I Don't Like Weird Races in My Games

[ImperatorK]

I love weird races. As a DM I like it when players want to play something exotic. Of course it is very important if the races are appropriate for the game I'm running, but generally I'm trying to make sure that they are.

As a player I'm of the opinion that if the DM allows races other than human (like elves or dwarves) then there shouldn't be a problem with a drow or a catfolk. Sure, maybe the elf looks very human-like, but it's still an alien race. You couldn't possibly understand how it is to live a couple hundred years. At the end of the day an elf isn't really that different than any other "weird" race.

[Unbeliever]

In many ways the races are an aesthetic or a setting choice.  Cf. Westeros, Discworld, and Planescape -- different kinds of games are played in each.  And, D&D has always made a ton of races, of varying quality. 

My read of this thread is something like this:  Arturick laid out some pitfalls of a proliferation of exotic races in a party -- this is really on the PC side of things -- which I added to a bit.  If those pitfalls can be avoided, sidestepped, mitigated, etc. then I think there is no objection. 

But, does anyone disagree that those pitfalls exist?  That is, that there are things that need to be mitigated and thought about before, in many campaigns, a Wemic, a Voadkyn, and a Drow walk into a tavern?  If so, then why and how?



P.S.:  to clarify, I don't think it's so much that the races are "weirder" than any other of the fantasy staples.  I think it's actually the proliferation.  If you have 65 different races (I'm looking at you Faerun), they will undoubtedly start looking the same, lose personality, and some of them will just end up being kinda dumb.  The way D&D is constructed there is a focal point around Elf, Dwarf, Gnome, et al. but that's contingent. 

[Kasz]

If you're playing in the city of Ankh-Morpork in a Discworld setting and a Troll, a Dwarf, a Vampire, a Wizard (or possibly a Wizzard), an Ork and an Orangutan walk into a bar the bartender will generally say "Alright lads, the usual?".

In some settings Two Humans and a Half Orc will walk into a bar and the bartender will say "What're you two having? Sorry but you'll need to leave the dog outside."

The DM should explain the world to you... his acceptance of LA or not, templates or not... one/two/many template(s) each or only Templates which don't have a visual effect maybe. I tend to tell my players at creation.
I.E.
"This is the world, it's like pitch black, if you go out at night you'll be killed by things that go bump, stay inside when it's dark. The world is run by wizards. 28 point buy, aim for T1-3, no infinite loops, no TO, LA up to +3, upto 2 templates each, only races you cannot be is any sort of Troll or Warforged for plot reasons"

It's not difficult as a DM to come up with all that info given a little prep time... The problem is lack of forethought for most people... You might write in your campaign that all trolls are a slave race to Ogres and thus players cannot play a "free troll" because they don't exist, but then you forget to mention this to players because you want it to be a surprise and then you upset someone when he tells you about the awesome troll PC he spent hours making.

TL:DR - Weird races are HEAVILY setting dependent, all players should know WHY certain races are unplayable and IF they might have a difficult time doing things due to racial issues before they create their PCs.

[Raineh Daze]

I like weird races. I find explaining what the hell has lead to such a weird character to be half the fun.

[RedWarlock]

I like weird races, but they need to have justification, and it can't be overdone.

In my ongoing Eberron game, there's usually an easier solution for any monstrous concept, just because racial HD and LA are so detrimental. (I had a player want to play this intelligent golem from the MM5, if I recall, that lacked an LA. I looked it over, and told him, "Seriously, man, just play a warforged, it's almost exactly the same creation concept, AND you have much better mechanical support.")

I had one of my top RPers want to play a half-dragon Kenku. The combo was a bit odd, but he really liked the idea, and eventually we came up with an interesting backstory for the guy. (Kenku in Eberron are described as having a spy-network, so we figured his dragon parent had been a Chamber member who was trying to get in on that information access.)

But in the meanwhile, someone else said "Ooh, cool, a half-dragon? I want to be one too!" I had to put a kibosh on that, because multiple active half-dragons, in Eberron's very strict dragon-controlled setting, does start to strain credibility. (Of course, now, that player has decided to retire the character, so now if someone else wanted to make one, I'd be good with it.)

[Unbeliever]

...
It's not difficult as a DM to come up with all that info given a little prep time... The problem is lack of forethought for most people... You might write in your campaign that all trolls are a slave race to Ogres and thus players cannot play a "free troll" because they don't exist, but then you forget to mention this to players because you want it to be a surprise and then you upset someone when he tells you about the awesome troll PC he spent hours making.

TL:DR - Weird races are HEAVILY setting dependent, all players should know WHY certain races are unplayable and IF they might have a difficult time doing things due to racial issues before they create their PCs.

I consider this SOP.  And, it's usually even easier than that.  Above I mentioned the Icelandic Saga game that I played in -- after having described it over dinner we had a reasonably good sense as to what would or would not fit, and could discuss it intelligibly. 

But, is it in most D&D campaigns or what we'd think of as "default" D&D?  I imagine the OP was finding that not to be the case, and I freely admit that my own experience is highly idiosyncratic.  I guess to me picking concepts, and race for the reasons I mentioned above are one of the stickier parts of that, that are setting-appropriate is part and parcel with agreeing to play in the game in the first place.

