D&D 5E What is the appeal of the weird fantasy races?

[Chaosmancer]

Also, despite how... earnestly frustrated and upset I am getting, I do want to take a deep breath and wish everyone a Merry Christmas for tomorrow.

 

[Scott Christian]

Never made that argument.

My argument is "Why do are all the themed settings with minotaurs Greek but elves are not limited to only Norse and Celtic settings? If elves and dwarves can trancend culture, can the DM community think about doing so to other races?"

Can't minotaurs and hoplites be seperated sometimes and thought about as distinct things deeply?

No, I know you haven't. I meant in the overarching context of this thread.

I think DM's do think about doing so with other races, even in thematic settings. In the Egyptian setting that was discussed earlier, the DM accepted anthropomorphic PC's. Ravenfolk, catfolk, dogfolk, etc. That same DM could have just as easily said, they are creatures, and therefore, not a playable race. The Shadowfell setting mentioned earlier, allowed tabaxi. They just didn't want tieflings.

So I think it is considered. Quite a bit. I feel (in my own personal opinion), those saying the DMs that do not consider races crossing over are not imaginative, mindful, capable or smart enough. When in fact, most DM's I know think a whole lot more about their world, their setting and its history, timeline, interactions, than the players do. Which is why it is so difficult for the DM side to just say: "The player has as much control of the creation of the setting than the DM." That is not how D&D works per PHB, DMG, and the supplements.

 

[overgeeked]

SMH. Isn't that part of the fun? To have your PC live with their inherent weaknesses/drawbacks/flaws and overcome challenges anyway because of their many strengths and ability to work together as a team with the rest of the party?

I used to think that most players felt that way. I still do when I play. But in the last decade or so the general player base seems to have shifted from “adversity and friction make for good stories” to an attitude of “if I can’t win all the time, I don’t want to play”. Sweeping generalizations are of course sweeping generalizations, but that seems to be the dominant norm I’m seeing across a dozen or so forums and with various in-person games. Also see the argument about DM’s being naughty word edgelords if they don’t break their fantasy worlds so players can play anything and everything they want for nothing more than a convenient mechanical bonus.

 

[Scott Christian]

Ah yes, the all important "sitting in a chair" clearly the lynch pin of many an adventure. I mean, no one would ever say "I prefer to stand" after all.

The entirety of the picture eluded you. She is in a tavern. Looks kind of tight too. You know, like a lot of taverns. But please let the horse in so the player has a chance to RP. I'm sure the bar is built for horses too. In fact, the rooms at the inn are built for them too.

Now I feel certain you can come at me with "a good DM could have centaurs and the builders of said tavern would have accommodated for them long ago, especially if they had coin." Except in a world where they didn't exist before until the player forced the DM to put one in. But, that's no big deal. Just change all the architecture of the buildings. That's doesn't change the world does it? Redraw the six tavern maps you spent 20 hours on? No big deal.

 

[Scott Christian]

SMH. Isn't that part of the fun? To have your PC live with their inherent weaknesses/drawbacks/flaws and overcome challenges anyway because of their many strengths and ability to work together as a team with the rest of the party?

So if the group decides to trample through canyonland atop gulley and rocks and ravines and scree, is it okay that the centaur can't be a part of that? If they go into a tight mine shaft, where the centaur has no ability to turn around, is it okay to inflict the real damage that would be caused by their predicament? If the adventure calls for sneaking into a nobles house through the window on the third floor, is it okay to just leave the centaur out of the adventure? If the centaur falls into a thirty foot pit, is it okay to leave them there because the group doesn't have an entire pulley system to get the centaur out? If most of the world doesn't know about centaurs, is it okay for the Queen's guards to take the centaur into custody so she can use it as her draft horse?

Or should the DM just make sure none of those things happen, and if the traps or terrain was premade, take them out because it is unfair to the centaur?

There are literally hundreds of settings, especially combat settings, that a centaur could not be a part of.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I legit had a player want to play a centaur. I mentioned some things might be harder or inconvenient due to his size, shape, and hooves. I specifically mentioned boats. He said none of that was in the book so I would be cheating if I tried to have some verisimilitude in regards to his character being a centaur.

In fairness, what actual basis is there for verisimilitude here. Have there been a lot of papers documenting the adventuring capabilities of centaurs? Have you met enough of them such that you know how they'd handle being on a boat?

This line of thinking is the same path that runs to halflings and gnomes wouldn't "really" be able to fight things.

It's a legitimately fair to say that if no mention is made of these difficulties in the book, then those difficulties do not exist.

 

[Maxperson]

Right, so when other people suggested that for the player, you would have disagreed with that as well. Because there is no real difference between DM and Player

So, if those people believe that for players, the same thing should apply to DMs. Because there is no real difference between DM and Player.

What are you even trying to say here?

Okay, so then those people who believe a Player can play something they don't initially like, should believe the same for DM's . After all, it isn't a double standard, it is one way or the other. Either you can grow to enjoy something or you can't.

Literally nobody on our side is saying a player should play something they don't like. We are saying that should never happen. If they can't find fun in our game, they should go find another game to find fun in.

 

[Scott Christian]

So, maybe, checking our assumptions is useful, since my game would have been far poorer if I had acted as people in this thread had suggested.

Again, a front-flip with two backflips.

Not one DM has said you are doing it wrong. It worked for your table. You had a great experience. That is a good thing. If we had an applause meter, I feel certain every single person in here would be clapping and saying - cool!

What is being discussed is the reverse of this is not true. The DM does check their assumptions and still decides no. They are badwrongfun. That is - not cool.

 

[Jaeger]

I mean...yeah, there is.

edit: I don’t even just mean that in this context. A person who refuses to compromise (ie, have a conversation that might hypothetically result in slight changes to something they want to do, if they agree to it) simply because they don’t have to, isn’t a person I want to know IRL.

I’ve had my fill of having to run that sort of person out of a group or scene so that other people that aren’t as willing to have a confrontation as I am feel comfortable and safe.

Blanket refusal to compromise unless one has to is a character flaw.

Um, no there isn't.

What's going on here!?

A potential Player shows up for a group:

the DM says: "Ok Bro, these are the restrictions for my campaign, because this is what it's all about...blahblahblah..."

The potential player asked to play something different. The DM said "No." The potential player then elucidated his reasoning and the DM listened. The DM then says "I see your angle bro, but it's still a no dude."

How could anything in the above exchange indicate any kind of character flaw for the DM?

Because this:

The point is: DMs listen to players. They take suggestions. Again, in my experience, I haven't seen one not do these things in 25 years when running a campaign. But they are allowed to say no, and they are not jerks for doing so.

 

[overgeeked]

In fairness, what actual basis is there for verisimilitude here. Have there been a lot of papers documenting the adventuring capabilities of centaurs? Have you met enough of them such that you know how they'd handle being on a boat?

This line of thinking is the same path that runs to halflings and gnomes wouldn't "really" be able to fight things.

It's a legitimately fair to say that if no mention is made of these difficulties in the book, then those difficulties do not exist.

Actual horses are a fair basis to make verisimilitude arguments for centaurs. Even the intentionally smaller ones WOTC used to make it easier to include them. Ponies and smaller horse exist and we can look at what happens when you put one on a small boat. Or try to have one walk through a cramped tunnel.

I honestly get both sides of this argument. I’ve been on both sides of it. But don’t pretend that mentioning that a small horse with the torso of a person swapped out for the neck and head is going to be perfectly suited for every space a human or halfling could be. Do you ever mention that the halflings and gnomes can fit places the humans and goliaths can’t? What a terrible DM you must be. It’s literally the same argument you’re making.

Allowing any race in the game but then shooting for a bit of verisimilitude isn’t in the same league as letting someone play a goblin then the second they get near the town having the NPCs murder the goblin PC. Saying “boats might be tricky for your centaur” doesn’t make someone a terrible DM. Come on.