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

[Minigiant]

IME that is because they are unusual so you need a backstory reason why they are among the more typical races in the world--otherwise it makes no sense for them to be there.

If they were part of the status quo, I doubt people would develop strong backstories for them, either. Otherwise, it is more likely just player dependent I would think?

Why?

IME people who pick traditional or typical races tend to develop their PCs history and personality as the world interacts with them. If the DM doesn't offer a world primer or the setting isn't published, thePC of common races start of as stereotypes of their race/class/background and grow from there.

Why can't a player of an atypical race PC do the same and make up a character as they go?
Why must the dragonborn, hippoman, or rockface justify their existence, but the human, dwarf and elf don't?

Which goes back to my point that people are more likely to RP a traditional race flat than an exotic one.

 

[Scott Christian]

Why?

IME people who pick traditional or typical races tend to develop their PCs history and personality as the world interacts with them. If the DM doesn't offer a world primer or the setting isn't published, thePC of common races start of as stereotypes of their race/class/background and grow from there.

Why can't a player of an atypical race PC do the same and make up a character as they go?
Why must the dragonborn, hippoman, or rockface justify their existence, but the human, dwarf and elf don't?

Which goes back to my point that people are more likely to RP a traditional race flat than an exotic one.

I don't think anyone in here is saying they can't. What they are saying is that it has to match the setting. There needs to be some type of logic. And part of that logic is how the setting interacts with the PC. So they can justify their existence, but if it makes every time they walk into a town or city a bizarre sideshow of adulation or fascination or consternation then it just gets old and takes away from the other players.

So a DM that is using FR, say Ten Towns, can do one of two things: ignore it or have the setting react. These are people that are sacrificing (at least one town) other humanoids to appease the god. You don't think they would logically turn to the strange outcast that is half elephant?

 

[Zardnaar]

I didn't know that.
I know it's famous for the tortoises, can vaguely point to it on the globe, & assume I can Google anything else about it if ever needed. (prior to Google I'd have defaulted to books)

I think they're the only penguins in the northern hemisphere.
There's a cold current that runs up the side of western South America.

Been looking at the Nazca lines and Atacama desert for some D&D ideas.

And the bird world idea I mentioned earlier. Penguins are mafia types a'la Madagascar movies.

 

[Charlaquin]

Yet I have never seen these exotic races played as anything other than human in behavior. Not one cat person that I've seen played has gone chasing an arrow that missed him or hacked up a hair ball for example. Why play a cat person if you are just going to play a human anyway?

There are other cat behaviors a cat person might emulate. Also, cat people are people as well as cats. One of the most interesting thing about playing anthropomorphic animal characters is working out what elements of the animal’s behavior might translate over to such a species, and in what ways it might express itself.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't think anyone in here is saying they can't. What they are saying is that it has to match the setting. There needs to be some type of logic. And part of that logic is how the setting interacts with the PC. So they can justify their existence, but if it makes every time they walk into a town or city a bizarre sideshow of adulation or fascination or consternation then it just gets old and takes away from the other players.

Then that begs the question
If the race doesn't match the setting, why is it allowed?
Why is the townfolk of every town in a kitchen sink setting so shocked by a frogman? Wouldn't they know of frogmen? Or wouldn't rumors of a lone frogman adventurer reach them?

To me, it's better to ban the race than include them halfway.

So a DM that is using FR, say Ten Towns, can do one of two things: ignore it or have the setting react. These are people that are sacrificing (at least one town) other humanoids to appease the god. You don't think they would logically turn to the strange outcast that is half elephant?

I for one as a normal villager would not be attempting to anger then move close to the giant elephant man.
But that's one of many reasons why I don't DM FR.

 

[Maxperson]

There are other cat behaviors a cat person might emulate. Also, cat people are people as well as cats. One of the most interesting thing about playing anthropomorphic animal characters is working out what elements of the animal’s behavior might translate over to such a species, and in what ways it might express itself.

Absolutely. My point is that I see ZERO elements of the animal's behavior get translated over. I see cat human, dragon human, etc. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, but it doesn't strike me as more interesting than elf human, dwarf human, etc.

Of course, now I want to play a cat person who hacks up a hairball while talking to the King.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Wow, this thread is humming along! Let's see...

Possibly, but I don't run published settings, nor do I have many preconceived ideas about the campaign world.

I don't run many published settings either (and frankly often throw the setting out and just use the actual "adventure" if any), but I do have more of a developed homebrew world I run most of my games in. If you treat each session zero as its own unique setting, that works well then but I generally don't.

Why?

IME people who pick traditional or typical races tend to develop their PCs history and personality as the world interacts with them. If the DM doesn't offer a world primer or the setting isn't published, thePC of common races start of as stereotypes of their race/class/background and grow from there.

Why can't a player of an atypical race PC do the same and make up a character as they go?
Why must the dragonborn, hippoman, or rockface justify their existence, but the human, dwarf and elf don't?

Which goes back to my point that people are more likely to RP a traditional race flat than an exotic one.

