Exotic species aren't so exotic, eh?

[RedMage125]

I think a system like this is fine, though I would broaden it to four categories:

• Yes
• Yes, but...
• No, unless...
• No

Thank you! I appreciate the feedback.

However, I am, in general, loathe to issue flat bans, because, for all I know, there might be someone out there creative enough to convince me to relent. So I don't like the idea of splitting the "no" responses.

Borrowing an idea from Keith Baker, for example. I don't have Tabaxi in my world. Let's day a player came to me with a concept for a Tabaxi Wild Magic Sorcerer, who used to be a Wizard's cat familiar. His master blew up in an arcane mishap that also resulted in him assuming a humanoid form, and having crazy Innate magic. This maintains the standard that there is no race of cat people, but allows the player to have a Red Light race. That's interesting and compelling. And I don't preclude the idea that there might be a situation where I would allow a flying race or something from a book I don't usually allow. Like, right now, I do NOT forsee a situation where I allow a changeling. But I cannot forsee all possibilities, and I've had people blow me away with their creativity in the past.

[Theodoxus]

Some of my favorite D&D memories are in a friend's old 2e campaign where we could only play humans. It really sold the world as a world, rather than as a game.

100%

Generally, a setting only needs 4-8 sentient humanoid PC species. After that, it's just bloat that's hard to fit into the worldbuilding.

Given our own species history with other hominids, I have a hard time understanding why elves, gnomes, and humans exist together. It's been brought up before, and the best rationalization is that gods of these disparate humanoids keep them from being warred and/or bred out of existence. It's fine, I'll play a game like that, but it's not one I choose to run. My homebrew world has a lone sentient species, using the Custom Lineage as their stat block (so still allows for a lot more differentiation than stock humans or whatever); however there are factions of mages who have raised up 'servitors', "lesser" races that are anthropomorphic aspects of their zodiac. The servitors are unable, magically/genetically, to rise up against their creators, but otherwise have free will. Keeps wars from otherwise breaking out between species. The CL (called Raethlings) manage to wage war as much as we humans do, anyway.

This does allow players to pick other races (tabaxi, grung, loxodon, leonin, etc.) without worrying about being considered too "other", though they tend to fall sometimes into the 'we don't serve your kind here' trope. But it's certainly not always, and I find it adds a bit of tension, especially when the PCs are in a kingdom that isn't affiliated with a specific servitor race.

[Psyren]

Thank you! I appreciate the feedback.

However, I am, in general, loathe to issue flat bans, because, for all I know, there might be someone out there creative enough to convince me to relent. So I don't like the idea of splitting the "no" responses.

The "convincing me" part would be folded into the "unless." But something like, say, Volo's Yuan-Ti Pureblood that is just overpowered and has since been toned down in a later version, or Volo's Kenku that I just find annoying and badly designed, or Dragonmarked subraces in a FR campaign, is something I would indeed be comfortable saying no to without budging.

[Chronos]

I sort of feel like, most of the time when someone plays a tiefling, it's because they want to do the whole angsty "everyone hates me because of something I have no control over" thing. If that's the case, then by not playing into "everyone hates tieflings", you're actually denying player agency.

That said, while coming back to town is a part of the game, most of the time in most D&D games is spent in dungeons or wilderness or whatever, where most of the creatures you meet want to kill you no matter what your race is.

[Psyren]

I sort of feel like, most of the time when someone plays a tiefling, it's because they want to do the whole angsty "everyone hates me because of something I have no control over" thing. If that's the case, then by not playing into "everyone hates tieflings", you're actually denying player agency.

I get that (and it's definitely something to discuss with the player rather than assuming that's what they want.) But even when "everybody hates tieflings" it doesn't have to manifest as overt hostility or violence, see Baldurs Gate 3. Tiefling characters get some pretty snide comments directed at them but nobody runs you out of town or denies you quests etc.

[KorvinStarmast]

I sort of feel like, most of the time when someone plays a tiefling, it's because they want to do the whole angsty "everyone hates me because of something I have no control over" thing. If that's the case, then by not playing into "everyone hates tieflings", you're actually denying player agency.

