Fixing the Fantasy of Fantasy Gaming

[K]

Because... um... no discernible reason.

Because if centaurs aren't allowed inside then neither are ogres, giants, dragons, wemics, trolls, golems, and indeed basically ALL large sized monsters. And your "body shape" argument is an infantile realism bitch fest that makes little sense. Oh a centaur the size of a mounted warrior can't dodge or swing in a narrow corridor? Sorry NEITHER CAN A TROLL.

I mean crap Minotaurs LIVE in mazes, but they are big, would be unable to dodge and swing and the corners will totally screw up their goring horns designed for CHARGE attacks. So fucking what, go have a cry about them not being allowed inside some more then.

Bipeds are a lot more maneuverable than horses, so trolls are just going to be fine where horses are not. Big bipeds like trolls can turn around, bend at the waist, climb.... the list is long of things a biped can do and a horse can't.

Now, you could just make flexible centaurs like deviated from the horse body-plan but keeping cosmetics, but they'd have to move like horse-centipedes and that's just not something that centaur-lovers want. What they want is a creature that moves like a mounted man, and the limitations on that are obvious.

Size isn't even an issue. The ability to walk over broken ground is the issue. Anything horse-like is going to fail at most kinds of movement that aren't flat surfaces or is going to have to move very slowly..... so basically the instant you have a riverbed or dense forest then being a centaur is going to suck. You are going to auto-lose to enemies standing on rocks or in trees and pit traps are a death sentence because none of your fellow heroes are going to be able to pull you up.

Of course, you could just say "it works because of magic and centaurs are magically sure-footed and magically able to turn around and climb", but that excuse has a very limited shelf-life.

[Prak]

or you make them goat centaurs and tell the horse fangirls to suck it...

[PhoneLobster]

Bipeds are a lot more maneuverable than horses, so trolls are just going to be fine where horses are not.

I'm sorry K but that argument does not fly because a lot of the big biped are indeed BIGGER than horses. And as for "limited but less so!" really, what part of that actually over rides the Counts mention of "aren't one set of abstracted large things in small spaces rules ENOUGH?" point?

Not to mention many of the big (and bigger) things that need to be in dungeons aren't bipeds. And horses are a lot more flexible than frank and the "horses not allowed inside crowd" say. And really lets look over the monstrous manual again before you come back and tell me the majority of dungeons, let alone every dungeon in the world, is made out of cramped narrow low ceiling corridors. Because D&D is made out of some pretty large numbers of pretty damn big monsters.

And sure Frank's argument NOW is "horses in a confined space cannot dodge a sword swing or swing a sword".

But Frank STARTED with "horses can't fit through doors, horses can't walk down stairs, horses can't turn right angled corners in corridors as narrow as their shoulders" and when THAT stuff was point by point shown to be utter crap based on his complete ignorance of what horses can actually do he just shifted his argument to things we WON'T be finding youtube videos of if for no other reason than because people don't swing swords at horses in narrow passages and post it on the internet.

And of course it is a REALISM ARGUMENT, and as such is bald faced stupid that everyone on this forum would NORMALLY dismiss as utterly retarded and infantile if anyone OTHER than Frank were making it. Can you imagine the shit they would give RC, Me, hell YOU if you made an argument about realism and horses inside to base your game design decisions on? Can you?

Here is a "realism" argument that makes more sense. Centaurs in say 3,x D&D are the same abstract size as other abstract large sized monsters and suffer the same abstract large sized penalties in the same cramped conditions. And everyone other than Frank went home with their suspension of disbelief more than adequately satisfied and centaurs were no less playable than Trolls. THE END.

And worse the basic argument he presented is IN-FUCKING-SANE.

The REASON he presents that maneuverability of horses inside, supposedly, matters to him, is because if the PC party ever says "lets skip this dungeon, I have a hard time fitting in it" the game is "broken" or something.

And that is on it's face IN-FUCKING-SANE. That does not just limit Centaurs out of the picture, that really DOES limit trolls even littler ones that ARE more flexible than centaurs, hell that makes Kobolds, Goblins and Gnomes existing as enemies ALSO break the entire universe.

The actual reality is that all sorts of PCs have reasons to say "lets skip this dungeon" and all sorts of NPCs have reasons to build dungeons that make PCs say "lets skip this dungeon".

Frank's response, of picking out an individual large sized monster PC type out of hundreds and declaring it specifically to be the only face of this problem was and still is INSANE.

And his solution of "remove from game because it is hard!" is also INSANE, similar to everything we all agree is stupid in 4E and frankly not a solution to the actual problem in any way shape or form.

