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

[Maxperson]

Because, in effect, you are telling your player, "Sorry, your imagination isn't good enough for my table. My imagination is better than yours. If you want to play at my table, you have to accept that my imagination trumps yours". ((Note, the "you" here is a generic "you" not you specifically, reader.)) The DM in question cannot imagine that the player will take that option and make it interesting enough at the table that it enhances other people's enjoyment of the game. It shows an inherent lack of trust in the player's ability to take something and make it fun.

Er, no. It has nothing to do with whose imagination is better and everything to do with the DM's loss of enjoyment. You can imagine the best dragonborn possible, but I still can't stand them. There's nothing you can do to prevent that loss of enjoyment. In game terms, it doesn't matter how high your skill bonus is or whether you have advantage, since you don't even get to roll if there's no chance of success.

Essentially, the DM is vetoing something, not because of thematic or aesthetic reasons, but because the DM cannot imagine that the player will do anything interesting with it. And that judgement is based on the DM's dislike of whatever that element is.

Again, that's false. I can imagine you doing all kinds of interesting things with dragonborn. You don't get to accuse a DM of badwrongfun just because there's something that will deprive him of enjoyment and he doesn't want to experience it in his game.

 

[Mecheon]

Again, that's false. I can imagine you doing all kinds of interesting things with dragonborn. You don't get to accuse a DM of badwrongfun just because there's something that will deprive him of enjoyment and he doesn't want to experience it in his game.

How is a dragonborn going to deprive you of enjoyment?

I get storyline stuff and the relevance of races in certain worlds and those are completely fine, but losing enjoyment? Over someone wanting to be a dragon person? I completely fail to understand this part

Like, this is just me digging into the guts of D&D stuff which is, y'know, a thing I do a lot. How is the dragon person more unbelievable than the two flavours of semi-mortal fey? Or the hyper-focused mythic crafters? No, its the all things considered surprisingly grounded group of dragon-created beings (which, is already established through kobolds existing) with similar lifespans to humans that are causing problems?

I cannot wrap my head around being fine with elves, dwarves and halflings, but not being fine with dragonborn. Struth, chopping elves off would deal with that 'wait you're centuries old but are level 1' problem they have, which, coincidentally, isn't a problem for dragonborn

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well thank you, at least, for answering the question in a straightforward manner. I find it curious that you ascribe both an attitude (pettiness) and a motive ("MY etc.") to what was otherwise a minimal-context example. Might I ask why (and specifically, why the assumption of a negative attitude and a controlling motive)?

The DM isn't choosing this to create any kind of experience or give any kind of focus to the game; you said, verbatim, "which means that considerations of genre, theme, and tone are already and automatically precluded." To me, that is equivalent to saying that no part of producing an enjoyable game for anyone except the DM factored into that decision. It is, simply, saying, "My tastes are more important than anyone else's here." And since it is, in fact, being openly given without any further consideration (since we're talking about DMs that don't pull fast ones on their players), well, how would you feel about being openly told, "I simply dislike the aesthetic of that, so I'm not letting you or anyone else play one"? It communicates a lack of interest in or respect for the thoughts and desires of players who have any preferences of their own--a unilateral declaration of "nope, I don't like it, so it's not allowed."

Let's say I cop to all of this. Here's the question I really want answered—the thing I've been badgering Hussar and Minigiant about—why is the latter a bad thing for a DM to do? What's the reason this is something to avoid?

Because, if the DM's job description requires respect and trust from the players, the DM ought to act like they deserve that trust. Caring about what other people want, and not simply unilaterally dismissing the ideas, desires, or preferences of others, is a necessary (but not sufficient) step for earning others' trust in any situation. Whether or not a negative attitude is meant by such brusque behavior, it is communicated, because being so brusque is, itself, a demonstration of that lack of concern for others.

Respect is not just a two-way street. It is a relationship. That relationship has implications. Among these are listening, caring, and the pursuit of common ground. To choose not to listen, to demonstrate you do not care, to not merely ignore but shun common ground, is to damage that relationship.

Er, no. It has nothing to do with whose imagination is better and everything to do with the DM's loss of enjoyment. You can imagine the best dragonborn possible, but I still can't stand them. There's nothing you can do to prevent that loss of enjoyment. In game terms, it doesn't matter how high your skill bonus is or whether you have advantage, since you don't even get to roll if there's no chance of success.

Again, that's false. I can imagine you doing all kinds of interesting things with dragonborn. You don't get to accuse a DM of badwrongfun just because there's something that will deprive him of enjoyment and he doesn't want to experience it in his game.