Interesting perspective. One of my players had a fire genasi who is a pretty decent chap all around. As part of his session zero/backstory development, part of what got him to be 'on the run' was that he was staying at a tavern trying to sell gems he'd polished, and the tavern caught fire. (Not his fault). The innkeeper's son knew that it was a grease fire in the kitchen which started it, but the pitchfork bearing mob were sure it was his fault. We RP'd how he'd try to convince the mob or make good his escape, and he chose to 'make good his escape' and (with the innkeeper's son's help) he did just that.

That said, while coming back to town is a part of the game, most of the time in most D&D games is spent in dungeons or wilderness or whatever, where most of the creatures you meet want to kill you no matter what your race is.

Some monsters have "Alignment: hungry" in their stat block.

[Emberlily]

I sort of feel like, most of the time when someone plays a tiefling, it's because they want to do the whole angsty "everyone hates me because of something I have no control over" thing. If that's the case, then by not playing into "everyone hates tieflings", you're actually denying player agency.

that first bit has definitely not been the case for years. as someone who's seen a lot about ppl who came into the game in this edition, I can say the big recent expansion of D&D's playerbase has brought a lot of different perspective and feelings about how they want things to go down. a lot of ppl just find a lot of joy in having their character have horns and a tail without also wanting that it be A Stain Of Evil or anything cliché like that

but your second point is absolutely true. if the player makes that choice wanting it to be something that comes up in the game, then good thought should be given to letting that be the case (if all of the group is comfortable playing it out). and if the player makes the choice and doesn't want to have to deal with being hated for their species, good thought should be given to letting that be the case, too. the judgement and suspicion around the latter in here just feels bewildering and unhelpful. and, I mean, the thread started with "it seems a lot of groups ignore this suggestion the books push on everyone"... a lot of ppl here and elsewhere do like those ideas and should roll with them, but also, clearly they're ideas a lot of other ppl don't find fun to engage with, and should ignore them. and if you find yourself in a group where those ideas clash, you have to find a compromise that works with your specific group

also, if it's an idea that really doesn't appeal to you, "kitchen sink, star trek-style" isn't the only alternative to "the PHB's guidelines"! if it fits in with the game you're all playing, you could easily have a world where, for example, dragonborn are the most common and 'default', and humans and elves are strange and rarely seen outside of tiny regions (and dwarves and halflings don't exist), and roleplaying as one of them comes with baked-in assumptions. the homogeneity of the PHB saying 'every world of D&D has this setup or even more restricted' can be stifling, but that's not to say there's no alternatives if you like having a narrower focus on what the Peoples of your game world are.

[Dr.Samurai]

I think the conversation is sort of predicated on the premise that if a table is choosing one way or the other, it's because the table will enjoy that way. As such, all of this is really just opinion, and explaining our preferences.

To reiterate my preference, I prefer the more exotic races to have an impact if they're adventuring in the party. And the same goes for exotic NPCs found in towns; in my opinion they should have a story about how they got where they are, integrated with the peoples of a city somewhere.

I prefer this because I think it sets a better tone for the game world. Someone mentioned it being like YA fiction vs a mature setting, and I think that's a good way of putting it. It strikes me as more real, and I like a grittier realer mix to my fantasy. It also leaves space for exploration, wonder, introduction, and the normal tropes associated with fish out of water, born of two worlds, etc. It also helps differentiate settings from things like Planescape and Spelljammer, in which I would expect a more cosmopolitan feel. And the same goes within each setting. Someone mentioned a tiefling in Baldur's Gate, but I wouldn't expect every hamlet, town, and village (or city for that matter) to treat tieflings exactly as Baldur's Gate does. Similarly, Sharn, as the biggest city in the setting of Eberron, and relatively close to Droaam, has a disproportionate number of monstrous races in it, so attitudes toward them are more relaxed. But that doesn't mean it's like that everywhere.

These are all things I value and appreciate, so putting in the effort to maintain exotic races in the setting as exotic is my preference.

