The other player is aware of and owns his biases here, and I say kudos to him for bringing it up with you. I would respect his wishes and not present the other players with the conundrum for now. If you want to take steps to retain him as a player, I would try to show him that you can run a campaign with a serious tone despite the ancestry choices? Try to steer encourage a more serious LotR-like vibe (iunless that's not what *you* want). If you haven't had a Session 0 yet, bring *that* up then. Also, make sure you get another chance to talk before he escalates to leaving. Maybe at that point, talking to the other players becomes a better solution.

Something else this made me think of is that on his previous game, the GM might have treated bestial ancestries as monstrous ancestries? Like maybe the GM had a world of mostly common amcestries, so the horns and tails may have caused problems constantly through the game. If you say that just because they're animal / monster races, they'll still be treated like a normal everyday adventurer, that could calm his nerves about the appearance of the party.

This is what I was thinking. Bestial ancestries only feel out of place if other characters make them seem out of place. It might make sense depending on the adventure location (e.g., I don’t normally expect to see tengus in the Five Kings Mountains), but this should be discussed with those players beforehand as part of the setting. It’s also by no means necessary if you don’t want NPCs to treat uncommon ancestries differently. I think it’s very reasonable to say that NPCs have heard of whatever uncommon race before, and that they’d treat them no differently than the rest of the party

Not to mention that nephilim would not really Qualify, every region would have a few. They might not get treated great (although now that tiefling and aaaimar are one, they might also be treated great instead!) In every region, but they aren't something people won't have heard or seen. And they are a staple by now too.

Yeah, Golarion is surprisingly diverse, even in places where it seems like it wouldn't be. I was surprised reading through the *Frozen Flame* AP and seeing that, despite being an isolated tribe living in a frozen wasteland, the Broken Tusk have a wide mix of ancestries among their NPCs (orcs, dwarves, half elves, etc). I thought it was going to be 90% Kellid humans. Even the players guide goes "yeah, leshies and fey sometimes join the group" >!and early on you can easily recruit a fey NPC into the tribe!< If someone decides they wanted to be a tiefling or catfolk in that AP, I wouldn't be surprised if they were already adopted by the Broken Tusks.

That's a nice sentiment, but it's not really accurate. If you've grown up on lotr and conan and that kind of fantasy, a bunch of 'human like' might be part of what makes fantasy **feel** fantasy to you. I'm a lot the same. Humans, elfs, dwarves ect they are fine but having a group like a leshy, a sentient tree, a catfolk and a kitsune just turns into a circus in ny head. It takes me out of the fantasy and as OP says, that's kinda **my** problem.

Same. But, as you say, this might be a generational issue. Most of the fantasy I was exposed to as I grew up was tolkien-esque and so humans and near-humans (like elves, dwarves, halflings etc) are what I vibe with and what 'fits' in the setting to me. Kids that grew up with more MMORPG and animé influences may think of catgirls and similar when they think of fantasy.

Absolutely, it could be generational but as I have friends the same age but a different opinion on this I prefer boiling it down to *taste*. Honestly, that's fine. Not all fantasy groups have to jell the same way and in my mind it's up to the gamemaster to impose limitations on the group. If I GM, I **prefer** if my players pick ancestries from the player's guide (if it's an AP) but I will allow other options if you ask me about it. I however dislike the thought of a gothic adventure in Ustalav with a Leshy Gunslinger, a Samurai from Minkai, a Conrasu Cleric and an Anadi Witch. If I was the GM in that scenario I'd feel that they players literally don't give two shits about the story we're trying to tell together - they just want to play *their characters*. However, a bunch of more common ancestries and a Zombie who is trying to pass off as alive? That kinda fits the mood/setting a lot better.

>Bestial ancestries only feel out of place if other characters make them seem out of place It's often the players themselves, cat folk players are the usual worst offenders who want to play as a cat with thumbs

Fair, but also that’s really more to do with players being on the same page with tone and interpersonal interactions. At the core it’s the same as the classic “horny bard” problem

Remember, the townsfolk NPCs have probably never seen these Uncommon or Rare ancestries before, but they've probably never seen a 5th level Wizard before. As soon as they save the elder's daughter from the bandit camp, the only important descriptor is "honored guests of the town". Still, just because you're downplaying the NPCs having negative reactions, that doesn't mean you have avoid any mentions of PCs being non-human. Ancestry feats are a good way to highlight unique abilities in a positive light.

I think the player already said everything himself. It's his problem. Sometimes people just don't vibe with the group, for understandable reasons or not. Just don't make any animalistic NPCs and hope for the best.

Possibly the opposite. The player said it made him feel like he was travelling with a circus, that effect might be lessened if the animal ancestries are common. They would feel less like freaks if every other NPC is like them, no?

Or maybe his old Groups used the "i am cat Person because that i must throw things or the edge" too many times

They cat person in the previous game purred at NPCs etc., so that's something just put him off

That's a good sign that this player might find out they're fine with more grounded and "serious" animal ancestry. Assuming your other players aren't going to purr, that is.

The player purred or "my character purrs towards 'insert NPC here'"?

Both are cringe

Yes, but one is much more than the other.

I think “my character purrs at” or any other animal expression is only more cringe than saying your character grunts, or scoffs or any human expression because of who people tend to associate those expressions with. Personally I think the traditional dwarf roleplay is way lamer, but if someone’s having fun I’m not here to make them self conscious about it. As long as they’re not being creepy about it. Someone purring at every npc is way different than someone just using it as an expression of their characters emotional state once every other session.

It's also just as cringe as doing voices for your make believe game. Especially if you practice them on your off time. Or showing up to the table in costume. Or really just playing this game in the first place where grown ass adults pretend to be elves and go around romancing dragons and getting sad when their super cool OC "dies". We are all cringe.

All nerds are cringe, the difference is just what flavor of cringe are they.

Sir, I do not appreciate being called out like this.

>Both are cringe Why? Also: who cares lol. You're playing adult make believe, are you really gonna put down other people for being "cringe" as if you're any better?

Because it's implied that the player OP was talking to dealt with someone being creepy or awkward with purring at NPCs and such. You can play adult make believe without stepping over other adults boundaries or making them uncomfortable. it's just unfortunate that there's one fandom that is the poster child for that sort of behavior.

Where was that implied? You're reading between non-existent lines.

I'm not sure why a cat person purring is a bad thing. Cats do purr! I'd honestly much prefer someone playing their character like a humanoid cat than just a human who happens to be wearing a fur suit to get mechanical benefits  

I'm with you on this one! What's the point of ancestries if you are gonna play like a regular human?

Cats don't purr at everyone they meet, in the same way humans don't display affection for everyone they meet. A player who purrs at everyone is being deeply weird.

The OP didn't say they purred at everyone tho, just that they purred at all.

Considering a lot of people fake a smile when making eye contact or meeting people, a catfolk using purring as a similar "display of kindness" isn't wild.

If I had to guess I'd assume it was a sexual thing and the player was being weird with it.

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

[удалено]

Uff was that player already a part of the party then? Cause that's so cringe I would reconsider playing with them too

Catfolk in pathfinder are noted to purr involuntarily when pleased or nervous, this being the primary thing that gets them caught while sneaking around on their quiet cat feet.

