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

[Scott Christian]

I would feel that "I just don't like it" may be a poor reason. However, it may simply be that it's not liked because it doesn't fit the perceived aesthetic, story, or a variety of other things.

I believe the player side (I really don't like that term) has piecemealed this. It might have been me even. The "I don't like it" reason is viewed as purely a personal preference. The it doesn't fit the aesthetic, is a thematic reason. Most of the player side has agreed with the thematic, that is, until they don't. Most of the DM side has agreed that the purely personal reason (meaning they don't want it for no other reason than it bothers them) is not a great move, except for one.
The real call here is where they fall in the "reason to ban them" category, and whether it is accepted.

Personally, I'll admit to having some bias against Changelings. That's based on little more than feeling that over-use of shapeshifting becomes lazy writing in a lot of things (ah-ha! You didn't really kill the BBEG because it was actually his cousin Ned in disguise OR everybody you thought died was actually Skrulls). I think a game in which the players (and NPCs) can never be sure that who they are talking to is actually who they are talking to as a general rule (as opposed to being specific to a certain story arc or perhaps a special villain) tends to lead to a style of play in which the players tend to disengage from interacting with NPCs. Alternatively, I've also see it turn into one in which a problematic player uses their innate ability to disrupt play. Neither is something which I typically feel like dealing with, so I tend to write settings without them.

Seems like a no brainer, that you as a DM, could say no changelings because it is lazy storytelling. Even if the character had a cool concept. But, you would be wrong according to some. They would pin that into "I just don't like it." I would pin it in, "story purposes." It seems legi to me. But, I doubt that is how some will see it.

For different reasons, I also often swap out either halflings or gnomes for something else. I don't feel that they both have enough of an identity to be included. In one of my home games, they're both viewed by the rest of the world around them as simply being two branches of the same race. I wouldn't say I dislike either, but I find their presentation a bit bland. I then tend to sub in grippli, woem (homebrew catfolk of small size,) or something else as a player option.

Purely thematic purposes right here. My guess is, you make this clear to new players coming to your table prior to character creation. Seems legit. But again, I am guessing there is some example that we'll see of a halfling loving player that just can't quite reach full potential happiness unless they play a halfling.

 

[Jack Daniel]

You say that there's "no good reason to believe that that holds for all groups and tables", yet, provide no actual counter evidence.

That's not how burden of proof works.

You have just flat out told me that you do not think that my imagination is good enough to use X and still make the game enjoyable for the table. You cannot imagine a situation where having X would be a good thing at the table, despite the fact that the player is telling you the opposite.

Neither of those things is true, and my gut reaction to this is pretty much, "How dare you? Who do you think you are? Where do you get off, making those kinds of pronouncements?"

"Who can imagine what" is emphatically not involved here. Neither is there a burden on any one player to "make the game enjoyable" through their choice of character class (or whatever). What's actually going on is in truth far closer to what @Maxperson describes concerning aesthetics and enjoyment.

Well, obviously you don't hold this as a value. That's the point isn't it? The fact that we're pointing out that by not holding this as a value, you are disrespecting your players. I do judge a table that routinely fudges, for example. I think they are doing a disservice to the group and to the game and those games would be a lot more fun if they didn't fudge. I see nothing inherently wrong in judging a table. If you describe a table to me and I think, "Hrm, yeah, wouldn't it be better if you did this?" I'm judging the table. And there is nothing wrong with that.

I don't think it's obvious at all. Nothing like it has been said in 180+ pages. And even after I've clearly spelled it out, and explained why being judgmental about it is pointless, here you are being judgmental and calling it "disrespectful" to players. I'm not saying you can't ever describe a certain practice as better or worse GMing than another. I am saying you can't do that as a one-size-fits-all, this way is always better for everyone, because it's just not true. There are play-styles (which I do not engage in) where fudging is lauded is one of the best things about playing. You can only judge how another table plays if you know something about what they want to get out of the game! So once again: how dare you, and where do you get off defining how and where someone else finds their fun?

And, generally this is how a lot of tables work. My point is, it's largely unnecessary, sucks a great deal of fun out of the table and is a bad practice. In the same way that people should be giving their DM's the benefit of the doubt, so should the DM's equally treat their players the same way.

Cool story, bro.

