# PHB2 Races = Mos Eisley Cantina



## Mad Zagyg (Mar 17, 2009)

I just threw up all over page 7 of the PHB2.

It looks like a terrible space fantasy for little kids! The whole game store I was at tonight was laughing hysterically at it!

THIS is Dungeons & Dragons?

"It's a cold and rainy night.
The village locals gather in the small tavern over mugs of ale to soothe their weary spirits after a long, hard day of toil.
Suddenly, the tavern door slams open and in walks a party of adventurers.

The first one through the door is a squat little wolfman with a hairy face and feral eyes. The second is what looks like a gnome-drow. The third, a half-orc... that is, apparently: half-orc and half vampire (worst artistic rendering of half-orcs EVER). The fourth is a blue skinned space man with a glowing, spectral pet wolf. Finally, a miniature stone giant."


When did Spelljammer become the default game world!

It's just so RIDICULOUS! It's like the Mos Eisley Cantina threw up all over the D&D universe.

I wish these designers would ease back on the cheese throttle.


----------



## aurance (Mar 17, 2009)

So, out of curiosity, is your complaint about the races themselves, or their artistic depictions? And what races / depictions would you have preferred instead?


----------



## Slaved (Mar 17, 2009)

In walks a Group of Social Outcasts who are only Accepted because they have a lot of Coin.

Truth in Fiction!


----------



## Bagpuss (Mar 17, 2009)

Slaved said:


> In walks a Group of Social Outcasts who are only Accepted because they have a lot of Coin.




You are talking about gamers visiting a shop aren't you.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Mar 17, 2009)

The book itself says the races in the PHB (original) are the most common races. PHBII is showing additional races that exist in the world, not necessarily common races.

The "special party" at the front is limited to races from the book ... because it's in the book. 

Also, the spectral wolf is because of  _class_, not race.


----------



## Jhaelen (Mar 17, 2009)

I don't think PHB2 is any worse than PHB1 in that regard. I also remember a similar statement about the MM1. In other words: old news.


----------



## Kzach (Mar 17, 2009)

You have a problem with weird races?

Umm... you realise this is a fantasy game with fantasy races and magic and unicorns and giants and gods and other planes of existence and all that, right?

Just because you're not used to it, doesn't mean it's ridiculous. A person entirely new to the concept of roleplaying and fantasy is going to think ALL the races are a bit weird.

Personally, I don't like a lot of races in a setting. Just because it's in the book, doesn't mean you have to use them. What about the races in PHB2 makes you think that they're a part of the setting if you don't want them to be?


----------



## Mephistopheles (Mar 17, 2009)

Mad Zagyg said:


> It's just so RIDICULOUS! It's like the Mos Eisley Cantina threw up all over the D&D universe.
> 
> I wish these designers would ease back on the cheese throttle.




Even though they are now core races as they're in PHB2 you're still free to borrow a line from the Mos Eisley cantina bartender and say "We don't serve their kind here!".


----------



## Runestar (Mar 17, 2009)

I must be an anomaly here. I am actually sick of the core PHB races after so many years that I cannot picture myself ever playing an elf, dwarf, halfling or gnome ever again. So I actually prefer to select exotic races to play for the unique gaming experience.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Mar 17, 2009)

I really do not have a problem with any race in the PHBI or PHBII. Having them all be equally common in my world I have major problems with.


----------



## Garthanos (Mar 17, 2009)

1) Isaac Asimov Quote... "Sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic."
2) Does anybody remember people complaining the space cantina looked like d&d monster manual rejects, I certainly remember it.

At least the people who complained about the cantina had there causal relationships in the correct order.

Feh.


----------



## Danzauker (Mar 17, 2009)

Hope they listen to you!!! I'd like to see Wookies in PHBIII.

Seriously, in my gaming career I had a Giff PC. What's the matter?


----------



## Storminator (Mar 17, 2009)

I've frequently been the only human in a party. My standard line is "I'm the ringleader of this traveling circus..." 

PS


----------



## Dr. Strangemonkey (Mar 17, 2009)

Well, I assume that when that party walks into the bar...

...all of the hairy, poorly rendered, blue, short but immaculately coifed, and stony people in the bar yell, "Norm!"

And the bouncer checks the gnome's ID.

Everyone else stares at spirit wolf+the deadly bling and is very very quiet.


----------



## Blackrat (Mar 17, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> 1) Isaac Asimov Quote... "Sufficiently advanced science is indistinguishable from magic."




I know I'm nitpicking a bit, but when quoting someone it would be nice to make sure you credit the right person. Arthur Clarke, not Asimov.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Mar 17, 2009)

LOL

There has always been this sort of conundrum with PCs. The DM maybe wants to make his game world seem nice and consistent and thus reasons "well, humans are the major race, everything is basically like medieval Europe except off at the edge of the map someplace are all these weird races." The players OTOH go through the PHB and think to themselves "why would I want to be just an ordinary everyday human, it is much cooler to play one of these other races." And you almost certainly will, in any campaign, end up with a party made up mostly of members of exotic races. 

Of course humans are good choice for a PC in terms of game balance, but that will never make up for the 'coolness factor' of non-humans. Naturally it only gets more extreme with more play. At first people are satisfied playing an eladrin or a dwarf. After a while that gets old hat and they want to play a drow. After a while that too will get old hat and they will want to play a troll or a dragon or some new made up race. 

Given that the goal of the game designers is to sell games and make money, they WILL inevitably add more and more exotic options for PCs, because that is the material players will pay money for. Even if it doesn't lead to power creep, it will always lead to more 'race creep'. 

There are a few things you can do in campaign design if it bothers you. First you could simply set your campaign in some very exotic locale, like a large cosmopolitan city where 'all the races of the world can be found', or a dimensional nexus. Second you could try to restrict players choices of race, but you'll have to make the existing choices more interesting for them. Third you could use the old "we don't serve your kind here" sort of thing where you just penalize people for odd race choices using story elements, but that is hard to do in a way that isn't unfun. 

Frankly I think it is just an inevitable consequence of the nature of the game. Just like the fact that PCs are always going to end up vastly more powerful than any normal person would be. 

I have to agree though, that particular piece of artwork isn't maybe going to go down in history as one of the better illustrations in 4e. Still, compared to the artwork that TSR products generally had, even the worst stuff in 4e is pretty good...


----------



## Darkness (Mar 17, 2009)

> I know I'm nitpicking a bit, but when quoting someone it would be nice to make sure you credit the right person. Arthur Clarke, not Asimov.



Agreed, Aeson, agreed.


----------



## Gargoyle (Mar 17, 2009)

The book is about adding new options, so I don't have any objections about art that features the new races, or their inclusion in the book for that matter.

However, personally, I don't like the "zoo crew" aspect that some campaigns take on.  I like campaigns that have at least one or two humans because it makes the other races more special.  While I respect that people want to play something different from themselves, I also think that these same players often play non-human races just as if they were pointy eared (or short, or tall) humans anyway.  You can play a human from a different culture and be interesting, from a roleplaying point of view.  

I don't care for goliaths, not sure why, but I don't.  One thing I will probably do with the new book is instead of making goliaths a player character race, I will probably take the description of their culture and apply it to a clan of mountain elves or something like that.  It's odd and different, but without adding a new race to the mix.

Of course, if one of my players is just dying to play a goliath, I'd probably let him or her....more important to let the players have fun, even if I end up with a zoo crew.


----------



## gtoasnt3 (Mar 17, 2009)

Ever hear of having your campaign world limited to certain PC races?  I like to thumb through a book prior to buying it, and if I felt like you did about the PHBII, I wouldn't buy it and continue to play the game the way I want to.  I haven't seen it yet, so I can't judge it.  

We normally play Eberron, so the shifter works for us.


----------



## ferratus (Mar 17, 2009)

I kind of get where the original poster is coming from, even though I'm a big fan of 4e and its cosmology.  The ones I have a big problem with are dragonborn and tieflings for two different reasons.

I just can't get over the whole  "sure you're descended from ultimate evil who betrayed the gods who provide us succor and seek to enslave us and suck out all of our souls to fuel their war against goodness itself, but you've been our neighbours for awhile now so we know you're good people" backstory for tieflings.   They just shouldn't be common inhabitants of most small towns, with one operating your local general store in Winterhaven.  It really takes the vinegar out of what made tieflings cool in the first place, namely that they're a bad seed.  Seeing tieflings like this reminds me of a death metal fan who has become an accountant.   Sure they might still have the long hair and have blasphemous tattoos under his pressed white shirt, but he's still an accountant.

The dragonborn work just fine in the dungeon, but they are hard to integrate in the social side of the rpg play.  I was rather surprised to find this out, because I had been planning on using lizardmen as a core race in my campaign setting.  The dragonborn is just too monstrous to really "fit in" a casual social gathering at a pub or a fancy dress party.  This is especially problematic for romance subplots.  While all the other PC races are near-human enough to be able to kiss and be relatively assured that they have the proper parts, dragonborn can only really have romance subplots with other dragonborn.

I have less problems with the new races in the PHB2.   

Goliaths - As Wolfgang says, they are a race without deep roots in traditional fantasy.  However, I think they fill the role of "strong and noble savage" admired by 19th century victorian romantics fairly well.  Their warpaint and highland territory makes them fairly easy to imagine as a semi-barbaric people on the fringes of a fantasy kingdom.

Shifters -  I think these should have been the replacement for the half-orcs in the PHB1 instead of the dragonborn.  They match the half-orc's savage temper and hint of being monstrous without the need for mass rape in the backstory.  You can easily imagine a people who went into the wilds and became bestial and savage.  Lyncanthropes are also not quite as evil as literal devils, so it is more plausible that you get used to shifters while still not quite trusting them to always control their rage.  After all people were able to live with Egil Skallagrimsson, and he was the grandson of a werewolf.

Devas - I think everyone thinks the new emphasis on Devas being reincarnated blessed souls with the capability of becoming Rakshasas makes these the most interesting new race to come out of WotC since 1e.  I think a different visual look helps cement the fact that they are something special rather than just a variant human.  The illumians for example, always seemed like they should be a variant of the wizard class rather than a race in and of themselves.

Gnomes - The gnomes have had a massive reboot, so I guess you can consider them a new race.  I really like the ditching of the tinker baggage and focusing on the trickster aspect with aspect of the 2e forest gnomes, keeping their secrets with illusions.  I'm one of the people who doesn't like the art direction the gnome has taken, but I do like the black eyes and harsh angular features, so I hope some traditional gnomish features (such as beards and large noses) find themselves mixed back in with the current art design in the future.

Half-orcs - Half-orcs have had a minor reboot, but the fact that it makes them good brutal rogues is awesome.

So in short, I find the Dragonborn and Tieflings to be more of "Mos Eisley problem" than the PHB2 races are.


----------



## proto128 (Mar 17, 2009)

I fail to see how this is necessarily a bad thing.  Please explain, with less hyperbole if possible.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Mar 17, 2009)

I think the real problem here is...who *really* drew first?


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Mar 17, 2009)

Mad Zagyg said:


> It looks like a terrible space fantasy for little kids!
> 
> ...
> 
> ...




Its always hard when you find out that you are no longer the target demographic of your favorite hobby.  Pathfinder is here with waiting arms.  Hopefully you can find a place there like myself and so many others have.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 17, 2009)

Nightchilde-2 said:


> I think the real problem here is...who *really* drew first?




Good chances that the artist that got his art request first also drew first, but we can probably never be sure.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 17, 2009)

Mad Zagyg said:


> It looks like a terrible space fantasy for little kids!



I feel the same way about the 1e Fiend Folio --_and_ parts of the Monster Manual. Except replace 'terrible' with 'crudely awesome'. 



> THIS is Dungeons & Dragons?



For about 35 years now.


----------



## twilsemail (Mar 17, 2009)

Mallus said:


> I feel the same way about the 1e Fiend Folio --_and_ parts of the Monster Manual. Except replace 'terrible' with 'crudely awesome'.
> 
> 
> For about 35 years now.





Hear, hear.

When I started reading this thread, and the line about "Space fantasy" in particular, I started thinking back to the books that've been sitting on my shelves/gaming table for the past couple of decades.  All I can really ask is, "Is this supposed to be something new?"  I mean there's always been a touch of space fantasy to D&D, at least for the 20-some years I've been playing.  Heck, look at the Githyanki and Githzerai.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 17, 2009)

twilsemail said:


> Heck, look at the Githyanki and Githzerai.



Or mind flayers, which were directly inspired by a pulp sci-fi novel's cover.


----------



## Sarck (Mar 17, 2009)

I am looking at the PHB II right now and I really have to work to feel even slightly distasteful towards the page mentioned by the OP. Respectfully, I think the OP needs to learn to use less hyperbole. It's in no way a terrible book, and the new races are _intended _to be exotic. 

Firstly, OP, you say a tavern looking like Mos Eisley is a BAD thing? Think of it in context. Luke goes from living on a farm and dealing with maybe the odd alien once or twice (similar to seeing a few tieflings or dragonborn in town) into a major, _exotic_ spaceport where cultures and peoples mix. It's like taking your human/elf/dwarf 1st level character from their home town to a major seaport and ducking into an inn, introducing them to the myriad fantastical creatures and cultures that spread throughout the greater realm (and the planes). It added a bit of mystery and wonder to the universe that Luke lived in, and it'll do the same for your characters.

Secondly... so variety is bad, in your opinion? And apparently the art is not to your liking? Then ignore the art (are you going to cut out the page and stick it on the gametable? No? Then you can feel safe in rarely ever seeing it again) and limit the races by talking with the DM or using DM-power. PRESTO CHANGE-O, magically you are now able to play with blinders and see only the more traditional races. It'll be like playing 3.x, but streamlined!

Finally, I'd just like to add that while it may be fun to jump on the nearest bandwagon and scream along with the guys at the gameshop about how terrible something or another is, if you'll just look for yourself and actually think about what you're seeing... maybe you'll reconsider getting online immediately and posting about how _____ sucks/destroys all your hopes, dreams and fanciful memories. "THIS is Dungeons & Dragons", eh? No. Dungeons & Dragons is whatever you and your gaming group make it. This is just a book to give some rules for new races and classes. Your childhood memories are safe from those terrible game designers who want to innovate and maybe even make some money for their effort. They can't force you to play the game by their rules. 

Don't panic. Just enjoy what you want and look for the positive, rather than whinge about the negative. Maybe I'm crazy for thinking that's good advice. Oh well.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 17, 2009)

ferratus said:


> The dragonborn is just too monstrous to really "fit in" a casual social gathering at a pub or a fancy dress party.  This is especially problematic for romance subplots.  While all the other PC races are near-human enough to be able to kiss and be relatively assured that they have the proper parts, dragonborn can only really have romance subplots with other dragonborn.




The internet in general disagrees with you. Weirder things can be found online.



But seriously, dragonborn have been described (in the Ecology of the Dragonborn article) as seeing mating/reproducing as a purely mechanical activity, not as a romantic endeavour. So it's quite possible for a dragonborn to mate with another dragonborn for some egg-laying, and still have a platonic romance (Beauty & The Beast-style) with, say, a human.

As for tieflings, they are descendants of evil humans, and their appearance is a testimony of what happens when you make deals with the devils. Some will shun them with prejudice, some will pity them, others will embrace them to demonstrate that not everyone judges a person by their appearance/family history.


----------



## frankthedm (Mar 17, 2009)

dmccoy1693 said:


> Mad Zagyg said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 Pathfinder? Nah, come on over to WFRP and burn those mutants at the stake! 







			
				ferratus said:
			
		

> I just can't get over the whole "sure you're descended from ultimate evil who betrayed the gods who provide us succor and seek to enslave us and suck out all of our souls to fuel their war against goodness itself, but you've been our neighbours for awhile now so we know you're good people" backstory for tieflings. They just shouldn't be common inhabitants of most small towns, with one operating your local general store in Winterhaven. It really takes the vinegar out of what made tieflings cool in the first place, namely that they're a bad seed.



Sadly Wotc does not want to encourage freakish PCs being lynched, stoned, drowned or Burned at the stake by angry mobs. I heartily recommend it however.


----------



## Henry (Mar 17, 2009)

Nightchilde-2 said:


> I think the real problem here is...who *really* drew first?




HAN SHOT FIRST!


----------



## Hexmage-EN (Mar 17, 2009)

dmccoy1693 said:


> Its always hard when you find out that you are no longer the target demographic of your favorite hobby.  Pathfinder is here with waiting arms.  Hopefully you can find a place there like myself and so many others have.




Oh, yeah, this was a totally necessary post that added to the discussion. Thank you so much for your street corner proselytizing. 

Seriously, though, how the heck are the PHB2 races that weird compared to many of the other races in DnD's history? 

I also happen to like the "Mos Eisley Cantina" feel. The idea of a tavern filled with a cast of diverse and weird characters is awesome. Sometime soon I'm going to feature a bar run by an orc with a "No Mindflayers!" sign beside the front door.


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 17, 2009)

If goliaths flip your switch, stay far, far away from Oathbound. The telekintetic jellyfish will make your head explode.

I personally love that there's more choices than the same old, same old. Its not like you cant run a traditional Tolkien derived campaign with the stuff in the PhB1.

ANyone want to hazard a guess on PHB 3? From what I gather, it has ki/psiionics. Assuming the same number of new races, Hengeyokai, Spirit folk, Kobolds, Duergar and Xephs seems like a good mix to me.


----------



## chaotix42 (Mar 17, 2009)

@ Mad Zagyg: Was your whole game store laughing hysterically when they first released the half-orc, goliath, and shifter back in 3e? Or is it only when they're together along with a gnome and deva (another glowing celestial in a long line of glowing celestials) that they become too much for you to stomach? Did you see the FRCG spread with the genasi, drow, eladrin, and other races? You'd probably do a backflip!

Lots of people like pie, but we all can't agree on the best flavor.


----------



## exile (Mar 17, 2009)

This thread made me look through my catalog of 4E characters (all made for the LFR campaign and prior to teh release of PHB2). I'd be curious what other players' character selection looks like.

Human x 8
Halfling x 1
Tiefling x 2
Genasi x 1
Half-elf x 1
Warforged x 2
Elf x 1
Dwarf x 2
Dragonborn x 1

Those that have actually seen play include an elf rogue, human cleric (x2), and dwarf wizard.

Chad


----------



## chaotix42 (Mar 17, 2009)

So far in our games:

Bugbear - 1
Dragonborn - 1
Dwarf - 1
Eladrin - 3
Elf - 1
Genasi - 1
Halfling - 1
Half-elf - 1
Human - 1
Warforged - 1

I'm sure the PHB2 races will find their way in as new games start and old characters die/retire.


----------



## Kask (Mar 17, 2009)

Dice4Hire said:


> I really do not have a problem with any race in the PHBI or PHBII. Having them all be equally common in my world I have major problems with.





I don't have a problem with a player choosing any balanced race.  The PC may be lynched and burned at the stake the 1st time they enter a town but that's the players choice not the DMs.


----------



## doctorhook (Mar 17, 2009)

dmccoy1693 said:


> Its always hard when you find out that you are no longer the target demographic of your favorite hobby.  Pathfinder is here with waiting arms.  Hopefully you can find a place there like myself and so many others have.



3E was at least as bad as 4E is for providing all kinds of "circus freak" races, and I daresay that the phenomenon has been a part of the game for plenty longer than that. If such races have been a part of D&D for so long, I'm curious what game Pathfinder must be based upon, that you imply didn't bear the "Mos Eisley Cantina" effect in its adventuring parties. I had thought Pathfinder was based on 3.5E, but that can't be right, given how common the aforementioned effect was in that edition.


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Mar 17, 2009)

For years, part of the description of my fantasy campaigns (regardless of system, but 3.x was one of them, as is 4E) - "And major metropolitan areas have a large mix of all the races. When you go into some bars, it looks like the Cantina from Mos Eisley."

So I embrace the new races and look forward to more in future PHs.


----------



## La Bete (Mar 17, 2009)

heh.

You want a freak show? Complete Humanoids Handbook (2e). Though one player discovered their own 'Dalek' issue - Wemic + Ladder didn't mix.


----------



## Hexmage-EN (Mar 17, 2009)

Guys, guess what! I just found out that Giff are in the PHB3!


----------



## Kask (Mar 17, 2009)

La Bete said:


> heh.
> 
> You want a freak show? Complete Humanoids Handbook (2e).




Actually not.  In 1st/2nd Ed "humanoids" were monsters.  Demi-humans were for PCs...


----------



## Obryn (Mar 17, 2009)

Every race in 4e was a race in 3e, although some have been changed a bit.  And while I'd love to say the weird races started in 3e, they really didn't.  (Although, in fairness, 3e still takes the cake for the number of downright bizarre races which can be played by PCs...)

I've been checking out a lot of the Wilderlands material, and really, folks - bizarre doesn't even begin to cover it.  You have transparent-fleshed ghuls, "bardik" who make good ... um ... bards, cat people, lion people, duck people, hawk people, sun people, moon people, star people, cavemen, _smarter_ cavemen, purple dragon people, red-skinned people, a whole race of amazons, houri (basically succubi), and so on.  And all the many-hued human races - common viridians are kinda green, people with atlantlan blood are kinda red, people up north are kinda blue, descendants of the dragon lords are kinda purple and often a bit scaly...

Weird races _aren't new_.  They go all the way back to the earliest settings.

-O


----------



## Obryn (Mar 17, 2009)

Kask said:


> Actually not.  In 1st/2nd Ed "humanoids" were monsters.  Demi-humans were for PCs...



In 1e, absolutely.

In 2e, the Complete Book of Humanoids would tend to disagree with you.

-O


----------



## SpydersWebbing (Mar 17, 2009)

I personally like the addition of all these races. Fantasy is not just Tolkien, and even as a Tolkien fan I can accept that. 


Seriously, lighten up guys.


----------



## Kask (Mar 17, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I've been checking out a lot of the Wilderlands material, and really, folks - bizarre doesn't even begin to cover it.  You have transparent-fleshed ghuls, "bardik" who make good ... um ... bards, cat people, lion people, duck people, hawk people, sun people, moon people, star people,
> Weird races _aren't new_.  They go all the way back to the earliest settings




Wilderlands wasn't a TSR/WotC product.  No more relevant than some DMs house rules.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 17, 2009)

I've had this problem back since 1st edition.

Norker?  Why do we need norkers?  Flinds?  Why can't they just be big gnolls?  Why do we have eight species of ugly, slightly stupid, monsterous demi-humans?  Wouldn't just one work out fine?  Why do we need like fourteen elvish sub-races?  Couldn't we just get by with one or two, and assume that otherwise they differ by skin, hair color, and other superficial matters of appearance?  Just exactly how did all of these different races get created?  Do I have to develop 200 different origin stories?

I think that if you assume that the world really does have 200 different humanoid races, that you can't avoid having a science fiction feel to it, and probably are going to end up with something like Tekumel where all the races on one planet really does have a science fiction origin to it.  You can either embrace that or you can say, "Not in my campaign.  I'll take this small subset, thank you very much."  But I don't think you can really blame WotC for wanting to broaden the palette.  Nothing is more certain than the fact that each of us would consider a very different subset of humanoids to be the 'cool ones'.

I'm not sure that the problem the OP has isn't just with the art of 4th edition.  The art of 4th edition has a very distinctive 'comic book' feel that is very different from the high fantasy artwork of 2e or the primitive looking woodcuts and simple line art of 1e.  I think that the 'comic book' feel unintentionally or not gives 4e a very 'X-Men' style mutant superhero feel.


----------



## Estlor (Mar 17, 2009)

I like variety.  As a DM, I wish more people would play humans, but variety keeps things interesting.  Especially since the baseline assumption in 4E is that humans _aren't_ the dominant species.

In my homebrew world I allow 12 PC races, but the setting emphasizes cosmopolitan societies where the various races mix.  If "romance" and "half breeds" cause you problems, I solved it by splitting the races into three main groups - hume, gob, and "other."  Humes can breed and are all the dominantly human-looking races (human, dwarf, elf, shadar-kai, draenei).  Gobs are all the slightly monstrous races (bugbear, goblin, hobgoblin, minotaur, moogle).  "Other" is a catch-all for races that don't have sufficient evolutionary differentiation - dragonborn (who vary like chromatic dragons do) and warforged (who don't mate/reproduce).

So far, the two campaigns I'm involved in (one I run, one I play in) have this sort of breakdown:
Human x2
Eladrin
Drow
Halfling

Elf x2
Eladrin
Dragonborn
Tiefling

Eh, play what you want to play, don't play what you don't.  It's all optional.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 17, 2009)

I guess the real question (and this isn't really limited to 4E, by any stretch) is whether the DM is justified in telling the player who just spent $30 on the PHB2 or whatever, "No. You may not play your Goliath Warden. Those things don't fit in my campaign."

Having variety available to good.  Options almost always are.  But as options, any element -- whether Core or "core" -- is subject to inclusion or exclusion by the DM.

As a side question, what if a _player_ doesn't want a race or class or whatever included because of his/her preferences?


----------



## Mallus (Mar 17, 2009)

Reynard said:


> As a side question, what if a _player_ doesn't want a race or class or whatever included because of his/her preferences?



That player should learn to be accommodating. It makes life, and gaming, easier.


----------



## Kobold Avenger (Mar 17, 2009)

ferratus said:


> I just can't get over the whole  "sure you're descended from ultimate evil who betrayed the gods who provide us succor and seek to enslave us and suck out all of our souls to fuel their war against goodness itself, but you've been our neighbours for awhile now so we know you're good people" backstory for tieflings.   They just shouldn't be common inhabitants of most small towns, with one operating your local general store in Winterhaven.  It really takes the vinegar out of what made tieflings cool in the first place, namely that they're a bad seed.  Seeing tieflings like this reminds me of a death metal fan who has become an accountant.   Sure they might still have the long hair and have blasphemous tattoos under his pressed white shirt, but he's still an accountant.



The PHB describes there being a bunch of aristocratic Tiefling nobles and Tiefling merchant houses.  I don't know about the others of you, but I know some would think about the more negative stereotypes of "Italian (or Chinese or some other ethnic group) Merchant House".  They have a lot of money, they're certainly well-accepted in society, it may be profitable to deal with them, but it certainly carries it's risks.

And I know death metal fans that works at a call center or repairs computers for a living.  Not every death metal fan is unemployed or works in construction.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 17, 2009)

Kask said:


> Wilderlands wasn't a TSR/WotC product.  No more relevant than some DMs house rules.



No, it wasn't published by TSR/WotC, but I think it's a good deal more relevant than a set of house rules.  It demonstrates that strange races have held an appeal in published products for 30 years or so; it's not a new phenomenon or a new development that WotC just invented for 3e.  They're publishing to an existing market, not inventing it.  (Of course, TSR made svirfneblin a playable race, and I think elemental-summoning gnomes are a great deal more bizarre than dragonborn.)

-O


----------



## Dragonbait (Mar 17, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> I've had this problem back since 1st edition.
> Norker?  Why do we need norkers? *snipped for the sake of space*



Agreed, and it's a common complaint amongst many people that has gone on for some time. Eberron was a setting that actually tried to address this and state that there were NO subraces (later books subverted this when they tried to include subraces from Races of Stone/Wild/etc). An elf is and elf. Growing up by a grove does not mutate them into some new subrace. A drow is an elven cousin but no longer just an elf subrace. Of course, some of the most exotic elements of D&D came from Eberron too (warforged, lightning rails, and so on).



Celebrim said:


> I don't think you can really blame WotC for wanting to broaden the palette.  Nothing is more certain than the fact that each of us would consider a very different subset of humanoids to be the 'cool ones'.



WoTC is just the company that makes the game that a lot of people play and (arguably) a lot of other games based their original design off of D&D. That's why they are being blamed. Many think D&D is very limited and unimaginative in their race design. When DDO came out a number of non-table top playing reviewers complained about the race design aside from the Warforged (humans in a funhouse mirror was what several people used) and considered things too bland. They -wanted- the exotic.



Celebrim said:


> not sure that the problem the OP has isn't just with the art of 4th edition.  The art of 4th edition has a very distinctive 'comic book' feel that is very different from the high fantasy artwork of 2e or the primitive looking woodcuts and simple line art of 1e.  I think that the 'comic book' feel unintentionally or not gives 4e a very 'X-Men' style mutant superhero feel.



 This, IMO, started in 3E. It's when the images of the books began to just be of characters, or characters fighting monsters. You no longer saw the environment and rarely saw characters NOT in combat. 4E and Pathfinder just continues the trend.


----------



## La Bete (Mar 17, 2009)

Kask said:


> Actually not.  In 1st/2nd Ed "humanoids" were monsters.  Demi-humans were for PCs...




Bwuh?

Complete Humanoids Handbook
2e TSR product
Provided playable(?) monster races for PCs.
Like Wemics

Not sure what was unclear about that.

Kind regards,


----------



## Kask (Mar 17, 2009)

Obryn said:


> No, it wasn't published by TSR/WotC, but I think it's a good deal more relevant than a set of house rules.




Naw, all kinds of crap was spewed by 3rd party pubs back then. The vast majority of groups didn't use it.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 17, 2009)

Kask said:


> Wilderlands wasn't a TSR/WotC product.  No more relevant than some DMs house rules.




Try Mystara then.  That's certainly a TSR product.  Pretty much all the races he named off above appear there as well.  You got dog people, cat people, flying squirrel people (phanatons), and that's just off the top of my head.

Or, perhaps you are of the opinion that B/E D&D isn't really D&D either?



Reynard said:


> I guess the real question (and this isn't really limited to 4E, by any stretch) is whether the DM is justified in telling the player who just spent $30 on the PHB2 or whatever, "No. You may not play your Goliath Warden. Those things don't fit in my campaign."
> 
> Having variety available to good.  Options almost always are.  But as options, any element -- whether Core or "core" -- is subject to inclusion or exclusion by the DM.
> 
> As a side question, what if a _player_ doesn't want a race or class or whatever included because of his/her preferences?




Not touching this one with a ten foot pole.  I'll just get myself in trouble again.    I'll just leave one thought.  A D&D group is just that.  A GROUP.  A collection of people who (hopefully) are working together to have a good time.  Each group will operate differently under assumptions and agreements both spoken and unspoken that are distinct that group.  Trying to say one way or another whether or not a particular element should always be allowed, or whether the GM or players should always have veto power just doesn't work.  You cannot make such broad generalizations because each group is simply too unique.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Mar 17, 2009)

Kask said:


> I don't have a problem with a player choosing any balanced race. The PC may be lynched and burned at the stake the 1st time they enter a town but that's the players choice not the DMs.




Wait, what?  Did you seriously type that?

I can picture it now.  The DM says, "Sorry your PC got lynched, man, but it's totally not my fault.  I don't control the world or determine how NPCs react or anything like that.  I'm just a channeler, through which the personalities and beliefs of the NPCs flow.  I'm just playing my world, man!  I'm just playing my world in character."

Gah.


----------



## JeffB (Mar 17, 2009)

doctorhook said:


> 3E was at least as bad as 4E is for providing all kinds of "circus freak" races..





This- 

Where is my half fiend/half flumph with a swarm template purple dragon of cormyr mystic theurge?

For my part- I stick to classic D&D races- Not even any half orcs/elves in my homebrews. 

This has always been a problem though in D&D IME- even prior to 1E we always had some "new kid" who wanted to play an Anti Paladin albino "melnibonean", or Samurai Elf or something else equally silly (IMO). They were usually Saturday Morning Martial Arts and BTB Arduin fans as well. I just learned to avoid them over the years


----------



## Mallus (Mar 17, 2009)

Wolfwood2 said:


> Wait, what?  Did you seriously type that?



I think he was trying to be provocative.


----------



## Greg K (Mar 17, 2009)

dmccoy1693 said:


> Hopefully you can find a place there like myself and so many others have.




For this to happen for me, Pathfinder would have to change dramatically from the preview versions. Like 4e, the designers of Pathfinder are heading in the wrong direction for my tastes, but  there might be a few things worth stealing.


----------



## Dragonbait (Mar 17, 2009)

Wolfwood2 said:


> Wait, what?  Did you seriously type that?
> 
> I can picture it now.  The DM says, "Sorry your PC got lynched, man, but it's totally not my fault.  I don't control the world or determine how NPCs react or anything like that.  I'm just a channeler, through which the personalities and beliefs of the NPCs flow.  I'm just playing my world, man!  I'm just playing my world in character."
> 
> Gah.



I've had first hand experience with this. The GM told me to play whatever I wanted before we made characters, too. No restrictions. Y'know.. How DARE I assume that I could play whatever I wanted without any restrictions after he told me that! My character was attacked by merchants and chased off at the very first scene.


----------



## Kask (Mar 17, 2009)

Wolfwood2 said:


> Wait, what?  Did you seriously type that?




Sure, the world exists.  If a player wants to choose a monster race where that race regularly slaughters humans, that's the players decision.  I don't run PCs.  Players do.  PCs act and the world reacts in a realistic (for the setting) way.


----------



## Kask (Mar 17, 2009)

Obryn said:


> In 2e, the Complete Book of Humanoids would tend to disagree with you.




But the 2e DMG would agree with me.  Always be wary of crap books.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 17, 2009)

Kask said:


> If a player wants to choose a monster race where that race regularly slaughters humans...



Wait, don't humans regularly slaughter humans? 



> PCs act and the world reacts in a realistic (for the setting) way.



This is cool so long as you inform the players before the beginning of play, ie orc aren't outcasts or pariah's, they're killed on sight.


----------



## Kask (Mar 17, 2009)

Mallus said:


> This is cool so long as you inform the players what characters who were raised in the setting/region would know ie orc aren't outcasts or pariah's, they're killed on sight.




Absolutely.  It's eyes wide open.  I give players all the general campaign info needed to create characters.  They then make informed choices.  I just don't interfere with PC actions.  Not a DMs job unless I'm running a kiddie game to intro the game.


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Mar 17, 2009)

Hexmage-EN said:


> Guys, guess what! I just found out that Giff are in the PHB3!






