Who Else likes the Cantina?

[Rechan]

I see a lot of disparaging remarks towards the notion of lots of non-human races. The typical remark is "It looks like the Cantina scene from Star Wars and I don't like that". I recall a particular poster here ranting about the PHB2's racial spread picture (pg 7) and how offensive it was to his idea of fantasy gaming.

Is there anyone out there, besides myself, who likes the Cantina effect? Who enjoys the multi-Species approach to fantasy?

I, personally, enjoy races that are as far-removed from Humans as possible, considering that I'm a human every day of my life, I want to explore something else for a little while. Dwarves, elves and halflings are so close to humans in that regard that it's just a "Human with a fancy hat" subrace. Not to mention that the demi-human races have been along so long they're old hat to me, played out in my eyes. Human centric worlds, human-only settings, are anathema to me.

So I jump at anything non-Human. Warforged, living crystals, Insect People, fey plants, animal-human crosses? Hell yes.

I enjoy the notion of a world that looks nothing like ours - not just Europe with dragons and magic, but something different even by the inhabitants. As an individual who grew up in a very homogenious area, it's a culture shock to walk into a Big city with a large immigrant population - people of so many different colors, languages, cultures, it is amazing and intriguing and eye opening and at the same time disconcerting. So with that in mind, I can see a fantasy world where the people are so radically different, that big cities, that the world itself, is even richer because of the sheer difference - not just culturally, but physiologically, not just ideological but alien in mindset.

To give a concrete example, in the current campaign I'm running, the fact that dragonborn are hatched from eggs, like other reptilian races, is relevant to the plot and one PC's background and personal quest. He spent the first adventure dragging a cart full of DB eggs around. A simple, physiological difference was a jumping point for me. I just couldn't do the above with the Typical Fantasy Races unless I'd done more work to re-built them, at which point I'd have to explain how MY X race is different from all others the players have experienced, and even so the buy-in would likely be less; they'd still be "just elves that hatch from eggs". Instead, DB are just accepted at face value, familiar and acknowledged as different right out of the book and we move on.

 

[Mikaze]

Eh, my 3.x/now-Pathfindered homebrew has been Cantina-ish for years. I love me some fantastical variety. Illumians, asherati, goliaths, purified-yaun-ti, octopus-people, and whatever else have a place in my world.

Except Spellscales. Spellscales be damned. I still rage when I remember those destructive roleplaying notes.

I recognize that it wouldn't work for everyone's idea of a vanilla-fantasy setting though, and thst's what a number of people want. I believe a lot of the resistance to the new races is also how they've been integrated into the existing campaign setting and their relation with the 4E changes to said settings.

Addendum, it never bothered me in Dark Sun or Planescape either. I'm sure some folks were bugged by tieflings, aasimar, bariaur and thri-kreen back then though.

 

[FireLance]

I personally don't mind the Cantina, but then, I like having options.

That said, I think that Cantina criticisms are somewhat odd. The underlying assumption seems to be that everything that exists in the PH or [insert published product] has to exist in every world. The ability of the DM to adapt (including reflavoring or reskinning) or (if the problem is so fundamental that adaptation still will not solve it) disallow options seems to be downplayed in criticisms of this variety.

It is one thing to dislike a world in which there are mutiple strange races, or even a default assumption that multiple strange races exist in the world, but it seems trivially easy to ensure that the game world in which you play in is nothing of that sort.

It makes me wonder what those who use the term are actually criticising.

 

[Dandu]

 

[Nifft]

I think the thing about the Cantina scene is, it's supposed to make you a bit uneasy. It's a giant sign saying, "Woah! The galaxy is full of strange things and stranger people!"

Han Solo's ease and familiarity with this richly uncanny environment is part of what immediately sets him on the pedestal of cool -- in opposition to the unease expressed by Luke, and felt by the viewer.

- - -

I don't dislike "Cantina" settings, but I would hate to have to clean their bathrooms...

Cheers, -- N

 

[Rechan]

Eh, my 3.x/now-Pathfindered homebrew has been Cantina-ish for years. I love me some fantastical variety. Illumians, asherati, goliaths, purified-yaun-ti, octopus-people, and whatever else have a place in my world.

Except Spellscales. Spellscales be damned. I still rage when I remember those destructive roleplaying notes.

Heh. The only problem I have with the "Cantina effect" is that I think certain races are stupid. Either the fluff, or the mechanics, whatnot, doesn't fit either the campaign, the world, or I just find it... dumb and don't see the attraction to THAT race.

 

[Wormwood]

*Love* the Cantina.

My vision of the "Points of Light" setting is so multi-cultural that homogeneous communities are things of the past, and those few that remain are cultural throwbacks, treated with curiosity (and distaste).

 

[Layander]

The underlying assumption seems to be that everything that exists in the PH or [insert published product] has to exist in every world. The ability of the DM to adapt (including reflavoring or reskinning) or (if the problem is so fundamental that adaptation still will not solve it) disallow options seems to be downplayed in criticisms of this variety.

It is one thing to dislike a world in which there are mutiple strange races, or even a default assumption that multiple strange races exist in the world, but it seems trivially easy to ensure that the game world in which you play in is nothing of that sort.

I only left in the quote the parts I wanted to comment on. I have a problem one that I know for a fact other people who run games have. Any time I have seen someone try to run a setting of their own the players get very upset and suddenly want to play anything exept what the GM has said is alowed in their world setting. (See gamers 2: Dorkness rising to see a perfect example of this). If I said to my players I perfer to not have teiflings and devas in my world because the gods demons ect do not directly interact with the world that there is a barrier that prevents heavenly being from interacting exept when preists use certain spells, at least one person would suddenly have a need to play a Teifling Warlock. Its a certain amount of entitlement players have, if its in the book I am entitled to play it and the gm regardless of the fact that he puts so much work into the game and my having fun, cant tell me not to play it.

 

[Stormonu]

I think the cantina effect has it's place, but that it's in a more planar or borderland area. When I play D&D, I prefer for only one PC to pick an unusual race that really sticks out. Look at the heroes of the same movie. They're basically human with one really unusual character - Chewie (not counting the droids; they're sidekicks/hirelings).

One stand-out character allows you to focus on how that character is different than everyone else. When everyone's a freak, no one cares because everyone's a misfit. And a lot of times, it's hard to envision how such a ragamuffin group got together or why it stays together.

 

[Rechan]

Its a certain amount of entitlement players have, if its in the book I am entitled to play it and the gm regardless of the fact that he puts so much work into the game and my having fun, cant tell me not to play it.

If that were true, then the issue is no different than the DM deciding to run a low-magic campaign, and therefore limiting classes or mechanics, and players wanting to play them.