I also want to say that it doesn't just have to be about devils and monsters either. I think the anecdote about the fire genasi is a perfect example of a non-devil reason to run someone out of town. Presumably most people don't have the resources to just rebuild their house or place of business and replace all of their belongings. So it's quite the risk to let people with fire for hair move about freely, especially considering that they can naturally produce fire at will. Then consider that Produce Flame can kill the average commoner, and that a dragonborn can kill a handful of commoners with their Breath Weapon attack, on average and almost twice over. Bugbears can hide in tight places and reach you from 10ft away, and if they ambush you their punch will kill the average commoner. Changelings and Kenku can impersonate people.

To me it makes more sense that people would have a wariness and superstitions/stories/tall tales about these creatures, before they develop overly-friendly cosmopolitan villages.

Also, it sort of bumps into my sense of fairness as well, though this is really more of a minor and technical point. But seems to me that the exotic races offer up some nice benefits, and being able to play them with no impact because the lore of the setting is "anything goes" seems like a little too easy. Fly speeds, Natural Attacks/Armor, additional spells known, etc.

Anyways, my two cents.

[Psyren]

that first bit has definitely not been the case for years. as someone who's seen a lot about ppl who came into the game in this edition, I can say the big recent expansion of D&D's playerbase has brought a lot of different perspective and feelings about how they want things to go down. a lot of ppl just find a lot of joy in having their character have horns and a tail without also wanting that it be A Stain Of Evil or anything cliché like that.

Right - or even if it is "stain of evil"/"streak of darkness", it's just enough to make them edgy or cool, like Wolverine in a bar, not forced to hide in a church like Nightcrawler.

but your second point is absolutely true. if the player makes that choice wanting it to be something that comes up in the game, then good thought should be given to letting that be the case (if all of the group is comfortable playing it out). and if the player makes the choice and doesn't want to have to deal with being hated for their species, good thought should be given to letting that be the case, too. the judgement and suspicion around the latter in here just feels bewildering and unhelpful. and, I mean, the thread started with "it seems a lot of groups ignore this suggestion the books push on everyone"... a lot of ppl here and elsewhere do like those ideas and should roll with them, but also, clearly they're ideas a lot of other ppl don't find fun to engage with, and should ignore them. and if you find yourself in a group where those ideas clash, you have to find a compromise that works with your specific group.

Exactly.

also, if it's an idea that really doesn't appeal to you, "kitchen sink, star trek-style" isn't the only alternative to "the PHB's guidelines"! if it fits in with the game you're all playing, you could easily have a world where, for example, dragonborn are the most common and 'default', and humans and elves are strange and rarely seen outside of tiny regions (and dwarves and halflings don't exist), and roleplaying as one of them comes with baked-in assumptions. the homogeneity of the PHB saying 'every world of D&D has this setup or even more restricted' can be stifling, but that's not to say there's no alternatives if you like having a narrower focus on what the Peoples of your game world are.

Three for three!

What's "exotic" should be driven by setting, not by some kind of overly generalized tier list in the PHB. As I mentioned upthread, Elves would be exotic in Theros and Dwarves would be exotic in Ravnica, but going by the PHB they should both be more common in those settings than Minotaurs when that's not the case.

[Schwann145]

The Kenku example again, it's technically in their race's rules and description, it's technically a core detail of Kenku, but I'd be shocked if anyone actually decided to make a Kenku player stick to only speaking through mimicked sounds both because it's not worth the hassle and because it would get unbearably annoying real fast.

There is actually a player in the game I'm in right now that is playing a Kenku and doing the speech thing by choice. It's been one of the highlights of the game, thus far.

Please correct me if I'm entirely off base here but the thread's original question kind of feels like a case of you wanting to see and do a specific story and wondering why it's not more common.

For me it's not about a specific game or story. For me it's more about being a huge fan of setting integrity and a huge opponent of WotC's homogenization efforts throughout 5e.
I think people who play in any given setting should be, for the most part, respecting that setting for what it has to offer. If you want to make small changes to better suit your games, obviously go for it, but if you want to make broad sweeping changes, why are you there in the first place? Pick a setting that better reflects your gaming desires, or even create your own.
Every setting has it's baggage, and that baggage is what gives it character. A group full of "exotic" characters will get strange looks in the Realms, and different strange looks in Greyhawk, and yet different strange looks in Eberron, and no strange looks at all in Planescape.