[ksbsnowowl]

I've always preferred the unusual to be, well, unusual.

This describes the game I'm currently running.

I'm running a viking gestalt game, and cuing off the idea that people believed these mystical beings existed, but Uncle Bob's childhood friend saw one while gone a vyking, and you never have... I restricted player races to Human and Half-Elf.  Ninety-nine percent of the humanoid population in the world is Human, with the last one percent being mostly half-elf, and a very small number of hill dwarves (ie - "half dwarves") that live underground anyway, so no one ever sees them.  My players are now 13th level, and they've never met an Elf.  One player met a single "half-dwarf."  One time they stumbled through a planar connection into Nidavellir, and they met a Dwarf (Midgard Dwarf, Frostburn).  They've seen a lot of trolls and fey, though.  They just finished an adventure with some Frost Giants and "half-giants" (Goliath).

This also builds upon what others have stated: It depends upon the setting.  I want my players to discover the hidden mythical races, not know them from day one.  Thus, human or half elf only.  However, if one of my players were to die at this point, and decided to make a new character, I'd now allow him to make a Goliath if he wanted to, but he would garner the expected reactions back in town, where most people have only ever seen a troll, or maybe a half-elf.

Of course, some of this is due to the fact that Dwarves and Elves are from completely different planes than Humans.  Again, depends on the setting.

I've had more than one player tell me I'm the best DM they've ever had, and this campaign/these characters are their favorite they've ever played, so I must be doing something right.  More than anything I think it is important that the world and the races make sense; do that, and I think the players will have fun regardless.

As others have said, though, you need to outline what is allowed from the start, so no one accidentally gets off on the wrong foot, and you start with a disgruntled player.

[McBeardly]

I've had varying experiences with monstrous races. For the most part they only really work if everyone is built with an understanding of how they will fit into both the setting in general and the PC party in particular. If the weird race matches up with my world's interpretation of them or I am able to expand the world in an interesting way to include that race as a setting element then great they can be included. However it is something that requires greater than normal communication with the DM and the rest of the party during character creation.

[veekie]

I don't mind weird races, and I do like them when used sparingly.
Key factors are:
-It should function reasonably compatibly with the rest of the party. If the party is living, you don't bring undead(and expect the special requirements for recovery). You bring bipedal humanoids in a team of mostly normal people, the centaur can't participate in a dungeon crawl, and the beholder doesn't even play by the same rules, so awarding gear and stuff becomes a ridiculous exercise.

-It needs to fit into the setting's civilized areas, or have a means to pass for fitting, or the ENTIRE party is uncivilized. Social impediments do not make up for overpowered races. My settings tend to be fairly cosmopolitan anyway(every race takes up it's own niche in unified cultures, and even monolithic cultures have their exceptions), so this isn't so bad. Generally this rules out supernatural predators(which can be magically discerned), or characters with basic needs that can't be met easily. Physical appearance is a factor, but a relatively small one, provided there is an accepted race which looks reasonably close.

-Mechanics, the biggest hangup. Almost always weird races have balance points far from the norm for the game, whereas regular races deviate in a more limited sense. Weaknesses being traded for strengths for a sum of zero but a greater offset than should be present. Level adjustments and monster classes generally not working. Special abilities that generate narrative difficulties.

-Last and least, character involvement. Does the character concept actually require an exotic race or does the exotic race simply work as differently human? Can the differences be played up without hijacking the game? Unusual characters do present an opportunity to be more, but how much differentiation can the party take and have a narrative distinct from their race?

[GenghisDon]

It sounds like you are running the sort of game I like best, ksbsnowowl

Good on you, and yes, sometimes less is more

[Chrononaut]

I'll be honest, I do have a thing for at least one weird race, centaurs, which informs my allowing them into games (not to mention trying to balance the lil' buggers to be playable without sacrificing their flavor), but I do actually err on the side of caution nominally in allowing races to fit a campaign.

I think it's a matter of perspectives, really. Unless a race is grossly physiologically different most of their quirks are things humanoid PCs ignore anyways. So the raptoran can fly, he might make offhand mentions of preening or complain about his back, but it's tantamount to a human RPing having hair.

What makes a race stand out is what makes a human stand out, their personality. If you can tint their personality through an alien culture, more props to you, but I find the humans are about as 'boring' across the board. You don't see formality focused japanese humans anymore than authoritarian arabians.

I think your class goes a long ways to informing how you RP. You have a pretty good idea from pop culture how different kinds of priests act to inform your cleric or monk, you know what a knight in shining armor is supposed to be for your paladin, etc. etc.

I guess older editions may have had it right. Enforce how a weird race acts by making it a class and RP your personality around those restrictions, or making it trade in class features, I guess, to use 3.X parlance. A paladin can play like Lancelot, Johnny Quest, Sherlock Holmes or Aquaman and still recognizably be a paladin.

