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

[Crit]

But what impact does devilish heritage really have? People have stated that it's "unfair" to have prejudice against their PCs. So what does that leave? Looking funny? Well, you look funny because of the horns. An excuse to be emo? I mean, your PC concept may fit tiefling well, that doesn't mean it couldn't be done using a variety of races.

So if you take personality, goals, attitudes away, it comes back to ... what? I don't have a problem if someone wants to play a tiefling in settings where they're allowed, but anyone saying they can't play the character they want if tieflings are not allowed seems like overkill and ignoring that they can get 99% of the way there.

It leaves an awful lot of plot potential. Having a deep, foundational magical resonance to the campaign's villains can be played with in many ways. Maybe Devils are more amicable (or more hostile) to you in particular. Maybe the presence of Devils in the realm indirectly benefits the Tiefling PC in some way, socially or magically. It can be taken in as many ways as a DM can imagine. Tieflings are to Fiends what Gith are to Psionics. The connection is just more present. Granted, you can technically heavily manipulate any race into the shoes of a Tiefling, but at that rate, Tieflings are in your setting. What defines Tieflings if not what they've inherited? Are you not a Tiefling, if you are the spawn of a fiend, regardless of if you're a dwarf too?

 

[Azzy]

okay so if chewie is what is the desired end state what would make it more practical to generate such character?

Play in a bilingual group and when you speak in character, use the language that the rest of the group isn't using, lol.

 

[Azzy]

I'm not saying its the desired end state, I am saying that if we are looking at 'alien' or 'monstrous' or 'weird', then my preference, would be that if one is so wildly divergent from the norm (Human/Elf/Dwarf/Assimar/Tiefling as it should be, etc) then...it should be wildly divergent from the norm.

As the post outlines, despite Chewie being able to function within the party/group, he's not that far off in manerisms from a more beast like creature.

It speaks to what I have mentioned a few times. There is nothing in the current implementation outside the (imo) comical 'I'm in a Devil Costume' appearance since 4e that could not be handled in another race, through RP, at least nothing to convince me.

Not picking on FrozenNorth at all, but since they are one who provided a list...

I want to be an outcast for my heritage. - Not race specific.
I want to be a hunter of my own kind. - Not race specific.
I want to be an atoner for the sins of my forefathers. - Not race specific.
I want to be a charming sophisticate pining for Bael Turath. - Culture call out, but has zero to do with view on the race until the 4e changes.
I want to play a character that leverage devilish heritage and high Charisma to intimidate people. - Not race specific.
I want to have a cool rivalry and banter with the party dragonborn. - Not race specific.
I like horns - Bingo.

To me, and again this is just ME, Tieflings are no more a distinct race, than any of the normal races. They are not remotely close to our example of Chewie, and so yes they are just part of the 'human-esque' races, to me.

Even Dragonborn, are going to fall in that camp.

Why?

Because I highly highly doubt people are going to pull off RP as Chewie, and not have the table devolve into 'what are you trying to say lol'.

So I get it, but again to me it continues in D&D to boil down to 'I want to look different'. Not judging anyone for that, at all. Not saying you cannot love Dragons, and want to be a Dragonborn because of your love for Dragons, but if Dragonborn were humans with some scales around their temples, lizard like eyes, or some claws, would it be as much as an issue as this 234 page thread has made it out to be?

I doubt it.

"What is the appeal" - They look different. Thats just it for me, as far as how they are currently implemented. If Dragonborn were more like Chewie, and a person had to try and bring that animalistic behavior, lack of ability to communicate in Common (or English) and really go all in? It would be a different matter, to me.

Not throwing hate at anyone, just saying that after all this discussion, thats all I'm seeing.

Well, if you want to be absolutely reductionist, you can do that with all races (including humans). ¯\(ツ)/¯

 

[Oofta]

Play in a bilingual group and when you speak in character, use the language that the rest of the group isn't using, lol.

Ancay ouyay peaksay igpay atinlay? Because that, sadly is as close as I'll get. My high school spanish teacher would be very dissapointed.

 

[Oofta]

bad formatting

 

[Azzy]

Ancay ouyay peaksay igpay atinlay? Because that, sadly is as close as I'll get. My high school spanish teacher would be very dissapointed.

Yeah. Mine, too. And my Latin teacher. If only I had the diligence then that I have now.

