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

[Minigiant]

I can think of few things that stale faster than persistently having NPCs unable to get past a character's exoticness. It stales for the player of the exotic, and it stales for the players of the other characters. My point is, bad DMs can stale the "exotic" races just as easily as they've staled the standard ones.

Sure. Of course they can.
If bad DMs actually use the exotic races. Because you know they are bad and likely barely reach for the exotic races outside of a rare forced token when they remember the race exists.

But like you say. If a Bad DM remembers it could easily get stale fast. Same as a player who player grazes the surface of one. shiver

 

[prabe]

Sure. Of course they can.
If bad DMs actually use the exotic races. Because you know they are bad and likely barely reach for the exotic races outside of a rare forced token when they remember the race exists.

But like you say. If a Bad DM remembers it could easily get stale fast. Same as a player who player grazes the surface of one. shiver

That's part of the reason I have a chart to randomly determine NPCs' race. I don't use it all the time (the intent was to limit it to adventurer-types) but it works to at least occasionally remind me to have someone be something unexpected.

 

[Oofta]

What I am saying is the boring DMs doing kitchen sinks are modelling boring dwarves, elves, and halflings the same way the boring DMs doing themed settings.

The noticeable difference is that the second group is the one saying No to players more. So they look worse in player's eyes by default.

The exotic races are less touched and thus less stale in the hands of DMs, good and bad.

If a DM is running existing races as boring, I don't see why running any race under the sun is going to make a difference. If races are just boring costumes then I don't see why it matters what costume you wear.

As far as "less stale", something that has no culture background or history isn't stale because there's nothing to build on. On the other hand if the DM and/or player can build something interesting from scratch they can build something interesting from "traditional" races as well.

 

[prabe]

On the other hand if the DM and/or player can build something interesting from scratch they can build something interesting from "traditional" races as well.

This depends. There are some people who are far comfortable working from scratch than adapting the work of others (it me). Part of the reason I'm running in my own setting is that I've never been able to make enough sense of a published setting to run in it; same goes for published adventures--they simply don't make sense to me when I read them, so I can't run them so they make sense. I mean, I only did a little homebrew in the races--mostly reworked lore--but from where I am I can see someone needing to entirely write their own races or they wouldn't be able to understand them.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Boring DMs are more likely to copy others work.

Well I know that sure as Shinola isn't true! Some of the dullest and dreariest games I've ever had the displeasure of joining have involved a DM trying to get… experimental with a homebrewed setting or a high concept that "unique" doesn't even begin to describe.

Vanilla is perennial for a reason!

 

[Scott Christian]

I think that sometimes, we can be too harsh in our judgments.

Most people (I'm being general- not all) start RPGs by modeling stereotypes, archetypes, or specific characters. It's easier to "play as yourself (or idealized version of yourself)" and then move on to "playing as someone you want to be." It's about learning the process of roleplaying. It takes a while to get to the stage of inventing an entire new persona, and playing as that persona.

This happens, even moreso, with a lot of DMs as they learn to do it; instead of modeling one character, they have to play as all the NPCs and monsters.

Well said and very true.

 

[Jack Daniel]

I think that sometimes, we can be too harsh in our judgments.

Most people (I'm being general- not all) start RPGs by modeling stereotypes, archetypes, or specific characters. It's easier to "play as yourself (or idealized version of yourself)" and then move on to "playing as someone you want to be." It's about learning the process of roleplaying. It takes a while to get to the stage of inventing an entire new persona, and playing as that persona.

This happens, even moreso, with a lot of DMs as they learn to do it; instead of modeling one character, they have to play as all the NPCs and monsters.

I mostly agree, but I also believe that's valid—good, even—for players to be content with "play as yourself." I certainly prefer that style to improvisational thespianism.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I mostly agree, but I also believe that's valid—good, even—for players to be content with "play as yourself." I certainly prefer that style to improvisational thespianism.

I think that there is an interesting conversation to be had about the difference between the idea of "skilled play" and "role play" and what that entails, but that's probably best saved for a separate thread so that people can yell at me about semantics.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The great DMs, of course, just outright steal others' work. ;-)

"To borrow from one source is called plagiarism. To borrow from two is called research."

 

[Scott Christian]

As far as "less stale", something that has no culture background or history isn't stale because there's nothing to build on. On the other hand if the DM and/or player can build something interesting from scratch they can build something interesting from "traditional" races as well.

I would add to this and note that if the cultural background is built from scratch, then it is likely the race (from the same location) also have similarities; be it behavior, habits, morals and mores.

But it seems like certain DM's feel that focusing on a pattern gets stale. But in my head, I don't see how you paint a world without creating patterns, and then showing the individuality through circumstance.