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

[Maxperson]

Big horn sheep averages 315 lbs.

Ravnica Centaur averages about 660. So, they are barely twice as heavy, and no where near four or five times as heavy. They are also likely both medium, so in DnD terms they have similar builds. And we've already been discussing hooves.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




If you think that is the opposing position, then you haven't been listening to the multiple times we have said that that is not our position.



Lines exist, but not everything you think is past the line for the genre is something the player thinks is past the line for the genre.

Shifters exist in Tolkien. Beorn is a blatant example. So bringing a shifter to a Tolkien game is not crossing the line. Yet, some DMs claim that it is, and that trying to play one is disrespectful to the DM, and the player just wanting to be a special snowflake and break the rules they laid out.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



At what point are you calling the player's concept for the Changeling lazy storytelling?

I mean, haven't you said there should be no judgements from either side, but a player going to @Johnny3D3D 's table with a Changeling character, wanting to explore the tension between a character with multiple identities seems like they are going to get told "No, that is lazy storytelling and I won't allow it." or "I know you are just trying to disrupt the game at the worst possible times, no I won't allow it."

Both of those seem like judging the player and their character solely for being interested in the Changeling story.

And what if the DM says "That would cause a lot of changes to the security apparatus's of the various nations, and I don't want to deal with that much work." and the player's response is "Actually, I've been thinking about anti-changeling security, here are the ideas I've had". If they are doing a lot of the work... should they still be told no because it is too much work for the DM?

This is why I keep pressing. Because while you claim that your side is the only side saying "no judgements" or "think about the extra work for the DM" you seem to constantly be judging (centaurs are silly, Changelings are lazy, this player is just trying to break the rules to feel special) and not open to the possibility that the player might be willing to do quite a bit of the work.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



page 10 has a loxodon, a simic hybrid and human. No centaur.

The one on 88 doesn't show enough of the hoof to tell if it is split or not. It looks like it might be a normal hoof, but a normal hoof wouldn't allow the climb speed that the Centaur is explicitly given, and it could be something else.



So? An Eohippus is still a horse. And the Centaur could have zebra style colorations, something we see quite often in depictions of ancient horses. Who, by the way, tended to be smaller.

So, this doesn't prove anything.



Or, how about what I'm actually saying.

Since they are fey, maybe their bodies are closer to ancient horses which had different hoof structures.

That way, instead of you just saying "these rules are stupid, I am going to ignore them, because modern horse hooves don't work that way" you can say "okay, the rules work if I assume X"

If you have to resort to ancient horses and ignoring the evidence, you've lost your position. This conversation is over.

 

[Scott Christian]

At what point are you calling the player's concept for the Changeling lazy storytelling?

I mean, haven't you said there should be no judgements from either side, but a player going to @Johnny3D3D 's table with a Changeling character, wanting to explore the tension between a character with multiple identities seems like they are going to get told "No, that is lazy storytelling and I won't allow it." or "I know you are just trying to disrupt the game at the worst possible times, no I won't allow it."

Both of those seem like judging the player and their character solely for being interested in the Changeling story.

And what if the DM says "That would cause a lot of changes to the security apparatus's of the various nations, and I don't want to deal with that much work." and the player's response is "Actually, I've been thinking about anti-changeling security, here are the ideas I've had". If they are doing a lot of the work... should they still be told no because it is too much work for the DM?

This is why I keep pressing. Because while you claim that your side is the only side saying "no judgements" or "think about the extra work for the DM" you seem to constantly be judging (centaurs are silly, Changelings are lazy, this player is just trying to break the rules to feel special) and not open to the possibility that the player might be willing to do quite a bit of the work.

I didn't call it lazy storytelling. That was part of the thread, so I left it in there to not change the wording. Just clarifying.

And I agree with you. Both are being judgmental. My premise (and always has been), that if the DM was clear about no changelings, then the player makes a changeling, the DM can say no. The DM has that ability. It might not be for a good reason. (Like I said earlier, I personally prefer a more curated world where the DM has thought all of this out.) But, the DM, regardless, has the right to say no, because they set the parameters for their world.

We may disagree on this. I am okay with that.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Three questions:

• Can you still have fun playing a different character that is within the list of 12?
• If there is a comparable race that has shades of gray that is on the list, would they do?
• And the most important: why choose a drow as a player (why even come up with a Moses backstory) when you specifically were told they are off limits?

In this specific case of Moses the drow in Oofta's campaign.

1. My understanding is that Oofta's drow are completely segregated from the "regular races" of society and that everyone in that society stays as far away from them as possible. That would imply (but I am inferring) that there aren't thieves guilds that deal with the drow or embassies with the drow or really any other connections with the "normal people" and the drow. My Moses the drow backstory allows me to have a tie to the drow with a character that might never encounter the drow, but also still function in society without being slaughtered on sight (because I was changed to look human but have drow magical abilites internal).

