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

[Grammarsalad]

I'm old school, but in my school, we played palladium fantasy rpg. Not only did we have wolf people and rat people, we just straight up played trolls and ogres

 

[zarionofarabel]

I mean, since I'm not one of the people who ever said otherwise, this response is kinda odd, but sure.

Well, okay, no, we don't agree completely. I'd take that justification from a kid or a new DM, but not from one of the DMs in my current group, and I'd never let that be my only justification as a DM. I don't consider it mature and...socially ethical, for lack of a better word, to let "I don't like it" to be your only justification, especially in a situation where you hold more of the social/situational capital than the other person.

My wife didn't allow tabaxi or tortles in her CoS game, because they messed with her sense of the theme and tone of the very tightly themed adventure, which she'd never run before, which she was very excited about because she loves vampires and creepy gothic horror stuff, and because it was her first full campaign as a DM. That's an actual justification.


We absolutely could have run tabaxi and tortles in CoS without straying from the theme and tone, and nowadays she's confident that she could run that game just fine, but in that particular example, we didn't argue because she gave a justification and it seemed fair to us.

Had she said, "because it's my campaign and I don't want it.", we would have politely pushed back and reminded her that it's a group activity, not "hers".

Had her justification been, "There are reasons that may or may not come up in play, but that would be spoilers to fully explain, but to allow tabaxi would require that I rewrite things I don't want to have to rewrite", we would have respected the authorial discretion of a good secret, and accepted the call.

"I don't like tabaxi"....oh well. I don't like clerics, elves, I used to strongly dislike halflings before I realised that the notion of a second small race needing at all to "justify" it's "place" in the game (and gnomes are more interesting, no halflings will always be the second small race) was nonsense, I refuse to use lizardfolk lore as written, and I'd love to play games with no humans, but when I have a player who wants to play them, I get over myself.

Thank you for the detailed reply!

The only thing I would say is that I would approach it from the other side as a player and readily accept "I don't like it" as a response from the DM indicating that they, well, don't like something and don't want to deal with it. I wouldn't want to pressure the DM into having to run a game that is in some way unfun for them as I would want the DM to have fun too! I don't think it's fair to force a DM to run a campaign they don't want to run or accommodate a character they don't want to deal with. As a player it would be easy enough for me to alter my character idea to fit the DM's campaign better, especially if it was simply a matter of race. The DM doesn't like Elves? Okay, just play a Cat Person instead! There ought to be many more aspects of the character that would remain unaltered if the concept of my character consists of more than, I want to be an Elf!

 

[loverdrive]

I honestly would be surprised if my groups tried to then convince me into allowing them in my games. (I would consider it rude to second guess the choice of the DM running the game).

And I would consider it extremely rude if the GM refers to the game as theirs, since it's inherently a group activity.

Like, wtf, where's that position even comes from?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

That may work in your group and that’s fine.

Just keep in mind that not every group works like yours.

I may decide to not use Tabaxi because I don’t like them; and that is the only justification I need.

I honestly would be surprised if my groups tried to then convince me into allowing them in my games. (I would consider it rude to second guess the choice of the DM running the game).

The idea that the DM shouldn’t be second guessed, that it’s rude to do so...is so alien and unsettling to me that I don’t think I’d even want someone as a player who believed that.

Good lord. No one is above being second guessed. Ever.

If I’m playing with friends, I know that my friends respect me enough that if I don’t want Tabaxi, then no one will play Tabaxi.

Seems like that respect only goes one way.

EDIT to add:

If I'm a player in someone else's game, I would follow their lead and their choices. If I don't find it acceptable to me, I would just not play in their game (best of luck to your game, but it is not for me).

Are there people who only play one race and cant' have fun if that race is not allowed? Or is it something deeper? Is there some element where there are players who MUST have a wide open set of options and are adverse to a DM who presents a specific feeling or who limits options?

Is there an aversion to a DM creating curated style of play that may limit options? Is it undesirable for a DM to create a homebrew campaign that has a more narrow focus?

There’s a difference between narrow focused games and broader games, which should be obvious by my post that you quoted and my discussion of my wife’s game.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Thank you for the detailed reply!

