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

Hussar said:

See, the thing is, I used to be strongly on the other side of the fence on this issue. I used to agree with the DM's World POV. Then, well, I started trusting my players more.

Take the oft used "no evils". It's repeated so often that it's become a truism - evil campaigns can't function, they fall apart, they don't work. And, I bought into that line of thinking for a long time. I up front banned evil characters for years.

Then, as an experiment, I told the group that I was going to relax the alignment restrictions. It was up to the players to figure out how to work together but, otherwise, any alignment was on the table.

Turns out that evil groups function FAR more effectively than good ones. First off, there's none of the disrespect between the PC's. When you know that that lipping off to the other PC might cause that character to kill you in your sleep, everyone got a LOT more polite. Almost movie mafia type behavior where everyone was respectful and polite, at least to each other's faces. Then, they quickly realized that together they could succeed at their own individual goals faster and better than they could alone. They banded together for protection because they knew that not only did the bad guys want them dead, the good guys probably did too.

After that campaign, I no longer have alignment restrictions in my games. Evil characters, played intelligently, function perfectly well in a good group. And it creates all sorts of interesting interplay between the characters.

So, yes, I came to the conclusion of "trust your players over your own preferences" through experience. Your own preferences and assumptions likely have never really been tested. Let them go and your game will be a lot more fun.

Click to expand...

Can I ask how you started this process? Did you used another system and it helped teach you this concept? Or was it from a new group of players? (Doesn't sound like it, but maybe there was one new player that expressed this view or a table where you were the player.) Or did you happen on it by your own intuitions? I am just curious. (No meta-argument in the brew process. I will never bring it up again. I just really want to know.)

I do think this needs to be pointed out though regarding the rest of your post, including the bolded words. I feel certain everyone here is happy for your table. Your table found what they are happy with. Therefore, others are probably happy for you. It doesn't mean you get to tell what will be more fun to other DMs. Maybe rephrase it to:
"My players and I have found it to be a lot more fun. I encourage everyone to try it once. Maybe you will have a similar experience."

As far as your previous comment about lack of imagination, I disagree. It takes a lot more imagination to explain things and give them internal logic (which means things will be limited) than to simply randomly accept some things and not others or to accept everything.

doctorbadwolf said:

Your objection to that rule also makes no sense without some explanation of what you even find objectionable

Click to expand...

Replace this guy with a centaur.

Or replace this guy with a centaur.

Physiologically speaking hooves can't grip things like feet. Just like human feet can't grip things like a chimpanzees. Hence, they can hang upside down, humans can't. If I had a chimpanzee race, I would let them hang upside down. They would also all get +6 in strength.

Oofta said:

Maybe DM's claim authority over the rules because that's how D&D works?

Click to expand...

I do not believe either of those statements cashes out to "what you say goes, and no one should ever even try to question it; if they do, they're bad players." IOW, it doesn't advocate or even support unilateral, absolute, obdurate authority.

Scott Christian said:

Yet, it ignores a session zero. A time and place the DM sets parameters.

Click to expand...

Well, that's what I've wanted to talk about this entire time. How to conduct Session 0. I had a post about it not that long ago, in fact, which went largely unnoticed. (It's this one, if you're curious. You did at least thumbs-up it, so that's something.)

Scott Christian said:

Physiologically speaking hooves can't grip things like feet.

Click to expand...

I don't have a picture of a centaur climbing but I did find:



I can't think of an explicit 5e rule that says athletics strength checks for climbing are restricted to physiological forms that could reasonably climb. Parties with mounts and Wildshaping druids take note when you need to scale cliffs.

@EzekielRaiden I apologize if my other response came across as rude, it was not intended but ... tone doesn't always carry and it's too easy to say things that can be interpreted in ways not meant. Should people be polite when having discussions about the campaign? Of course.

So I always try to work with potential players to come up with a backstory, class and history that will work. But I do have restrictions that I'm simply not willing to compromise because of how I run my game (see this post). I try not to be dismissive, but sometimes the answer is "no".

The other thing is and part of why I'm posting is because I have to think not only of any individual potential player, but also how I can run the best game I'm capable of for a group of 6 people.

This is something that seems to get ignored whether it's race restrictions or restrictions on what centaurs can or cannot do, whether I allow evil PCs. A lot of people prefer a more "traditional" look to their campaigns or don't care when it comes to races. I've had the discussion about centaurs climbing ladders in the past and many people have issues with it. My wife doesn't want to play in a game with evil PCs. As a DM, my preferences also come into play because in order to run a good game I have to be enthusiastic (perhaps more than my players) about the campaign.

There are just some things where there is no way to please everyone. If I had time and inclination I'd run a half dozen different games and that could easily include a crossroads campaign with every race under the sun, a weird west campaign, a space fantasy game, so on and so forth. But I only run one campaign.

