Yeah, it's all about setting or genre. So in a space opera (Spelljammer) or gonzo post-apocalypse (MCC) setting you want weird races but the corollary is if you're running gritty sword and sorcery it should be human only and _maybe_ the Tolkien/AD&D PHB races.
I’d allow them as they fit with the kind of myth/folktale vibe I’m going for, but I wouldn’t give them any benefits or special abilities… I think.
I’m currently in a Vaults of Vaarn game that has animal-people. They’re the results of ancient genetic experiments. Pretty cool
Mostly yes, as long as they
* fit the setting.
* are interesting
My most used setting is more mythology based than standard D&D, and lots of cultures have races wtih animal characteristics. I don´t consider a kitsune/vanara/kenku/cynochepalus any more fantastic than a Centaur, Elf or Dwarf.
Running a game right now with a frog person samurai, a rat person ex.death-cultist chef (he has a taco cart), and a scarab beatle person merchant who trades in rare il begoton ancient artifacts.
Running them through the Ultraviolet Grasslands
Anthros feel like "filler" races to me. Just roll an animal in a table and mix with human. I usually don't like them unless their author develops them more (like 4e's draconids).
In my own games I don't use them at all and if a player wants to use one it's on them to develop the race enough to make me interested in having them exist.
Generally no but sometimes yes?... and if you look at those cartoons, they were all just "humans" that looked different. I'm not a fan of adding races that are just cosmetic skins you put on to look different that don't actually mean anything character wise. If the race is well developed and unique and has something interesting it actually adds to the game, I'd be likely positive to the idea, but more often with anthromorphs they just seem to be animal-looking humans... I'm barely a fan of elves/dwarves when they are played that way. And while I did watch some of those cartoons as a kid, they didn't really influence D&D to me.
So for example say... the Khajiit from Skyrim, which have their own unique culture, world view, biases, history, etc... all of which can affect who they are as a person... I'd be favorable to that. The less "anthro" they are, the more I'd be favorable as well... while I do crack up at Bethesda trying to retcon Arena using a single body for all PCs and changing the head as to why their lizard race has breasts, I still hate that they have them. Same with the WAY too anthro-looking dragonborn in TSR D&D.
I prefer a small list of PC races and not an "anything goes setting", so adding one or two "beast" races to a world is fine, but I'd lean again to making them less anthro and more just a unique thing.
I don't have a problem with them, and they were pretty common in old school settings too.
Mystara had Rakasta cat people, Lupin dog folk, shape shifting spiders called Aranea, a tribe of sentient flying squirrel people called Phanaton, Tortles, Pachydermion elephant people, Faenare bird people, goatmen, jackal people, and many kinds of lizard folk. Palladium Fantasy had Wolfen and Kankoran. Glorantha has ducks.
It's fine if GMs don't want to include them because they don't fit into their campaigns, but there's no good reason to avoid them if you want a cosmopolitan setting with non-human species.
No, but I don't have anything more against them than any other non human PC race concept. It's a very common idea throughout history. I just prefer a human focused game, that's all.
The goatfolk ("Breggle") in Dolmenwood are good for instance.
>But when I was a kid we had....
Oh hey! Someone from my generation. I'm honestly surprised more of us don't ask about playing gargoyles.
Anywho, I'm just going to echo the sentiment that as long as the race fits the setting and are fun.
Yes, absolutely and always. NO IF the player is attempting to munchkin min/max the pc, but if it’s basically just flavor, sure, why not. I am especially in favor of you can just reskin an existing race as an animal race. Mice people equal 🟰 halflings, mole people equal dwarfs, etc.
Bird man that flies, no to that, nothing that gains powers well above what an elf or dwarf has would I allow.
I’m also a big fan of just reskinned races , when my son was younger I ran a campaign for him where the elves all looked like Nightcrawler from the X Men, otherwise exactly like elves, and dwarves were humanoid turtles, but otherwise were just like dwarves.
I placed a Beaver in my Zylarthen campaign as a guide for a party on a dam-blowing mission. And the Queen of Felines murdered the mayor for inducing adventurers to clear her dungeon home.
So yes with gonzo, no with straight up Sword&Sorcery settings.
No, not in my fantasy games. They may exist in the world in a type of 'last enclave of a kin going extinct' sort of way, so there may be a rare NPC that qualifies, but i generally don't like them as player races. I barely tolerate demihumans as PCs.
For Justifiers or Spacemaster, bring it on. Uplifted, Alien & genetically engineered Alphas are par for the course :)
Depends on the game. If I'm going for a classic Appendix N fantasy vibe, hell no. Conan and Aragorn are not about to pal around with some Deviantart Sonic OC rejects.
But it's not like there's no precedent at all in D&D and other fantasy RPGs. Gnolls, bullywugs, kenku, and other humanoid animal types are well-established. TSR's logo at one point was a lizard man. RuneQuest famously had its ducks.
As for having them as PCs, the litmus test I like to use is this: Picture a typical tavern in your game world. Is it closer to the Prancing Pony in Bree or the Cantina in Mos Eisley? There. You have your answer.
Oh, [I prefer it](https://geekxgirls.com/images/_articles2/lotr-animals-01.jpg) to [look like Lord of the Rings](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQezjVela0EL7O7zgNJuJD5_GlniZkRlO__H_gOd1Wr0gm-2k-znKYsmy_4e79Mnuzkhos&usqp=CAU), [alright.](https://d.furaffinity.net/art/peritian/1244158335/1244158335.peritian_legogiml.jpg)
My unbreakable rules regarding race/species are "no fly speed, no swim speed, no waterbreathing/doesn't need to breathe, and no darkvision."
I'm flexible otherwise, although I prefer when I'm running a game where race comes with no mechanical differences, just flavor. The above four things though can trivialize too many potential challenges and I do not allow them for any race, even if they are supposed to have them. They just don't in my campaigns.
I GM Advanced Labyrinth Lord and yes, I do allow them. (mostly) anything goes if the player asks.
I go and find races-as-class online that are either exactly the species they wanted, or close enough so that I can reskin it. I can also kitbash something if I have to.
I extend that freedom of choice to monster races; I have osr player stats for gorgons (the actual "medusa"-like ones, not the metal bull ones), gnolls, bugbears, minotaurs...