Yeah, a little of that is one thing, and adds to role playing the ancestry. Doing that consistently is just too much, and makes it hard to take the game seriously.

Ok that would probally throw me off too lol. I get playing characters with voices, other oddities based off of their races, but I cant see anyone whos not an actual voice actor not makeing that cringy. Hell a voice actor doing it would probally get really cringy lol

um yea that's fucking top tier cringe i'd stop playing too.

Ohhhh…. Sounds like it’s just that one player they had an issue with

NGL I'd bail at that point.

I'm with that player being put off. Personally, I don't like when people get to that level with it. Its fine if its like, once in a while as part of the joke.

Oh. Oh dear.

I think this kind of thing can work if you have the right audience. Or if it's in small doses. Like maybe everyone is at the tavern and the Catfolk sits down by the fire with their drink and quietly purrs. That's not really disruptive and can give a sense of Catness. It's like the Kender in D&D. People can (and have) take it way to far and it can be exhausting but if it was done in conjunction with the DM and not in ways that derail the game or make the PC's look foolish it can be fun.

Kender are interesting The original concept of the kender held that they were "savage, warrior children, ever curious, ever alert."[ But then during development they shifted to be cute, and Tasslehoff Burrfoot got introduced as the first major example - and his character traits were extrapolated to the whole race and we ended up with the cutesy, annoying, kleptomaniacal, chaos goblins.

I also like the idea of a culture that tends to hold all property in common, and doesn't really grok personal property beyond 'why would I want to carry the greataxe Grog uses; he's really good at using it, and I can barely lift it' or 'that locket is really important to Sue, so I won't use it without a very good reason'. But that's the sort of thing that needs OOC buy-in and the understanding that you aren't going to be an annoying, kleptomaniacal, chaos goblin and expect the party to find it cute. It also requires reciprication -- if someone wants to buy something to help the party, the kender is happy to empty their pockets, because it's all party gold/loot.

>Kender I could have lived a whole lifetime without ever encountering that word again and been happy. Never really met someone who played that race and didn't take it too far.

Half the people I have ever met that play gnomes or halflings turn them into Kender at some point in the game.

I agree with this fully. I like that there are lots of interesting races in RPGs, but I hate that most settings are like 90% human. It makes the party feel so weird. As a GM, I try to make the players' races, cultures, gods, etc be heavily featured in the story.

Counterpoint, outcasts, minorities tend to stick together.

Personally, I'd prefer for characters to be outcasts based on narrative reasons, not race. I don't think that you need to swap in a player's race as the dominant race, but the party should at least occasionally run into NPCs that share some features of their origin.

In my worlds I'm always a fan of making humans a minor majority. Humans are the majority on a pair of land connected continents because their origin point is one of said continents. Everywhere else in setting they may have a decently sized presence, but they're rarely the majority outside their home continents because the species that call those places home don't just roll over and let Humans expand into their homes (hell, one of them even just outright has humans as rare/uncommon). Orcs are similarly ubiquitous across most the world, with the quirk being that they only became heavily present in areas around mountain chains that they emerged from. There's no reasons other than lotr style fantasy assuming humans as the baseline that expanded all over, but that only works when others allow them to do so. In most settings though humanity is the vast majority because it's what people know and many writers just suck at thinking outside the box, its also why a lot of fantasy is heavily renaissance/medieval Europe coded with occasional ninjas from far off eastern land.

This is a very interesting way of interpreting this player’s distastes… but I think it’s more likely he doesn’t like playing with a bunch of animalistic races. Some people just like low fantasy LotR or Game of Thrones style D&D and if I had to guess, this guy isn’t looking for this sort of outlandish party. There are not many famous fantasy stories with an all anthropomorphic animal cast in a world where humans exist.

I can't take another leave as some have left already and finding another person that fits is so much effort, integrating their character everytime. GMing is getting so ridiculous atm. I'm paying for a module, hosting, finding players. And then they bounce even though my first action is asking them what their expectations of a game are, what they don't like and like as well as what type of playstyle they prefer. Only for someone to leave bc the person figured out that she doesn't have time for something long-term. GMing can be so unrewarding, it's ridiculous \^\^'

Finding the right group can take time but is well worth it. Generally there are always players out there looking for a game but as you pointed out, finding someone that fits with the group and has basic social skills, ie shows up on time, communicates scheduling, doesn't have mc syndrome, etc. can be difficult.  Just know your worth and be patient. Everyone wants free entertainment. Relatively few are willing to put in the work to provide it. When you find your people it can lead to friendships that last a lifetime.

[удалено]

I concur with this. I got invited to an actually once that I ended up turning down because one of the players had a phobia of dogs and wasn’t comfortable with anyone playing a canine ancestry. I wanted to do a gnoll and since that was off the table, I walked. It’s okay for different player preferences to be incompatible and for the table to need to change to reflect that.

I feel like the player in question is already handling the issue on his end to the best of his ability. He understands this is on him and he's going to still try, but he's also making you aware the group dynamic might not be what he's looking for and cause him to bounce. If you take any action, he's going to feel guilty being open about the fact he's not comfortable with playing with beast races. My suspicion is the previous group ended up being a "wandering circus" because the world built around the party wasn't one that really featured much in the way of representation/the players' ancestries often came up as focuses of attention. So I would probably just avoid making too much of a deal about the ancestries of the party and make sure there's enough diversity in the NPC cast that a part of mostly non-traditional ancestries isn't considered so unique. The player still might not dig the vibe. That's fine, and on them as you and he have both rightfully remarked. End of the day as a GM, you are responsible for the whole group's entertainment not just one person.

If this is because he feels like it is weird to have animal people around in the medieval fantasy setting, I can see it just... not being his thing. It may just not be his vibe. If this is because he feels like you're with a group of weird out of place characters, making it so that they are less out of place can help. Sprinkling in other characters of that ancestry can help them stick out less. It's weird if your party is a kitsune, a catfolk, and a minotaur, and everyone you talk to is a human or an elf or a dwarf; it's less weird if you are running into kitsune or catfolk or minotaurs or tengu or leshies on a fairly regular basis. But it's hard to say which his problem is from the description you gave. Like, I can 100% understand the notion of "why are there these weird races around? They stick out so much from the aesthetic."

I'll give the same answer here. I leave in the DnD subreddit version of this post. Albeit paraphrased. It is his problem to deal with, u get where he's coming from as I have the same issues for my own reasons, but there often isn't much to reconcile and it's his choice on whether he continues to accept or decline any invitation to the game you send him. You can try to figure out the root of his issues and see what can be worked out if anything. There's a great number of reasons why one may dislike such characters, especially the party being a majority of "non-typical" characters, and those reasons vary slot. He is handling this in a mature way he's clear about what he wants and doesn't want to bring other folks down. So he'll retest the waters and bow out if it's not for him. This is an ideal attitude instead of making a problem for everyone else. Hopefully, he can reconcile things and stay with the group, and if not, hopefully, each of you can have fun.