 

[Oofta]

It leaves an awful lot of plot potential. Having a deep, foundational magical resonance to the campaign's villains can be played with in many ways. Maybe Devils are more amicable (or more hostile) to you in particular. Maybe the presence of Devils in the realm indirectly benefits the Tiefling PC in some way, socially or magically. It can be taken in as many ways as a DM can imagine. Tieflings are to Fiends what Gith are to Psionics. The connection is just more present. Granted, you can technically heavily manipulate any race into the shoes of a Tiefling, but at that rate, Tieflings are in your setting. What defines Tieflings if not what they've inherited? Are you not a Tiefling, if you are the spawn of a fiend, regardless of if you're a dwarf too?

That assumes that fiends are central to the campaign. They rarely are in my campaigns (although I do use their stats and change the fluff).

Besides, that could still be handled by a background feature. I had a human PC that had been promised to dark forces by his father for example.

It doesn't matter to me if you want to play a tiefling and you're DM agrees. I'm just saying that there is nothing particularly unique about a tiefling from an RP standpoint. Mechanically they have some nice features.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Which is why I said it would be great if I could have my cake and eat it too.

I could conceive of a world that had far more races, it's just not the campaign world I've developed over the decades. There's also never been a big demand to extend allowed races even though many of my players were recruited from public games which allow any and all races. Since I always have a full group I see no reason to change. Which is no reflection on you, your preferences or your game.

In addition, not caring about "depth" is neither inherently good nor bad. It's just a different preference.

Funny thing is I regularly go out of my way to say that other people's styles are perfectly fine, only to get a response like this that seems to almost willfully misinterpret what I said. Maybe it was my use of "have my cake and eat it too"? But there have been a ton of posts that say a DM is wrong if they limit races for "the wrong reasons". Those wrong reasons seem to often be in the eye of the beholder.

If you can have over a hundred races and it makes sense to you, great. I'm not sure how that works, but if you and your group have fun with it you're doing it right. I don't know how to state it any more clearly. Having a preference and a style does not invalidate or say that you preference and style is wrong.

As per what I told you in the other thread.

You seem to only hold that belief until it is challenged, ie a valid style of DnD play being "a board game" and "not DnD" just because you don't like it.

Which makes it harder to believe that when you say that for your world you find these things lead to increased depth, more complete histories, and better expeirences, but that is just because you prefer that style and everyone's entitled to their own opinion, that you actually are holding to these beliefs and not just paying lip service to them.

I mean, maybe you do, but I can't tell that anymore.

 

[Guest 6801328]

As per what I told you in the other thread.

You seem to only hold that belief until it is challenged, ie a valid style of DnD play being "a board game" and "not DnD" just because you don't like it.

Which makes it harder to believe that when you say that for your world you find these things lead to increased depth, more complete histories, and better expeirences, but that is just because you prefer that style and everyone's entitled to their own opinion, that you actually are holding to these beliefs and not just paying lip service to them.

I mean, maybe you do, but I can't tell that anymore.

I'll chime in to say that "like a board game" itself is pretty open to subjective interpretation. For example, in the many debates about using abilities/skills to overcome challenges, the old-school approach that I've heard Oofta defend ("I roll Insight....18." "It seems like he's telling the truth.") would be my very definition of "like a board game".

 

[Chaosmancer]

Context matters. It will be clear from my context that I'm not using it that way. If the reader refuses to see past their bias and understand what is written, that's not my fault.

"When you put the races from all the books 5e has released so far together, you have a veritable Cantina of races. Love it!"

How am I responsible if someone takes that pejoratively?

I am utterly flabbergasted by this continued refusal to take responsibility for your own communication.

Look, if you were in a thread where that phrase had never come up, and it hadn't been used negatively, and your first usage of it was meant to be positive, then I'd have some sympathy for this position.

The term had been used pejoratively in this thread, repeatedly, and it is a term used perjoratively in this ENWorld community, repeatedly. And the only reason we are debating this, is because after @Hussar said that the saw the term negatively, because it was used negatively in this forum and this thread, repeatedly, @Scott Christian started getting bitter about how he didn't mean it negatively and that it shouldn't be taken negatively, and it isn't his fault Hussar is refusing to see the other side.

And yet... the other side is fairly clear. He might not have meant it negatively, but since it had been used that way, REPEATEDLY, then Hussar is not some short-sighted individual who is easily offended. He simply reacted to the term as it had been used previously. It isn't his fault that Scott seems to have taken offense to that fact that he communicated poorly