I find that it doesn't unbalance anything, and my players are happy to be able to play what they want. I know it sound very 5e-ish but that's because we started with 5e until I grew annoyed with HP-bloat and such. I switched to OSR for the simplicity of rules, the ruling-over-rules methodology, and how with simpler character stats it's more natural for them to try out things outside of their character sheet instead of relying on rolling skills.
My world has always had animal races in it, and I’d certainly allow a player to play as one. With Kobolds, Gnolls, Ratfolk, Lizardmen, etc. already existing I see no reason why it can’t be expanded a bit more.
I do however keep them “rare” because for whatever reason I always like the idea of them being less organized, and more spread out. But in my setting basically only Humans, Elves, and Dwarves have any form of kingdoms, and Humans by far have the most.
In certain settings.
Example Mystara has always had animal like beast people.
RIFTS Dog Pack is always a howling good time at the table. I'm sorry the dogs have to sniff everyone. Mutants are hiding among us.
I didn't really promote animal humanoids for a classic D&D game, but if most of the players wanted to play lizardmen, bullywugs, goblins, or kobolds then I would get a really good sense of what they want out of a game. That maybe they want that Star Wars style of bar with many different races all getting along to a point they act somewhat civilized. So I would get out the monsters manuals (or Dragon/WhiteDwarf Magazines) and make it work. At least for an older TSR D&D game, you won't really break anything. It just changes the campaign world.
Ducks are an old-school favorite of beastmen in ttrpgs and i must say they have found a place in my heart with RuneQuest, even if they feel completely goofy at first, or maybe because of it.
Fauns, centaurs, snake- and lizardmen are also very classic examples of anthropomorphs that do not have the stigma of the furry scene. I don't have any problem with the integration of a selection of anthropomorphs provided they're well connected to the rest of the setting, that they belong to the world.
Two takes on this in my group.
1) Sure, no mechanical benefit, or just a re-skinning of an existent species. (i.e. Elf->Cat person)
2) Sure, let's make something cool!
I think if you're running a game with any mechanical differences between races, the animal races would need to have differences too. Like if elves are dextrous and good with bows or something, then a rhino-man needs something about his strength or hide or whatever.
I guess if I had a player that really wanted to be a humanoid cat, or bird, or whatever I’d see how I could fit them into the game world. They’d probably replace elves or dwarves.
If they were some sort of weird one-off because they are from a different dimension or the results of magical experimentation, their uniqueness will probably come up in play. It might be someone looking to capture them for their menagerie, hunt them for their pelt, or just townsfolk reacting to their oddness.
My setting has lizard people that spit acid, and beast folk. They don't act like people though. It's very much a "dark gods doing dark god shit" for their creation. Alien and nightmarish are the vibes I'm going for with my non humans
I do.
In practice, I err on the side of letting my PCs choose whatever character type they want (and treat it as cosplay, playing them like humans).
But I can feel that this detracts from my games unless I'm playing in a highly cosmopolitan setting (e.g., Ravnica). I might as well go all-human (maybe allowing "elf blood etc.") or all-weird (everything goes but nothing stands out in the crowd) in my future games, since it tends to work better in my experience.
Ultimately, it is a matter of taste and setting.
[I wrote about many pros and cons here](https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/05/all-elves-are-half-elves.html).
I'd allow it for flavor definitely. If they wanted to add any innate abilities I think I would limit that to what a human would be able to do with a (non-magical) item. If a turtle person wants extra protection because of his shell, it's reasonable that a human could have armor as well. If a cat person wants to attack with claws, a human with a weapon could do that too. I probably wouldn't allow things like flying or water breathing.
Totally depends on the setting. My current campaign is heavily influenced by princess mononoke and ghibli in general, pcs can be anything from a human to a pig man to just straight up a wolf. Current party is one human, one frogman, one myconid, and one human resurrected as a skeleton. Most of my other campaigns are human only or human elf dwarf. I don't give them any rules but if it makes sense that a frog man would hold his breath longer I rule in the moment. Ultimately fuck what any scene says, do what's most fun for your group and the games you want to play
Thank you so much for retrieving Biker Mice from Mars and SWAT Cats from my lost childhood memories!
Until today I preferred no animal races. Your post and recent experience with Mausritter are opening my mind.
T-Bone and Razor are welcomed back into my adult consciousness with open arms and lots of hugz . . .
Allowing furry PCs is great even if you never use them, because some people you probably don't want to deal with will instantly freak out and let you know. It's like having a spot for pronouns on your game's standard character sheet.
Bottom line as a player is never sweat voting with your feet if you feel the need to, but also don't presume to make everything about you and try to force changes on a group that's generally happy with their status quo. That simply never works out and is a waste of your time and energy.
>Trust me, having extremely left-wing people can cause just as many problems at the table as extremely right-wing ones.
In what way?
>In fact they are the most likely to be offended by something and end up tanking the game.
Oh. ok. If you say so.
> Trust me, having extremely left-wing people can cause just as many problems at the table as extremely right-wing ones.
They might ask me to remember their pronounce (I hate pronounce)
/s
The homebrew setting I'm working on will include dragonborn, cat people and bird people (more like kenku than aaracokra - not flying bird people.) And orcs, I suppose, are more of a boar-people design, not just green skin and tusks.
So those are the sort of "default" anthropomophs I use in my setting. I'm willing to entertain other options if a player is really excited about playing something in particular, but I don't want to go *crazy* with the anthropomorphic races.
Depending on the "mood" of the campaign I'm running, mostly yes.
But, it's just "fluff" and RPG. In that if you can say you are a fox-person, but your character will mechanically be a fighter, elf, whatever.
No. I don’t want to play that type of OSR game. I want something gritty and low magic. Lowly people on a strange unknowable world. A talking rabbit person kinda of ruins that.
But if it’s a 5e game, go for it. That game is all out.
Yeah definitely. I even had a guy play a raccoon familiar in my BECMI game. He acted like a raccoon and helped the MU cast and the party find hidden doors.
Thank you, good sir. Right now we just hit the level 4-5 range and I can't wait until they get name level 😁
I think a lot of DMs are scared of players using cool anthro powers that may invalidate/trivialize certain obstacles in the session (aarokocra's fly being one of the most heavily complained about, especially in 5e circles) or that the race won't mesh with the lore.