> When did Spelljammer become the default game world!




...I am..._aroused_....!! 
_WOOOOT!! _Go go gadget giff!! 

http://www.silverblades-suitcase.com/characters/giff_character1.jpg

Hey, I like giff! 

only problem I have is with this "feralizing feying" of gnomes, bah!!! gnomes have always been mad tinkerers and alchemists in my games!
homebrew setting, most towns have a law making gnome alchemists live outside the walls or away from other buildings, muhaha!


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Mar 17, 2009)

Kask said:


> Sure, the world exists. If a player wants to choose a monster race where that race regularly slaughters humans, that's the players decision. I don't run PCs. Players do. PCs act and the world reacts in a realistic (for the setting) way.




I guess I was too vague before.  How is, "I was just having the world react in a realistic manner," any more of an excuse than that tried-and-true tune, "I was just playing my character,"?

Just as a player shouldn't deliberately design a character that will cause nothing but misery and agggravation for the other player characters, a DM shouldn't build a world that deliberately screws over a PC.  If a particular PC race isn't doable for campaign setting reasons, then it should just be banned.  Letting a player run the character in the first place is saying that it's workable.  Letting a player run a character that you as DM have predetermined will be run off at the first encounter is a waste of everyone's time.

I think it's impolite to waste people's time.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 17, 2009)

Wolfwood2 said:


> Wait, what?  Did you seriously type that?
> 
> I can picture it now.  The DM says, "Sorry your PC got lynched, man, but it's totally not my fault.  I don't control the world or determine how NPCs react or anything like that.  I'm just a channeler, through which the personalities and beliefs of the NPCs flow.  I'm just playing my world, man!  I'm just playing my world in character."
> 
> Gah.




I try to capture a very medieval fantasy feel.  The world is brutal, insular, paranoid, and usually dirty.  The darkest fears brewed up by that brutality, insularity and paranoia of the real pre-modern world (any culture really, not just European), are really incarnated and manifest in the fantasy world so arguably its a more brutal, paranoid, insular, and vile place.

I'll be upfront and tell any player that wants to play a wizard, shaman or sorcerer that ordinary people will be paranoid, intolerant and even outright hostile to them, that they will need to tread carefully and not escalate situations by slinging a bunch of spells every time someone is insulting or threatening to them.  Otherwise, yes, it's very likely that they'll be lucky to be running from a village to avoid being lynched.  Ordinary people tend to deal with the enormous power of wizards by drugging them, trying to murder them in their sleep, and/or burning them at the stake once they are in their power.  They don't like the idea that someone can take control of their mind or call monsters out of thin air or burn whole mobs with a simple gesture.  It scares them and whatever you are scared of you come to hate.  Further, there are whole stretches of the campaign world were wizards and sorcerers are treated as fiends and where officially practicing wizardry or being born a sorcerer carries presumptive death penalty.

And some of those places are even nominally 'good guys' fighting the good fight against darkness and evil.

Likewise, outside of the more cosmopolitan settings I tend to start in, everyone will tend to be high xenophobic to even members of their own race, much less anything wierd looking.  And even if you are in say, Daros or Thyr, if you go walking off into the Dwarf quarter without a Dwarf companion, you better be really personable, polite (and fluent in Dwarfish) or you'll probably end up in at least a fist fight.  And heaven help you if you escalate it to weapons and kill a drawf - the whole community will come down on your head and the local magistrates will probably take their side regardless of who started it.

So, while I'd probably discourage a player from playing anything that would get them killed outright and would probably try to create some sort of haven for the character even so, I somewhat empathize with the poster.  There is no reason to assume that a D&D world is radically more tolerant, accepting, and cosmopolitan than the most tolerant, accepting, and cosmopolitan cultures of this world, and plenty of reason to assume that it wouldn't be.


----------



## Kask (Mar 17, 2009)

Wolfwood2 said:


> a DM shouldn't build a world that deliberately screws over a PC.  If a particular PC race isn't doable for campaign setting reasons, then it should just be banned.




The world is designed to the basic default PC races.  I only ban outright, races that are too powerful.  If a player wants to play something else and they know the possible consequences why ban it?  You make no sense.


----------



## Chainsaw (Mar 17, 2009)

Not particularly crazy about the Mos Eisley Cantina feel either (regardless of how long ago you can find precedent for it), but there's really no use fussing over it - nothing forces me (or any other DM) to use or let my players use odd races. It's pretty easy to make the nontraditional races off limits (Just say NO) unless the players don't mind being attacked (and probably killed) on sight in 99% of towns (if you even let the races exist in the first place). 

Incidentally, I don't really feel like I've wasted money buying a book with them in it. I can always use them as monster races or whatever. I realize not every product can be perfectly tailored to fit my specific needs.


----------



## Akaiku (Mar 17, 2009)

Kask said:


> The world is designed to the basic default PC races.  I only ban outright, races that are too powerful.  If a player wants to play something else and they know the possible consequences why ban it?  You make no sense.




If a race or class they want to play is so contrary to normal play in the campaign you are running as to not be able to meaningfully participate in the story that everyone else is trying to play, that choice becomes non-viable.

"You can, but then you'd die" is, to many people, synonymous with "No, you really can't." To others, they think you are exaggerating, as just dieing instantly when you get into a common situation isn't fun and they don't believe you mean exactly what you said.


----------



## Kask (Mar 17, 2009)

Akaiku said:


> that choice becomes non-viable.




That's up to the individual player to decide, maybe they want the challenge.  I run run a world centric game.  If a PC jumps off a cliff, they fall.  I don't ban cliff jumping in the game just because it is "non-viable".  LOL


----------



## kenmarable (Mar 17, 2009)

Runestar said:


> I must be an anomaly here. I am actually sick of the core PHB races after so many years that I cannot picture myself ever playing an elf, dwarf, halfling or gnome ever again. So I actually prefer to select exotic races to play for the unique gaming experience.



Definitely! For example, I haven't had any interest in playing a human for about 3 editions now.


Obryn said:


> In 1e, absolutely.
> 
> In 2e, the Complete Book of Humanoids would tend to disagree with you.
> 
> -O



That book (along with the 3e Savage Species) were among my most used. In 1e, I just made up my own weird races.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 17, 2009)

Kask said:


> Naw, all kinds of crap was spewed by 3rd party pubs back then. The vast majority of groups didn't use it.






Kask said:


> But the 2e DMG would agree with me.  Always be wary of crap books.



So um...  lemme see if I got you here.  Your argument has stopped being about what TSR did/didn't publish, and now you're just declaring evidence counter to your point "crap"* and saying we need to disregard it.

I <3 moving goalposts!

Going back to my point, let's look at the most popular published settings from the early days of gaming.  I think you'd be hard pressed to find ones with a bigger fanbase than Wilderlands/CSIO and Empire of the Petal Throne.  Both are weird (with the latter kind of burying the needle for weird PC races).  Both are, at their core, science fantasy.  Both have withstood the tests of time and remain popular today, third party or not, which kind of contradicts your assertion that they are "crap."

Bizarre fantasy is not a new thing.  In fact, I think it would be very fair to say that sharp distinctions between sci-fi and fantasy are a rather _new_ phenomenon, at least when it comes to D&D.  (See, for example, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks.)

-O

*And, amusingly, calling the CBoH crap while praising the 2e DMG.


----------



## Rechan (Mar 17, 2009)

Runestar said:


> I must be an anomaly here. I am actually sick of the core PHB races after so many years that I cannot picture myself ever playing an elf, dwarf, halfling or gnome ever again. So I actually prefer to select exotic races to play for the unique gaming experience.



This, a thousand times.

I much prefer the Babylon 5 approach, where the Human is rare-ish, and at best the odd-man out. 

But then, I want to run a game where there are no dwarves, halflings, or elves. There's fey races that are _fey_, there are shifters and warforged and insect-people in their place.


----------



## EricNoah (Mar 17, 2009)

Book like this is a list of ingredients.  No need to use them all in each dish you create.


----------



## Kask (Mar 17, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Going back to my point, let's look at the most popular published settings from the early days of gaming.  I think you'd be hard pressed to find ones with a bigger fanbase than Wilderlands/CSIO and Empire of the Petal Throne.  Both are weird (with the latter





I was in college at the time and worked in a game shop.  Wilderlands had almost no sales.  Greyhawk out sold it at least 100:1.  So, no it wasn't popular.  Empire of the Petal Throne was not a D&D setting so I don't know why you mention it, might as well compare the 3rd Imperium setting.


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Mar 17, 2009)

I actually like playing Humans because they are boringly normal, as a race, actually 
the character can therefor be much more fun!

I love history...so I _don't _like grimy, xenophobic, nasty, squalid real historical Europe etc. ick!!
ok in some areas/settings though, but not for lot of my homebrew


----------



## Greg K (Mar 17, 2009)

Kask said:


> Naw, all kinds of crap was spewed by 3rd party pubs back then. The vast majority of groups didn't use it.





Of course, all kinds of crap was spewed by WOTC and TSR.  Complaints followed from many DMs about the number of supplements and how various elements broke their game.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 17, 2009)

Kask said:


> I was in college at the time and worked in a game shop.  Wilderlands had almost no sales.  Greyhawk out sold it at least 100:1.  So, no it wasn't popular.  Empire of the Petal Throne was not a D&D setting so I don't know why you mention it, might as well compare the 3rd Imperium setting.



Hey, you were the one who wanted to use "published by TSR/WotC" as a metric, which EPT absolutely was.  And seriously, it was an OD&D variant no matter how you dress it up.

As for Greyhawk, I have no doubt it sold well.  But it, too, had more than its share of weirdness.  Come on - barrier peaks?  Also, since much of the Wilderlands material had been around for a few years before the first Greyhawk setting material was published, I don't think you're making an apples to apples comparison.

Finally, I think it's disingenous to use PC races as the main "weirdness" metric in a fantasy setting.  No 3e race is anywhere near as bizarre as a gelatinous cube.  Or a Lurker Above.  Or a cloaker.  Or a beholder, for that matter.  (And once we get into Fiend Folio, all of those look positively sensible.)

-O


----------



## Kask (Mar 17, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Finally, I think it's disingenous to use PC races as the main "weirdness" metric in a fantasy setting.  No 3e race is anywhere near as bizarre as a gelatinous cube.  Or a Lurker Above.  Or a cloaker.  Or a beholder, for that matter.  (And once we get into Fiend Folio, all of those look positively sensible.)




Umm, none of these are PC races, they are monsters.  Other than that good point. ROFL


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 17, 2009)

Kask said:


> But the 2e DMG would agree with me.  Always be wary of crap books.




You DO realize the second sentence cancels out the first, right?


----------



## Kask (Mar 17, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> You DO realize the second sentence cancels out the first, right?





Umm, no.  Two different subjects.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 17, 2009)

Kask said:


> Umm, none of these are PC races, they are monsters.  Other than that good point. ROFL



...which would be why I prefaced this statement with...



			
				me said:
			
		

> I think it's disingenous to use PC races as the main "weirdness" metric in a fantasy setting.




-O


----------



## Kask (Mar 17, 2009)

Obryn said:


> ...which would be why I prefaced this statement




Weirdness from the GM/player perspective.  Building a credible world around a few related races is much better and more believable than trying to cram "weird" PC races into the mix.  You can read more on the subject from the creator of the game.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Mar 17, 2009)

The creator of the game would have told you that you are the master of your campaign and can include what you see fit. "Credible" is in the eye of the beholder, in this case the DM - and a wise DM is on a level with his players in regards to the tone of his campaign.

Additionally, this thread smells of regeneration.


----------



## Rechan (Mar 17, 2009)

In my experience, people pick the race they play based on the mechanical benefits; Elves and Dwarves are always picked to play classes that need Wisdom, etc.

So, I feel taht if you took out elves and dwarves, and dropped in Shifters and Deva, that it wouldn't impact the game at all. 


If your concern is "There are too many PC races in my campaign world!", I liked a suggestion someone here on the forums had:

Offer all the races as an option at character creation. Once the players have picked their races... those are it. 

So if they picked Humans, Tieflings and Halflings, then those three PC races are the only races that exist in the setting. Anyone wants to play anything else, they are considered "One of a kind" as far as rarity's sake.


----------



## Shadowsong666 (Mar 17, 2009)

Mad Zagyg said:


> I just threw up all over page 7 of the PHB2.
> 
> It looks like a terrible space fantasy for little kids! The whole game store I was at tonight was laughing hysterically at it!
> 
> ...




Well, i simply don't get your point. Looking at the picture i see influences of different cultures and times, so whats the problem with it?

But hey, as my gaming group features a dwarven battlerager, a elven archer, an genasi wizard, a dragonborn paladin, a gnoll warlock and a wemic cleric i may just not be so picky about races. 

All that counts is how the DM is able to put the stuff together and i am really glad that we get more and more official choices for our characters as players and for our npcs as DMs. If your DM is not able to translate it into a nice fantasy setting its your wasted time and not mine. Think i just try to have an open mind about new stuff.

I really like the new fresh art of WoTC (but hell, i like many old things too) in the 4e books. The art of the deva may take some time for some people to get used to, but i simply love it.

Great work WoTC.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Mar 17, 2009)

Kask said:


> Weirdness from the GM/player perspective.  Building a credible world around a few related races is much better and more believable than trying to cram "weird" PC races into the mix.  You can read more on the subject from the creator of the game.




Yeah, I kind of feel the same way. Suppose you design a campaign world so that it will have a particular sort of atmosphere to it. That may just not be compatible with the way the game designers have visualized certain races. You can reimagine them, but there is more work involved in communicating that to your players, who are likely to be more familiar with the 'default' way they are envisaged. 

Plus you'll always have those players wandering in and out of most campaigns who aren't all that familiar with the world and show up with 'joe the deva' or whatever. It isn't the end of the world, but sometimes it does kind of put a dent in the setting.

The problem with just banning certain races is twofold. One is that the game actually kind of depends on those races existing. That was not true in earlier editions, but in 4e there are just a lot of classes and builds that work a LOT better with dragonborn, and if you don't happen to want to include that race in the campaign setting, then it does have some impact on play. 

Secondly you WILL get player pushback. Players usually don't really care so much about atmosphere. They're busy worrying about hitting things and getting from here to there. Unless the setting is REALLY extraordinarily in your face players are just going to basically be like "yeah, so what your world has intelligent plants instead of Tieflings, I want to play a Tiefling Warlock!" What are you going to say? 

Not that I'm complaining about having more races, it would be ridiculous to imagine WotC designing their system around what I want in my campaign. 

In the end if you want things to be just exactly so, then write your own setting appropriate RPG. Otherwise you gotta take what you get.

Oh, and I entirely concur, the definition of Demi-Human in 1e was "player character race" and things that were not were Humanoids. It was always a blurry distinction though and there was never a really precise definition. Then of course 2e splat books included all kinds of "Humanoid" races into the ranks of playable races and it became meaningless, but remember, 2e didn't come out until 1989, that was 14 years after we started playing...


----------



## Kask (Mar 17, 2009)

Keefe the Thief said:


> The creator of the game would have told you that you are the master of your campaign




Actually, the creator of the games said what he had to say about this in the 1st Ed DMG.


----------



## Greg K (Mar 17, 2009)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Plus you'll always have those players wandering in and out of most campaigns who aren't all that familiar with the world and show up with 'joe the deva' or whatever. It isn't the end of the world, but sometimes it does kind of put a dent in the setting.



Don't let them just show up with a character.



> Unless the setting is REALLY extraordinarily in your face players are just going to basically be like "yeah, so what your world has intelligent plants instead of Tieflings, I want to play a Tiefling Warlock!" What are you going to say?




"See the door?  That is the exit. You can choose to play in the setting or use the door."  Actually, my players would show the person the door first.



> In the end if you want things to be just exactly so, then write your own setting appropriate RPG. Otherwise you gotta take what you get.




No. There is no need to create you own rpg.  Create your setting is perflectly viable.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 17, 2009)

Kask said:


> Actually, the creator of the games said what he had to say about this in the 1st Ed DMG.



Actually, the _other_ creator of the game created Blackmoor, so powerful weirdness we have always had with us...


----------



## Nivenus (Mar 17, 2009)

I think alot of people forget that some players genuinely _like_ playing the social outcast who's too tough to mess with anyway. That said, having _any_ race stigmatized needs to be something that's based on player-DM agreement. A DM should be completely upfront about what place each race has in the setting and not sugar coat it nor try to discourage the player. If the player still wants to play the race than it is the DM's responsibility not to deliberately try and kill the player off. Similarly, it is the player's responsibility to accept what she or he signed up for and not complain about their race being mistreated.

Currently, my game has the following:

1 Dwarf
1 Elf
1 Eladrin
1 Gnome
1 Human
2 Tieflings

The last bit sort of informs my point. I made it clear tieflings weren't well liked and would attract suspicion and prejudice. The players were fine with that and, in fact, I think that's part of what attracted them to the race. After all, it wasn't long before it was written into their backstory.

As for the original topic, the only appearance I really have trouble with is the deva's. Not because it isn't cool (it looks pretty good actually) but because it's really, really hard to reconcile with the aasimar (as is the backstory), which is a problem given that, in the setting I'm running (FR) devas _are_ aasimar, as RAW.


----------



## Kask (Mar 17, 2009)

Nivenus said:


> If the player still wants to play the race than it is the DM's responsibility not to deliberately try and kill the player off.




DMs should run the world as it exists.  If a player jumps off a cliff and knows gravity exists, the only job of the DM is roll damage dice and describe what happens, not make an air bag materialize...


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Mar 17, 2009)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> The problem with just banning certain races is twofold. One is that the game actually kind of depends on those races existing. That was not true in earlier editions, but in 4e there are just a lot of classes and builds that work a LOT better with dragonborn, and if you don't happen to want to include that race in the campaign setting, then it does have some impact on play.




This is a pretty weak problem.  There's not a class in the game that doesn't play perfectly fine as a human.  Dropping a few races, or all of them except humans, won't suddenly mean that roles go unfilled and game balance flies out of whack.



> Secondly you WILL get player pushback. Players usually don't really care so much about atmosphere. They're busy worrying about hitting things and getting from here to there. Unless the setting is REALLY extraordinarily in your face players are just going to basically be like "yeah, so what your world has intelligent plants instead of Tieflings, I want to play a Tiefling Warlock!" What are you going to say?




Say no.  Or even just be totally honest and say, "You can play whatever you want, but I will have your PC mobbed and killed in the first NPC encounter and you will have wasted your time creating the character."

Saying yes when you don't really mean yes will lead to way more player pushback than an honest no.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Mar 17, 2009)

Kask said:


> DMs should run the world as it exists. If a player jumps off a cliff and knows gravity exists, the only job of the DM is roll damage dice and describe what happens, not make an air bag materialize...




No, the job of the DM is pause the game and find out why the player thinks having his character jump off a cliff is a good idea.  Either:

A. Some cirumstance has come up where the player believes this is a survivable and intelligent plan.  Perhaps he misunderstood the height of the cliff.  Perhaps he just spent twenty minutes describing his character tying cloth to a wooden frame and believes that his character should be wafting to safety on a glider.

or

B. The player is trying to kill his character.  In that case, there's no need to disoblige him by rolling dice.  Declare the character dead and move on.


----------



## Nivenus (Mar 17, 2009)

Wolfwood2 said:


> No, the job of the DM is pause the game and find out why the player thinks having his character jump off a cliff is a good idea.  Either:
> 
> A. Some cirumstance has come up where the player believes this is a survivable and intelligent plan.  Perhaps he misunderstood the height of the cliff.  Perhaps he just spent twenty minutes describing his character tying cloth to a wooden frame and believes that his character should be wafting to safety on a glider.
> 
> ...




qft

In such a case as the player jumping off a cliff it is clear that either of the two situations is the case. Either the player really has no clue what he or she is doing, in which case it is the DM's responsibility to pull them aside and clue them in, or they're tired of the game and want to kill their character (either in order to give them an exit or a reason to make a new character). A possible third option is they're baiting you. But the two responses listed above are the only reasonable ones.

Playing a smart--- with your players is a quicky way to get them to resent you. It's fine so long as you're actually being clever and entertaining in the process. But killing off players for not doing things exactly the way you'd like them is _not_ good DMing.


----------



## darjr (Mar 17, 2009)

Kask said:


> Actually, the creator of the games said what he had to say about this in the 1st Ed DMG.




That very same guy, in that very same book, also suggested that a great way to play would be to include characters from gamma world. Those PC's would make the Cantina seem like candy land.


----------



## davethegame (Mar 17, 2009)

Kask said:


> DMs should run the world as it exists.  If a player jumps off a cliff and knows gravity exists, the only job of the DM is roll damage dice and describe what happens, not make an air bag materialize...




I don't think the DM _should_ do anything except what he and his group agree on. Maybe in your games your players like it when they pick an unusual race and your townsfolk always try to kill them (and that's fine), but I prefer to run a game where my friends can play the character they want to play (because the race sounds cool, because they have a specific concept in mind that fits a weird race, etc.) without having to deal with being forced to sit out while the rest of the party visits a town. I really don't think there's a "correct" answer here except for what works for your group.


----------



## Reynard (Mar 17, 2009)

Wolfwood2 said:


> This is a pretty weak problem.  There's not a class in the game that doesn't play perfectly fine as a human.  *Dropping a few races, or all of them except humans*, won't suddenly mean that roles go unfilled and game balance flies out of whack.




I might actually be convinced to run 4E if I could do it as an all human, all martial gritty S&S game.


----------



## Chainsaw (Mar 17, 2009)

davethegame said:


> I don't think the DM _should_ do anything except what he and his group agree on.






davethegame said:


> I really don't think there's a "correct" answer here except for what works for your group.




I agree. Some groups are probably comfortable immediately importing previously unestablished races into the campaign. That's fine. Others, like me, maybe we built a campaign around certain parameters that don't include wemics and won't suddenly include them just because the Complete Book of Humanoids came out. 

I think that's the real issue that alot of people have - feeling like they have to disrupt their established setting to include new "core" material that WotC has published. 

Like Dave said, the important thing is to discuss this sort of thing ahead of time, so that when new material comes out, everyone knows what to expect. In my games, we wouldn't be adding stuff just because it's in the new PHB. We might include it next campaign if whoever DM's wants to and can find players willing to play under those circumstances.


----------



## Crothian (Mar 17, 2009)

Of the races in the PHB2 only the Deva is something that I didn't already have as part of my 3e settings.  I think the PHB had slightly more odd races and PHB2 is coming back with some classics be them 3e classics as well as old classics.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 17, 2009)

Kask said:


> Weirdness from the GM/player perspective.  Building a credible world around a few related races is much better and more believable than trying to cram "weird" PC races into the mix.  You can read more on the subject from the creator of the game.



Wait, Gary Gygax created 3e and 4e?

Or are you just arguing that 3e and 4e are both clearly D&D, and that since Gary created AD&D 1e, he also created every subsequent edition through some kind of bizarre transitive property of game design?

I also think your judgment of what does or does not make a game world credible is entirely subjective.  I find, for example, Tekumel to be an insanely well-thought-out and detailed world - despite its bizarre PC races.

I have no beef with folks who like to define their campaigns with very strict parameters.  I do take issue when they assert that (1) this is how D&D is _meant_ to be played, or (2) this is an objectively superior way to play D&D.

-O


----------



## gribble (Mar 17, 2009)

I'm not going to get into the debate about what races are and aren't appropriate in D&D - as far as I'm concerned the PHB2 (and PHB for that matter) races and classes are part of a toolkit that individual DMs (and players) can use to build whatever campaign/world makes sense to them.

But in terms of the picture itself, I really like it, for one simple reason:
It's the only one in the whole book which shows all the new races side by side, and hence the only one to give a good idea of the relative scale of the races. For that reason I think it's fully justified and useful to me at least.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Mar 17, 2009)

Can someone clue me in on where "the townfolk are suspicious and unfriendly towards you, perhaps downright hostile at times" turned into "THE DM IS TRYING TO KILL YOU CONSTANTLY!"

'Cause, uh, I'm not seeing the link.


----------



## The_Fan (Mar 17, 2009)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Can someone clue me in on where "the townfolk are suspicious and unfriendly towards you, perhaps downright hostile at times" turned into "THE DM IS TRYING TO KILL YOU CONSTANTLY!"
> 
> 'Cause, uh, I'm not seeing the link.



I believe that started when someone said that players could play whatever they want, but he would just have the townsfolk lynch any odd races on sight.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 17, 2009)

Henry said:


> HAN SHOT FIRST!



Yeah, but Greedo *drew* first: he was already holding his blaster.


----------



## Jack7 (Mar 17, 2009)

> The fourth is a blue skinned space man with a glowing, spectral pet wolf




Well, folks, I gotta totally different take on all of this. If you can mass Clone the blue space man fast enough then I think we can all agree that the Sith-Sauron Axis is gonna have a very hard time conquering Middle Earth. It'll at least put a kink in their get-along.

On the other hand the Vamporc half-thing sounds like something the Puppeteers will want to definitely steer clear of. And I'm not sure that either Catwoman or the Kzin will care much for that glowing wolf either.

Eventually though I'm hoping my Asteroid Forged Sun Paladin gets a +12 Dragontonguelightsabre, with the detachable hovercraft and adamantimithril multi-tool.

It'll help him compete with the rubber foot Spider Armed Men of Zebulon Nebulax from the Quasar Consortium of Imperial Wizard World.

But if somebody at WOTC will just give my eldritched-upped Time-Warplock dude a Transforming Battlesuit with built in Tiger-growl teleport then I think I can take Orcus in the Ketzel Wardrum Run at under 3.2978631 parsecs.

It's just a theory, but by gum, _*I'll betcha he could do it.*_

(I don't wanna seem like I'm bragging though, so take that for what it is worth.)


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Mar 17, 2009)

ferratus said:


> Gnomes - The gnomes have had a massive reboot, so I guess you can consider them a new race.  I really like the ditching of the tinker baggage and focusing on the trickster aspect with aspect of the 2e forest gnomes, keeping their secrets with illusions.  I'm one of the people who doesn't like the art direction the gnome has taken, but I do like the black eyes and harsh angular features, so I hope some traditional gnomish features (such as beards and large noses) find themselves mixed back in with the current art design in the future.



That's not a reboot, that's just a restatement of what gnomes have always been, outside of Krynn and Mystara. Their Feywild ties are it for reboots, and I'd consider that more just giving them an explicit place in the new cosmology.


----------



## ferratus (Mar 18, 2009)

I got a lot of comments to my post.  I guess I'll just go through the major points:

1) I'm sure there are lots of people who can play dragonborn as a social creatures but I can't really seem to.  I tried, but they just seemed too monstrous to really fit in to really make the "epic romance" style fantasy work.  The shifters and the half-orcs work for me because they are human with a little bit of monstrous edge, while the dragonborn are monsters that walk like humans.  So I feel the "Mos Eisley" problem that the OP referred to, that they work well as an exotic rarity at a cosmopolitan Astral Sea port, but not as your local constable.

2) I can certainly accept tieflings as mandarin masters or secretive merchant princes with a penchant for diabolism.  I can also understand why people would put up with them if their power is deeply entrenched.  In fact, that aura of power, majesty and menace is what makes tieflings cool in the first place.  If you meet your tieflings as shopkeepers in Winterhaven... they stop being so cool, and are far less metal.

3) Gnomes were an elf/dwarf mix in 1e-2e, defaulted to rock gnomes.  The strong emphasis on illusions and fey were there as "forest gnomes" in the complete book of gnomes and halflings, but the default were gem carving pseudo-dwarves.  I think it is a pretty major reboot to make them entirely fey creatures with magical illusions as their primary focus and ditch both the dwarf flavour text and all the stuff 3e imported from Dragonlance.


----------



## Sabathius42 (Mar 18, 2009)

ferratus said:


> 1) I'm sure there are lots of people who can play dragonborn as a social creatures but I can't really seem to.  I tried, but they just seemed too monstrous to really fit in to really make the "epic romance" style fantasy work.  The shifters and the half-orcs work for me because they are human with a little bit of monstrous edge, while the dragonborn are monsters that walk like humans.  So I feel the "Mos Eisley" problem that the OP referred to, that they work well as an exotic rarity at a cosmopolitan Astral Sea port, but not as your local constable.




Does everyone in your game have a romantic subplot?  Wouldn't it be possible to have some other sort of subplot wrapped around a dragonborn?  Heck, even the "Everyone on the planet finds your kind really weird and doesn't like to be around you" can make for an interesting subplot when roleplayed.

I ran a Shadowrun campaign for a brief while back in its 1e days, and a player made an Ork.  I really roleplayed the "people don't like or trust orks" aspect of them and it ended up making the character way more interesting than if I had just treated him as the gruff silent dwarf sitting in the corner of the bar.

DS


----------



## Garthanos (Mar 18, 2009)

Blackrat said:


> I know I'm nitpicking a bit, but when quoting someone it would be nice to make sure you credit the right person. Arthur Clarke, not Asimov.




Damn, memory fails yet again. My apologies go to Mr. Clarke. Knew I should have googled first.... the point still stands even if it happens to also reflect the one on the top of my head. ;-)


----------



## Campbell (Mar 18, 2009)

With any game there's bound to be some material you don't like — that's why banning stuff was invented. I did it all the time when I ran 3e – with bards, druids, Frenzied Berserkers, gnomes, halflings, etc. I hear some people even banned Wizards. It's not that hard. When a player says 'I want to play X' you just say 'No. I don't like X.' It really is that simple.


----------



## broghammerj (Mar 18, 2009)

My only issue is the potential arms race that always occurs with DnD.  Here are X number of new races which are all "different" but equally "balanced" for gameplay.  Eventually you run out of combinations that still work for the game.

This is obviously an entirely different issue but when the rules turn into Mos Eisley some races start becoming stronger than others.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 18, 2009)

> I'm sure there are lots of people who can play dragonborn as a social creatures but I can't really seem to.




The basic problem I have with wierd PC races is that they are basically unroleplayable.

They are all just humans that look wierd.

The thing with elves and drawves is that even if they are just humans that look wierd, at least I have centuries of mythic tradition backing them up, generally look like humans, the probable real life inspirations behind the myth are walking around, and reams of fantasy exists on the question 'what makes an elf/dwarf' tick that is distinctly not-human.

Heck, even something like 'Star Trek' has its Elves (Vulcans), Orcs (Old Klingons), Dwarves (New Klingons), and Drow (Romulans) tapping into the archetypes.  (Throw in Ferengi as goblins, maybe)

And even something like Warforged I can get.  (Speaking of embracing the science fiction fully...)

But Dragonborn?  No clue.  

If all the personalities of a race are well within human norms, at least make them look human.  If there is one interesting facet of the creation within my imagination to grasp, I'm willing to explore it but its going to have to be something interesting and not 'lays eggs' or 'breaths fire' or 'not nice'.  It's going to need to be something like genderless, immortal, the whole race is subtly insane, emotionless, born with racial memories, hive minds, or something.  That's a racial concept that might be interesting to explore.

Dragonborn?  No clue.  Don't know how to use them.  Don't know what role they'd fit in a story.  Don't know how to imagine being one.  Not sure that I'd enjoy imagining being one if I knew how.  Maybe what I need is out there somewhere, but the problem is that as a race with no mythic connections really, its entirely dependent on the fluff provided by the game designer to make it interesting.  Generally, I haven't found that working.  You'd need 30 pages or so just to flesh the culture out a bit.


----------



## Nivenus (Mar 18, 2009)

I think you're assuming those "mythic" traditions are far older than they are.

Before Tolkein revised dwarves for the purpose of his universe, dwarves were more commonly seen as greedy tricksters and craftsmen. More like duergar than stereotypical "honorable brawlers." Elves were elfs (no v) and were dangerous adversaries, beautiful but intensely inhuman and unknowable. They were also, very commonly, _not nice_, to the point that a millennium ago they were considered, in popular medieval folklore, a variant of demon.

Gnomes have no strong archetype, given that they're really a composition of various European creatures (pixies, brownies, elves, and kobolds to be precise) and halflings didn't even exist. And no, leperauchans were _not_ halflings. If anything, they were gnomes.

Not to mention that, while the word "orc" comes from an old Saxon word for "monster," the modern image of orcs did not originate until Tolkein come along. And even at that point orcs were far different, being the twisted reflection of elves rather than the beastial sub-humans they were portrayed as in classic fantasy after Tolkein or the honorable shamans they've been increasingly seen as since the advent of Warcraft III's new rendition of them.

D&D's races are not based on "ancient and inviolable" traditions. They're just _not_. There are analogies, yes. But, for the most part, give the designers their due. They pretty much invented the races, just using old names.

In all fairness, the designers for 4e are doing the same sort of thing. Dragonborn? Reptilian/draconic humanoids have been in a surge of popularity for some time now. Same goes for lycanthropic creatures (shifters). They may not have been popular in the 70s when D&D was first made, but take a brief look at modern CRPGs or anime and you'll see that they are now. As are vampires, of course, which almost makes me wonder why they didn't save the dhampyr rules for the PHB2 for added attention.

And while immortal incarnations of good aren't exactly all that popular, devas, like elves or dwarves, draw on hints of an ancient tradition through their name and basic description, but they're really quite different in the flesh.

That's not to say I don't have my problems with 4e creature design from time to time. I'm not sure, for instance, how devas = aasimar and I can't help but think that the new half-orc origin is unnecessary but saying that the new 4e PC races are somehow breaking in on an ancient traditions is simply wrong. It just is. There's nothing particularly ancient about any of the PC races.

Well... I suppose there is one exception. _Humans_.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 18, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> Dragonborn?  No clue.  Don't know how to use them.  Don't know what role they'd fit in a story.  Don't know how to imagine being one.  Not sure that I'd enjoy imagining being one if I knew how.  Maybe what I need is out there somewhere, but the problem is that as a race with no mythic connections really, its entirely dependent on the fluff provided by the game designer to make it interesting.  Generally, I haven't found that working.  You'd need 30 pages or so just to flesh the culture out a bit.



