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

[Oofta]

Pretty much. Depends on the why.

In the type of group I like to play with, the DM takes a more collaborative approach to world-building with the players. You aren't creating a setting for a novel, or even a setting to publish as a game accessory to others, but a setting to have fun with the players at your table. The more you say "no", the less collaborative and fun your game is. IMO, of course.

Most homebrew worlds I've encountered are pretty bog-standard fantasy worlds with world-building by restriction . . . which I hate. Other than "no tortles", what's different in your world that makes it worth keeping the restriction? I remember the old ads for Talislanta that advertised "No Elves" . . . it told me what wasn't in the setting, not what was unique and interesting about it. I never picked up any Talislanta books.

Now, if a DM is trying for a certain genre, tone, or truly has an interesting and unique world to invite his players into . . . I'm okay with restrictions that logically play into that. But when a DM tells me, "no dragonborn" and responds to my "Why?" with, "Because . . . . I don't like them . . . I can't be bothered to figure out how they fit . . . . dragonborn are stupid . . . ." I'm not likely to want to play in that game. Not because I don't get to play my precious "weird" race, but because I'm tired of playing with people who think good world-building is creating a list of things that don't belong.



And really, restricting "weird" races boils down to the real problem. The world isn't yours, it's a shared world with your players. Or at least, that's the DM I'd like to play with, who doesn't have control issues over the game.

Are you creating a brand new campaign world every time? Because that's not what I do, nor is it the norm in my experience.

Second, different strokes for different folks. I like to think my campaign is very collaborative in how the PCs affect the world. But shaping the world outside of personal histories? Not so much. They can make suggestions but that's all they are, suggestions.

I'm not the right DM for all people. That's fine. I'm still turning people away and I always seem to have a full table even if I would prefer a smaller group. At the same time, I've played with DMs that were decent people but they just weren't a good DM for me. You can't please everyone and I find that if you try you often end up pleasing no one.

 

[prabe]

Pretty much. Depends on the why.

Kinda thought it might.

In the type of group I like to play with, the DM takes a more collaborative approach to world-building with the players. You aren't creating a setting for a novel, or even a setting to publish as a game accessory to others, but a setting to have fun with the players at your table. The more you say "no", the less collaborative and fun your game is. IMO, of course.

The thing is, I've tried to GM in a more-collaborative style, explicitly sharing the world-building, and ... I ended up running a world and a tone I ... ended up not liking. IMO, that world could have been improved if someone (anyone) had said "no." Probably more than once, to be honest.

Most homebrew worlds I've encountered are pretty bog-standard fantasy worlds with world-building by restriction . . . which I hate. Other than "no tortles", what's different in your world that makes it worth keeping the restriction? I remember the old ads for Talislanta that advertised "No Elves" . . . it told me what wasn't in the setting, not what was unique and interesting about it. I never picked up any Talislanta books.

Three things: The world has been cut off from the gawds, the Noble Fey operate much differently than you probably expect, the world is slowly awakening to sentience and keeps some souls coming back around to do stuff (that last isn't entirely player-facing, yet, and it's almost certainly connected to the gawds' being cut off).

Now, if a DM is trying for a certain genre, tone, or truly has an interesting and unique world to invite his players into . . . I'm okay with restrictions that logically play into that. But when a DM tells me, "no dragonborn" and responds to my "Why?" with, "Because . . . . I don't like them . . . I can't be bothered to figure out how they fit . . . . dragonborn are stupid . . . ." I'm not likely to want to play in that game. Not because I don't get to play my precious "weird" race, but because I'm tired of playing with people who think good world-building is creating a list of things that don't belong.

It doesn't really sound as though your ideas of "restrictions that logically play into that" and mine are congruent.

And really, restricting "weird" races boils down to the real problem. The world isn't yours, it's a shared world with your players. Or at least, that's the DM I'd like to play with, who doesn't have control issues over the game.

The world is what I bring to the table.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Perhaps it would be useful to tell a practical example of how I approach this.

This year I've been working on my new world, though unfortunately due the plague situation we've not yet been able to play in it. (Except one tiny test game with my SO.)

There will be a lot of different intelligent species in the setting, but at first I think I will only allow humans, orcs and elfings (something like a cross between a halfling, an elf and a tiefling, sorta, except not really.) I have though about these three species the most, and I have a decent idea of their cultures, have a lists of example names written for them, have drawn some concept art, have my homebrew rules done etc. So I feel they're ready to go. I'm working on more species, but they're not as complete yet. I might get dwarves and gnolls done soon though. Also, as the campaign is supposed to be sort of Burroughsian (E.R) adventure of exploring strange lands and encountering weird creatures, I don't want to have every intelligent species playable from the get go, as some of them need to be available to be encountered and discovered later. Mysterious lizard people of the deep jungles etc. If this would become a long lived setting, then I can imagine that later such species that were originally mysterious could become playable, but a limited palette will be better for now.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I enjoy having a broad set of options at the table personally..That said, if I go into a game where the DM has provided setting information, and playable options, etc. and ask to do something different, it's a bit like going into a Chinese restaurant, looking at the menu and ordering the spaghetti and meatballs.

Sure, maybe they can pull it off, but it's a pain in the ass, and there are other restaurants that actually serve spaghetti and meatballs.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

So my rules are

• no evil (and no "CN" but evil in all but name)
• limited races: human, dwarf, elf (high and wild only), gnome, halfling, half orc
• I limit the pacts a warlock can have for campaign reasons

Simple, clear. I used to allow anything and found that it just made a jumbled mess (I finally had to draw the line at the guy who wanted to play a half dragon, half vampire).

Does it make the experience at the table better? Obviously I think so. Do I have to explain every decision I make to a potential player? No.

I find that understanding how other peoples games work helps to form how I like my games to work. With that I have a technical question about your limited races rule.

If you were running your setting using 5e would I be allowed to make a High Elf Bard (but use the rules for a half-elf to create the character)? In other words...is your race restriction for mechanical or thematic reasons?

 

[Viking Bastard]

I'm in the camp that doesn't really get it, but for me it's more about archetypes: To me, a big appeal of playing D&D is how archetypal everything is. If I play a Dwarf, I either want to really embrace the dwarfish archetype or I want to subvert it somehow. For a lot of the more "weird" races, that doesn't really apply, because they are either original inventions or obscure.

I do get kinda annoyed at how few humans or "normal" races I see at my table with my group. But they like it and it doesn't really matter and I'm not gonna naughty word on their fun.

 

[Chaosmancer]

When I see Gith, Drow, Yuan Ti etc. also being mentioned, that's where I'm getting the vibe from. The options deserve to exist if people want them, and I find it hard to believe that, out of a whole race or civilization, not one can be on a journey as a PC for reasons. A party can be all Human and fight Human guards, thugs and criminals, but you can't have a good and bad Orc? Do tables like this also ban the Evil alignment for players, or is it just being the same species as the bad guys? If this is a story problem, that sounds like the author messed up. IMO there's only a problem if the DM makes it a problem. Considering I'm not a veteran of this site, I'll let the topic go now, but I don't see a reason this should be evenly contested.

If you are new to the site, oh yes, this is hotly contested. It gets into some very hotly held beliefs and accusations and has derailed and killed a lot of threads over the past year.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah. Kobolds are a servitor race created by the dragons, and they reflect the attitudes of the individual dragons they serve (so the ones serving a gold dragon would act much differently from those serving a green dragon); dragonborn and goliaths were made by dragons and giants, respectively, by shaping some of the first humans to appear on my world (explicitly from elsewhere). Firbolgs are fey-ish giant-ish things that might be an offshoot of the Fomori (who were Fey and GIants, and tried to summon the Hunger Between Worlds to the Feywild, and were cursed and warped and cast out).

So, I have thought about it some.

I've been leaning the same way with the Kobolds and Dragonborn.

Giants are trickier. I'm thinking I like the idea of Giants comging from the Feywild. I can imagine a story where their father made a wish, and the giants resulted, and it fits with a "everything is bigger in the feywild" and giants being key in many faerie stories.

But I also want them sent to the mortal realms, and having failed to accomplish their goal, because of the betrayal and subsequent cursing of Torog and the Formorians. I'm just not sure how to fit them in yet.

So, by not being a default "yes" I'm making it so that if a player really really wants to play something I really really don't want to be a natural part of my world, we can work on bringing something in. I'll fully admit that my world reflects my preferences and tastes, and while I'm willing to work with players on their characters, I have found that I need the world to work in my head if I'm going to enjoy DMing it--which does mean there are limits to my flexibility.

Which, I think sounds fair.

A lot of the time though, that isn't what we hear from other DMs. Seeing something like "All drow are banned because Drizz't is stupid" or "All Tieflings are banned because I hate 4e" which are arguments I've seen, make it a lot harder to 100% accept it when people say they ban things they don't like.

I've found that if you are willing to work with your players, then that is generally all the most reasonable players want. If they can't sell you on their idea, they usually drop it. But, never getting a chance to sell something near and dear to them because of reasons that seem... well, unreasonable, is a bit harder to swallow.

Again, not that you seem to be saying that. I just wish more people would admit that working with their players isn't a bad thing for their world.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, it is pretty much exactly the same.

Player: I wanna play Chaotic Evil. Look, it's an alignment in the book.

DM: Sorry, table rule says no.

Player: But why not? I demand you give me a reason that I can pick apart, because I get to play what I want.

It's the same with race. Or class. Or weapons. Or spells.

Dude... are you even trying to engage in a conversation here, or do you just want to mock the idea that a conversation can even take place?

Prabe up above gave some pretty good reasons for something like the Drow to not exist. They really only exist because Lolth and Lolth is gone (I'm assuming that is the reasoning, but I believe I saw this stated before). And that seems like a good reason.

But if I came to a DM and they said, "No Gnomes. A Gnome Assassin killed my favorite character in World of Warcraft so I banned all Gnomes forever from my table"... frankly that is a stupid and childish reason to ban an option. I find gold jewerly ugly and gaudy, I'm not going to ban my players character from wearing it just because I think it is ugly.

