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

[Scott Christian]

NO. It does not only matter if they ban the race, because the question is about banning the FOR THAT SPECIFIC REASON. That literally, by definition, means that I am asking about more than the act of banning itself.


But frankly, I'm just left with the single observation that you don't want to answer the question. Because this is, I believe, the THIRD time you've tried to redirect it.

I have answered this question multiple times. Here are some of my answers on why it is okay to ban a race (perhaps this will refresh your memory):

• Physiological reasons
• Geography (both for the world and the individual setting pieces for play)
• Thematic settings
• Deity or godly interventions
• Magical reasons
• Campaign friction reasons
• Personal (I don't like it) reasons
• Logical reasons outside of the game like time constraints to rewrite a timeline and another fifty pages of lore
• Session 0 has clear parameters

I have discussed every single one of these reasons. And again, it comes back to either:

• One side eliminates session 0 and pretends it never existed
• One side doesn't like the reasons
• One side accepts some reasons and not others

That is Hussar saying that I am correct in how the argument should be read. So you are literally telling me and him that you understand his argument better than he does.

I don't understand how you can keep doing this by accident.

No. I am saying Hussar falls into category three: He accepts some reasons and not others. He does at least accept that no side is better. But it is clear from his past experience in the DMing world, that he thinks the effort of creating a setting is pointless. He is sick and tired of the same tropes, including races like humans. And has clearly stated that several of the DM's reasons listed above are close minded.

So, you are saying you are trying to find the point of conflict.

Then you ignore something that, in your own words, would nullify the conflict if it went one way or the other. Isn't that, sort of by definition, where the conflict is!

So, if you truly want to find the point of conflict, why leave out something that so obviously seem to be a point of conflict!

The point of conflict is the point of conflict, not the resolution. The two are different things. The resolution that is obvious is the player accepts the list the acceptable race list the DM gave him. There, did that nullify the conflict? Did it clear things up? No, it didn't. The reason is because you need to know why. Just like the DM side wants to know why. In order to find out why, one must know exactly where the conflict is.

 

[Gammadoodler]

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. I know the internet is useless generally and only good for shouting opinions at each other, but come on.

It's backwards thinking. D&D is a fantasy rpg. The settings and characters are fantastical. If there are boats and centaurs, it's more reasonable to assume centaur seafarers and/or the vessels they encounter would have adapted as necessary for them to be there.

If you're starting with, 'well this wouldn't work in real world' so it'd obviously be a problem in my fantasy world, I kinda think you're missing the point.

Ultimately, the DM controls the fantasy, any verisimilitude problems are self-inflicted

 

[Jack Daniel]

But is Mel the Mysterious a PC or an NPC? And why would the players want to go and destroy something they created? Did the Barony of Bob become an antagonist between campaigns?

Wonder why the DM would have made the player created thing a villain for the Players to destroy....

Who said anything about antagonists or villains? And why should it matter whether Mel is a PC or an NPC? Players have goals. NPCs have goals. Those goals don't always align, and that's going to be true of all characters, player-controlled or otherwise.

You mean other than making a statement like this "A DM who creates worlds in this manner is no more obliged to solicit player input than a painter is obliged to let an art critic touch up their canvas. For a DM like this, the singular creation of the milieu is one of the very reasons for playing D&D in the first place; and in that case, a statement like "If I didn't think of it, it's not in my world—because then, if I added it, it wouldn't be my world anymore" doesn't just make perfect sense, it's also a literal ethical principle for that DM."

Which implies a very heavy control over the world, I mean, even including an idea they did not come up with is against their ethical principles.

But, when I extend that control over play, I'm obtuse and, how did you put it? "May God have mercy on [my] soul" because those things are entirely different and a person who sees working entirely in isolation making their world with zero outside influence will of course not extend that level of control over the setting in other areas.

Through things like DM PCs, overpowered NPCs and Enemies, acts of the Gods re-establishing the status quo. Nope, clearly not even a possibility.

That is not, in any sense, conflating generalities with specifics. I'm not moving the goalposts here; you're making a categorical error. What I said implies very heavy control over world creation, and it says nothing whatsoever about what happens once the PCs are turned loose on said creation. It just doesn't, and you don't get to read that into what I said. Non licet. Verboten.

It's not like it's some big secret unknown to RPG theorists and forgotten by modern gamers that sandbox play tends to go hand-in-hand with both tight DM control on the campaign's initial conditions and wildly unhindered player freedom once the game is set in motion. Is that not obvious? If not, I apologize for quoting Billy Madison at you. (But, jeez, seriously. Watch more movies if you didn't catch the reference.)

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.

"Merry Christmas, ya filthy animal."

 

[Oofta]

It's backwards thinking. D&D is a fantasy rpg. The settings and characters are fantastical. If there are boats and centaurs, it's more reasonable to assume centaur seafarers and/or the vessels they encounter would have adapted as necessary for them to be there.

If you're starting with, 'well this wouldn't work in real world' so it'd obviously be a problem in my fantasy world, I kinda think you're missing the point.

Ultimately, the DM controls the fantasy, any verisimilitude problems are self-inflicted

If you want to ignore the fact that there is no way a centaur could climb a ladder, it's completely up to you. But I've seen it (in previous editions) and most of the players just groaned an shook their heads. It's not self-inflicted, some thing would just be physically impossible. If you want to ignore it, fine. The rest of your group may not agree. There is no "fantasy version of a wall" that a centaur could climb.

 

[overgeeked]

If you want to ignore the fact that there is no way a centaur could climb a ladder, it's completely up to you. But I've seen it (in previous editions) and most of the players just groaned an shook their heads. It's not self-inflicted, some thing would just be physically impossible. If you want to ignore it, fine. The rest of your group may not agree. There is no "fantasy version of a wall" that a centaur could climb.

Two things. First, they’re called stairs and stairs make for a naughty word wall. Second, now I really want to play a billy goataur thief.

“What do you mean I can’t climb a wall? Just watch me.”

Extra points if he has a level of bard and has to sing everything he says.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

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.

If a DM allows centaurs into a campaign as a playable race, then it would be really strange to have a bunch of adventures where they couldn't participate at all. There is a difference between making an environment impossible for one or more PCs and making an environment that is extra challenging for one or more PCs. Not really sure of the point of your questions.

 

[Oofta]

Two things. First, they’re called stairs and stairs make for a naughty word wall. Second, now I really want to play a billy goataur thief.

“What do you mean I can’t climb a wall? Just watch me.”

Extra points if he has a level of bard and has to sing everything he says.

So you've never had to climb a ladder/rope/cliff wall in D&D? There are stairs everywhere?

 

[overgeeked]

So you've never had to climb a ladder/rope/cliff wall in D&D? There are stairs everywhere?

Sorry. The joke didn’t land.

You said “There is no "fantasy version of a wall" that a centaur could climb.”

To which I replied “they’re called stairs.”

The fantasy version of a wall centaurs could climb is called stairs.

I’m agreeing with you. Though apparently badly.

 

[Maxperson]

Two things. First, they’re called stairs and stairs make for a naughty word wall. Second, now I really want to play a billy goataur thief.

“What do you mean I can’t climb a wall? Just watch me.”

Extra points if he has a level of bard and has to sing everything he says.

How would you manage to climb a true wall as a Centaur? You only get a roll if the outcome is uncertain, and it's not at all uncertain about whether a horse, even if it has a man's head and a few hands, can climb a wall.

 

[Maxperson]

Sorry. The joke didn’t land.

You said “There is no "fantasy version of a wall" that a centaur could climb.”

To which I replied “they’re called stairs.”

The fantasy version of a wall centaurs could climb is called stairs.

I’m agreeing with you. Though apparently badly.

It went past me a bit as well.