Voadam said:

I don't have a picture of a centaur climbing but I did find:

Spoiler

View attachment 130647

Click to expand...

That horse's mane suggests to me that this is notably photoshopped.

The better argument about hooves and climbing is goats

EzekielRaiden said:

Well, that's what I've wanted to talk about this entire time. How to conduct Session 0. I had a post about it not that long ago, in fact, which went largely unnoticed. (It's this one, if you're curious. You did at least thumbs-up it, so that's something.)

Click to expand...

Hi Ezekiel. Sorry about ignoring the post. It might have been one of the times I was not available for a few days and skimmed. Or maybe it was just me overlooking it. My apologies.

EzekielRaiden said:

Because it's frankly pretty trivial if you go for either of the other situations. Obviously if the DM fails do do her due diligence before/during Session 0, they're in the wrong. And, equally obviously, if a player agrees to abide by restrictions and then defies them later, it's petulant and rude.

But what about the interim period?

Click to expand...

Good and true (imo) observation and great question.

EzekielRaiden said:

How does a DM with "vision" communicate that fairly, and respond appropriately to players that aren't automatically on board?

Click to expand...

I can only speak for myself, but I have done it several ways. From past to present:

1. (30 years ago) I have written these adventures. They are using this book (or these D&D books) so be sure to pick from those.
2. (20 years ago) I bought these systems. If we use this game, let's stick to this theme. If you want to borrow the books - cool. If not, I can summarize.(Middle Earth RP was one, and we did have a player choose an orc? We went along with it, then eventually the orc was killed by another party member.)
3. (10 years ago) I have written a lot of lore. If you want to read it, here it is. I also have a 5 minute pitch that combines visuals, maps and history.
4. (5 years ago) I have made videos to help explain the history of the realm. Also given a two page clear and concise summary of the realm. This along with the pitch mentioned earlier.

That's how I have done it. I have never had a complaint (which is anecdotal). So, and I am not trying to sound haughty, but I have never had a someone "not on board" for a campaign. I have said it before, maybe I am just lucky as both a player and DM. Also, if I run a FR campaign or AP - I do not adhere to the above. Anything goes for those.

EzekielRaiden said:

How does a player with "inspiration" share that with the DM in a constructive way, so they can play enthusiastically in the world offered?

Click to expand...

Again, I can only speak from my experiences. But, as a player I ask first what is allowed and what isn't. Once I am told, I would never dream of deviating from something like a list of playable races. This goes back to when I was 15 years old. I place trust in the DM to tailor the experience for my character - as long as my character fits within their world vision.

Now, if there was something not on the list (like a specific class that was in a supplemental book), I would ask. I would explain, after hearing the DM's vision, and explain how it can mesh with the setting. If the DM places restrictions on the class - no problem.

An example of this is when I wanted to play a paladin, but the DM was playing a campaign where all gods had died. There was only healing through druids, and the clerics had long ago lost power. They were bitter and warlike. I asked to play a paladin and the DM worked listened to me explain how the powers might work without magic from a deity. Then, he took away lay on hands. I was fine with this. He explained his setting. I wanted something different. So I played the fallen heartbroken paladin that still wanted to believe.

overgeeked said:

The fact that I've done this repeatedly in this thread suggests that I'm right about having to repeatedly rehash the same argument over and over again.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn’t. A forum discussion isn’t like playing a game. There is no connection between the two. They don’t work the same.

overgeeked said:

Overrule the DM? That's not how any of this works. The players don't decide the rules. The DM does. The players can accept that or walk.

Click to expand...

Sure it is. Maybe not at your table, but the game only happens if the group agrees to it.

Oofta said:

A statement was made: banning more than a single race is wrong.

Click to expand...

No, it wasn’t.

Maxperson said:

How does that even work? It's not like they can force you to change it.

Click to expand...

I’ve been on both sides of it, it works fine. DM says something like “This rule doesn’t make sense to me so I’m changing it.” And someone raises an objection, and the group backs the objector, and the rules doesn’t change. And then we move on.

Scott Christian said:

View attachment 130645
Replace this guy with a centaur.
View attachment 130646
Or replace this guy with a centaur.

Physiologically speaking hooves can't grip things like feet. Just like human feet can't grip things like a chimpanzees. Hence, they can hang upside down, humans can't. If I had a chimpanzee race, I would let them hang upside down. They would also all get +6 in strength.

Click to expand...

Sure. The cliff one is gonna need rope and harness support, and the second one, just climbs at 1/4 speed like the rules say.

Umbran said:

That horse's mane suggests to me that this is notably photoshopped.

The better argument about hooves and climbing is goats

View attachment 130654

Click to expand...

Yep, and the fact that a centaur isn’t actually a horse with a human for a neck and head. It just looks like that. And the centaur’s body is closer to that mountain goat in size than to a horse.