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

[Chaosmancer]

Actually, it sounds like Shakespeare.

"Two households, both alike in dignity,
In fair Verona, where we lay our scene,
From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,
Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean."

Huh, I thought I remembered a reason given, but that most of been one of the adaptions.

I'd have to dig into the whys, but Shakespeares work was often subtly based around political themes or satire. It is possible he feared that any reason given for two noble houses to be at war would have made members of his elite audience think he was referencing a specific set of nobility, thus landing him in hot water.

After all, it wouldn't have been the first or last time someone used characters as allegory for other people.

 

[Hussar]

Strawman.

View attachment 131140

Hey, you're the one who said it. And, note, I'm not the only one who called you out for it. If that's not what you meant, then you need to be clearer because at least three people (myself included) took it to mean exactly what I said.

 

[Azzy]

Derivative knockoff of Pyramus and Thisbe. Lazy writing.

Heh, I had read Pyramus and Thisbe before I read Romeo and Juliet. So, I havr always drawn that comparison.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Yes, that’s all we “need”, and even that is just bonus knowledge, like that in the appendixes.

So all we need is the thing I was told was wrong and we shouldn't consider?

Well, kind of odd for you to jump into the discussion now.

Who said anything about nuance? The book needed moments of levity and escape from the building tension, moments of fun more than it needed an explanation for something that doesn’t matter in any way that more information would add anything to.
The story of Gimli and Legolas doesn’t rely in any way on knowing anything beyond what is in the trilogy.

That song happens in Chapter 5.

We are still in "dark foreboding hints" territory, not sure we really needed a moment of levity yet.

And you are right the story of Gimli and Legolas doesn't need this detail, because they have the story from the Hobbit, but the relationship between them is supposed to be because of all Elves and all Dwarves. Which we don't have an explanation for in the original trilogy.

Which means when people copied and pasted it over, there was no explanation.

shrug. You are advocating rules that aren’t valid as rules.

Actually they are.

Sure, you can always point to a great author or two who breaks those rules, but just because they can do it doesn't mean that the rule doesn't exist.

And just because you don't like my opinion, you are slamming my talent as a writer. You've never read my works, and I won't claim to be as good as the greats, but that doesn't mean my work is worthless.

That isn’t confusion, it’s just...not having an answer. Good storytelling leaves some questions unanswered, at least within a given work.

You know bad storytelling does that to.

That's how we get critiques of things not making sense, because the writer didn't connect all the dots.... which is exactly what I'm talking about here.

Not in the least.

False.

Nonsense.

Dude, if you are going to be this bullheaded about it and refuse to budge an inch, just stop responding.

Because no, it isn't false. Hatred cannot exist without a reason for hatred. Babies don't hate people. And it isn't nonsense if you have a character with no reason to do something doing something just because plot, you are not thinking through your characters.

 

[Hussar]

See, this notion that the PHB races are so dominant isn't really born out. Look at the D&D Beyond stats:

The PHB races account for about 60% of characters. But, that means that about a third of the characters being made are "weird races". Assimar and Aaracokra are just as popular as hill dwarves. Mountain dwarves just barely crack the top ten. And tieflings and dragonborn are both more popular than any Tolkienesque race. Heck, people lost their minds in 4e when gnomes got cut, but, looking at this, gnomes are about as popular as tabaxi or changelings.

Playing "weird" races isn't some tiny niche of players. It's a good chunk of players and pretty common. To the point of probably averaging one or two in every group. That's not rare. That's not unusual. That's pretty much standard when your numbers are that high.

 

[Chaosmancer]

That's incorrect. There is almost surely a reason why they hate each other. You just do not know that reason. The reason is also almost surely NOT "because they hate each other."

It doesn't sound like either to me. A little something would be better, but it's not necessary.

Except that there IS a reason. You just don't know it.

"There is a reason, you don't know it" does not cover you as a writer. Much like a DM's notes, until it is in front of the reader, any background details like that don't exist.

That is why you constantly get a stream of "Why? This doesn't make any sense" when dealing with movies and books that do not provide the proper context for characters, actions and plot. Because if the context was there, it would make sense. Assuming it must make sense with the proper context doesn't help the reader, because the author's job is to provide that context.

 

[Oofta]

See, this notion that the PHB races are so dominant isn't really born out. Look at the D&D Beyond stats:

The PHB races account for about 60% of characters. But, that means that about a third of the characters being made are "weird races". Assimar and Aaracokra are just as popular as hill dwarves. Mountain dwarves just barely crack the top ten. And tieflings and dragonborn are both more popular than any Tolkienesque race. Heck, people lost their minds in 4e when gnomes got cut, but, looking at this, gnomes are about as popular as tabaxi or changelings.

Playing "weird" races isn't some tiny niche of players. It's a good chunk of players and pretty common. To the point of probably averaging one or two in every group. That's not rare. That's not unusual. That's pretty much standard when your numbers are that high.

So I'm confused. Weren't you the one complaining that DMs didn't allow so-called weird races? But if DMs don't allow them, how are they being played?

 

[Hussar]

Hehe - new thread title - "In defense of plot holes".

 

[Hussar]

So I'm confused. Weren't you the one complaining that DMs didn't allow so-called weird races? But if DMs don't allow them, how are they being played?

That's fair. Apparently, they are allowed pretty often. Then again, that wasn't really my issue. Banning stuff is fine. Banning stuff because you personally happen not to like it and forcing that preference onto players simply because you happen to be DM? Not so fine.

 

[Oofta]

That's fair. Apparently, they are allowed pretty often. Then again, that wasn't really my issue. Banning stuff is fine. Banning stuff because you personally happen not to like it and forcing that preference onto players simply because you happen to be DM? Not so fine.

Different people have different reasons. When I get invited to join a game, it's up to the DM to create the world (unless they explicitly ask for input) and set restrictions. They're doing more work than I will as a player so they can do what makes sense to them. If what they're doing doesn't work for me I'll go somewhere else.