It is a much better practice at the table to allow the players some, limited ability to write sections of the setting if they want to and are willing to do the work. Is a DM expected to allow everything the players bring to the table? No, of course not. There are lots of perfectly reasonable reasons to veto a concept. We've outlined them repeatedly, so, I won't bother repeating them yet again. However, if the only reason the DM is vetoing something is because the DM happens not to like that thing, not because it doesn't fit with the setting or the campaign or would cause all sorts of issues in play or anything like that, but, simply because the DM doesn't like it, then, AT THAT POINT , not before, only after that point, should the DM take a step back and let the player run with the player's idea. It results in better tables, less friction between the player and the DM; it demonstrates that the DM is willing to respect the player's abilities at the table and give him or her enough rope to possibly hang themselves.

After all, the player might make this character and it completely flops. It happens. I've certainly made characters that seemed really fun in my head only to have them be a giant fun suck at the table. And I've seen players do it too. At that point, then, maybe the DM can, with a certain degree of smugness, suggest a different character.

A better practice for you. Better tables, less friction, etc. for you. Evangelizing about it to those who aren't interested in finding your specific kind of fun at the game-table remains pointless.

(For what it's worth, I don't use alignment at all in my games. That's almost the same thing as not having alignment restrictions, except that there's nothing written on the character sheet that the player can point to and use as excuse to be Lawful Stupid, Chaotic Lolrandumb, Jerk Neutral, or Monstrous Evil.)

@Jack Daniel I don't really think there's much more to be said here, then. If you see the process of playing D&D as literally having no human-interaction component beyond the execution of the rules (in other words, no relationship between people, merely the procedural execution of defined roles), there's no possible space for us to discuss in. Because I absolutely would say that a "referee" behaving in the aforementioned way (absolute, unilateral, and obdurate refusal/denial/whatever) would be incredibly rude and, if they did so in any kind of professional establishment (something equivalent to an FLGS), I would be complaining to management about their behavior. I wouldn't make a scene about it, because I'm not a Karen-analogue, but yeah, this would be enough to overcome my strong aversion to complaining about anything. (Despite what my willingness to argue about minutiae online might imply, I'm actually hugely averse to "rocking the boat" IRL unless I'm pushed extremely hard.)

Well I'm sorry, then, that the way me and mine play D&D is so offensive to your sensibilities. I assure you that I don't feel the same way about however it is you and yours play.

 

[Maxperson]

Except that they are magical creatures. That's my point. It doesn't matter if their magical-ness is pretty low level. They're still magical. I fundamentally reject your statement that "magic can create it and the situation that allows it to survive without it being a magical creature." That LITERALLY DOES mean that gorram bloody DRAGONS can be "mundane" creatures, because once you've written off the magic that creates them and which allows them to exist as they do (y'know, being able to fly with such huge bodies and such), there's nothing left to explain.

Who was talking about Dragons? We're talking about centaurs and they are as magical as Disneyland is. Not at all other than as a metaphor.

 

[Umbran]

The question is one of whether or not you feel that a fantasy world (or any fictionally created world for that matter) has limits to what is viewed as plausible and/or within the bounds of the setting in-world.

So, in your view, how would you answer that?

By telling you that isn't actually "the question". The question is whether a novelist's authorial control is, in general, an appropriate model to apply to RPG play.

My guess is that you would say there are limits, based upon your responses in other threads.

Given that I just mentioned Grunts, by Mary Gentle, in the very post you are quoting? It takes place in a Tolkienesque world (orcs, elves, halflings, etc) and then adds M60s, assault rifles, and a bunch of other modern military hardware. Definitely a fantasy novel, and, IMHO, quite funny.

I mean, I play D&D, but I also play Shadowrun - which is fantasy, but with high tech cyberware too. If you somehow got the idea that I have strong limits on what I think is appropriate/plausible in fantasy in general, you are sorely mistaken.

 

[Argyle King]

Except that they are magical creatures. That's my point. It doesn't matter if their magical-ness is pretty low level. They're still magical. I fundamentally reject your statement that "magic can create it and the situation that allows it to survive without it being a magical creature." That LITERALLY DOES mean that gorram bloody DRAGONS can be "mundane" creatures, because once you've written off the magic that creates them and which allows them to exist as they do (y'know, being able to fly with such huge bodies and such), there's nothing left to explain.