The only thing I would say is that I would approach it from the other side as a player and readily accept "I don't like it" as a response from the DM indicating that they, well, don't like something and don't want to deal with it. I wouldn't want to pressure the DM into having to run a game that is in some way unfun for them as I would want the DM to have fun too! I don't think it's fair to force a DM to run a campaign they don't want to run or accommodate a character they don't want to deal with. As a player it would be easy enough for me to alter my character idea to fit the DM's campaign better, especially if it was simply a matter of race. The DM doesn't like Elves? Okay, just play a Cat Person instead! There ought to be many more aspects of the character that would remain unaltered if the concept of my character consists of more than, I want to be an Elf!

I just can’t imagine disliking a game element so much, or my sense of fun being so fragile, that having an elf in my game would make the game not fun for me.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

And I would consider it extremely rude if the GM refers to the game as theirs, since it's inherently a group activity.

Like, wtf, where's that position even comes from?

Right!? It’s just...like...what are y’all even talking about!? The DM’s game? Wtf?

 

[Chaosmancer]

OD&D with humans came out in 1974. 1e was 1977. The Fiend Folio was 1981. So Tabaxi came out 7 years after humans in D&D, and even 4 years after 1e came out. None which isn't relevant to whether or not an innkeeper in the boonies would recognize a Tabaxi or not.

Still 40 years compared to 47 years, that is pretty dang close.

And you aska vague question, you get whatever answer I felt like giving. Tabaxi have been around for a long time, there is no reason an innkeeper in a world with Tabaxi wouldn't have heard of them.

A player is disruptive if they are trying to disrupt the game by bringing in a race that is explicitly not in that game world. They are disrupting play and the group to try and get their way, which is childish. Just pick another race and move on, or find another group and move on. Don't disrupt the game.

Right, so Mike Carr brought an into class that was not in the game world, therefore he was being disruptive and should have found another group and moved on from Arneson's game.

Or are there different standards?

During the design of the game, yes. I bet they bandied about lots of class and race ideas that never made it into the game. We know about the ones that made the cut.

That has nothing to do with the question. You said they were being disruptive for trying to play something that was explicitly banned. Therefore they would be less disruptive to bring in something that has never existed in DnD before, correct?

Or are there different standards?

Players overall have much more input into the game than they used to have. Back in the day, players didn't question the DM as often or ask for as much. If the DM said no, the idea was tossed away and they just moved on. There wasn't a 62 page debate over it.

See. that's funny, because my example of Mike Carr was back during this time when the player didn't question the DM. And lo and behold, despite you saying players have so much more input now, his decision altered the face of the game 40 years later.

I mean, if we have more input now than that... why is there a debate at all?

Why doesn't the DM's enjoyment count?

Who said it didn't? I never said the DMs enjoyment didn't count.

Are you assuming that the DM is going to enjoy running a game for a lot of people who are unhappy with the state of the game? That is rather sadistic to enjoy the misery of others.

Or, do you want to argue that even if the total enjoyment of the table together has fallen, it doesn't matter because the DMs enjoyment has risen? Rather selfish, huh? That one persons enjoyment outweighs the majority opinion of the table.

Also, a complete deflection from the actual point, which was that a DM can never be wrong in their decision to remove a race. Funny how them being wrong turned immediately into a question of their enjoyment of the game.

No. It's not. D&D requires race to function. It does not require all races to function. It functions just as well with only humans as it does with every race.

It functions just as well if you jump using your Dexterity score instead of your strength score. I'd still say that is a changed to the mechanical rules of the game. "It functions just as well" seems to be the least useful measure you could come up with.

There's a difference here. The Tabaxi is walking in with his weapons out and is a complete unknown behavior wise. Armed humans aren't walking in with their weapons out. Were I running the game and human PCs walked into the bar with weapons out, things would be said and they would be treated VERY differently than when they walk in with them away.

Woah woah woah, what weapons? The tabaxi has no weapons at all. Oh, do you mean his claws? You do remember he is a cat, right? The claws are retractable. His weapons aren't out at all. And maybe he's wearing gloves. As I said, I have made no claims to his appearance or dress.

However, you are assuming that he is coming in, claws out, and that those claws are more worrisome that the multiple weapons strapped to the back of every single human. And that is why the innkeeper reacts, because he sees some claws.

What was that thing you were saying this wasn't again? Judging someone entirely by their appearance?

Yes and no. Depends on the individual and the group. I've known committees that could screw up making orange juice, and individuals with creative genius.

Well the assertion was that it is impossible for a group to make a better world than an individual. So, you agree with our side on this point, that that is not how things work. The Quality of a world can not be solely measured by the number of people who built it.