I'll have to disagree with you, but will specifically quote this bit.

I don't think mythic connections make a race easier to role-play, unless you're equating "myth" with "Tolkien."  Elves in D&D aren't elves in folklore.  Dwarves in D&D are _particularly _not dwarves in folklore.  Both races - and hobbits - more or less reached their D&D incarnations in Tolkien's works.  While you can certainly find D&Dish elves and dwarves in folklore, you will find a whole lot of other _non-D&Dish_ elves and dwarves, too.

Also, unless you're going to pull some Campbell or Jung on me and vastly disappoint me, not everyone is aware of this folklore.

You compared various star trek races to elves/dwarves/etc...  Now, I'm quite unfamiliar with Star Trek in general, but it seems to me that you're saying there's nothing special about how a race _looks_, so long as it acts in a stereotypical way.  Does this mean I can make all my dragonborn act "orcish" and suddenly they become archetypally valid?  Or that I can make all my tieflings act "elven" and we're good?


In short, I don't see your argument.  Elves and dwarves are every bit as dependent on game-designer fluff as dragonborn, tieflings, t'skrang, and obsidimen.  And yes, all of them basically act like huge stereotypes.  Still, I don't think "dwarves drink and love their beards" is innately any easier than "dragonborn prize their honor and love combat."

-O


----------



## Garthanos (Mar 18, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> Dragonborn?  No clue.  Don't know how to use them.  Don't know what role they'd fit in a story.




I am mangling all the races to suit my perceptions yes even humans... Dragonborn become just more fodder for the grinder

Bet they are fully fleshed out in the novels WOTC is producing, just bought one titled Swordmage. And there will undoubtably be more material about Dragonborn.

I seen a use where DB in a custom 4e setting they looked like humans with the Arogant noble stereotype.. dripping off them and shifted/polymorphed to show there true form inorder to use there race powers... it was presented well.(full culture feel)

As for the other races... 

I found way back i resented the divergences from Tolkien (hobbits - halflings do not have any other real heritage and D&D Elves were short fragile versions but otherwise almost identical to tolkeins it was distasteful) So I have always mangled the official races to something different no not Tolkein.. I gave them a number of twists (some science fiction like..) and the legend similarities are cosmetic.  

I am much happier with humans in the D&D 4e... gnomes are garden fairies not heroics I miss them not even when they show up in the new phb. I am not that interested in the robot pc... dont want to play "data" 

Species relations are way too PC for my blood, but then again if you think about it racial animosity is ugly as hell in real life... guess it doesnt fit in with the points of light world. .. its one of the darker spots of a splotchy dismal reality in which the points of light are just individuals.

But I/we certainly dont have to play that exact world unless our imaginations fail us.


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Mar 18, 2009)

Reynard said:


> I might actually be convinced to run 4E if I could do it as an all human, all martial gritty S&S game.




I always say the same about AD&D. 

*Runs away*


----------



## CPT PLAYDOH (Mar 18, 2009)

Jack7 said:


> Well, folks, I gotta totally different take on all of this. If you can mass Clone the blue space man fast enough then I think we can all agree that the Sith-Sauron Axis is gonna have a very hard time conquering Middle Earth. It'll at least put a kink in their get-along.
> 
> On the other hand the Vamporc half-thing sounds like something the Puppeteers will want to definitely steer clear of. And I'm not sure that either Catwoman or the Kzin will care much for that glowing wolf either.
> 
> ...





Nicely stated and great classic Sci-fi references. 4e is superhero fantasy miniatures with a splash of role-playing tacked on to it. It is not necessarily a bad game, but it looks very different tham the D&D I grew up with. I don't like it, but others are welcome to play what they like. It is a game after all!


----------



## CPT PLAYDOH (Mar 18, 2009)

Campbell said:


> With any game there's bound to be some material you don't like — that's why banning stuff was invented. I did it all the time when I ran 3e – with bards, druids, Frenzied Berserkers, gnomes, halflings, etc. I hear some people even banned Wizards. It's not that hard. When a player says 'I want to play X' you just say 'No. I don't like X.' It really is that simple.




Thats why I kick it old school, still playing AD&D or C&C. I am the Dm and I am spinning the setting for the players. There are too many rules in 3e and (probably) 4e (haven't read it). The players are going to argue regulations with you and you get tied up in the rules. It is good to see Campbell keeping it real as a DM.


----------



## Scott_Rouse (Mar 18, 2009)

So are you saying this book should make as much money as Epidsode IV: A New Hope and will give generations of fans years of enjoyment?

Awesome!


Han barfed first


----------



## Garthanos (Mar 18, 2009)

Nivenus said:


> ...There's nothing particularly ancient about any of the PC races.



Thanks for say that (better explained than I managed) . D&D invokes myth on a shoe string appearances maybe (anthropoid animals are probably old egypt had croc headed gods) , but the elements we think give us roleplaying handles are the modern parts not the ancient ones.


----------



## CubeKnight (Mar 18, 2009)

exile said:


> This thread made me look through my catalog of 4E characters (all made for the LFR campaign and prior to teh release of PHB2). I'd be curious what other players' character selection looks like.
> 
> Human x 8
> Halfling x 1
> ...



Hmmmm, that I remember, I've played: 2 elves, 1 kobold, 1 goliath, 1 human, 1 shifter.

Tho that is 3.5, I have yet to play 4E, only been DMing so far *sigh*
But I'm itching to play a Genasi Swordmage.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 18, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> So are you saying this book should make as much money as Epidsode IV: A New Hope and will give generations of fans years of enjoyment?t



Scott you better be careful then when, PHB5, 6 and 7 comes out. You better make sure you get my Psionics out before then!

As for the actual conversation in this. I am perfectly fine with out there races. My main complaint is that unless there is some logical reason, ie; they have travelled here from all various realms like Sigil. I prefer there to be some amount of co-history and connection between the races. I dislike it when races just exist within a vacuum of each other. I really like the idea too of all sorts of various races rubbing shoulders with each other in close-proximity thus why I run so many urban campaigns in densely populated, multi-racial cities.

As for how I add races I go with what other people have said. I tell the players to pick the race they want based on stats. Then we together decide their culture, appearance, etc. for the campaign.

Heck my current campaign setting has as far as really out there races:
-Demon Spirit possessing Humans: Their appearance altered substantially in multiple ways from simple things like horns to centaur like insectiod bodies, etc. (This covers a lot of races actually from Tiefling to Dragonborn, etc.)
-Cybernetic bodies brought to life by a Spirit: You can figure out this appearance pretty quickly essentially a cybernetic Warforged kind of appearance.
-Various animals who have become anthropomorphic. This is self explanatory.
-Shape-shifters whose basic appearance is the same as the Doppelganger.

As for myself I usually DM, but the races I have played the majority of the time:
-Gnoll
-Elan
-Tiefling (my most common and appearance has varied wildly)
-Human


----------



## Mallus (Mar 18, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> The basic problem I have with wierd PC races is that they are basically unroleplayable.



Only if you spend more time on problematizing than characterizing. First and foremost they need a limp and few interesting things to say... 



> They are all just humans that look wierd.



Welcome to science fiction and fantasy literature. I hope you enjoy your stay. 

(Really, how many classic SF aliens beat that rap? The only one that comes to mind --and mind you, I haven't had any coffee yet this morning-- is Lem's sentient ocean in Solaris).



> But Dragonborn?  No clue.



Can you characterize a dragon? Start w/that (but make it a biped). This seems like a fairly rudimentary fiction for a fantasy aficionado to create.   

(In our 4e campaign they are a proud race that once ruled a massive Statist bureaucracy w/both Roman and British undercurrents, known for their baroque clockwork technologies, that now spend most of their time living in the stories of the past.)


----------



## Mallus (Mar 18, 2009)

CPT PLAYDOH said:


> 4e is superhero fantasy miniatures with a splash of role-playing tacked on to it.



You should see the way my group plays 4e!

In the second-to-last session the PC's put on a pseudo-Bollywood musical (about the giant boar sow that they started a false religion around), complete with sexy dancers dressed as wraiths, fireworks, and actual combat, both intentional (why use stage combat when the play stars mercenary adventurers?) and not (a wealthy rival playwright hired assassins to infiltrate and disrupt the performance).


----------



## Klaus (Mar 18, 2009)

Scott_Rouse said:


> So are you saying this book should make as much money as Epidsode IV: A New Hope and will give generations of fans years of enjoyment?
> 
> Awesome!
> 
> ...



I think what he means by "PHB2 Races = Mos Eisley Cantina" is that they don't serve droids, either.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 18, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> Dragonborn?  No clue.  Don't know how to use them.  Don't know what role they'd fit in a story.  Don't know how to imagine being one.  Not sure that I'd enjoy imagining being one if I knew how.  Maybe what I need is out there somewhere, but the problem is that as a race with no mythic connections really, its entirely dependent on the fluff provided by the game designer to make it interesting.  Generally, I haven't found that working.  You'd need 30 pages or so just to flesh the culture out a bit.




In a 4e PbP game, I'm playing a dragonborn like the character of Azeem, from "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves", who is fond of cursing "By the sweaty armpits of Tiamat!" 

But the first thing that came to my mind after reading about the dragonborn:


They're samurai from the desert.


Try that.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 18, 2009)

Klaus said:


> In a 4e PbP game, I'm playing a dragonborn like the character of Azeem, from "Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves", who is fond of cursing "By the sweaty armpits of Tiamat!"
> 
> But the first thing that came to my mind after reading about the dragonborn:
> 
> ...




Klingons. They are Klingons.

"Today is a good day to die!"


----------



## Jack7 (Mar 18, 2009)

> First and foremost they need a limp and few interesting things to say..



. 

That gives me an even nuther take on some new races:

If you had a new race that don't talk much and everybody has a gimp then you could use magic to create spear tips that shoot out streams of hot lead with a hearty *"YEE-HAW!"* when they backfire. Otherwise a race like this should mostly be role-played like a cross between Gabby Hayes and Randolph Scott. To get that "classic" feel.

I think such a "new race" should all ride palominos named Honeydewdrop with the _"death-hoof grip"_ just in case a necromancer should show up and decide to try and scalp em for their ten gallon hats, and way a' riding side-saddle. We could call this race the *Horse Riding Dewdrop Men from Nordinium*. Or, you could call em the _*"Honey Rangers"*_ for short. But some will call them the Tar-Mouths cause they mix milkweed and volcanic ash from mount Thundercats to make their chewing tobaccee.

After that I'd also kinda like to see a new race I call the _*Constructo-bots Supreme*_. These would look just like regular folks about 40% of the time but would all wear construction hats and carry around a miniature parrot named "Moondance Firewater" on their shoulders that smokes out black sulfur and nitro-glycerin whenever it wisecracks. But that wouldn't be the real limit of the tricks and powers this new race has, not by a long shot. They would also have mysterious desert inspired and after twilight "Kung-Fu" powers that would make them an excellent balance to the HRHM from Nordinium, so that they would naturally partner-up in a tough fight, one being like the Lone Honey Ranger, the other being like the hardy and reliable Constructo Buster-Bot side-kick. If worse comes to worst then the Cosntructo-bots can also get back on-line almost overnight the entire magical X-ray energy grid of the Kingdom of New Magnesium after a vicious Sorceress storm of miniature mice and men. (*Soylent Green is People, people!!!*) That's their non-combat related role. But in a knock-down drag-out then Constructo-Bot Supremes, or CBSs would mostly ride mechanical lawn chairs with built in chain saws for jousting heads, unless of course they wanted to fly then they could build rocketships made out of quick-glued colonies of hoppin Pernicons and powered by Lord Alsteron's Rainbow-bridge dust. Constructo-Bot Supremes tend to worship Bruce Campbell, or sometimes a local engineering student named Wilbert who has won the country fair prize for the tri-state Lego Challenge on at least three consecutive occasions.

I'm gonna suggest to WOTC that they look carefully at my ideas for the _*Dungeons and Dragonmens from Mars Player's Handbook XXI*_, or at least credit me for the Bruce Campbell reference.

_Let's keep at this folks til the Man has to listen to the people!!!_
*We can take back this game for the future!*


----------



## ferratus (Mar 18, 2009)

I've been thinking about the "Mos Eisley" problem some more.  While he was unnecessarily insulting, he was talking about was the dial of "exotica" in your high/low fantasy.  If what you are going for is a fairly standard medieval Tolkien inspired world that doesn't really adopt all the implications of D&D magic and alternate planes then there is probably less tolerance for really exotic characters.  A place like Sigil or Ebberon's Sharn in contrast, would be less interesting without the exotic races.

If I was to divide it up for my own campaign world I think I would do it this way:

Common races - races you could expect to see in an average village among the various lower classes.  They have flavour which suits an everyday industrious existence.  You can expect to find them as peasants or artisans and largely don't disrupt the local bourgeois order.  Their flavour largely resembles that of everyday medieval life.

Humans 
Halflings
Dwarves
Half-Elves
Half-Orcs

Uncommon Races - These races have flavour text which places them on the fringes of human life by being wild or fey.  Shifters are far easier to imagine as the trapper that drifts in and out of town than as a peasant tilling the land.   You don't tell stories about the leprechaun or brownie who is your next door neighbour, but the creatures you can find if you look closely at the hidden places of the world.  They can be encountered by everyday people, but you might go your whole life without seeing one.

Gnomes
Elves 
Shifters
Goliaths

Rare Races - These races seem by their very nature to evoke superhuman or supernatural power.  Introducing a race that can step into an alternate dimension, is half dragon, or is evocative of the divine or ultimate damnation seems like it should be outside of the realm of everyday experience in a traditional D&D setting.   This is why the Tiefling shopkeeper was so jarring for me.

Eladrin
Dragonborn
Tieflings
Devas


----------



## Kask (Mar 18, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Wait, Gary Gygax created 3e and 4e?




He created D&D which remained fairly consistent in architecture until 3.  4.0 isn't D&D except in name.


----------



## kenmarable (Mar 18, 2009)

Kask said:


> He created D&D which remained fairly consistent in architecture until 3.  4.0 isn't D&D except in name.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQn99s0dq60]Can of Worms[/ame]

That line of argument is just going to lead to thread locks and mod warnings. Just FYI.


----------



## Chainsaw (Mar 18, 2009)

Kask said:


> 4.0 isn't D&D except in name.




Tell us what you really think, haha! More seriously, I played ALOT of 2E growing up, took a looooooooong break, and started playing again in a weekly 4E LFR campaign (last two months). It's fun, but I agree definitely feels different from 2E. Some things I like more, some things I like less. Anyway, I'm just happy to be playing and, frankly, I worry that without a company as well funded as WotC marketing new editions, the game might slowly dry up or something. I'm sure there have been a billion threads about this, so I'm not trying to start one or derail this one. Just saying that I'm willing to accep the changes for the sake of the hobby. Plus, I have all my old stuff. I can always play it when I want, either making up stuff or converting 4E stuff. It's all good.


----------



## Kask (Mar 18, 2009)

Chainsaw said:


> Tell us what you really think, haha! More seriously, I played ALOT of 2E growing up, took a looooooooong break, and started playing again in a weekly 4E LFR campaign (last two months). It's fun, but I agree definitely feels different from 2E. Some things I like more, some things I like less.




4.0 is a good game system.  If someone else had published it without the copyrighted names, no one would recognize it as D&D though.


----------



## Chainsaw (Mar 18, 2009)

Kask said:


> If someone else had published it without the copyrighted names, no one would recognize it as D&D though.




Maybe, I guess it depends on whom you ask. Asking people around here what "D&D" is leads to a 3498573498579487 page thread because everyone's come into the game at different times in the game's evolution, uses different degrees of house rules, has different degrees of combat/noncombat challenges and and has different ideas of how much fantasy/sci-fi/etc is appropriate. 

Honestly, I'm absolutely NOT 100% totaly sold on 4E myself, so I'm probably not the right person to take the contra side of your argument, heh. If I could choose between a 2E and a 4E campaign, I'd pick 2E, but when faced with 4E or nothing, I pick 4E. Ultimately, I'm happy the industry still has corporate support (ducks), even if it results in things changing a bit. 

Anyway, if I'm still saying something that doesn't sit well, we should probably just pick up in personal messaging.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Mar 18, 2009)

Kask said:


> 4.0 is a good game system. If someone else had published it without the copyrighted names, no one would recognize it as D&D though.




Couldn't the same thing be said about 3e?


----------



## Keefe the Thief (Mar 18, 2009)

Saint Diaglo preserve me, where is my fireproof suit? *dons vestment*

I can already see a certain poster coming into the thread and saying his usual "and if they would have published Rolemaster with the words D&D on the cover, would that make it D&D?"

Now, there was this topic about exotic races we were talking about. Please note that if you do not think 4e is D&D, arguing about exotic races in D&D in this thread is more than pointless, because, uh, its about PHB2 and 4e.


----------



## Kask (Mar 18, 2009)

WalterKovacs said:


> Couldn't the same thing be said about 3e?





No, still had the same spells mechanically, Vancian magic system, classes functioning basically the same way, etc...


----------



## Obryn (Mar 18, 2009)

Kask said:


> He created D&D which remained fairly consistent in architecture until 3.  4.0 isn't D&D except in name.



So then, when you were talking about the advice in the 1e DMG regarding monstrous characters, and bemoaning the fact that it's no longer being followed, your complaint is actually only leveled against 3e?  Because if 4e is only D&D in name only, why should it matter what Gary said in the 1e DMG?

You're making an incoherent argument.

-O


----------



## Doctor Proctor (Mar 18, 2009)

There seems to be quite a few misunderstandings here about the commonality of various races in the D&D world.

Take Tieflings, for example.



> PHB p48
> Heirs to an ancient, infernal bloodline, tieflings have
> no realms of their own but instead live within human
> kingdoms and cities. They are descended from human
> ...




So from this blurb we learn that they often live in human cities, and would therefore be found in places like Winterhaven.  We also learn that they have _NOT_ been totally forgiven for the sins of the past, and in fact many are still feared and resented.



> PHB p49
> Tieflings are not numerous. Sometimes a tiefling
> merchant clan that is descended from a Bael Turath
> dynasty settles as a group in a land where wealth can
> ...




So while they're not _numerous_ in the world, they are around.  Some of the more reputable ones set up merchant clans...perhaps that's why there's a Tiefling shopkeeping in Winterhaven?  The rest often live in human cities and many turn to crime.  This doesn't seem to match with the idea of the common Tieflings that are treated as "good" people now.  If that's what's happening in your campaign, that's something the DM is allowing to happen, it's not actually the fluff for the race.

You'll see the same thing when looking at Dragonborns.  Again, they're not as common as some of the other races, but they built a great empire that was a beacon of civilization in it's time.  They were nobles, aristocrats, or Samurai from the Desert if you prefer.  

In the DDI article, Ecology of the Dragonborn, it goes into further detail about them.



> Dragon 365 p14
> Most present-day dragonborn are integrated into mixed societies and are living in lands they cannot claim as their own. A few clans, as well as many
> individuals, roam in search of worthy causes, or simple wealth and personal glory.




So again, they're often found in mixed societies since they have no homeland anymore.  Even if there's not a local clan living within a city, they've probably seen a few Dragonborn in their time since many are nomadic wanderers.  They're hardly so rare that the majority of people have gone their entire life without seeing one.

Now, I haven't looking in depth at the fluff for the PHB II races yet, but I'm assuming that they give similar explanations as to where they live and how easily encountered they are.  Even if the case is that they're extremely rare, having multiple exotic races in a party full of epic heroes is not really that strange.  Considering that it's most likely that they last guys to take on the Orc Chieftan and his stable of Goblin soldiers were probably a bunch of humans, it's not actually that wierd that the people would seek help from a party of adventurers with a fire breathing Dragonborn, a teleporting Eladrin or towering Goliath.  They might not trust them a lot, but it's hardly something that should break the 4th wall so to speak...unless you're doing some custom campaign where these races are super rare, yet all present in a party.  In which case, that's a DM issue, not a PHB one.


----------



## Starbuck_II (Mar 18, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> Heck, even something like 'Star Trek' has its Elves (Vulcans), Orcs (Old Klingons), Dwarves (New Klingons), and Drow (Romulans) tapping into the archetypes. (Throw in Ferengi as goblins, maybe)
> 
> But Dragonborn? No clue.
> 
> Dragonborn? No clue. Don't know how to use them. Don't know what role they'd fit in a story. Don't know how to imagine being one. Not sure that I'd enjoy imagining being one if I knew how. Maybe what I need is out there somewhere, but the problem is that as a race with no mythic connections really, its entirely dependent on the fluff provided by the game designer to make it interesting. Generally, I haven't found that working. You'd need 30 pages or so just to flesh the culture out a bit.




That is because Dwarves in your mind stole the PHB 1 in 4E's Dragonborn flavor text: I mean do you realize how Klingons like Dragonborn text is?


----------



## Barastrondo (Mar 18, 2009)

You know what threads like this make me think of? It's kind of an old fantasy cliche, particularly in works where the protagonist is a person from our world who's transferred into a fantasy world. (Also in science fiction; I'm thinking, say, Last Starfighter here.) 

So you have the protagonist entering into a fantasy world, and he or she spends a lot of initial time gawking. Maybe stopping to stare as someone Not Human walks past in the street, maybe saying "What are you?" in an incredulous tone to someone Not Human, perhaps someone who's just gone out of their way to lend assistance. Sometimes, if you're the kind of kid I was, you get frustrated with the protagonist having such a hard time coping with things that look different, particularly if you've devoured a lot of works in which this behavior takes place. In the meantime, everyone else in the fantasy world also basically looks cooler and more sophisticated than the protagonist, because they're used to a definition of "cosmopolitan" that includes non-humans. 

To refer back to the Mos Eisley example, one of the things that makes Luke more sympathetic is that he doesn't act like this. He doesn't marvel at every alien race at the cantina that isn't a pink-skinned primate. He doesn't ask Chewbacca "Wow, what are you?" 

That's the play style difference I think threads like this illustrate. Some of us like the idea of a dragon-guy or a werewolf-chick receiving a lot of goggle-eyed "What the heck is that?" responses.* Others like the idea of human types defaulting to a Han Solo archetype, who can hang with inhuman co-pilots and think nothing of dealing with an inhuman bounty hunter. The best thing about having a bunch of races is that you can even do both: have societies where dragonborn and half-orcs are well-integrated, but shifters have to conceal themselves due to the role lycanthropes play in the world. 

I'll admit, though, that I'm posting from the perspective of someone who likes the ramifications of truly mixed demographics. Sometimes it's just more fun to try figuring out what giant sapient beetles would serve for dinner if they had humanoid guests, or what sort of transport you could buy from a lizardman teamster, without having to go through the requisite period of "What do you mean they're not monsters?"



*I think it is substantially less cool, however, to get all "I'm gonna punish the player for picking a race I don't like by having the world treat him like crap!" on a player. It so frequently comes across as using your favorite civilizations like grudge monsters, probably because it so frequently is exactly that.


----------



## Jack7 (Mar 18, 2009)

I don't know. The disagreements I see developing here are all a little too convenient for my tastes.

What about all of the exotic creatures in the 7.6890329 Interspatial Virtual Time-Net Version that they play on Calamari Seven? You know like the Walking Cat-Dog-Squirrel-Snake-Man Centaur Hybrid of the Ancient Arch Druidical Clover-Leaf Consortium that can spit Medusa hair at shaved-naked Ettins, and give green feywild tan boogers the Evil Eye as a universal racial attribute? _With a +6 at first level as a basic bonus even without winning initiative?_* I don't think so!* 

You don't hear anybody complaining about that though, _*now do ya?*_  

I think this is all a thinly veiled effort by the mythical and cunning Co-bald Confederacy to ruin Magical Game Harmony between the United Amalgamated Fantasy Racial Purist League(s) and the newly revamped Racial Clone Progressive Experimentation Alliance. (By the way, I think the RCPEA got shafted at the Spacely Sprockets 301st Annual bowling tournament, back in 2917, and I'm not just trying to rub salt into an old wound either. I'm serious.)

Anyways, I say, _"follow the money folks."_
When in doubt, a_*lways follow the money.*_ 

If we don't watch out then we're all gonna end up just another set of THACO statistics for certain individuals who shall remain nameless, but would just love to see this kind of in-fighting in the broader Fanto-Sci-fi-Action-Detective-Mystery League.

We need Unity on this one people, not more, _"well, I think the game is more about pirate ships with advanced deflector screens, than drow with built in old school Terminator cyborg kill-bot parts."_

Can't we all just agree that sometimes a Rheingold dwarf is really just a beardless blue anti-gravity space man riding a red and yellow eyed spectral beaver-wolf across the vacuum packed Sea of Infinite possibilities?


----------



## Obryn (Mar 18, 2009)

Jack7 said:


> I don't know. The disagreements I see developing here are all a little too convenient for my tastes.
> 
> What about all of the exotic creatures in the 7.6890329 Interspatial Virtual Time-Net Version that they play on Calamari Seven? You know like the Walking Cat-Dog-Squirrel-Snake-Man Centaur Hybrid of the Ancient Arch Druidical Clover-Leaf Consortium that can spit Medusa hair at shaved-naked Ettins, and give green feywild tan boogers the Evil Eye as a universal racial attribute? _With a +6 at first level as a basic bonus even without winning initiative?_* I don't think so!*
> 
> ...



I get the sense that this post was made in the English language, as I recognize the words and letters, at least.

That's about the most I can get out of it, though.

-O


----------



## Doctor Proctor (Mar 18, 2009)

Starbuck_II said:


> That is because Dwarves in your mind stole the PHB 1 in 4E's Dragonborn flavor text: I mean do you realize how Klingons like Dragonborn text is?




Well, to be fair, I don't think either of them really embodies everything about the Klingons, although they mirror certain aspects.  

Dwarves are these stocky, tough, nasty, determined guys.  They're the sort that if they're digging a tunnel and part of it collapses, they'll just pick up their shovel and resume digging.  They won't stop until it's done.

Dragonborn are different though.  They're powerful (the only PHB I race with a bonus to STR) and imposing figures.  They're easily one of the largest of the PC races, and one of the strongest.  They're the type that if they're digging a tunnel and it collapses, they'll just get a bigger shovel.  They'll just apply more power to problem, rather than resolving it through sheer determination.

So yeah, Dwarves embody that aspect of determination about the Klingons in Star Trek, as well as their toughness.  Dragonborn embody their strength and sense of honor being more important than anything else.  They even have clans, which are not unlike the Houses seen in the TNG and later Klingons.


----------



## Jack Colby (Mar 18, 2009)

I agree with the OP, but don't think it's a big deal.  This is a new game, not traditional D&D, and the basis in classic myths and sword & sorcery fiction is long gone.  Yeah, I looked through the Player's Handbook 2... there were maybe one or two races or classes that seemed like things I'd use, so I didn't buy it.  

Even if you did buy it, you're not being forced to use these things.  Take what you want from it and don't use the rest if you're a DM, or don't involve yourself in games where they are prominent if you are a player.

And hey, what's wrong with the Mos Eisley cantina?  It can be interesting to take that approach with a D&D world, just to shake things up a bit.


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Mar 18, 2009)

Hey, Jack7's post is fun! 
Never overlook "fun", and looking at things through a very warped, self depreceating and humorous lens


----------



## Klaus (Mar 18, 2009)

He certainly stepped out of the books for that one!


----------



## Mallus (Mar 18, 2009)

Jack7's post was what Williams S. Burroughs would have written if he were addicted to nerdery instead of opiates.

Note: this is a compliment... I like Burroughs.


----------



## resistor (Mar 18, 2009)

I'm not inherently opposed to the publication of weird-and-interesting PC races (though I don't like them in MY campaign, and didn't in 3e either), I think there's a few differences this time around because of how 4e presents them.

1) Everything Is Core

In 3e, there was a pretty clear picture of what "default" D&D looked like, and it was also pretty clear that later supplements were not "on by default."  The new policy changes this.  It creates an assumption that supplements, particularly PHB2/3/4/12452, is "on by default."  This makes it harder for DMs who want to run campaigns without the weird-and-interesting races, because, the be honest, the further ones game is from the default, the more specialized its audience and the harder it will be to find/retain/train new players.

2)  Deliberate Spreading of Content

To compound the above issue, 4e has deliberately taken a policy of holding some "classic" content in reserve for later versions of the PHB/DMG/MM, in order to ensure more sales.  However, this also creates complications for the DM.  In 3e, a DM who only wanted the traditional basic races could just say "We're only using the PHB1."  Now, that content is (deliberately) spread throughout several books, so the DM has to create a specific list of X and Y are allowed, but Z isn't.  Again, this has the effect, at least psychologically, of removing the game further from the new "default D&D."


----------



## Phaezen (Mar 18, 2009)

resistor said:


> I'm not inherently opposed to the publication of weird-and-interesting PC races (though I don't like them in MY campaign, and didn't in 3e either), I think there's a few differences this time around because of how 4e presents them.
> 
> 1) Everything Is Core
> 
> ...




Query, because I would really like to know.

Is a DM saying race x,y and z and classes f and q are not present in this campaign setting really that much of a dealbreaker to people?

I would not have a problem with this myself, and I have done it as well, although I do try and give my players reasons for not allowing the race or class.  Its not as if  in previous editions DMs might not have allowed psionics in the game.  By default if you are running a homebrew campaign setting you will be deviating from the default setting assumptions.

Phaezen


----------



## Mad Zagyg (Mar 18, 2009)

resistor said:


> I'm not inherently opposed to the publication of weird-and-interesting PC races (though I don't like them in MY campaign, and didn't in 3e either), I think there's a few differences this time around because of how 4e presents them.
> 
> 1) Everything Is Core
> 
> ...




Resistor, you speak in FACTS.

It is much easier to add exotic flavors to a soup than it is to remove them once they are mixed in.


----------



## Kask (Mar 18, 2009)

Mad Zagyg said:


> Resistor, you speak in FACTS.
> 
> It is much easier to add exotic flavors to a soup than it is to remove them once they are mixed in.





True, it also makes it more difficult to create a campaign world that is high quality.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Mar 18, 2009)

Phaezen said:


> Query, because I would really like to know.
> 
> Is a DM saying race x,y and z and classes f and q are not present in this campaign setting really that much of a dealbreaker to people?



I'm sure there are players out there who balk when told they can't use everything in every book that's come out yet, but overall I think it's a bit exaggerated as a problem. I've played in several campaigns where the available options were limited, sometimes pretty sharply ("Only dwarves and gnomes are available as starting races," for example), and nobody complained.


----------



## Lurks-no-More (Mar 18, 2009)

Kask said:


> True, it also makes it more difficult to create a campaign world that is high quality.




Beg your pardon?


----------



## Mournblade94 (Mar 18, 2009)

I don't even like 4e and when I saw that particular piece of art I thought it looked good.

WoTC is doing a good job on appearance if nothing else.


----------



## resistor (Mar 18, 2009)

Phaezen said:


> Is a DM saying race x,y and z and classes f and q are not present in this campaign setting really that much of a dealbreaker to people?




Dealbreaker?  Probably not.  Doesn't me I like it, though.

I think the issue is mostly one of perception.  What do players expect when you say "Want to join our D&D game?"  In 3e, at least, the default assumption was that they used the PHB, and _possibly_ some supplements.  Today, because of the everything-is-core and spreading-of-content policies, the default is shifting to be up-to-date core books, and possibly some supplements.

As to why this is a problem, well, again, it's perceptual.  Most players are looking for whatever the current norm is, so you'll have to look harder to find someone who's interested in your non-norm game.

Beyond that, there's just the feeling on marginalization on the part of those who preferred a more restricted core.  Their preferred style used to be fairly mainstream within the D&D-playing populace, and now it seems to be more marginalized.  And nobody likes feeling like that.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 18, 2009)

Gnome? Half-Orc? Goliath? What's so Mos Eisley about them?
[sblock=That's Mos Eisley]





[/sblock]

If anything, the problem of most of the 4E races is that they are all just humanoids with funny skin colors and pointy ears and unusual body size. We don't have creatures with 

The most alien creature is the Dragonborn, because he has scales. 

---

I feel that there is a lot of worrying about games that are not yours going on here.

Come on, what's the big deal if someone else uses Savage Species to run Mind Flayers alongside Humans, Drow and Tiefling PCs? Or uses PHB II to run Dragonborn alongside Humans, Elves, Devas and so on? 

Is this some kind of badwrongfun thing: "But that's not how _we_ like to play. We don't want a rule system that might make it easy to play the game in any other way but the way I am used to!"

I don't know about other people games, but my experience is that it's very easy for a DM to say "No, I won't allow this race/class/feat/PrC/Paragon Path/Magic Item". Do you really constantly have trouble telling your players no? If that's the case, ever considered the idea that maybe, just maybe, you're running the wrong game for the players you have, and maybe you need either change your game or change your players? 

If you have a group that doesn't like Devas and Dragonborn, don't use them. If you have a group that does like them, use them.
If you have a group with mixed opinions on that, don't use "it's not core" as a lame excuse to say No to someone. Don't use "but it's core" as your lame excuse to say why you HAVE to have your way.
Discuss it and arrive at a fair compromise! Not everyone of us might be an adult, but at some point you gonna have to learn acting like one.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Mar 18, 2009)

You do have to use gnomes, though. That is REQUIRED!


----------



## Gunpowder (Mar 18, 2009)

Lurks-no-More said:


> Beg your pardon?




Tolkien automatically means high quality for him apparently. 
I cant fault him if tolkien fantasy is his favorite but quality is independent of whether he likes it or not.


----------



## Branduil (Mar 18, 2009)

Whizbang Dustyboots said:


> You do have to use gnomes, though. That is REQUIRED!




Well, naturally.

You have to use _something_ to test the catapults, after all.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 18, 2009)

Mad Zagyg said:


> Resistor, you speak in FACTS.
> 
> It is much easier to add exotic flavors to a soup than it is to remove them once they are mixed in.