@Jack Daniel I don't really think there's much more to be said here, then. If you see the process of playing D&D as literally having no human-interaction component beyond the execution of the rules (in other words, no relationship between people, merely the procedural execution of defined roles), there's no possible space for us to discuss in. Because I absolutely would say that a "referee" behaving in the aforementioned way (absolute, unilateral, and obdurate refusal/denial/whatever) would be incredibly rude and, if they did so in any kind of professional establishment (something equivalent to an FLGS), I would be complaining to management about their behavior. I wouldn't make a scene about it, because I'm not a Karen-analogue, but yeah, this would be enough to overcome my strong aversion to complaining about anything. (Despite what my willingness to argue about minutiae online might imply, I'm actually hugely averse to "rocking the boat" IRL unless I'm pushed extremely hard.)


...so is the queen. The queen cannot move in any plane other than that of the chessboard. But only the knight has the ability to leap over enemy pieces to reach its destination, the closest analogue we have in a nominally 2D game to the three-dimensional movement of flight. As I said. And yet this special superpower--it can break enemy lines!--not only doesn't afford it a special position, it is actually tied for the second-worst piece on the board, only one step (3 points vs 1 point) above pawns.

Arguments by analogy hinge on the effectiveness of your analogy. The queen/piece-value analogy is bunk for what you want to argue. Don't use it. That's my entire point here.

And I specifically have been arguing about the Player's Handbook options. AKA, the options specifically offered to "Players," in the book specifically meant for "Players" to read in order to know how to play and--here's the kicker--what you CAN play. Options in the DMG are, by the very naming of the book, Dungeon Master's options. If the Dungeom Master doesn't use something in the book meant for Dungeon Masters, the Players don't have any standing to object.

It's an extremely simple distinction, and one I've been making this entire time, many pages before you showed up, and which I have repeatedly used. No matter what Maxperson thinks of the word "assume," it is reasonable to assume that PHB options are probably available unless and until the DM says otherwise. It is incumbent upon the DM to specify when and where their game deviates from that common baseline, and it is incumbent upon players to pay attention to what the DM specifies.

Except it isn't bunk. The queen has unlimited access to 3 planes of movement. The rook and bishop each have access to 1. The knight has very limited access to 4.

The analogy works.

I lean toward agreeing with the book divide, as you've detailed it.

 

[Argyle King]

By telling you that isn't actually "the question". The question is whether a novelist's authorial control is, in general, an appropriate model to apply to RPG play.



Given that I just mentioned Grunts, by Mary Gentle, in the very post you are quoting? It takes place in a Tolkienesque world (orcs, elves, halflings, etc) and then adds M60s, assault rifles, and a bunch of other modern military hardware. Definitely a fantasy novel, and, IMHO, quite funny.

I mean, I play D&D, but I also play Shadowrun - which is fantasy, but with high tech cyberware too. If you somehow got the idea that I have strong limits on what I think is appropriate/plausible in fantasy in general, you are sorely mistaken.

It is the actual question I have asked.

Also, I didn't say "strong limits." The addition of a modifier implies different meaning.

Still, you've objected elsewhere to the plausibility of two sci-fi universes being combined, based upon what is effectively a box of gray fluff text.

 

[Oofta]

This thread just keeps going round and round.

On one side we have DM authority that I'd summarize as:

1. As a DM I wear many hats including referee and final arbiter of the rules.
2. The DM is responsible for making the best game they can for everyone at the table. That includes all 4-6 players and themselves.
3. Much of DM is collaborative gameplay, but the DM is still primarily responsible for world building and establishing restrictions and limitations. That may include restricting races and/or classes.
4. Accept that their style and their campaign may not be for everyone. However if you try to please everyone you often please no one.
5. As much as it may suck for the player cannot find a DM that will allow a specific race, that's not the DM's responsibility. Most DMs have limited time and space for a limited number of players, usually 6. DMs are not responsible for every potential player that could possibly join their game. It's only an issue if the DM cannot attract or retain players for the games they're willing to run.
6. Last, but not least, being a good DM includes being enthusiastic and excited about their world. If the world doesn't live and breath for the DM how can he make it come to life for the players?

