enjoyment and exceptions that do not disrupt the overall enjoyment of the players are easy enough to incorporate.

I DM because I enjoy DMing. I enjoy creating the setting in which the players' characters can have their adventures. I enjoy figuring out how the characters' backstories connect with the world. I enjoy managing the campaign and the world and the backstories. I enjoy filling in the blanks during play. I enjoy the feeling of abruptly getting something that will make where a party is come to life, or simply have an "oh crap" moments. I enjoy watching the characters become heroes.

I feel as though I am a better DM when I have the world (at least especially the parts of it where the PCs are) in my head, and I have an easier time with that if (among other things) I don't have more PC races than I can keep in my head (counting subraces I have 35).

 

[Zubatcarteira]

I don't think it's really a powergaming issue, when you look into optimizing builds it's generally "go Elf for Elven Accuracy", or "Go Variant Human for the feat", in my experience. Elves, Humans, Dwarves and Halflings are all very powerful.

The campaign I've been in for the past several months has been including pretty much anything the players wanted, we've had a Yuan-Ti, a Mindflayer and a bug person, for example. The DM added a whole book with monstrous races like undead, angels, trolls, ogres, etc. Ironically, the group is currently 3 Variant Humans, a Wood Elf and the bug guy, feats are op, ig.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Holy naughty word. Your players actually endure that? Actually, no, they probably don't because you've driven away anyone who would need to.

Am I as DM obliged to run games for everyone and anyone, or do I at least have a say in that? Cause after participating in this thread I have a feeling that it's better for my sanity and enjoyment that I am not obliged to do so!

Says who?

Just the gist I have gotten from participating in this thread.

I certainly haven't said that. The vast majority of people here haven't. Numerous posters on the DM side have insisted that not only is compromise unnecessary, it's outright offensive. That even to ask questions or make requests, no matter how respectfully, is such an attack on the DM as to be ground for immediate ejection. Just about the only thing from the DM side that I've said is offensive is...well, the above. DMs low-key gaslighting players who literally just go for something because they think it's cool, not for any actually harmful reason, and considering such behavior a problem to be eliminated. DMs waving their little scepters and insisting they have Ultimate Authority/Absolute Authority (capitals in original!). DMs insisting that players should just trust them regardless of what they do.

Well, compromise is not necessary. I also have a hard time with the attitude of many on the player side with the distrust they seem to hold toward DMs in general. Then again I am also willing to accept "I don't like it" as a viable reason to reject a character concept I have.

Numerous people on one side demand absolute authority, unquestioned power, unlimited trust, total avoidance of even attempted compromise, the right to insult or denigrate others' preferences whether openly or implicitly, and total control over anything and everything that strikes their fancy. The other, while I admit there have been one or two posters who take an excessive stance, has been replete with people specifically just asking for the opportunity to talk, the chance to negotiate, the offer of a good-faith attempt at compromise. I, personally, have consistently and specifically said that, and have given numerous examples of my own behavior both for saying yes and for saying no but finding a different solution.

I reiterate, a compromise doesn't need to be reached! Would you as a player be willing to play a character given to you by a DM even if you didn't like it? If no, why not? Why not just compromise and play said character?

 

[zarionofarabel]

I guess this point kinda depends on a persons reasons, as a GM, for running the game. I run games so my friends, the players, can have fun. My job is to tell stories and adjudicate rules disputes so that the fun can be had. To that end, any restrictions should be there to increase players long term fun, not to maintain my own status quo sensibilities. In return I get the satisfaction of providing a fun time for others, which makes me happy. Their fun is my fun.

The idea of caring more about maintaining a specific (especially trivial) restriction to the exclusion of others is mind-blowing to me. Sure I could tell my friends that they can run their own games if they want to play an x, but why would I want to do that? Then I couldn't run a fun game for them, and they wouldn't feel as welcome in my games.

That isn't to say that my games have no limitations or restrictions, only that such limitations are there in service of the players enjoyment and exceptions that do not disrupt the overall enjoyment of the players are easy enough to incorporate.

I also run games so the players and I can have fun. I however am not interested in running games that I wouldn't find fun. If I need to restrict certain things to maintain my fun I will, and feel justified doing so. In a D&D game I definitely wouldn't allow Evil characters as I have no interest in running such a game. Same goes for games that include oodles of playable races. I'm not a clown who's meant to dance around just to entertain the players. I want to have fun too!

This mindset is very alien to me. That doesn't mean that I am saying it is wrong for anyone to have it, I just fail to identify with it. To me the whole point of a fantasy game is to be fantastic. Nothing says fantastic more than exploring fantastic races/cultures/aesthetics/biology/Etc. Sure you could wrap that all up in a human package, but why limit creativity?

I think races and biology would mean the same thing in the context of an TTRPG, I'm not sure what the etcetera would cover. As for the cultures and aesthetics, well, those are quite easy to accomplish even with nothing but human characters.
Also, I'm old now and have encountered more versions of non-human races than I can shake a stick at and to me they are all just thinly disguised humans. The fantastic just ain't that fantastic anymore, even if it is covered in fur or has a shell.