If you're playing in the former or the latter there's also another question not being asked here. How does Villager #8 out in the middle of nowhere even know what a Devil or Demon looks like to know the Tiefling looks like them? How do they know "yeah there's Dragons and those Red ones are super Evil" but not "also there's all these other Dragons that are Good all the time"?

Context and location and history and a host of things all matter for this question. Looking at the Forgotten Realms, as I'm most familiar with it:
If you're a Dragonborn in Waterdeep, you'll get side-eye a few times, but otherwise no one is going to care. It's a huge metropolitan city with all sorts of peoples coming and going at all times. Humans make up the vast majority of the population, but there are big enough populations of basically everything else that you really won't be an oddity.
If you're a Tiefling in the Dalelands, you're likely not going to have a good time. People will be mistrustful of you at best and outright hostile to you at worst. Because their neighbors to the north, Cormanthyr, have a very long and storied history of being attacked, sacked, and slaughtered by fiendish invasions, multiple times throughout their history. It's capital city of Myth Drannor is the place to go for an adventure of delving through demon-overrun elven ruins.
If you're a Tiefling in Narfel, a place famous for it's demon and devil binding, you're probably not going to surprise many folks. Treating with fiends is quite commonplace, people becoming cambion is a not-too-unregular occurrence even.
If you're a Drow in the North (let's say, in the regions between Silverymoon, Icewind Dale, and Neverwinter) then you're likely to be met initially with hostility and fear, because the Menzoberranzan Drow have a long history of surface raids where they slaughter surface elves on sight, steal people to be made slaves, etc. But there are also stories of the famous Drizzt and various groups of non-evil drow followers of Eilistraee who work towards improving the perception of Drow in those regions. So the likelihood of overcoming that initial fear and suspicion is pretty good.

even beyond desire to not be pushed into "overdone tolkien" setup, there's a very obvious reason people could (and very much do!) gravitate towards character species like that that has nothing to do with being edgy or super special (there's many of these but here's one that jumps out to me and unifies the "exotic looking" thread here): they want a chance to embody a character who looks like nothing they could ever do in real life. if I'm getting a chance to play around and create a fantasy story w my friends I have little interest in being stuck with a range as narrow as [human, human w pointy ears, stocky human, tiny human] when the game puts out all these other options. not because I want other ppl to think my character is so special bc of how she looks but bc it simply makes me happy to have the chance to embody that sort of physicality for a moment.

I think I'd be more inclined towards this argument if those people were actually interested in roleplaying as said exotic races. But in several decades of ttrpg gaming, the kenku player I mention above is the very first time I've seen anyone even make the attempt.
Instead, it's just a long history of "human with horns," or "human with a tail," or "human with scales." Not at all different from your mention above of, "human but pointy ears," and "human but stocky," just the list of, "but with..." features has grown some.
(To be fair, I've never seen anyone try to play an Elf or a Dwarf as anything other than "human but..." either. That's also a big disappointment of mine. They're not human, they shouldn't be played as human.)

[KorvinStarmast]

Every setting has it's baggage, and that baggage is what gives it character. A group full of "exotic" characters will get strange looks in the Realms, and different strange looks in Greyhawk, and yet different strange looks in Eberron, and no strange looks at all in Planescape.

+10.

I think I'd be more inclined towards this argument if those people were actually interested in roleplaying as said exotic races. But in several decades of ttrpg gaming, the kenku player I mention above is the very first time I've seen anyone even make the attempt.
Instead, it's just a long history of "human with horns," or "human with a tail," or "human with scales." Not at all different from your mention above of, "human but pointy ears," and "human but stocky," just the list of, "but with..." features has grown some.
(To be fair, I've never seen anyone try to play an Elf or a Dwarf as anything other than "human but..." either. That's also a big disappointment of mine. They're not human, they shouldn't be played as human.)

+1. My wood elf monk in a campaign some years back tried to lean into her elven-ness in play, but the campaign was kinda short lived thanks to RL taking our DM from us.

