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

[Maxperson]

I'm absolutely certain, if we here at Enworld could comb over your game, we would find plenty that is ridiculous. Probably at least one or two restrictions in place to satisfy your personal sense of verisimilitude are ridiculous to someone who is more knowledgeable on a related field of study, simply because you can't be an expert on every field.

Sure. I'm not sure what part of, "We all have our realism lines drawn in different areas." you didn't understand. It covers that quite nicely.

For instance, the idea that you can lift a centaur safely with a rope is just nonsense. Completely ridiculous.

Yeah, the best way to look at centaurs is that they only look like half horse, half human. In fact, they are 0% either creature, and have a phisiology that suits their particular construction and allows them to interact with the world in a way that wouldn't make it nearly impossible for them to actually function and maintain their species.

Yep. That physiological construction is that of a horse with a man's torso attached. The horse harness and pullies that I mentioned are not only not ridiculous, they're perfect.

If you're changing their phisiology to be 4-limbed, why not also make them lighter?

No. No I didn't. Stop putting words in my mouth that I didn't say or imply. As for why not lighter? You can make them 1 pound if you want. The book has them as quite heavy.

 

[Al'Kelhar]

I think there are a couple of other issues at play, which probably deserve their own discussions. But I'll throw them out there an express a few controversial views just to whet peoples' appetites.

First, when a player expresses a desire to play a race that the DM has not considered before, there is a often a commensurate workload for the DM. Many DM's first reaction is inevitably going to be "how much work do I need to do now to integrate this race into my campaign". For some DM's there's going to be a thrill at the challenge, for others it's going to be perceived as a pain in the arse. I'd wager there are going to be more of the latter than the former. The discussion of centaurs is apposite. While there are certainly ways in which a world that functions for horse-people is going to look, it is going to be quite a different world to one that only needs to accommodate bipedal humanoids between 1.2m and 2m tall.

Second, little consideration is given to how a non-human mind thinks, perceives and acts. The simple fact is, we're all human. We can't understand how anything other than a human mind functions. Every non-human race in D&D is simply a human in a rubber mask. Different races are just different cultures of humans. Getting into the mindset of something that can actually see in the dark, or move underwater as well as a fish, or that lives five times as long as the oldest human ever has, is, IMHO, impossible. Their mind, outlook and behaviour would be completely alien to us. We anthropomorphise our pets and think we can play a "cat-person" because we have a cat. Or a living machine because we've all seen robots in movies. "Playing a human is boring" is probably the least imaginative, and unfortunately the least insightful, comment I've heard made. Because that's all we're ever playing. Just a human with some arbitrary nonhuman abilities, a bunch of very human motivations, and a backstory contrived from some jumbled mishmash of human cultures.

Cheers, Al'kelhar

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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?

I don't know how to communicate it other than I have.

Do you agree with those who have said that the DM role, in order to function, requires the other players to give that person special trust and respect?
Do you think respect and trust require some amount of justification, demonstrating that they are appropriate, or are they simply something demanded?
Do you believe it is possible for someone, even if they intend to only do good things, to behave in such a way that erodes trust and reflects a lack of respect?

It's not the inequality of the situation. It's that any situation where it is understood that trust and respect are needed, but one's behavior unilaterally dismisses or ignores the desires and interests of the other(s) in that relationship, that behavior erodes that trust and respect. To do so explicitly for no reason other than because of one's own desires and interests IS a rude act, pretty much regardless of any other details. It doesn't matter if no negative intent is present, you don't have to intend to be rude for an act to be rude. Again, you have explicitly disclaimed ANY other possible reason, so practicality isn't a concern; it's not that something couldn't work, nor that the DM isn't up to the task, nor even that money or time investment is a concern. The ONLY reason here is "because that isn't my taste."