Ok. So it sounds like it's a choice more tied to a system choice than something related to setting or player preference.

As far choosing to play a D&D game, are you or your players looking forward to interactions with other races?

I'm not sure, I'm excited for the nostalgia part I guess. I have a feeling that the non-human PCs will get played as over-the-top stereotypes and the NPC non-humans will be treated as nothing more than humans. I really hope they play up the "oh wow this is fantastic!" angle just to indulge me, but I doubt it. I'm a cynical guy and tend to surround myself with other cynical people.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I like Kender!

I don't often say this, but your tastes here are objectively bad.

Kender are utterly loathed by most people because most races are built round themes - the kender theme is a mix of (a) stealing from the rest of the party and then making excuses and (b) pushing every button including the big red one whatever the rest of the party wants. They are literally a race intentionally designed to promote anti-social behaviour at the gaming table. And that is why they are despised and most DMs ban them.

Well, compromise is not necessary. I also have a hard time with the attitude of many on the player side with the distrust they seem to hold toward DMs in general. Then again I am also willing to accept "I don't like it" as a viable reason to reject a character concept I have.

I'm curious who you think is "on the player side". As polls have repeatedly shown, the overwhelming majority of people who post on ENWorld are DMs; exclusive players don't tend to get this deep into the weeds. If there are two sides it's "People who exclusively DM" and "People who both DM and play". (I know I DM as well as play)

And if that's the case then you're having a hard time with the attitude of people who can routinely see both perspectives because they don't take the DM-exclusive perspective and instead think that what the players want also matters.

I reiterate, a compromise doesn't need to be reached! Would you as a player be willing to play a character given to you by a DM even if you didn't like it? If no, why not? Why not just compromise and play said character?

The default compromise is that the player gets almost complete control over their PC, the DM gets the wider world - but the players get to play what they want as long as it fits the level/power bounds. DMs who are unhappy with just getting the world surrounding the players and the far flung reaches of it make me wonder what the point even being a player is given the DM clearly doesn't want any input from them.

As a DM if I didn't want to have to deal with playing dragonborn I'd just say they were over the sea other than the one player one. And then I don't have to deal with any except the PC. Your "compromise" is the DM trying to steal what is by the rules default purely in the control of the player.

And as mentioned this goes right back to the start. Gygax allowed hobbits because although he didn't like Lord of the Rings his players wanted to play them and he wasn't precious about his setting. He didn't play them but others could. Mike Mornard played a balrog at both Gygax and Arneson's tables. Because of level and power restrictions it was a baby balrog. But it was a balrog.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I also run games so the players and I can have fun. I however am not interested in running games that I wouldn't find fun. If I need to restrict certain things to maintain my fun I will, and feel justified doing so. In a D&D game I definitely wouldn't allow Evil characters as I have no interest in running such a game. Same goes for games that include oodles of playable races. I'm not a clown who's meant to dance around just to entertain the players. I want to have fun too!

And I'm asking outright why you personally have such a fetish that a player playing a character from a race you don't like would ruin your fun. You don't have to play any other members of that race. Why does them playing what they want harm your fun?

Evil characters (especially Evil as opposed to evil) come under the Kender exception of outright antisocial behaviour unless everyone is on the same page.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The default compromise is that the player gets almost complete control over their PC, the DM gets the wider world - but the players get to play what they want as long as it fits the level/power bounds.

I want to play a kender.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I don't often say this, but your tastes here are objectively bad.

Kender are utterly loathed by most people because most races are built round themes - the kender theme is a mix of (a) stealing from the rest of the party and then making excuses and (b) pushing every button including the big red one whatever the rest of the party wants. They are literally a race intentionally designed to promote anti-social behaviour at the gaming table. And that is why they are despised and most DMs ban them.

I'm curious who you think is "on the player side". As polls have repeatedly shown, the overwhelming majority of people who post on ENWorld are DMs; exclusive players don't tend to get this deep into the weeds. If there are two sides it's "People who exclusively DM" and "People who both DM and play". (I know I DM as well as play)

And if that's the case then you're having a hard time with the attitude of people who can routinely see both perspectives because they don't take the DM-exclusive perspective and instead think that what the players want also matters.

The default compromise is that the player gets almost complete control over their PC, the DM gets the wider world - but the players get to play what they want as long as it fits the level/power bounds. DMs who are unhappy with just getting the world surrounding the players and the far flung reaches of it make me wonder what the point even being a player is given the DM clearly doesn't want any input from them.

As a DM if I didn't want to have to deal with playing dragonborn I'd just say they were over the sea other than the one player one. And then I don't have to deal with any except the PC. Your "compromise" is the DM trying to steal what is by the rules default purely in the control of the player.

And as mentioned this goes right back to the start. Gygax allowed hobbits because although he didn't like Lord of the Rings his players wanted to play them and he wasn't precious about his setting. He didn't play them but others could. Mike Mornard played a balrog at both Gygax and Arneson's tables. Because of level and power restrictions it was a baby balrog. But it was a balrog.

In fairness, Mornard's character was widely misunderstood. From Mike's original character sheet.