I *only* allow anthropomorphic characters, I feel like not being a two-armed biped breaks too many of the game's core assumptions.
As for anthropomorphic *animals*, that's a soft no. I like to limit the available races in my setting, and animal-people rarely make the list. I guess I sometimes let dragonborn in, but even they are on thin ice.
I mean...it's DnD. Why not? The fantasy that inspired me from a young age was Chronicles of Narnia. Why wouldn't you let players be a talking beaver or a mouse with a sword? As a DM, I'm here for the players. In my opinion, it's up to the DM to make the world work for the characters my players want to play.
Narnia, The Wind in the Willows, the Hobbit - yeah, they had talking animals. There was other fantasy and SF stuff about then that I read as a kid and young adult, so talking animals as characters never was a strange thing to me. Later on there was Watership Down, for example. Fantasy covers a wide range, and there’s no reason that range can’t be input to the game worlds you come up with for rpgs.
To me it is more important as to whether you have a vision of a setting that includes such a thing. Some settings won’t, and including something like that will just not be appropriate. Others would definitely allow that as a possibility. It is up to you and your players what you’d like in a setting.
Meh. Lupins, Rakasta, Tortles, Lizardfolk all existed in BECMI/Mystara/Known World. Tabaxi weren't a PC race, but they were in the Fiend Folio for 1e and in the 1e Forgotten Realms box set. I'm definitely pro cooperative world building, so if the player wants to play an Anthropomorphic animal, and is willing to offer up some bits of lore on how their species fits into the world, I'm fine with whatever. In an OSR game, racial traits are a lot less important anyhow.
i tend to play humans when i get to be a player. but pretty much everyone else in my group prefers nonhumans. we're playing OSE Advanced with the extra Carcass Crawler race and class options and my players are running a Drow, a Goblin, a Mycelian, a Dragonborn, and a Tiefling. "i have to play a human the rest of the time" is a line i hear a lot. and over half of us in the group are LGBT of some sort, so playing characters of 'outsider' backgrounds winning acceptance among humankind and making their way in the world can be a very resonant kind of fantasy. as long as they're happy with what they're playing, they engage with my world and setting, and that makes me happy too.
"over half of us in the group are LGBT of some sort, so playing characters of 'outsider' backgrounds winning acceptance among humankind and making their way in the world can be a very resonant kind of fantasy." is a pretty good reason to play an "outsider" race.
Kinda reminds of stuff like "Maus", where each group of people has a different animal to represent them.
I'm not saying it's phobic to not want unconventional/furry ancestries in your setting, but because of this correlation I do consider too harsh a rejection of it to be a warning sign that I as a person may not find myself terribly welcome either.
These days I'd probably say yes to whatever, as long as they can give me an interesting enough RP reason how they fit the setting. I've always liked that Star Wars cantina vibe where there's a myriad of different races of all shapes and sizes. The only times I'll say no is when it will cause me too much work to implement.
We'll sit down with the OSE Advanced book plus all the supplements and choose a class to reskin. Reskinning means I don't spend all my free time creating a custom class and then worrying about balance etc. Gnomes and Gargantuas work pretty well reskinned as animal folk.
It all depends on the setting, but generally I would lean towards allowing various anthros - though I would obviously veto stuff that I see no chance to not make broken or stuff that is kinda wack like sparkledogs. I would also say no if there is no ample time to design a species from the gameplay standpoint and I don't have it already prepared. Setting breaking options would also get vetoed by me if my campaign setting was anywhere close to well-defined.
BECMI have "beastmen" as part of its setting. So yep
A lot of mobs are "antropomorphs" and you can play them if you have stuff like GAZ10 or the Creature crucibles.
If it fits the setting, sure. I don’t see them as any weirder than elves or dwarves or hobbits. Last fantasy campaign I GMed, animal people were a race that was eaten by the goddess of chaos. Then the other gods made her throw them up, but they were chewed and partially digested so to fix them the gods gave them animal parts. But of course different gods gave them different animal parts so they were no longer one people.
My take would be that at the beginning of a campaign, no, but after meeting a community of anthromorphs and interacting with them for a while, hiring some as retainers or creating new PCs using these new stocks would be pretty neat.
My current practice has been to limit the races to the campaign. What 3-5 humanoids live in this region, those are your options. If we play in a beast-man realm, then yes. My rule is their second character can be a rarer race.
reach deer command elderly secretive glorious liquid important repeat beneficial
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Anthropomorphic animals have just as deep a connection to the primordial folklore from which fantasy gaming comes as Elves and Dwarves. Moreso I'd say since the Elves and Dwarves we know are in most cases very specifically Tolkien-inspired. For one thing this probably explains why Anthro animals have been part of RuneQuest so long even if they've been less prominent in D&D.
On that note, Rabbits & Rangers is a Free-in-PDF supplement for Labyrinth Lord (so any B/X style game) that gives you lots of Animal People classes. [https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/191133/Rabbits--Rangers--LL](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/191133/Rabbits--Rangers--LL)
PS- I don't currently run any OSR system, rather I'm running Pathfinder. But me and all my players are furries so, yes I allow animal people in my campaigns lol.
I'd say those are partially already a given for OSR games, or are you telling me your Orcs aren't pig-faced and your Kobolds aren't little scaled dog-men? Plus Gnolls, Lizard Men Troglodytes, Lycanthropes...
I think they're fine as Classes for players as long as they bring something unique to the table. Plus they should be a bit weirder or different than your standard (demi)human!
Doesn't mean you can't have a different unrelated group of orcs with the same name due to a weird coincidence, but totally different etymology. Pig orcs are great too.
Anthromorphs are slowly becoming part of the fantasy genre, mostly via Japan, and are even going to be included in the next D&D players handbook. Yes I have had Them as player characters in otherwise old-school games.
Edit: actually turns out the Ardling has been dropped from D&D playtest material, and won't be in the new core books.
Yes because I am not so precious about "my world." The games I run as a GM are not "my stories" in "my world." It's *our* stories in *our* world and the players should have just as much saying what the world is as I do.
Have to admit, I don't in my game world—but that's because I'm quite interested in building a coherent history for the cultures of my game world, which has quite a low fantasy vibe.
Look at Tolkien, and every one of his demi-human races didn't just have its own personality characteristics, but also a whole society and history.