And that's if you even think "lets skip this dungeon" is even a real god damn problem. Because lets be honest, it fucking isn't.

[Fuchs]

Can we drop the centaur war?

[PhoneLobster]

Can we drop the centaur war?

Should we skip straight ahead to the eerily similar anti gravity wars then? The one where Frank told us that Anti-Gravity was unrealistic and impossible to introduce in a fantasy setting, but however... Anti-Gravity was absolutely realistic and had no implications at all for game play.

[K]

Bipeds are a lot more maneuverable than horses, so trolls are just going to be fine where horses are not.

I'm sorry K but that argument does not fly because a lot of the big biped are indeed BIGGER than horses. And as for "limited but less so!" really, what part of that actually over rides the Counts mention of "aren't one set of abstracted large things in small spaces rules ENOUGH?" point?

Size doesn't matter. Being maneuverable does.

If you game stops every time a player says "hey, those centaurs could never get up that ridge" or "hey, I can't escape that lava flow by going up that ladder as provided in the adventure" then your game has failed. Breaking verisimilitude kills games faster than Smash Brothers.

Now bipeds of any size can fit into any number of spaces. Being super-maneuverable is great, so large characters are not even an issue, but there is no way to are going to convince a player that a centaur is going to climb a tree. They will call bullshit and leave the game.

And yes, it is a high crime is the party is forces to skip a dungeon because the centaur can't go in. It creates animosity at the table and makes people have less fun during the adventure. Each is an excellent reason to not allow centaurs.

I mean, players need similar abilities. If you have to remember each time you write an adventure you need to provide centaur-access, you are more likely to go play Shadowrun or something just to cut your game prep down and so you can play more creative games where PCs can use ladders.

[PhoneLobster]

Size doesn't matter. Being maneuverable does.

I call bullshit right there. A creature that occupies 20'x20' cube is less of a problem than a "less maneuverable in a way the system doesn't even normally bother measuring" creature in a 10'x10' cube? Really K? Really now? No no, REALLY?

If you game stops every time a player says "hey, those centaurs could never get up that ridge"

Oddly enough, no, I for one do NOT have players sitting at the table causing the game to come to a grinding halt because all the kings horsemen being up on humpty dumpty's wall (or in your specific example having just ridden up some sort of a unspecified vaguely steep incline! GASP!).

And yet in direct contradiction of your size vs maneuverability claims I have however noticed that the most common big monster moment of disjoint is the occupies a 20' cube monster living in a 30' square 20' high room with only 5' wide and tall access passages. And no, contrary to your claims, "The Giant is double jointed" is oddly NOT a helpful excuse worth anything more than a cheap laugh in that situation.

As for being unable to use a vital escape route you are railroaded into for a canned adventure... No really, you are going to say "but what if completely failing to account for the party's peculiarities makes them lose a canned adventure the GM can't or won't modify appropriately!" and pretend that is a valid argument at all?

That argument holds for anything, that argument holds for sneak attack and mind control characters. That argument is bullshit and you know it.

Now bipeds of any size can fit into any number of spaces.

Really?

but there is no way to are going to convince a player that a centaur is going to climb a tree.

Is... that really a serious issue for you? I mean is there actually a game breaking requirement that Centaurs MUST climb trees or they are out out out? Because I mean that IS Frank's argument, and it looks like yours, and on the face of it... isn't it a pretty fucking silly argument?

And yes, it is a high crime is the party is forces to skip a dungeon because the centaur can't go in.

Other things that are now on the "to remove list" from the game as of 3E.

1) Mind Control specialists
2) Sneak Attackers
3) Critical Hit builds
4) Mounted Specialists
5) Elemental Damage Specialists
6) Elemental and Magic Resistant/Immune Monsters
7) Goblins, Gnomes, Halflings, Kobolds, Fairies, etc...
8) Beholders and levitating monsters
9) Reduce Person spells
11) Enlarge Person spells
12) Reach and 2handed weaponry
13) Bows and ranged attacks
14) Mobility specialists
15) Anything bigger than a human
16) Water breathing monsters and items
17) Teleporting, Blinking, Ghostly and Ethereal monsters
18) That PC (or even player) that has a marked dog phobia and refuses to participate in dog related adventures
19) Any player that says "that doesn't sound like fun, let's try another dungeon"
- infinity) Etc...

If you have to remember each time you write an adventure you need to provide centaur-access

It's really rather no different to remembering that Undead, golems and half the bullshit monsters in the MM are immune to the specialty fields of 2 out of 3 of your party members, that introducing a temple of Fire Immune Monsters is a screw you to your Pyromancer, and that your adventures need something to keep that stupid fucking monk busy.