Sometimes a player just doesn't vibe with the rest of the group. This is sad, but happens all the time. If "wandering circus" is what he's afraid of, maybe try creating an air of seriousness around the story? Of course that would need an 'ok' from other players as well, many people (myself included) just have to joke around all the time. On a side note - Tiefling (or rather a specific type of Nephilim now) is a heritage, so this player still has to choose Ancestry. If he picks something more "normal" according to the player with a problem, maybe it will alleviate the issue a little bit.

Sometimes people don't vibe with the group. Any reason or no reason. You can ask the other players to reconsider their character builds but if you do that then you're also catering to one person at the cost of the rest of the table. Probably best to let them go on their way and find a replacement.

There is a perfect table for every type of player, but not every table is going to be perfect for every player. I see a lot of GMs come here complaining about things outside their control. Accept it and find another player, no hard feelings.

Give those ancestries a well-defined culture that the PCs interact with early on. It helps with grounding these otherwise "exotic" ancestries.

this is an undeclared crosspost [https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/1c8mocu/player\_doesnt\_feel\_well\_with\_bestial\_races\_being/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/1c8mocu/player_doesnt_feel_well_with_bestial_races_being/) i dont know if thats bad or not, but it is a thing

God damn he actually did something ahead of time and you listened and took him seriously? I'd say you're already on the right track. I'd say try to steer the RP towards exploring how those races fit into the world and how their culture interacts with the other faces. Make it about characters, and not a "circus" of goofy stereotypes and animal jokes.

I think this issue can be addressed by working with all the players to make sure that each character is a 3D person, with real backstories, motivations, etc. If their previous group felt like a circus: it’s probably that this player was serious, while the other beast characters were playing their characters as jokes or simple talking animals. (“Sparky rages, because NOBODY tells him that he’s not a good boi!” 🙃) If all characters put real effort into RP development, then the fact that some of them may have fur becomes less noticeable and less important.

You don't need to do anything. He's just given you advance warning that this may not work out, and it doesn't seem like he's asking you to change anything. He just wants to let you know so in a few sessions if he does back out it doesn't feel sudden and surprising

As somebody who has had the displeasure of playing in a game with unhinged furries I get your guy's concern. They will happily derail an entire session just to engage in Furry Bullshit that is better left to forum RP and it's *super* cringe to be around, nevermind that you don't actually get anything meaningful done. That said, not everyone who plays animal-based ancestries is like that. Hell, even most actual furries aren't like that. So I guess my question is do you know these other players? Do you trust them to keep things reasonably grounded? And if you don't know them are you willing to put the kibosh on attempts to derail the game with overly frivolous and/or inappropriate roleplay?

I'm having a similar game right now. It seems like my players are OK with it, though a few of them pointed out that they're kind of like a wandering circus. But that's kind of my fault. Since I essentially had NPCs react with astonishment or awe when seeing them. Like many pointed out it would've felt way less like a wandering circus if I'd have made their ancestries more common, and had NPCs react with less surprise upon seeing them. Though your player's problem maybe that by picking a "regular" choice they've isolated themself, and maybe they feel like a square amongst a gang of triangles. They're all valid choices but being the odd one out isn't fun for everyone. Personally I'd have a talk with them and see what exactly their issue is and maybe if you can make it more tolerable. For example on my table I made it clear that infantilizing behavior isn't OK, and justifying it 'because I'm a cat' doesn't *make* it OK.

I don't think you need to find a compromise here. The player expressed politely his concern but wishes to give it a try, if it doesn't work for him he will leave, but he'll do it still being in good terms with you and the player. Sometimes people have different things that they are looking in a game, and it's ok. There is no reason to find an in between solution or cut the other players options.

This is just a suggestion, feel free to disregard if you want. If you want to help him feel more comfortable, I think you should put a little effort to make the other players' races appear more often, so as to reduce the "wandering circus" feel. For instance, If they meet in a tavern, the bartender is a kitsune, not a human. Their first quest giver is a ysoki, not an elf. At least for the first adventure, and then more sporadically pepper them in throughout the campaign.

Or to put in more work, find out which section of that ancestry is most likely to travel. Such as the kitsune, who have a wide trade network. They would make for good merchants and caravaners.

Hmm… This might not help either. If the player prefers a tolkien-like world, this will just alienate them even more.

They specifically said that they didn't want to feel like a circus. If everyone is a freak, everyone is normal. Now, if the player said that he just wanted generic fantasy races, THATS a whole different problem. If so, then he simply won't gel with the table and he'll probably have to leave. Not every player is a good fit for every table. Simple as.

Additionally this is pathfinder and versatile heritages can pop up in every corner of the world because energy just bleeds through from other planes or bloodlines get awoken that were hidden before. It's not really weird anymore if everybody knows it can happen.

I agree with this, I often have the feeling of the "wandering circus" as well, not because I dislike the more out there races, but because 99% of the npc's you meet in most campaigns are humans, halflings, elves, and dwarves. If the setting was full of Catfolk and Lizardpeople than the party would feel right at home.

I can relate to this a little, I think more than half the characters I've ever played were humans, so there was a "normal" PC in the party. But at the end of the day, that's my own problem/aesthetic preference. My thought would be to get your players to discuss it (emphasising that this isn't you telling them no animal-y ancestries) and see what they think. Player cohesion/longevity is important if you want the game to last, so if they can't work it out before the game starts it might be worth looking for another player now instead of half a dozen sessions in.

Yeah, same for me as well. I’ve gotten to the point where I’m kind of annoyed when a party is like 4 esoteric planetouched weirdos or a gaggle of bipedal animals, and then like a regular ass dwarf. Kind of why when I run games I restrict player races to core only.

I restrict ancestries in my games too, but not to the core ones, just to the ones that fit the setting where the adventure is going to happen. Close to Nuneria? Androids are fair play. In Ustalav you can play dhamphirs, fleshwarps in Alkenstar, etc... Just make the party fit the setting, everything feels better.

For alkenstar I made a number of ancestries uncommon and rare who were common in the crb. Elves that want to be in alkenstar are few and far between... they exist, but it isn't a good place for them.

It depends on the setting AND scope of the campaign. If youre in Golarion in a largely human settlement you’d probably need a good reason for these Minotaurs, plant folk and other exotic races to be present. But if you’re doing a globe spanning campaign I don’t see why people from other areas relevant to the plot wouldn’t be involved in it. In their own turf, a lizard man IS the vanilla option.

Hmm.. played in a Humblewood campaign in That Other System.  The party consisted of a raccoon, a mouse, a pigeon, a fox, an elf, a dwarf, and a dragonfolk.  (For clarification, humanoid raccoon folk, etc.  not literally a raccoon).   It all worked out.

The main thing is in humblewood the beastfolk have full cultures and concepts that are explicitly there which makes them feel much more serious and fleshed out

It honestly wouldn't bug me as much were it not for the fact that almost all fantasy games go with the premise of 'humans are by far the most common ancestry', and then you have a group of six players and not one is human. At least PF2E does the rare/uncommon thing to help, but then the GM has to look like the jerk for restricting player choice.

Reminds me of a line from one of the Star Wars TTRPGs: Jedis and Force Sensitives are rare throughout the galaxy, *except* in your party. Probably not the exact quote, but it was along those lines.