What other truly personal relationship in existence (that is, not like the relationship between an employee and an employer, or between commanding and subordinate officers, etc.) affords its participants an absolute, unilateral, and completely beyond discussion ability to nix the non-abusive, non-coercive interests of the other party? If I did this to a significant other, they would rightly feel hurt and angry. Even a parent to a child; remember, practicality can't be a consideration by your own admission, so it isn't a "no, you can't eat the whole bowl of Halloween candy" situation, nor a "we can't afford to go there" situation. This is, "Can we go to Taco Bell or something similar instead of McDonald's next time?" "No, I don't like that kind of food, so we will never eat it, and we will not discuss it further." How is that NOT disrespectful even to a minor child? How is that NOT treating another person's desires and interests with disdain?

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.")

Firstly: A person's manner and tone are fundamental, here. They cannot be extracted from the situation, because doing this thing IS demonstrating a manner and tone. You keep trying to silo these things apart, as though one can speak of a pure behavior in isolation without the impact and meaning that behavior will communicate. You can't do that. It's not possible. Particularly when the behavior in question is one of the things I would consider most directly and explicitly demonstrative of such a manner and tone!

As for the three points, I don't think the DM is demonstrating a lack of trust, I think the DM is demonstrating that the trust they ask for isn't deserved. Trust is a thing both earned and given--which is to say that it may be taken back, or it may be squandered, or both. Any DM that unilaterally, absolutely, and obdurately dismisses a player's genuine, non-coercive, non-abusive interests or desires is squandering the trust they ask for from their players. I do think the DM is demonstrating a lack of respect, as I said. It is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for respect: taking another person's views into account, listening and striving to understand, even if you ultimately don't do things as they want them done. Respect does not require submission, but it does require being neither unilateral, absolute, nor obdurate. (By listening instead of dismissing, one ceases to be unilateral; by striving to accommodate, one ceases to be absolute; by allowing fair hearing and possible-but-not-guaranteed persuasion, one ceases to be absolute.)

Frankly, for me, the selfishness isn't an overriding concern, though I would lie if I said it wasn't one. The DM role implies highly personal involvement. I expect self-interest there. But I expect it to be "enlightened self-interest," which goes beyond petty selfishness and at least somewhat into a more nuanced, delayed/partial/abstract gratification. I mean, as a very simple example, the DM doesn't get the player-side rush of winning or overcoming, their enjoyment comes either by proxy, or from the slow unfolding of a grand thing: delayed and abstract gratification right there. This behavior, excluding things purely and solely because the DM finds them aesthetically displeasing or the like, and for literally no other reason whatsoever, and refusing to entertain even the smallest discussion about it, smacks of petty selfishness.

Ah, with this last point, you have inserted an intent now, have you not? "Denying them game elements." That's no longer just a behavior, that's a judgment. You are, quite clearly, implying a sense of entitlement on the part of the players--which I have never mentioned nor is it even relevant to my point. I have, repeatedly, said that it is perfectly fine for a DM to veto options. I even did so in the post you quoted (albeit in an edit, I admit.) If I were to buy into your phrasing (which I don't, just to be clear, I'm just granting it for the sake of argument), my point would rather be stated as, "The DM is failing at maintaining a relationship with the player(s) by denying them game elements unilaterally, absolutely, and obdurately," meaning "a denial that is completely one-sided, lacking any limit or restraint, and completely beyond discussion or persuasion."

I don't know about you, but if a DM behaved toward you in any other context by being completely one-sided, exhibiting no restraint, and being completely opposed to any form of discussion or persuasion, would you feel they were maintaining the DM-player relationship? If so, I'm very curious what you think a healthy DM-player relationship is. And if not, I'm curious as to why this one special situation is different--particularly when it's one that matters (on both sides, as this over-3000-posts thread shows) to a lot of people.

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.

Except that it has everything to do with it, because in this case the desires and interests are about what things are available for the imagination to pursue. Sure, it's not "about imagination" in the sense that I didn't specifically use that word. But it is "about imagination" because we're talking about an absolute, unquestionable, and completely one-sided declaration about what can be imagined.

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.

I honestly cannot believe that the existence of dragonborn "deprives you of fun." I literally, truly cannot believe that you suddenly stop enjoying being DM because one scaly person exists. For exactly the same reason that I cannot believe, even as an ENORMOUS fan of dragonborn, that it is completely impossible for a player to have fun if they aren't allowed to play dragonborn.