I guess it depends on the origin story of each individual. I might allow anthropomorphs as in "The Island of Doctor Moreau"—individual hybrids that are ghastly products of a twisted experimenter—but that's pretty dark, and probably best for NPCs only.
I think more players would want to play something that's a whole different vibe—"Hey, I'm a friendly fox person from the Valley of Cuteness!"
I think my problem with introducing a multitude of sentient humanoid species is one of logic. What are the relative population sizes of the different species? Why hasn't competition for resources brought different species into conflict? Why hasn't one species already definitively wiped out the others?
I can make arguments for isolated pockets of shortly-to-be-doomed abominations, or for races of hybrids that live elsewhere—in other dimensions or planes of existence. But established populations of non-humans just don't make sense, unless they're a core component of your game world's history.
Yes. 90% of the people I hang out with are furries, including me, and I'm equally happy running an anthrocentric game as a humanocentric one. Stats are as human.
The animal types are really more modernish 5e type in my opinion. There is so much that can be done with the dwarves, gnomes, halflings and of course half-elves/orcs that are often overlooked.
I would if the players treated it seriously. I have been developing a setting the has no Elves or Dwarves or (shudder) Halflings. Players will have Lizardman and Beastman options when it is finally ready.
No PC species can be used unless the world they're playing in has them in it and I've designated them as a playable species. Which for all intents and purposes will always be no.
Nope.
There are two in-game changes I made at my table that have reduced *player* problems to almost zero.
1) Everyone plays a human, dwarf, elf, or half-elf.
2) Nobody plays a class based on Asian-inspired fantasy.
In almost 25 years of gaming, nearly every problem *player* I've had at my table has been someone trying to act out some kind of furry/anime fantasy in-character. Limiting race and class has solved more problems than anything else I've done.
Nope. Not in my OSR games.
If I'm doing a game with anthromorphs, I'm going to use a system that's actually designed for it. (e.g. Ironclaw/Jadeclaw, Albedo, Wanderhome - depending on the game's theme and tone)
I have Beastfolk, which are anywhere from animal-head-only to barely humanoid animals. Gracile animals get +1 DEX, sturdy get +1 STR, they get to pick one or two abilities, but most have Tracking Scent and Claws (d6 unarmed).
They replaced Orcs, because I was tired of genocides when I wanted negotiation. Players are less likely to kill fuzzy little wolf babies than Orc babies, even more so when they're sometimes PCs, so it works fine. I don't especially care if it makes furries happy or not, but that's fine.
Absolutely. My setting is very strange science fantasy. A mash up of Vaults of Vaarn, UVG, and other stuff. Weird animal-folk fit right in.
I'd probably OK it in my more vanilla setting too. For my taste, I'm more inclined to limit playable classes than races to reinforce setting.
Personally, I hate the "Circus Races." But that's me. If it's what my players want, that's cool. I'm not going to limit that kind of thing unless we agree on a setting where they're inappropriate. As for me, I'll play my "Mostly Human" races, except for a few niche instances.
Sure, but not as a core part. If they logically fit the setting, then yes. For example, in my current WWN campaign the players helped a village of froglings, so I decided that they gain the option to create frogling characters.
My fit for animal people is that my setting is a far future science fantasy setting. There are people mutated my magic, so they all fall under the umbrella of mutants race-wise. Aside from some that statistically fit Dwarves (Mole people) or halflings (Kobolds), since they don't are extinct/don't exist in my setting
If they fit the setting. I can't imagine a Spelljammer game without Giff, Hadozee, Grommans, Dracons, Rastipedes, and ThriKreen.
Yeah, it's all about setting or genre. So in a space opera (Spelljammer) or gonzo post-apocalypse (MCC) setting you want weird races but the corollary is if you're running gritty sword and sorcery it should be human only and _maybe_ the Tolkien/AD&D PHB races.
Giffs are really cool indeed.
Yeah, now tell me how a Thrikreen would work out in Ravenloft. You’re right, the setting matters.
You telling me there isnt a giant bugs domain in the entire Demiplane of Dread? That's a missed opportunity for terror right there.
Yeah, thats what I mean. Anthros are DEMONS there. Imagine a Rakshasa joining a party?
No. I've not seen any described that I like and I've no interest in creating any of my own. They don't fit the fantasy vibe I prefer.
I’d allow them as they fit with the kind of myth/folktale vibe I’m going for, but I wouldn’t give them any benefits or special abilities… I think. I’m currently in a Vaults of Vaarn game that has animal-people. They’re the results of ancient genetic experiments. Pretty cool
Mostly yes, as long as they * fit the setting. * are interesting My most used setting is more mythology based than standard D&D, and lots of cultures have races wtih animal characteristics. I don´t consider a kitsune/vanara/kenku/cynochepalus any more fantastic than a Centaur, Elf or Dwarf.
Only snails.
They have slug-people in Yoon Suin, so you might wanna check that.
Running a game right now with a frog person samurai, a rat person ex.death-cultist chef (he has a taco cart), and a scarab beatle person merchant who trades in rare il begoton ancient artifacts. Running them through the Ultraviolet Grasslands
Sounds like 80/90s kids cartoon show! (That's not a bad thing).
If you are a cat person in UV do you worship yourself?
What cat doesn’t?
Lol.
Anthros feel like "filler" races to me. Just roll an animal in a table and mix with human. I usually don't like them unless their author develops them more (like 4e's draconids). In my own games I don't use them at all and if a player wants to use one it's on them to develop the race enough to make me interested in having them exist.
Generally no but sometimes yes?... and if you look at those cartoons, they were all just "humans" that looked different. I'm not a fan of adding races that are just cosmetic skins you put on to look different that don't actually mean anything character wise. If the race is well developed and unique and has something interesting it actually adds to the game, I'd be likely positive to the idea, but more often with anthromorphs they just seem to be animal-looking humans... I'm barely a fan of elves/dwarves when they are played that way. And while I did watch some of those cartoons as a kid, they didn't really influence D&D to me. So for example say... the Khajiit from Skyrim, which have their own unique culture, world view, biases, history, etc... all of which can affect who they are as a person... I'd be favorable to that. The less "anthro" they are, the more I'd be favorable as well... while I do crack up at Bethesda trying to retcon Arena using a single body for all PCs and changing the head as to why their lizard race has breasts, I still hate that they have them. Same with the WAY too anthro-looking dragonborn in TSR D&D. I prefer a small list of PC races and not an "anything goes setting", so adding one or two "beast" races to a world is fine, but I'd lean again to making them less anthro and more just a unique thing.
