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

[Maxperson]

For the record, the IMHOs would go before "more realistic rule" and "ridiculous rule" (at least..there may be a few more places)

Ridiculous, yes. Applying an increased amount of realism, pushing things closer along the spectrum towards how it is in the real world isn't an opinion.

What standard of fiction should I use? what is the 'authoritative' literature? Wanna make sure we get this right so no one can argue what these races can and can't do anymore.

Ask your DM. Which races get which ruling will depend on the level of realism each DM prefers and in which areas the DM draws the line.

 

[Scott Christian]

For the record, the IMHOs would go before "more realistic rule" and "ridiculous rule" (at least..there may be a few more places)

What standard of fiction should I use? what is the 'authoritative' literature? Wanna make sure we get this right so no one can argue what these races can and can't do anymore.

The difference is this:

• At some tables, you can have your centaurs climb ladders. No problem. They don't care if it breaks physical laws or makes sense.
• At some tables, they want them to climb ladders, so they come up with a magical reason because they don't want them to break physical laws.
• At some tables, you can't have centaurs climb ladders because that is like doing a pullup with three hundred extra pounds strapped to your back.

Here is where it gets interesting. Most debating do not care if you say, we do "X" at our table. Great. Good for you. Many do care if you say you should do "X" at your table. Even if you only imply it by saying/arguing centaurs can climb because they are strong enough (they are not) or if you try to force logical arguments like the billygoat argument (knowing full well a castle wall is not a stepping stone of rocks). Those "insistent" reasons, when there are obvious flaws, make it seem like you are telling a DM you should do "X," not "Y." This is especially true when you never preface your argument with: Do whatever works for your table.

 

[Mecheon]

Yes. And this is the actual reason I don't want them into my settings. They're just too silly to exist.

And then we get into the fact that dragons should have a hump or something on their back to have their flight muscles which is, y'know, the reason Smaug just has two legs in The Hobbit movies. Because dragons don't physically work. Giant spiders and insects would collapse under their own weight, giants themselves can't really function by using a human-style body plan at their size....

If you go to realism, a lot of stuff has to go.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And then we get into the fact that dragons should have a hump or something on their back to have their flight muscles which is, y'know, the reason Smaug just has two legs in The Hobbit movies. Because dragons don't physically work. Giant spiders and insects would collapse under their own weight, giants themselves can't really function by using a human-style body plan at their size....

If you go to realism, a lot of stuff has to go.

Yes. I my new world dragons have four-limbed bodyplan. Not that they still could fly, they're far too heavy. But we all have our reality suspenders calibrated differently. To me centaurs look patently ludicrous whereas those those other things do not, even though I intellectually know that they don't work.

Though if I were aiming for more fairytale feel, then ludicrous things like centaurs would be fine. But currently I'm not.

 

[Gammadoodler]

?
No, I am not making any such assertion. How does: A DM and players at the same table need to have the same parameters (races, physics, classes, magic, etc.) morph into - the players get to choose the races? The two are not anywhere close. The DM sets the parameters. That is what they do. That is what it says to do in the DMG and PHB (and Xanathar's and Tasha's). They work with the players if there is a problem.

Having everyone on the same page does not mean everyone has input. (Although I am for player input. I just do not think it trumps the DM's, especially in a curated world.)

Again, all my examples show people being on the same page - not everyone having equal input.

Being on the same page is not the same as being responsible for what is on the pages.

Editors and producers have structural say in the eventual finished product.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Ridiculous, yes. Applying an increased amount of realism, pushing things closer along the spectrum towards how it is in the real world isn't an opinion.

Ask your DM. Which races get which ruling will depend on the level of realism each DM prefers and in which areas the DM draws the line.

Perfect circular reasoning. Excellent. Glad to know we're done here.

 

[FrozenNorth]

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.

I think it is often, and acceptable, that the fantasy worlds we play in are in some respects more advanced than the world in 2020.

There are many places in 2020 where a person will be treated poorly because of their sex, gender, race, etc.

It is an acceptable break with reality that we don’t have to deal with that in game.

In that respect, I like the analogy of a centaur with a person with physical mobility issues.

 

[Maxperson]

Perfect circular reasoning. Excellent. Glad to know we're done here.

Nothing circular about it, but I'm also glad to know we're done.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

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.

If only there were a way to tell a compelling story that allows for something as silly as centaurs climbing ropes (or humans running up bamboo stalks and fighting 30' in the air on them)....but I guess it's not possible without the story devolving into something visually absurd versus cinematic and interesting.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So I'm doing it wrong because I ban 3 dozen races depending on how you count them? Good to know.

Why are you trying to force another person's post about their gaming preferences to look like some sort of personal attack against you?

No one is attacking you. No one cares, at all, about how you run your game.