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

I was leery of the implication that the DM had somehow seized the position from the other player(s). If that's not what you meant, forget it. And, no, I haven't said anything about respecting DMs more than players; I'm curious why you think that. (Being a DM is more than just a role at the table, though. Campaign prep is part of it too, after all.)

I thought it was you who mentioned that they run with a lot of DMs who play, and they trust them more than players who don't run games. But I could be mixing you up with someone else, this thread is move blisteringly fast.

I've been pretty clear the whole time about the narrow scope of where I've staked out my position. If others want to read something into my words that isn't there, that's not my "problem in this discussion".

But asserting your opinion under a different premise than everyone else is your problem, because if we are assuming you are working under the same assumptions, then your points are addressed as referring to something we are not actually discussing.

And that is not our problem to fix.

Handout sheets or booklets summarizing any house rules or restricted options from the core rules, including available races, classes, equipment, spells, etc., are both common and expected. They're also generally more efficient than rousing game of Twenty Reductiones ad Absurda. But, yes, in principle that's actually an accurate description of my game table. I have already explained in this thread that I don't select, adapt, or invent any mechanics until I have a reasonably fleshed out setting first. Which means that literally none of those game mechanical elements you've listed are on the table until I put them there.

Incidentally, in the campaign I'm running now, the answers are, "Yes, yes, no, yes, yes, yes, no, yes, yes, no, and yes but you hit by rolling low."

Well, glad to know that you can't have any meaningful conversation about the expectations of 5e. Unless we are speaking about a specific setting of yours, which we won't be, then we can't really have a conversation because there is no common ground.

That's moving the goal posts. You said—and I admitted—that I don't care about my players' character ideas. Not that I don't care about the players. I impose limitations on character creation in my campaigns—and build my settings by myself—precisely because I do care about my players and I want them to have fun. Limitations on available character types and settings built around a single vision IMO make for a better campaign milieu which is more fun for everyone to play in. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

The point here is that I care more about the campaign as a whole than any single player. Think of it like this: characters are created and are eventually either killed or retried, but one player is bigger than all of their characters. Players come and go from a campaign, but the campaign is bigger than the sum of all the players who participate in it. Campaigns begin and end, but the setting that those campaigns take place in persists beyond any single one of them. (And at the risk of sounding too much like I think being a DM is some super-de-duper special thing, if you have a DM who invents lots of settings, that DM is then bigger than all of them put together. But I wouldn't want you to think I'm overblowing anything here, heaven forbid.)

Maybe I reacted poorly to how bluntly you said you don't care, and that your only role is as a referree and running the world. That struck me as being the... well, the referee for the rules part is the least important aspect of a DMs job. It honestly tends to fall to the DM either because it can go either way, or the DM happens to have an excess of rules knowledge.

And running the world... what is the point of that? To me, it is to engage the players. And, in my expeirence, an Engaging world is the most fun for everyone to play in. Adding more limits or having a single vision doesn't seem to me like it neccesarily engages the players more or less. And, in fact, too many limits can stifle the players enjoyment.


And finally... I find your list flawed. Yes, a player is bigger than all of their characters. But, a campaign is not bigger than the players in it. The sum of all of the players is bigger than any single campaign world or game. I am literally trying to think of a single campaign world that is bigger than all of the people who have played in it combined... and I can't. They are the people who played in them. They can't be bigger than that sum.

In every instance, I've been as clear as can be: a player who persists in forcing the issue—complains, cajoles, wheedles, bargains—in the face of a DM who already had a prior restriction in place is being a problem player. A DM who stands their ground in refusing to lift an extant restriction is not. Don't move the goalposts.

A player who merely rolls up to a stranger's game table with a character sheet already in hand is not necessarily a problem player, but they are doing something baffling. How do they even know what system or edition that table is running, never mind what house rules and character creation options are in play, unless they ask first?

Also, I can't parse your second paragraph here.

A player might build their backstory by tying into a specific race. I know I built a gnome for a game who was very deeply tied into the idea of the Missing Gnome Goddesses. Bringing that backsotry brought with it that lore. And if you've never done anything with gnomes before, then I've brought a backstory and a race to the table.