And even if it does? Now we're back where we started. Your fun is more important than someone else's fun--in fact, so much more important that you get to unilaterally, absolutely, and obdurately reject their fun.

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.

So who's in the wrong here, the player trying to deprive the DM's fun by asking to play a dragonborn, or the DM trying to deprive the player's fun by not letting them play one? They're both people trying to deprive someone else of fun, by your metric. I reject the notion that the DM's fun is so inherently more important that a unilateral, absolute, and obdurate dismissal is ever the appropriate answer.

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.

Ahhh, but now you're stepping back from depriving fun, aren't you? It's now "negatively impacting"--meaning differences of degree are relevant, meaning the possibility of mitigating the impact with some other, positive impact is possible. It's no longer a black-and-white "tieflings = fun is impossible" (or whatever race you wish; I am trying not to harp overmuch on dragonborn). And this further conversation...here, let me put the most emphasis I'm allowed to...

IS EXACTLY WHAT I'VE BEEN CALLING FOR.

Finding a compromise MEANS the player and DM talking to each other. NOT being unilateral: each side conversing with the other and coming to consensus. NOT being absolute: the DM and player striving to meet in the middle. NOT being obdurate: both sides, and again I cannot stress this enough, BOTH. BLOODY. SIDES. being open to persuasion and alternative approaches. It may not work. It may fail; that is okay, successful compromise is never guaranteed. But what should be guaranteed is the EFFORT to see if one can be found, and to find it if it can.

I have literally never deviated from this position in the entirety of the thread (though I admit that having to discuss my ideas did refine them over the first, I dunno, couple dozen pages.) I have repeatedly said these exact words, over, and over, and over, and over. And each time I do, I'm challenged, because it's somehow not enough for these DMs. Because expecting to be able to have a conversation (even if it doesn't end up working) is, apparently, player entitlement.

I have gone up to bat against those who call it being a "control freak" to say no (not just Loverdrive). I have repeatedly advocated restraint and giving those who favor hard restrictions the benefit of the doubt. And yet I am repeatedly construed as taking an incredibly extreme position myself, or else I'm given responses like the ones I have repeatedly quoted (e.g. Maxperson's own "the DM is the Ultimate Authority," Zardnaar's "my house, my castle my game," and other responses from those who can no longer respond in the thread). What am I supposed to think when I have actively worked to be fair and accommodating, and then people throw this kind of thing in my face? What am I supposed to think when every time I call for a more respectful conversation, or a conversation about topics that are more interesting and positive (such as "how DOES one 'say no' in a respectful and positive way?") are rebuffed, insulted, or completely ignored?

 

[overgeeked]

I guess my question for this whole thread remains the same. Why bend your will toward finding reasons to ban or otherwise restrict a thing (or in this case to say, dragons are too heavy to fly), when the same energy and imagination could be used to find ways to make those things work? What is gained?

There’s a lot of assumptions there. Clearly I can’t speak for anyone else. I don’t ban races. Except fliers at 1st level. It’s too much. Higher levels when flying is routine, they’re fair game. That’s nothing but a balance issue. But I do treat the world as real, once we’ve accepted the fantasy elements. So centaurs are in my worlds, but they’re going to have a harder time in certain areas than other species. Because their bodies are shaped and function differently. Ignoring those differences is a kind of bland erasure. Some of those differences make centaurs better at certain things, some of those differences make centaurs worse at certain things. You don’t get the good without the bad. Simple as.

What’s gained? A sense of verisimilitude. Same as I’ve been saying. A horse or a centaur climbing a ladder makes no sense. So it’s not happening at my table. There’s no workload involved. Saying “that makes no sense, no” takes a few seconds of thought. Trying to come up with solutions for how it could work is what takes work, if you want something more involved than “it’s magic”. It’s not about saving work...if I wanted to save myself work I wouldn’t be a DM.

It’s also a question of how often it’s going to come up. The physics if a dragon flying? Almost never. The physics of a centaur PC trying to climb? Every single time there’s something to climb. That might not be every game session. But every other? Probably. Look at this thread. Now ask the DM to rehash this thread each and every single time climbing comes up? Forget that. I’d rather ban centaurs. Keep them as background NPCs than deal with the headache.