For established races that are more typical, it is simple enough to say, "My character is from [blank] and so and so," as where an "exotic" race requires more effort to place them in the current setting for the adventure. Since my established world is mostly with the common races, playing an unusual race is usually permitted, but I need a reason why you're there. That being said, certain races are much more likely to be present in a region depending on the race, even unusual ones.

Then that begs the question
If the race doesn't match the setting, why is it allowed?
Why is the townfolk of every town in a kitchen sink setting so shocked by a frogman? Wouldn't they know of frogmen? Or wouldn't rumors of a lone frogman adventurer reach them?

To me, it's better to ban the race than include them halfway.

Because banning them entirely is against the "fun" of the player, so I try to be accommodating unless I feel it is a game balance issue (like the Warforged). 90% of the time, working with the player, we can come up with a reason for them to be there--BUT I make sure they understand they ARE unusual and will be reacted to accordingly (curiosity, mistrust, interest, or whatever depending on the reaction roll and the PC's actions).

The frogmen people might have been heard of, or maybe not, maybe a local sage will take interest and want to encourage the frogman to stay and tell about his people? Or maybe the locals will fear the frogman because some curse or illness has come to the region and they are seeking a scapegoat? When the frogman and his friends save the locals, the PCs become heroes and word of the frogman spreads. Who knows... the story will unfold.

FWIW the most extreme example is the "stranger in a strange land" scenario--where the unusual race is literally alien to the setting and somehow was transported there and is trying to make due until they find a way home.

 

[Charlaquin]

Absolutely. My point is that I see ZERO elements of the animal's behavior get translated over. I see cat human, dragon human, etc. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, but it doesn't strike me as more interesting than elf human, dwarf human, etc.

My experience is quite different. I’ve played in a game with a Tabaxi who was obsessed with trying to eat my character, who was technically a changeling but was imitating a Kenku at the time. He would get distracted by small, fast-moving objects or animals. He was aloof. I have a Vulpin character I play in a Humblewood campaign (currently on hiatus) whose personality and mannerisms are inspired both by actual fox behavior and by European fox folklore. I have a gnoll character concept on hold to play in the next campaign after the Humblewood one who has many elements of her behavior and backstory based on extensive research on hyenas. My partner has a ratfolk character who comes from a huge family, is very skittish, loves collecting interesting objects, and keeps a supply of licorice root specifically to gnaw on to keep his front teeth from growing too long.

If you haven’t seen animal behaviors in anthropomorphic animal characters, either you or the people you’re playing with probably don’t know enough about the animals you’re anthropomorphizing. Try playing with some furries some time if you want to see anthro characters who integrate real animal behaviors into their characters in thoughtful and interesting ways.

Of course, now I want to play a cat person who hacks up a hairball while talking to the King.

That would be hilarious.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Of course, now I want to play a cat person who hacks up a hairball while talking to the King.

It wasn't a King, but our Tabaxi Monk hacked up one in front of the head of a monastery the PCs were visiting. Does that count?

(FWIW, it was a "fumbled" Charisma check--he got nervous and cough cough cough ---hack (splat) right on the flagstone floor.)

EDIT: I'll add that IF you play the unusual races as "not human" it makes it fun (but I wouldn't want to play these races all the time).

Our Tabaxi Monk also has a phobia of water-- to the point where he wouldn't swim across a river to help the rest of us. He also got distracted by an arrow that he missile deflected-- he started playing with the feathers.

Our Tortle Monk, despite having the best walking speed in the group, acts and speaks like he is SO SLOOOOOWWWWWWWWW all the time. Once he also went into his shell and rolled down some stairs into a group of thugs, then erupted out of it the next round and kicked their butts.

My Aarakocra Monk has proficiency in Jewelers' Tools and often gets excited when we find shiny gem stones, etc., asking the others to let him take stones for his collection before other treasures-- even magical items. He cleans and polishes them and values them for the beauty, not their gp worth.

So, you can go as strange as you want, but I agree if you are playing anything other than human, try to portray that race as you view them instead of just a human in a mask.

 

[Minigiant]

Because banning them entirely is against the "fun" of the player, so I try to be accommodating unless I feel it is a game balance issue (like the Warforged). 90% of the time, working with the player, we can come up with a reason for them to be there--BUT I make sure they understand they ARE unusual and will be reacted to accordingly (curiosity, mistrust, interest, or whatever depending on the reaction roll and the PC's actions).

The frogmen people might have been heard of, or maybe not, maybe a local sage will take interest and want to encourage the frogman to stay and tell about his people? Or maybe the locals will fear the frogman because some curse or illness has come to the region and they are seeking a scapegoat? When the frogman and his friends save the locals, the PCs become heroes and word of the frogman spreads. Who knows... the story will unfold.

My point is why allow a race but not fully incorporate it into your world as the other races.

What I am seeing is DMs allowing a race into their setting to be "nice" then being "upset" that the race has no history, connections, and effects on the setting which ruins the tone. A whole nation of walking talking elephants should have an effect on the setting. Even in the distant places that still have regular communication to the outside would.

But I am a born and raised New Yorker. Strange things bother me a lot less.