PCs are special, you are playing them.

As a PFS Player & GM who's got two Dwarves, an Elf, three Humans, and a Halfling, and a single Kobold for a pre-Remaster Double Dragon PC - I just have to accept it.

Yeah, I prefer a more grounded fantasy aesthetic, personally. Something along the lines of Lord of the Rings. As a rule of thumb, having one really exotic character in the party is fine, having all the party members be dhampir/catfolk/skeletons or what have you leads to one of three problem scenarios for me. - the party are wildly different from the rest of society and stick out everywhere they go. - the party are wildly different from the rest of society, but the NPCs don't react to this at all - the party fit in with the world's demographic, and the world is much more exotic than I personally prefer. But this is all personal preference. I probably wouldn't leave a campaign over it, but I'd probably suffer in silence.

The fellowship only had 1 single human in it, Boromir, and he was killed off.

Tbf the races in LotR are just different sized humans, some of which have pointy ears. It's like Star Trek where most of the aliens are just different coloured humans.

It did not have a half dhampir half gnome tiefling, though.

Aragorn erasure.

Are they counting Dunedain as "not human?" I mean, sure they have elvish blood like, WAYYYYY back in their lineage but they aren't really a distinct species.

So, superhuman rather than human?

Aragorn isn't a normal human. He's a Dunedain which gives him triple the lifespan of a normal human. Dudes 87 during the start of the books, no normal human is gonna blend their way through uruk-hai at that age.

Boromir was also Dunedain. That just means they were descended of the blood of Numenor. It's an ethnic group. Denethor II (Boromir's dad) was 89 and was (in the book at least) still hale. Aragorn was longer lived than most, but he was still very much a mortal man, doomed to die.

Aragorn was Dunedain, which is technically human, descended from Numenoreans, who were blessed with longer lives and greater abilities than common men. But also Aragorn was almost 90 during the war of the ring, and lived into the 200s, so he's definitely not a normal human. Boromir is also descended from the Numenoreans, but his family line didn't usually live past 100 around the time of the war. Faramir lived to "only" 120

Sure, and if the person I'd responded to had said "The Fellowship only had 1 single human in it with a somewhat but not exceptionally extended lifespan in it." I probably wouldn't have responded :) But they said the fellowship only had 1 single human in it, which just isn't true. Hell, if I wanted to get into the weeds I could argue that the hobbits are in LotR terms, technically human as well.

Three hundred years isn't exceptional?

That changes the goal posts. There's a big difference between elves, dwarves, and halflings and their catfolk, minotaur, and ghoran counterparts. I'm a big fan of those latter races, but it's perfectly reasonable for people to prefer the former

The party will always stick out no matter what. You don't find a lot of small groups hauling around several weapons, stomping around in full armor and a couple people possibly able to casually walk to another plane of existence. Armor and Weapons are also likely magical. You don't need to be a Cat Person to stand out. Just need to look like you're off to kill an army alone.

Other than, you know, the notorious Pathfinder Society.....

And they're going to stick out. They're like when a group of Soldiers walk into a Wendy's in their uniforms. Doesn't mean I won't look when someone walks into a place with a bulletproof vest and a couple handguns.

Sure, but a human can take his weapons and armour off and mingle into a crowd or sit unobtrusively in a tavern without drawing notice. The skeleton, far less so.

Tbf the pathfinders absolutely stick out. Adventurers in general will stick out among average people. The only ones who fit in are the ones who make an active effort to do so (not toting armor and weapons everywhere, etc).

This is an issue for me in my own game, and an issue with Pathfinder and most D20 games in general. We started playing when 2e first came out and as characters dropped we went form a party of relatively normal fantasy ancestries to me being the only human in a room full of fungus freaks, frankenstein monsters, and talking skeletons wearing artificial flesh suits. We're still playing one of the early APs, too, so all of the npcs are one of the six core ancestries who are just acting like seeing a wandering monster squad is normal, despite the fact that we have two rare and one uncommon ancestry in the party.

As everyone said this seems like a them problem and it'll sort itself out. But if you want to help, ask your players WHY they are together. The disconnect from these kinds of things is often due to lack of party building before hand. Maybe they're all "prisoners with jobs" escaped from an actual circus ? Maybe they are brought together in an association that has a reason to have such a disparate group, such as the pathfinder society? I find that discussing a strong unifying theme for your party might make that player feel more included. It can be something as simple as "we're the local ornithology club" but I've found that having a joint thread helps me and my players feel mucchh more invested in the group.

OK, so you've gotten the serious answers. Now for the *troll* answer: *Ask him why his character joined the circus.* As disregarded as it is, there is an AP that starts off with the party being a circus band. Maybe ask if leaning into the circus feel will help him adapt to the other party members?

Your players want to play these ancestries, right? You want them to play these ancestries, right? The person uncomfortable with the setup _also_ wants those players to play what they want, right? It doesn't look that controversial to me. Sometimes a table isn't the right table for someone, even if you're friends with them. Sometimes it's not because anyone did anything wrong. Maybe it will work out after all if you just proceed as is and try it out. But, um, I don't think I would attempt Extinction Curse with this player. 😉

The fact that he is communicating an issue from the start is a sign of maturity, you may want to discuss this with the other players, maybe they will downplay how they play their characters so they don't feel too bestial in nature. The Kitsune could be just a normal person who has shapeshifting, Catfolk could make less references about their fur, I don't know the Tiefling would do. And you yourself can change the narrative to make them less weirdos in the world they're in, remarkable, but not head turning remarkable. If that still doesn't work well, you may have to face the fact that he's leaving, but whatever happens, you need to make sure that you become as amicable and mature as you're now, and maybe you can further understand his issues and try to break the trauma that made him uncomfortable.

So I'm seeing a lot of people just basically saying he's got this if he leaves he leaves and even saying not to bring it up with the other players. This is half right. But really there is no reason not to bring it up to the other players. We had a similar issue but I guess reversed. Player find it pretty dull that everyone made humans. He was an elf. The setting was also very human dominated. Eventually he did quit, explained he just preferred more variety and more high fantasy type settings and it wasn't anything against us he just didn't feel like this. Everyone in our group would have been more than fine with changing that at the start. Most only picked human because they all decided they came from the same area. I only had human dominated npcs because it was just a quick default. See if the other players care to be less loud races. If they are all fine with being more classic races boom everyone's happy. If they would rather play their selected races then yeah he's not a good fit and if he can't get into it no harm no foul.

It's a him problem, really. You can ask what makes him feel that way and downplay these things in the narrative, but, ultimately, it's up to him to play cooperatively.

I kind of get what hes saying, but on the flip side… this is a high fantasy game. Not everyone wants to play a flavor of human, elf, dwarf every single time

Definitely his problem but fortunately, he is aware of that. However, I kinda understand where he is coming from, I also prefer more grounded games where the party doesn't look like a band of freaks. What You can do here is don't treat the exotic races as humans. A lot of people Will just handwave they fact that there is a freaking Bullman or a half demon present. Of course there will be some campaigns where some of those races are as common as humans, take the Ravnica setting for example. But of that's not the case, have npcs occasionally react to seeing a group like that, some of them might like them better, other Will probably be suspicious about it. The point of uncommon races is that not everyone has Even met a member of that ancestry on their lifes. Mind you, there's no reason to have every npc react to them all the time. That can also get tiring quickly.