 

[billd91]

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.

yeah, there are particular styles on fantasy that incorporate those things. They don’t work for everyone. Nobody should be expected to play or run that if they aren’t into it.

 

[Hussar]

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?



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?



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.")

I'd say that you have the right gist here.

 

[Maxperson]

Except that it has everything to do with it, because in this case the desires and interests are about what things are available for the imagination to pursue. Sure, it's not "about imagination" in the sense that I didn't specifically use that word. But it is "about imagination" because we're talking about an absolute, unquestionable, and completely one-sided declaration about what can be imagined.

If you're saying that it's a one-sided declaration about what is allowed to be in the shared imagined space, then I agree. If you are saying that it's about one person's imagination being more important than another, then I disagree. It's about enjoyment plain and simple.

I honestly cannot believe that the existence of dragonborn "deprives you of fun." I literally, truly cannot believe that you suddenly stop enjoying being DM because one scaly person exists. For exactly the same reason that I cannot believe, even as an ENORMOUS fan of dragonborn, that it is completely impossible for a player to have fun if they aren't allowed to play dragonborn.

Will I have zero fun? No. Will I have substantially less fun as the Dragonborn is a constant "fingernails on the chalkboard" to me? Yes.

And even if it does? Now we're back where we started. Your fun is more important than someone else's fun--in fact, so much more important that you get to unilaterally, absolutely, and obdurately reject their fun.

That's false. My fun isn't more important. Either we both have full fun, or something needs to change on the player side of things since the DM has no other options. Only the player has multiple options for fun in a situation like this.

So who's in the wrong here, the player trying to deprive the DM's fun by asking to play a dragonborn, or the DM trying to deprive the player's fun by not letting them play one?

That's a False Dichotomy. Only the DM has one option. The player has multiple avenues towards having fun, so the player would be the one in the wrong here.

Ahhh, but now you're stepping back from depriving fun, aren't you? It's now "negatively impacting"--meaning differences of degree are relevant, meaning the possibility of mitigating the impact with some other, positive impact is possible. It's no longer a black-and-white "tieflings = fun is impossible" (or whatever race you wish; I am trying not to harp overmuch on dragonborn). And this further conversation...here, let me put the most emphasis I'm allowed to...

No step back was had. Depriving someone of half their fun(arbitrary number for this point) is still depriving that person of fun.

Finding a compromise MEANS the player and DM talking to each other. NOT being unilateral: each side conversing with the other and coming to consensus. NOT being absolute: the DM and player striving to meet in the middle. NOT being obdurate: both sides, and again I cannot stress this enough, BOTH. BLOODY. SIDES. being open to persuasion and alternative approaches. It may not work. It may fail; that is okay, successful compromise is never guaranteed. But what should be guaranteed is the EFFORT to see if one can be found, and to find it if it can.

It is being unilateral in the sense that the DM has decided no Dragonborn and that's that. The talking is about how to get the player his fun another way.

I have literally never deviated from this position in the entirety of the thread (though I admit that having to discuss my ideas did refine them over the first, I dunno, couple dozen pages.) I have repeatedly said these exact words, over, and over, and over, and over. And each time I do, I'm challenged, because it's somehow not enough for these DMs. Because expecting to be able to have a conversation (even if it doesn't end up working) is, apparently, player entitlement.

I have gone up to bat against those who call it being a "control freak" to say no (not just Loverdrive). I have repeatedly advocated restraint and giving those who favor hard restrictions the benefit of the doubt. And yet I am repeatedly construed as taking an incredibly extreme position myself, or else I'm given responses like the ones I have repeatedly quoted (e.g. Maxperson's own "the DM is the Ultimate Authority," Zardnaar's "my house, my castle my game," and other responses from those who can no longer respond in the thread). What am I supposed to think when I have actively worked to be fair and accommodating, and then people throw this kind of thing in my face? What am I supposed to think when every time I call for a more respectful conversation, or a conversation about topics that are more interesting and positive (such as "how DOES one 'say no' in a respectful and positive way?") are rebuffed, insulted, or completely ignored?