To a soup, yes.

But we're talking about roleplaying games, here.

And in that media, it's FAR more easy to remove something than to add something. Don't like tieflings? They don't exist in the campaign world. You'll be losing what, 5 pages of the PHB?

The group I'm DMing has
2x humans
1x tiefling
1x dragonborn

The group I play in has
4x humans
1x half-elf
1x dwarf

In the latter, the DM chose, for story reasons, that elves and eladrin were extinct in the world.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 18, 2009)

resistor said:


> 1) Everything Is Core



You see, once again I think there's a problem here with definitions.  Specifically, with conflating two different definitions of "Core."

One interpretation of "core" is basically "these are the books you need in order to play the game."  By this definition, the 4e PHB, DMG, and MM are the "core"

Another, separate definition of core is "this is setting-neutral and can be used in any campaign."  (Or, if you prefer, "this uses the implied setting.")

4e's PHB2 is a core supplement in the same way that 3e's PHB2 is a core supplement - that is, in the second sense, not the first.  It's not core in the sense of a book that's required for play - and neither will be DMG2, MM2, PHB3, and so on.

-O


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Mar 18, 2009)

Mad Zagyg said:


> THIS is Dungeons & Dragons?



Yep.  Tolkien. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.


----------



## Doctor Proctor (Mar 18, 2009)

Klaus said:


> The group I play in has
> 4x humans
> 1x half-elf
> 1x dwarf
> ...




Then how do you have half-elves?


----------



## Scribble (Mar 18, 2009)

Doctor Proctor said:


> Then how do you have half-elves?




Necrophillia?


----------



## Branduil (Mar 18, 2009)

Doctor Proctor said:


> Then how do you have half-elves?




Ever read Jurassic Park?


----------



## Miyaa (Mar 18, 2009)

If I ever DM again, I will remove the concept of the half-race concept for clarity. Now, I'm not sure if I would include the concept of bloodlines, that is you aren't a particular race, but you may have had a particular race in your blood/ancestry (i.e. dragon bloodlines). I do have to admit though that the half-orcs artwork in PHB2 are the most attractive I've seen since the Kingdom of Kalamar's artwork for the female half-hobgoblin.

One thing I have noticed that I like about the 4th edition races is that by and large they are weaker than their 3rd edition counterparts, so that you don't need to factor an ECL to how common, uncommon or rare a race should be. Dopplegangers are a prime example. They're basically the Changlings of 3rd edition Eberron, which are much weaker than their Doppleganger cousins.

By the way, I'm glad no one has told a (insert three different races) walk into a bar joke.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Mar 19, 2009)

People have been disallowing PHB I races since the days when there was just one PHB. I don't buy that there's an understood agreement that "it's in the Players Handbook VII; it's available in every game."

Heck, in my Midwood campaign (3.5), I disallowed halflings, half-orcs, half-elves, elves and monks. I got zero pushback.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 19, 2009)

Doctor Proctor said:


> Then how do you have half-elves?



They are descendants of the original elves of a millenia ago, and are a true race. In fact, they call themselves "elves", and most people think of them as "elves".

Also, the only character in the party that has ever even see a dragonborn was my rogue, who's an archaeologist/relic hunter from a goblin-controlled metropolis.


----------



## Merlin the Tuna (Mar 19, 2009)

Kask said:


> No, still had the same spells mechanically, Vancian magic system, classes functioning basically the same way, etc...



Spell mechanics certainly do not match prior editions, and I have little doubt that sizeable chunks of spells have come and gone.  Classes don't function at all the same way (see: multiclassing, prestige classes, skills... did early editions even grant progressive class features beyond granting new spell slots?  I'm no scholar on this), and even the Vancian system was subverted left and right, including by the Sorcerer and Bard in the PHB alone.

D&D is always something in name only -- in the end it's just a name.  And there's nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Greg K (Mar 19, 2009)

Phaezen said:


> Query, because I would really like to know.
> 
> Is a DM saying race x,y and z and classes f and q are not present in this campaign setting really that much of a dealbreaker to people?




There are some posts in threads here and  many more at WOTC stating that DMs that ban are not good DMs.  So, I would say that the answer to your queston is yes.


----------



## Greg K (Mar 19, 2009)

Merlin the Tuna said:


> Spell mechanics certainly do not match prior editions



.
Some aspects don't, but it is definitely recognizable.



> prestige classes



1e Bard was the first PrC.  Also, in Basic/Expert, some classes required the character to be a minimum level of another class for entry.



> even the Vancian system was subverted left and right, including by the Sorcerer and Bard in the PHB alone.



Spontaneous magic is simply a common houserule that I frequently saw (and even used) in 1e and 2e games made core


----------



## Mournblade94 (Mar 19, 2009)

Greg K said:


> There are some posts in threads here and  many more at WOTC stating that DMs that ban are not good DMs.  So, I would say that the answer to your queston is yes.





Except clearly its not because I limit races all the time, and always have people willing to play.  I often eliminate races from the PHB, and I never had a player that wasn't able to figure out something else to play.

Just because people are posting they don't like it doesn't mean a DM would be bad.  Just make sure the Players know ahead of time and your fine.

Pretty much I limit my races to standard 3rd edition races, tiefling, aasimar and genasi.  I never had any ressistance.


----------



## mhacdebhandia (Mar 19, 2009)

ferratus said:


> Common races - races you could expect to see in an average village among the various lower classes.  They have flavour which suits an everyday industrious existence.



Frankly, the idea that dragonborn or tieflings *don't* have individuals who work in mines or fields or forges is ludicrous. No matter how the race came about, they're still just people - even when your life is enhanced by magical power or your blood thrumming with the influence of the Nine Hells, you still gotta work and eat.

When I created my most recent setting sketch, I put it this way:

As a frontier town, Solano has always featured a more diverse mix of races than the norm for the Spring Empire. Life on the borders, despite the conservative grumblings of the traditionalists of your grandmother's and grandfather's generation, had always been more concerned with what a person can do than with what that person's ancestry might be.

Most people in Solano are humans, tieflings, or half-elves, representing the three major races of the Spring Empire. There are several families from other races - elves, dragonborn, gnomes, halflings, shifters, and gnolls - in greater proportion than would be found in a town of similar size further to the east, in the empire's former heartlands.

As noted before, the majority of Solano's inhabitants are farmers, growing rice (in paddy fields flooded by channels connected to the old imperial aqueduct) along with other grains. Some farmers raise pigs, allowing them to forage in the fields and forests east of town down in the foothills; these swineherds also often grow fruit and root vegetables on their family lands.

Members of the minority races are over-represented in non-farming trades. Many of those who still work the mines are dragonborn or shifters, while elves and gnolls are prominent woodcutters and gnomes are actually the bulk of the carpenters. Most trade in Solano is based on barter, but there is a steady trickle of genuine coin brought in by traders, the odd visitor, and members of the gallant fraternity of adventurers.​Most people - even most dragonborn or gnolls - aren't adventurers. Sure, the average gnoll might be a subsistence hunter who's not afraid to raid a human or half-elf farmer's land and make off with her cattle to be slaughtered for his tribe, if most gnolls live a nomadic, predatory lifestyle, but that just makes him the equivalent of that human farmer - compared to a gnoll warlord who stirs the tribe to battle, he's not so much.


----------



## Kask (Mar 19, 2009)

merlin the tuna said:


> spell mechanics certainly do not match prior editions, and i have little doubt that sizeable chunks of spells have come and gone.




rofl!


----------



## Greg K (Mar 19, 2009)

Mournblade94 said:


> Except clearly its not because I limit races all the time, and always have people willing to play.  I often eliminate races from the PHB, and I never had a player that wasn't able to figure out something else to play.
> 
> Just because people are posting they don't like it doesn't mean a DM would be bad.  Just make sure the Players know ahead of time and your fine.
> 
> Pretty much I limit my races to standard 3rd edition races, tiefling, aasimar and genasi.  I never had any ressistance.




I agree that limiting does not make a bad DM and that a DM should be upfront . I also limit classes and my players not only have had a blast, but felt the limitations that I place and extra detail that I put into the thought of the setting for character generation  enhance the game.  The first time, I took this approach, one player  happened to find his favorite class banned and was slightly reluctant- the character that he did create ended up being his favorite character in 15 years of gaming.  

Despite your opinon and mine, there are players that have posted that any DM that limits races and classes is a bad DM.


----------



## Garthanos (Mar 19, 2009)

Fallen Seraph said:


> Heck my current campaign setting has as far as really out there races:
> -Demon Spirit possessing Humans: Their appearance altered substantially in multiple ways from simple things like horns to centaur like insectiod bodies, etc. (This covers a lot of races actually from Tiefling to Dragonborn, etc.)
> -Cybernetic bodies brought to life by a Spirit: You can figure out this appearance pretty quickly essentially a cybernetic Warforged kind of appearance.
> -Various animals who have become anthropomorphic. This is self explanatory.
> -Shape-shifters whose basic appearance is the same as the Doppelganger.




Aside from your cybernetics those sound like stuff from my gaming... my Dwarves are structurally more like war forged, not really made of flesh and blood constructed by mages as slaves - but the dwarves were not war slaves but had specializations ranging from yup mining ... through household upkeep. (the latter looking softer and more like disney characters and far more diplomatic.. and charismatic) all dwarves are prone to following commands from human voices and at one time...they were bound to a specific voice signature.

I had somebody make a Daemon - he was soul bound to his creator a reincarnating human, the human was becoming a pacifist and he had to convince/connive his master in order to do big bad demon like things. The demon could project as a spirit but it was very vulnerable in that form.. human sorcerers with there immortal souls might bind  break or kill him that way.. the physical form he made was nigh invulnerable but his soul wasn't.

Anthropomorphic animals yup created by mages in vats.

My multiform shape shifters had forgotten their native form and were probably alien in origin others are just humans with severe totemic attachments.


----------



## gribble (Mar 19, 2009)

Klaus said:


> They are descendants of the original elves of a millenia ago, and are a true race. In fact, they call themselves "elves", and most people think of them as "elves".



A friend of mine ran a brief (as in one session  ) campaign where true "elves" were pure fey creatures, uncomprehensible to creatures of the physical world - sort of like Exalted's fair folk. The PC races - eladrin, "elves", half-elves and drow - were elves that had taken on aspects of the physical world. Essentially, the eladrin had taken on aspects of magic, elves nature, half-elves cities and drow darkness. 

These elves became corrupted by these aspects of the physical world in the dawn of pre-history - essentially they became trapped, forgot their origins and became true-breeding races.

Seemed like a pretty cool concept to me.


----------



## Orius (Mar 19, 2009)

Whoa long thread.  I hate jumping into long threads, too damn much to read.  And quote for that matter; you quote a post, 3 pages later and all your points have been made, and there's 5 pages more to go. 

Yet small threads die quiet deaths.  Ah, Internet how I hate thee.

To be honest, while I'm not all that keen on the flavor of D&D WotC's been pushing for the last few years, I don't really care too much about the individual races.  Besides, there's probably some copyright/IP issues here anyway; WotC can use new(er) made up races as brand identity, where they wouldn't be able to do that with elves and dwarves as easily.  WotC sure as hell can't copyright elves, dwarves, and goblins or put them under IP since they're just too common in fantasy/folklore etc.

As a DM though, I am in my right to ban things.  For one, I might not want a list of playable races/classes as long as my arm or longer for reasons of balance.  There's no way I can know how ALL of this stuff is going to work together, and trying to run a campaign that includes everything and the kitchen sink can get unwieldy.  If I want that, I'll run Synnibar.

Also, with something like the PHB2, I don't necessarily want to just plop something into my world that might not have existed before.  That makes it harder for me and the other players to suspend disbelief.  If a player wants to get cranky because he wants to run something out of a splat or even core book he just bought, let him volunteer to DM for a while.  Another reason is that I might not have seen the book in question, and I want to have a rules reference so I know things are being run more or less legally -- some players aren't above trying to pull a fast one on the DM.

Basically, when a campaign starts, the DM needs to be upfront about what races and classes are allowed, and stay consistant.  The players should READ whatever handouts the DMs give them beforehand to this effect (though the DM should really make an effort to keep the page count down, because players won't read more than 2 plages of this stuff.  K.I.S.S. applies here).  After the campaign starts, a player shouldn't assume a DM is going to allow any new race/class combo that appears in a new book.   

I liked the approach 3e OA took in the book's intro; that the book was presented for the DM to pick and choose which elements he liked for a setting.  One problem I have with the whole PHB/DMG/MM_x_ setup is that some players just assume because it's in the book, it has to be allowed.  That's always been a problem really, but in previous editions, new stuff was labeled as "Optional.  Check with your DM first."  3.x had Rule 0 which was bascially to this effect.  I don't know how 4e is handling this.  And as someone already said, 4e's been mixing classic and newer stuff up in multiple book releases which might complicate the issue.


----------



## Wraith Form (Mar 19, 2009)

Danzauker said:


> Hope they listen to you!!! I'd like to see Wookies in PHBIII.




You apparently haven't seen the _shifter_, then.


----------



## kenmarable (Mar 19, 2009)

I think a subtle but important distinction to me isn't that my campaigns have to include EVERYTHING from every book, they only have to include ANYTHING from every book. If none of the players have any interest in playing a shifter, and I have no interest in including them in my world, then there's no need to worry about them. If someone changes their mind later, we can work together to see if we can come up with a plan.

That has served me best for all these years. We've had campaigns where certain races weren't included, but on an interpersonal level, it's always gone smoothly when the DM (me or someone else) included the players in on those decisions. In fact, for us, the players were far more engaged if it was more collaborative than dictated.

Don't take this as saying what is goodfun and badfun, of course. I'm just saying flexibility and collaboration with the players has always worked for us in the dozen or more campaigns I've been in. Plus, out of the 30 or so people I've regularly gamed with throughout my life, we never had someone who was disappointed that they couldn't play the character they wanted to play. After all, it's a game, I think people should have fun even if we model a make believe world with only 98% accuracy. 

So I have nothing wrong with exclusions. I just dislike playing in games where exclusions are dictated even against player wishes (especially in the "Sorry you were killed just for showing up in the tavern, you should have known better." sort of way).


----------



## Mournblade94 (Mar 19, 2009)

When I am Playing D&D I will play in games with whatever the DM wants.

I only run fantasy games (with the exception of star wars, and Dark Sun) with races based on myth and history, though I have always allowed tieflings, assimar, and genasi.  Pretty much Tolkein races from 1st edition with the Forgotten realms added in.

This does not mean I disapprove of other players liking other races, but I have never allowed an arbitrary race with no basis in myth made by a game designer for 'cool'.

Even if I played 4e, I could only ever see dragonborn as a monster race for NPC's.

Part of the problem I have with 4e is that 'designer' races are core.  I prefer 'classic' races.  I never minded expansion books wiht new races (though I rarely ever used them) but I don't like 'designer' races to be core.

This has never been a problem with any game I have run.


----------



## Hellzon (Mar 19, 2009)

Wraith Form said:


> You apparently haven't seen the _shifter_, then.




The Shifter on that fabled picture that spawned the thread looks more like an Ewok. My only beef with it.

(And we know WOTC can draw non-ewok Shifters. There are perfectly good ones in the MM and in the PHB2 Shifter entry.)


----------



## rjdafoe (Mar 19, 2009)

The great thing about new races that alot of people do not seem to think about is that it is an oportunity to maybe change your world a little bit. Who cares that there were no Shifters in your world before? Is your world fully explored? When the players go into an area that has not been explored before, they can encounter any of the races that you did not incude in your world design. Sure, there is no reason to all of a sudden place Shifters in your major city, but the fact is, they CAN exist in any world. 

In our own world, we are still finding marine life that we thought was extinct or that we have never seen before. The great thing about the D&D worlds is that (for the most part) the world is now where near explored.

There could even be a city of Shifters that your player characters expose to the general world. For role players, this seems to me to be a huge role playing opportunity. Now that they are exposed, you can then deal with the opportunities (or not) of integrating them the rest of your world as they travel to the cities/villages that your players have already been to.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 19, 2009)

rjdafoe said:


> The great thing about new races that alot of people do not seem to think about is that it is an oportunity to maybe change your world a little bit.  Who cares that there were no Shifters in your world before?  Is your world fully explored?  When the players go into an area that has not been explored before, they can encounter any of the races that you did not incude in your world design.  Sure, there is no reason to all of a sudden place Shifters in your major city, but the fact is, they CAN exist in any world.  In our own world, we are still finding marine life that we thought was extinct or that we have never seen before.  The great think about the D&D worlds is that (for the most part) the world is now where near explored.  There could even be a city of Shifters that your player characters expose to the general world.  For role players, this seems to me to be a huge role playing opportunity.  Now that they are exposed, you can then deal with the opportunities (or not) of integrating them the rest of your world as they travel to the cities/villages that your players have already been to.



Yep, this is how I take it.

The world is a big place.  Even if, say, shifters are unknown in the main region of play, I can't imagine that they couldn't exist on other continents.  Even if not many people travel around that way, a shifter PC could easily be one of the few who would.

In lower-magic campaigns, I think this is even more possible.  After all, it wasn't all too many years ago that the writings of Marco Polo were considered basically factual and accurate. 

-O


----------



## Barastrondo (Mar 19, 2009)

mhacdebhandia said:


> Most people - even most dragonborn or gnolls - aren't adventurers. Sure, the average gnoll might be a subsistence hunter who's not afraid to raid a human or half-elf farmer's land and make off with her cattle to be slaughtered for his tribe, if most gnolls live a nomadic, predatory lifestyle, but that just makes him the equivalent of that human farmer - compared to a gnoll warlord who stirs the tribe to battle, he's not so much.




A good point (and an excellent example, by the way). One of the things that I find most interesting about actual fantasy races and cultures is finding out all the little things about them: what they do all day, what sort of crafts they indulge in, what they eat, what their idea of music is, and so on. Now, I don't really approve of giant infodumps as a way of beating this knowledge into players' heads, but I like a race that has plausible stuff to do away from the adventure. 

This is certainly an area where tastes vary, but to me it doesn't destroy the mystique of a race or culture to see them while they work or eat or haggle. Familiarity may cut out a touch of the exoticism, or even breed contempt depending on the viewer, but it makes a setting feel more fantastic without sacrificing plausibility. If you see a few tiefling children playing a game of "Who's the Ogre?" in the street, yeah, it does make tieflings seem less of a hardcore sinister race, but it also does a lot to broaden them beyond the stereotype.


----------



## Scribble (Mar 19, 2009)

Mournblade94 said:


> I only run fantasy games (with the exception of star wars, and Dark Sun) with races based on myth and history, though I have always allowed tieflings, assimar, and genasi.  Pretty much Tolkein races from 1st edition with the Forgotten realms added in.
> 
> This does not mean I disapprove of other players liking other races, but I have never allowed an arbitrary race with no basis in myth made by a game designer for 'cool'.




That's fine, to each his own... But it seems somewhat limiting to me.

I like new races because they give people the opportunity to explore new ideas, and new societies. To create new stories and legends. 

Do you include these other races as monsters? Or are the ONLY races existing on your world the tolkien ones?

If so, why are the players banned from them? What does that achieve?

Also why the difference between Starwars and D&D?  What makes creatures not "based on myth and legend" ok in one format and not the other?

One last question... do you research each race to see where the new "designer" races might have been inspired from? (After all Tolkien's races aren't exactly the original myths and legends they came from... Where did Hobbits come from anyway?)

I'm not trying to knock your games. Just honestly curious.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Mar 19, 2009)

Scribble said:


> That's fine, to each his own... But it seems somewhat limiting to me.
> 
> I like new races because they give people the opportunity to explore new ideas, and new societies. To create new stories and legends.




Fair enough, but I think new races often suffer from what I like to call the STAR TREK culture syndrome.  New races (and yes older ones already long established) tend to exagerate one particular human cultural element (Ferengi, merchantilism; Vulcan, Intellect; Elves, longing for the old world; Dwarves, Industry) that there really is not that much to explore.

I cannot comment on the PHBII Races, but the Goliath reminded me of the Half Giant from Dark sun, and the Deva I am sure is virtually the Aasimar.



Scribble said:


> Do you include these other races as monsters? Or are the ONLY races existing on your world the tolkien ones?




I can only speak towards 3rd edition or before with this:

This is difficult to answer because obviously illithids exist but no one can play them.  So limiting race to those listed in Players handbook or Expansion books, I usually limit the races to the PHB races of 3rd edition and the Forgotten Realms Campaign.  If a new variant of one of the PHB races appears in an expansion I will usually allow that as well (eg. Ice Elves, frost gnomes.)  If a new variant goes against a paradigm of those races I will usually disallow it (eg. wild dwarf).  If a new race is a 'designer' race I might include them in an adventure but generally will not make them playable (eg. raptorans).  



Scribble said:


> If so, why are the players banned from them? What does that achieve?




Simply it achieves the 'classic' tone of the campaign.  Note I am usually much looser when it comes to sci fi mileus.



Scribble said:


> Also why the difference between Starwars and D&D? What makes creatures not "based on myth and legend" ok in one format and not the other?




Star Wars is an established universe where all of those races have been written in with an established niche.  If it is Ok for the written material or movies I will allow it in the game.  I do not in any way consider Star Wars Science Fiction.  It is fantasy through and through.  I would not however let someone play an ELF in STAR WARS SAGA.



Scribble said:


> One last question... do you research each race to see where the new "designer" races might have been inspired from? (After all Tolkien's races aren't exactly the original myths and legends they came from... Where did Hobbits come from anyway?)




I certainly do.  Hobbits were a 'designer' race by tolkein.  They have no real root in legend.  They were meant to represent the pastoral life of england.

Anyway, I LOVE to figure out from where races are derived.  many 'designer' races have a mythical component, (Goliath, Shapeshifter) but I don't necessarily like the amalgamation enough to include them.  I am a good researcher so I usually dig up interesting tid bits.

In their proper place (which if I am DM I make that determination) such as Spirit Folk for Oriental Adventures I allow those races.



Scribble said:


> I'm not trying to knock your games. Just honestly curious.




Fair enough.  There is no point to me posting if I am not prepared to expand or explain my point of view.


----------



## Scribble (Mar 19, 2009)

Mournblade94 said:


> Fair enough, but I think new races often suffer from what I like to call the STAR TREK culture syndrome.  New races (and yes older ones already long established) tend to exagerate one particular human cultural element (Ferengi, merchantilism; Vulcan, Intellect; Elves, longing for the old world; Dwarves, Industry) that there really is not that much to explore.




Well I agree with you to a point. The races do in fact tend to exagerate one (or possibly two) particular human traits. Essentially they are that trait personified. I dissagree though that there isn't a lot to explore, especially when you combine them with other races. I think the differing perspectives hitting up against eachother can tell a lot of interesting stories. Akin to the Spock, Bones, Kirk triumverate representation of the human mind at work.

It's one of the things that facinates me about D&D... That there's in a way another telling of the free will vrs determinism idea in the game.  


I can only speak towards 3rd edition or before with this:



> Simply it achieves the 'classic' tone of the campaign.  Note I am usually much looser when it comes to sci fi mileus.




By classic you mean Tolkienesque, or original D&Desque? 

Again opinions and tastes vary with everyone, so I have no beef with your choice in your games. Just after like 20 years of me n the elf fight the orcs... I personally want to explore other stories.



> Star Wars is an established universe where all of those races have been written in with an established niche.  If it is Ok for the written material or movies I will allow it in the game.  I do not in any way consider Star Wars Science Fiction.  It is fantasy through and through.  I would not however let someone play an ELF in STAR WARS SAGA.




They add new races to Star Wars though... (I also don't consider it sci-fi)

I get the impression you want certain games to emulate certain stories. Fair enough I guess. I dissagree that D&D by default should mulate any one particular work though. 




> I certainly do.  Hobbits were a 'designer' race by tolkein.  They have no real root in legend.  They were meant to represent the pastoral life of england.
> 
> Anyway, I LOVE to figure out from where races are derived.  many 'designer' races have a mythical component, (Goliath, Shapeshifter) but I don't necessarily like the amalgamation enough to include them.  I am a good researcher so I usually dig up interesting tid bits.
> 
> In their proper place (which if I am DM I make that determination) such as Spirit Folk for Oriental Adventures I allow those races.




And this is exactly why I dissagree it should emulate any one particular work. Everyone has different ideas about what the "proper place" for a race is. Most of the races even the "designer" ones, aren't really anymore designer then the other (except for human, since wel that's the only race that really exists...) They're all just myths and legends given form.

I say let D&D accomidate anyone's personal view of a fantasy world, rather then push us into one viewpoint. (I like Tolkien... He's probably the biggest reason I started reading, started liking fantasy a lot, and probably started gaming. But I like other authors as well.) 




> Fair enough.  There is no point to me posting if I am not prepared to expand or explain my point of view.




I only said that really because sometimes when I dissagree with people on the boards, and want to talk about it, I get the feeling they think I'm trying to change their point of view or something... When really I just enjoy talking about different ideas and views.


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw (Mar 19, 2009)

Gargoyle said:


> While I respect that people want to play something different from themselves, I also think that these same players often play non-human races just as if they were pointy eared (or short, or tall) humans anyway.  You can play a human from a different culture and be interesting, from a roleplaying point of view.



Playing a non-human race purely for the appearance actually has a use that cannot ever be fulfilled by a human of any kind: a different physiological perspective.  You play a race with good senses so you can think about having a wider view of the world, you play a race stronger than a human so you can imagine their ability to move objects with ease.  An enforced racial culture/outlook does not help, and in fact this concept works _best_ if played as a human in another skin.


----------



## Nivenus (Mar 19, 2009)

As for how weird and rare oddball races such as the PHB2 races (and tieflings) should be, I have something to say on that.

I agree that many races should feel exotic and strange given their origins, though it really depends partially on your setting. After all, dragonborn are far more common in core than they are in FR (or are likely to be in Eberron) and genasi are all but unheard of outside of FR (just as warforged are extremely rare outside of Eberron). But some basic assumptions can probably be made in regards to the core setting.

Being exotic and rare doesn't mean, as others have pointed out, that all the race does is be exotic and pretty. While a tiefling shopkeeper might seem out of place, it's not exactly unexpected. After all, even an ostracized race has to make a living.

Speaking of which - do core tieflings remind anyone besides me of Medieval Jews? It must be the whole marginalized, unwanted, and shuffled into ghettos sort of thing. Not to mention the fact that they have a diaspora as part of their backstory. Granted, there are differences. After all, Jews aren't the scions of an infernal bloodline. Tieflings are. But it'd be kind of interesting to see a DM write in tieflings as having the same role as Medieval Jews - that is to say, _bankers_.

I don't have the PHB2 yet so I can't say for sure how the new core races fit in precisely, but I can guess based on what the FRPG says. Devas seem to be at least as rare as tieflings, probably more so. They also seem to lack any kind of genuine community, being more of scattered clumps than a tightly knit network. One can expect that, in the core, there is no archetypical deva commoner, since there don't seem to be enough of them for such an archetype to exist. Their backstory seems to indicate they might be drawn to religion then.

As for shifters, the FRPG lays it out pretty clearly (as does the MM to some extent) that they're often misinterpreted as lycanthropes. I think it can be expected than that, out of all the PC races, they're probably the most loathed and are probably driven to lives of crime or solitude. It'd be unlikely to see shifters in any kind of role with prestige, though I'm sure more than a few shifter commoners exist, probably getting the roles nobody else wants (like butchery, execution, or grave digging).

Can't speak much to goliaths, though they seem to fit into the same role as human barbarians. Same goes for half-orcs really, though the latter's backstory varies so much in 4e that you could really imagine just about any role for them.


----------



## Mournblade94 (Mar 19, 2009)

Scribble said:


> By classic you mean Tolkienesque, or original D&Desque?




Lets say the original established races from AD&D.




Scribble said:


> Again opinions and tastes vary with everyone, so I have no beef with your choice in your games. Just after like 20 years of me n the elf fight the orcs... I personally want to explore other stories.




I have many many D&D characters, and I would have to say 85% of them are (or were) humans.  As a DM I have had a Huge variety of players play non humans, but for me I need to really be immersed in a character.  I can play any character really, but if I am going to be really immersed in a character there is a narrow range that allows me to do that (as a player, not DM)

I find I can really only get immersed in humans, Elves, half elves, and some bestial natural races like Wolfen.

I find it difficult to get immersed in greenskins, stunties, and stupid (intellectual capacity) races.  I am a much better writer than actor.



Scribble said:


> They add new races to Star Wars though... (I also don't consider it sci-fi)
> 
> I get the impression you want certain games to emulate certain stories. Fair enough I guess. I dissagree that D&D by default should emulate any one particular work though.




I am OK with any weird strange race in star wars, but if the writers added lets say a VAMPIRE race, not just ability but say they transposed Lestat into Star Wars it would bother me.  I Would not like to see a band of orcs attacking my jedi either.

your impression is 100% correct.  I like to emulate certain stories or environments.  I realize people want more and well that is fine.  



Scribble said:


> And this is exactly why I dissagree it should emulate any one particular work. Everyone has different ideas about what the "proper place" for a race is. Most of the races even the "designer" ones, aren't really anymore designer then the other (except for human, since wel that's the only race that really exists...) They're all just myths and legends given form.




Its all good.  In just about any game system I play, the main character I am going to have in it anyway is a human or a very close derivitive.



Scribble said:


> I only said that really because sometimes when I dissagree with people on the boards, and want to talk about it, I get the feeling they think I'm trying to change their point of view or something... When really I just enjoy talking about different ideas and views.




I know what you mean.  I respond on message boards as I would in the game store.  For some reason people seem extra defensive on message boards.


----------



## jgsugden (Mar 19, 2009)

Really: There are 4 core races: Human, elf, dwarf and halfling. Everything else has been met with some resistance:


Half orc - Most people object to the most prevalent origen story for these guys: Rape.
Half elf - Ditto.
Gnome - Redundant halflings, or objections to garden gnome comparisons.
Warforged - I/O Error. Does not compute.
Genasi - You can't choose to have cool angst - you either have it or you don't. Choosing to be a tiefling doesn't get you there.
Drow - ditto.
Shifter - Any race that gets in trouble for losing an F is poorly named. Many people fear using a class that will get them accused of being a furry.
Goliath - Many people consider this race to be unrelateable. Additionally, the race has been described as bland by many people.
Kender - Trying too hard to simultaneously be halflings and not be halflings.
Deva - Are we not men? At least they get one thing right: People that do bad things end up as furries. Too weird. Purple people? They better not meet the green people, or there is gonna by some real sash ripping battles!

I'm not saying I agree with the above, but it does show the core problem: Once you get past the primary 4 classes, everything else will get some real resistance.

If I were in charge, I'd have gone with 7 races - human (which could get a +2 to any single stat), and 6 different races that each hd a bonus to a particular stat... perhaps:

Orc: Strength
Dwarf: Constitution
Elf: Dexterity
Eladrin: Intelligence
Gnome: Wisdom
Halfling: Charisma

Then, I'd add a phase to character creation called education that gave you a +2 bonus to an attribute of your choice (maximum 20 at 1st level). 

That would allow any PC race to be any class, while still giving the right feel to each race.

As for all of the other races: Keep them out of PHBs. Put them in Dragon or campaign Books, but not in PHBs. We don't need to give the perception that Goliaths, Tieflings and Dragonborn are core races.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 19, 2009)

Mournblade94 said:


> I Would not like to see a band of orcs attacking my jedi either.



...Gammoreans?

-O


----------



## AllisterH (Mar 19, 2009)

Um, I'm away from my PHB2 at the moment, but doesn't the entry on the races EXPLICITLY mention "These races are more uncommon than the PHB1 and that the normal citizenry might only interact with one every couple of years"?

How does that equate to a 10 page thread?

re: Gnomes

I don't really consider that a reboot. Basically, the 4e gnome ditches all the added "tinker stuff" that 2e/3e brought in and gets back to the illusionist angle of the 1e gnome...Not sure that would be considered a reboot or a reimagining...


----------



## Doctor Proctor (Mar 19, 2009)

AllisterH said:


> I don't really consider that a reboot. Basically, the 4e gnome ditches all the added "tinker stuff" that 2e/3e brought in and gets back to the illusionist angle of the 1e gnome...Not sure that would be considered a reboot or a reimagining...




There was an interview that some guy did with a couple of the designers and posted a link here on EnWorld.  In it, they talked about the Gnome and why it was in the PHB 2.

Basically, they said that they weren't quite sure what to do with the race to make them different (subtext: different form halfling I'm guessing).  They chose to wait until the PHB 2 to get more of a feel for what they should do, and what they came up with is that they should _always_ be a little sneaky, regardless of class.

So this way, if you have Gnome Rogue, he can turn invisible.  If it's a Gnome Wizard, he can turn invisible, etc...  I'm guessing that some of the racial feats for them in the power books will augment that power, just as many of the other races have had their racial abilities augmented in power books.


----------



## Scribe Ineti (Mar 19, 2009)

Mad Zagyg said:


> It's just so RIDICULOUS! It's like the Mos Eisley Cantina threw up all over the D&D universe.




You haven't looked in the Monster Manual, have you? D&D has far more wacky monsters and alien-looking stuff than the 15 races offered up as PC races. 

Obvious comment of the day: Just cause there are 15 PC races, doesn't mean you have to allow all 15 in your campaign.


----------



## Scribe Ineti (Mar 19, 2009)

jgsugden said:


> As for all of the other races: Keep them out of PHBs. Put them in Dragon or campaign Books, but not in PHBs. We don't need to give the perception that Goliaths, Tieflings and Dragonborn are core races.




And bring back THAC0!  And Elf as a class!  And kits!  And bend bar/lift gates percentiles with Strength!

Besides, PHB2 says right there on the cover "Roleplaying Game Core Rules." PHB2 is as core as PHB1. Imagine the PHB is a 550-page tome split into two parts for ease of use.  (With more on the way.)


