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

[Maxperson]

Drow were first given stats in UA (1e). Dragonborn as a full-blooded race is 4e, but half-dragons go back as far as 2e. Tieflings were 2e. Centaurs were playable in 2e. However, age isn't the issue: they were all niche races either buried under racial penalties to discourage their play, in obscure supplements, or tied to specific settings so a lot of DMs could ignore them very easily.

Draconians were not playable, but were a dragonborn race going back to 1e. There were also Saurials in FR 1e or 2e that were a playable race of bipedal dinosaurs. Not dragons specifically, but similar enough to mention.

 

[Scott Christian]

Tiefling PC: Ok, I go to the tavern.
DM: Ok, make a dex check?
Tiefling PC: WHY? rolls Ugh, a 3!
DM: your tail gets caught in the door as pass through. You take 1 point of bludegoning damage.
Tiefling PC: What? That's unfair! I would know how to get through doors with a tail!
DM: Yeah, well, you chose to be a tiefling. Maybe you should have been an elf if you want a speedier game!

If that is how your DM wants to run the table, ok. I don't think I would like it.

But really, how do you read my comment, the one where I say the DM needs to find a balance between simulationism and pacing and come up with a snarky, non-equivocal, along with a clear DM disposition of being rude.

Which, as I said, seems petty.

Petty is negotiable. Just like someone being cheap, or more appropriate, strict. Would you care if the DM waved the climbing rules for centaurs? How about if the DM waved them, and then three of the players said, "That seems silly. They move 40', more than anyone else. There should be a penalty to their climb?"
Petty to you. To others, balance. And still to others, a way to stay within that suspension of disbelief.

 

[Gammadoodler]

And this is actually one of the reasons someone gave for saying no to a centaur in their campaign. Because of fact that the centaur would, at times, be making these rules all the time. Certain DMs like to have a specific pacing because their players like a specific pace. Having a centaur always dealing with space issues can slow a game down.
The disagreement for the centaur was one side stating the DM can just hand wave all of it. Therefore, no pacing issue. The other side said that it would break their "fantasy realism."

Sure. My personal take is that I'd rather the DM ban the race than allow it and use "fantasy realism" (over which the DM has complete control) as a cudgel.

That said, the simpler solution is to just not use fantasy realism (over which, again, the DM has complete control) as a cudgel.

 

[Remathilis]

Draconians were not playable, but were a dragonborn race going back to 1e. There were also Saurials in FR 1e or 2e that were a playable race of bipedal dinosaurs. Not dragons specifically, but similar enough to mention.

Fair, though I was sticking to "PC playable humanoid dragons with similar abilities" but do what you will.

 

[Maxperson]

Agreed, but that era of TSR wasn't exactly known for its research or mechanical balance. They probably saw lizard man lives in swamps = needs to be wet and ran with it.

Well, Salamanders already existed as a fiery creature(go figure) and newtman doesn't sound very good, so...

 

[Maxperson]

Which, as I said, seems petty.

It's not inherently petty. Some groups just enjoy more simulationist play than the default game. For them it's right, proper and enjoyable.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I couldn't agree more. Which is why different tables play differently. Not one type of youth table is better than another youth table. One has a DM that wants them to play half-orcs and they do. Another never mentions any parameters, and they play whatever they want. There is no better. The simple fact that they, beginners, can fluidly shift between the two table types says a lot.

And in “my” library program, and my preferred playstyle in general, those things also happen. There seems to be a misunderstanding here.

I think there may be...1, possibly 2, posters who will abide no restrictions, ever, for any reason. Well, rhetorically. I doubt they are so recalcitrant at their actual game table. The rest of us are not arguing that any restriction is bad no matter what.

The all Orc game doesn’t sound interesting to me, as a player, but I have run a game where everyone was some form of mobile gish that could fit in at a magic school and “make the team” for a sport of parkour rooftop/platform rugby.

I’ve played in a game where we were all from one culture and region, but we pretty much never use mono racial cultures, so we haven’t done a single race game as a result, but I’d the concept was compelling we’d have no issue doing so.

The difference is, if one or more members of the group didn’t want to play within that limited concept, we would have a group discussion, and the DM would be expected to be just as willing to compromise as the player. Maybe that ends up at a different concept, maybe the DM notes that it’s a short story campaign, probably 6 levels of progression at most, and the player is down for it on that basis, maybe the orcs are allies with the kenku and the Hobs, and the POW crew is made up of those three races, maybe something else.

If we still had time to play frequently enough to run 6 different campaigns at a time in our group, we’d be more willing to say, “okay, this campaign will just be XYZ players, so we will run it when John isn’t available”, or whatever. We are trying to wrap up campaigns right now, instead, and get down to maybe 3 active campaigns, total. And one of those will be short story arcs rather than a dedicated long term campaign.

 

[Scott Christian]

Not directed at you specifically (since as you said, you have mostly stayed out of the centaur argument), but to emphasize the other side of this, would a centaur get advantage on a check to avoid slipping on ice due to being a quadruped and having a lower centre of gravity?

I would 100% give them advantage. If the DC was low, I wouldn't even have them roll.

I stated this earlier. DMs adjudicate all the time. They can also say no. So a centaur can't climb the cliff wall. Maybe while bouldering the DM also thinks of a horse as being more stable, so they don't need to roll at all. If there is a cliff pass and a heavy wind, perhaps they do not roll a dex save. Their weight is an advantage.

I just wanted it out there that the DM can say, no you can't climb the rope ladder or cliff wall. But there might be situations where having that horse body helps you.

Again, it is table based. No right or wrong. Here is what I said earlier:

Centaurs is a judgement call, like everything. The DM might allot them a lesser movement penalty if they get a running start. They might allow them to not even roll a climb check because these are stacked boulders and they are on four legs which provide more stability. They might not even have them make a check on a windy ledge because of their weight and four legs. AND the DM might say, you don't have the strength to climb the ladder up to the crows nest. For you, that climb is impossible. None of this is wrong.

 

[Maxperson]

Fair, though I was sticking to "PC playable humanoid dragons with similar abilities" but do what you will.

Yeah. I mentioned them, because I believe those are the roots of the modern dragonborn.

 

[Scott Christian]

The difference is, if one or more members of the group didn’t want to play within that limited concept, we would have a group discussion, and the DM would be expected to be just as willing to compromise as the player.

Agreed. The DM works with the player. That is what that means to me. If it is more than one player (I have never seen it, but I am sure it happens), then you probably need to scrap the idea. That would be my suggestion. When a DM says, I want to run the "We Be Goblins" campaign from Piazzo, ok, cool, we are goblins. Unless a few players are like, I don't want to play that. Then, scratch the campaign.

Maybe that ends up at a different concept, maybe the DM notes that it’s a short story campaign, probably 6 levels of progression at most, and the player is down for it on that basis, maybe the orcs are allies with the kenku and the Hobs, and the POW crew is made up of those three races, maybe something else.

The concept of time, as has been noted, is important. It is clutch, in my opinion, of the entire argument. Early on I asked how long a campaign was and got a few answers. For my students, I tell the DMs to count on running this for a half year. A big commitment, considering at that point 5 months is like a super long relationship to them.
But if your campaign is a few years, I would think (imho) that the DM should probably bend a lot - like an awful lot, if you are asking the players to make a commitment of that length. My campaigns for my curated world are short, which is one of the reasons I have the views that I have. I, as a player, play in generally 3/4 to year long campaigns. (Double or triple mine.) That (again imho) is more than a fair time for the DM to set almost any limit they want.