See above, Max. I absolutely think it does, and just saying "er, no, it has nothing to do with that" does not substantively respond to my core argument: the DM claims a position deserving respect, so she should act accordingly, and absolute unilateral dismissal of preferences purely and exclusively because they aren't her preferences is a negation of that respect, not a reason to give it.

Edit: And again, because I have had to reiterate this literally every time I say something like the above, compromise IS NOT ALWAYS POSSIBLE. Some situations, it really, truly can't be resolved, and that's OKAY. It is COMPLETELY FINE for the DM and the player to put in a good-faith effort, and come away not actually being able to resolve the problem, at which point I grant that it is the player's responsibility to respectfully exit, or choose differently. I am, I was, and I presumably always will be only arguing that this conversation, to determine whether compromise is possible and to find one if it is possible, is necessary for a healthy DM/player relationship. It is (one part of) how the DM demonstrates that the trust and respect vested in them is warranted.

I'd roll my eyes if a DM told me they'd excluded half-orcs because of the icky stuff and wouldn't consider it any more valid than the other reason. But I would accept the decision and after my eye roll I'd just finish up my character and move on.

I mean, I've known people who have gone through some Bad Experiences. I wouldn't blame them if part of dealing with those Bad Experiences was avoiding things that might, even in passing, only historically, and only by implication, tangentially relate to that stuff. As an example, one of my current players was emotionally manipulated and abused by parental figures for many years, and is still struggling to throw off some of the naughty word, naughty word programming (metaphorically) beaten in. I hadn't expected a corrupting and mind-controlling spirit-thing to set off those alarm bells, but it did, sending that player to the hills until we forced the issue, talked it out, and forged ahead. Thankfully, because my players are awesome and this player specifically trusts me a great deal, we were able to overcome the problem in a highly satisfactory way, which I think was overall helpful. Yet I can at least conceive of a situation where someone isn't ready for that, may not ever be ready for that, and just doesn't want even the risk of a hint of a whiff because PTSD is a bitch and can completely ruin a night (or even a week) if set off unexpectedly.

Edit 2: Lemme put it this way, MGibster. If someone has an almost-uncontrollable urge to vomit at the smell of lemon because strong lemony scents or flavors remind them of how a naughty word parent used to lock them up Harry Potter style, would you truly begrudge them saying they don't offer citrus-flavored sodas, not even La Croix, while gaming (or indeed at any other time) and ask you not to bring any into the house? It's not that there's that much chance something could happen. It's that even a very small chance of projectile-vomiting over the table is too large a chance to accept, when the chance could be zero.

 

[Oofta]

I had a longer response but it basically boils down to:

• Curated campaign choices rarely (if ever) has anything to do with lack of imagination. Saying it does is insulting.
• The visuals of a campaign can affect it as much as having to deal with evil characters.
• Virtually all the "lines in the sand" being drawn all disappear when taken out of white-room hypotheticals.
• I can justify my choices, but it could well be self-justification because everybody does it.
• All decisions a DM makes are rooted in personal preference, even if that personal preference is to please others over strongly held opinions.

All of which of course is just my opinion that I concluded after purely rational and logical train of thought. Or not.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Because, in effect, you are telling your player, "Sorry, your imagination isn't good enough for my table. My imagination is better than yours. If you want to play at my table, you have to accept that my imagination trumps yours". ((Note, the "you" here is a generic "you" not you specifically, reader.)) The DM in question cannot imagine that the player will take that option and make it interesting enough at the table that it enhances other people's enjoyment of the game. It shows an inherent lack of trust in the player's ability to take something and make it fun.

Essentially, the DM is vetoing something, not because of thematic or aesthetic reasons, but because the DM cannot imagine that the player will do anything interesting with it. And that judgement is based on the DM's dislike of whatever that element is. It's not based on previous experience (I'm not going to let Bob play weird races because the last time he did it it was a disaster - perfectly reasonable reason), it's not based on thematic issues (I'm not going to let Bob play this weird race because it doesn't fit into the campaign). It's purely based on the DM's lack of faith in the player's ability to make that race choice interesting to the table.

All right, there's a lot here, so I'm going to break this down.
• The DM is "in effect" impugning the player's imagination (which I'll take to mean that it implies no intent on the part of the DM, but is a consequence of the denial).
• The DM is betraying their own lack of imagination (or being narrow-minded), and more specifically, what they can't imagine is the player doing something "interesting" with the denied element.
• The DM lacks trust/faith in the player to use the denied element well, or for the betterment of the campaign.
• The DM is setting up their own preferences as more important than the players' preferences (fundamental inequality).
Is that a fair summation of your points?