Yeah. You've been very consistent and while I disagree with you on some things, I don't think your position is unreasonable and I think we are fairly close together on how to treat these situations.

 

[Hussar]

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

Seriously? Centaurs are where you draw the line?

Not halflings, which make zero sense? Or elves? ((How, exactly, do you have a sentient being that never sleeps and is virtually immortal?)) Or how living underground makes you see in the dark and not blind?

Centaurs are where you draw the line, to the point where you would ban them from your games even if a player wanted to play one?

Yeah, basically, this is precisely what I meant by DM Fail. Your failure of imagination means that everyone else at the table must accept your concepts solely because you happen to be wearing the big daddy pants.

 

[Maxperson]

Seriously? Centaurs are where you draw the line?

Sure. Not a problem. It's not where I would draw the line, but we all have lines, including you.

Not halflings, which make zero sense? Or elves? ((How, exactly, do you have a sentient being that never sleeps and is virtually immortal?)) Or how living underground makes you see in the dark and not blind?

None of that matters. We all draw the lines in different places, and there are huge numbers of lines. It's not as if there's one line that halflings, elves and centaurs all use. Those are three different lines.

Yeah, basically, this is precisely what I meant by DM Fail. Your failure of imagination means that everyone else at the table must accept your concepts solely because you happen to be wearing the big daddy pants.

Then you're DM Fail as well, since where you draw the lines will be disagreed with by others, and apparently all that it takes to be DM Fail is disagreement. Not that I agree with that position. It takes a failure of imagination not to get that we all draw the lines in different places and that it's okay for us to do so.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

There’s a lot of assumptions there. Clearly I can’t speak for anyone else. I don’t ban races. Except fliers at 1st level. It’s too much. Higher levels when flying is routine, they’re fair game. That’s nothing but a balance issue.

What is the balance issue, btw? There have been threads on the subject, but as far as I can tell, no one has ever made a halfway compelling argument that flying races are especially powerful. Aarakokra, particularly, are a bit weak. For Tieflings, trading all their magic for a medium armor only fly speed is a bad trade. You're losing power.

Hell, I ran a game with an Kensei/Rogue with Mobile, and Sharpshooter, and...it was fine. I didn't change encounters, exploration, or anything, to "account" for them, any more than I would for a Dwarf.

I mean...thinking about the DnD world...I've had archers and falconers in most enemy groups since we played 4e, so maybe that makes a difference, but...it's not a big change.

But I do treat the world as real, once we’ve accepted the fantasy elements. So centaurs are in my worlds, but they’re going to have a harder time in certain areas than other species. Because their bodies are shaped and function differently. Ignoring those differences is a kind of bland erasure. Some of those differences make centaurs better at certain things, some of those differences make centaurs worse at certain things. You don’t get the good without the bad. Simple as.

Who is suggesting no bad? No one has suggested that the 1/4 speed climbing is too great a limitation. No one has said that centaur should simply be able to just do whatever anyone else can do, without any thought to their physiology.

What’s gained? A sense of verisimilitude. Same as I’ve been saying. A horse or a centaur climbing a ladder makes no sense. So it’s not happening at my table. There’s no workload involved. Saying “that makes no sense, no” takes a few seconds of thought. Trying to come up with solutions for how it could work is what takes work, if you want something more involved than “it’s magic”. It’s not about saving work...if I wanted to save myself work I wouldn’t be a DM.

But as can be seen in this thread, the RAW slower climbing is perfectly reasonable. It's well within the band of reasonableness that contains the rest of the game as written, at least. How is it easier to maintain verisimilitude by restricting them even further, rather than listening to the player with the explanation for how they can work?

It’s also a question of how often it’s going to come up. The physics if a dragon flying? Almost never. The physics of a centaur PC trying to climb? Every single time there’s something to climb. That might not be every game session. But every other? Probably. Look at this thread. Now ask the DM to rehash this thread each and every single time climbing comes up? naughty word that. I’d rather ban centaurs. Keep them as background NPCs than deal with the headache.

Why would you rehash the discussion, ever? You figure out the explanation for how centaurs climb once, and then just...carry on play. What possible headache?