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

[el-remmen]

In my homebrew setting, I have a full nation of hobbos that engages in things like trade and commerce (as well as a bit of colonialism and conquest). I haven't been able to buy that hobgoblins wouldn't build their own civilization given that they are as intelligent and capable as humans and other races and are obviously inclined towards law, division of labor, religion, heirarchies, and other building blocks of civilization.

Mine too. They are a matriarchal militaristic society that slowly becoming known for their elite mercenaries they hire out (but that are also a ploy for infiltrating other nations and send back info for conquest).

No hobgoblin PCs yet though.

 

[Voadam]

Kingdoms of Kalamar has multiple kingdoms of hobgoblins and a whole 160 page sourcebook dedicated to them.

 

[Oofta]

I think it's fair to say that several of your posts, especially your earlier ones were worded to suggest that the act of limiting races, by itself, results in better worldbuilding (more consistent, more believable, deeper, more cultured, possessing history).

Your stance since then had gotten considerably milder and brought in more context.

Tone and meaning are easily lost. I do have preferences. I am opinionated. Having limited races (including naturally occurring monstrous ones) works better for me. I personally have a hard time taking settings like FR as seriously in part because of how many races they allow. But even if I think something is silly it does not mean I think someone else is silly for enjoying it. I mean, I don't enjoy Jim Carrey in general (some of his movies are okay when he's more grounded), but that doesn't mean I lose all respect for someone who loves Ace Ventura Pet Detective.

But that's my hang-up and no one else's. Well, that and the fact that I sometimes forget A) how seriously some people take this and B) people can't tell when I'm using my sarcastic voice. Which is quite frequently.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'll save you the trouble.


I assume the phrase "I don't want my towns looking like they're getting ready to enter Mos Eisley's cantina." is the problem. I don't see how that is insulting in any way, especially when I follow up with "Even with standard PHB races (no dragonborn or drow) it feels like there are already too many species to me. "

I have a preference and an opinion. I expressed what I don't want, I never said anyone was wrong for wanting anything else.

It is not just that phrase. Nor just that post, though it drips throughout with the spurious notion that many races leads to only "wacky fun time" games, and more serious games require a reduction in the available options.

 

[Oofta]

It is not just that phrase. Nor just that post, though it drips throughout with the spurious notion that many races leads to only "wacky fun time" games, and more serious games require a reduction in the available options.

What do you want me to say? I'm not sorry if you can't accept that I simply have a different opinion and preference than you do. I can't help it if you read things into the post that aren't meant. You can have a serious campaign with a hundred races, you can have a silly campaign with only humans.

Maybe my post could have been clearer. But you and a couple others are like a dog with a bone no matter how often I explain myself. Want to think I'm insulting you because I don't like the same things you like? I can't stop you.

 

[Voadam]

More than a fair request. Man, I really think you would really enjoy one DM I had in Chicago. It was the cantina on steroids.

Your usage was clear to me as approvingly describing something analogous to the cantina scene, and not an insult or disparaging anyone for liking species diverse settings.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

But no, I wouldn't want to play Xragis. He sounds silly and has no grounding in a reality I could relate to. YMMV.

This is another great example of what we've been talking about. You've basically told someone that their character concept is stupid, and then tried to act like you've not done that by saying "YMMV", the most tepid of "different strokes" style statements.

 

[Oofta]

This is another great example of what we've been talking about. You've basically told someone that their character concept is stupid, and then tried to act like you've not done that by saying "YMMV", the most tepid of "different strokes" style statements.

I never said anyone else, or anyone else's ideas were stupid. I expressed what I personally like.

I can't help it if you can't tell the difference.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

What do you want me to say? I'm not sorry if you can't accept that I simply have a different opinion and preference than you do. I can't help it if you read things into the post that aren't meant. You can have a serious campaign with a hundred races, you can have a silly campaign with only humans.

Maybe my post could have been clearer. But you and a couple others are like a dog with a bone no matter how often I explain myself. Want to think I'm insulting you because I don't like the same things you like? I can't stop you.

No matter how often you "explain" yourself, you refuse to admit that you actually had anything to do with the perception created by you.

Nevermind that you are the one that took general statements about the phrasing in question and the general attitude being discussed and insisted on making the discussion about you.

 

[Scribe]

This is another great example of what we've been talking about. You've basically told someone that their character concept is stupid, and then tried to act like you've not done that by saying "YMMV", the most tepid of "different strokes" style statements.

He said silly. Not stupid?