The DM isn't choosing this to create any kind of experience or give any kind of focus to the game; you said, verbatim, "which means that considerations of genre, theme, and tone are already and automatically precluded." To me, that is equivalent to saying that no part of producing an enjoyable game for anyone except the DM factored into that decision. It is, simply, saying, "My tastes are more important than anyone else's here." And since it is, in fact, being openly given without any further consideration (since we're talking about DMs that don't pull fast ones on their players), well, how would you feel about being openly told, "I simply dislike the aesthetic of that, so I'm not letting you or anyone else play one"? It communicates a lack of interest in or respect for the thoughts and desires of players who have any preferences of their own--a unilateral declaration of "nope, I don't like it, so it's not allowed."

That doesn't so much explain why you read negatively-charged emotions into an emotionally neutral example as it adds more of them (selfishness, disinterest, disrespect). But maybe this nugget is at the heart of it—"My tastes are more important than anyone else's here." Is the fundamental inequality of the implied social dynamic the reason the example rubs you the wrong way, perhaps?

Because, if the DM's job description requires respect and trust from the players, the DM ought to act like they deserve that trust. Caring about what other people want, and not simply unilaterally dismissing the ideas, desires, or preferences of others, is a necessary (but not sufficient) step for earning others' trust in any situation. Whether or not a negative attitude is meant by such brusque behavior, it is communicated, because being so brusque is, itself, a demonstration of that lack of concern for others.

Respect is not just a two-way street. It is a relationship. That relationship has implications. Among these are listening, caring, and the pursuit of common ground. To choose not to listen, to demonstrate you do not care, to not merely ignore but shun common ground, is to damage that relationship.

Since you're answering the same question as Hussar here, I'm going to offer the same courtesy: I want to break down and summarize my understanding of what you're saying before I actually reply to it. Here's what I'm seeing;
• The DM is betraying lack of trust and lack of respect
• The DM is being fundamentally selfish
• The DM is failing at maintaining a relationship with the player(s) by denying them game elements
Is that fair?
(I'm ignoring brusque because a person's manner and tone aren't really pertinent to the matter at hand. I don't think so, anyway. A DM could still be soft-spoken and nothing but polite while drawing a hard red line in the sand at "no gnomes in my campaign, gnomes annoy me.")

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

This seems to be a common line of thought. Since elves exist, and they can see in the dark, then centaurs can climb? Since dragons exist, centaurs can climb? Since there are devils, centaurs can climb?

Here is the difference imho.

We have examples of real life things that can see in the dark. It is not hard to suspend disbelief that a species not human can see in the dark. We have examples of things that can live a long time. We have, through antiquity, been told about devils and dragons. There are clear rules regarding these creatures, and their presence/culture/history is explained ad nauseum.

A centaur climbing a sheer cliff wall or a tall rope ladder to the crows nest defies physics. If you want to give the centaur the innate ability to use a beefy version of Tenser's floating disc for its hind hooves. Cool. Or maybe an innate fly spell that just holds their weight, but doesn't allow them to fly. Then at least there is common sense backing the decisions up. I give all my flying dragons a distorted version of the fly spell. But to say there is a centaur Alex Honnold does break reality - because you are denying physics.

If you deny physics then all characters should be able to jump 1 mile. Why not? Let all characters jump from tree top to tree top without any ability or training. Or, better yet, have them be able to pick up castles. But of course, we generally don't allow that because we want our worlds grounded in physics.

 

[Oofta]

This seems to be a common line of thought. Since elves exist, and they can see in the dark, then centaurs can climb? Since dragons exist, centaurs can climb? Since there are devils, centaurs can climb?

Here is the difference imho.

We have examples of real life things that can see in the dark. It is not hard to suspend disbelief that a species not human can see in the dark. We have examples of things that can live a long time. We have, through antiquity, been told about devils and dragons. There are clear rules regarding these creatures, and their presence/culture/history is explained ad nauseum.

A centaur climbing a sheer cliff wall or a tall rope ladder to the crows nest defies physics. If you want to give the centaur the innate ability to use a beefy version of Tenser's floating disc for its hind hooves. Cool. Or maybe an innate fly spell that just holds their weight, but doesn't allow them to fly. Then at least there is common sense backing the decisions up. I give all my flying dragons a distorted version of the fly spell. But to say there is a centaur Alex Honnold does break reality - because you are denying physics.

If you deny physics then all characters should be able to jump 1 mile. Why not? Let all characters jump from tree top to tree top without any ability or training. Or, better yet, have them be able to pick up castles. But of course, we generally don't allow that because we want our worlds grounded in physics.

My thoughts as well. I basically want my game to be reality + magic. Unless centaurs are using magic, there are places they can't go that bipeds can.

 

[Scott Christian]

A couple questions..