[Ionathus]

I think I'd be more inclined towards this argument if those people were actually interested in roleplaying as said exotic races. But in several decades of ttrpg gaming, the kenku player I mention above is the very first time I've seen anyone even make the attempt.
Instead, it's just a long history of "human with horns," or "human with a tail," or "human with scales." Not at all different from your mention above of, "human but pointy ears," and "human but stocky," just the list of, "but with..." features has grown some.
(To be fair, I've never seen anyone try to play an Elf or a Dwarf as anything other than "human but..." either. That's also a big disappointment of mine. They're not human, they shouldn't be played as human.)

That feels like it's veering into "only I can decide what qualifies as 'human but XYZ'!" territory to me.

It's hard to play a fundamentally non-human character. I try to do it as a DM and I struggle terribly every time. It's even harder if you need to get along with a bunch of other party members -- you must necessarily be some degree of human-relatable, i.e. social and cooperative and moral. And you, yourself are a human, so your own worldview and baseline assumptions are always going to bleed through.

TL;DR - I don't think "inhuman" should ever be someone's benchmark for roleplaying non-human races. It's just not feasible and, unless everyone is onboard, it's likely to hurt the party dynamics. "Human but XYZ" is honestly a much more realistic expectation.

[RSP]

TL;DR - I don't think "inhuman" should ever be someone's benchmark for roleplaying non-human races. It's just not feasible and, unless everyone is onboard, it's likely to hurt the party dynamics. "Human but XYZ" is honestly a much more realistic expectation.

Yes, it’s not easy to play a non-human with only human experiences to draw from.

But I’m also surprised others say they don’t get any non-human RP flavor in their games.

I’d say we have something RP come up related to races at least once a session. A lot of times it’s similar to the basic stuff found in the PHB write ups, or in-character knocks on other PCs (such as the Wood Elf telling the Dwarf to try to catch up; or making a remark about how Elves only like wine as opposed to ales, etc.).

But there’s also just RP related to our races that are emphasized, and I wouldn’t say my current table is overly RP heavy.

Again, tables certainly vary, I’m just surprised there’s comments of zero racial RP involved in games: I wonder if this counts even simple stuff like “let the elf lead the talk with the other group of elves we encounter”.

[GloatingSwine]

Context and location and history and a host of things all matter for this question. Looking at the Forgotten Realms, as I'm most familiar with it:

Context and location and history are the fundamentals of this whole shebanc.

And the dirty little secret is that most people are not sufficiently attached to the fiction of any given D&D setting to have a serious plan for what it means for different fantasy races in different places, especially as there are ever more of them.

If you want to be playing a game where this sort of thing is relevant you need to be playing a game where the setting comes first, and that's not really D&D's bag, the settings are intentionally broad and vague and filled with a lot of blank spaces that are only marked "here be adventures".

[JellyPooga]

Yes, it’s not easy to play a non-human with only human experiences to draw from.

I kind of disagree. To touch back on Star Trek, Worf (TNG) could be seen as a classic example of a human player playing a Klingon character without actually being very Klingon; our Worf player finds it difficult to emphasise the bombastic and rough-around-the-edges culture of your average Klingon. Compare his performance to any other Klingon; they're brash, outspoken, violent, arrogant. We rarely see these traits in Worf, but the actors that play the other Klingons don't seem to have any trouble portraying those traits, nor does Michael Dorn on the occasional episode where he lets his Klingon out (which can be seen more often after he joins DS9). The excuse we're given is that Worf himself, as a character, was raised by humans and is still learning what it really means to be a Klingon, having really only experienced his species' culture in theory from textbooks and holosuites, but it's clear that it's possible to act as a Klingon as a player, just as it's possible to subvert some the stereotypes of the species. Worf being a Klingon on Picards bridge staff sometimes causes a problem and sometimes it's of benefit, but it's rarely uncomfortable for the viewers to observe the tension between him and humans or any other race, despite it constantly coming up whenever his character is on screen. Even though he's playing a "not-very-Klingon" Klingon, we never forget that he is one and it's not because of his rubber forehead.