----------



## Kask (Mar 19, 2009)

Scribe Ineti said:


> You haven't looked in the Monster Manual, have you? D&D has far more wacky monsters and alien-looking stuff than the 15 races offered up as PC races.




Yes, but not really relevant.  When was the last time you saw an African gorilla in your local bar?


----------



## Mallus (Mar 19, 2009)

Kask said:


> When was the last time you saw an African gorilla in your local bar?



Do you set all your adventures in local bars?

(it's Charles Bukowski:d20!)


----------



## Kask (Mar 19, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Do you set all your adventures in local bars?
> 
> (it's Charles Bukowski:d20!)




As much as you misunderstand all analogies...


----------



## twilsemail (Mar 19, 2009)

Kask said:


> Yes, but not really relevant. When was the last time you saw an African gorilla in your local bar?




When's the last time you saw a Pygmy in your local bar?  Or a Maori?  Or... Well, any type of person taht might not be local to your area.  If you don't want something in your game.  That's awesome.  Keep it out.  Tell people they don't exist.  Tell them they were wiped out in a holocaust 2000 years ago.  It doesn't matter.  

When it's your game, you can make it as inflexible as you like.  However, don't rain on the parades of other who like variety in their games.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 19, 2009)

Kask said:


> As much as you misunderstand all analogies...



There's a difference between not understanding an analogy and simply thinking it's not apt. Give a little credit, eh?


----------



## Obryn (Mar 19, 2009)

Kask said:


> Yes, but not really relevant.  When was the last time you saw an African gorilla in your local bar?



What is it you're getting at?

Are you just stating your preference, as in "I prefer games which have the same races as 1e and no others"?

Or are you stating that games with only the 1e races are somehow inherently better and more sensible than the variety found in 3e?

-O


----------



## Mallus (Mar 19, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Are you just stating your preference, as in "I prefer games which have the same races as 1e and no others"?



He's basically stating 'D&D is characterized by PC races, but not by monster races'. So Dragonborn leave an indelible stain on D&D, while Gelatinous Cubes do not. Because, you know, one is a PC race and the other is a monster race. Clear as a cloudless sky, no?

This of course flies in the face of the common, accepted notion of _iconic D&D monsters_. Like the rust monster visible in one scene in that Futurama episodes. Or the monsters that WotC refused to put in the 3e SRD because they were protected brand IP.


----------



## Nivenus (Mar 19, 2009)

The gorilla in the bar analogy doesn't work for two reasons.

First, being exotic doesn't mean the race doesn't exist.

Secondly, gorillas wouldn't be a PC race. The current scientific consensus seems to be that they aren't conscious in the same way as humans. Therefore, they _couldn't_ be a PC race anymore than a zombie or a flesh golem.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Mar 19, 2009)

Doctor Proctor said:


> Basically, they said that they weren't quite sure what to do with the race to make them different (subtext: different form halfling I'm guessing).  They chose to wait until the PHB 2 to get more of a feel for what they should do, and what they came up with is that they should _always_ be a little sneaky, regardless of class.
> 
> So this way, if you have Gnome Rogue, he can turn invisible.  If it's a Gnome Wizard, he can turn invisible, etc...  I'm guessing that some of the racial feats for them in the power books will augment that power, just as many of the other races have had their racial abilities augmented in power books.



If Trench ever gets the story hour going again for the campaign I'm in (Ptolus: The Tenth), you'll see that a lot of us have always thought gnomes were this way. (My group may well string my gnome up for extreme sneakiness, but hey, at least we get the bad guys!)


----------



## Garthanos (Mar 20, 2009)

Mournblade94 said:


> I only run fantasy games (with the exception of star wars, and Dark Sun) with races based on myth and history, though I have always allowed tieflings, assimar, and genasi.  Pretty much Tolkein races from 1st edition with the Forgotten realms added in.




Sounds like you include  a bunch of races with very little basis in myth.
Genasi are just a game designers idea of cool. I think you fib or have already made so many exceptions... you lost track.

Halflings originally Hobits were a single writers whole cloth conversion of the English country folk (with little else to inspire).. to his own idea of a "little people" very different from just about every other little people myth completely non magical.

Your definition of myth excludes the Egyptian guy with the crocodile like head  (note the ancient Egyptian Gods were not vague and removed from the world they once supposed ruled Egypt... he would make a perfect example of a mythic dragonborn. Their are asian cultures where a majority of there leaders purport to be the descendents of elemental dragons. Push that back far enough and you have Dragonborn. I saw a 4e setting somebody made with Dragonborn in exactly that role (they did a polymorphic shape shift to use there racial powers... but otherwise appeared human.) 

In general I think actually myth is a much bigger place than you realize... we humans are imaginative creatures and have been doing this stuff a long time.


----------



## Miyaa (Mar 20, 2009)

So, an Eldrin, an Elf, and a Drow walk into a bar...

Here's the thing: somewhere in 3rd edition it somehow got implied that you could play just about any monster as a race that you could, or maybe more generally stated, anything the DM could do, the PC could do too. And this got really carried away: from an evil party campaigns to stats on Bane and Sune to Tomes detailing how might a halfling - gnome sex scene could play out for experience points, it either happened or you saw it on the internet, and possibly for sale.

I think to an extend, 4th edition is falling into the same problem by allowing more and more choices for races, with the implication that if it's in the book, it's allowable. The first player's book was the basic of the basics. The second player's book expands on this by taking races that they felt weren't absolutely necessary and put them into this book. The third book will probably be about psionics, which probably means that 3rd edition stand-bys like half-giants and elans (my favorite race) will be revamped for 4th edition.

I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but I am saying it's a slippery slope that will continue to happen every year they include a new edition with new races and classes. Furthermore, this does mean we'll have new options once a year to add? What's to say that Wizards will stop after Player Handbook 3?


----------



## Jack7 (Mar 20, 2009)

> Playing a non-human race purely for the appearance actually has a use that cannot ever be fulfilled by a human of any kind: a different physiological perspective. You play a race with good senses so you can think about having a wider view of the world, you play a race stronger than a human so you can imagine their ability to move objects with ease.




Cat's got a good point. And I'm actually gonna try and be serious for a moment here.

If someone has already mentioned some of these ideas then excuse me. I've been pressed for time lately and haven't had much time to read other than late at night.

I don't care much for a freak race with a set of built in goat horns. Not as a physiological concept. Not as a mythological character type.

However there is a definite and historical sort of mythological type that these freak races actually embody: Chimeras. 

What they are is actually a sort of (badly imagined in my opinion) reinterpretation of the Centaur, and of various other classical myths in which a man possess a trait, or perhaps multiple traits, of other creatures and beings (usually animals or gods). 

Now the day is coming, when it will be possible (legally perhaps not, but illegally certainly) when the genetic code of men can be reinterpreted to some degree by the addition of or replacement of non-human genetic material(s). Imagine if you will a man with eyes that had the ability to have multiple focal points, or with eyes that could operate in the same basic way as that of an eagle. Given human physiological limitations to the olfactory cavities imagine men with a near equivalent sense of smell to that of a bloodhound, or maybe even a grizzly bear.

How would that change not only a man's physiological capabilities, but his psychological outlook as well? Suppose a man possessed the nose of a grizzly bear (not in appearance, but in capability). How would this effect his psychological outlook if he could "smell death or corpses" from miles away? How sensitive would he be to pheromones? What if he could see into the ultraviolet range of the electromagnetic spectrum? Or what if hi eyes possessed natural night-vision? How would this effect not just his senses, but his mind? Maybe even his soul?

I think the Greeks, in their many exploration of the Chimera-myth were actually trying to imagine different psychological effects of, "what would a man be like if he possessed some of the peculiar and amazing and very advanced (by human standards) capabilities of the animals surrounding him?" An eagle eye is not worth his brain, being able to hear like a dog is not worth his mind, but would it not give his mind a different cast in interpreting the world? It would give me a different frame of reference, that is for sure. Eagle eyesight, infra-red vision, nightvision, dog-hearing, being able to smell like a bear, would give an incredible range and array of "new intelligence" sources that are now lacking in human beings.

Now that being the case I'll give an example of how this might play out in-game. A few months back I played a Dragonborn Ranger. I didn't like the idea of playing a freak race and didn't think I'd have any interest or sympathy with the character. But I do very much like Rangers, and I was assigned the character. Well, after a few missions and a couple of fights I suddenly realized that what I really had in my Dragonborn Ranger was nothing less than "a real Chimera." An animal sharing certain basic traits with a man and in basically an upright, man-shape. 

So at that point I tried to imagine the character very much like trying to imagine myself playing one of my Great Danes. (And over the years I have conducted several experiments with developing "parallel intelligence" in animals.) I tried to imagine the "actual physiological capabilities" of the Dragonborn, and of how to best exploit those capabilities in-game, and then tried to imagine what would be the corresponding psychological effects upon such a character? What I discovered was not only that the Dragonborn was an amazingly efficient and effective character, but he was a lot of fun to play, not as a man, or as a Lizard-slash-Dragon man, but as a Chimera. A mix between man and beast. (This is another point at which I don't think the designers do such a good job, they just basically created "human outcast cultures," with many of the new races, and to a large extent I think human-Chimeras, or Chumeras -humans with animal capabilities - would indeed develop a sort of outcast sub-culture, but then again I think they would also have very, very different ways of looking at the world at large, not just their various cultural interactions. (For one thing if you had the mind of a man and the sensory capabilities of an animal I think this would profoundly reshape religious expression, perceptions, and spiritual outlook and methods.) Physiologically, psychologically, mentally, maybe even spiritually. I can't say that for sure, I am not a chimera, but I strongly suspect my Great Dane with her incredible sense of hearing, in at least that respect, perceives things about the world I never will. Of course with my mind then same can be said of me in relation to her, but imagine a human mind with animal attributes and then imagine what such a creature would be like respective to either "root species."

Now, as far as the game and tradition and myth and even aescetics go, I can certainly see why some would object to such races based on their bizarre appearance alone (not to mention the fact that it seems to me more akin to science fiction than to nasty in many respects) and how that appearance all by itself would often be a cultural and societal defect, or at least a deficit. A needless one sometimes too. And I'm not real big on 32 different Player's Handbooks, 300 races, and 50 different classes. Core, or not. At some time you reach a definite point of diminished returns, not to mention a real degree of the absurd. There is such a thing as sensory and information overload and eventually even the most die-hard fan will say, _"how many different versions of a half-cat, half-goldfish, half-flying squirrel, war-forged, lightsabre wielding intelligent Giant Sloth with Bullette tusk armor and lizard clawed combat boots can you push out into D&D"_ before the ultimate 'cool-status' has been fully explored and extinguished. If I wanted that kind thing to go on forever then I'd just watch a rerun of _*Giant Anaconda Versus Super Python XXII*_ on the Sy-Fy Channel.

But despite the fact that I think the designers are intentionally writing their own created races into oblivion and obscurity in many cases by attempting to make each one cooler and more outlandish than previous races, I think that within these races lie the germinating seeds of something that are really and even intensely interesting. Like Chimeras. Like various psychological and physiological and even spiritual traits that would definitely effect how such "races" view the world, and interface and interact with it. As well as how they interact with others.

Now in myths the chimeras almost never successfully integrated with human culture. Or any cultures. They lived in the deserts and mountains and wildernesses by themselves, away from men. Like monsters, even if they weren't monstrous in behavior (Centaurs). There are both logical and pathetic reasons for such a state of affairs if you stop and think about it for just a moment. They wouldn't long feel comfortable around most people, and most people wouldn't want them in their taverns or agoras either. There would be exceptions of course, men who sought out the companies of chimeras like that, but most societies at large would see them as a threat, and that is perfectly understandable, especially when such creatures often possessed obvious physical advantages over most men and the best way you have to suppress or counter such uneven advantages are with daggers, swords, and wooden shields. Can anyone really doubt that Grendel, even if he tended to be a rather relaxed and good-natured fellow on most occasions would not be viewed at least suspiciously and warily whenever he showed up at the Mead Hall? Or that he would naturally avoid such places so as not to have to fight to the death some drunken fool who thought he could make a name for himself as the local Ogre-slayer? Of course men would be fearful of Grendel and of course Grendel would eschew the company of most men. He'd appear as a monster or demon to most, even if he possessed the golden heart of an angel.

However men with chimerical traits, from whatever source, beast or god, were often considered heroic, powerful leaders and often greatly admired. Herakles, Alexander, and so forth. Such heroes often also took on animal totems as emblems of their rank and capabilities. Because they were by nature part man, part divine, and part beast. Herakles wore the pelt of the Nemian lion, and so forth and so on.

So, all that being said, I have a suggestion and possible solution for those who don't like their character races running around looking like they are ready to butt heads in a mountain goat rally. Take such bizarre races, remove most of the physiological decoration and accoutrements, and instead make them into races which are basically humanoid in appearance, but still possessed of the rather amazing and interesting "capabilities" of the Dragonborn, the Tiefling, and others.

They can look like men or elves or dwarves or giants but they also possess dog-hearing, or eagle eyes, or maybe they can spit corrosive fluids, or maybe their blood is like ichor and is acidic (a giant would be a good play for such a character, as long as he is not so large he cannot adventure in normal sized environments), maybe they can absorb energy directly from the sun like a lizard, and so forth and so on. In this way they can fit-in to the general world and yet the players can still effectively explore the potential such characters would possess. All you would really have to do is transform physical appearance, traits could remain basically the same.

Or you could do it like in my setting. Chimeras have long figured in my setting because it is Byzantine and so in some ways the monsters and chimeras of the world are descendents of Greek Myth. When exposed to high level magics it will sometimes mutate men or elves or dwarves, etc. into creatures with new capabilities. It will create Chimeras out of them. Now sometimes this means the magics will make "monsters out of them" reshaping their appearance into freakish, bizarre, or frightening forms. So, in effect, you could have a man or elf reformed so that he appears like a Dragonborn or a Tiefling, and gains their capabilities. You don't really create a "new race" in this way, rather you create an individual Chimera, but you could use the race in the PHB as a template for what that chimera is like. (This would be analogous to a Marvel comic type mutant, different in both power and appearance to most men.) Or sometimes in my stetting a character's appearance will not change at all due to "magical mutation" but they will nevertheless gain new capabilities. You could use the PHB races as a "capabilities template" in that case. They remain perfectly human or humanoid in appearance in that case but are possessed of the capabilities of the other races. (This would be analogous to Superman, or Spiderman. Looks like a man, has the capabilities of a god or an animal) I think both approaches make for very interesting character types, because in the one case you have the obvious societal outcast, and in the other, the subtle outcast - he appears perfectly normal but is really a "stranger in a strange land."

But in either case you have two simple solutions.

*1. Create new races merely by altering appearances so that these "new races" fit easily into your established milieu.*

*2. Create not races, but individual Character-Chimeras, that your players can play as a sort of add-on, or value added version of the new PHB races. And in this case they could either look human, or normal, or not.*

Anyways that's my take on it.

Just because a Tiefling is drawn as a goat-headed, flaming-eyed, weird looking babe in the book doesn't mean she has to make an appearance in your world in that guise.

She could just be a normal looking gal who can see good in the dark, is hard to burn, consorts with demons, and has a mean, quick temper. 

You know, you could just make her a red-head.


----------



## Orius (Mar 20, 2009)

Scribble said:


> They add new races to Star Wars though... (I also don't consider it sci-fi)




I might add here that Star Wars is space opera though, so when you get a new species, you can just assume it comes from a new planet.  There are so many planets in the SW galaxy, that this is easy to do.  And then you're not even limited to the galaxy when you start throwing in the Yuuzhan Vong and stuff.  And that's not even sentient species either, it's all the stuff that can be used for encounters, stuff D&D would classify as monsters.

With a D&D campaign, the normal assumption is that you're dealing with a sinlge Earth-like world, so with one world it's harder to put in as much extreme biodiversity.  Yes, I know someone's going to mention how many new species are still discovered every day on our own world, but for the most part, the typical D&D monster is something like megafauna, and some DMs want to maintain a semi-believable ecology which isn't always easy to do.  Also, the real world only has a single intelligent, sapient species capable of using culture and technology, and it's unknown as to how many such species could possibly evolve on an Earth-like planet, so lots and lots of different races in a D&D world has varying levels of believability for a players in general.



jgsugden said:


> [*]Kender - Trying too hard to simultaneously be halflings and not be halflings.




That is not the problem with kender.  Everyone knows what the kender's real problem is: it's a race that nearly always gets played in a way that causes problems with the group.


----------



## Runestar (Mar 20, 2009)

> Here's the thing: somewhere in 3rd edition it somehow got implied that you could play just about any monster as a race that you could, or maybe more generally stated, anything the DM could do, the PC could do too.




Not really. I see it more as "We just give you the rules for doing so, you decide if it is appropriate for your campaign". Hence monster classes for powerful races such as dragons, angels, fiend and the like. The implication was that the DM was still the final arbiter, and a more esoteric combination such as say, a mindflayer paladin should only be allowed if it would not disrupt the campaign (something the players will have to work hand in hand with the DM to determine). 

Maybe you don't care for dragonborn or warforged races in 4e. But someone out there might. Why should those who honestly want to play one have to suffer just because other people find it a stupid idea? And I am honestly still waiting for my dragon (as in, a real dragon) and mindflayer PC races writeups.


----------



## Nivenus (Mar 20, 2009)

Orius said:


> IWith a D&D campaign, the normal assumption is that you're dealing with a sinlge Earth-like world, so with one world it's harder to put in as much extreme biodiversity.  Yes, I know someone's going to mention how many new species are still discovered every day on our own world, but for the most part, the typical D&D monster is something like megafauna, and some DMs want to maintain a semi-believable ecology which isn't always easy to do.  Also, the real world only has a single intelligent, sapient species capable of using culture and technology, and it's unknown as to how many such species could possibly evolve on an Earth-like planet, so lots and lots of different races in a D&D world has varying levels of believability for a players in general.




Ah, so your problem is not the exoticness but the diversity. Gotcha. That, to me, is actually a stronger argument and one I can sympathize with. But it's not a problem unique to 4e. It's a problem that's been around since at least 2e, what with Dark Sun, Dragonlance, and Planescape introducing a plethora of races. But yeah, it's something that bothers me from time to time. But given how much planewalking goes on and how several of the races aren't _actually_ natural (tieflings and genasi are planetouched, all fey are from the Feywild) this becomes more believable, I think, in 4e, than its been in every previous edition.

Still, while designing my own fantasy world, I've narrowed down the number of races to about four or five (including humans) - and I'm very much intent on keeping that number static.


----------



## Orius (Mar 21, 2009)

Nivenus said:


> Ah, so your problem is not the exoticness but the diversity. Gotcha. That, to me, is actually a stronger argument and one I can sympathize with. But it's not a problem unique to 4e. It's a problem that's been around since at least 2e,




2e?  Try the three little books.    Well, maybe not that far, but I'm sure even 1e had some of these problems.

Eh, the problem is trying to maintain verisimiltude as a DM when you've got  new material being made available.  So it's a somewhat gripe that covers not just new races, but classes, monsters, spells, magic items and just about anything else that can be added, and thus my comment that this goes back to diaglo's favorite edition.  With monsters and races, it does get harder to imagine all this different stuff popping up withing a single biosphere, unless you're spelljamming or planehopping.



> But given how much planewalking goes on and how several of the races aren't _actually_ natural (tieflings and genasi are planetouched, all fey are from the Feywild) this becomes more believable, I think, in 4e, than its been in every previous edition.




Even 2e touched this.  There was of course Planescape, and Spelljammer before that could potentially add lots of new stuff to a campaign.  The thing was that it was all optional campaign setting stuff, where with 4e you've got stsuff in books labled PHB2 that might make the optional approach more difficult.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 21, 2009)

Orius said:


> The thing was that it was all optional campaign setting stuff, where with 4e you've got stsuff in books labled PHB2 that might make the optional approach more difficult.



Maybe I'm just crazy, but I don't see that it would be more difficult to exclude than 3e's Dragon Shaman, Knight, Duskblade, and Beguiler...  Those were also in a book called PHB2, after all...

-O


----------



## kenmarable (Mar 23, 2009)

Jack7 said:


> How would that change not only a man's physiological capabilities, but his psychological outlook as well? Suppose a man possessed the nose of a grizzly bear (not in appearance, but in capability). How would this effect his psychological outlook if he could "smell death or corpses" from miles away? How sensitive would he be to pheromones? What if he could see into the ultraviolet range of the electromagnetic spectrum? Or what if hi eyes possessed natural night-vision? How would this effect not just his senses, but his mind? Maybe even his soul?



(begin tangent)
Not to go off too far on a tangent, but if you interested in taking this even further, consider whales and dolphins. First off, with sonar, they get a 3-D representation of the external world, plus it has limited X-rayish "see inside things" abilities. So, it's theorized that they can see into each other and be better able to tell if someone is sick or possibly even their mood.

But to carry it even further, I believe all land mammals' brains developed so that their sense go to different regions. So we have a visual cortex, auditory cortex, etc. and our senses are perceived as separate sense with a little interaction.

Whales and dolphins, however, separated far enough back that they have a completely different set up with single sensory cortex. All senses, sight, touch, sonar, etc. - all are perceived together as a single awareness of the external world (as best as marine biologists can determine without actually being dolphins).

So, those sort of senses and brain layouts can open up some other fun roleplaying ideas. Imagine a PC that doesn't quite get all these humans talking about "hearing" something they can't "see", or "smelling" something in the next room. Instead, they just know there's a gnoll over there. Or your perception of a person isn't just their outside, but also all of their internal organs. Just "looking" at someone and knowing how bad they are hurt or if they are hungry or agitated even. You might stare less at their face and more and their torso (which can certainly be problematic in some social situations). 
(end tangent)


----------



## Jack7 (Mar 24, 2009)

> Not to go off too far on a tangent, but if you interested in taking this even further, consider whales and dolphins. First off, with sonar, they get a 3-D representation of the external world, plus it has limited X-rayish "see inside things" abilities. So, it's theorized that they can see into each other and be better able to tell if someone is sick or possibly even their mood.
> 
> But to carry it even further, I believe all land mammals' brains developed so that their sense go to different regions. So we have a visual cortex, auditory cortex, etc. and our senses are perceived as separate sense with a little interaction.
> 
> ...




I like it a lot KM. It is a tangent well worth exploring. Integrated, almost intuitive sensory perception. _*In game terms you could develop an immensely interesting race(s) just based around different perceptual methods of perceiving the world.*_

You could also develop magical devices which in effect allowed the same thing. A wand or rod that allows you to see internal organs and make diagnoses, see through walls like an X-Ray image or magnetic resonance image, magical items that allow the user to smell like a polar bear, or to perceive the world through sonar.

Maybe even a magical device that would "integrate all other existing sensory capabilities into a 'hyper-sense, or a super sense.'" Imagine what that could potentially do?

I can also imagine relics and artifacts which transform ordinary senses in different ways or even permanently alter sense capabilities in one way or another as either a blessing or a curse, or both. Imagine having such an integrated 'supersense.' How would it affect both your conscious and sub-conscious mind, methods of perception, and in certain situations would it not be both a blessing and a curse?

As for real life it sounds like a very interesting set of postulates upon which to design a series of real experiments, as well as technological components. Personally I've been working for awhile on the idea and construction of a device that can "smell like a bear" so as to detect corpses like a cadaver dog, but that would be even more sensitive to certain chemicals released during decomposition and which would be portable and hand-held. For field use during potential homicide investigations.

But imagine as well if you could develop a hand-held device that could a.) either allow the user a sort of sonar-sense, including visual re-interpretation of the received data, or b.) could integrate various human senses into a single, portable, easily readable-translatable device that in effect rendered a human (or perhaps even Chumeral) 'super-sense?'

Excellent ideas you stimulated. Excellent
_Have some very well earned XP._


----------



## Jack7 (Mar 24, 2009)

By the way KM if you are any one else has interesting ideas about how to apply natural processes to game ideas/inventions/applications (or vice versa) then feel free to list or describe them in *this Thread*.

I'd be interested in analyzing everything from ideas about racial/species/creature capabilities to device invention/construction to process and energy control methods.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 25, 2009)

Greg K said:


> There are some posts in threads here and  many more at WOTC stating that DMs that ban are not good DMs.  So, I would say that the answer to your queston is yes.






Greg K said:


> I agree that limiting does not make a bad DM and that a DM should be upfront . I also limit classes and my players not only have had a blast, but felt the limitations that I place and extra detail that I put into the thought of the setting for character generation  enhance the game.  The first time, I took this approach, one player  happened to find his favorite class banned and was slightly reluctant- the character that he did create ended up being his favorite character in 15 years of gaming.
> 
> Despite your opinon and mine, there are players that have posted that any DM that limits races and classes is a bad DM.




GregK, as someone who has gone around a few times with you on this one, you do realize that you are massively misrepresenting what was said don't you?  In none of the threads we talked about this did anyone ever state what you are saying.

What WAS stated was that DM's who feel that their personal preferences should always take precedence over those of their players MIGHT be bad DM's.  Not that they always are.  But that maybe, just maybe, a DM who decides that his imagination is better than his player's might be a bad DM.

Which is a VERY far cry from saying that "any DM who limits races and classes is a bad DM".  

But, feel free to continue attacking a position that no one held.


----------



## Greg K (Mar 25, 2009)

Hussar, 
No. Some people never wrote "MIGHT".   It was, when push comes to shove, this is my concept and, provided it was not broken, the DM should let it in regardless of the setting (even if from some other world by planar travel), because that is what  the player wants to play- the DM has the rest of the world with which to play.  If the DM didn't allow the character, they were a bad DM.  

Then, there were a couple of people, that might have wrote might and it still came down to the DM should let the character in via planar travel so that the player could play it.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 26, 2009)

Greg K said:


> Hussar,
> No. Some people never wrote "MIGHT".   It was, when push comes to shove, this is my concept and, provided it was not broken, the DM should let it in regardless of the setting (even if from some other world by planar travel), because that is what  the player wants to play- the DM has the rest of the world with which to play.  If the DM didn't allow the character, they were a bad DM.
> 
> Then, there were a couple of people, that might have wrote might and it still came down to the DM should let the character in via planar travel so that the player could play it.




Yup, I agree with your interpretation here.

Which is miles away from your original take.  It wasn't "any DM that bans stuff is a bad DM".  It was "any DM who takes his personal preferences and rams them down the player's throat without any consideration for what the player might want to play... is a bad DM."

So, yup, if a DM has no issues with a character concept OTHER than his own personal preferences (I hate X, so no X in my game), then I do think the DM should back down and let the player have his or her cake.

Just thought we should clear that up.


----------



## Bohemian Ear-Spork (Mar 26, 2009)

Thing is, all you need to do is change the appearance a bit, if you want consistency.  What a race _looks_ like is entirely arbitary, and altering that is child's play.

Shifters?  Atavistic cave-dwellers who are bonded with animal spirits in a coming-of-age ritual.

Gnomes?  Read ye some Arthur Machen, man.

Halflings?  Homo floresiensis.

Half-Orcs?  Neandetals.

Tieflings?  Hey, look, Melniboneans!

Dragonborn?  See Shifters, above, but substitute dragons for animal spirits.  Look completely human, too.

Warforged?  As their stats are right now?  Take a look at Donaldson's "Bloodguard", from the much-maligned _Thomas Covenant_ series.  Ordinary humans so driven by devotion to their Oath that they no longer need to eat, or sleep.  (Seriously, the Warforged character option from the Monster Manual would be PERFECT for this.)

...and so forth, and so on.

I don't see the need to do any of this myself (although the Warforged thing is growing on me now), but it ain't hard to do.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 27, 2009)

Hussar said:


> So, yup, if a DM has no issues with a character concept OTHER than his own personal preferences (I hate X, so no X in my game), then I do think the DM should back down and let the player have his or her cake.




I don't.  

If someone said, "Hey, I want to run 'Call of Cthulu' this weekend.", and every said, "That rocks.", and then one player said, "Ok, but I want to be an elf.", then I think the game master is well within his rights to say, "Sorry.  You can't be an elf.  You could be Welsh, and be an expert in occult lore, and you could be someone who thinks they are an elf.  But you can't be an elf."

If someone says, "Hey, we are going to play Spycraft.", and the player said, "Ok, but I want to be a Wizard.", then I think the game master is well within his rights to say, "Sorry, magic doesn't work in this game, but you can have lots of cool spy gadgets if you like."  He's under no obligation to shoe horn a magic system into a game system or setting.  He can, and maybe it would be cool, but more than likely its going to be just a headache.

I don't see how, "Hey, I want to run my Homebrew D&D game this weekend." is any different and suddenly means that the game master is a bad DM because he says, "No, you can't be a half-warforged, half-dragon, red Wizard of Thay.  Here are the rules we are using for character creation.  You can be a red robed lawful sorcerer with dragon ancestory, and you can eventually take this feat to learn to breath fire, but that's the closest I can manage to that character concept."

I don't see how the DM is under any obligation to open up character creation infinitely.  Sometimes I've run campaigns with very restrictive character creation guidelines like, 'Everyone must be an elf.', 'Everyone must begin play as a homeless vagabond', or 'Everyone must be a goblin'.  I've had reasons for doing so.  If people don't want to play, 'We are starting in the elvish homeland, everyone must be an elf.', then they can certainly run what they prefer.   Sometimes I've done the reverse, 'Everyone send me your character concepts and I'll try to figure out what the setting is.', but anyone who can do that consistantly and make it work is I agree a better DM than I am.

I suspect however a great many DM's are going to agree that its better to exert at least some guidance over character creation than none at all.  I've seen too many promising campaigns aborted (mine and others) with skilled players by open ended character creation that led to unworkable group dynamics.  At the very least, I'm never going to start another campaign again without in some form saying, "Ok, you can be an anti-hero, but no villains in a hero party, no loners, no characters with flaws or drawbacks that will prevent them from being social with the other PC's, no character concepts which lack a motivation or which are actively hostile to adventuring, at least have a theory why you might get along with the other PC's, etc."


----------



## Hussar (Mar 27, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> I don't.
> 
> If someone said, "Hey, I want to run 'Call of Cthulu' this weekend.", and every said, "That rocks.", and then one player said, "Ok, but I want to be an elf.", then I think the game master is well within his rights to say, "Sorry.  You can't be an elf.  You could be Welsh, and be an expert in occult lore, and you could be someone who thinks they are an elf.  But you can't be an elf."




Good grief.  Read what I wrote again.  Read it a third time.  Did I at any point say, "Whatever a player wants, the GM must bow down to"?  Where did I write that.  Point to the place please.

What I said was, "If there is only the DM's preference in the way, the DM should back down".  In your example, an elf in Cthulu would NOT BE ONLY DM PREFERENCE.  And thus my point would NOT APPLY.

How many times do I have to say the EXACT THING?



> If someone says, "Hey, we are going to play Spycraft.", and the player said, "Ok, but I want to be a Wizard.", then I think the game master is well within his rights to say, "Sorry, magic doesn't work in this game, but you can have lots of cool spy gadgets if you like."  He's under no obligation to shoe horn a magic system into a game system or setting.  He can, and maybe it would be cool, but more than likely its going to be just a headache.




Totally agreed.  And if you bothered to read what I wrote instead of what you think I wrote, then you see that I totally agree with you.  



> I don't see how, "Hey, I want to run my Homebrew D&D game this weekend." is any different and suddenly means that the game master is a bad DM because he says, "No, you can't be a half-warforged, half-dragon, red Wizard of Thay.  Here are the rules we are using for character creation.  You can be a red robed lawful sorcerer with dragon ancestory, and you can eventually take this feat to learn to breath fire, but that's the closest I can manage to that character concept."




Now pause for a second.  Why is the "half-warforged, half-dragon, red Wizard of Thay" off the table?  Is it genre breaking?  Does it not fit with the established conventions of the game at the time?  Is it a balance issue?  Does it break the theme of the game?  If the answer to any of these questions is "yes" then I have no problem.  

Again, for the umpteenth time.  My only issue is when the only reason the DM has for saying no is his own personal preferences.  He just doesn't like X, not for any reasons related to campaign, or theme, or story, or game mechanics, he just doesn't like X.

Is that clear enough?



> I don't see how the DM is under any obligation to open up character creation infinitely.  Sometimes I've run campaigns with very restrictive character creation guidelines like, 'Everyone must be an elf.', 'Everyone must begin play as a homeless vagabond', or 'Everyone must be a goblin'.  I've had reasons for doing so.  If people don't want to play, 'We are starting in the elvish homeland, everyone must be an elf.', then they can certainly run what they prefer.   Sometimes I've done the reverse, 'Everyone send me your character concepts and I'll try to figure out what the setting is.', but anyone who can do that consistantly and make it work is I agree a better DM than I am.




And again, I totally agree.



> I suspect however a great many DM's are going to agree that its better to exert at least some guidance over character creation than none at all.  I've seen too many promising campaigns aborted (mine and others) with skilled players by open ended character creation that led to unworkable group dynamics.  At the very least, I'm never going to start another campaign again without in some form saying, "Ok, you can be an anti-hero, but no villains in a hero party, no loners, no characters with flaws or drawbacks that will prevent them from being social with the other PC's, no character concepts which lack a motivation or which are actively hostile to adventuring, at least have a theory why you might get along with the other PC's, etc."




And, if I was advocating no DM control over chargen, then your arguement would hold a great deal of water.  However, you, like GregK at first, have grossly misinterpreted what I've said in order to argue against something I'm completely not saying.

So, to sum up.

My single, solitary, lone, only, seul, hitotsu, beef here is that if a DM's only issue with a character concept is his own personal preferences, nothing more, then the DM should accede to his player's wishes.  IF the DM has any other issues, such as genre, game balance, theme, the preferences of the majority at the table, whatever, then he is more than fine in saying no.  