1. Where do I need to go to read all these 'explanations' for the different D&D bs-ery. It sounds fascinating

2. Is this the same fantasy world the DM designs and governs and has near complete control over?

Because, it's almost sounds like, at a whim, there could be an in-game explanation for centaur cliff hopping with no loss of 'realism'

There is no debating this logic. It is a weight the people who hold tradition and fantasy realism greater than children playing a game of make believe. The reality is the lines between these two are different for everyone. Rest assured, that if I joined Gammadoodler's game and insisted that my mycanoid PC can fall 500 feet and bounce with no repercussions, or that I had no internal organs and therefore could not take any HP damage from being smashed with a maul, a line would be crossed. And when the rules are brought out, I will say those damage rules don't apply to me. Just like physics don't apply to centaurs.

No seriously, there is no debating the people who insist that because dragons can fly and breathe fire, then whatever else they debate as fantasy realism falls within their definition. There is no debate from the ones that rely on lore, often lore that has been around for 1000's of years. The two lines are so far apart, and the key is, the dragon people can have the line wherever they want. They can win any argument about fantasy realism. It does not matter if a DM has explained almost everything in their world.

To them, Conan the Barbarian can eat gravel until he digs a hole 100' in the ground, then regurgitate the gravel after his enemies fall in the pit. Because the space in his stomach, according to fantasy logic, doesn't follow the mathematical rules of volume.

Think of it like this:
For some - lore becomes law.
For others - lore becomes law until the law needs to be broken.

 

[Gammadoodler]

This seems to be a common line of thought. Since elves exist, and they can see in the dark, then centaurs can climb? Since dragons exist, centaurs can climb? Since there are devils, centaurs can climb?

Here is the difference imho.

We have examples of real life things that can see in the dark. It is not hard to suspend disbelief that a species not human can see in the dark. We have examples of things that can live a long time. We have, through antiquity, been told about devils and dragons. There are clear rules regarding these creatures, and their presence/culture/history is explained ad nauseum.

A centaur climbing a sheer cliff wall or a tall rope ladder to the crows nest defies physics. If you want to give the centaur the innate ability to use a beefy version of Tenser's floating disc for its hind hooves. Cool. Or maybe an innate fly spell that just holds their weight, but doesn't allow them to fly. Then at least there is common sense backing the decisions up. I give all my flying dragons a distorted version of the fly spell. But to say there is a centaur Alex Honnold does break reality - because you are denying physics.

If you deny physics then all characters should be able to jump 1 mile. Why not? Let all characters jump from tree top to tree top without any ability or training. Or, better yet, have them be able to pick up castles. But of course, we generally don't allow that because we want our worlds grounded in physics.

So..I guess I'll say this again. D&D settings are imaginary.

That includes the physics. There are no specified gravitational constants, or coefficients of friction. Hell, grid-based combat doesnt even employ Euclidean geometry. The only truly applicable 'physical laws' are the ones specified in the rules. Anything beyond that is the DM making rulings for how they think their imaginary world should work.

Further centaurs (like every D&D race) are also imaginary, which means their physical structure and capabilities are wholly mutable, except for those structures established in the rules (which by the way includes that they are medium creatures and can climb at 1/4 speed).

This is a comparable argument to the 'halflings can't physically be good adventurers' contention made earlier in this thread where the idea was that there was no way they could dodge a polearm because of their size.

The fact is, creatures' capabilities are governed by what the game says they can do..augmented by how the DM chooses for their world to function.

A DM who chooses for centaur characters to use different rules than every other character for climbing, isn't adding any adherence to physics; they're just resolving a conflict in their imagination. It's something they certainly can choose to do, and if the table is on board, it's fine.

But, if they do, they're also introducing rules asymmetry between PCs based on race, which, IMHO, is a 'bad' thing.

 

[Minigiant]

@Jack Daniel
I think the key word is selfish.

DMs have a level justified selfishness in the DM to Player relationship. The DM do more work. There are more players than DMs. Therefore DMs get to demand more.

So if the DM wants to include or exclude elements to the campaign that have nothing to do with the theme, genre, tone, or playstyle of campaign, they can. D&D accepts a level of this due to the DM workload. Players accept this to keep DMs happy.

It all comes down to the level. Players are fine with a DM chosing the themes, tones, genres, and playstyles they like. They are okay with DMs adding or subtracting rules, fluff, races and classes based on their preferences. DMs can look for players that match their desires with higher percentages than others.

But the definition of selfishness is:

1. concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one's own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others

1. arising from concern with one's own welfare or advantage in disregard of others

If a DM only gives a hoot about their desires, that's being selfish. Some is allowed. Some is expected. However if a DM makes a lot of selfish decisions in their campaign, it can be looked down upon by others.