My character explores what a drow is intrinsically born into in Oofta's campaign. If he treats drow like demons, in that they are literally evil and violence incarnate and have no ability for a shade of grey then he can tell me my idea isn't going to work because I will attack the humans that get near me from a toddlers age and will never grow into a civilized adult to play as a PC. In that case I could move on to whatever else interested me in his campaign setting.

2. I'm only interested in exploring the shades of grey in an "always evil, but why?" race. I don't have any flat-black-no-grey evil races in my game (except demons) because I think that's too basic of a concept to be an interesting addition. Even the races that are almost always nefarious (like yuan-ti for example) will have some individuals who are capable of being neutral or even good AND should have some ability to recognize when its worth it to become an ally. If I walked up to a yuan-ti cult, dropped off a bunch of snazzy weapons, and told them there is more in it for them if they help me out with Job X then it would be in their interests to help me to help themselves, not just loot my corpse and never see more weapons.

When you have a monolithic evil that is used as "the boogeyman" in a campaign, then unless its established and known their motivations and goals, then I am going to want to explore it. There are many interesting stories that end in "the boogeyman" being not evil at all. Ender's Game, I Am Legend, Terminator 2, Etc...

3. I didn't "choose to play a drow". I offered up a character that seemed to address the major strikes against being a drow he frequently mentions (that people kill them on sight), I addressed how my character arrived in civilization instead of a different world, and even added a challenge to myself in that if I openly use any drow powers people might get suspicious and become hostile. I would even consider taking on the Sunlight Sensitivity even if Oofta told me its going to be in effect 90% of the time.

With all that stated, if Oofta still stuck to his guns and said "Still, no drow", I could easily find something else to play in his campaign. Then, if sometime later in the campaign the plot turns to "exploring why the boogeyman drow isn't as evil as everyone thinks they are" then i'm going to feel slighted because as a player that was the most interesting part of his campaign, but now i'm playing a dwarf who loves building mechanical dollhouses and doesn't give two shifts about the drow and I don't have the engagement I would have preferred.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

If you have to resort to ancient horses and ignoring the evidence, you've lost your position. This conversation is over.

Just to clarify your position....

You might allow a centaur PC.
If you did you would take away the RAW that says they can make climb checks.
You would justify doing so because a different RAW says they have horse hooves.

 

[Minigiant]

But they like those choices or they wouldn't play. End of story. Unless the person is crazy or a masochist, in which case they're probably enjoying it anyway

Just because I sit down at a table doesn't mean it has all I wanted at the time.

Players, especially at Session 0, are often choosing to stay with a DM world they sorta like.

Ravnica is one of my favorite MTG settings. But I don't know a DM who would do it the way I'd like to play as a player nor a DM willing to prune the setting in more willing to accept as a generic adventurer world.

 

[Azzy]

So if the DM told you to jump up and down for 10 minutes, would you? The DM has no authority over the players. He has authority over the game only, which includes rules, PCs, etc. At no time can he tell a player what to do. The player can always say no. He may not be playing in the game again, depending on the circumstances, but the DM can make the player do nothing and had no authority to order the player around.

Your ridiculous argument is ridiculous and ignores the varieties in which authority comes in or how it can apply. If your argument isn't outright sophistry, it's blindingly close to it.

 

[Maxperson]

Just to clarify your position....

You might allow a centaur PC.
If you did you would take away the RAW that says they can make climb checks.
You would justify doing so because a different RAW says they have horse hooves.

So no.

I would not allow them to climb, because horses can't climb like that and they have horse bodies and hooves. I and my players don't tolerate absurdity, even if it's in the name of balance. The same RAW shows hooves and says horse bodies, so no different RAW is being used. And I would absolutely allow a centaur PC. There's no "might" about it.

 

[Maxperson]

Your ridiculous argument is ridiculous

And your repetitive response is repetitive.

How about we agree to disagree?

 

[Azzy]

Then that's what I do with my current campaign and we're in agreement. Which I've explained repeatedly. I will work with a player to figure out some solution that adheres to the restrictions I've established for the campaign.

However, that's not what you said:


Which is the problem I have with this entire thread.
POSTER1: "It's bad DMing to do X".
POSTER2: It's not inherently bad just because we don't do it your way.
POSTER1: That's not what I said.

A couple of posts later
POSTER1: "It's bad DMing to do X".

Repeat.

Unless you can tell me how a DM not compromising means that the player compromises and plays an allowed race.

So, since you've been objecting (and mischaracterizing) my posts, are you then implying that you're a DM that uses DM scarcity as a tool to completely ignore what your players like some sort of cartoon villian? Because, if you're not, your protestation seems rather curious and misplaced.

 

[Gammadoodler]

(Snip) .....I and my players don't tolerate absurdity.....

Dude you've been in this thread for over 100 pages and are currently arguing about the hoof types of mythological creatures.

Clearly you have some tolerance for absurdity.