I can't make this any clearer.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 27, 2009)

Speaking of PHB2 races, I cooked up an alternate look for the devas: http://www.enworld.org/forum/art-ga...res-painting/253244-alternate-look-devas.html


----------



## Hussar (Mar 27, 2009)

Klaus said:


> Speaking of PHB2 races, I cooked up an alternate look for the devas: http://www.enworld.org/forum/art-ga...res-painting/253244-alternate-look-devas.html




Very cool as always Klaus.

One quibble.  It looks a lot like a different colored (I'm color blind, is that blue or purple?) Firelord from the Marvel comics.  

But, yeah, looking cool.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 27, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Very cool as always Klaus.
> 
> One quibble.  It looks a lot like a different colored (I'm color blind, is that blue or purple?) Firelord from the Marvel comics.
> 
> But, yeah, looking cool.



Blue. And I'm thankfully not a Marvel fan, so to me it'd look like a mix of Dr. Manhattan, Starman (from the current JSA) and Zauriel.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 27, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Good grief.  Read what I wrote again.  Read it a third time.  Did I at any point say, "Whatever a player wants, the GM must bow down to"?  Where did I write that.  Point to the place please.
> 
> What I said was, "If there is only the DM's preference in the way, the DM should back down".  In your example, an elf in Cthulu would NOT BE ONLY DM PREFERENCE.




Yes, it would.

The problem is that there is really no nice bright line over what is DM preference and what isn't.  I trapped you into saying, "That's not DM preference.", by making some particularly unusual examples, but really, they are just DM preferences.  Nothing prevents me from running a High Lovecraftian Fantasy (and if you've ever been chased by a Mewlips across a timber filled mill pond, you might claim I run High Lovecraftian Fantasy).  I can run call of Cthulu with elves if I want.  Nothing prevents me from saying, "Yes, you can be an elf." except my preference not to have the game be that way.

Likewise, nothing prevents me from running Spycraft with an undercurrent of magic to it.  There is even precedence in source material - like the Tarot card Oracle in 'Live and Let Die'.  I think a Pulp Spycraft adventure setting would be very cool, and nothing prevents me from saying, "Yes, you can play a magician." except my preference in that case not to do that. 



> How many times do I have to say the EXACT THING?




As many times as it takes for you to realize you aren't saying anything meaningful.



> ]Now pause for a second.  Why is the "half-warforged, half-dragon, red Wizard of Thay" off the table?  Is it genre breaking?  Does it not fit with the established conventions of the game at the time?  Is it a balance issue?  Does it break the theme of the game?  If the answer to any of these questions is "yes" then I have no problem.




But those are all just preferences.  It's genre breaking, only because the genre is my preference.  The 'established conventions of the game' are again my preference.  If I was playing Cthulu, nothing would prevent me from throwing some 'fairy' creatures at the players (or at least the Cthulu mythos creatures that inspired fairy legends).  If I was running a Spycraft game, nothing would prevent me from throwing a diabolic enchanter into the mix to stir things up.  It might be a little awkward to do so after telling a player, "No magic.", but presumably at another table it might seem really cool.  As far as balance issues go, virtually anything can be made to be balanced.  A player might (and very probably would given the sort of player that does this sort of thing) balk if I took away the anticipated mechanical joys that made them pick the exotic character type in the first place, but if its just flavor that is at stake I could certainly come up with something.  It's just my preference not to.  And again, 'theme' is nothing more than genre conventions again - which, are basically up to the game master's preferences.  I've started games before without telling the players what the theme would be, and suddenly they find military sims transforming into sci-fi which transforms into horror.  Again, my preferences. 



> Again, for the umpteenth time.  My only issue is when the only reason the DM has for saying no is his own personal preferences.  He just doesn't like X, not for any reasons related to campaign, or theme, or story, or game mechanics, he just doesn't like X.




I don't like halflings.  I certainly don't feel obligated to let you play a halfling just because you want to.   They aren't in my campaign because I don't like them.  It's my personal preference. 



> My single, solitary, lone, only, seul, hitotsu, beef here is that if a DM's only issue with a character concept is his own personal preferences, nothing more, then the DM should accede to his player's wishes.  IF the DM has any other issues, such as genre, game balance, theme, the preferences of the majority at the table, whatever, then he is more than fine in saying no.
> 
> I can't make this any clearer.




There isn't a bright clear line between a DM's campaign, the theme of that campaign, the genre conventions of that campaign, and the DM's personal preferences.   The two are so intertwined that to talk about one as if it was some distinct thing from the other is to speak total nonsense.  It's not like the DM is just forced to go along with whoever writes the books, forced to play some staid copy of some other DM's campaign.  If I wanted to have Mister Mxyzptlk send DC superheroes to show up in the Forgotten Realms, then they do.  And if I don't want Mister Myxzptlk to open up a diminsional portal to the forgotten realms just so some player can play Chuck 'The Bouncing Boy' Tain, then it doesn't happen.  My preference.  Neither choice is 'wrong', but in one situation I'll probably prefer one over the other.


----------



## kenmarable (Mar 27, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> As many times as it takes for you to realize you aren't saying anything meaningful.



*sigh*

As much as I hate to get into this, I agree with Hussar. (And even if I didn't, I do realize there is a difference between "not saying anything meaningful" and "I disagree with you".)

My take on it is simply - in this game, it's everyone's job to make sure everyone is having fun. If one person is trumping other people's fun just because of their personal taste, then they are doing something wrong, no matter if they are DM or player.

It's a democracy not a dictatorship, metaphorically. In my opinion, *everyone's* personal preference matters, not just the DM's (and not just the lone player wanting to go against genre when everyone else wants to stick to it).


----------



## Doctor Proctor (Mar 27, 2009)

@Celebrim:  Here's why you're not getting Hussar's point...  I'm not totally familiar with the other systems you mentioned, but I'm guessing Elves aren't an "official" race in Call of Cthulu and that Wizards aren't an "offical" class in Spycraft.  Am I right?  If so, then all you're saying "no" to there is a player essentially asking for a houserule.

A D&D Homebrew campaign is just that, a homebrew campaign, not a set of official rules.  Also, a "half-warforged, half-dragon, red Wizard of Thay" is not something you can currently create within the "official" set of rules.  It's a bit of a spurious example here and completely unlike what Hussar was explaining.

What we're talking about is when a DM is running a game of 4e and a player says "I want to play a Dragonborn Fighter", and the DM says "No, you can't be a Dragonborn.  I don't like them.  This is the list of _approved_ races that you can select from because I think having too many races waters the game down."  A DM who does that, is not a good DM.  He's not giving a real reason for his decision, and he's not really working with the player at all.  

A good DM might say "Well, my campaign takes places solely in the Feywild, so we're only using Fey races.  I'll tell you what though, I'll let you create a special Fey creature that uses similar stats to a Dragonborn so that you can play the sort of Fighter you want, we'll just reskin it as a Fey creature."

See the difference?  The good DM is creating a gameworld within certain parameters besides "I don't like it", and he's willing to work with his players to allow them to do what they want.  Maybe he wanted to play Dragonborn because otherwise being a Fighter means you're essentially at a -1 compared to other class choices when you're limited to races like Elves, Eladrin and Gnomes.  So giving him the +2 to STR and all the CON bonuses a Dragonborn gets, as well as maybe some of the feats, allows him to be the kind of character he wants within the narrative you're creating.  That's why he's a good DM.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 27, 2009)

Doctor Proctor said:


> @Celebrim:  Here's why you're not getting Hussar's point...  I'm not totally familiar with the other systems you mentioned, but I'm guessing Elves aren't an "official" race in Call of Cthulu and that Wizards aren't an "offical" class in Spycraft.  Am I right?  If so, then all you're saying "no" to there is a player essentially asking for a houserule.




So?  Players can ask for houserules.  I've no problem with that.



> A D&D Homebrew campaign is just that, a homebrew campaign, not a set of official rules.




So?  The 'official rules' are just something one group of DM's wrote down.  The only thing that makes them any different from house rules in that they got paid to write them.  No DM is any more required to follow 'the official rules' than they are required to follow my house rules.  The preface of the 1st edition Dungeon Master's Guide begins, "What follows herein is strictly for the eyes of you, the campaign referee.  As the creator and ultimate authority in your respective game, this work is written as one Dungeon Master equal to another.  Pronouncements there may be, but they are not from 'on high as respects to your game."

The official rules are just Gygax's house rules.  Later they were some other Dm's house rules.  It's the same thing.



> Also, a "half-warforged, half-dragon, red Wizard of Thay" is not something you can currently create within the "official" set of rules.




So?  Are you saying that I can't play a 'half-warforged, half-dragon, red Wizard of Thay', or are you just saying that I can't play that at your table or his table or some such?  Why not?   Solely because, for one reason or the other - your commitment to the 'official rules', your feeling that the character type is silly, whatever - it is your preference that I not.



> It's a bit of a spurious example here and completely unlike what Hussar was explaining.




No, it's exactly alike what Hussar was explaining.



> What we're talking about is when a DM is running a game of 4e and a player says "I want to play a Dragonborn Fighter", and the DM says "No, you can't be a Dragonborn.  I don't like them.  This is the list of _approved_ races that you can select from because I think having too many races waters the game down."  A DM who does that, is not a good DM.




In your opinion.  It sounds perfectly reasonable to me.  I think too many races waters the game down too.  I kicked Orcs completely off my homebrew 20 years ago, because I didn't see the need for them if I also had Goblin-kind.  Too many races feels utterly silly to me (in Tolkien they are just different words for the same race), and I thought goblins were more interesting and so I took my preference and booted the unpreferred race.  No half-orcs.  Sorry, isn't going to happen.

Does this mean that I look down on a DM that has Orcs?  No.  Does this mean I'm unsympathetic to a character that thinks Orcs are the coolest race ever?  No.  But I'm not going to change my mind just because of one player's affections.  I'll happily play in his Orc centered campaign, should he want to run one.



> He's not giving a real reason for his decision, and he's not really working with the player at all.




Wrong on both counts.  He gave a reason.  You just don't happen to like or respect that reason.  And he is working with the player.  He's given the player probably more options that were available in OD&D.  Is OD&D suddenly badwrongfun?  Are more options necessarily better by definition.  Obviously, this DM doesn't think so, and I can certainly see his reasoning.



> A good DM might say "Well, my campaign takes places solely in the Feywild, so we're only using Fey races.  I'll tell you what though, I'll let you create a special Fey creature that uses similar stats to a Dragonborn so that you can play the sort of Fighter you want, we'll just reskin it as a Fey creature."




There is no real distinction between the two DMs.  You've basically constructed a tautology.  A bad DM is a DM who has bad reasons for his preferences.  A good DM is a DM who has good reasons for his preferences.  But you're not going to be able to come up with a non-subjective way to distinguish 'bad preferences' from 'good preferences'.

I'd like to point out something that I find very troubling about your example of 'good DMing' as well.  It's mechanics oriented.  You just said, "You can have your mechanics, but you can't have your flavor."  As a player, I don't give much of a rip about mechanics.  I don't choose a concept because of mechanics.  

I also don't choose a concept outside the bounds of some other DM's campaign, nor do I try to backhanded force him to alter his game to suit my individual tastes.  It's disrespectful.



> See the difference?




Nope.  Not at all.  I see someone trying to impose his own internal judgement over what is a 'good' and 'bad' campaign setting on some other DM.  I don't see anything remotely objective in your criticism.  The good DM is creating a gameworld within certain parameters besides "I don't like it", and he's willing to work with his players to allow them to do what they want.  



> Maybe he wanted to play Dragonborn because otherwise being a Fighter means you're essentially at a -1 compared to other class choices when you're limited to races like Elves, Eladrin and Gnomes.  So giving him the +2 to STR and all the CON bonuses a Dragonborn gets, as well as maybe some of the feats, allows him to be the kind of character he wants within the narrative you're creating.  That's why he's a good DM.




Sounds like both a bad DM and a bad player to me then.  Personally, I'd wonder why I was gaming with some kid that tried to tell me he should be allowed access to some race because he wanted a mechanical benefit.  I've got no sympathy for that at all.  Maybe I can see it if he's got some fantastic backstory that depends almost entirely on some aspect of the biology of the Dragonborn race, how he might be crushed if I banned it from my table, but worrying about being -1 behind on his stat choices sounds immature to me and would only harden my position.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 27, 2009)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Wrong on both counts. He gave a reason. You just don't happen to like or respect that reason. And he is working with the player. He's given the player probably more options that were available in OD&D. Is OD&D suddenly badwrongfun? Are more options necessarily better by definition. Obviously, this DM doesn't think so, and I can certainly see his reasoning




Nope, because, if I'm going to play OD&D, I've already bought into that game with the understanding of the limitations of that game.

IF, however, you said "NO ELVES" in the OD&D game, when the only reason is you happen to have a rabid hatred of all things Tolkien, then I would say that that is not a good enough reason.

Similarly, "I don't like halflings" is not a good enough reason.  No other player at the table gets to say that.  The only, single solitary reason you get to say this is because you're sitting in the big chair.  If you were another player, you certainly could not tell me not to play a halfling.  Why does wearing the big hat allow you to ram your preferences down my throat?



> In your opinion. It sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I think too many races waters the game down too. I kicked Orcs completely off my homebrew 20 years ago, because I didn't see the need for them if I also had Goblin-kind. Too many races feels utterly silly to me (in Tolkien they are just different words for the same race), and I thought goblins were more interesting and so I took my preference and booted the unpreferred race. No half-orcs. Sorry, isn't going to happen.
> 
> Does this mean that I look down on a DM that has Orcs? No. Does this mean I'm unsympathetic to a character that thinks Orcs are the coolest race ever? No. But I'm not going to change my mind just because of one player's affections. I'll happily play in his Orc centered campaign, should he want to run one.




And that's a different thing as well.  You removed orcs, not because you particularly didn't like orcs, but because for the feel of your game, you didn't want to water down things.  I can live with that.  If I understand you correctly, you wrapped orcs up into goblinoids.  Heck, I did the same thing.  Heck, Dragonlance did the same thing.  Got no particular beef with that.  You have a justification for doing what you did that goes beyond, "I don't like X".

99.9% of the time, we're going to agree Celebrim.  That's the point you seem to be missing.  I'm saying, that when all other considerations are off the table, the DM should allow player choices when his single problem is a personal hang up.  

Your orc example is certainly close to what I'm saying.  I'll grant you that.  However, the common wisdom is that a DM's power is absolute here.  That no matter what the reason is, no matter how petty the reason might be, the DM has the absolute right to veto any and all player choices during character creation.

I disagree with that.  Please stop trying to expand things, or "trap me" or anything like that.  You know as well as I do that parachuting D&D elves into Cthulu would be genre breaking.  I note that you changed your tune when you expanded your answer.  Suddenly it wasn't just elves, but it was Cthulu based fairies that fit within the genre.  

Likewise, are you seriously telling me that if we signed up for a Spycraft game, and out of the blue, without any prior hint, vampires showed up, you'd have no problem?  You'd roll with it and be perfectly cool with it?  That if the DM suddenly allowed Bob at the table to play a Vampire you'd have no issues?  

Or take it another way, what if the DM suddenly decides that you cannot be British in the Spycraft game because he hates the British?  Or black?  Where does it stop?


----------



## Doctor Proctor (Mar 27, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> So?  Players can ask for houserules.  I've no problem with that.




Asking for a houserule is not the same as saying "Hey, can I use something from the official source book?"  One is asking for something extra, the other is asking for something that's assumed to be there...until a DM takes it away.



> So?  The 'official rules' are just something one group of DM's wrote down.  The only thing that makes them any different from house rules in that they got paid to write them.  No DM is any more required to follow 'the official rules' than they are required to follow my house rules.  The preface of the 1st edition Dungeon Master's Guide begins, "What follows herein is strictly for the eyes of you, the campaign referee.  As the creator and ultimate authority in your respective game, this work is written as one Dungeon Master equal to another.  Pronouncements there may be, but they are not from 'on high as respects to your game."
> 
> The official rules are just Gygax's house rules.  Later they were some other Dm's house rules.  It's the same thing.




What's your point?  Honestly, who cares what he said.  Gygax is dead, and that book came out over 30 years ago.  I'm sorry if I sound harsh about that, but it's the truth.  If you want to play the game where the DM had all the power and no one could see all his little rules or his little "gotcha" powers or the clear favoritism for anything "magic" and disdain for the other "boring" options like Fighter, then play 1e.  There's a reason the game changed, and that's because those games were often not as fun for the player as they were for the DM.



> So?  Are you saying that I can't play a 'half-warforged, half-dragon, red Wizard of Thay', or are you just saying that I can't play that at your table or his table or some such?  Why not?   Solely because, for one reason or the other - your commitment to the 'official rules', your feeling that the character type is silly, whatever - it is your preference that I not.




I'm saying just what I said.  Find me the rule that explains how to make a half-warforged, half-dragon.  If it's not in the official set of rules, then you're asking for something that's outside of the normal bounds of the system.  It's not the same asking for the thing detailed on page 11.



> Wrong on both counts.  He gave a reason.  You just don't happen to like or respect that reason.  And he is working with the player.  He's given the player probably more options that were available in OD&D.  Is OD&D suddenly badwrongfun?  Are more options necessarily better by definition.  Obviously, this DM doesn't think so, and I can certainly see his reasoning.




"I don't like it" is not a valid reason, it's a statement of a preference.  It's saying "This is what I want, and I don't care what you want", not "This is what I'm trying create and here's why".



> There is no real distinction between the two DMs.  You've basically constructed a tautology.  A bad DM is a DM who has bad reasons for his preferences.  A good DM is a DM who has good reasons for his preferences.  But you're not going to be able to come up with a non-subjective way to distinguish 'bad preferences' from 'good preferences'.
> 
> I'd like to point out something that I find very troubling about your example of 'good DMing' as well.  It's mechanics oriented.  You just said, "You can have your mechanics, but you can't have your flavor."  As a player, I don't give much of a rip about mechanics.  I don't choose a concept because of mechanics.
> 
> ...




Here's the difference, and you illustrate the point exactly.  For the first DM, and for you, it's all about them.  You don't like mechanical benefits, so if a player wants to play a race because of a mechanical benefit, that's bad and you call them immature and say it would harden your position.

I mean, are you listening to yourself?  Apparently if someone mentions the mechanics at your table they should be prepared to be insulted and belittled because that's not what _you_ like.  Did it ever occur to you that the person plays because he loves the math of the game?  Or that his character concept might be based around being the _strongest person at the table_, which is hard to do if you're a Halfing?

Heck, in a Paragon one shot we did I made an Eladrin Spear Fighter with an 18 starting STR and another guy made a Minotaur melee Ranger/Fighter.  I actually made fun of him (in character) because the puny little Eladrin was stronger than the big, bad Minotaur.  It was something that was funny at the table, and it came out of *gasp* a mechanical score.  I suppose if I would've mentioned that you would've called me immature?  How is that any way to run a collaborative game like D&D?


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 27, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Nope, because, if I'm going to play OD&D, I've already bought into that game with the understanding of the limitations of that game.




I don't see your point.  You set down at a table and agree to let me be dungeon master, then you are buying into the game with whatever limitations I set.  Likewise, if I set down at your table, I'm extending you the same courtesy.  I'm not going to be going, "OMG.  You don't like elves!!??  You are the worst dungeon master ever.  Why don't you want elves in your campaign world!"  I'm not going to even ask you to explain yourself.  You don't have to explain yourself.



> IF, however, you said "NO ELVES" in the OD&D game, when the only reason is you happen to have a rabid hatred of all things Tolkien, then I would say that that is not a good enough reason.




Which, to me, makes you a problem player.  It's the guy who sits down, agrees to let someone be the game master, but is all the time questioning, attacking, and trying to undermine the authority of the guy running the game.  I hate DMing players like that.  I hate playing alongside players like that, because they invariably end up wasting my time arguing with the DM, rules lawyering the DM, whining, metagaming, and generally acting like spoiled children because they aren't getting their way.  Meanwhile I'm sitting here twiddling my thumbs waiting for them to get over there childish need to antagonize and compete with the DM, so I can take my turn.  It's a waste of everyone's time, and the only time I ever put up with it is when the person is my friend IRL.  But its always a joy when that guy doesn't show up that week, even if we'd never tell him that.



> Similarly, "I don't like halflings" is not a good enough reason.




Why?  Who gets to decide what a good enough reason is?  Does the DM have to validate and justify all of his decisions before he gets to make them?



> No other player at the table gets to say that.




No, they don't.  Because if everyone gets to make those decisions, bedlam and arguments erupt because no one can agree on anything.



> The only, single solitary reason you get to say this is because you're sitting in the big chair.




Amen. It's certainly not because I'm better than anyone else at the table.  You want a turn in the big chair, you're welcome to it.



> If you were another player, you certainly could not tell me not to play a halfling.




No, I certainly couldn't.  



> Why does wearing the big hat allow you to ram your preferences down my throat?




Because someone has to decide, and its natural to give that authority to the same person whose duty and responcibility it is to make stuff up.  Authority has to match responcibility, in games as in life.   You can't give the responcibility to the DM and the authority to the players, or the authority to the DM and the responcibility to the players because it would suck.



> And that's a different thing as well.  You removed orcs, not because you particularly didn't like orcs, but because for the feel of your game, you didn't want to water down things...I can live with that.




That's just your preference.  You agree.  That's all you are saying.  Sometimes you are saying, "I agree and therefore you are a good DM." and sometimes you are saying, "I disagree and therefore you are a bad DM.".   But how you decide what a good enough reason is, is entirely arbitrary and subjective.



> 99.9% of the time, we're going to agree Celebrim.  That's the point you seem to be missing.  I'm saying, that when all other considerations are off the table, the DM should allow player choices when his single problem is a personal hang up.




In your speak, 'personal hang up' simply means 'preference I don't agree with'.  And this is exactly why players don't get to decide, because as soon as they think that them being a player gives them the right to decide, you've got a player that thinks the have the right to quarrel with every decision of the DM - first they appeal to the 'official rules', then they appeal to 'common sense', then they want to put it up for a vote, then they want a coin flip, then they cry or throw a temper tantrum or start shouting at the DM.   And that's what they call 'consensus'.  



> Your orc example is certainly close to what I'm saying.  I'll grant you that.




Progress.



> However, the common wisdom is that a DM's power is absolute here.  That no matter what the reason is, no matter how petty the reason might be, the DM has the absolute right to veto any and all player choices during character creation.




Indeed.  He has the right.  He might not always be wise to excercise such a heavy hand, but he absolutely has the right.  However, none of your examples even remotely come close to being heavy handed DMing.  There is nothing tyranical about 'no elves'.  



> You know as well as I do that parachuting D&D elves into Cthulu would be genre breaking.  I note that you changed your tune when you expanded your answer.  Suddenly it wasn't just elves, but it was Cthulu based fairies that fit within the genre.




Elves.  Clearly you have a very narrow conception of 'elf'.  I advise you to read some Terry Pratchett if you think I'd be breaking the Lovecraftian genera by bringing elves into it.    



> Likewise, are you seriously telling me that if we signed up for a Spycraft game, and out of the blue, without any prior hint, vampires showed up, you'd have no problem?




No, I wouldn't have a problem.  I'd be perfectly cool with it.   In and out of character I'd be probably going, "OMG, we're screwed!", but if it came as a surprise - and especially if it came as a suprise - it would be alot of fun.  It would be like playing James Bond and then "OMG!" discovering the Illuminati is real and suddenly we are in 'Her Majesty's Majestic 12 Program'.  Totally cool, precisely because it would imply a campaign with actual campaign secrets rather than one where I already knew everything that was going on because I've read the sourcebook.  Campaign level secrets, the sort that are too cool to actually write down in any official material because the joy is discovering them in actual play, are the bomb in RPing.  Module level secrets, when the story has a twist and you don't know it (because the DM is in charge and gets to decide), are great, but campaign level secrets (for the last 10 sessions your boss has been a werewolf, and you didn't even know you were playing in a world that had werewolves, and then you suddenly put two and two together which you would have done 6 sessions ago if you were in a typical fantasy world) are just about the most fun moments you can have at a gaming table.



> You'd roll with it and be perfectly cool with it?  That if the DM suddenly allowed Bob at the table to play a Vampire you'd have no issues?




I can't answer that question.  I don't know Bob.  



> Or take it another way, what if the DM suddenly decides that you cannot be British in the Spycraft game because he hates the British?  Or black?




Yep.  No elves.  Badwrongfun.  Guy must be a nasty racist.   He probably tortures small furry animals in his backyard too.

Again, you are reduced to saying, "But what if you don't like the DM's preferences.  What if you think they are bad preferences?  Don't you have the authority to overturn the DM's preferences if you don't think he has good enough reasons for them?" 

No I don't.  If the guy hates blacks and Brits, we might have an OOC away from the game problem, but that's an entirely different issue than the game master saying, "All spies must be American." or some such. 



> Where does it stop?




About where I get up from the table.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 27, 2009)

Doctor Proctor said:


> Asking for a houserule is not the same as saying "Hey, can I use something from the official source book?"  One is asking for something extra, the other is asking for something that's assumed to be there...until a DM takes it away.




That's right.  He's just taking your fun away.  MUHAHAHA.  There is nothing DM's like more than taking away your toys, which is why you have to fight so hard for them, right?



> What's your point?




Only that official rules take no precedence over unoffical ones.



> Honestly, who cares what he said.  Gygax is dead, and that book came out over 30 years ago.  I'm sorry if I sound harsh about that...




No you aren't, or you wouldn't have said it. 



> If you want to play the game where the DM had all the power and no one could see all his little rules or his little "gotcha" powers or the clear favoritism for anything "magic" and disdain for the other "boring" options like Fighter, then play 1e.




Far and away the most powerful character I ever saw in 1e was a fighter.  Seriously, did you even play 1e?  Paladins and Rangers were right up there with them.  



> There's a reason the game changed, and that's because those games were often not as fun for the player as they were for the DM.




They weren't?  Man, I had tons of badwrongfun then.



> I'm saying just what I said.  Find me the rule that explains how to make a half-warforged, half-dragon.  If it's not in the official set of rules,




There you go getting hung up on 'official then'.  I believe that's called 'rules lawyering'.   What you are really saying is, "Having official rules is a weapon I can use against the DM."



> then you're asking for something that's outside of the normal bounds of the system.  It's not the same asking for the thing detailed on page 11.




It's absolutely the same.  And, as I said, I have no problem with a player approaching me for something outside the normal bounds of the system, just as long as they are understanding if I decide to say 'No', or 'How about we go in a different direction instead?', which is just a politer form of, 'No'.



> "I don't like it" is not a valid reason, it's a statement of a preference.  It's saying "This is what I want, and I don't care what you want", not "This is what I'm trying create and here's why".




"This is what I'm trying to create and here's why", is also a statement of preference.  "This is what I prefer to create."  Reasons like, "I don't like elves.", "Elves are overdone.", "I wanted to be different.", and "Geez, Tolkien is so lame, give me Moorcock.", are all _fundamentally the same reasoning_.  Some are just more tactful or subtle handwaving of what is always and inescapablely a personal preference than others.



> Here's the difference, and you illustrate the point exactly.  For the first DM, and for you, it's all about them.




And for the player in all of your examples, its all about them?  So what.  It's the DM's world.  You don't like it, make your own.



> You don't like mechanical benefits, so if a player wants to play a race because of a mechanical benefit, that's bad and you call them immature and say it would harden your position.




Indeed.  Because the player is subtly or not so subtly informing me of his antagonistic stance.  If he wanted to play a race with a particular flavor out of a desire to bring to life some character, as a DM I'd be tempted because the player is offering to entertain me.  As a DM, nothing is better than having players who are so good at RPing that sometimes you can just lean back and enjoy the show.  But the player who is fighting over the definition of my campaign world in order to get a +1 bonus to damage is promising to be a headache, because it almost certainly won't be the last time that they struggle to take control of my side of the screen in order to gain some advantage.



> I mean, are you listening to yourself?




Yes, absolutely.  I'm being exactly the sort of player, or trying to be, that I like having at my table.  Focused on bringing a character to life and making choices for that character, and not focused on how I can beat the DM or get the DM to make choices that I think that he should.  That's cooperation. 



> Apparently if someone mentions the mechanics at your table they should be prepared to be insulted and belittled because that's not what _you_ like.




If someone came to me and demanded that they be allowed to play Dragonborn because they could get a +1 advantage relative to some other choice, I'd take this roughly the same way that I'd take someone wanting to know if they could play a Vampire or a Werewolf.  Clearly, there head is in the wrong place.  It has nothing to do with mentioning mechanics in themselves.



> Did it ever occur to you that the person plays because he loves the math of the game?  Or that his character concept might be based around being the _strongest person at the table_, which is hard to do if you're a Halfing?




It occurs to me.  It's just that I'm not sure that either person sounds particularly entertaining.



> Heck, in a Paragon one shot we did I made an Eladrin Spear Fighter with an 18 starting STR and another guy made a Minotaur melee Ranger/Fighter.






> How is that any way to run a collaborative game like D&D?




It's a cooperative game.  It's not a collaborative game.   It can be.  I've seen co-DM's before, and I've been asked as a player to collaborate with the DM in creating rules or setting information.   But normally, one person is responcible for the setting, and ultimately one person is always responcible for the setting.  I could only collaborate with the DM with his blessing.  I could say, "You have to put this stuff into your game."


----------



## Doctor Proctor (Mar 27, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> Elves. Clearly you have a very narrow conception of 'elf'. I advise you to read some Terry Pratchett if you think I'd be breaking the Lovecraftian genera by bringing elves into it.




Sorry, I just gotta comment on that one.  I own pretty much everything Lovecraft has ever published.  I even spent like $75 to get a limited edition (like 1 or 1,000, or 2,000, I foget) copy of Winter Wish.  I've read both the Annoted Lovecraft books by ST Joshi, as well as his Annoted Supernatural Horror in literature.

In all of that stuff, which takes up a very large shelf in my house, I have yet to see something referencing an "elf".  Yes, there may have some things that might sound a little like that in the Dream Cycle stories, but there was never a D&D/Tolkien Elf that I can recall anywhere in there.  So yes, it would be genre breaking.

Oh, and as for reading Pratchett?  WTF?  The dude was _born_ a decade after Lovecraft _died_.  What does anything he has to say have to do with what's "Lovecraftian"?

Edit:  I should say, I only recently got A Winter Wish.  So, I apologize if there is a reference in one of those stories, since I haven't gotten around to reading them yet.  However, that's also one of his lesser known works, and it's not the stuff that the _Call of Cthulu_ game is based on.


----------



## Greg K (Mar 27, 2009)

Doctor Proctor said:


> I mean, are you listening to yourself?




Are you listening to yourself? You act as if you have some inalienable right to any particular item , because it is in the book let alone "to participate in a given DM's game (and by theirs I mean in terms of the person running) or to have your individual playstyle catered to.   

If you don't like the parameters whether campaign elements or playstyle (e.g, degree of emphassis on powergaming, butt kicking, exploration, etc. ), you have the door.   I know that in my group there would be seven other players (eight including the DM) telling you to sit down and play the game within the set parameters.  If you can't do this, they will gladly help you find the door and tell you not to let the door hit you on your way out so we can have our fun.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 27, 2009)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> Why? Who gets to decide what a good enough reason is? Does the DM have to validate and justify all of his decisions before he gets to make them?




I'm just going to pull this one bit out because I'm tired of dueling examples.  

To answer your question, absolutely 100% YES.  Now, whether a DM must actually give an answer before he makes a decision isn't true.  But, the DM must absolutely be ABLE to give a justification for his decisions.  Otherwise, he's just dictating whatever he feels like.  It's entirely arbitrary.

And, IME, any DM who feels that he has no need to justify any of his campaign decisions has invariably been a bad DM.  Any DM who has given so little thought to why he is doing something that he cannot answer such a simple question is a bad DM.  Flat out.

Player: "Why no elves?"
DM:  I dunno.  Just don't like them.
Player:  But, I have this very good idea for an elf character that fits within the parameters you set for the campaign that I agreed to play.  
DM:  Doesn't matter.  My table.  Like it or leave.

Sorry, I have no interest in playing with this sort of DM ever again.  I've been there.  I've played with DM's who were so fixated on their own personal vision of their art that nothing could pry their jaws of life grip from the image that they had created in their mind.  Never, ever again.

So, my advice to any DM's reading this, please, if you're going to veto a player's choice, step back and look at why you are doing it.  If the only reason is that you just don't like it, then maybe you should get over yourself.  It's not your character.  You have the entire world to play with, this player has just this one guy.  And, hey, you never know, you might find that if the player does a good job with the concept he starts with, you might actually like the character.

Or you might hate it.    But, in any case, a bit of relaxing the death grip is rarely a bad thing.

Celebrim, I salute your defense of your point.  You obviously believe very strongly in what you are arguing against.  I disagree with you, but, I also realize that 99% of the time, this would never come up.  It's far to much of a corner case to get this worked up about and, well, after several threads where we've had EXACTLY the same conversation over and over again, this isn't going to get us much of anywhere.  

/me bows out.


----------



## Doctor Proctor (Mar 27, 2009)

Greg K said:


> Are you listening to yourself? You act as if you have some inalienable right to any particular item , because it is in the book let alone "to participate in a given DM's game (and by theirs I mean in terms of the person running) or to have your individual playstyle catered to.
> 
> If you don't like the parameters whether campaign elements or playstyle (e.g, degree of emphassis on powergaming, butt kicking, exploration, etc. ), you have the door.   I know that in my group there would be seven other players (eight including the DM) telling you to sit down and play the game within the set parameters.  If you can't do this, they will gladly help you find the door and tell you not to let the door hit you on your way out so we can have our fun.




Well, if the DM will insult me because of my playstyle and runs his table like a dictatorship then it won't be a problem because I won't play.

Plus, maybe you're not reading the same posts I am.  The reason I have a problem with that DM style is because usually it comes from a person just like Celebrim.  While he's arguing about how it's game and his rules, he's also apparently fine with belittling and insulting any player who happens to like an aspect of the system that he finds distasteful.