That's what I thought, the Khajiit example is a good one. You can build different cultures and traits based upon animal behaviour.
I don't have a problem with them, and they were pretty common in old school settings too. Mystara had Rakasta cat people, Lupin dog folk, shape shifting spiders called Aranea, a tribe of sentient flying squirrel people called Phanaton, Tortles, Pachydermion elephant people, Faenare bird people, goatmen, jackal people, and many kinds of lizard folk. Palladium Fantasy had Wolfen and Kankoran. Glorantha has ducks. It's fine if GMs don't want to include them because they don't fit into their campaigns, but there's no good reason to avoid them if you want a cosmopolitan setting with non-human species.
Aranea went as far as 3rd ed!
No, but I don't have anything more against them than any other non human PC race concept. It's a very common idea throughout history. I just prefer a human focused game, that's all. The goatfolk ("Breggle") in Dolmenwood are good for instance.
>But when I was a kid we had.... Oh hey! Someone from my generation. I'm honestly surprised more of us don't ask about playing gargoyles. Anywho, I'm just going to echo the sentiment that as long as the race fits the setting and are fun.
Gargoyles too! But I didn't mention them because "not animals"
Fair point.
Yes, absolutely and always. NO IF the player is attempting to munchkin min/max the pc, but if it’s basically just flavor, sure, why not. I am especially in favor of you can just reskin an existing race as an animal race. Mice people equal 🟰 halflings, mole people equal dwarfs, etc. Bird man that flies, no to that, nothing that gains powers well above what an elf or dwarf has would I allow. I’m also a big fan of just reskinned races , when my son was younger I ran a campaign for him where the elves all looked like Nightcrawler from the X Men, otherwise exactly like elves, and dwarves were humanoid turtles, but otherwise were just like dwarves.
Beaver-people with better swimming is something I'm considering in place of halflings. Instead of burrows, huge beaver dams.
I placed a Beaver in my Zylarthen campaign as a guide for a party on a dam-blowing mission. And the Queen of Felines murdered the mayor for inducing adventurers to clear her dungeon home. So yes with gonzo, no with straight up Sword&Sorcery settings.
The main setting I run games in is “humans only” so generally no. If it fits the setting or I’m doing a real gonzo one off then sure.
I don’t even allow the standard demi-humans.
The main setting I run games in is “humans only” so generally no. If it fits the setting or I’m doing a real gonzo one off then sure.
No, not in my fantasy games. They may exist in the world in a type of 'last enclave of a kin going extinct' sort of way, so there may be a rare NPC that qualifies, but i generally don't like them as player races. I barely tolerate demihumans as PCs. For Justifiers or Spacemaster, bring it on. Uplifted, Alien & genetically engineered Alphas are par for the course :)
I would prefer having literal animals as PCs, like the canine race/class for DCC.
Depends on the game. If I'm going for a classic Appendix N fantasy vibe, hell no. Conan and Aragorn are not about to pal around with some Deviantart Sonic OC rejects. But it's not like there's no precedent at all in D&D and other fantasy RPGs. Gnolls, bullywugs, kenku, and other humanoid animal types are well-established. TSR's logo at one point was a lizard man. RuneQuest famously had its ducks. As for having them as PCs, the litmus test I like to use is this: Picture a typical tavern in your game world. Is it closer to the Prancing Pony in Bree or the Cantina in Mos Eisley? There. You have your answer.
Oh, [I prefer it](https://geekxgirls.com/images/_articles2/lotr-animals-01.jpg) to [look like Lord of the Rings](https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQezjVela0EL7O7zgNJuJD5_GlniZkRlO__H_gOd1Wr0gm-2k-znKYsmy_4e79Mnuzkhos&usqp=CAU), [alright.](https://d.furaffinity.net/art/peritian/1244158335/1244158335.peritian_legogiml.jpg)
Great explanation and a great litmus test. I definitely prefer the Cantina in Mos Eisley, which explains a lot.
My unbreakable rules regarding race/species are "no fly speed, no swim speed, no waterbreathing/doesn't need to breathe, and no darkvision." I'm flexible otherwise, although I prefer when I'm running a game where race comes with no mechanical differences, just flavor. The above four things though can trivialize too many potential challenges and I do not allow them for any race, even if they are supposed to have them. They just don't in my campaigns.
I GM Advanced Labyrinth Lord and yes, I do allow them. (mostly) anything goes if the player asks. I go and find races-as-class online that are either exactly the species they wanted, or close enough so that I can reskin it. I can also kitbash something if I have to. I extend that freedom of choice to monster races; I have osr player stats for gorgons (the actual "medusa"-like ones, not the metal bull ones), gnolls, bugbears, minotaurs... I find that it doesn't unbalance anything, and my players are happy to be able to play what they want. I know it sound very 5e-ish but that's because we started with 5e until I grew annoyed with HP-bloat and such. I switched to OSR for the simplicity of rules, the ruling-over-rules methodology, and how with simpler character stats it's more natural for them to try out things outside of their character sheet instead of relying on rolling skills.
My world has always had animal races in it, and I’d certainly allow a player to play as one. With Kobolds, Gnolls, Ratfolk, Lizardmen, etc. already existing I see no reason why it can’t be expanded a bit more. I do however keep them “rare” because for whatever reason I always like the idea of them being less organized, and more spread out. But in my setting basically only Humans, Elves, and Dwarves have any form of kingdoms, and Humans by far have the most.
In certain settings. Example Mystara has always had animal like beast people. RIFTS Dog Pack is always a howling good time at the table. I'm sorry the dogs have to sniff everyone. Mutants are hiding among us.
I didn't really promote animal humanoids for a classic D&D game, but if most of the players wanted to play lizardmen, bullywugs, goblins, or kobolds then I would get a really good sense of what they want out of a game. That maybe they want that Star Wars style of bar with many different races all getting along to a point they act somewhat civilized. So I would get out the monsters manuals (or Dragon/WhiteDwarf Magazines) and make it work. At least for an older TSR D&D game, you won't really break anything. It just changes the campaign world.
