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

[prabe]

So a DM has to justify their opinion? I mean, I think loxodons are dumb. Even if I had a more open world I just ... no. No anthropomorphic elephant people in my campaign.

Maybe when you DM it doesn't matter. It does to some people and, yes "that's dumb" is sufficient justification. No justification other than "because it's not allowed" is all that is really needed IMHO.

While "That's dumb" might well be adequate reason to exclude a race from your world/campaign, it's probably a good idea to come up with a reason that A) is about your world and B) doesn't include the word "dumb" in it.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

.

I take most discussions seriously. I see this as being respectful of the positions of those I talk with. Just because the topic is leisure-time activity doesn't mean I shouldn't critique others, listen seriously to their own critiques, and challenge anything dubious whether said by those whom I agree with or those I disagree with.
.

Interesting.

See, when I am I in a conversation, I don’t feel the need to challenge people.

When I am in an argument, I do feel that need.

I prefer conversations about things I like doing with other people that share my interests, and don’t much enjoy arguments. YMMV!

 

[Oofta]

While "That's dumb" might well be adequate reason to exclude a race from your world/campaign, it's probably a good idea to come up with a reason that A) is about your world and B) doesn't include the word "dumb" in it.

Well I would probably just say "loxodons aren't in the allowed race list". But ... I'm an honest person. If someone asks why I could spin it and come up with a story or I could just let them that I think the race just doesn't work for me. The word "dumb" may come out. Probably something along the lines of "It's cool that you like them but I think they're dumb so what other option can we think of."

That doesn't mean the player is dumb, just that we have different preferences. End of the day it's just a preference and no two people are alike.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Seriously? Then what in God's name have you proved by your own extraction of the "I could" bit from their post? You both have the capacity, and (implcitly) you both refuse to use it. Nothing has been gained in the conversation, unless I'm missing something big here!

Oh, are you drawing some kind of equivalence between the two situations? Because I don't see a salient parallel between them.

@Sabathius42 alleged that I could include tabaxi space marines in my campaign, but that I simply refuse to. This is entirely true. I see nothing here to argue with.

@Chaosmancer alleged that if I run a game of original D&D without demiumans (in which case, by the letter of the rules, the only playable character types are the "fighting man"[sic], "magic-user", and "cleric" classes, all human by default), I am somehow creating my players' characters for them. This is just factually incorrect. To the point of absurdity.

(And, I guess, there's been a lot of pointless rigmarole about how many cultures or countries there are in the setting, but again, still not relevant. You don't need multiple cultures in a setting to have distinct characters. Characters are not their cultures or even their sub-cultures, and any implication that they are is highly problematic. Grotesquely so.)

 

[loverdrive]

@Chaosmancer alleged that if I run a game of original D&D without demiumans (in which case, by the letter of the rules, the only playable character types are the "fighting man"[sic], "magic-user", and "cleric" classes, all human by default)

The original D&D with the fighting man had elves (who, by the way, could choose to whether be a wizard or a fighting man at the begining of each new adventure), dwarves and even suggested playing as a goddamn dragon.

But, I'm just being pedantic here.

 

[Jack Daniel]

The original D&D with the fighting man had elves (who, by the way, could choose to whether be a wizard or a fighting man at the begining of each new adventure), dwarves and even suggested playing as a goddamn dragon.

But, I'm just being pedantic here.

Hence the special stipulation of "a campaign without demihumans".

 

[Minigiant]

I'm my "Beastroots" setting, dwarves, gnomes, and elves are banned.

Why?

Because the point of the setting is that the gods are animal spirits and the only races are men, men divinely blessed to be part beast (half man half animal), and men divinely altered to be halfling (half man half nothing or goliath (half man, half man half man).

Someone who asks to be a dwarf be be asked in return "which animal is a dwarf half of?"

If they come up with a good answer, they get to be a dwarf.

If they come up with an animal that already has a god and beastfolk, too bad.

If they can't come up with a good dwarf animal, the world stays dwarfless.

 

[cbwjm]

I have a couple campaigns I want to run that would severely restrict races. The first starts the PCs off as tribe members (some classes/subclasses are also restricted), all human. There are no elves, dwarves, or dragonborn other than perhaps in legends. The second was one I thought of last night when looking through the races and noticing that there are quite a lot of animal races. It would be a campaign of animal folk rather than the standard human, elf, dwarf type races. If I pitched either of these to my players and they were keen, I'd be annoyed if they decided to bring an elf or dwarf or orc (or human for the second campaign). For me that's where the discussion on allowable races begins and ends, with the pitch. If players aren't into it then we play something else, maybe someone else runs the game instead.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I could see it if you you went out your way to include enough background diversity for all the types of players you want to run games for.

I've played plenty of RPGs with only humans, and characters are plenty diverse.

If you think purple skin and knobs on your head make your character interesting then you need to get a better imagination.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm my "Beastroots" setting, dwarves, gnomes, and elves are banned.

Why?

Because the point of the setting is that the gods are animal spirits and the only races are men, men divinely blessed to be part beast (half man half animal), and men divinely altered to be halfling (half man half nothing or goliath (half man, half man half man).

Someone who asks to be a dwarf be be asked in return "which animal is a dwarf half of?"

If they come up with a good answer, they get to be a dwarf.

If they come up with an animal that already has a god and beastfolk, too bad.

If they can't come up with a good dwarf animal, the world stays dwarfless.

A mole.

And yes, this is a setting with a clear strong theme, and maintaining that theme requires some limitations. (Granted, the goliath bit was a tad confusing.)