So yeah, you're right, I don't have an entitlement to everything just because it's printed in a book.  However, a DM that refuses to talk to and work with his players is probably the same kind of DM that acts like Celebrim and sees fit to treat them like crap if they don't behave how he thinks they should or like the same parts of the system that he does.  

That's not a DM I want to play with, and I wouldn't think you would want to either.  Sure, he's fun as long as you think exactly the way he does, but people like him don't leave room for people to have their own opinions...and that's just not okay for me.


----------



## Greg K (Mar 27, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Likewise, are you seriously telling me that if we signed up for a Spycraft game, and out of the blue, without any prior hint, vampires showed up, you'd have no problem? You'd roll with it and be perfectly cool with it?



I'd have no problem ((other than I won't play Spycraft). If the DM mentioned, prior to character generation that there would be horror in the game, I think it would make for an interesting campaign. 



> That if the DM suddenly allowed Bob at the table to play a Vampire you'd have no issues?




Not a problem if everyone knew up front that vampires were an option.




> Or take it another way, what if the DM suddenly decides that you cannot be British in the Spycraft game because he hates the British?  Or black?  Where does it stop?




Come on, Hussar.  This doesn't even deserve a dignified response.


----------



## Greg K (Mar 27, 2009)

Doctor Proctor said:


> Plus, maybe you're not reading the same posts I am.  The reason I have a problem with that DM style is because usually it comes from a person just like Celebrim.  While he's arguing about how it's game and his rules, he's also apparently fine with belittling and insulting any player who happens to like an aspect of the system that he finds distasteful.




Doctor Proctor, 
I can agree that you should not be belittled- that's not never right.  However, I was responding to where you  wrote:

"Asking for a houserule is not the same as saying "Hey, can I use something from the official source book?" One is asking for something extra, the other is asking for something that's assumed to be there...*until a DM takes it away*.

My issue is with the part I bolded. Then again, when I go into a new game, I have no assumptions about what specific elements from core or other "official" sourcebooks  will or will not be included until I talk with the DM.  This is especially true of supplements.


----------



## Inyssius (Mar 27, 2009)

*God*, people, what are you *arguing* about? 

I'll sum this up: 

"A GOOD DM WOULD NOT ALLOW THIS."

_"A GOOD DM WOULD NOT ALLOW THIS SORT OF THING."

_"YOU HAVE PHRASED YOUR STATEMENT INCORRECTLY. WE MUST DUEL TO THE DEATH."

_"YOU HAVE PHRASED YOUR REBUTTAL INCORRECTLY. TO PREVENT YOUR IDIOT SEMANTIC DISTINCTIONS FROM POLLUTING THE INTERNET ANY FURTHER, YOU MUST DIE."
_
**nerdfight*
*_
----

_Ah, for a rolleyes smiley large enough to encapsulate this WAR OF WORDS...


----------



## Greg K (Mar 27, 2009)

Hussar said:


> So, my advice to any DM's reading this, please, if you're going to veto a player's choice, step back and look at why you are doing it.  If the only reason is that you just don't like it, then maybe you should get over yourself.  It's not your character.  You have the entire world to play with, this player has just this one guy.  And, hey, you never know, you might find that if the player does a good job with the concept he starts with, you might actually like the character.




Hussar, 
The same could be said for getting over yourself.  If you know up front that the setting has no elves, why would you even present an elf and a background as an idea for a character?  And, for that matter, f you were so hard up about playing an elf, why would you have ever agreed to play in the game? Now, I could see being upset if you talked with the DM, they mentioned nothing about campaign restrictions, and sent you off to create a character on your own.  The DM should have informed you ahead of time that certain things were restricted. This would have allowed you to  have asked questions about the campaign and decided if it was right for you rather than being blindsided. 

Barring being blindsided and, assuming you know the available choices up front, I don't see the problem.  So, the DM chose not to include a race or class or even multiple core elements, because they disliked it and created a setting  to experience a game without it.  What is stopping you from making an interesting and fun character given the available choices for the campaign setting other than your disagree with the reason for  excuding certain elements- especially, if you knew the restrictions coming in.


----------



## Fenes (Mar 27, 2009)

So, at the end of the day it all comes down to "If it's in an _official book_ I have a right to play it" for some people. 

I hope those who follow this creed understand that not everyone considers WotC's choices to be the most optimal, or the most fun, or even fun at all.

Personally, I don't care whether or not something is official. If I hate it I won't play it - or run a game for it. I DM for fun, no fun means no game.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 27, 2009)

Greg K said:


> I'd have no problem ((other than I won't play Spycraft). If the DM mentioned, prior to character generation that there would be horror in the game, I think it would make for an interesting campaign.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Please reread what I posted.  I did expressly say that the DM drops it in OUT OF THE BLUE.  So,  I think we're in agreement here.  The DM baits and switches and is bad.  

But, hang on, if a DM's right to veto or change any element of his campaign is absolute, then this should all be fine.

And, yes, it does deserve a dignified response.  You are claiming that a DM's right to veto any character element is ABSOLUTE.  That there is no limit on what I as the DM can veto without any justification required.  If that's true, then where's the problem with saying no Brits?  Or no blacks?  Or no Canadians?



Greg K said:


> Hussar,
> The same could be said for getting over yourself.  If you know up front that the setting has no elves, why would you even present an elf and a background as an idea for a character?  And, for that matter, f you were so hard up about playing an elf, why would you have ever agreed to play in the game? Now, I could see being upset if you talked with the DM, they mentioned nothing about campaign restrictions, and sent you off to create a character on your own.  The DM should have informed you ahead of time that certain things were restricted. This would have allowed you to  have asked questions about the campaign and decided if it was right for you rather than being blindsided.
> 
> Barring being blindsided and, assuming you know the available choices up front, I don't see the problem.  So, the DM chose not to include a race or class or even multiple core elements, because they disliked it and created a setting  to experience a game without it.  What is stopping you from making an interesting and fun character given the available choices for the campaign setting other than your disagree with the reason for  excuding certain elements- especially, if you knew the restrictions coming in.




My point is, when a DM has no justifications for the choices he made, outside of his personal preference, the DM is not one I want to play with.  That DM's should step back, examine why they are making this choice and, if they are honest with themselves and the players, they cannot come up with any justification better than, "I just don't like it." then yes, absolutely, the DM should back down regardless of what the initial statements of the campaign.

Now, you can keep stumping up example after example of "what about this" or "what about that" but it doesn't really matter.  If you as DM, have no other justification for your decisions than your personal preference, then yes, you should get over yourself.  We're playing the game together as a group.  Your decisions carry lots of weight.  

I guess it comes down to the whole "with great power" thing.  I think that browbeating my fellow players with my particular tastes, just because I'm in the big chair is overstepping my bounds as DM.  

Obviously, you and Celebrim feel differently about this.  And that's fine.  That's cool.  Like I said, this is not something that will come up very often, if ever.  Most of the time the conversation never gets to this point.  This is a very, very corner case and should not be seen as larger than it is.

Which  is why we got into this in the first place.  You tried saying that I said that any DM who vetos stuff is a bad DM.  That was a mistake.  My point was never that.  And, unfortunately, every single time this comes up, invariably people try taking it much much farther and broader than I mean it.

Please, take it in the spirit that I meant it.  If, after considering a player request, your single issue is personal preference, I believe that a DM is better served by letting the player's personal preference trump your own.


----------



## Greg K (Mar 27, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Which  is why we got into this in the first place.  You tried saying that I said that any DM who vetos stuff is a bad DM.  That was a mistake.  My point was never that.  And, unfortunately, every single time this comes up, invariably people try taking it much much farther and broader than I mean it.
> 
> Please, take it in the spirit that I meant it.  If, after considering a player request, your single issue is personal preference, I believe that a DM is better served by letting the player's personal preference trump your own.




Hussar, 
I have never viewed your position as all vetoing is bad and I don't think I have claimed that you, specifically, has ever claimed that.  Some people, however, have in threads including over at WOTC (one specificlaly is entitled What makes a Bad DM? Banning was one of the answers without any qualifiiers and there are plenty of other threads were the same is stated)

My issue with you position is that making a decison to ban soley for dislike of a given element is a) automatically bad if that is the only reason ; b)  is "forcing the preference down your throat and so the DM should back off".; c) by your own words "forcing their preference" = bad DM.  It is just as likely possible that a) the problem is with you since banning for dislike can still lead to an interesting and enjoyable setting and you are just being a problem player that expects your preference to trump everything else;  or b) The DM and your preferences and playstyles are just too divergent and , while neither of you are bad, the two of you are just looking for different styles of games and are a bad fit for each other and shouldn't play with each other .

Now, as for not wanting to play with such a DM,  hey no quarrels.  We all have our preferred playstyles.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 27, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Please, take it in the spirit that I meant it.  If, after considering a player request, your single issue is personal preference, I believe that a DM is better served by letting the player's personal preference trump your own.




Yes, that's exactly the spirit I thought you meant it in.  I'm glad to see were finally getting some honesty in this thread.

My position is that with regard to anything touching on his campaign, the DM's personal preferences should not be up for debate.  If he vetoes something, that's his right and that's the end of it.  That does not mean that the DM should or must always let his personal preference trump that of the player's, but if he has no other reason for something than "I prefer it that way.", then thats good enough.

For all your attempts to claim otherwise, your position has always been simply the opposite.  You have claimed that the DM's personal preferences may always be held to a strict accounting, with the player always entitled to an immediate explanation that satisfies the player why the DM has chosen anything.  You have claimed that the player's personal preference trumps the DM's, and because of this that the DM has no right to his personal preferences.  You insist that the DM must negotiate with the player for the right to run his own campaign, and that if the player's personal preferences differ from his that he must oblige them.  The player's personal preferences of course have no objective standard either, though apparantly we can discover what constitutes reasonable, fair, and good preferences for either players or DMs by simply consulting Hussar.  Perhaps we should just let Hussar run all the tables.

If I go to play at some DM's table, its because I want to experience that DM's preferences.  It's not because I'm bringing my preconcieved ideas to the table, and its not that I want some other player to force their preferences and ideas on to that DM's world.  If I don't like that DM's preferences or he lacks the skill or experience to communicate them effectively, then I'll probably look elsewhere but I'm never going to question the DM's right to his game.  I'm certainly not going around going, "That game is badwrongfun because the DM doesn't like elves."  Nor do I expect him to explain or even hint that the reason he doesn't want players being elves, is that a central point of the campaign is going to be elves invading the campaign world through the dungeon dimensions and terrorizing everyone.


----------



## kenmarable (Mar 27, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> Yes, that's exactly the spirit I thought you meant it in.  I'm glad to see were finally getting some honesty in this thread.
> 
> My position is that with regard to anything touching on his campaign, the DM's personal preferences should not be up for debate.  If he vetoes something, that's his right and that's the end of it.  That does not mean that the DM should or must always let his personal preference trump that of the player's, but if he has no other reason for something than "I prefer it that way.", then thats good enough.



Yep, and right there is where I have to agree to disagree. I think everyone's personal preferences should be up for debate - DM or player, but I guess we just differ there.



Celebrim said:


> For all your attempts to claim otherwise, your position has always been simply the opposite.  You have claimed that the DM's personal preferences may always be held to a strict accounting, with the player always entitled to an immediate explanation that satisfies the player why the DM has chosen anything.  You have claimed that the player's personal preference trumps the DM's, and because of this that the DM has no right to his personal preferences.  You insist that the DM must negotiate with the player for the right to run his own campaign, and that if the player's personal preferences differ from his that he must oblige them.  The player's personal preferences of course have no objective standard either, though apparantly we can discover what constitutes reasonable, fair, and good preferences for either players or DMs by simply consulting Hussar.  Perhaps we should just let Hussar run all the tables.



When people ease up on the straw man arguments and hyperbole, internet discussions go a bit smoother. Just an FYI.



Celebrim said:


> If I go to play at some DM's table, its because I want to experience that DM's preferences.  It's not because I'm bringing my preconcieved ideas to the table, and its not that I want some other player to force their preferences and ideas on to that DM's world.  If I don't like that DM's preferences or he lacks the skill or experience to communicate them effectively, then I'll probably look elsewhere but I'm never going to question the DM's right to his game.  I'm certainly not going around going, "That game is badwrongfun because the DM doesn't like elves."  Nor do I expect him to explain or even hint that the reason he doesn't want players being elves, is that a central point of the campaign is going to be elves invading the campaign world through the dungeon dimensions and terrorizing everyone.



For me, the philosophical difference is that I don't play to experience *the DM's campaign*, I play to experience *our campaign*. For me, no matter which side of the screen I'm on, it's a give and take. That's a fundamentally different view of the game from what you describe, and I don't think dueling examples are going to change that.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Mar 27, 2009)

Good grief! lol. I'm a bit surprised this thread is still live...

Take a step back and look at it from the perspectives of both the players and the DM (and also remember that different groups will have different reasons for playing together and more or less ability to go play elsewhere, so nothing is hard and fast).

In a perfectly technical sense the DM is empowered by both rules and convention to impose whatever restrictions they wish in their games. They aren't OBLIGED to explain that or budge or anything else. In that sense players simply have 2 options open to them, convince the DM to change his/her mind, or don't play in that game. Given that the DM probably WANTS to have players, the players are usually in a somewhat superior bargaining position than the DM. That will depend on what other games are available to the players, and what other players are available to the DM that are willing to play by that DM's preferences. 

IMHO it is fairly pointless to argue about what level of flexibility makes a 'good DM' or a 'bad DM'. There are any number of factors that make a successful DM, one of which IS at least a certain degree of flexibility and an understanding that all players contribute to making the game enjoyable, or not. In most circumstances the DM wants the specific player in the game and wants them to enjoy the game and continue to play. Likewise a good player wants the same things in general. So from the perspective of each one a certain degree of flexibility is likely to be the best policy.

Usually the DM should thus cater to the player's wishes, at least to a reasonable extent. If the DM doesn't feel a certain character is going to make the game work well, then they should reasonably WANT to explain that to the player, give them some basis for why they feel that way, and ideally come up with a mutually acceptable compromise that gives the player the play experience they want and also provides the DM and the other players with an enjoyable game. A DM that simply gives any player whatever they want 100% of the time isn't automatically a bad DM. Maybe what the players want is for the best, but it can be better not to always give the players everything they ask for. Likewise a good player should be willing to consider the DM and try to figure out what will work for both of them. Maybe the DM has reasons for NOT explaining his limitations right away because it might give away part of the story, but he can at least say that, and the player can at least trust the DM.

There really ultimately isn't all that much difference between the factors that make a good DM or a good player. Most problem players and DMs are just not really acting in a very mature fashion and need to learn to work together. D&D is a cooperative game, not a contest.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 27, 2009)

kenmarable said:


> Yep, and right there is where I have to agree to disagree. I think everyone's personal preferences should be up for debate - DM or player, but I guess we just differ there.




Apparantly so.  I don't think there should be a debate at all.  I don't think the game is enhanced by that sort of debate, and if there is time for airing concerns between a player and a DM (either direction) then its away from the table, privately, and as non-combatitively as possible.  I think there is a nice clean line during play - the DM doesn't try to run the player character's, and the PC's don't try to run the game world.   When you are sitting at the table as a group is not the time to for the DM to be challenging a player, or for a player to be challenging the DM.  Rarely does anything good come of it.



> For me, the philosophical difference is that I don't play to experience *the DM's campaign*, I play to experience *our campaign*. For me, no matter which side of the screen I'm on, it's a give and take. That's a fundamentally different view of the game from what you describe, and I don't think dueling examples are going to change that.




Yes, I agree that there is a give and take, but I think that I see that give in take as occurring in a fundamentally different way.  There is absolutely no give and take over an established campaign world.  It's entirely the domain of the DM.  There is absolutely no give and take over an established player character.  It entirely belongs to the player.  There is absolutely no give and take over whose in charge.  It's the DM.  Where there is a give in take is in the interesting shared space between these things.  Each side is giving play to the other side, and recieving play in return.  Both sides are involved in creating this shared imaginary space.  As the DM, I know what the world is, but I have no idea what story is going to take place in it.  As a player, I have no idea what the world is, but I've got a very large degree of control over the story that will take place in it, because fundamentally it's the player's story.  A DM makes very few real choices except in the creation of the material.  After that point, he takes a very passive role, which is mostly characterized by responding to player propositions.  A DM's oppurtunity to be active and proactive is necessarily circumscribed and narrow, lest the story become about the DM.  Occassionally as a DM you can grandly enter the stage, but its always in costume and behind a mask and your exits are usually swift.   The player by constrast is the star, is always on stage, and is always making choices.   The player is active.  He's getting the majority of memorable lines.  He's getting the majority of moments of awesomeness.   The story revolves around him.   The least the player can do is not fight the DM for an even bigger role, and start trying to dictate to the DM how the DM should respond to their propositions.

That shared space is what you call 'our campaign', and that's fine because there wouldn't be a campaign without players.  But while the campaign may be shared, the campaign world belongs to the DM and is being shared with the players.  Just as the DM is grateful to the players share themselves (via their imagined personas), so the players ought to be grateful to the DM for sharing the world.   That's what I consider 'mutualism' and cooperation in play - not debating each other's aesthetic choices.

The fact that there is a give and take is why its fun to play on both sides of the screen.  I've played mostly as the DM mostly because the other players wanted me to, but I enjoy both sides immensely.   However, the DM is in charge.  Period.


----------



## hamishspence (Mar 27, 2009)

*Lovecraftian Elves and Terry Pratchett*

I've heard it said that Aliens are the modern version of elves- creepy creatures that abduct people and leave subtly _wrong_ substitutes behind, that sort of thing.

With that in mind, Terry Pratchett elves do partake heavily of the old "The Fair Folk" legends- the nasty ones.

They are masters of illusion and mind control (and look like Greys underneath the pointy-eared humanoid disguise)

They come from a "parasite universe" and prey on humanity- they are ancient and cruel.

_Lords and Ladies,_ _Wee Free Men_, and _The Science of Discworld 2 _are the main Pratchett books on elves, and the mix of Aliens and Terrors from Another Realm, seems to me, quite Lovecraftian.


----------



## Old Gumphrey (Mar 28, 2009)

Mad Zagyg said:


> I just threw up all over page 7 of the PHB2.




I just stopped reading this post.

<3 gnomes


----------



## Hussar (Mar 28, 2009)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> That shared space is what you call 'our campaign', and that's fine because there wouldn't be a campaign without players. But while the campaign may be shared, the campaign world belongs to the DM and is being shared with the players. Just as the DM is grateful to the players share themselves (via their imagined personas), so the players ought to be grateful to the DM for sharing the world. That's what I consider 'mutualism' and cooperation in play - not debating each other's aesthetic choices.




And, Celebrim, I think this is a pretty common attitude from a number of DM's.  That the campaign world belongs to the DM and no one else and the DM is condescending to allow his poor players to partake in the brilliance that is his campaign.  That the DM absolutely belongs solely to the DM and to no one else, and if anyone doesn't like that, take a walk.

Is that being "honest" enough with you?  Is that an "honest" enough take on your position.

Do you honestly not see how unbelievably arrogant you come off saying something like this?  That the world is the sole property of the DM and the player should obsequiously obey any and all elements that the DM decides is true in the game, no matter what?

I, for one, am certainly not looking for gratitude from my players.  My players *owe[/] me nothing.  They are not in any way beholden to me for the work I put into the campaign.  I'm doing it so I can run a fun game.  I do it because I enjoy doing it.  Of course I have my own preferences.  Of course I will argue with players who try to bring stuff in that's against those preferences.  What I refuse to do anymore is browbeat players into accepting my vision simply because I'm in the big chair.

If I cannot come up with any better reason than that, then I don't deserve to DM.




			For all your attempts to claim otherwise, your position has always been simply the opposite.
		
Click to expand...



Umm, refresh my memory.  Where have I tried to claim otherwise.  I have repeatedly claimed that a DM who says, "It's this way because I like it" is wrong in my mind.  I think I've stated that in pretty much every post in this thread.  I know I've stated it at least one other time.  

Again, could you please argue with what I actually write and not what you think I'm writing?*


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 28, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> Apparantly so.  I don't think there should be a debate at all.



It shouldn't be a combative debate where people insult each other or threaten to leave the game or not run the game or whatever.

But I think it's fair of the DM to ask the players what they want to play and give them room to play that. 

Of course there will always be situations - campaign settings - were certain things just don't fit - but of course, if a player wants to play something not fitting there, maybe he is in the wrong campaign or the DM is running the wrong campaign?


----------



## Hussar (Mar 28, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> It shouldn't be a combative debate where people insult each other or threaten to leave the game or not run the game or whatever.
> 
> But I think it's fair of the DM to ask the players what they want to play and give them room to play that.
> 
> Of course there will always be situations - campaign settings - were certain things just don't fit - but of course, if a player wants to play something not fitting there, maybe he is in the wrong campaign or the DM is running the wrong campaign?




Just to ask, is the reverse also fair?  Can a player ask to play what they want to play even though it might not have been specifically allowed, or may even have been disallowed at the outset?

I 100% agree with both parts of your second point.  Sometimes its the player in the wrong campaign and sometimes its the DM.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 28, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Just to ask, is the reverse also fair?  Can a player ask to play what they want to play even though it might not have been specifically allowed, or may even have been disallowed at the outset?




Asking should never be forbidden, should it? Of course, just like the DM might need to explain why certain things are not allowed, the player will have to have an idea ready to explain why or how something might fit in.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 28, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Asking should never be forbidden, should it? Of course, just like the DM might need to explain why certain things are not allowed, the player will have to have an idea ready to explain why or how something might fit in.




Ok, I'm with you so far.  So, how is your point of view different from mine?  Or is it different.  I have a tendency I think to overstate my case, so, if you don't mind, I'd like to piggyback on yours.


----------



## Fenes (Mar 28, 2009)

The real question is: 

Has anyone the right to expect a DM to run a campaign that is not fun for the DM? 

If a race ruins a campaign for the DM, then that race is not in the campaign, simple as that.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 28, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Ok, I'm with you so far.  So, how is your point of view different from mine?  Or is it different.  I have a tendency I think to overstate my case, so, if you don't mind, I'd like to piggyback on yours.



I don't think it's different. Was just adding another voice to the "absolute power" vs "everything goes"


----------



## Hussar (Mar 28, 2009)

Mustrum, I'm not trying to argue that "anything goes" and I know you know that.  Unfortunately, for some reason, when people read what I write, it somehow morphs into that and I'm not sure why.

My basic point of advice for DM's is, if you decide to block something, "because I said so" is not good enough.  That it might be better for everyone at the table to listen to the players and realize that the big chair does not entitle you to browbeat your players.

Fenes - I refuse to accept that the existence of one character's oddball race is going to destroy your enjoyment of the game.  If your enjoyment of the game is so fragile, there are much larger issues going on than just this.  Because, where does it stop?

If the DM's enjoyment is always paramount, then the DM is 100% justified in doing anything he likes.  If there can be nothing in the campaign that the DM doesn't like, then any action the DM takes to ensure his own enjoyment is entirely justified.

So, in my mind, there is no difference between the DM who forces his preferences for a race on the players and a DM who forces his preferences for a particular outcome on the players.  

Where is the difference?  Why is it ok for the DM to have absolute power during chargen, but as soon as the game starts, he no longer has absolute power?  What happens if the PC is reincarnated?  Or uses shape changing magic?  Is it ok if I take an approved race at chargen and then change myself into a veto'd race later?  There are any number of ways I could do it in D&D.

I have a real issue with any DM trying to tell his players that he has absolute authority over all facets of the game, regardless of what the player's want.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 28, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> It shouldn't be a combative debate where people insult each other or threaten to leave the game or not run the game or whatever.
> 
> But I think it's fair of the DM to ask the players what they want to play and give them room to play that.




Sure.  But, the question becomes, is the DM obligated to provide them exactly what they want?  Because, if he's a bad DM for refusing any particular request, then its the same as saying he's obligated to provide that.

I think its a given that any campaign begins with some sort of exchange where the DM provides a very basic sketch of the setting, and then begins asking the players what they want to play.  As the process proceeds, the DM and the players exchange more and more information, "I want to play an elf.", "Sorry, no elves.", "Well, what can I play that's a little elf-like?", "Well, in what sense.  What particularly attracts you to an elfin character?", and so forth.  Eventually, the character learns enough from the DM to find a concept that suits them, and the DM learns enough from the player to guide them towards options within the available setting (flavor) and rules (crunch) that will help the player achieve their goals.

There should really be no argument here.  The DM shouldn't respond to a player proposition like, "I want to play an elf.", with, "Oh, don't be so lame.  Only losers play elfs.", even if the player phrased, "I want to play an elf.", as "I want to play a drow elf ranger that dual wields scimitars."  The player shouldn't respond to DM information like, "Sorry, no elves." with, "What? That's not fair.  Why can't I play an elf?  What do you have against elfs?  But elves are part of the core rules!"  This is not a contest.  It's a not a debate.  I don't know what Hussar's experiences are like, and I suspect that the heart of our disagreement is a difference in experience, but I've seen far more players take the combative, "Why can't I play an elf?" stance, than I've seen DM's take the combatative "Your character idea is lame, think of another one." stance.

I very much think however that there is a world of difference between, "Your character idea is lame, hense you are lame." and "Your character idea isn't appropriate to the setting.", and I don't think a DM is obligated to explain in any great detail why its inappropriate or justify the choices that he made when he conceived the setting.   If the player demands that the DM justify his setting choices to any degree, fundamentally, the player has taken the stance, "Your setting is lame, think of another one." 

Now, that isn't to say that the DM can't justify himself if he wishes to, but frankly, I might not want to do so simply because I don't want to slow down the already dull and time consuming process of creating characters any more than is necessary.  I don't want to have to explain that halflings are gone because I felt they were too tied to Tolkien's creation specifically, and that I specifically choice 7 PC races because I liked the number 7, or that initially back when I first came up with the campaign I was facinated with the idea of each of the races representing one of the 7 classical stages in the life of a man and that hobbits didn't seem to fit.  In particular, I might not want to explain that last part because I never quite got it to fit, and so its a somewhat discarded idea that doesn't really reflect the campaigns cosmology as much as I would like, but that I'm still happy with 7 'free peoples'.  

And in any event, whether I can justify my choices or not, I shouldn't have to.  I certainly shouldn't be expected to justify my aesthetic choices to the satisfaction of someone else.

The ironic thing about this is that I consider myself to be very open to exotic character concepts.  Take for example the aforementioned 'silly' idea of a half-warforged half-dragon red wizard of thay.  I would have to explain, "No, sorry, there are no warforged.  Half-dragons are too powerful and too rare make a good PC concept.  At the least, you'd so monsterous in appearance that you couldn't survive low levels of play anyway.  Finally, there is no 'Thay' and so hense no red wizards from there either."   However, the concept itself of a draconic sorcerer with a golem-like body is a perfectly interesting one that is likely to entertain me, and one I'd be perfectly willing to work with a character to achieve provided that the character's motivation for wanting to play a character like that wasn't simply to achieve mechanical advantages.  In other words, if what was driving the desire to play a half-warforged half-dragon red wizard of thay was the desire to create a character of with a great deal of power relative to its character level, then there isn't much I can do to help with that.  I'm not going to bring something into the game whose sole purpose as far as the character is concerned is unbalancing the campaign.  In my experience 90% of the time someone wants to play something exotic, mechanical advantage is the driving force behind the desire.  I am though perfectly willing though to help a player explore a particular idea.

So in the case of the half-warforged, half-dragon, red wizard of thay, I'd make something like the following pitch, "Ok, there is nothing exactly like that in the campaign world.  However, Sorcerer is a very flexible class, and may I draw your attention to the Draconic bloodline feats.  If you take that, you can eventually breathe fire, exude dragon fear, and so forth.  If you really want to play up your draconic heritage, you can take the Misanthropic disadvantage.  It would seriously limit your ability to interact socially with other humaniods, but you'd basically be able to treat any unintelligent dragon as a pet, and at higher levels you can get intelligent dragons to treat you as another dragon.  Finally, there is no warforged race, but there is nothing that would stop a powerful spellcaster from replacing lost body parts using golemancy.  If you want a metal body, take 'craft wonderous item' when it becomes available and start making one.  You'll be playing a character that is inherently an outcast but if you can steer your roleplay in such a way that you minimize as much as possible the risk that this turns into a solo campaign about you, then I'm all for the concept."



> Of course there will always be situations - campaign settings - were certain things just don't fit - but of course, if a player wants to play something not fitting there, maybe he is in the wrong campaign or the DM is running the wrong campaign?




I try to be open to wierd ideas mainly because obvious hooks like that tend to make for entertaining situations.  But I'm not going to disrupt the balance of play to accomodate anything, nor am I going to just accept willy nilly something that doesn't fit with the overall aethetic I'm going for (regardless of what I'm playing).  If a player doesn't like my aesthetics sufficiently that they feel compelled to question or argue with them, then they are almost certainly playing with the wrong DM.  There are a couple times I've said, "Thanks for the game.", and then never came back because I didn't really enjoy the game.  However, I've never set and argued with a fellow DM about their campaign or how they ran the game.  DMing hard enough work without them getting grief from me.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 28, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Mustrum, I'm not trying to argue that "anything goes" and I know you know that.  Unfortunately, for some reason, when people read what I write, it somehow morphs into that and I'm not sure why.



I think we both have the same opinion. The extremes of this debate both suck, and it's better to find a happy middle ground where the player can ask his DM to reconsider the availability of a class, but a DM can also say that some stuff might be unavailable.

Just "because" doesn't fly for either player or DM. 
A Half-Illithid/Kobold Sorcerer might require an explanation on how this fits into the campaign (especially if the campaign was sword & sorcery), as does explaining why Gnomes are strictly unavailable as player race (especially if the campaign setting contains them.)


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 28, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Mustrum, I'm not trying to argue that "anything goes" and I know you know that.  Unfortunately, for some reason, when people read what I write, it somehow morphs into that and I'm not sure why.




Because you haven't defined any sort of objective criteria that a DM could use to defend his ground.  Every criteria you've used to try to define the limits of when the DM can defend his ground is effectively a restatement of "because I've said so", which you've also said cannot be a criteria.  So effectively, all you've been saying is, "Preferences I agree with."



> I refuse to accept that the existence of one character's oddball race is going to destroy your enjoyment of the game.  If your enjoyment of the game is so fragile, there are much larger issues going on than just this.  Because, where does it stop?




I refuse to accept that the non-existance of one player's oddball race is going to destroy their enjoyment of the game.  If their enjoyment of the game is so fragile, there are much larger issues going on than just this.  _Because, where does it stop?_



> So, in my mind, there is no difference between the DM who forces his preferences for a race on the players and a DM who forces his preferences for a particular outcome on the players.




Really?  There is no difference between saying, "No elves.", and, "Your character doesn't want to do that.  He does this instead.".  Really? 

I'm glad you are finally being open about that.  In my mind, I have no problem separating the two concepts.



> Where is the difference?  Why is it ok for the DM to have absolute power during chargen, but as soon as the game starts, he no longer has absolute power?




The DM always has absolute power.   However, not every excercise of that power is good DMing.  "No elves.", though, is not an abuse of that power, and in particular a DM that says, "No elves." is not excercising absolute control over the chargen process.  I'm never going to make a player play something that they don't want to play.

And in general, anything legally constructed under the rules I present for play is 99.9% likely to get accepted.  About the only exceptions I can think of off the top of my head that wouldn't is abuse of social disadvantages to the point that the character automatically turns any NPC he meets hostile, or abuse of the inept disadvantage by selecting it multiple times and taking only skills that have very little impact on the character concept (ei, fighter is inept in use rope, read lips, innuendo, scry, navigation, perform, sleight of hand, forgery, craft, knowledge, appraise, spellcraft, use magic device, handle animal, decipher script, astrology, empathy, concentration, and alchemy and then uses it to buy 4 extra starting combat feats would probably be frowned on.)


----------



## Obryn (Mar 28, 2009)

Fenes said:


> The real question is:
> 
> Has anyone the right to expect a DM to run a campaign that is not fun for the DM?
> 
> If a race ruins a campaign for the DM, then that race is not in the campaign, simple as that.



I'd say if a single PC race ruins a game for a DM, that's the least of a group's worries.

-O


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 28, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> A Half-Illithid/Kobold Sorcerer might require an explanation on how this fits into the campaign (especially if the campaign was sword & sorcery), as does explaining why Gnomes are strictly unavailable as player race (especially if the campaign setting contains them.)




Gnomes are strictly unavailable as a player race because their very existance is treated as a campaign level secret, one that is serious enough that major dieties would take direct action to prevent its widespread revelation.  If I explain why Gnomes are strictly unavailable as a player race, then I must either lie to the player or reveal to the player a campaign level secret that I would not normally reveal except during play.  So, if pressed for an explanation, I'd simply refuse.  "No, you can't play Gnomes.  If you really want to play a small sized earthy creature, why don't you play a Dwarf and take the 'Slight' advantage.  'Forest Dwarf' captures alot of the traditional Gnomish flavor."

I am by no means required to explain anything.  The fact that I don't explain things by no means implies that I don't have a reason, and I would not particularly appreciate the presumption that I don't have a reason or that I must defend it against a player inquisition.


----------



## CubeKnight (Mar 29, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> Gnomes are strictly unavailable as a player race because their very existance is treated as a campaign level secret, one that is serious enough that major dieties would take direct action to prevent its widespread revelation.  If I explain why Gnomes are strictly unavailable as a player race, then I must either lie to the player or reveal to the player a campaign level secret that I would not normally reveal except during play.  So, if pressed for an explanation, I'd simply refuse.  "No, you can't play Gnomes.  If you really want to play a small sized earthy creature, why don't you play a Dwarf and take the 'Slight' advantage.  'Forest Dwarf' captures alot of the traditional Gnomish flavor."
> 
> I am by no means required to explain anything.  The fact that I don't explain things by no means implies that I don't have a reason, and I would not particularly appreciate the presumption that I don't have a reason or that I must defend it against a player inquisition.