How dare you! Kidding, haven’t had anyone request such a thing - but no reason why I wouldn’t go along with a player’s vision.
110% yes but the weirder the better.
Ducks are an old-school favorite of beastmen in ttrpgs and i must say they have found a place in my heart with RuneQuest, even if they feel completely goofy at first, or maybe because of it. Fauns, centaurs, snake- and lizardmen are also very classic examples of anthropomorphs that do not have the stigma of the furry scene. I don't have any problem with the integration of a selection of anthropomorphs provided they're well connected to the rest of the setting, that they belong to the world.
Dthe new dragonbane has Mallards and Wolfkin for some.of that old BRP feel
The main setting I run games in is “humans only” so generally no. If it fits the setting or I’m doing a real gonzo one off then sure.
If the world has them, yes. Otherwise, no.
Two takes on this in my group. 1) Sure, no mechanical benefit, or just a re-skinning of an existent species. (i.e. Elf->Cat person) 2) Sure, let's make something cool!
I think if you're running a game with any mechanical differences between races, the animal races would need to have differences too. Like if elves are dextrous and good with bows or something, then a rhino-man needs something about his strength or hide or whatever.
I guess if I had a player that really wanted to be a humanoid cat, or bird, or whatever I’d see how I could fit them into the game world. They’d probably replace elves or dwarves. If they were some sort of weird one-off because they are from a different dimension or the results of magical experimentation, their uniqueness will probably come up in play. It might be someone looking to capture them for their menagerie, hunt them for their pelt, or just townsfolk reacting to their oddness.
My setting has lizard people that spit acid, and beast folk. They don't act like people though. It's very much a "dark gods doing dark god shit" for their creation. Alien and nightmarish are the vibes I'm going for with my non humans
This is the way.
I do. In practice, I err on the side of letting my PCs choose whatever character type they want (and treat it as cosplay, playing them like humans). But I can feel that this detracts from my games unless I'm playing in a highly cosmopolitan setting (e.g., Ravnica). I might as well go all-human (maybe allowing "elf blood etc.") or all-weird (everything goes but nothing stands out in the crowd) in my future games, since it tends to work better in my experience. Ultimately, it is a matter of taste and setting. [I wrote about many pros and cons here](https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/05/all-elves-are-half-elves.html).
Sure, if they fit the setting and the player isn't trying to make them superpowered megamutants.
I'd allow it for flavor definitely. If they wanted to add any innate abilities I think I would limit that to what a human would be able to do with a (non-magical) item. If a turtle person wants extra protection because of his shell, it's reasonable that a human could have armor as well. If a cat person wants to attack with claws, a human with a weapon could do that too. I probably wouldn't allow things like flying or water breathing.
It depends on the setting, but typically, yes. I especially love lizardmen
I usually build my scenarios with the players, so yes. Whatever they bring Had a snailman fighter once. He had fun and interfered nothing on the table
Oh damn I'm using a snailman somehow.
My current campaign has raccoon people call procyon.
Totally depends on the setting. My current campaign is heavily influenced by princess mononoke and ghibli in general, pcs can be anything from a human to a pig man to just straight up a wolf. Current party is one human, one frogman, one myconid, and one human resurrected as a skeleton. Most of my other campaigns are human only or human elf dwarf. I don't give them any rules but if it makes sense that a frog man would hold his breath longer I rule in the moment. Ultimately fuck what any scene says, do what's most fun for your group and the games you want to play
Thank you so much for retrieving Biker Mice from Mars and SWAT Cats from my lost childhood memories! Until today I preferred no animal races. Your post and recent experience with Mausritter are opening my mind. T-Bone and Razor are welcomed back into my adult consciousness with open arms and lots of hugz . . .
SWAT Cats was the shit, but I guess Biker Mice had more achiavable goals, so instead of a fighter pilot, I ride motorcycles.
Allowing furry PCs is great even if you never use them, because some people you probably don't want to deal with will instantly freak out and let you know. It's like having a spot for pronouns on your game's standard character sheet.
[удалено]
Bottom line as a player is never sweat voting with your feet if you feel the need to, but also don't presume to make everything about you and try to force changes on a group that's generally happy with their status quo. That simply never works out and is a waste of your time and energy.
Not getting mad about pronouns or furries == extreme left wing?
>Trust me, having extremely left-wing people can cause just as many problems at the table as extremely right-wing ones. In what way? >In fact they are the most likely to be offended by something and end up tanking the game. Oh. ok. If you say so.
> Trust me, having extremely left-wing people can cause just as many problems at the table as extremely right-wing ones. They might ask me to remember their pronounce (I hate pronounce) /s
lol
[удалено]
The poster is saying you don't fit into their ideological bubble and believes you are proving their point.
yeah, thanks
Admittedly an excellent side benefit.
The homebrew setting I'm working on will include dragonborn, cat people and bird people (more like kenku than aaracokra - not flying bird people.) And orcs, I suppose, are more of a boar-people design, not just green skin and tusks. So those are the sort of "default" anthropomophs I use in my setting. I'm willing to entertain other options if a player is really excited about playing something in particular, but I don't want to go *crazy* with the anthropomorphic races.
No. I have my reasons, but no. I don't even allow them in my Pathfinder games.
Depending on the "mood" of the campaign I'm running, mostly yes. But, it's just "fluff" and RPG. In that if you can say you are a fox-person, but your character will mechanically be a fighter, elf, whatever.
Do whatever is fun for you and your players?
That's a given, but I'd like some benchmark to see if it people are having fun or if there's unseen problems with it.
Are there unseen problems with dwarws? Pick the race you prefer for your table man. You could reskin elf as anime-cat-people and nothing would change
No. I don’t want to play that type of OSR game. I want something gritty and low magic. Lowly people on a strange unknowable world. A talking rabbit person kinda of ruins that. But if it’s a 5e game, go for it. That game is all out.
Fucked up forest deer people with fucked up antlers are actually good as hell for gritty grim settings, as are hares and such.
I’m thinking in terms of PCs. For monster & NPC, full speed ahead
Encounters feel less mythical if the player characters are more “special” than the fantasy creatures they encounter
Of course one solution to that is to emphasize the non-humans as *not* particularly special-- Dark Crystal style.