There's a lot of variation in there, it's completely up to the DM to share responsibility as they see fit. In some case that may mean that up to the point of character creation the DM has full control or may mean a collaboratively built world or anything in between. Obviously there should be discussion, but the DM is under no obligation to change anything.

There is no one right way, although in general the players should have complete control over their PCs once they are created. Exceptions would be things like whether you allow PVP combat, stealing from party members and similar.

Am I missing anything critical?

On the Player authority side(?)
Honestly I'm not even sure. Can someone sum this up in 500 words or less? Without throwing in bad DM red herrings like reversing everything the player accomplishes on a whim, gotcha DMing, railroad campaigns, changing rules after session 0 without discussion, rudeness, and so on. Bad DMs will be bad DMs, it has nothing to do with running a curated world.

I'm trying to not be dismissive, but it seems to boil down to one of the following:

1. Any individual player has the right to play any character they want.
2. The DM has to justify their choice. The justification has to be for a "good" reason. The player decides if the reason is good enough.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

To me, if there are times when having flight are good and times when having flight are bad, that's still a net positive over not having the ability to do it at all (and thus not having access to it during one of the times when it would be good).

For aarakocra specifically, I think there does tend to be a tradeoff in that they don't get many other racial abilities (such as darkvision -which I think is given out too easily in 5E). I wouldn't find that to be a worthwhile trade without some way to gain better sight, as carrying a torch or something similar while flying would (imo) be dumb in many cases.

Sure. A race should be a net positive. I just don’t think that flight (no heavy armor) should be counted as more powerful than, say, tiefling’s spell feature.

 

[Umbran]

It is the actual question I have asked.

I'm sorry to tell you, but I think the question you posed is, in the context of the rest of this discussion, a distraction or misdirection. For purposes of this thread right now, it is not "the question".

Still, you've objected elsewhere to the plausibility of two sci-fi universes being combined, based upon what is effectively a box of gray fluff text.

I don't recall the case you're referring to - I would be unsurprised if you are incorrect about what I based my judgement upon, as I don't think you can read my mind over the internet.

I will note that there a difference between, "Can we mash together these two existing canons, each with their own histories and rules, and have them remain plausibly consistent?¹" and "Can we create a new fictional world with these combined rules and assumptions?²" The latter is easier, the former is harder. Since I don't recall the situation, I may have been addressing the first, but not the second.

I will also note that sci fi and fantasy are different genres, and being self-consistent with its rules is typically more important to science fiction.




1. For example, the stated histories of Firefly and Star Wars as given are mutually exclusive - one is long ago in our past in another galaxy far away, the other is in our future in our own galaxy. Han Solo can't plausibly have grown up hanging around with Malcolm Reynolds.

2. Is it possible to have a character like Mal Reynolds in the Star Wars universe? Certainly, if we are flexible on some elements of the backstory....

 

[Gammadoodler]

That's not true. I don't believe centaurs should be able to climb (using climb as in ladders, cliff walls, etc.). But, if a player showed me the rule (someone in here brought it in), then I would accept that. I can think it is silly. I can roll my eyes when the centaur starts scaling the castle wall. Or I can laugh at the absurd and just move on.

According to the rules, centaurs can climb. DM's can see that and say, not in this case.

Look at it like this: a dwarf in plate walks up to a climb that is 500' and includes several vertical hangs. The DM says, "You need an athletics check of 40 and you're at disadvantage because you are wearing plate." I don't know very many players that would argue. They would say, "Oh, you mean it's impossible for me without rope or something." So if a DM imposed disadvantage, or made the DC harder or easier for a centaur to climb something specific, like a ladder or boulders, what table would throw a 30 page rant?

How a DM rules specific circumstances is (generally) different than overruling a character's abilities whole cloth, which has been the counterargument ("I think the rule is silly so I disregard it).

That said, you can apply "circumstance-specific" rulings to accomplish the same thing. If, instead of the 500 ft. cliff, it's a second story window or an 8ft ladder that receives the DC 40 disadvantage treatment, at some point the table should look at the DM askance.

Whether it's worth a 30-page rant is a matter of judgement and between the DM in the table.

Edit: and for the sake of clarity, the purpose of the post was to note that it's kind of pointless to argue about the RAW centaur creature types to determine whether they should be able to climb if your opening premise is to disregard the RAW that says they ARE able to climb.