Personally, I don't think it overly matters if some races might be "too difficult to roleplay". After all, GMs will still have to "play" them in at least a limited sense, so I'm not sure than sheer thespianism should be the criterion. More to the point is -- would a race be enjoyable to play, and would it enhance or hinder the storytelling, and other elements of gameplay? On the first, I'm pretty much in the "whatever floats your boat" camp, but the second is more troublesome. Particularly if one uses the Generic Grab-Bag Party style of play, having someone play a Slime Mould Elf week-in, week-out might get a bit wearing for all concerned.
I think a better way to handle egregiously weird player characters is in more of a "troupe" or "character pool" sort of fashion, where you can have any sort of character you like, but will only play it when it's "appropriate" to do so. (Greg has hinted that G:tG may use elements of this style, but I think he has in mind someone playing several different members of the same clan, rather than just an arbitrary assortment of characters.) So if one has a non-rootless elf, you only get to play him if the storyline switches to the forest, or requires him to leave it. If you have a Storm Voice, you get to play him only during his "leave", or when he's performing his Religious Duties. Otherwise, you play some other character. This doesn't really help with the Truly Odd cases, admittedly; given that dragonewts behave seemingly randomly, and have motivations which are not so much understood as wildly guessed at by humans, it makes it somewhat artificial to decide when it's "appropriate" for them to be played, much less what they might do when they are. But if the player is happy to accept the GM's view of when it's kosher, I think it mostly works.
This approach would let someone have a True Dragon character -- just so long as they only play them 1 day per 1625 years or so. ("But tonight's the night!", as the old joke goes.)
Slainte,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail