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

[Maxperson]

It's pretty amazing how thoroughly this misreads my post. Or perhaps how cynical this position is. The underlying assumption here is that the DM made this a playable race for a reason beyond the opportunity to assail the player with arbitrarily unscalable obstacles, right?

Just like there is no "whim," there also is no "arbitrary."

 

[Mecheon]

I think the real question is: would you say that someone that restricts races such as I do is automatically a bad DM. I mean, I'm probably going to disagree with most DMs on a minor thing here and there, that doesn't make them a bad DM in my opinion.

A'course not. But, likewise I'd say doing it without justification of flavour or lorebuilding edges close to the 'artibery banning', which makes me think of bad DM stories like 'I am going to artiberily nerf/buff this race or class'

Gotta have reasons

Also on centaur stuff: Centaur biology cannot just be human biology stuck on a horse otherwise, well, things would be Odd due to, y'know, digestive systems. So can't just compare human to horse 100% either way

 

[Jaeger]

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


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.

While the last reply was not directed at me, it is useful to clarify my position.

Every position I have taken assumes both parties are acting in Good Faith.

And It is absolutely possible and OK to tell someone No, in Good Faith.

And honestly, if a further explanation is needed of what it means to act and communicate like an Adult, I respectfully decline to make any further responses to that line of questioning. No way I'm stepping into that minefield on an elfgames forum.

Self-inflicted, you have the responsibility, you get the credit, you get the blame. Call it what you want. You decide how your world functions, you're responsible for the results.

100% Agreed.

Which is why I am not afraid to tell a potential player no if they request to play a race that they have been told upfront is not one of the options in my campaign.

So there is no argument here. We are in agreement.

 

[Jaeger]

From page 26 of the Dungeon Master's Guide:

It's pretty clear that the DM is well within bounds to restrict or even prohibit certain options for character creation, including prohibited races. It's also pretty clear that the DM is expected to communicate this clearly to the players, as they start developing the campaign, in writing.

The above from pg. 26 in the DMG is a good reference to answer this question:

Why can't the setting provide both, exactly? I'm really not clear on that. Because from what I'm seeing, it looks like you're saying one kind of pure handwaving is completely fine, and another kind of pure handwaving is completely not fine, without any meaningful distinction.

If a DM chooses to, they can embrace the "equine rules" for centaurs; That is 100% OK.

If a DM chooses to restrict centaurs from available PC races, (For any reason.) and has communicated this before the start of the campaign; That is also 100% OK.

.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And honestly, if a further explanation is needed of what it means to act and communicate like an Adult, I respectfully decline to make any further responses to that line of questioning. No way I'm stepping into that minefield on an elfgames forum.

And I respectfully reserve the right to call that the drive-by name-calling it is. "Just do it RIGHT" is not an answer, it is not participation in the debate, it is a potshot and nothing more.

Dare I say...

It's not a very adult way to speak with people.

 

[Jaeger]

And I respectfully reserve the right to call that the drive-by name-calling it is. "Just do it RIGHT" is not an answer, it is not participation in the debate, it is a potshot and nothing more.

Dare I say...

It's not a very adult way to speak with people.

I called you no names. That is an outright lie.

And you cannot produce any quote from my replies to you that proves that I did so.

I was willing to drop this line of inquiry. But I will defend my self from baseless accusations.

I also did not reply "Just do it Right". You again cannot point to anywhere in my reply that I did so. That is a misrepresentation of my reply.

In our past exchange:

EzekialRaiden Said:
"How does a DM with "vision" communicate that fairly, and respond appropriately to players that aren't automatically on board?

How does a player with "inspiration" share that with the DM in a constructive way, so they can play enthusiastically in the world offered?"

"Like Adults" was my reply.

"Like Adults" Is a very common turn of phrase. Used non-pejoratively in everyday conversation with a universally understood meaning. I could have alternatively said "Like an Adult" or "In an Adult manner" with the same connotation.

You are the first person I have come across that has interpreted it to mean something other than being synonymous with this:

www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/adult
ADULT:
4. Adjective
If you say that someone is adult about something, you think that they act in a mature, intelligent way, especially when faced with a difficult situation.
[approval]
We were very adult about it. We discussed it rationally over a drink.

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.

I have certainly not suggested that you have to do things the way I do.

You are free to run your game, accommodating players however you see fit; That is 100% ok.

Me and others in this thread are also free to run campaigns that restrict the available PC races. This is also 100% ok.

.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

Levitate. It’s available starting level 3.

 

[Oofta]

A'course not. But, likewise I'd say doing it without justification of flavour or lorebuilding edges close to the 'artibery banning', which makes me think of bad DM stories like 'I am going to artiberily nerf/buff this race or class'

Gotta have reasons

Also on centaur stuff: Centaur biology cannot just be human biology stuck on a horse otherwise, well, things would be Odd due to, y'know, digestive systems. So can't just compare human to horse 100% either way

A Shetland pony weighs around 450 pounds. I can't imagine any physiology other than skeletal that would weigh much less. Add that I don't see how it would be feasible to have all 4 hooves (which wouldn't help much to begin with) assist with the climbing and I don't see anything arbitrary about it.

Unless of course centaurs are modeled on something like this:

I mean, it's not going to matter to my campaign because I'm not going to allow them but it is fully within the realm of the DM to make judgement calls. One of the reasons I wouldn't play 4E again is because there were just too many head scratching visuals for me. I can't imagine how even a cartoon would show a centaur climbing a sheer cliff. So if I were to allow a centaur in a game, I'd make the limitation clear ahead of time.

You don't have to make the same call, visuals may not matter to you, it's you're game.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I already told you. Common Sense U.

Sure is.

Untrue. Whims have nothing to do with it. The DM keeps them the same for reasons, or changes them for reasons, but I've yet to see a DM make such a change on a whim.

Ah, so first we're doubling down on a nothing response. Cool. It's been a bit, but remember that whole conversation about how a dodge is a dodge, and pots and kettles..

I'm excited to hear how whims have any functional difference from imaginary reasons though.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I give what I get.

No, it isn't.

You gave an assertion, got a question on that assertion, and gave a nothing response.

If you can't be bothered to back up your assertions, you could just not bother making them.