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

[Gammadoodler]

One of the ways I make sure my setting functions is by restricting races. Nothing that flies at first level, nothing with more than four limbs, no warforged, none of the "monstrous races as PCS" from Volo's; anything else that's not on my "default yes" list, I'm willing to consider--or at least talk about--and I'm absolutely willing to work with a player to help them make a character they'll love to play.

Pretty sure I've gone on the books that all this sounds pretty kosher to me.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Like Adults.

Assuming this was earnest, it is the least-useful earnest answer I've ever seen. Might as well have said, "successfully."

It’s not the job of the DM to suspend their disbelief for the player’s entitlement.

And here we have the assuming-bad-faith thing again. Would be nice if we could have a discussion about how to go about NOT behaving in bad faith, that isn't oversimplified to the point of uselessness.

 

[billd91]

Besides the silly believability line we're drawing here, assuming a world where centaurs exist, they are an intelligent species, with opposable thumbs. We can't contemplate that they might, at some point, have figured out solutions to problems of verticality?

Well, sure, they’d have figured out solutions to verticality... in their own environments, through architecture that allows them to walk up onto their roof, or urban planning that works around sheer drops. Why would you expect them to have solutions for environments designed and efficient for bipedal primates? And why would you expect bipeds to build their environments with solutions for quadrupeds?

Coming up with adventuring environments designed for centaurs could be an interesting exercise in creativity and could really set a campaign setting apart, but it’s a major undertaking with broad implications for the campaign setting. Bottom line: it‘s pretty ridiculous to join a table expecting a GM to accommodate that sort of adaptation on the fly simply because the player wants to play a centaur.

 

[Maxperson]

Centaurs..are mythological. The cliff is imaginary. The PC is imaginary. The setting is imaginary.

True.

No one's scoring any reality points with how they rule this thing. It's an issue that only exists when a DM says so and only because the DM says so.

False. People play with varying levels of realism. If someone wants to play with higher levels of realism, they are going to score more reality points. You won't ever get near the point where you are mirroring reality, but realism absolute exists on a spectrum in D&D.

The point remains, verisimilitude issues are self-inflicted.

Not that the statement is 100% correct, but really, so what. If you enjoy a higher level of realism in your games, "self-inflicted" is a piss poor way to describe people having a greater level of enjoyment.

 

[Maxperson]

According to the book with centaurs:

“In addition, any climb that requires hands and feet is especially difficult for you because of your equine legs. When you make such a climb, each foot of movement costs you 4 extra feet instead of the normal 1 extra foot.”

So apparently the trite refrain that “problems with verisimilitude are self-inflicted” is pure bunk. The book says it’s about 2.5 times harder to climb as a centaur. So they’re trying for verisimilitude and playability. Odd they don't mention how much upper body strength they’d need to pull themselves up a rope considering they have a naughty word horse for legs.

That's pretty silly when talking about something like a cliff or wall. I can see a steep slope being that much more difficult for a horse, but no horse, even with an extra set of arms, is climbing a cliff or wall that easily.

 

[Maxperson]

Is it as odd ... as the idea that centaurs exist? Or dragons? or 600 year old humanoids who don't sleep and can see in the dark? or creatures that are literally descended from devils, genies, and angels?

All that's cool, but centaurs climbing or being competent on a boat is preposterous.

Fantasy realism is a thing. It's the fantasy world itself that explains dragons, 600 year old humanoids and creatures descended from planar creatures. A centaur, though, doesn't have an in game explanation for being able to climb a wall or cliff as a horse with some hands. Trying to equate centaurs climbing(unrealistic as the fantasy setting has laid out centaurs) with the others(realist with how the fantasy setting lays them out) is a False Equivalence.

 

[Maxperson]

I get it, the visual seems dumb to you. But if you decide that centaurs belong in your world as playable characters, you kinda need to get over it. Or you should take your lumps when players call you out for inserting rules that don't exist.

Or the players needs to get over it and take their lumps. Picking a race that it very blatantly obviously going to have more difficulties than standard shaped PCs and then expecting the DM to alter the world for you is a pretty silly idea to have.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Fantasy realism is a thing. It's the fantasy world explains dragons, 600 year old humanoids and creatures descended from planar creatures. A centaur, though, doesn't have an in game explanation for being able to climb a wall or cliff as a horse with some hands.

The irony here is incredibly thick. You do realize that no explanation short of hand-wavy "magic!" can explain dragons?

Their size, diet, population, locomotion, social structure, metabolism, and elemental breath are all radically unrealistic. Much more unrealistic than a centaur that can climb mountains.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Well, sure, they’d have figured out solutions to verticality... in their own environments, through architecture that allows them to walk up onto their roof, or urban planning that works around sheer drops. Why would you expect them to have solutions for environments designed and efficient for bipedal primates? And why would you expect bipeds to build their environments with solutions for quadrupeds?

Coming up with adventuring environments designed for centaurs could be an interesting exercise in creativity and could really set a campaign setting apart, but it’s a major undertaking with broad implications for the campaign setting. Bottom line: it‘s pretty ridiculous to join a table expecting a GM to accommodate that sort of adaptation on the fly simply because the player wants to play a centaur.

So, I more or less agree with your bottom line, absent all the different factors that influence how gaming groups form and members develop their expectations.

The rest is more or less thought experiment territory, which I find fun so I'm gonna follow the tangent.

First things first, yeah, centaur settlements would probably be structured on the path of least resistance to address verticality. Probably looking sloping inclines or something. Maybe not much different than the highway system.

As far as why they'd address bipedal primate architectural verticality, trade and war seem like low hanging fruit to me. As far as how they actually do it, the easiest solution is dnd b.s-ery of some variety, whether magic, technology, or, biology. Or, it could just be as simple as centaurs having completely jacked upper bodies, because they expect to have to deal with the issue regularly, like as a cultural feature In the same way that pilots have to learn English, they expect and train their merchants and warriors to overcome these vertical challenges.

As to why bipedal primates would build their settlements to support quadrupeds, similar deal, trade at least, diplomacy probably.

Basically there are reasons. Reasons, that I don't really think are that outlandish.

 

[Maxperson]

The irony here is incredibly thick. You do realize that no explanation short of hand-wavy "magic!" can explain dragons?

Sure, but the setting provides it. There is no such hand-wavy explanation for centaurs. Period. One is explained and the other is not. That means that one passed the fantasy realism test and the other does not, at least when it comes to climbing walls.