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

[Gammadoodler]

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.

Rest assured that if you joined my game, that the actions your player could take would be those that I feel are consistent with my way of viewing how that world should work and my understanding of the game's rules, and would be no more or less objectively 'real' than any other game of D&D.

 

[Scott Christian]

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).

Consistency is key. If a dinosaur can't be trained to keep their tail in check, not eat yummy shaped snacks called children, and not sneeze all over the grain supply, then the player should expect problems. If the DM doesn't want to deal with it, then handwave. For many players, it destroys the feel of the game and roleplaying. For others, it doesn't. All I know is that DM better not make a dinosaur act differently in the wild - because the druid's summoning is of a wild dinosaur, not some strange tame version. The same is true for bears, wolves, etc.

 

[Jack Daniel]

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.

That absolutely does not hold for everybody here. You're assuming that the game rules are always the final word on what happens in the fiction for every DM, which most certainly is not the case.

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
2. 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.

Possibly. But I also suspect that there's a great deal more to it than just that, and I'm going to wait for some more replies before I go any further.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

The argument you laid out above said nothing about whose imagination was more important. Desires do not equate to ability to imagine or "my imagination is more important." Imagination has nothing to do with it.

Rather, it's about enjoyment of the game. Period. That's it in its entirety. The DM is saying, "This race deprives me of fun, so it's not allowed in games I run." To try and conflate that with the DM placing his imagination as superior to the players is short sighted and wrong.

It's also wrong for any player, including the DM, to insist that he should be able to deprive someone else at the table of fun.

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.

To me, once a DM has said, "This will negatively impact my enjoyment," all conversation about trying to get to play that race is done. It would be wrong of me to continue to try and play that race, and it's wrong of any player to continue to try and get me to run that race. Any further conversation should be about getting the player something else fun to play, including ideas that could be close to what the player was asking for, but is okay with the DM.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

"This magical unrealistic thing over hear means that everything that is unrealistic should be possible." is a Red Herring and False Equivalence that people like to throw out when the don't have a good argument to respond with.

 

[Maxperson]

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).

Are you arguing that Centaurs are now Shapeshifters, or are you arguing that the DM could alter them however he sees fit?

 

[Maxperson]

That absolutely does not hold for everybody here. You're assuming that the game rules are always the final word on what happens in the fiction for every DM, which most certainly is not the case.

It's not even the rule. The 5e DMG explicitly says that the rules serve the DM, not the other way around.

 

[Scott Christian]

It’s not the DM’s job to protect the characters from the player’s choices.

This is a great summary.

I imagine some of us on these boards have DM'd for a group of experienced players, yet have never encountered us as a DM. I know I have. Most of the time, it went fine. But there was one...

The players were fourth level. I had a full grown adult red/white dragon (who was insane from the mixture of white and red dragon blood) attacking a ship way off in the distance. It was to provide foreshadowing of things to come, and for them to get a sense of what the problems were in the area. Well, the druid turned into a big bird, and the sorcerer (I think) hopped on the bird's back. Then, the sorcerer kept telepathically speaking to the dragon, taunting it, as they flew closer and closer. Believe me, I made it abundantly clear how scary this dragon was. They kept taunting it. I mean, as a DM I could hand wave it, and just not have the dragon do anything, but is that really like an insane red/white dragon? The dragon followed them, and knocked them to zero. Then left.

Later, after years of playing with this same group (as a player), I realized that they never encounter anything beyond their CR. They are great players, a great DM with strategic encounters, etc. But, I realized that they never played with a DM who has things that are meant to be left alone or run from. It was a great learning experience for me.

 

[Oofta]

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.

If there were no rules asymmetry between races there would be no reason to have races.

As far as a horse person climbing a ladder, it's not "lack of imagination". It's wanting a world that adheres to basic logic unless overridden by magic. There is no inherent magic that could make a pony (even one with arms) capable of climbing a rope ladder. Most, if not all, the people I game with wouldn't accept a centaur climbing a ladder because it would be physically impossible.

Just because it's not the way you run your game, it is not a 'bad' thing. You do what makes sense at your table, don't tell others they're doing it wrong if they don't agree.

 

[Scott Christian]

Your inability to imagine a thing is not a player problem.

So a teacher not being able to understand or "imagine" the solution to an answer is not a student's problem?

A private in the army who has a drill sergeant that can't "imagine" the private's solution as functional is not a private's problem?

An airline pilot that can't "imagine" the air traffic controller's directions as plausible is not the pilot's problem?

An investor not being able to "imagine" the trader's logic is not the investor's problem?

All of these examples, whether top down or bottom up, must converge on what is acceptable. Or else students fail, privates get people killed, planes crash, or people lose life savings. Fortunately for us, it means centaurs can or can't climb rope ladders. But, to say it is only the DM's problem is not accurate.