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

[Maxperson]

What's your point?

Pretty sure my point was clear.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Pretty sure my point was clear.

You felt it important to note that we're almost but not quite agreeing, but not important to note why the distinction makes a difference?

 

[Gammadoodler]

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.

All of these examples are false equivalents. In each of them, there is some expected combined 'imagining' of observable circumstance (and in most of the examples, where there are objectively true or untrue solutions).

These just aren't the same as a DM and player trying to imagine how the DM's world works. There's no right answer and no opportunity to observe.

Better examples would come from creative fields.

Is it a reader's problem to solve it the author can't imagine a scene?

Or a listener's problem if a songwriter just can't figure out how to pick up after the bridge?

 

[Oofta]

All of these examples are false equivalents. In each of them, there is some expected combined 'imagining' of observable circumstance (and in most of the examples, where there are objectively true or untrue solutions).

These just aren't the same as a DM and player trying to imagine how the DM's world works. There's no right answer and no opportunity to observe.

Better examples would come from creative fields.

Is it a reader's problem to solve it the author can't imagine a scene?

Or a listener's problem if a songwriter just can't figure out how to pick up after the bridge?

I would say it's only a problem if the player doesn't listen to the rulings of the DM. Which may include decisions that the player doesn't agree with which has nothing to do with having an imagination or any other poppycock that you come up with.

 

[overgeeked]

I've always envisioned a centaur's "human" torso as being filled with massive, horse-sized lungs and an equivalent heart, while the digestive system was housed in the horse part. That means a rather long esophagus in the human part, but so be it.

Your centaurs may be built differently, but that's always been how mine work.

Johnathan

I've gone one of two ways. Either the human torso is just replacing the head of the horse, i.e. the internal organs are all in the horse body, which is why every single human torso of a centaur is perfectly chiseled...they're just muscle. Or you've got redundant organs. Likely the extras in the human torso aren't big enough to keep the whole thing alive for long. But it also means that if you were to chop the back end off the centaur, the horse legs and human torso could survive as the smaller organs in the torso would be enough to keep what's left alive...but it would need to naughty word somehow...oh, hell, there I go thinking cheating again.

 

[Gammadoodler]

That may be literally true, but our understanding of how the fictional game world works is based on our own understanding of the world around us (with exceptions for genre conventions). TTRPGs depend on this because they don't have the time/space needed to define all of them. Without them, how are the players supposed to have a mental model of what to expect when they try to do something, when they interact with something, when they walk out in the street?

Yes, they are. How ridiculous is a half-man/half-horse? That's pretty fantastic right there. But they are defined as half-man/half-horse. And that is going to mean something even if undefined as rules.

Sure. It would get hectic trying to model some kind of actual physical model for an imaginary game world, especially one where physical laws are frequently straight up broken by magic.

So DMs and players apply shorthand to say "well it's basically like ours". It makes the game a heckuva lot easier to run, sure, but it's only a convenient stand-in. It's "Reality"s stunt double. There's no implicit merit for getting closer to looking like the stunt double.

This last bit of "mean something even if undefined by the rules" is pretty perplexing. I'm sure it's true, but it's fluffy to the point of not being very useful. I mean, the subject under debate wouldn't even seem to be in this bucket as the capability to climb and difficulty in doing so are not undefined by the rules. So, what are we looking for?

Are we looking for social impacts, architectural ones, or are we looking to insert additional mechanics for this race which are not equivalent for the other races? And how far do we plan to apply this level of rigor for all the silly things which strain believability in how the races are set up to function?

 

[Scott Christian]

That one I bolded and underlined? That is the single reason being asked about. Every single other thing you listed? Pointless to the question because the question was "Is the reason "Because I don't like it" a good reason to ban something?".

Do I have to be good with every single reason to say that this reason is one I don't agree with? I don't think so, I think I can find one reason objectionable no matter what my position on the others are.

Physiological reasons are hard to judge, it goes either way.

Geographical reasons seem silly, because people move far more than people gave them credit for.

Campaign friction could just make things difficult, might be a good reason, might not, depends. Inherent traits seems to be "I don't want you to use abilities that are useful" so seems to be a poor reason.

So I can go dig back through this mess or you can just say, "Oh yea. There were a lot of arguments and debate about those other reasons."

For forty pages now, I have been attempting to find the crux of this argument. On the last page, after asking specifically which of these reasons are we debating, you say the one I bolded. The DM banning races because they don't like it. So that is what we are debating. Ok. Even though it is obvious that this thread tried to debate a lot more. Ok. I am good. I agree with you.