And sometimes, not all the time, perhaps not even most of the time, but sometimes that is the level of thought that I see DMs on this forum use when banning stuff. "I think Dragonborn having tails is stupid, so I banned all dragonborn." "Tieflings are only for emo goth edgy players, so I banned all of them"

And sure, I know, I know, I know. "Why should I sacrifice what I find fun for the fun of the player. The player should sacrifice because I put in so much more work than them in making this world, and if they want their own world so bad they can find someone else to run something else, or make their own world."

But to me? That's part of being the DM. I don't think DMs should be forced to not have fun, but if you are banning races just because you hate Drizz't or you think the newest race is just pandering to the Magic the Gathering crowd.... that's a pretty weak reason to present to a player. It makes it seem like you care more about your enjoyment than theirs. It might make them wonder how you handle DM PCs, or how open your open world really is.

I know people don't like this idea that you have to give "legitimate reasons" for things you don't like, but there is a difference between "I ban Chaotic Evil because I find it just encourages inter-party conflict and players end up having less fun" and "I ban Chaotic Evil because Suicide Squad's joker was a poser and I hated it."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I'm sorry, there aren't any of those in my setting, but you're welcome to play something else."

And this can be fine.

And sometimes a player will try to work with you. "Okay, the race of Dragonborn don't exist, but dragons do right? What if my mage is in debt to a Red Dragon, because they sold me their blood and the experiments turned me into this?"

And sometimes that's fine, and sometimes it isn't. I figure from your previous statements that you are fine with the attempt being open. And I think that is what most people are asking for. An opportunity to work with the DM, not just a hard shut down.


Honestly, I more and more lean towards an idea we should stop using the term Dungeon Master. People might think I'm crazy, but this hostility towards the idea of being challenged is something that I wonder if it might find its roots in the "you are special" message from Gygax talking about DMs. I know in a different thread someone posted a bit of text from Gygax, and this implied "the few exceptional people" concept of DMs just struck a dis-chord with me. It bothers me, especially since I've spent so long trying to convince some of my players that being a DM isn't that scary, that you don't need to be special or highly skilled to even attempt it.

Different experiences, I know, but it makes me wonder.

 

[Oofta]

I find that understanding how other peoples games work helps to form how I like my games to work. With that I have a technical question about your limited races rule.

If you were running your setting using 5e would I be allowed to make a High Elf Bard (but use the rules for a half-elf to create the character)? In other words...is your race restriction for mechanical or thematic reasons?

D'oh! I did forget half-elves. Basically I allow the core PHB races, but drow are problematic for a variety of reasons and I've never felt like dragonborn were a good "fit". I've toyed with the idea of introducing dragonborn, but I have a very specific region-shaking event that would introduce them and wanted to deal with repercussions from a previous campaigns first. So the limitation of not allowing dragonborn is very much thematic. Besides, I don't have people begging me to play dragonborn.

But that doesn't answer your specific question: it just kind of depends. While I'm still on the fence with Tasha's Caldron of Everything the custom lineage would basically allow that kind of swapping you're talking about. I'll probably discuss it with the group before I start my next campaign. If there's a cool backstory, I'd probably allow it. If there's not a cool backstory but I can think of one (my last campaign had a gold dragon that had amnesia ... long story) then sure.

So probably? Let's talk about it? It depends on what, specifically you want and why. There are a few races like aarokocra that I do feel are overpowered so it would be a hard no.

 

[Scott Christian]

Having spent time in China Town, and knowing a few people who grew up there, no, that isn't right.

In my own town, few people give the Mexican part of the East Side "Little" anything, but it is an area that has been largely Mexican for generations, and where a lot of people speak very little English.

If you are speaking of the three blocks in Chinatown, maybe. Same with any Mexican East Side. It takes one generation for the family to switch to being bilingual. The generation after that is less bilingual. And here is the key:
Without a continuation influx of immigrants from the same place, the culture is just absorbed into the surrounding culture, and vice-a-versa, the culture soaks the outside culture in. Bet you see a lot of Christmas trees in Chinatown?

In D&D terms, I am only getting at that you might have an enclave here and there. But if you have a large group of D&D peoples living together, then they eventually homogenize, unless of course you have deep religious, racist, or cultural separation.

 

[prabe]

Prabe up above gave some pretty good reasons for something like the Drow to not exist. They really only exist because Lolth and Lolth is gone (I'm assuming that is the reasoning, but I believe I saw this stated before). And that seems like a good reason.

Yeah, but the chain is a bit more ... complicated. The Severance cut Lolth off as a goddess, but the drow still had all these connections to the Abyss. Demons came out there (among other places on the world) and rampaged, because demons (the duergar had similar problems, because as I understand what 5E has to say about them, they are diabolists, if perhaps unwilling ones). The Fiend Wars raged for a couple-hundred years; toward the end of them, the races from the surface went into the Underdark and closed and sealed the gates there, extirpating any survivors of the rampages (or whatever the devils did to the duergar).