If your argument is seriously "a complex engaging RPG needs to let me design adventures that completely ignore the builds and abilities of the actual player characters!" then your argument is stupid and I dismiss it as stupid and expect you to personally say, "Yeah, sorry, it was kinda a stupid argument..."

where PCs can use ladders.

Odd argument to make since anyone is going to have significant if not insurmountable difficulties with a ladder made for creatures of smaller sizes and thus WEIGHTS than themselves, thus making me wonder why you are presenting an argument against Trolls while simultaneously telling me trolls are totally fine!

[Darth Rabbitt]

I regret bringing it up.

I wanted to STOP this from happening...

[shadzar]

so um...still what is wrong with the dragons of D&D?

[Prak]

they're not the dragons of the majority of the source material. Like I said. Like you'd know if you had, in fact, read my original post.

[K]

If you have to remember each time you write an adventure you need to provide centaur-access

It's really rather no different to remembering that Undead, golems and half the bullshit monsters in the MM are immune to the specialty fields of 2 out of 3 of your party members, that introducing a temple of Fire Immune Monsters is a screw you to your Pyromancer, and that your adventures need something to keep that stupid fucking monk busy.

If your argument is seriously "a complex engaging RPG needs to let me design adventures that completely ignore the builds and abilities of the actual player characters!" then your argument is stupid and I dismiss it as stupid and expect you to personally say, "Yeah, sorry, it was kinda a stupid argument..."

Actually, I'm telling you are a terrible player and a terrible person. You should be deeply ashamed of your desire to make people have less fun at your games because you aren't mature enough to play with others.

Reread your DnD books. Have you noticed how there are no Pyromancers? There are spellcasters that get fire spells, and there are even ways to specialize in fire magic, but there is no spellcaster who only ONLY does fire. Spellcasters do a lot of things and only the most dedicated min-maxer even can get fill his entire list with only fire spells

Why? Well, it's because if you brought that to a game and you ran into some fire-immune monsters you'd be next to useless, and you'd be a liability to the other characters and people at the table will resent you. It's the same thing with lots of unreasonable character types.

Now, being a Wizard who uses fire spells and who runs into a fire-immune monster is a problem, but it's assumed you memorized other spells as well and that goes the same for all the other character types. You are expected to function at some level even in situations where you are supposed to suck. Rogues who run into sneak immune monsters are assumed to still be able to damage things with basic attacks, even if they aren't getting their extra dice so they still contribute. It's a way to make sure that some people can be taken out of the spotlight so that others can shine.

But bringing in a handicapped character is bad for the game. People aren't even going to realize all the problems with the character unless you constantly remind them and the giant range of adventures you won't be able to do is going to annoy people. Not being able to escape a pit trap is a big fucking deal, and handwaving it away is going to make people feel like they are playing Pretty Princess Tea Party and they are going to leave your game.

Now monsters are not an issue. No one cares if a monster at the bottom of a dungeon ever had the ability to use the rope ladder the PCs used to get there. People do care if they have to constantly work around your handicaps and if tactical options are taken away from them because of your handicaps.

Having a character that can go on the same adventures as everyone else is a basic design concept. It's the reason Shadowrun rewrote their entire mythos so that hackers could actually... you know.... go on Shadowruns. Being able to go on the adventure that sounds coolest is really important.

Even the best DM is going to forget about your handicap, and it's going to be an issue even if they decide to write adventures not for the party, but for you.

I've run into these problems myself with normal characters. I was playing a game where we had the option to get flying mounts, but one of the players decided to get Leadership and have some fighting men follow us around. Instantly, that cool thing we were going to do where we flew from adventure to adventure and never dealt with BS random encounters was ruined because there was no way we were going to get the 30 flying mounts we needed to take everyone. I resented the player, not the character.

I mean, if you want to play a Naga with no hands then your inability to open doors is going to be an issue that is going to constantly come up. If you are playing a zombie, then going into town is going to be an issue. If you are going to play a guy with a dog phobia, then it's going to be an issue when you run into dogs.

Trying to be the zombie that is allowed to go into town is going to upset people. Trying to be the centaur who can climb is annoying. People will leave your game because it is annoying and you are ruining their ability to immerse themselves in the game.

One character should not be allowed to ruin adventures for everyone. If you had a sea elf and constantly insisted on going on underwater adventures and no one had water breathing, then people would kick you out of their game.

Your desire to have a centaur is just you being a selfish child. Your weird desires do not have to be in the game to make it a good game, but they do have to be kept out of it to make it a good game.