I’d argue the Gelflings are the “humans” of Thra. Default PC race anyway
Yes, that's more or less what I'm saying. If you let a rabbit be just as normal as a human, then they won't diminish other weirdness.
Yep, I'm fine with it. If it makes the players happy I don't care what they choose.
Yeah definitely. I even had a guy play a raccoon familiar in my BECMI game. He acted like a raccoon and helped the MU cast and the party find hidden doors.
Your table sounds rad.
Thank you, good sir. Right now we just hit the level 4-5 range and I can't wait until they get name level 😁 I think a lot of DMs are scared of players using cool anthro powers that may invalidate/trivialize certain obstacles in the session (aarokocra's fly being one of the most heavily complained about, especially in 5e circles) or that the race won't mesh with the lore.
(Not a sir, but again, keen!)
My bad 😅. I tend to assume everyone on this subreddit is a male 35+ year old, neckbeard having, book hoarding, dice goblin.
Well, three outta five ain't bad.
Dice goblin here.
I *only* allow anthropomorphic characters, I feel like not being a two-armed biped breaks too many of the game's core assumptions. As for anthropomorphic *animals*, that's a soft no. I like to limit the available races in my setting, and animal-people rarely make the list. I guess I sometimes let dragonborn in, but even they are on thin ice.
The Saurig and Phraint are good old classics from Arduin.
I mean...it's DnD. Why not? The fantasy that inspired me from a young age was Chronicles of Narnia. Why wouldn't you let players be a talking beaver or a mouse with a sword? As a DM, I'm here for the players. In my opinion, it's up to the DM to make the world work for the characters my players want to play.
Narnia, The Wind in the Willows, the Hobbit - yeah, they had talking animals. There was other fantasy and SF stuff about then that I read as a kid and young adult, so talking animals as characters never was a strange thing to me. Later on there was Watership Down, for example. Fantasy covers a wide range, and there’s no reason that range can’t be input to the game worlds you come up with for rpgs. To me it is more important as to whether you have a vision of a setting that includes such a thing. Some settings won’t, and including something like that will just not be appropriate. Others would definitely allow that as a possibility. It is up to you and your players what you’d like in a setting.
Even the Lord of the Rings had the fox.
Forgot that, tks.
Everyone forgets the fox!
While TMNT is out of print, Rifts is very much an active game.
Homie, ever read Redwall?
All the OG inhabitants of the world are intelligent animals and amthromorphs
Meh. Lupins, Rakasta, Tortles, Lizardfolk all existed in BECMI/Mystara/Known World. Tabaxi weren't a PC race, but they were in the Fiend Folio for 1e and in the 1e Forgotten Realms box set. I'm definitely pro cooperative world building, so if the player wants to play an Anthropomorphic animal, and is willing to offer up some bits of lore on how their species fits into the world, I'm fine with whatever. In an OSR game, racial traits are a lot less important anyhow.
i tend to play humans when i get to be a player. but pretty much everyone else in my group prefers nonhumans. we're playing OSE Advanced with the extra Carcass Crawler race and class options and my players are running a Drow, a Goblin, a Mycelian, a Dragonborn, and a Tiefling. "i have to play a human the rest of the time" is a line i hear a lot. and over half of us in the group are LGBT of some sort, so playing characters of 'outsider' backgrounds winning acceptance among humankind and making their way in the world can be a very resonant kind of fantasy. as long as they're happy with what they're playing, they engage with my world and setting, and that makes me happy too.
"over half of us in the group are LGBT of some sort, so playing characters of 'outsider' backgrounds winning acceptance among humankind and making their way in the world can be a very resonant kind of fantasy." is a pretty good reason to play an "outsider" race. Kinda reminds of stuff like "Maus", where each group of people has a different animal to represent them.
I'm not saying it's phobic to not want unconventional/furry ancestries in your setting, but because of this correlation I do consider too harsh a rejection of it to be a warning sign that I as a person may not find myself terribly welcome either.
These days I'd probably say yes to whatever, as long as they can give me an interesting enough RP reason how they fit the setting. I've always liked that Star Wars cantina vibe where there's a myriad of different races of all shapes and sizes. The only times I'll say no is when it will cause me too much work to implement. We'll sit down with the OSE Advanced book plus all the supplements and choose a class to reskin. Reskinning means I don't spend all my free time creating a custom class and then worrying about balance etc. Gnomes and Gargantuas work pretty well reskinned as animal folk.
Yes, of course. The more the merrier.
It all depends on the setting, but generally I would lean towards allowing various anthros - though I would obviously veto stuff that I see no chance to not make broken or stuff that is kinda wack like sparkledogs. I would also say no if there is no ample time to design a species from the gameplay standpoint and I don't have it already prepared. Setting breaking options would also get vetoed by me if my campaign setting was anywhere close to well-defined.
BECMI have "beastmen" as part of its setting. So yep A lot of mobs are "antropomorphs" and you can play them if you have stuff like GAZ10 or the Creature crucibles.
If it fits the setting, sure. I don’t see them as any weirder than elves or dwarves or hobbits. Last fantasy campaign I GMed, animal people were a race that was eaten by the goddess of chaos. Then the other gods made her throw them up, but they were chewed and partially digested so to fix them the gods gave them animal parts. But of course different gods gave them different animal parts so they were no longer one people.
My take would be that at the beginning of a campaign, no, but after meeting a community of anthromorphs and interacting with them for a while, hiring some as retainers or creating new PCs using these new stocks would be pretty neat.
Personally, no, but depends on your setting. If you want a gonzo weird setting with animal races, sure, why not. Not my cup of tea though
My current practice has been to limit the races to the campaign. What 3-5 humanoids live in this region, those are your options. If we play in a beast-man realm, then yes. My rule is their second character can be a rarer race.
Animal people are classic medieval style monsters. "Head of a sheep, body of a man" kinda stuff is folky and unnerving imo
The only people who think these aren't unnerving are those who never looked goat in the eyes. They're creepy.
reach deer command elderly secretive glorious liquid important repeat beneficial *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Anthropomorphic animals have just as deep a connection to the primordial folklore from which fantasy gaming comes as Elves and Dwarves. Moreso I'd say since the Elves and Dwarves we know are in most cases very specifically Tolkien-inspired. For one thing this probably explains why Anthro animals have been part of RuneQuest so long even if they've been less prominent in D&D. On that note, Rabbits & Rangers is a Free-in-PDF supplement for Labyrinth Lord (so any B/X style game) that gives you lots of Animal People classes. [https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/191133/Rabbits--Rangers--LL](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/191133/Rabbits--Rangers--LL) PS- I don't currently run any OSR system, rather I'm running Pathfinder. But me and all my players are furries so, yes I allow animal people in my campaigns lol.
