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

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Bit late to the party on this one, but I just wanted to say: This is absolutely the most I would ever ask for. You have put forth a genuine, good-faith effort to work with player desires without having to violate your own.

Yes. They are the min/maxers. They have a concept, and they want to build their concept from start to finish. Many times (especially prior to Tasha's), a specific race is required to achieve that goal. Not faulting, just explaining.

Actually...while it's not quite true to say that I cannot have fun with anything else, I really do love the flavor of dragonborn to a silly degree. Being told that it's not an option doesn't guarantee I won't play...but it's going to be a big reason why I would want to look for a different game.

And it's worth noting? Dragonborn are widely considered one of the weakest races in 5e, and very often considered the weakest race in the PHB. If you want to min-max, you want to play half-elves or...huh, would you look at that, humans, elves, dwarves, or halflings. Humans because V-human. Dwarves because +2/+2. Halflings because Lucky. Elves because Elven Accuracy and a friggin' laundry list of bonuses. Half-elves because +2/+1/+1 and skills and other bonuses. Sooooo...yeah. I don't, at all, favor dragonborn because they're powerful. I favor them purely because they're cool, and they're SO cool that it's a genuine disappointment to not get to play one. I have, in fact, literally accepted a compromise where I played a different race's stats (half-elf was what the DM considered appropriate), who was just a more lithe, supple dragonborn subtype.

 

[Zardnaar]

I guess a question for the '"focused game" limited race folks. What's the threshold where you get to "kitchen sink"? And why is that the cutoff?

Or I guess to be clearer, what number of races triggers the "lost focus"

No set number but somewhere between the phb and 20. I think I'm using 15 atm.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That's excellent. A good DM you are.

But do you see what you did? You are literally making up a race based on the player's interpretations. They can change whatever they want of the lore. That's cool. But again, for many, it would ruin the consistency of their world.

Like I said, that is cool of you as a DM to do that. I am sure it is appreciated by your players. But for many (even many players I know), they would be put off by such interchangeable and wishy-washy lore. I mean, look at what happens when lore does get changed for some settings - you would think the world is going to end.

There is nothing wishy-washy about what they described.

 

[Scott Christian]

See, the thing is, I didn't have lore for shadar-kai before, because I didn't care about them and no one wanted to play one. Now I've created lore to include, without changing anything I've done before, and that lore defines the shadar-kai from now on. Nothing wishy-washy about it. Just new stuff about the world. I don't ban things in my games (usually) for that exact reason.

I am with ya. My groups play the same way. And please know, I didn't mean wishy-washy in a bad way, I meant it as a sign you could sway either way when needed. Flexible would have been the better word.

You have space to add that new race, that is nice. Do you write how the other races view the shadar-kai? Their past interactions with different races and/or kingdoms? Any wars with another group or place? Their trade routes and their natural resources? How those natural resources fit into the trades of the realm? What they are known for to common folk? What they are known for to the educated or erudite? Are they isolated or everywhere? Their numbers at home? Their numbers in other cities/kingdoms? Their education system? Their currency? Do they have their own calendar or use the realm's? Their religious preferences? How do those affect daily life for the common shadar-kai? Their language? If they have a kingdom, what does their kingdom desire? Do they follow FR lore and hail from the Shadowfell? How does the Shadowfell fit into the campaign if not used before? etc.

I certainly do not need you to answer all these. (And indeed, you may have an answer for all these, I do not doubt that.) I am just merely pointing out that the second a few of these are answered, you can see how it might reach its tendrils of history into another kingdom/race. Then that might not coincide with a previous historical event you already have in place. A shadar-kai kingdom that has loads of feywood resources that builds boats might suddenly trounce the boat builders a DM already made because of the wood used. It's a quick example, but I am just showing how adding something can cause complications to a campaign world, especially one that is smaller in size or without alternate realms.

 

[Neonchameleon]

No set number but somewhere between the phb and 20. I think I'm using 15 atm.

And why do you think a world that has a large number of races has no focus? Once again I'm going to mention Eberron, which has about 30 playable races and is more focused than many settings, and Planescape which is again pretty focused.

Prosperous cities by their nature attract people to them from lots of cultures - I'd be disappointed if I was told there was a thriving city in D&D and it didn't reach 20 races unless it was something I was told was thriving because I was playing a rube - and it was actually more like Mos Eisley or "Everything's up to date in Kansas City" from Oklahoma!