[tussock]

Trying to be the centaur who can climb is annoying

'S funny, in a game where dragons can fly, humanoids reach 25' tall, and ascetics can run the quarter mile in about 16 seconds, all sans magic. Maybe you're just over thinking it.

[PhoneLobster]

And so K ties himself in a knot and writes a big rambling rant with ABSOLUTELY NO CONTENT as an attempt to write even more apologia for one of Frank's most embarrassing public meltdowns ever.

Sorry, in 3E the undead themed dungeon DOES screw the Rogue over VERY thoroughly along with many potential lower level wizard builds. And it is perfectly reasonable for a player with such a character to say "lets skip this one".

Players DO say "lets skip this one". They do it regularly. They do it for good reasons, they do it for bad reasons, they do it for no particular reason at all. It's called player choice. And choosing which doors you open, which adventures you go on, that's one of the most BASIC means by which players get to contribute to the co-operative storytelling of a table top RPG.

It's only a problem if one player says "lets skip it!" AND another says "hell no!" and they get in a fight. And let me lay this down clearly, that very rarely happens. Generally most players at the table want a SHARED enjoyable experience and also wish to enjoy the full benefits of a fully functional group of companions.

So which player saying "hell no we do this dungeon and screw you and/or your character!" are you defending K? Because it sounds to me like the ONLY guy you could be defending here is the railroading asshole GM.

So call me a bad player in a feeble attempt to cover for Frank's embarrassingly disproved claims about horses being unable to navigate stairs and corridors. But really the one here defending incredibly bad game play is YOU. Because the railroading GM is BAD, and if you weren't defending Frank like the typical bullshit ass kissers around here these days then you would NEVER suggest that railroading GMs can or should be protected and encouraged by the game designer.

[K]

So call me a bad player in a feeble attempt to cover for Frank's embarrassingly disproved claims about horses being unable to navigate stairs and corridors. But really the one here defending incredibly bad game play is YOU. Because the railroading GM is BAD, and if you weren't defending Frank like the typical bullshit ass kissers around here these days then you would NEVER suggest that railroading GMs can or should be protected and encouraged by the game designer.

You do understand that your choice of character is what is railroading the players, right?

They don't have a choice about what adventures to do or pass on because you decided to play a handicapped character. The difference between a rogue not being optimum in an all-undead dungeon and a centaur who can't even go into a dungeon at all is huge. The Rogue kinda sucks but the choice is with the players, but the centaur makes the decision for the other players.

Heck, you are even railroading the DM. His range of stories gets drastically curtailed because you decided that your weird desire was more important than your fellow players fun.

[Username17]

Yeah, if you have something with human proportions that is merely bigger, then it can still climb through a trap door as long as it is not so much bigger that their body exceeds the dimensions of the trap door. A biggish human has 23" shoulder width. And yeah, maybe they are 6 feet tall or more, but for purposes of going through that trap door that doesn't matter. Those 23" really are the limit of what they can get through, because that's their second largest dimension. A giant who was twice as tall as a human might be 12 or 13 feet tall, but he could still get through a 46" trap door (and possibly squeeze a few more inches out of that or use the 46" diagonal through a 33" square). A Centaur is 8 feet long and 8 feet tall. His second shortest dimension... is 8 feet. He can squeeze through a trap door that would be accessible to a biped who was 25 feet tall.

That's... ridiculous. Noone loses their shit when you tell them that they can't play characters who are 25 feet tall, why does Phone Lobster lose his shit when people put the denied stamp on monsters that are just as unwieldy as that?

-Username17

[Ganbare Gincun]

I regret bringing it up.

I wanted to STOP this from happening...

I'm playing an incredibly racist and psychotic elven Leaf Blade in my local gaming group, and I get the feeling I'm going to get a LOT of material for my character to rant about from this thread.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Or you could just Golden Axe 2: Revenge of Death Adder it up.

In that game there's a character called Nora. She's a centaur, but can transform into a biped when it's convenient. Like riding animals. When she wants to kick some ass she transforms back into a centaur.

Depending on how you want to do things, you can play it as a racial powerup--meaning that biped is the default state of centaurs and they turn into pretty pretty ponies Shifter-style for a boost of Unlimited Powah. Or you can run it as a racial weakness--meaning that centaurs fight and do physical activities at a reduced capability when forced into biped form, because they're not used to it. But centaurs in pretty pretty pony form don't fight noticeably better than equally-levelled humans, lizardmen, etc..

[K]

Or you could just Golden Axe 2: Revenge of Death Adder it up.

