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

[Oofta]

He said silly. Not stupid?

I said that there's nothing wrong with a campaign being silly, that's being interpreted as all campaigns that follow a specific pattern I don't care for are silly.

I can't go back in time. The post could have been clearer. I've clarified my position many, many times.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

He said silly. Not stupid?

Do you know what the word "basically" means?

 

[Shardstone]

242 pages oh my god

 

[el-remmen]

It might be time for a mod to close this and let people take their relevant sub-conversations to new threads.

 

[Scribe]

Do you know what the word "basically" means?

I don't know if English is your first language, but I've never attributed the malice associated with 'stupid' to 'silly' in my near 40 years on the planet.

They are not 'basically' the same. They are not even close.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't know if English is your first language, but I've never attributed the malice associated with 'stupid' to 'silly' in my near 40 years on the planet.

They are not 'basically' the same. They are not even close.

Then you've not paid as close attention as you might have.

 

[Scribe]

Nah, I just don't go looking to be offended.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

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.

I'm asking this because I'm trying to fully understand your particular opinion...not because I'm going to do a gotcha...

Can you give me a couple/few concrete examples of why you feel a FR campaign can't be as serious as a Core 4 campaign because it has a lot of races.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Whats the larger topic? Is it Centaur climbing a sheer face?

Its not my fault Wizards made the choice to make tieflings a very specific thing, which they then reverted for reasons.

I've been trying to figure out a few things.

1. The reason people want to play 'weird' races as per the thread title.
2. How people view the current, and previous, implementation of the tiefling race.
3. How those things apply to make tieflings a 'weird' race.

Ultimately, there is a meaningful difference, because what is 'default' and 'official' matters, more than it seems some would like to admit, and the impact of that default, can mean 'no I dont want devils in my game, they dont fit'.

That was not the issue to the same degree, before Wizards forced the default to be a 'monster' race.

I dont see NEARLY the same push back against Assimar. I wonder why.

Because Aasimar are not nearly as popular, and aren't in the Player's Handbook.

Sure, some people hate them because of their appearance, but everyone here will claim that "because they don't look human enough" is a poor reason to ban a race, and that "no one" does it. So, I have been going forward under the assumption that the appearance of the race doesn't matter.

And I can't do more than make baseless speculation on why Tieflings with green fur and cat eyes were fine in 3.5 but Teiflfings with green skin and a tail are unacceptable in 5e. My guess is that many people in this thread will say they banned them back in 3.5 too.

 

[Scribe]

Because Aasimar are not nearly as popular, and aren't in the Player's Handbook.

Sure, some people hate them because of their appearance, but everyone here will claim that "because they don't look human enough" is a poor reason to ban a race, and that "no one" does it. So, I have been going forward under the assumption that the appearance of the race doesn't matter.

And I can't do more than make baseless speculation on why Tieflings with green fur and cat eyes were fine in 3.5 but Teiflfings with green skin and a tail are unacceptable in 5e. My guess is that many people in this thread will say they banned them back in 3.5 too.

Possible. Maybe things were just different, we are talking how many years? Of course it will be different. Oh well.

In looking over and discussing things with you and others, I still don't think it should be as much an issue as it seems to be, but I have a better idea of the various perspectives.