Until you change the argument. Now, suddenly, these other reasons are only okay if you think they are okay. Only if you can get behind them. Many of them are "silly" or "poor." So I guess it's not just a DM's likes/dislikes that you do not agree with. It's really just anything that you don't agree with the DM should bend. Why don't you just use that as your thesis statement, instead of slipping and sliding and dodging and derailing. If that is your belief, and there are layers to that belief (like you might accept a few physiological reasons and not most), why not just state this? Why make me play twenty questions and then argue about the semantics of conflict and resolution?

I, and many others, have stated our position clearly many times:

• Tables are individual. What works for some doesn't work for others. There is no right or wrong.
• DMs create the world. Players interact with the world and help create a small portion of the world in the beginning through background.
• The DM should have clear expectations going into session 0.
• The players should listen to the DM's expectations and try to work inside those parameters.
• If they can't, they should discuss it with the DM. The DM should listen and help the player achieve their vision, while not rewriting their world.

And the IMHO:
- FR is a kitchen sink. Anything goes because it is already a mess.

Because for me, the biggest perspective I have is my own, and it is rather hard for me to justify limiting a player instead of adapting. Would I play with a DM who limited things in these manners.. maybe. Depends on how they presented themselves. How they say things is more important than what they are saying if I am judging whether or not I'd join.

This seems fair to me. What works for you, works for you.

3) And frankly, saying that the DM does not even have the potential to change their world because their job is world-building is BS. I don't care if you think it is fair, I don't care if you think it is right. I have been saying you won't even list it as an option. You seem to be of the opinion that the DM can never choose to change.

And that is wrong. Dead Wrong. Completely Wrong.

I know you don't think it is fair. That is why I have been asking you specific questions. Because I believe, deep down, you think the DM should change, not the player. You believe the player's vision can trump the DM's. And that is fair. Like I said, if I was running anything but my curated realm, like an AP, I agree. I would just add in whatever race the player wanted. Even one that isn't in the books. If they wanted to make up a religion too. Go for it. Want to write in that your uncle is the mayor of the town in trouble. Thumbs-up.

But, as I have stated many times, I completely disagree with you regarding a DM bending when they have put in the work to make their world/realm/area cohesive and logical. And if a player asks twice it is wrong. If they demand it is dead wrong. And if they insist it is absolutely wrong.

That is the point you keep trying to sway me on, and it is wrong to tell another DM how to DM for their own world. If you want them to experiment, buy them Tasha's as a gift. Ask them to run an AP that has tabaxi. Ask them to join your game as a player and show them how much fun it is. But to tell them it is wrong to not bend... boo!

 

[Maxperson]

All of these examples are false equivalents. In each of them, there is some expected combined 'imagining' of observable circumstance (and in most of the examples, where there are objectively true or untrue solutions).

These just aren't the same as a DM and player trying to imagine how the DM's world works. There's no right answer and no opportunity to observe.

This is wrong. The DM can observe the rules and abilities that imply the world physics.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I would say it's only a problem if the player doesn't listen to the rulings of the DM. Which may include decisions that the player doesn't agree with which has nothing to do with having an imagination or any other poppycock that you come up with.

You said you were done man.

Ok, I'm going to make a new rule for myself after this.

Until it appears that you are actually reading any of my posts that you're replying to, I'm just not gonna respond.

But I'm pretty sure you're fine with that, as it doesn't appear that you are much interested in dialogue anyway.

 

[Scott Christian]

Perhaps a poor example, but how many people are wheelchair bound? Would you feel like 2% of the population is accurate?

Again, maybe not every single bar or inn would have adjustments, but saying that none of them do is just as unrealistic. And, maybe that isn't even an issue the player is concerned about. Maybe they don't care that they need the waitress to step outside to hand them their drink.

I think all our minds went to the American's with Disabilities Act; a federal law that forced building codes to change. Btw, many still haven't. I would imagine that in a fantasy realm it might go even slower, especially without the financial incentive.

But I was thinking like a tin roof, no walls, but attached to the bar. Basically, like one of those bars you see at the beach: big open window, direct access to the barkeep, sand area, maybe with a few stumps and fire pit. If it rains, everyone stays close to the bar under the tin roof. Th centaurs hang out at the bar there, eating (man, how many calories can a centaur eat?) the thickest calorie-dense stew available. And of course, drinking a fine gnomish mead, because they have a sweet-tooth.