In that game there's a character called Nora. She's a centaur, but can transform into a biped when it's convenient. Like riding animals. When she wants to kick some ass she transforms back into a centaur.

Depending on how you want to do things, you can play it as a racial powerup--meaning that biped is the default state of centaurs and they turn into pretty pretty ponies Shifter-style for a boost of Unlimited Powah. Or you can run it as a racial weakness--meaning that centaurs fight and do physical activities at a reduced capability when forced into biped form, because they're not used to it. But centaurs in pretty pretty pony form don't fight noticeably better than equally-levelled humans, lizardmen, etc..

There is an Oglaf comic that demonstrates a version of this, but I did not dare to post it.

[PhoneLobster]

But you are STILL putting forward an argument where the 10 foot tall 7 foot wide Troll/Ogre/Whatever supposedly is "railroading the party" because that character STILL can't go in all the dungeons (even if we pretend that something of those dimensions IS indeed more "flexible" than some sort of pony man, and even if we pretend players give a crap beyond using the standard large size abstraction mechanics) and that and WILL still say "lets skip it". And yet you STILL say THAT character is fine.

Your arguments lack ANY consistency or intellectual honesty and the fact that I am the only fucker around here game enough to call you on your fucking bullshit disgusts me and disappoints me.

I mean what the hell? No one else sees the clear stupidity and broadness of Frank and K's argument on this? Or have all the dissenting voices FINALLY been driven off entirely?

[mean_liar]

I'm guessing that most of us JUST DON'T FUCKING CARE.

Seriously, when K and Frank say shit like people will leave your game because of centaurs, I just cannot fucking take it seriously.

Player: "Another outdoor adventure? OH FOR FUCK'S SAKE. I'M OUT."

GM: "Gee, that's too bad. So, the faerie, the wood elf, the centaur and the druid head off..."


When you, PhoneLobster, got all worked up here the only benefit I'm taking out of your posts is that your viciousness and enthusiasm are entertaining.

[Fuchs]

I'd not play a game with a centaur PC, and certainly would not DM it. Too many limits on the adventures that are possible, and I don't really care for My Little Pony.

Having a centaur in your game sends a clear message what the game will be like - and there are people who don't want such a game.

[mean_liar]

There are limitless numbers of such characters, though. There are inoffensive characters that can work with anyone, and there are characters that are genre- or setting-specific.

If someone wants to play a horse archer and dumps everything into that and names himself Chagatai or some shit, then either the group accepts that on the front-end for what it represents or they talk about what else they could be doing. By the time you have a centaur as a character I'm presuming you've already had that discussion, just like you would with the ghost or the faerie or the religious zealot or whoever.

The idea that a game cannot support centaur characters is just straight up paternalistic bullshit. You're a big boy and you should be aware that if your character is Conan you're going to have a real pain in the ass time when everyone else in the party is a goblin or halfling or gnome and they want to assault the grig labyrinth. It's entirely context-dependent.

[Prak]

Bullshit, Frank. The centaur is still ~23" wide and yes! They can bend where the human torso meets the horse torso! Given enough strength (I did the fucking math) a centaur can haul itself through a trap door. It'll bang it's legs a bit, in all likely hood. But the low dex tin can fighter probably will, too.

Why is it so difficult for you to wrap your head around the idea that the human torso on the centaur could be attached the same way a horse's neck is attached, such that a centaur can bend, flattening out like some "huge praying mantis"?

In fact, because the proportions are still roughly similar to a human, at worst, Andre the Giant, the centaur can probably get around easier than the great mucking huge ogre or minotaur.

I'd not play a game with a centaur PC, and certainly would not DM it. Too many limits on the adventures that are possible, and I don't really care for My Little Pony.

Having a centaur in your game sends a clear message what the game will be like - and there are people who don't want such a game.

Er... what will it be like?

[Nebuchadnezzar]

the human torso on the centaur could be attached the same way a horse's neck is attached, such that a centaur can bend, flattening out like some "huge praying mantis"?

Could maybe someone who tends to collect fantastic pictures post one of the above? I know I've seen 6-8 legged 'taurs depicted as such. Thanks.

[Fuchs]

I'd not play a game with a centaur PC, and certainly would not DM it. Too many limits on the adventures that are possible, and I don't really care for My Little Pony.

Having a centaur in your game sends a clear message what the game will be like - and there are people who don't want such a game.

Er... what will it be like?

Focused on the centaur, with all its problems taking center stage, and everyone else having to accomodate it.

Having a cavalryman in earthdawn was bad enough, I still remember the troubles until the character finally was dropped for someone who didn't balk at entering dungeons and other terrain not suitable for horses.