I guess the trick is to figure out what sort of things are iconic to a pixie (or any of her sisters, the Coure, Sylph and Gloura) or ratfolk (skerrit/wererat/anthropomorphic rat) and make them pegs to hang a personality around.

I hope I'm getting my idea across, and realizing there's not much beyond "is big and fails most climb checks" that makes centaurs unique from just letting someone be a hill giant.

[Bloody Initiate]

I don't like the horrific monstrosities that result from a lot of templates, and just about anyone with an aberration in their family tree isn't welcome, but I like the roleplaying opportunies that arise from a bloodline or a minor template. Things like a good-aligned crusader with a demonic bloodline appeal to me because I like the idea of the character who has to reconcile their life with their family tree. It's a source of conflict and difficulty, and that's what I like about it.

I also love warforged, and play them a LOT. I stick with making them combat-oriented because to me the idea of being created with a clear purpose sounds both liberating and interesting. I think in the last several games I've played a Warforged the DM made it clear that we were NOT in Eberron, and still liked the idea of this strange-looking metal man romping about in the wilderness. It adds mystery and character.

I also like treating weird races as loot or as assimilated companions. So if a player's character dies infiltrating the lizard temple, suddenly they have the option of coming in as a lizardfolk or something similar because there are lots of those in the area. Or when your party is smashing through the tower of some mad wizard, you pull the blanket off a suit of armor that turns out to be a conscious sentient being (A PC). We've had a lot of orc and goblin party members come from these scenarios.

Changelings I also enjoy because they basically fit in anywhere, that's their whole schtick. The best part is you don't have to look or behave any differently because you're disguising yourself to blend in and acting appropriately. In one game I plotted to play as a changeling who pretended to be a shifter. One odd race pretending to be another. That character would have been a warshaper too, so they would have been a very convincing shifter who was also mysteriously charismatic when necessary.

[Raineh Daze]

Oh, making sure things fit in is important, I agree. I just disapprove of the idea of ever restricting things to the 'common' races when the setting clearly has so much more to offer; by being an adventurer in the first place you've already got an extraordinary individual, and that's only going to ramp up as time goes on, so why cling to it?

A paladin can play like Lancelot, Johnny Quest, Sherlock Holmes or Aquaman and still recognizably be a paladin.

Nitpick: if a paladin is playing like Lancelot, they won't be a paladin for long. I seem to recall something about an affair, a bad temper, and a body count a mile high.

Definitely the most badass knight from Camelot, though.

[McBeardly]

Nitpick: if a paladin is playing like Lancelot, they won't be a paladin for long. I seem to recall something about an affair, a bad temper, and a body count a mile high.

Definitely the most badass knight from Camelot, though.

Depends on the version of Lancelot involved. Once and Future King Lancelot I cold see just needing a regular atonement not a "stripped of all powers forever" atonement.

Also the over the top restrictions are the worst when the DM then presents monstrous humanoids as sapient and capable of being reasoned with. They're the sort of GM that would ban quorian players in a dragon age games.

[Chrononaut]

Like I said, the classes provide a lot more RP incentive than the races do, at least in 3.5 core.

Obv they picked up on that with the Races Of books, because an Illumian definately has a different 'feel' enforced through their racial features than does the standard human, same with kobolds, and Raptorans and so forth.

Also Lancelot is totes the archetype, he fell and became a blackguard, thus inspiring the paladin and his evil PrC!

[Raineh Daze]

... except that he was loyal to the end, extramarital shenanigans excluded.

[phaedrusxy]

... except that he was loyal to the end, extramarital shenanigans excluded.

Blackguards can be loyal... beyond morality and death, even. 

[Raineh Daze]

When he couldn't take part in Camlann for some reason, he prayed himself to death. Blackguard? Hardly. He's not evil, just too flawed to be a paladin.

Also nearly got to the Holy Grail on sheer determination alone, which is more impressive than managing it through divine favour.

[Cyclone Joker]

I'm afraid I must disagree with the OP to an extent. I mean no offense in this, so please don't take this the wrong way, but I'm smelling a bit of DM laziness. This may just be an aspect of my general distaste for prepackaged settings, but I feel that, excluding general absurdity like walking in with a tauric something-or-other, or an IKEA Tarrasque, I feel it the DM should try to enable the player, so long as the player respects the "don't be a douche" rule.

For example, and this is just me, I've been building a homebrew world for quite a while, and it's relatively well fleshed out. A player expressed interest in playing a goliath, so I found out a way to insert them into the world. In fact, with established fluff of the massively xenophobic imperialist communist elves, it'd be more problematic for a player to show up with an elf that with a goliath or even half-ogre or the like, although I am willing to admit this is shaped by my general loathing of elves.

But, hey, that's just me.

On a side note, Lancelot is lame. Like, seriously, Gawain is fifty thousand times cooler, several hundred times less douchey, and five billion times less fruity. Also, not associated with France, which is always a plus.

[oslecamo]

Also, not associated with France, which is always a plus.

France had Joan D'Arc, that's pretty much the only famous female warrior/commander on the whole medieval europe history. Extra points for being of peasant origin. So by all means keep your round table of english biggots that told women to stay in the kitchen/palace.