[Psyren]

+1. My wood elf monk in a campaign some years back tried to lean into her elven-ness in play, but the campaign was kinda short lived thanks to RL taking our DM from us.

I... hope you only mean scheduling/location

Context and location and history are the fundamentals of this whole shebanc.

And the dirty little secret is that most people are not sufficiently attached to the fiction of any given D&D setting to have a serious plan for what it means for different fantasy races in different places, especially as there are ever more of them.

If you want to be playing a game where this sort of thing is relevant you need to be playing a game where the setting comes first, and that's not really D&D's bag, the settings are intentionally broad and vague and filled with a lot of blank spaces that are only marked "here be adventures".

There's also the simple fact that "the fiction of D&D settings" is mutable rather than static. Take Forgotten Realms - back in 2e and even early 3e, something like a Tiefling or Dragonborn walking around the Sword Coast would indeed be a fairly big deal. But by the time 4e and 5e rolled around, the setting had changed - after the Spellplague, Abeir showed up again and Avernus got a lot more active and now bam, they're both core races, and not just mechanically. Obviously we don't have census figures, but if we somehow did, there's be an explosion of both races across that century, plenty of time for other races to get used to seeing them around.

(Funny thought: now I keep imagining some insular/xenophobic elves on Evermeet angrily shaking their fists and pining for the good old days when Faerun was just Tolkien.)

[RSP]

I kind of disagree. To touch back on Star Trek, Worf (TNG) could be seen as a classic example of a human player playing a Klingon character without actually being very Klingon

If the counter argument to “it’s not easy to play a non-human with only human experiences to draw from” is “but it’s been accomplished by a professional actor who’s only job while doing so was solely doing that, and who had assistance from writers and directors, as well as probably creative directors and acting coaches”; well I’ll just assume, in the context of what this thread is discussing and considering that 5e participants are very rarely professionally trained as actors (and much less are doing so professionally) and clearly do not have the staffing support of Star Trek at their tables; that the above statement holds true and the “counter argument” in fact supports the statement.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Since this is the 5E thread, I do feel like it's worth pointing out that there are at least three published adventures that kind of rely on the PCs being at least a little exotic. Descent into Avernus and Curse of Strahd both throw the PCs into hostile environments that operate by different rules than they're used to. Out of the Abyss includes specific DM guidance recommending that player-characters not be from any of the Underdark races to really emphasize the alienness of the Underdark and the social structures they're going to encounter, at least in Unpronounceable Kuo-Toa-Land and Neverlight Grove. The PCs aren't exotic species per se, but drow NPCs reacting to a human PC isn't that different from human NPCs reacting to a drow PC. Shadows of the Dragon Queen should probably include some of this too, but everything I've heard about that module is that it's awful so I haven't bought it.

[Chronos]

Come to think of it, when I DMed for a group that had a tiefling in it (mostly in Waterdeep), I only really made race relevant twice, and both times it was subverting the trope. Once, when the group was walking down the street, an angry drunkard started on a tirade about "you people" coming in and messing everything up, but when the tiefling started getting offended, it turned out that he was actually talking about the gnome in the group.

And another time, the party decided on their own to visit a tattoo parlor (it was in the find-out-what's-going-on phase of the campaign, and one of their leads was that a witness had seen the tattoos on a couple of perpetrators), and I decided that the tattooist was heavily body-modded and liked freakish appearances, and he led off with "Dahling, I love what you've done with your horns". Which I think actually made the tiefling even more uncomfortable than outright hostility would have.

[Psyren]

Out of the Abyss includes specific DM guidance recommending that player-characters not be from any of the Underdark races to really emphasize the alienness of the Underdark and the social structures they're going to encounter, at least in Unpronounceable Kuo-Toa-Land and Neverlight Grove.

A line like that doesn't say anything about how common those races are in the setting as a whole though, it's just setting up the fact that you were likely captured during a raid. There's even background options you can take to increase your familiarity with the Underdark in character.

