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

[ppaladin123]

I've been playing D&D for 30 years. During that time I have played dozens of humans/dwarves/elves/haflings. I have also absorbed countless books and video games about humans/dwarves/elves/halflings. I am recently having fun trying out some dragonpeople, lizardpeople, catpeople, and birdpeople. Variety is the spice of life.

 

[SiCK_Boy]

Why do you assume they are playing in a human-centric world? When I have heavily mixed groups I typically assume the rest of the world is the same. It is typically a humanoid-centric, but not human-centric

Because the games I've played in or DMed in were mostly set in the Forgotten Realms, which is mostly human-centric. It's also the assumed default baseline from the PHB.

Others have pointed out the importance of setting and the feeling of the setting in regards to how races are used and portrayed, and I agree with this.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that playing uncommon (as per PHB definition) races is bad or futile; just saying that I do share a number of the questions that the OP has. I rarely see the appeal of these races, nor do I see players making a choice of an uncommon race with a significant intent to play out what it really means to be that race in that setting; it often boils down to an arbitrary choice dictated by the mechanical bonus the race gives (which is not a bad reason either to choose a race).

But kudos to those who enjoy it.

 

[Hexmage-EN]

Personally, my favorite race to play is the gnome (specifically the deep or forest gnome). I imagine them as enthusiastically obsessive on certain topics. I'm currently playing a variant human for the extra feat, but if that character dies I've got a forest gnome conjurer ready.

As for more exotic races, they aren't that weird to me because 1) lots of strange, intelligent crearures exist in D&D settings, so at least some of these have to have been accepted by society at large, and 2) one of the first video game RPGs I ever played, Breath of Fire, includes ox, wolf, dog, frog, mole, monkey, armadillo, cat, fish, etc people as members of the party (the fish people are essentially the primary trade merchants of this world, BTW, making trade sea vessels largely unnecessary).

I think playing a minotaur might be fun. 4E's lore for minotaurs sold civilized members of the species to be very lawful and concerned with rejecting the influence of the demon lord Baphomet to the point that they as an extension have also rejected nature, fearing that being in touch with nature could pull out their more animalistic side and make them vulnerable to Baphomet's influence (so minotaur barbarians and druids would be pariahs). Mazes were depicted as a symbolic means of meditation and self-reflection on what it means to be a minotaur and how one must avoid traveling down the paths that lead to savagery.

 

[Umbran]

I get that some people want to "explore" other perspectives, but do we really do that in any meaningful way? We are limited by life experience, biology and built-in unconscious biases, limited in our ability to take on an alien perspective.

"We cannmot do it perfectly, so why do it at all," is not a strong position. Plus, why does what we do at the table needs to be "meaningful". Why can't it just be fun?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Because the games I've played in or DMed in were mostly set in the Forgotten Realms, which is mostly human-centric. It's also the assumed default baseline from the PHB.

I really wouldn't characterise Forgotten Realms as 'human centric' at all. Sure, the humans are the most common race, but FR is an incoherent kitchen sink hodgepodge, which has always had a lot of prominent non-human cultures.

 

[Zardnaar]

I don't do carte blanche okay what you want of the weirdo races.

I do try and rotate a few of them in and make them relevant a'la Muks, Kreen in Darksun.

 

[dave2008]

Because the games I've played in or DMed in were mostly set in the Forgotten Realms, which is mostly human-centric. It's also the assumed default baseline from the PHB.

I disagree that the assumed baseline is Forgotten Realms, or did you mean the assumed baseline is human-centric? If so, I'm not sure, I don't remember anything particularly human-centric in the PHB. However, I would probably reflexively ignore if it was there anyway.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that playing uncommon (as per PHB definition) races is bad or futile; just saying that I do share a number of the questions that the OP has. I rarely see the appeal of these races, nor do I see players making a choice of an uncommon race with a significant intent to play out what it really means to be that race in that setting; it often boils down to an arbitrary choice dictated by the mechanical bonus the race gives (which is not a bad reason either to choose a race).

Not sure this is your intent, but I just wanted to point out the you can enjoy playing a different race and still have no desire to explore what it "really means" or want a mechanical advantage. Most of the players that I've seen play non-standard races simply want to imagine themselves as those creatures. If all races had they same stats they would still want to play a dragonborn, because they want to imagine themselves as a dragon.

 

[Undrave]

Sometimes you DO just want to wear a costume with funky power.

But I've never seen anyone in my games really play out the implications of a non-human race in a human-centric world.

What kind of implications? If you're talking about racism... from what I read people who experience racism in real life don't really feel like playing it out in their fantasy game.

Different people like different things?

Now personally I think that the intelligent species of the setting are a big part of its flavour and not every race will thematically fit every setting. I'd treat the official rules as a toolbox, and when building a I'd world pick and choose which ones make sense for that setting. For my current one I ended up altering many of the existing races and creating some new ones.

Indeed. If you're creating a custom setting anyway, might as well let the PC's choice dictate what is common or not in your custom setting. Instead of having Elves in the woods and Dwarves in the mountains, you got Tabaxi and Goliath, for exemple. If nobody is playing Elves then they don't exist in your setting, plain and simple A bit like how the M:TG settings work.

Why do you assume they are playing in a human-centric world? When I have heavily mixed groups I typically assume the rest of the world is the same. It is typically a humanoid-centric, but not human-centric

What he said.

 

[Charlaquin]

Well this is a good point. I don't use feats.

So if you eliminate feats, players take weirdo classes that grant them feat-like abilities, instead. So humans are rare and weirdo flying, swimming, animal PC become common. Because they need the weirdo special abilities. In the absence of feats, players need super powers.

Yeah, how dare players want cool abilities their characters can use in an RPG! So entitled!

It is a weird game to play. This whole magice is everywhere/phycics are everyhere, fend for our selves issse will never resolve.

I have no idea what this means.

No feats. So variant humans don't exist. Feats are optional and should not be considered in balancing the game.

Eh, if you don’t allow them you shouldn’t consider them in balancing the game. People who do allow them should.

I don't run with feats. Feats are the worst thing that has ever happened to D&D. The idea of character building has ruined the game.

Citation needed.

Mountain Dwarf is kind of cool as a semi-melee wizard. (As it should be). Different races give strengths and weaknesses as they should. Make choice of race meaningful. The way it was supports a drawback. A mountain dwarf can be built as a potential melee wizard, but they have a limitation and a debilitation.

To remove such makes choice of race meaningless.

You know, I hear this idea that race choice is only meaningful if (insert criteria here) a lot... from DMs. Almost never from players. Seems to me, if the choice matters to the players, then it matters. Period.

 

[MGibster]

I get that some people want to "explore" other perspectives, but do we really do that in any meaningful way? We are limited by life experience, biology and built-in unconscious biases, limited in our ability to take on an alien perspective.

I'm of the mind that most depictions of fantasy races, at least those for designed for players to use, are not particularly alien nor are they meant to be. And that's fine. You can still use fantasy races to explore different perspectives and maintain plausible deniability that you're doing so. Science fiction writers have been doing that for years.