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

[Gammadoodler]

Well, I don't think there would be a "mess". As long as I'm clear ahead of time how I would rule (and I would be) it's not my responsibility to make the environments or scenarios fit the PC.

If I make it clear to the players that I'm running an urban campaign and somebody comes to me with a wood elf, they don't have a leg to stand on when most fights don't occur in natural environments. You could say the same about centaurs. As long as I'm clear they don't have a hoof to stand on when everybody else can climb that ladder.

Except that you, and you alone have decided that centaurs fit in as PCs and what the centaur can do in this scenario (again ignoring that your judgement call here conflicts with published rules).

If your player says, "hey wait, there's nothing in the rules about being incapable of climbing this thing".. they're right. It's something you made up. You get to own it.

(Note: the ruling here also ignores any potential class features, so potentially your 20 strength barbarian rogue centaur is less capable of climbing than your 8 strength wizard. )

 

[Maxperson]

Except that you, and you alone have decided that centaurs fit in as PCs and what the centaur can do in this scenario (again ignoring that your judgement call here conflicts with published rules).

DMing isn't a team effort.

If your player says, "hey wait, there's nothing in the rules about being incapable of climbing this thing".. they're right. It's something you made up. You get to own it.

Sure. That's not a problem, and also isn't a "mess."

(Note: the ruling here also ignores any potential class features, so potentially your 20 strength barbarian rogue centaur is less capable of climbing than your 8 strength wizard. )

Why would a 20 strength let you pull a horse up a wall?

 

[Jack Daniel]

It’s the job of the DM to suspend their disbelief for the player’s enjoyment.

also

It’s the job of each player to suspend their disbelief for the DM and other player’s enjoyment.

Oh, no. Nope. Can't get on board with this. There is a sliding scale between verisimilitude and willing suspension of disbelief. If, as a DM, you value verisimilitude—and I do—you never want the players to need to willingly suspend their disbelief. If they need to, you've done your job wrong.

————————————​

I'm not especially invested in the centaur conversation. I do include centaur PCs in most of my campaign settings—it's just that, in years and years of playing, I've never had one try to climb a wall, sheer or otherwise, with or without the assistance of ropes and climbing gear. It's never come up. I've always quietly assumed that if a party of adventurers with a centaur companion were ever exploring a dungeon and needed to reach a place the centaur character couldn't go, it would be incumbent upon them to devise their own solution. Because it simply isn't my business or my problem. My business is making sure the dungeon realistically reflects the needs and wants of whoever built it; getting the centaur party member down the broken hole between levels two and three is the players' problem.

But now that everybody's talking about it, I really really want to create a horse-accessible dungeon that was built by ancient centaurs and their Rohirric allies. Huge stone ramps, curving slopes, and causeways, all Helm's Deep-lookin' everywhere… sounds all kinds of groovy.

 

[Gammadoodler]

If you don't know the difference between a whim and a reason, I can't help you.

You left out the word 'imaginary'. As in 'imaginary readons'. Simple oversight I'm sure in an otherwise good faith discussion.

 

[Oofta]

Yep. When I literally cannot even visualise the thing happening 'it's fantasy' stops working as an excuse.

It's not like this is anything new. Conversation we had during my 4E days when centaurs became a playable race was basically "How would they climb a ladder?" along with a bunch of head shaking and groans because it was another thing that we ultimately just had to say "it's just a game". I personally hate the "it's just a game" excuse.

But it does go back to the theme of the thread. It is not my job to suspend disbelief or allow anything a player wants. It's up to me to run a game that makes sense to everyone at the table and is enjoyable as often as I can.

Different DMs, different groups will have different ways of doing that.

 

[Oofta]

Except that you, and you alone have decided that centaurs fit in as PCs and what the centaur can do in this scenario (again ignoring that your judgement call here conflicts with published rules).

If your player says, "hey wait, there's nothing in the rules about being incapable of climbing this thing".. they're right. It's something you made up. You get to own it.

(Note: the ruling here also ignores any potential class features, so potentially your 20 strength barbarian rogue centaur is less capable of climbing than your 8 strength wizard. )

I would have told the player ahead of time how I would run it. I don't care if it's a house rule or not. If they still chose to play a centaur it's on them. If they don't like how I run it find another table or don't run a centaur.

It would destroy my sense of immersion in the game as well as many others at the table. Feel free to run your games otherwise.

P.S. Why is it that people feel so compelled to other people how to run their game?

 

[Maxperson]

You left out the word 'imaginary'. As in 'imaginary readons'. Simple oversight I'm sure in an otherwise good faith discussion.

I have no imaginary reasons.

 

[Oofta]

You left out the word 'imaginary'. As in 'imaginary readons'. Simple oversight I'm sure in an otherwise good faith discussion.

Assuming you meant "reason", we've given you the reason. There's no magic involved and if we can't visualize how it could happen it doesn't happen.

Different people have different standards and different styles. Not sure why it would be a hard concept to grasp.

 

[overgeeked]

I would not put the whole blame on the GM. There are some things a player has to be able to expect and shoulder the responsibility for making their choice despite the complications those expectations will reasonably impose.
A classic example in previous editions was a high level Druid with a huge dinosaur as an animal companion. You can’t expect to be able to take them everywhere you might want to go (at least without paying some cost). There really were players out there (arguing on these boards) claiming that was, for some reason, unfair. Sure, a GM could hand wave away complications, but that also just sounds like an argument for a player to not be responsible for and with the character choices they make. And that’s not a game all of us are willing to play, on either side of the GM’s screen (because, as a player, I take a dim view of other players pulling those shenanigans too because it plays havoc with immersion).

It’s not the DM’s job to protect the characters from the player’s choices. You pick a fight you can’t win, bad things will happen. You play a centaur, you’re going to have trouble climbing walls and ladders without horseshoes of climbing.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

P.S. Why is it that people feel so compelled to other people how to run their game?

Coming from someone who regularly describes methods of play that aren’t your preference in contemptuous and dismissive terms, the question is pretty rich.