The PCs aren't exotic species per se, but drow NPCs reacting to a human PC isn't that different from human NPCs reacting to a drow PC. Shadows of the Dragon Queen should probably include some of this too, but everything I've heard about that module is that it's awful so I haven't bought it.

Shadow of the Dragon Queen, rather than ban races 'exotic' to Krynn, takes an "ask your DM, here's a potential way you can use to justify it" approach. I see nothing wrong with that.

[P. G. Macer]

Shadow of the Dragon Queen, rather than ban races 'exotic' to Krynn, takes an "ask your DM, here's a potential way you can use to justify it" approach. I see nothing wrong with that.

Looking at the sidebar right now, that’s not what it says. It says:

PEOPLE FROM BEYOND

Peoples who aren’t native to the world still might find their way to Krynn. It’s possible to find individual members—or even small enclaves—of folk like dragonborn, halflings, tieflings, or any other race in Ansalon. Perhaps such individuals stepped through a portal and found themselves on Krynn, or traded with one of Krynn’s great empires before the Cataclysm. Use such possibilities to play characters of any race you please in your adventures across Krynn.

(Emphases added)

This sidebar is in the player-facing section of the book, “Character Creation”. It makes no mention of requiring the Dungeon Master’s permission or collaboration to play a race/species not native to the setting, and while the DM can fall back on Rule 0 like any DM, that they have to go against the text of the book to do so weakens their position should the issue of a player wanting to play, say, a loxodon in a Dragonlance campaign devolves into a player-vs.-DM argument.

Sorry, that particular sidebar is a pet peeve of mine in a module I otherwise enjoy quite a bit.

[Wintermoot]

Looking at the sidebar right now, that’s not what it says. It says:


(Emphases added)

This sidebar is in the player-facing section of the book, “Character Creation”. It makes no mention of requiring the Dungeon Master’s permission or collaboration to play a race/species not native to the setting, and while the DM can fall back on Rule 0 like any DM, that they have to go against the text of the book to do so weakens their position should the issue of a player wanting to play, say, a loxodon in a Dragonlance campaign devolves into a player-vs.-DM argument.

Sorry, that particular sidebar is a pet peeve of mine in a module I otherwise enjoy quite a bit.

Just so it's clear.

In a hypothetical situation where a DM says "i'm running a Krynn campaign" and six players show up and five of them are playing Krynn native races and one guy shows up with a War-forged.

DM: "Sorry, I guess there was some miscommunication. This is on Krynn, so there are no war-forged"

Player: "I don't need your permission. The rules say I can play exotic species because maybe they fell in a warp hole."

In your mind... the DM is the jerk in this situation?

[Dr.Samurai]

My guess is it's a pet peeve of PG Macer's because it gives the impression that the player can choose any race so long as there is an explanation, as opposed to making it more clear that the setting has certain restrictions and they should speak with their DM about selecting a race not normally found in the setting.

[GloatingSwine]

Just so it's clear.

In a hypothetical situation where a DM says "i'm running a Krynn campaign" and six players show up and five of them are playing Krynn native races and one guy shows up with a War-forged.

DM: "Sorry, I guess there was some miscommunication. This is on Krynn, so there are no war-forged"

Player: "I don't need your permission. The rules say I can play exotic species because maybe they fell in a warp hole."

In your mind... the DM is the jerk in this situation?

They should probably kick themselves for not hashing out at least the broad strokes of who's playing what in session 0, at least.

"We're playing this setting, only races in this setting's core book are involved" is peak session 0 framework-of-the-campaign material.

[Psyren]

Looking at the sidebar right now, that’s not what it says. It says:


(Emphases added)

That is what it says. "It's possible to find X" does not mean "you can choose to be X regardless of your DM's wishes." Moreover, even if it did somehow mean that, PHB pg. 6 gives the DM explicit authority to supersede any element of a printed module - so even if you are dead set on reading the sidebar that way, your DM can still just throw it out entirely.

[KorvinStarmast]

Just so it's clear.

In a hypothetical situation where a DM says "i'm running a Krynn campaign" and six players show up and five of them are playing Krynn native races and one guy shows up with a War-forged.