 

[Scott Christian]

Actually...while it's not quite true to say that I cannot have fun with anything else, I really do love the flavor of dragonborn to a silly degree. Being told that it's not an option doesn't guarantee I won't play...but it's going to be a big reason why I would want to look for a different game.

I agree. There are players I have played with that want a race because they just really like them. And sometimes that race is even chosen when it doesn't fit the build. I was just trying to say that many players I know really want to play a race and have it added to the DM's world so they can have a "proper build."

 

[zarionofarabel]

So there are 50 million Hispanics in the US. 85% of them speak English. Without a stream of immigrants, in two generations it would be 100%. Not saying it is right. But it is true. I ate Mexican food tonight for dinner. (It was delicious btw.) I speak a little Spanish. I understand some of the major holidays of Mexico, just as most Mexican immigrants now understand many of the US's holidays. This is the blending of cultures.

As you noted, it will take a very long time to reach 100%. But, it does not need to to say the cultures homogenize. Culture is: language, song, dance, art, laws, religion, schooling and other institutions. Most, even opposite spectrums like the silly North vs. South in the US, share most of the same culture. I mean, sure, I can't always find a great biscuits & gravy when I am in Maine, but for the most part they are the same culture.

Maybe it is a glass half full or glass half empty view we disagree on?

No, I just see distinct cultures beside each other that have never homogenized. Is German culture the same as French culture, the same as Italian culture? No? Why not? These cultures have existed together for centuries, why have they not homogenized? It's because people don't want them to and actively resist such homogenization. As long as people do that the "melting pot" will continue to be a myth.

 

[Scott Christian]

No, I just see distinct cultures beside each other that have never homogenized. Is German culture the same as French culture, the same as Italian culture? No? Why not? These cultures have existed together for centuries, why have they not homogenized? It's because people don't want them to and actively resist such homogenization. As long as people do that the "melting pot" will continue to be a myth.

I believe if you look at the border towns you will see they have homogenized.

 

[prabe]

I believe if you look at the border towns you will see they have homogenized.

Especially in places like Alsace-Lorraine, that have changed hands over the centuries; Switzerland is also a potential example, where (as we used to put it at my old job) the German is pronounced as though it is French and the French as though it is German.

 

[Jack Daniel]

I guess a question for the '"focused game" limited race folks. What's the threshold where you get to "kitchen sink"? And why is that the cutoff?

Or I guess to be clearer, what number of races triggers the "lost focus"

My answer to this is going to be tongue-in-cheek, because at this point, it needs to be.

It's a well-rehearsed refrain.

An old saying, you might call it.

A proverb, a maxim, a motto, a chestnut.

Stop me if you've heard it, now.

Feel free to sing along.

Clap your hands and stomp your feet too.

You already know how the lyrics go.

Say it with me now, class.

All rise.

Hand over your heart as we recite the pledge.

It…

DEPENDS.
ON.
THE.
SETTING.

=== === ===

In all seriousness, though, maybe I could be convinced to cough up an actual number if someone could finally tell me how "no elves in my Game-that-Isn't-D&D campaign" is meaningfully different from "no elves my D&D campaign."

Also, for folks on the "everything is always on the table" side, what's your red line? What's the point at which a player's idea is so out-of-bounds that "due consideration" and "adult conversations" and "willingness to compromise" become replaced by a simple veto? Sentient sword? Astromech droid? Mecha pilot? Saiyan? Hutt? Decepticon? What if player B (who, of course, just wants to have a conversation) doesn't like player A's idea?

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'm curious about how you specifically will answer the question I've just posed above, then.

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?

C.S. Lewis said it best. "Every good writer knows that the more unusual the scenes and events of his story are, the slighter, more ordinary, the more typical his persons should be. Hence Gulliver is a commonplace little man and Alice is a commonplace little girl. If they had been more remarkable they would have wrecked their books. The Ancient Mariner himself is a very ordinary man. To tell how odd things struck odd people is to have an oddity too much; he who is to see strange sights must not himself be strange."

No one should ask a player to justify their decision on a PC, so long as it fits within the allowed parameters, right? Should players be forced to justify all of their decisions to the DM and the rest of the table to see if they are "good enough"

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?

These are darn good points, and if they don't go ignored by the player-leaning side in this argument, I fully expect the answer to be a doubling down in the first instance and a gentle walkback in the second.