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

[Mecheon]

I wish I had something good going for hobgoblins in my setting, but, yeah, I've just taken mostly from Eberron.

Now, another race that needs more spotlight? Minotaurs. Mythological history to them, victim of a curse, incredibly easy to switch the myth around given what a collosal naughty word Theseus is (yes i've been playing Hades recently why do you ask) and unlike say, Gorgons like Medusa, is just a bit tough dude with a bull head.

I pile on Dragonlance endlessly but I'll give it credit it did minotaurs well and they really should just lean into that and bring them to the forefront.

 

[Mind of tempest]

I wish I had something good going for hobgoblins in my setting, but, yeah, I've just taken mostly from Eberron.

Now, another race that needs more spotlight? Minotaurs. Mythological history to them, victim of a curse, incredibly easy to switch the myth around given what a collosal naughty word Theseus is (yes i've been playing Hades recently why do you ask) and unlike say, Gorgons like Medusa, is just a bit tough dude with a bull head.

I pile on Dragonlance endlessly but I'll give it credit it did minotaurs well and they really should just lean into that and bring them to the forefront.

I was to young to ever play dragonlance but from what I gather they did minotaurs well, they struggle with the other large strong guy races (likely why dwarves are played less as well.) it would help if a setting had a couple different minotaur civilsations who were really different but still had a fundimental minotaurness to them, you know?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

HOBGOBLINS!

A whole race of warriors. Not just revering warriors like dwarves but the whole nation is an army.

How does someone not get the appeal of being Army Guy but cranked up to 100? Games Workshop pays their light bills with that appeal alone.

tlhIngan maH

 

[Mind of tempest]

tlhIngan maH

what does that mean?

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I have always wanted a setting with every race in, it is treated like a proper civilization not just glorified bandits

In my world hobgoblins are on par with the other civilized races. The dedicate much of their resources to having a well trained professional army with cutting edge tech to back it up.

They are militaristic but not necessarily downright evil.

Basically they are Prussia/WW2 Germany.

 

[tetrasodium]

I don't think you get to speak for or about "players" other than yourself or that you have personally encountered.


And, like in all previous editions, what's in the PHB does not matter when it comes to specific settings. Want the drow in your setting to be fuchia and worship Zuggtmoy? Go right ahead. In Eberron, for example, drow are different from the way that they are presented in the PHB. Tieflings, too. What's in the PHB is geared towards "stock D&D" (aka, the Forgotten Realms) and is a jumping off point that DMs and players can adhere to or depart from.

I dont think you get to dismiss what people say about players because they dont specify "players" to a fine enough pool for your personal tastes .... since you bring up prior editions 5e is especially setting specific both in core books and nearly all of wotc's publications for that setting. If "what's in the core books does not matter" then fans of FR wouldn't defend it with the strength they defend it whenever someone points at it being the wrong place for such a deeply setting specific style

 

[Hussar]

One hundred percent. I may be missing an example from one poster on this forum who used it negatively. (I certainly do not remember one, but I may be missing it.) But, when I use it surrounded by positive connotations, it should be taken as such. Not automatically distorted to be negative. That is what I asked the reader to do. I do not believe it is too difficult considering the intelligence housed in this forum.

You're missing the point.

I'm sure that you meant it positively. But, the point I was trying to make was that it is so ingrained in people's minds that "non-standard" races are "weird" and bad, that you used a very negative term to describe a positive thing. You couldn't even describe a positive thing - a fun game - without using negative language. Intentional or not, it is rather telling that your first "go to" comparison is a negative one, regardless of whether the experience was positive or not.

 

[Hussar]

I would ask this question again:
Why should the posters on here be beholden to a post written ten years ago? Yes. It is used negatively. It is written by someone not even in this discussion. Why not take the context of what these speakers are saying, rather than holding onto some random post from ten years ago?

I would also add, the writer there is trying to be entertaining. When people write for entertainment, they say a lot of silly things. Many of the times, they don't even mean them. An example of this would be every single comedian on earth.

Because it wasn't "just one post". It is something that has been repeated over and over and over again. As in nearly every single time someone uses the phrase, "cantina scene" in comparison to a D&D game, it is 99.9% of the time, a negative comparison meaning that the game is shallow, stupid, insipid, unbelievable, and a host of other negative words.

It is not a "single post". It is something that has been repeated over and over again, going back for more than a decade. I get that you may have used it in ignorance, but, instead of choosing a different phrase, you're trying to ignore history.

 

[Azzy]

I dont think you get to dismiss what people say about players because they dont specify "players" to a fine enough pool for your personal tastes ....

As long as you make it sound like you're talking about players everywhere, you're going to get called out on it.

since you bring up prior editions 5e is especially setting specific both in core books and nearly all of wotc's publications for that setting. If "what's in the core books does not matter" then fans of FR wouldn't defend it with the strength they defend it whenever someone points at it being the wrong place for such a deeply setting specific style

I don't give a damn about what "fans of FR" supposedly do or do not (there is no try). (I should also note that the fluff for tieflings in the PHB isn't quite the same as for those in the FR—heck, even the fluff in Volo's and Mordenkainen's sometimes contradict the lore of the FR.) Past editions also have fluff information for the races in their PHBs. From 2e, "Dwarves like the earth and dislike the sea. Not overly fond of elves, they have a fierce hatred of orcs and goblins.". Something that is not true of all settings. The PHB presents some basic fluff (you'll note that the fluff becomes more longwinded as each edition is published—fluff that doesn't always fit with all (or any) setting. It's a jumping-off point, something to fall back on if you're not using a published setting and don't want to put in a lot of effort to homebrew a setting. What it isn't is a chain to bind you.

 

[Hussar]

While I don't disagree with you, others have said that discrimination against a race is wrong. I would be hesitant to do much prejudice in my campaign (there is some) but it's pretty minor Pg-13 and very situational.

So if you allow tieflings and you think there should be that kind of prejudice, make sure the player knows about it ahead of time.

No. @Oofta, again, you are making baseless comments without any actual support. No one has said this.