DM: "Sorry, I guess there was some miscommunication. This is on Krynn, so there are no war-forged"

Player: "I don't need your permission. The rules say I can play exotic species because maybe they fell in a warp hole."

In your mind... the DM is the jerk in this situation?

No, the player is being a jerk.

You also forgot to finish the conversation.
DM: "The DMG says DM is master of rules. DM rule is No Warforged on Krynn. If that's a deal breaker for you, sorry, I am sure there is a DM somewhere who will be happy to include your Warforged PC into their campaign.
If you still want to play in this campaign, please select one of the races that exist and give it a whirl.
And if you end up with buyer's remorse, you can respec your PC up to the end of level 4."

Also, PHB page 6 says DMs word is final on setting and lore.

Ultimately, the Dungeon Master is the authority on the campaign and its setting, even if the setting is a published world.

I agree with PG Macer that the sidebar is WotC setting up a DM vs Player situation.

I am not alone in feeling a bit backstabbed by WotC in my DM hat as regards any number of things they have carelessly dumped into the splats.

[Wintermoot]

My guess is it's a pet peeve of PG Macer's because it gives the impression that the player can choose any race so long as there is an explanation, as opposed to making it more clear that the setting has certain restrictions and they should speak with their DM about selecting a race not normally found in the setting.

Oh okay. Well then, that's different than how I read their post. My bad.

Carry on then.

No, the player is being a jerk.

You also forgot to finish the conversation.
DM: "The DMG says DM is master of rules. DM rule is No Warforged on Krynn. If that's a deal breaker for you, sorry, I am sure there is a DM somewhere who will be happy to include your Warforged PC into their campaign.
If you still want to play in this campaign, please select one of the races that exist and give it a whirl.
And if you end up with buyer's remorse, you can respec your PC up to the end of level 4."

Also, PHB page 6 says DMs word is final on setting and lore.

"Player: Actually, this is a tinkergnome named Thadwitzit whose great life work was building this metal automaton suit of armor for helping his people in mining and exploration. Sadly, because he's a tinkergnome, it only kind of worked and he got trapped inside then buried in a mine collapse. he died a long time ago, but years later, when the other gnomes dug up the armor, it was somehow automated as if by the spirit of Thadwitzit. Now he wanders the earth in his metal form, the decayed skeleton of his former self still strapped into the cockpit in the chest, trying to figure out who he really is. "

"DM: Oh, okay then."

[KorvinStarmast]

"Player: Actually, this is a tinkergnome named Thadwitzit whose great life work was building this metal automaton suit of armor for helping his people in mining and exploration. Sadly, because he's a tinkergnome, it only kind of worked and he got trapped inside then buried in a mine collapse. he died a long time ago, but years later, when the other gnomes dug up the armor, it was somehow automated as if by the spirit of Thadwitzit. Now he wanders the earth in his metal form, the decayed skeleton of his former self still strapped into the cockpit in the chest, trying to figure out who he really is. "

"DM: Oh, okay then."

If the two work together to find a way to make it work and fit into the game world, then Good Job To Them Both!
(IME players who go to the effort to make it fit are usually worth working with on any number of things, not just chargen).

[Psyren]

I agree with PG Macer that the sidebar is WotC setting up a DM vs Player situation.

If any attempt by WotC to say "here's a possible thing you can ask for" is "setting up a DM vs Player situation" then I would say both sides of that 'situation' are in dire need of thicker skins.

[P. G. Macer]

Oh dear, I didn’t mean to kick the hornet’s nest. Sorry.

But yeah, Dr.Samurai and KorvinStarmast have the best read of my position. The sidebar implies a certain malleability that by default Krynn does not have. If the DM makes the call of their own volition to let a player play an orc in Dragonlance, that’s fine and good. But in my opinion there’s enough ambiguity that a player may (mistakenly) believe the sidebar to be a case of Specific Beats General overriding p. 6 of the PHB in this specific instance.

I am of the belief that while ultimately no amount of rules text can truly defeat a bad-faith/jerk DM or player, the rules can provide some guardrails to prevent misunderstandings or clear up confusing cases that would otherwise cause players and DMs to not be the best person they could be at the table.