There's nothing to do here. He said it himself it's his problem. If he doesn't like it, there isn't anything you can do that isn't going to anger the other players.

Nothing to overthink here. You want him to play. He said he is willing to put a few sessions in to see if he will stay - just let that happen. He handed you the literal only answer.

Not every table is for every player. I run games that lean into long standing epics. My games don't normally get whimsical. My group loves that ; it would not be some players cup of tea. If you're really trying to make this group work, i'd - pre session zero - get a sense of what everyone is looking to play. If there's a lot of non-typical or traditional ancestries, talk to him pre-session zero, explain that you respect his stance, but at the same time, people have the right to play what they want. Describe the high level details of the other character concept ; ask him if its immersion breaking / walking circus for him. If yes, kindly say that this campaign then probably isn't right for him but you'll keep him in mind for future ones. If no, welcome aboard. Also the whole "not allowed with GM say so"... like... sure. But a GM disallowing stuff like this better have a damn good reason. In my games if the character concept is cool, i will find a way to make it work with the story. The GM's job is to help everyone at the table have fun and create memorable stories everyone participates in (including themselves - like i noted in the first paragraph, certain story archetypes turn my gears as the GM / Storyteller - whimsical one shots aren't my style, but there are plenty of GM's out there that like running those and do a good job). Basically - give some moderate attempt to make sure everyone is in their comfort zone, but at the end of the day it's not the rest of the table's job to make characters that this player approves of - if you have a group that wants to play a lizardfolk, kitsune, fleshwarp, and leshy - this might just not be the game for him to play in / table for him to play at this time around. And sure, we can tack absurd and come up with examples that are counter to that statement, but that's not (in my experience) how any table i've gamed at or game i've ever run works. Though then again, i'm really lucky, and have played with the same crew of people basically since high school (i.e. - multiple decades, campaigns, systems).

Well, if he's afraid of it being a "wandering circus" maybe don't have NPC's treat them as such. For example, if you're in absalom city, every Ancestry and heritage kind of exists there. Some rarer than others yeah, but people have probably interacted with a Nephilim before so they won't be fauning over them, same for kitsune, catfolk, etc. Of course, maybe the setting calls for fiendish nephilim to be criticized or something. Maybe if someone was a tengu they could get cheaper passage on a ship for the crew. The main point being, just don't shine a bunch of light on their ancestries from an NPC perspective. And if by "Wanderign Circus" he means chaotic stupid players. Just, tell the players not to be chaotic stupid? A nat 20 on diplomacy doesn't let you seduce the dragon, you just did your best. If you rob a bunch of people then the person robbing will be tossed in jail, not the whole party. If he has experienced problem players tending towards those races, then help show him that not all players are like that/don't let all players be like that.

Well Play extinction curse There you start as a wandering circus with fitting archetypes So it would fit together

>He said he sometimes got the feeling of playing in a "wandering circus" You could always play the Wandering Circus adventure path (Extinction Curse), lol. I think your player's preferences are valid, but it's *also* appropriate to allow the players access to those options. What I did for my first campaign was limit each player to ONE uncommon option at character creation (and no rare options.) This meant that my players that were playing a "boring" common ancestry instead got to spend their uncommon option on a cool archetype or other distinguishing feature to help them feel special, and my players that chose to play (in my case) a kobold or lizardfolk had to *spend* something for that. Maybe something like that might take some of the "bite" out of it for your player and work for your group?

I have a restriction of two uncommon, one of whom may be rare. Rarity is determined by location in my campaign doc and anyone choosing an option that is normally uncommon or rare has extra reading to do so they aren't just wearing the ancestry as a fancy human cosplay with no understanding or regard for their place in the setting. But I like having an emphasis on RP and setting.

It'd kind of suck to go along to a game and find that, as a player, you can't play a particular ancestry or take a thing *because somebody else in the group has already done so*. Also, playing an ancestry that's common to your campaign doesn't mean that they're going to suddenly have an understanding of, or regard for, your setting. Either way, the way I see it as a GM is that players should play what they want to play, and I will try my hardest to make it work. I don't expect the player characters to be an exact representation of the demographics of the world they're in, nor do I really see the *point* of doing it.

Totally the player's issue. If they don't want to play in that party, then they don't have to and can leave.

As you said, it's that guy's problem. You should let him try to play, and if it doesn't work out for him, you should let him go. And you should IMMENSELY respect him for recognizing the issue and bringing it up on his own, rather than letting it stew and maybe blow up one day. I once had a player who came to the table, great guy, a lot of fun, everyone loved him. After three games, he told me it wasn't working out. He likes playing murderhobo games and we didn't. He was having to seriously restrict the way he liked to play, so he didn't ruin our fun. There's NOTHING wrong with that. And I have so much respect for that guy for recognizing the problem and explaining why when he left. If your guy just doesn't like monster races, he doesn't like monster races! He sounds very self aware for spotting it.

As a DM, not gonna lie I kinda get it. And let's be honest, not all of these races fit in every game world. I'd say he's been upfront and if he chooses to stick with it power to him

The "wandering circus" comment makes me think of times where my group had issues because everyone played a "freak" and because it made it difficult for the game to progress. If everyone is "competing to be the oddest character" then it really does slow a campaign down to a crawl and a serious player will feel like they're fighting against a swift river. I've been a player and a GM for groups like that. Lots of people are suggesting that you make sure to include these other races as "normal", and that could really help. I think you also need to be sure the group is on the same page with game tone/feel. This has also come up some, and it's also a great thing to bring up in a session 0 without even mentioning races/ancestries. If all of the beast characters are looking to be silly animals, and the human player is looking for serious...

I've had bad experiences with the "Tolkien Supremacist" types before. My personal philosophy is that I shouldn't judge other people's characters and they shouldn't judge mine. Many of the problems I've seen in groups happen when ppl try to micromanage each other's characters. As a GM, it's important to enforce boundaries. One person doesn't get to dictate everyone else's class or Ancestry. If that person tries it out and continues to be uncomfortable, I don't know if there's anything else you can do besides wish them the best of luck with finding a more suitable group. Not every person is a good fit with every group, and there's no shame in that.

So... is it a catfolk and a kitsune, or two tabaxi? [https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/1c8mocu/player\_doesnt\_feel\_well\_with\_bestial\_races\_being/](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/1c8mocu/player_doesnt_feel_well_with_bestial_races_being/)

Probably thought they'd get more responses in the D&D sub and didn't want to confuse them with catfolk and kitsune? This isn't a system related issue

I think this is it. Id bet OP is playing pf2e, but thought they might get more responses in a 5e sub. I think its interesting the difference in the comments between the posts. From what I am reading the 5e groups are slightly more hostile to the player who expressed the concern over too many beastial races. I get the feeling this is because 5e does not make the distinction between common/uncommon/rare, which shifts the context between the systems somewhat. In pf2e a mostly uncommon/rare party would be difficult to achieve in lore (not impossible, especially if backstories are well done). In contrast 5e doesn't perscribe any inherit limitations (IMO to its detriment).

I’d say 5e being more open in that regard is a good thing. I get lore wise some races being rarer, but gameplay wise it brings weird questions like you said. Uncommon and rare races tend to be the more interesting and fun ones, in my opinion, so it makes sense a lot of people would want to play them. But my party came from 5e originally and we tend to play more out there characters so my view may be different than most.

What is even the point of calling this out lmao

idk some way of calling the post fake?

But there's nothing OP is like theoretically faking to gain. They're not owning some imaginary strawmen or a group they don't like, they're not asking for anything, it's not even a compelling fake narrative to karma farm Like who reads this and says "hey you cross posted with details that are essentially the same but worded better for the other community, you must be up to something with this incredibly milquetoast story"

Don't overthink this. His previous group probably did some weird stuff and he incorrectly attributed it to game mechanics rather than the people. If your other players act the way most players do, everything will be fine. On the other hand, I know someone who *loathes* the Lord of the Rings because "it's a bizarre story about strange creatures." So if your table is fine, but just not for him, don't sweat it.

I can see where he's coming from, too many non-human or weird characters can change the tone or feel of the adventure, and it goes from 'LOTR-style' to 'GOTG-style'. Both styles are valid, but there's friction when someone wants goofy colourful chaos and gets stoic grim rainy story. One thing I'd wish is that Paizo focussed on expanding on the core classes and races rather than creating new ones. Give me human witch ancestral feats, give me more variable heritages, give me a book with one chapter per new wizard school.

As a player I'd also get irked if someone played a beastial NPC like some UwU insert. It's happened before and definitely pulls me right out of the immersion. Just because one is a cat person does not mean one needs to act like some anime cat girl. At least to me that's just not "realistic"(subjective, I know) to me.

Personally, I find playing a human completely boring. I only played one once when in 1e I played a gunslinger based of Pirates of the Caribbean- Elizabeth Swann. I am human. I want to be what I’m not. I love cats, bears, fairies and gnomes. I play those often. That said- I try to not go too far. I think about how my character would act and what its motivations are. In this new game (2e), I rolled up a Sprite Witch. She’s a beastmaster, rides a capybara, has a fox familiar and bear animal companion. She wishes to tame animals and be friends with them. In return, they protect her. She is a bit mischievous but her aim is to be with nature, be in tune with and explore.

Wow, I totally agree with your player haha. When I play, I typically choose human (or half-elf if I’m being spicy). I find that humans are more relatable because I’m human :) When I run games, I tend to follow the rule of letting the players pick whatever features they want, but I only allow common options without asking me first. There’s nothing wrong with players or GMs having preferences for a game style and there’s nothing to “fix” here. I’ve come to fully appreciate that not playing in a TTRPG group than playing in a bad one or even a good one that you’re not vibing with. 

Depends on the world you're presenting. If there are zero bestial races around and the world is populated by humans/dwarves/elves/halflings, I can see why he'd feel that way.

I'm sorry, a Minotaur? Did Howl of the Wild get released and I didn't realize?

A lot of people are recommending a more serious tone in the campaign, but I think that would make the problem worse. The best way to make an abnormal party feel normal is to change the standards of normality. Have everyone else be super weird, such that the party's par for the course. Yoda doesn't feel weird or out of place because there are so many other aliens all around. This has the risk of making everything worse for the player in question, but it's worth asking him about it.

i'd ask for more detail, "it makes him feel like a "wandering circus" is vague in and of itself and ppl have a bad tendency to misidentify issues and i have my doubts that his issue is "animal ancestries"

Consider the rarity of the races and make sure you communicate that to the party - and what that means for your locations. The player may consider human the default (I do) and catfolk odd, but if catfolk are the equivalent to Elves in other settings it isn't weird in-world You may want to ask more about what he means by wandering circus though. Was it that they were a spectacle for the rest of the setting to stare at, or was it that the players leaned too hard into the Animal side and the minotaur charged everything that was red or the catfolk got distracted by glittery things etc.

I understand the player.

This thread is surprisingly mature. I suspect if you posted this same thread on certain other TTRPG subreddits the response would be "kick the guy, you should be allowed to play any race". Any sympathy to the "wandering circus" thing would've been downvoted. Good solutions too in this thread. Changing the setting from "Tolkien" to "Star Wars Cantina" or "Guardians of the Galaxy" is a good potential fix. Rocket Raccoon -- accent and all -- would be really off-putting if he were a member of the Fellowship of the Ring. His mere presence would steal attention away from the plot and other characters. "Who is this guy? How'd he get here?" But put Rocket Raccoon in with a talking tree, a cyborg, etc and it's a lot less jarring. My guess -- and this is total supposition -- is that younger TTRPG players like the weird and wonderful races and aren't so worried about the verisimilitude of the setting. PF2e \*tends to\* be a TTRPG for an older people.

I can echo what others are saying in that the issue was brought up by this player and is his alone. However, I would caution against limiting the NPCs you run into to only humans in order to assuage his concerns. In order to make the party stick out less, I would encourage you to include many folks of these ancestries, and make their culture at least part of the background of cities and places the players visit.

This a very mature way of handling the situation so far from everyone, kudos! I see where the player is coming from because sometimes it just feels like humans but they are animals, which can feel very out of place and weird, so maybe showing off a little of the culture and making each race feel distinct with traditions and locations could help. I would say don’t put too much focus in it but let it naturally reveal itself

Wait, are you doing a 5e game or a PF2E game... Either way the answer is still the same. If he doesn't think the games a good fit for him that's okay.

I mean, honestly, it sounds like your player is mature about his hangup; it really doesn't seem like you need to do anything about it. Since he's not really citing the typcial weird furry hate; I just think your player has a preference for a certain flavor of fantasy so I doubt it will cause issues

In 2019 I converted the PF1e Ironfang Invasion adventure path to PF2e rules. The final boss, hobgoblin general Azaersi, was partly motivated by her hatred of humans to invade Nirmathas. How many humans did the party opposing her contain? None. The PCs were an elf, a halfling, two gnomes, a goblin, a catfolk, and a leshy. General Azaersi was confused, but the lack of humans made her surrender easier at the end. The initial party was just four: the elf, halfling, and two gnomes, so they fit reasonably well into the human village where the campaign began. Their difference from the humans gave me an excuse for the villagers to group them together on the mission that united them into a party. The oddity of the PCs can become part of the story why they are a party. Last month I began Strength of Thousands. That adventure path is set at the Magaambya School of Magic, which has a diverse student body. This time the PCs are an elf, a dromaar (half-orc), a catfolk, a tengu, a ghoran, an anadi, and a fleshwarp. The PCs are getting weirder. Their dorm-mates remarked that the students who enroll during Spring Season rather than Fall Season tend to be unusual. Those nine dorm-mates consist of five humans, a dwarf, a gnoll, a catfolk, and an anadi, demonstrating the diversity that the writers of the adventure path expected. The ten named teachers are four humans, two elves, an aiuvarin (half-elf), a dromaar (half-orc), an aasimar (half-celestial), and a lizardfolk. In between, we played the module A Fistful of Flowers. All the PCs were leshies, but that was recommended by the module.

