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

[Older Beholder]

This is all beside the point anyway.
There aren’t any ladders in Theros, everyone knows that.

I forgot about Ravnica.
Although Centaurs in Ravnica are more concerned with climbing the ladders of hierarchy within their guild.

 

[Maxperson]

Well, to get back to the original discussion of the thread, a lot depends on context.

Alice: Can I play a centaur? I’m thinking of a druid with a nature theme.
DM: No, how would you climb ladders or enter taverns?
Alice: Well, I could wildshape beginning at level 2.
DM: Ok, but what about when that expires?
Alice: Bob, you want to play a wizard, right? Mind picking up Reduce and Spider Climb at level 3?
Bob: No problem, I was going to go Transmuter anyway.
DM: Still no.

Except that's not the original discussion. The original discussion was more like...

DM: We're playing a setting and there are no centaurs.
Alice: Can I pay a centaur?
DM: No.

Alternatively...

Alice: Can I play a centaur?
DM: Hmm. That would be problematic for reasons I can't say yet.
Alice: I really want to play a 4 legged PC.
DM: Well, how about a wemic. Those have 4 legs and aren't problematic.

It hasn't been about just poopooing player ideas.

 

[Zardnaar]

Centaurs for me are on the maybe list. Midgard or Theros sure, anything else maybe leaning towards a no.

 

[Maxperson]

Centaurs for me are on the maybe list. Midgard or Theros sure, anything else maybe leaning towards a no.

I've had no requests in 37 years of playing. People seem to understand the limitations.

 

[Zardnaar]

I've had no requests in 37 years of playing. People seem to understand the limitations.

Yeah centaurs very marginal race never had a request either.

 

[Hussar]

'Kay.

What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?



Nah.

If I make a campaign setting that doesn't have elves because I don't think they're thematically appropriate and doesn't have dwarves because I hate the beardy little bastards* and think most players roleplay them as annoying stereotypes, I've pre-vetoed both races. If a player asks to play either an elf or a dwarf, it's going to be a hard "no" for that campaign. You're saying that I'm in the right regarding elves but in the wrong regarding dwarves? A player excited to be Legolas is going to be just as disappointed as a player excited to be Gimli, but the latter is somehow less justifiable than the former?

* Not hypothetical. This is in fact generally why I don't include Tolkien-/D&D-type dwarves in many of my settings.

Yes, that is exactly what I've been saying.

 

[Hussar]

Well. I'm not gonna build a setting with elements that I don't like. If I wanted that sort of a setting I'd just use Forgotten Realms.

Thematic and aesthetic preferences are ultimately just 'I do like this/I don't like this.' If GM is not allowed to make decisions based on such they simply cannot express any sort of artistic vision.

This is a bit of a straw man though. The DM creates the setting with elements he or she likes. Ok, fair enough. Then the player comes along and wants to make a change to that - by adding a single race that the player likes. That certainly doesn't follow that the DM cannot "express any sort of artistic vision".

 

[Hussar]

What justification could there be that would be "good enough" and who gets to decide? I posted my reasons here, are they adequate?

Yes they are and I and others said as much. Why are you asking?

 

[Hussar]

Heh.

You folks do realize that horses CAN climb ladders right? Maybe not 90 degree ones, fair enough, but, pretty steep ones. Google it.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Yes, that is exactly what I've been saying.