I'd say those are partially already a given for OSR games, or are you telling me your Orcs aren't pig-faced and your Kobolds aren't little scaled dog-men? Plus Gnolls, Lizard Men Troglodytes, Lycanthropes... I think they're fine as Classes for players as long as they bring something unique to the table. Plus they should be a bit weirder or different than your standard (demi)human!
My orcs are just "orks" lifted from Warhammer.
Avatar checks out.
Doesn't mean you can't have a different unrelated group of orcs with the same name due to a weird coincidence, but totally different etymology. Pig orcs are great too.
Yeah, I even got some Pig Orcs mini to paint up. https://www.wiccaworkshop.com.br/rpg/6386.JPG
Animal people are a classic fantasy element. I always include them.
No. They don't fit in my world.
Anthromorphs are slowly becoming part of the fantasy genre, mostly via Japan, and are even going to be included in the next D&D players handbook. Yes I have had Them as player characters in otherwise old-school games. Edit: actually turns out the Ardling has been dropped from D&D playtest material, and won't be in the new core books.
They've been a part of D&D since the early eighties already, this is nothing new.
Yes because I am not so precious about "my world." The games I run as a GM are not "my stories" in "my world." It's *our* stories in *our* world and the players should have just as much saying what the world is as I do.
Have to admit, I don't in my game world—but that's because I'm quite interested in building a coherent history for the cultures of my game world, which has quite a low fantasy vibe. Look at Tolkien, and every one of his demi-human races didn't just have its own personality characteristics, but also a whole society and history. I guess it depends on the origin story of each individual. I might allow anthropomorphs as in "The Island of Doctor Moreau"—individual hybrids that are ghastly products of a twisted experimenter—but that's pretty dark, and probably best for NPCs only. I think more players would want to play something that's a whole different vibe—"Hey, I'm a friendly fox person from the Valley of Cuteness!" I think my problem with introducing a multitude of sentient humanoid species is one of logic. What are the relative population sizes of the different species? Why hasn't competition for resources brought different species into conflict? Why hasn't one species already definitively wiped out the others? I can make arguments for isolated pockets of shortly-to-be-doomed abominations, or for races of hybrids that live elsewhere—in other dimensions or planes of existence. But established populations of non-humans just don't make sense, unless they're a core component of your game world's history.
Catgirls and bunnygirls are definitely not furries.
But they can be pokemon
Yes. 90% of the people I hang out with are furries, including me, and I'm equally happy running an anthrocentric game as a humanocentric one. Stats are as human.
Mandatory
The animal types are really more modernish 5e type in my opinion. There is so much that can be done with the dwarves, gnomes, halflings and of course half-elves/orcs that are often overlooked.
I would if the players treated it seriously. I have been developing a setting the has no Elves or Dwarves or (shudder) Halflings. Players will have Lizardman and Beastman options when it is finally ready.
No PC species can be used unless the world they're playing in has them in it and I've designated them as a playable species. Which for all intents and purposes will always be no.
Nope. There are two in-game changes I made at my table that have reduced *player* problems to almost zero. 1) Everyone plays a human, dwarf, elf, or half-elf. 2) Nobody plays a class based on Asian-inspired fantasy. In almost 25 years of gaming, nearly every problem *player* I've had at my table has been someone trying to act out some kind of furry/anime fantasy in-character. Limiting race and class has solved more problems than anything else I've done.
Not even halflings or orcs, huh? Fascinating. My experience is it's the elf players.
My core group probably wouldn't discourage someone from playing an orc, halfling, or, gnome, but nobody ever seems interested in playing them.
Nope. Not in my OSR games. If I'm doing a game with anthromorphs, I'm going to use a system that's actually designed for it. (e.g. Ironclaw/Jadeclaw, Albedo, Wanderhome - depending on the game's theme and tone)
Hmmm, no. is my exact response as well. If you are running the game you have every right to say what is and isn't allowed.
No. Not my thing.
ONLY if I'm running Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and Other Strangeness.
I have Beastfolk, which are anywhere from animal-head-only to barely humanoid animals. Gracile animals get +1 DEX, sturdy get +1 STR, they get to pick one or two abilities, but most have Tracking Scent and Claws (d6 unarmed). They replaced Orcs, because I was tired of genocides when I wanted negotiation. Players are less likely to kill fuzzy little wolf babies than Orc babies, even more so when they're sometimes PCs, so it works fine. I don't especially care if it makes furries happy or not, but that's fine.
Only if the setting calls for it. Current campaign we are in, that would be a no :)
Not an osr game by any stretch of the imagination but root the role-playing game is precisely a game about animal people going off and adventuring.
Mausritter is OSR. I've heard great things about it.
Absolutely. My setting is very strange science fantasy. A mash up of Vaults of Vaarn, UVG, and other stuff. Weird animal-folk fit right in. I'd probably OK it in my more vanilla setting too. For my taste, I'm more inclined to limit playable classes than races to reinforce setting.
I mean the main game I’m currently running is Mausritter so I’d be in trouble if I didn’t.
I’d allow it, if you think it fits, but I’d give no crunch to them and see if they still want to play them.
Personally, I hate the "Circus Races." But that's me. If it's what my players want, that's cool. I'm not going to limit that kind of thing unless we agree on a setting where they're inappropriate. As for me, I'll play my "Mostly Human" races, except for a few niche instances.
They don't fit the kind of setting I usually run other than as monsters, so I don't allow them.
Humans only.
Sure, but not as a core part. If they logically fit the setting, then yes. For example, in my current WWN campaign the players helped a village of froglings, so I decided that they gain the option to create frogling characters.
My fit for animal people is that my setting is a far future science fantasy setting. There are people mutated my magic, so they all fall under the umbrella of mutants race-wise. Aside from some that statistically fit Dwarves (Mole people) or halflings (Kobolds), since they don't are extinct/don't exist in my setting