But, I actually am wondering, why does it matter what edition they are running? Everything in every PHB is subject to change so that seems like a rather pointless question to ask you. I need to ask what the rules are perhaps, because you could have changed any of them,

Not that it actually matters. You are the only one talking about a player coming into a well-established game with a status quo. And since that is really anicllary to the discussion, I don't see much value in continuing to address it.

Not necessarily. Not even close to necessary.

Sort of, yeah.

I don't mean anything intense, I don't mean taking on accents or anything else, but if you speak words that your character would be speaking... that's acting.

Literally, pretending to be someone else is all that is needed to be considered to be acting. And that seems to be a bare minimum in a game about playing roles of people who you aren't.

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

If that is what you got from my posts, I apologize. I will clarify:

• World building does include other races, even evil ones.
• Evil ones interact with one another. But probably not like the cantina. More like with suspicion, but needed for trade of natural resources. Many even enslave the others.
• I specifically stated the cantina could work, especially for people who abide by societal norms (don't kill anyone, respect property, etc.) But...
• If they all lived together, the culture would homogenize, not stay separate. Therefore, the culture should be about a place, not necessarily the race.

These are the things I have said. And I have followed with:

• We should have sympathy for the world builder who has spent years creating a logically cohesive world (to them and their players) to suddenly have to introduce several (or even one) new race.
• I stated everything they may have already built for their world and left out still a bunch of pieces they may have done.
• Then I gave reasons why there are complications for adding a race.

These are the things I have said.

I find point 4 interesting, if the culture is all about the place in your mind, then... wouldn't that make adding a new race easier?

But, I can't even tell why then with this lay out you have been arguing with me. You seem to agree that a DM should consider the enemy races in their world-building. And that they will interact with each other. That already makes the world quite a bit of a kitchen sink, by necessity.

But, somehow there are still complications? Even though the culture is far more likely to be homogenized and that multiple races working together is a known thing that happens? You don't seem to disagree with me on any of my points, so why is there a different conclusion?

I am sorry you feel that way too. If I have done anything to offend or cause frustration, please accept my apologies.

As for the map, there is a huge difference between a tabaxi in the forest and chitines. Especially if you have built lore around the chitines. Especially if they are likely to pose as antagonists to the adventurers.
Or
There is no difference. Explain to your player they can be a tabaxi from the forest. And then have to deal with the complications because the lore and logic of the world is one that no one has ever seen a tabaxi. So now every city campaign setting, every interaction with commoners, guards, tradesmen, etc. revolves around the tabaxi instead of the shared group story.
Or
There is no difference. Let the player be a tabaxi. Don't rewrite anything. Just retcon and make it up on the fly that everyone is comfortable with a cat person. And then add a bunch of cat people to the campaign so it is the norm. Then disregard the previous written lore.

These are the three options I proposed. As for the third option, I stated it seemed that was more for people who begin without a lot of their world already built. (Remember the concrete example.)

I don't get it.

This blank spot on the map, it is different if you add a Tabaxi, with lore and the potential for them to be allies or enemies, than if you add a Chitine. with lore and the potential for them to be allies or enemies....

Why? Why is that different. That sounds literally the same to me.

And option three makes no sense. What lore did you previously write that you are discarding, it was a blank section of your map. There was no lore there. I mean, I guess you would modify the lore of the areas near the blank spot, because... you know it makes no sense that an entire society was living that close and nobody noticed. But, unless they are actually there, would they even notice? I mean, you could be hundreds of miles away from that location.

And two just seems... overly dramatic. It makes zero sense that no one had ever encountered a Tabaxi before, and even if they hadn't that does not mean you need to automatically make every single interaction revolve around the Tabaxi. A few, sure, but not everything.

Stated many times the world is built with them in mind for many DM's. The difference is the type of interaction that occurs between these empires. The other differences for some DM's might be that many of those are not empires at all, but rather scattered tribes that are born evil.
As far as world building, I really believe you are not seeing what I am saying. Adding anything has complications. Making one of the protagonists an addition adds more complications.

Why? This is literally the question I've been asking. Why?

Is it only because you don't need to consider interactions with hostile groups at all, only those who would "follow the social contract" so adding hostile group doesn't actually change anything?

Because scattered tribes that are born evil? Those are still cultures taking up land and interacting with their neighbors. Maybe exclusively violently, but that still needs to be taken into account. And the moment, the moment you take a classic trope like the banished Duke gathering a horde of monsters under his banner, you open the floodgates of why, why could he do that if these races are nothing but hostile. Are there ways to make a profit?