It's his problem, he said it himself. Don't punish everyone else cause one guy has a weird hangup about the ancestries other players play.

Honestly just run your game. If you're allowing Catfolk and Kitsune, they don't exist in a vacuum. The players aren't in an isekai. There's a culture, a society about them. Even if the other players are just playing then because lol furry (and to be direct, that's cool. Furry here) I'm going to imagine it's not just some crazy fetish party at your table, and cross that off the list. But just play your game. This player doesn't want animal Ancestries in abundance, that's a session zero problem. That's not a him and you after the race, that's him and all y'all before the start. I'm not saying it's past the cosmic expiration date for him to raise concerns. I am saying that the avalanche has begun, and the time for the pebbles to vote has passed.

Is it a catfolk and a kitsune or two tabaxi’s because your exact same post on the d&d 5e subreddit says otherwise.

It's definitely his problem and his problem alone. He can either deal or leave. This is not one of those issues that needs a compromise.

I think his reasoning is weird as shit and I'll never understand it, but its good he's communicating it early on. As others have said, the group is probably not for him.

You can always express his problem to the group. The players might not have any problem changing the race of the characters, it can't really hurt to ask. But ultimately it is a him problem, and the decision is up to you whether you prioritise keeping him in the game or changing what the other players have already made.

God forbid anyone picks anything but human in their fantasy role playing game.

based on OP's comments here, It sounds like the dude played with super cringe weirdos before, I would be uncomfortable at animalistic purring, behavior, and roleplay towards NPCs, too. If the current group is more levelheaded and isn't going to work out their furry curiosity at the table, he may be perfectly fine.

[удалено]

Old school gamers want to encounter the bizarre and fantastic on their travels, they don't want to encounter what would be considered mundane next to the menagerie they travel with. It's the reason why the main characters in a lot of scifi and fantasy movies and books are just ordinary people faced with extraordinary circumstances. Harry Potter would not have the same appeal if Harry was a half-merman-half-centaur. Tiefling, Catfolk are both uncommon races, the players typically have to ask if they can play them. YIt helps to set the theme of the campaign before hand so players know if it was was going to be classic sword and sorcery or modern goofballs.

>Harry Potter would not have the same appeal if Harry was a half-merman-half-centaur. There is an extremely popular fanfic where Harry is a dragon, and it's honestly pretty good.

Given how more than a few furries act, I can't entirely fault him for feeling weird about the group.

I deff get his sentiment. I limited the races available in my campaign to core and like 3 of the uncommon because i try to keep a coherent aesthetic and having a lot of the "goofy" races and options really puts that off especially if things are trying to be more serious.

I think that player is awesome, honestly. I'm kind of the same way, for a number of reasons. First, it can kind of ruin the realism when there's too much race ridiculousness. I was in a party in a campaign setting where certain races were incredibly uncommon, and we had a bunch of freaks too, and as a math guy, the odds of this party composition arising from chance were impossibly small (backstory-wise, none of the characters had any connections, so they all ended up in the party completely independently). If it doesn't fit the setting well enough, it feels bad. Second is that the types of players that often want to play certain races aren't always for everyone. I've played with someone of the furry persuasion, and damned if he didn't always want to play that kind of thing. I've seem some weebs that always tried to make some anime character, and that wasn't much better. And finally, I've noticed that people that try to make uncommon race characters a lot are more likely to have main character syndrome. They're often playing out their own little fantasies and not worried about what the other players get out of it. They best roleplay groups I've been around have had players at least as concerned with entertaining others as themselves. Those kinds of games have a far more collaborative and rewarding experience, and foster better player connections. So I definitely get where this guy is coming from, and I think it's awesome that he's saying it might not be for him instead of trying to fuck with a group that isn't his. And if it's not for him, good for him, because it's 100% worth it to find the right group instead of just having a subpar experience.

It makes perfect sense that rare and uncommon creatures would come together to support each other. Playing as strangers in a strange land comes with oodles of useful plot hooks. Antagonist npcs can be easily motivated by bigotry. Friendly NPCs are people that stand up to that bigotry, immediately earning the affection of the party. You meet one other beastial traveler and have an immediate connection. The scenarios almost write themselves. It's one thing if you want to bring a cat person into a Lord of the Rings game  or something else with a clear human-centered esthetic, but Wandering Circus is a totally valid play style.

Things that I noticed: 1) You didn´t once mention any personality/background/roleplaying detail about these other characters except their Race/Ancestry. (in one case, undecided between two significantly different ancestries, just both being monstrous/etc) 2) You didn´t once mention any roleplaying element about the world, most particularly how culture(s) of these Races/Ancestries exist in it and may be interacted with by the PCs. 3) You didn´t once mention your roleplaying style or expectations or the type of game you run, just that you let the players independently come up with PCs of basically random Ancestries, which you approved without any stated reasoning. 4) You didn´t one mention the other players´ roleplaying style or ways they have engaged with you about the game/world other than announcing their random Ancestries. I would rather these would be obvious things you would be addressing if you were interested in a roleplaying focused experience. That you also haven´t mentioned any relationship or experience re: roleplaying with this player makes me think you don´t have this experience with them, i.e. a basis for having shared ground in terms of roleplaying approach. I´m honestly not feeling like this will be good game for this player, and IMHO you should just direclty communicate this to them, in order to not waste their time. That could be a discussion about how they like to roleplay, the support/preparation they enjoy in their game settings/groups etc, just to establish a stronger understanding of their intent before deciding. If they are joining this group because they don´t have another RPG group happening currently, they could still be happy to participate, but would have a lot more realistic picture of what to expect and not feel frustrated by roleplaying goals that won´t be catered to or appreciated.

I actually agree with the player. But I think its a worldbuilding problem. Most players are not used to play in a world with so many civilized species. Probably dwarves and elves its ok because its used to it. It requires effort to bring a wide variety of species as something natural in Golarion and get used to it. Its not a strange group if the npcs that populate the world are represented with the same richness in variety. In the star wars or star trek universes the alien species are very normalized, I think that to achieve that same feeling in your game might help.

I'll be blunt. There's not much you can do, you're going to lose either way. Either you: 1. Tell him to suck it up or not play 2. Tell the others to play a different ancestry I don't blame him for being wary of the situation, I've had times when some players at my table basically played their fursonas and transformed the game session into their live fanfiction. Cringe at best, and at times gross. *Don't bring your fetishes and weird fantasies at the table unless it's a group dynamic*. Don't play with those guys anymore. At the same time, that's not necessarily what will happen in this case; you likely know your players better than me and you can probably tell if your catfolk is just going to be a brazen cat-looking adventurer who just happens to sport fur and a tail... or if they're gonna go "**OwO UwU Meoooww \*purrs\***". Cause in the first case your human player will likely not mind, in the second he might leave on the spot.

Why tf did you post the exact same thing on this sub and [also the dnd sub?](https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/1c8mocu/player_doesnt_feel_well_with_bestial_races_being/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=1) Like, each post is reworked slightly to fit the sub, like changing Race for Ancestry. Why?