See, Ezekiel and others have proposed that some of the driving forces behind people interacting with other cultures has been a dance between "are they cool with jesus" and "can I sleep with them." But ever since the invention of coin there has been a second driving force. Can I make a profit?

Do you know why Christian Venice became one of the wealthiest city-states in the world? Because they traded with the Muslims. Even during the Crusades when Holy Wars were being fought between the two factions, Venice traded with the Muslims, because it made them a lot of money.

So... I really don't see a question that I should be asking for a protagonist race that I should not be asking for an antagonist race. From a world-building perspective, I should have the same answers to both sets.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Uh… wow, not touching that. Entirely setting aside that equating D&D dwarves with real-world little people isn't terribly PC, I don't think the ASoIaF RPG even has mechanics for D&D dwarves. Children of the Forest, maybe? (EDIT: I checked; nope, no such mechanics even for them.) Regardless, that's hardly the same thing. The DM would have to invent the mechanics to accommodate that player. You're saying they should be obligated?

It wouldn't be the internet without being spuriously accused of racism, and I presumed we were speaking of D&D since, you know, that's the topic of the thread. People seemed to take issue with the idea that a player might want to play a character depicted in the players handbook despite being arbitrarily blocked by the DM.

If we're talking a completely different RPG then why would you think I would argue that they should be playing a D&D character in that game?

 

[Maxperson]

Still 40 years compared to 47 years, that is pretty dang close.

And you aska vague question, you get whatever answer I felt like giving. Tabaxi have been around for a long time, there is no reason an innkeeper in a world with Tabaxi wouldn't have heard of them.

Holy disconnected logic Batman! What happens in the real world is irrelevant to the innkeeper!

That has nothing to do with the question. You said they were being disruptive for trying to play something that was explicitly banned. Therefore they would be less disruptive to bring in something that has never existed in DnD before, correct?

Yeeeeaaahh, you're going to have to cite to proof that Clerics were explicitly banned when he asked to play one before I'll accept the equivalency as anything but false.

Are you assuming that the DM is going to enjoy running a game for a lot of people who are unhappy with the state of the game? That is rather sadistic to enjoy the misery of others.

No more so than a player who can only get joy in playing something that negatively impacts the DM's fun.

Or, do you want to argue that even if the total enjoyment of the table together has fallen, it doesn't matter because the DMs enjoyment has risen? Rather selfish, huh? That one persons enjoyment outweighs the majority opinion of the table.

Any player who is unable to find fun in a character other than one that will lower the DM's enjoyment isn't welcome at my table. I don't allow selfish people like that into my game, and neither should anyone else.

I have yet to meet a player who cannot find enjoyment in more than one character. Pick one that won't negatively impact the fun of someone else at the table and move on.

It functions just as well if you jump using your Dexterity score instead of your strength score. I'd still say that is a changed to the mechanical rules of the game. "It functions just as well" seems to be the least useful measure you could come up with.

It functions just as well period. You can start with an 19 in any stat as a human and be at 20 by 4th level. You don't need any race other than human to have the chance to play any class to peak capacity by 4th level. 1st level if you go variant human and pick a feat that gives +1 in a stat you have a 19 in.

Woah woah woah, what weapons? The tabaxi has no weapons at all. Oh, do you mean his claws? You do remember he is a cat, right? The claws are retractable. His weapons aren't out at all. And maybe he's wearing gloves. As I said, I have made no claims to his appearance or dress.

So first, not all cats can bring their claws in all the way. Second, Tabaxi are catlike sure, but nothing in their write up allows them to retract their claws. Let's keep it to what is written.

 

[zarionofarabel]

I just can’t imagine disliking a game element so much, or my sense of fun being so fragile, that having an elf in my game would make the game not fun for me.

In a similar vein I can't imagine my character concept being so shallow that the only way I could play them is if they were a particular race. Any character concept I can formulate would be malleable enough to be translatable to a different race. I also would prefer to formulate a character concept that the DM would approve of, so they would have a more enjoyable experience, and not be forced to work with elements they would rather avoid. I personally, would not lose any enjoyment at having to change something as meaningless as my characters race, to better fit the premise the DM was aiming for. Also knowing that I increased the DMs enjoyment of the game would increase my enjoyment of the game thus increasing the overall enjoyment of all involved!

Yeah, our methodology and focus on what is important for a good game is very different indeed!