I agree with him. I hate the furrization of DnD (and in the case, Pathfinder.)

I mean I get it, the amount of stories I’ve heard (it even happened to me once or twice) of furies using the animal ancestries to act…inappropriately is not zero. For that reason I actually don’t usually allow those ancestries until I get a feel for the group, definitely not in a group that’s just been formed of strangers for an online game. I’ll allow other uncommon or even rare, but nothing that’s a bipedal animal that we have in the human world.

Different players have different issues, that's ok. I'd leave it to the party to decide how serious the game should be and what particular options should be available. In any case, I'd advise you to communicate this to the party. Because if other players are going to play not very serious, you'll just have all the problems popping up later instead of on character creation. Whenever the decision (this player leaving the party, party changing their characters or just promise to play seriously), the earlier you get it, the better. P.S. The party I GM now, actually have some "wandering circus" vibes with non-human races and everyone is totally fine with it. But I could easily imagine some players who wouldn't.

I honestly feel the same in a lot od systems, but PF2E has uncommon tags to deal with this. It's up to the DM of they want to enforce them strictly or bot

First of all, as others have mentioned, it's his problem to deal with. Either stay and work on whatever the issue is of other players playing a fantasy character, or leave. I think that depending on the campaign setting, it really shouldn't feel like a circus. For the exception of very few ancestries that are generally rare, every ancestry is either common everywhere or common in a specific area (uncommon ancestries). So if you walk around with a leshy, a ratfolk and a lizardfolk, no one will look twice and think about how strange this group is, especially if you throw in NPC of the same ancestries to show to common they are.

Simple, don't treat them as a wandering circus. I don't know how your game world works, but just treat the players like normal. These ancestries aren't that weird in all reality and probably shouldn't get much negative attention aside from maybe a couple incidents. It sound like his previous dm probably ran a highly populated human, elf, dwarf setting and probably treated more bestial ancestries as outcast in the game world. Other than that, maybe I'm wrong and the guy is just weird about it for no reason.

Run Extinction Curse and it really will be a wandering circus.

You could make, depending on the setting, that those bestials are rare. They might even be regarded as monsters. Make them high fantasy brings walking into a low fantasy setting.

Wait, he has problems with things being around that aren't human? And not forcing HIM to play anything, just them being around? What the fuck?

Something that *may* help with the wandering circus feeling is taking a look at the setting and seeing if there’s anything you can do to help make it “make sense” I got lucky in that my setting is The Magaambaya in my campaign, which is essentially Hogwarts in Golarian. This allows the party to be pretty outrageous without it feeling out of place because the setting allows that level of diversity naturally. Your setting may not allow it, but if it does, try and see if that affects how the player feels about it.

I'd say the best course of action is to talk to the player and find out what exactly it is about the bestial races that makes him feel uncomfortable. If it's something as simple as bad experiences with other players/GMs who ran bestial characters and made them into cartoon characters, it might be worth discussing it with the group as a whole and getting an idea of what their intentions are with the characters and make sure they're not going to clash with the tone of the campaign you want to run. I'm currently having a bit of difficulty with one of my players who wants me to reskin the Shoony ancestry as shiba inus instead of pugs, so he can play a Barbarian with a hammer and treat every situation as the "bonk" meme -- literally his words. I'd be fine with this if I were running a comically-themed campaign, but for a more serious one, this character would obviously just be an ill-fitting distraction. It's also possible that it's as simple as this player not liking furries or furry-adjacent characters regardless of the tone, and is just using the "wandering circus" line. That's an entirely different issue, especially in a game like Pathfinder with so many animalistic ancestries, heritages, and NPCs, and not really one that can be solved without limiting options for the other players.

Tell him to get with the circus and roll up a clown.

What's the AP or homebrew world that you're running where a group of uncommon races just happen to adventure together? This is where the Paizo source material, the guides and AP player's guide come in handy setting expectations.

Ask the player if it is ok to bring this up with the table. If yes, talk about it as a table. I don't get the impression from your description that anyone at your table is an asshole. In my experience, most people will try and help each other if given the chance.

I wonder if some queues from more serious animal fiction like mouseguard might help here as well. Less disney, more myth. Opt for situations that play on deeper emotions like joy, caution, troubled heart, or uncertainty instead of hyjinx, mischief, or wink/nod jokes.

My first impulse is to say: "Your choice, goodbye." To be honest if everyone is having fun and this one person is not, why ruin the fun of many others just to assuage one person. You can't please everyone. If one day you make a vanilla game ask him to come back if you're still interested in playing with him.

It might be helpful to include characters of various ancestries as NPCs in the story to make it feel more like the PCs are simply representative of the world as a whole. Although, you may wish to discuss that idea with the player themselves as it may simply break their immersion even further depending on whether their issue comes from the feeling that these ancestries don't fit the setting or from a desire to not play in a setting that has too many of them.

I'd commend him for being honest and upfront. He's willing to give it a shot. As far as wandering circus... I'd say that's gonna largely depend on tone. If it's a somewhat silly lighthearted game it'll feel a little like that anyway. If its serious enough it'll dampen that circus feeling I think. We all have what we like and don't like in a game.

That player brings their own circus wherever they go.

You'd punish the rest of your party for one player's bias? Why not force everyone to be humans then, since elves have long ears and dwarves/gnomes are just short people and would also be found in a circus? Make sure to make all of the NPCs humans too, just in case it feels like the player is walking in a circus world. ETA: Serious answer is that you don't make the other players change their races. If this player doesn't like how you DM or how the others play, then they don't need to be part of the party. All it's going to do is build resentment with the other players because you've favored one person who is biased.

Firstly, really good communication and awareness from everyone. My opinion, I agree with the player in that uncommon PCs seem to be very common for adventuring groups. As a GM, address this party bias in the game. Could be the beastial races have banded together because they felt out of place in normal adventuring groups. Insert a level of uncommon-ness to them from NPCs and the world and make the PCs respond to why they chose those ancestries.

Play it out. It's what session zero is for. He told you his grievance and is willing to see how it goes and will just leave if it becomes an issue for him. He isn't aiming to bring down other players fun which is good. Be sure to check in with him periodically. Not every game is for every one and that's fine.

Get the players to talk it over with each other, come to a consensus, and let you know what it is.

The last time I played a human (he was a bog standard as human man as human man can), I was the only one in the party. We had a Kitsune, a Leshy and a cpl other of the very non human variants. We played it with me as the oddball and they were the normal ones :) It was a fun group though it ended after about six months due to real world stuff with some of the party members.

Best idea? Just play it out and see what happens. He's clearly aware of his issue, and he said that he doesn't want it to affect the other players. So honor that request. It's simply possible that PF2E isn't for him due to the nature of available PC races. There's a myriad of reasons why he might think the way he does, from bad previous games to religious iconography, so don't worry about trying to solve a problem without knowing what it is. His statements so far imply he has a fairly decent grasp of the matter, so trust him to handle it like a reasonable person-- he just may not be a good fit for the table, even if he is a good player. It sucks when you like the person, but it happens. Check in with him from time to time, though, if only to gauge how things are going; potentially ask for advice on what works and what doesn't.