I'd like to chip in with a small note: There's a difference between telling a player "There's a reason, but I can't tell you 'cos it'd ruin the campaign" and "No, you just can't."

Using the elves in the example, a friend of mine runs a campaign where elves are almost extinct. All his games have been in that setting. And we've managed to have a couple elven PCs, some way or another.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 29, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> Gnomes are strictly unavailable as a player race because their very existance is treated as a campaign level secret, one that is serious enough that major dieties would take direct action to prevent its widespread revelation.  If I explain why Gnomes are strictly unavailable as a player race, then I must either lie to the player or reveal to the player a campaign level secret that I would not normally reveal except during play.  So, if pressed for an explanation, I'd simply refuse.  "No, you can't play Gnomes.  If you really want to play a small sized earthy creature, why don't you play a Dwarf and take the 'Slight' advantage.  'Forest Dwarf' captures alot of the traditional Gnomish flavor."
> 
> I am by no means required to explain anything.  The fact that I don't explain things by no means implies that I don't have a reason, and I would not particularly appreciate the presumption that I don't have a reason or that I must defend it against a player inquisition.




But, the thing is, you DO have a reason.  You have a perfectly justifiable reason, but, because it is a campaign secret, you cannot reveal it to the player.

I have zero problem with that.  Presumably, at some point down the road, after the big reveal, you turn to the player with a bit of a smile and say, "See, tolja so" .

And that's groovy.  Presumably your players trust you enough that you can say, "I have a reason, but I cannot tell you now, you're just going to have to trust me." 

And I have no problems with that.  

I'm taking this, and always have, from the DM's perspective.  If you didn't have this huge campaign secret about gnomes and you're player says, "why no gnomes", if the ONLY REASON you can come up with is, "Cos I don't like them" then perhaps it's time to reevaluate your reasons.

You continuously bring up example after example where you have perfectly valid reasons that I AGREE WITH.  Like I said, 99.9% of the time, we'd have absolutely no problems.  I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT SITUATIONS WHERE YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL REASONS.

Sorry about the shouting, but, jeez, after umpteen pages of me having to repeat myself time and again, I gotta wonder if you are actually reading what I'm writing.

So, one last time.  If you ONLY REASON for blocking what the player wants is because you don't like it then I default to letting the player have it.  Note, that's "I" default.  Not you.  ME.  I think a good DM should.  

So, when the player asks to play something, follow the following checklist:


Does the choice violate established canon?
Is the choice going to ruin campaign elements (such as Celebrim's gnome example above)
Does the choice violate game rules and/or game balance?
Is the choice going to spoil mood?
Is the choice going to annoy the heck out of the other players?
Is the choice being done maliciously?
Is there any other issue at hand other than the DM's personal preference?

If the answer to ANY of the above "yes" then the DM is perfectly justified in saying no.  OTOH, if the answer to all of the above is no, then, IMO, the DM is not justified in saying "No", just as he is not justified in exercising his "absolute" power after the game has started.


----------



## Fenes (Mar 29, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I'd say if a single PC race ruins a game for a DM, that's the least of a group's worries.
> 
> -O




I'd say that if the banning of a single race ruins the enjoyment of a player, then that player should not be playing with that DM.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 29, 2009)

Fenes said:


> I'd say that if the banning of a single race ruins the enjoyment of a player, then that player should not be playing with that DM.



Fair enough.  I'd say a prima donna on either side of the screen can spoil a game.

-O


----------



## Fenes (Mar 29, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Fair enough.  I'd say a prima donna on either side of the screen can spoil a game.
> 
> -O




Prima Donna? I'd not say so. People's taste and priorities and game breakers vary, but that doesn't make them prima donnas. 

Would you condemn a GM in the same way if he or she doesn't want to run a game for evil PCs? Or doesn't want to run a game where sex plays a role?


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 29, 2009)

I think another aspect that DMs can take, is one based off malleable fluff and pickable crunch. 

Essentially, prior to the game starting the DM lets the Players have free-reign to pick whatever race (and for that matter classes) they wish. I state that their decision is based on what they want crunch wise. After this is decided, we together formulate what each race would be like in this world. A Gnome may be something all-together different then it started out.

So by doing this, the race still works for the setting and the tone. But it doesn't limit the Players options for the amount of races or different racial abilities.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 29, 2009)

Fenes said:


> Prima Donna? I'd not say so. People's taste and priorities and game breakers vary, but that doesn't make them prima donnas.
> 
> Would you condemn a GM in the same way if he or she doesn't want to run a game for evil PCs? Or doesn't want to run a game where sex plays a role?



Are you saying that one PC race is the same as the direction of a campaign?

I think that's apples and oranges.

I agree with you - a player who throws a tantrum about not being able to play (for example) an elf is being a dip.  I also think a DM who throws a tantrum over a PC race is being a dip.  It's all about keeping perspective.  The 'integrity' of a campaign world has a certain value - and I think it's all to easy to overvalue it.

Gaming is a cooperative endeavor, and nerd-rage over the minor things is a sure way to ruin camaraderie.

I wouldn't put a single class or race in the same boat as "an evil campaign."  I can't imagine making the comparison, honestly.  "In game A, we're raping and pillaging, overthrowing churches, and burning down orphanages.  In game B, we're playing normal heroic D&D, but Bob is playing a modron."

-O


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 29, 2009)

Hussar said:


> But, the thing is, you DO have a reason.  You have a perfectly justifiable reason, but, because it is a campaign secret, you cannot reveal it to the player.




But wait, now all the sudden I'm not obligated to justify my position to the player?  Doesn't that directly contridict what you've already said?  From the players perspective there is absolutely no difference between being told, "No, I just don't like elves.", "No, you can't play an elf, but I can't tell you why not.", and "No, elves would spoil the mood."  They are all statements of personal preference, and really the most annoying and least satisfactory explanation of all for anything is always, "Trust me."  



> Presumably your players trust you enough that you can say, "I have a reason, but I cannot tell you now, you're just going to have to trust me."




Yes, but presumably if my player's trust me enough that I can tell them I complete non-answer like "Trust me.", then they they trust me well enough that when I say, "No, you can't.", they assume I have very good reason.

So you don't have a position at all.  You aren't saying anything.  When you make, "Trust me." a valid answer, you've pretty much invalidated any claim that the player has the right to question the DM, and if the player has no right to question the DM, they have no right to anything regardless of the DM's preference, and the DM does have absolute authority.  If "Trust me." is a valid answer, we are right back to my position which has always been, "The DM has absolute authority.  This doesn't mean that every excercise of that authority is good DMing."



> if the ONLY REASON you can come up with is, "Cos I don't like them" then perhaps it's time to reevaluate your reasons.




How ridiculous is it to suppose that anyone has a preference for or against anything that they don't have some reason behind it?  You think people just dislike things for no reason?  I mean, even if someone says, "I don't like brussel sprouts.", my general assumption is that "Brussel sprouts don't taste good to Bob."  If Bob can't articulate to me exactly why he doesn't like brussel sprouts, it by no mean invalidates his opinion of Brussel sprouts.  Who of us can articulate the reasons behind all of our opinions?  Who of us can justify all of our opinions to everyone else?  You haven't said a darn thing.  

And remember, you've just removed the requirement of the DM to articulate why he doesn't like something anyway.

Look at the quoted sentense again.  It's a sentence that is true in every case.  It's unfalifiable.  It's meaningless.  If you can come up with one hundred reasons why you don't like something, it doesn't imply that it's not time to reevaluate your reasons.  People's opinions are I would hope always up for evaluation, or at least in any event it 'sounds good' if they are.  We don't say much of anything by stating that there are circumstances where we should evaluate our reasons.  "Fine, I evaluated my reasons, and the answer is still no."  It's like the politician that says he's "Studying the problem."  He hasn't said anything.

Moreover, on anything that is an opinion, like whether or not elves have a Lovecraftian feel to them, whether the deserve inclusion in a particular high fantasy setting, whether they rock because of their deep mythic ties, or whether they are just overused cliches whatever 'reasons' we come up with for having our opinion, all of those reasons ultimately boil down to, "because I don't like them." or "Because I do like them."  It's not like we are dealing with objective considerations.



> You continuously bring up example after example where you have perfectly valid reasons that I AGREE WITH.  Like I said, 99.9% of the time, we'd have absolutely no problems.  I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT SITUATIONS WHERE YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL REASONS.




Then you aren't talking about anything.  Which ever way you get pushed on your position it flexes to accomodate the changes, until by this point you've functionally conceeded absolute authority to the DM to enforce his personal preferences.  On the one hand, you've now moved the goal posts to accomodate as legitimate DMing telling the player, "No.", so long as you can tell the player, "I have a reason but I don't want to tell you what it is because its a secret."   But in that case, the player has no right to anything - no reason, no explanation, no debate.  If the DM were a politician, you'd be a fool to vote for someone that told you they had reasons but that they couldn't explain them.  Clearly, for all your ranting otherwise, you are advocating a DM that isn't accountable to the players.

On the other hand, because "personal preference" is such a broad and undefinable term of such limitless scope, by insisting that it's not sufficient reason, I have no idea whether at some future point, if you don't agree with my reasons and don't think their valid, that because of your preferences you are going to insist that mine make for badwrongfun and clearly I'm a bad DM for not acquiesing to your demands.  In other words, your nebulous position on the DM-player relationship would raise a big freaking red flag when dealing with you, because you don't think my opinions are sufficient justification to shape my campaign world - or at least that's what you say until we throw up some non-abstract examples and you are pressed on the claim.



> So, when the player asks to play something, follow the following checklist:
> 
> 
> Does the choice violate established canon?
> ...




But all of those are just personal preferences.  How do you objectively define 'the mood'?  If a legitimate reason for banning a race is only that the DM thinks it will "spoil the mood", how do possible think that is any different than the DM just not liking the race as a personal preference?  How do you think you can objectively define what is canonical for someone's homebrew campaign?  Who is going to have authority over what is canonical for a campaign but the author?  Even if I based my campaign off of some other DM's campaign, it's not like Ed Greenwood or Gary Gygax are going to be standing over my shoulder saying, "You aren't doing it right."  How do you objectively define what is in or outside of the bounds of the genera?  Who has the authority to decide that this is in or this is out?  



> OTOH, if the answer to all of the above is no, then, IMO, the DM is not justified in saying "No", just as he is not justified in exercising his "absolute" power after the game has started.




That's just one mass of contridictions.  On the one hand you've given this very broad set of guidelines that allow the DM to bad or include almost anything based on a whim and without owing the players an explanation.  And on the other hand you are insisting that the DM doesn't have absolute power and isn't justified in banning things on a whim.


----------



## Elrith (Mar 29, 2009)

Kzach said:


> Personally, I don't like a lot of races in a setting. Just because it's in the book, doesn't mean you have to use them. What about the races in PHB2 makes you think that they're a part of the setting if you don't want them to be?




Amen. I don't let players play Eladrin or Teiflings for setting reasons. I would let them play Devas though. No other races from PHII will appear in the setting right now...Despite the fact that I think all the races are interesting. It's a players responsibility to play in the world, and the DMs responsibility to say yes to good concepts, not accept everything in a sourcebook as given.


----------



## Fenes (Mar 29, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Are you saying that one PC race is the same as the direction of a campaign?
> 
> I think that's apples and oranges.
> 
> ...




Since when does "We can have evil PCs" or "there is sex in this campaign" equate to "Campaign direction"? I'd rate both as on the level of having a race or not. Just because you have set views on what "Evil PC" means doesn't mean you have any idea what it means for others.

And it's not really "the integrity" of the campaign - what's it about is that the DM has fun. If integrating a race means the DM has no fun, then that's it.

All this "If you don't like this race/setting/playstyle, then you're no good" is getting tireing. I would think people should finally understand that not everyone shares their taste or priorities.


----------



## Kask (Mar 29, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I don't think it's different. Was just adding another voice to the "absolute power" vs "everything goes"





Bingo.  There are more players looking for DM's than there are DMs looking for players...

It comes down to the fact that a player doesn't have to play & in the end, the rules of the game are in the DMs hands, not the players.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 29, 2009)

Fenes said:


> Since when does "We can have evil PCs" or "there is sex in this campaign" equate to "Campaign direction"? I'd rate both as on the level of having a race or not. Just because you have set views on what "Evil PC" means doesn't mean you have any idea what it means for others.
> 
> And it's not really "the integrity" of the campaign - what's it about is that the DM has fun. If integrating a race means the DM has no fun, then that's it.
> 
> All this "If you don't like this race/setting/playstyle, then you're no good" is getting tireing. I would think people should finally understand that not everyone shares their taste or priorities.



I am not saying that a DM should run a game he doesn't find fun.

I am saying that losing your fun over minor details is a sign that something is wrong.  Ditto, for players.

Like I said, for me it's about the gaming prima donnas.  Specifically, I think anyone who insists that everything in a game goes their way may be (in some sense) objectively right - but that doesn't make them a player or a DM I'd want to have around.

-O


----------



## Hussar (Mar 30, 2009)

> But all of those are just personal preferences. How do you objectively define 'the mood'? If a legitimate reason for banning a race is only that the DM thinks it will "spoil the mood", how do possible think that is any different than the DM just not liking the race as a personal preference? How do you think you can objectively define what is canonical for someone's homebrew campaign? Who is going to have authority over what is canonical for a campaign but the author? Even if I based my campaign off of some other DM's campaign, it's not like Ed Greenwood or Gary Gygax are going to be standing over my shoulder saying, "You aren't doing it right." How do you objectively define what is in or outside of the bounds of the genera? Who has the authority to decide that this is in or this is out?




You keep looking for absolutes here and I already admitted I have none.  There are of course going to be shades of grey.

What I'm harping about is for the DM to do a bit of self examination and answer the question for himself.  That, yes, you should come up with a better justification than, "I just don't like it".  To me, that is a piss poor justification and smacks of a DM who takes things WAY too seriously for my tastes.

I'm advising that DM's dial it back a notch and not get too fussed about this sort of thing.  That really, if the player is going to play a character well, look past your own personal blinders and let him play that character.  It will make the game better in the end.

You seem to be arguing that the DM absolutely knows better than the players what will make a good game and the player should always bow down to the greater knowledge of the DM.  I say ballocks to that.  No, the DM can be wrong.  The DM can make mistakes.  The DM's personal biases can result in a game that is less fun than if he relaxes those biases.

That's all I'm saying. You keep wanting me to clearly define something that is indefinable.  You cannot absolutely say this or that.  It doesn't work.  But, at the end of the day, when the DM sits back and evaluates his reasons for disallowing something, if the only reason he can come up with is, "Gee, I just don't like X", then IMO, he should get over himself, let it go and let the player have it.

That's all.  That's the whole thing in a nutshell.   You seem to want me to say, "Oh, DM's are all stupid, and players always know better, and blah blah blah".  That's totally NOT what I'm saying.  I'm saying that in one, very narrow, very specific area, when the DM is being honest with himself, the DM should back down.

How many times do I have to repeat myself?

Look, if you still don't get it after this post, just whack me on ignore and stop responding.  I've said it as clearly and as simply as I can.  I'm not about player entitlement or anything like that.  I'm saying in one very small area, the DM may very well be mistaken and it's a mistake for DM's to force their biases on the players.  That's all.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 30, 2009)

Hussar said:


> What I'm harping about is for the DM to do a bit of self examination and answer the question for himself.  That, yes, you should come up with a better justification than, "I just don't like it".  To me, that is a piss poor justification and smacks of a DM who takes things WAY too seriously for my tastes.




In your opinion.



> You seem to be arguing that the DM absolutely knows better than the players what will make a good game and the player should always bow down to the greater knowledge of the DM.  I say ballocks to that.  No, the DM can be wrong.  The DM can make mistakes.  The DM's personal biases can result in a game that is less fun than if he relaxes those biases.




Nice way to combine a 'red herring' with 'poisoning the well' in a few short posts.  Now suddenly we are talking about DM infaliability?  When did that happen?  We've gone pages and pages and pages and its never been brought up, and now suddenly whether or not the DM can make mistakes is what we've been talking about.  No, I'm not letting you drag this topic in a whole new direction.

I am not arguing and never have been arguing that the DM absolutely knows better than the players what will make a good game, and I'm quite sure that haven't said anything remotely of the sort.  I am simply arguing for the right of the DM to make the choices, rightly or wrongly.  If you'll look at what I've said, I've very consistantly argued that there isn't anything like an objective 'right campaign'.   I haven't been passing judgement at all, and I haven't broached the topic of whether a DM's setting can be objectively bad.   Elves aren't objectively bad.  Elves aren't objectively good.  The players concede the right of the DM to be the DM not because he's more experienced, smarter, better, or even a better DM than the other players at the table, but because they've agreed that for this session he is the DM.  It's just that simple.  Of course the DM will make mistakes, but whether or not you say 'Yes' or 'No' to elves has nothing to do with mistakes because the inclusion of elves or not is simply a personal preference and isn't wrong either way.

Sure, conceivably the DM's game might get better if he relaxes his personal biases, but equally conceivably the DM's game might get worse, might get less enjoyable, and almost certainly will get less personalized, less unique, and in all probability less imaginative if it is just allowed to drift towards concensus fantasy.

There are alot of DM's out there running their own distinctive games, and the distinctiveness of the DM's game is part of the attraction.  I don't want to stamp myself on their game except to the extent that my character is memorable with in the framework of the game. 



> That's all I'm saying. You keep wanting me to clearly define something that is indefinable.




You claim that all your really crying out for is more self-evaluation.  Well, fine.  But let's start with the idea that you can make some absolute judgement about what is good or bad DMing based on concepts that you find yourself totally unable to define.



> You cannot absolutely say this or that.  It doesn't work.  But, at the end of the day, when the DM sits back and evaluates his reasons for disallowing something, if the only reason he can come up with is, "Gee, I just don't like X", then IMO, he should get over himself, let it go and let the player have it.




You cannot absolutely say that.  It doesn't work.  At the end of the day, you can't pass absolute judgement over a DM's personal preferences.  Since you can't pass absolute judgement over them, then you should respect them even if you don't agree with them.

That's all.  That's the whole thing in a nutshell.   



> You seem to want me to say, "Oh, DM's are all stupid, and players always know better, and blah blah blah".  That's totally NOT what I'm saying.




I didn't say it was.  I certainly have no desire to claim that you said that, since I'm quite confident of my ability to attack your main line of argumentation.  I don't need red herrings, and if I introduced one it would just distract from my main points.



> Look, if you still don't get it after this post, just whack me on ignore and stop responding.  I've said it as clearly and as simply as I can.  I'm not about player entitlement or anything like that.  I'm saying in one very small area, the DM may very well be mistaken and it's a mistake for DM's to force their biases on the players.  That's all.




It's rapidly became a vanishingly small area.  It's shrunk to such a small area, I can't find it anymore.  By your own admission, you can't define what this area is.   So let's just admit that it doesn't exist, and that personal preference may be just as valid of a reason for the DM to do something as anything else.

Now, could the DM be wrong?  Perhaps.  But any of the DM's reasons for doing something could be wrong, regardless of how many justifications he may have.  If he's wrong, he's wrong, whether his justification is simply 'personal preference' or his got a list of reasons as long as this thread. 

And in any event, I'm abit hesitant to throw around objective concepts like 'wrong' and 'mistake' over such subjective things as setting design and which races ought to be allowed within a campaign.  When I throw around terms like 'wrong' and 'mistake' with regard to DMing, I generally am talking about something that they did which is objectively wrong that led to a lack of enjoyment, and not any of their aethestic decisions about which the most we are usually able to say is that the DM's aethestics didn't match those of a particular player or group.  I'm very hesistant to make any claims about flavor or style being 'wrong' and 'mistakes'.

As for ignoring you, I'm not about to start ignoring someone in the community with your stature and who has 6800+ posts over an argument which we had in one thread.  Regardless of how much I may disagree with you over this or that, I've no intention of ignoring you because I don't want to miss what you have to say.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 30, 2009)

Celebrim said:
			
		

> As for ignoring you, I'm not about to start ignoring someone in the community with your stature and who has 6800+ posts over an argument which we had in one thread. Regardless of how much I may disagree with you over this or that, I've no intention of ignoring you because I don't want to miss what you have to say.




Well thank you sir.  You are a scholar and a gentleman.  And I do mean that honestly.  It's just a frustrating because I don't seem to be able to connect.



> It's rapidly became a vanishingly small area. It's shrunk to such a small area, I can't find it anymore. By your own admission, you can't define what this area is. So let's just admit that it doesn't exist, and that personal preference may be just as valid of a reason for the DM to do something as anything else.




This would be wrong.  I can define the area.  The area is purely DM preference.  See my little list post above.  IMO, and all of this is of course my opinion, all of those justifications carry more weight than, "because I don't like it."

I think, to be honest, that the points in another thread pretty much explain why we don't see eye to eye on this.  Looking at the Why do you play thread comparing a couple of points pretty much sums things up  (The question is "Who owns your campaign"):



			
				Celebrim said:
			
		

> I do. I consider that I own them in a legal as well as ethical sense. Former DM's that I've had, hold the same opinion. That said, any particular character, the character's characterization, the character's memorable lines, and so forth are the property of the player who created the character. Former DMs who are working their material into other forms of art (such as novels) have approached me to ask if I'd consent to the use of my character.




and my own response to the same question:



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I understand the question. "Own"? You mean in the legal sense? I suppose that I do. "Own" as in whose campaign is it? I would say that each campaign belongs to the group that plays it. Even if were to run the exact same campaign for a different group of people (which I have done - I've run modules for more than one group for example) I would still consider the campaign to belong to the group. At least I would consider my most successful campaigns as belonging to the group.


----------



## Fenes (Mar 30, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I am not saying that a DM should run a game he doesn't find fun.
> 
> I am saying that losing your fun over minor details is a sign that something is wrong.  Ditto, for players.
> 
> ...




Can you understand that what for you is a minor detail is a major thing for others - and vice versa?


----------



## rounser (Mar 30, 2009)

> What I'm harping about is for the DM to do a bit of self examination and answer the question for himself. That, yes, you should come up with a better justification than, "I just don't like it". To me, that is a piss poor justification and smacks of a DM who takes things WAY too seriously for my tastes.



No, it's plenty justification.  You're implying there's no reason not to play D&D beyond "I just don't like it", which is a whole world of reason not to bother, and most people would subscribe to this.  


> I'm advising that DM's dial it back a notch and not get too fussed about this sort of thing. That really, if the player is going to play a character well, look past your own personal blinders and let him play that character. It will make the game better in the end.



That's a nice opinion, but at the end of the day it's not going to work for everyone.  For me, certain contrived WOTC PC races turn the "sucks" knob up to 11 and break it off, and they'll get constant "screentime" in the campaign if they're made part of my implied setting.  That's not a game I want to run, so I'm avoiding WOTC's idea of D&D.  


> You seem to be arguing that the DM absolutely knows better than the players what will make a good game and the player should always bow down to the greater knowledge of the DM. I say ballocks to that. No, the DM can be wrong. The DM can make mistakes. The DM's personal biases can result in a game that is less fun than if he relaxes those biases.



The DM can indeed loosen up if he or she wants to.  So can the player, and play something that fits the campaign instead.  There is give and take, but if the player won't back down, maybe they can run their own damn game.  If I'm a player, I generally respect the DM's world and campaign style.  I _have_ incorporated player requested stuff in the past with mixed results (e.g. half-giant with an arquebus in Undermountain), but there's no obligation to do it all the time, no matter what some designer put in a book and is implying as being a legitimate addition to the core D&D implied setting.

It's not arrogance to expect a modicum of respect and manners for the effort of preparing and running the game, and choosing an appropriate character is the least a player can do.  The real problem here is WOTC's core implied setting being too freaky for D&D as some people want to play it, and if anyone should recant, I think it should be them.


----------



## Fenes (Mar 30, 2009)

rounser said:


> For me, certain contrived WOTC PC races turn the "sucks" knob up to 11 and break it off, and they'll get constant "screentime" in the campaign if they're made part of my implied setting.  That's not a game I want to run, so I'm avoiding WOTC's idea of D&D.




Ditto. The real problem are people who can't get that not everyone shares their taste.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 30, 2009)

Fenes said:


> Can you understand that what for you is a minor detail is a major thing for others...



Can you understand how that can seem, well, petty?


----------



## rounser (Mar 30, 2009)

> Can you understand how that can seem, well, petty?



Can you understand how making a fuss over not getting to play some bizarre contrived race in someone else's campaign where it has no place can seem not only petty and petulant, but also bad manners?

We could go around in circles like this, or you can, well, drop the ad hominem attacks.


----------



## Fenes (Mar 30, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Can you understand how that can seem, well, petty?




No, that I cannot. I can understand how not being able to play a certain race can be a game breaker for someone. I can also understand how that might not be a big thing for someone else. But I really can't understand why some people try to tell others what a major and a minor thing is or should be for them.

In every other area that would be ridiculed. Can you imagine someone trying to tell you that there's no difference what songs they are listening to, as long as it is music? That their personal taste is somehow stupid just because they do not like a certain song - or can't get enough of another?

Yet some people do exactly this with regards to D&D.


----------



## rounser (Mar 30, 2009)

> In every other area that would be ridiculed. Can you imagine someone trying to tell you that there's no difference what songs they are listening to, as long as it is music? That their personal taste is somehow stupid just because they do not like a certain song - or can't get enough of another?



And a bad PC race is a record that plays all campaign long, especially if it encourages a certain kind of annoying roleplaying, or causes campaign problems because of it's monster-like appearance, or just plain looks ugly in it's artwork, or has a contrived name and concept, and no excuse for existing in that world.* 

If it were a monster, perhaps you wouldn't use it because it struck you as lame, and here it is, to be in the campaign spotlight 24/7.

*: Except perhaps as some unique corner case which you don't want to have to make special contingencies for, and would cause disruptions with regard to NPC interactions anyway.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 30, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Can you understand how that can seem, well, petty?




No, I can't.  Because as other's have pointed out, who seems petty in this sort of argument is entirely subjective.  

The DM provides you with 9 PC races, 14 different classes, 6 different ability scores to configure as you will with point buy, 40 different skills to choose from, and gives you a selection of 600 feats, traits, and disadvantages with which to customize your character - some of which change your character so much as to effectively be a different race or class.  You can play characters with inspirations as diverse as Conan, Tarzan and Elastagirl.  And you say to the DM, "This sucks.  I can't find one character concept in all of this that interests me.  I want to play a Giff."

Who is being petty?


----------



## rounser (Mar 30, 2009)

And another thing...

For those campaigns saddled with someone's insistence on a choice of a freaky monster PC race, it's not unreasonable to expect the other PCs to attack it on sight if it has no place in the setting, and/or looks like a monster.  

This actually happened with a shortlived goblin PC of mine.  Yes, I got the monster PC I wanted, after nagging the DM for it.  He lasted three rounds, I think, because the DM introduced him as "You see a goblin walk into the room",  and out of habit they all rolled for initiative.  Although frustrating, we had a good laugh about how he barely got out the words "Stop-ow!..I-want-ow!...to-be-ow!....your....friend...ow...urrrrgh..." before expiring.  

By then I'd got the message and rolled up something more appropriate.

Yes, I know, very badwrongfun and politically incorrect for the latest D&D accepted wisdom.  But then, the latest accepted wisdom as suggested by inclusion of core monster races and an implied right to use them everywhere like some multiplanar homogenous kitchen sink freakshow could just well be completely wrong, and severely compromising D&D's usefulness as a worldbuilding kit.  

There's an essay in the 1E DMG decrying monster PCs to this effect, for instance, and though I don't agree with everything Gary wrote, it does point to the fact that this is just another fashion, and entirely subjective as to it's merits.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 30, 2009)

Fenes said:


> Can you understand that what for you is a minor detail is a major thing for others - and vice versa?



No, I absolutely understand that.  And, much like all matters of opinion, I can disagree with their assessments, or think they're being unreasonable in them.

I'm speaking of what sorts of DMs and players I enjoy playing with.  I'm not speaking of who is a good DM, or a good player.  I don't know what you're arguing here.

-O


----------



## Fenes (Mar 30, 2009)

Obryn said:


> No, I absolutely understand that.  And, much like all matters of opinion, I can disagree with their assessments, or think they're being unreasonable in them.
> 
> I'm speaking of what sorts of DMs and players I enjoy playing with.  I'm not speaking of who is a good DM, or a good player.  I don't know what you're arguing here.
> 
> -O




I take offense at people saying "If you have no fun just because there's X in this game, you're wrong, since X is a minor thing". Everyone decides for themselves what is a minor and a major point in a game.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 30, 2009)

rounser said:


> And another thing...
> 
> For those campaigns saddled with someone's insistence on a choice of a freaky monster PC race, it's not unreasonable to expect the other PCs to attack it on sight if it has no place in the setting, and/or looks like a monster.
> 
> ...




IMHO, Someone here was being a jerk. 

If your DM wasn't going to treat a monster PC as a PC (as opposed to a PvP joke encounter) and didn't tell you (No monster PCs), he was begin a jerk. Nothing is more frustrating than "Guess what the DM is thinking" D&D.

If you continued to pester him despite him telling you his campaigns racial choices, you were being the jerk. You ignored his warnings, you got what you deserve. 

If the PC race choice was something normally assumed to be a PC race but was treated like a monster (Here is a tiefling. Kill it! Wait! Tieflings in the PHB) the DM was being a extra big jerk. (unless of course, you ignored his forewarning that tieflings, drow and other misunderstoods aren't allowed and rolled one up anyway). 

I see no problem with allowing an occasional reformed monster, but I require a lot more of those PCs than I do of PHB races (or expansion races), but I tell my players what is allowed. I try to be liberal, but in return I expect my PCs don't run around as half-ochre-jelly-axiomatic-half-black-dragon-bugbear or similar nonsense.


----------



## Fenes (Mar 30, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> I see no problem with allowing an occasional reformed monster, but I require a lot more of those PCs than I do of PHB races (or expansion races), but I tell my players what is allowed. I try to be liberal, but in return I expect my PCs don't run around as half-ochre-jelly-axiomatic-half-black-dragon-bugbear or similar nonsense.




I have to add that it's not just the DM that rules what races are played in the campaign, but the players too. Vetoing by "Our PCs kill that race on sight" works.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 30, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> The DM provides you with 9 PC races, 14 different classes, 6 different ability scores to configure as you will with point buy, 40 different skills to choose from, and gives you a selection of 600 feats, traits, and disadvantages with which to customize your character - some of which change your character so much as to effectively be a different race or class.  You can play characters with inspirations as diverse as Conan, Tarzan and Elastagirl.  And you say to the DM, "This sucks.  I can't find one character concept in all of this that interests me.  I want to play a Giff."
> 
> Who is being petty?



The DM who says --given, as you've just pointed out, the tendency for D&D campaigns to be kitchen-sink affairs full of different, even divergent genre elements/influences-- that a _single_ element (race, class, etc.) _ruins_ the experience for them. 

That seems petty, in my opinion. 

 I'm not trying to argue taste (I'm not _that_ foolish...). I'm talking about how a person reacts to something that isn't to their taste. Given how much _stuff_ goes on --and goes into-- your average D&D campaign, it seems borderline ridiculous to talk about how one element, or even a small set of elements, can spoil the whole of the experience. At that point "taste" starts to resemble "pathology", IMHO. 

Look, I have my petty preferences too. I hate gnomes. As far as I'm concerned they belong in shabbily-decorated gardens, not fantasy adventures stories. Our current 4e homebrew is the first setting I've run that allows them in roughly 20 years (thanks to collaborative setting design). Are they going to ruin my fun? Heck no... because the setting/campaign has many more wonderful things in it.


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 30, 2009)

If this thread has taught me everything, it is the vital importance for a gaming group to have a strong social contract.

For example, my group decides well in advance of any game what its parameters are. If someone wants to run D&D without Elves (for example) on their next turn as DM, we would talk it over as a group long before the campaign started. Being friends first and gamers second helps a great deal. 

Haven't had a problem in *years*---at least since we began viewing RPGs more as a shared group activity than the old "My game, my rules." philosophy.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 30, 2009)

Fenes said:


> I have to add that it's not just the DM that rules what races are played in the campaign, but the players too. Vetoing by "Our PCs kill that race on sight" works.




I guess my players all have the "Detect PC" at-will, because I've never seen vigilante justice meeked out like that.

Then again, we've been playing as a group for over ten years, so we don't make PCs to screw each other over (anymore).


----------



## Mallus (Mar 30, 2009)

rounser said:


> Can you understand how making a fuss over not getting to play some bizarre contrived race in someone else's campaign where it has no place can seem not only petty and petulant, but also bad manners?



I'm not talking as a player (I should have made that clearer), I'm speaking as someone who primarily DM's. I strive fairly hard to accommodate players w/tastes and playstyles different from my own. I seek compromise and synthesis. 

I have my own list of likes and dislikes. But I think it's, well, petty to reject characters simply because they don't match my aesthetic. Plus, I've found that the campaign is more interesting when I'm forced to play outside of my taste/comfort zone and integrate a character I don't like. I see it as a challenge, something that can lead to interesting play -- where as simply vetoing the character leads to nothing. 



> We could go around in circles like this, or you can, well, drop the ad hominem attacks.



This wasn't an ad hominen attack. I said 'an act can appear petty', and I stand by that.


----------



## Kask (Mar 30, 2009)

Fenes said:


> I have to add that it's not just the DM that rules what races are played in the campaign, but the players too. Vetoing by "Our PCs kill that race on sight" works.





You _could_ say that but, you'd be wrong.  If the DM rules that you can't play a 1/2 Dandelion 1/2 dragon, you don't ever get in the game to be killed. 

Notice, the player never had a say in the rule...


----------



## Fenes (Mar 30, 2009)

Mallus said:


> The DM who says --given, as you've just pointed out, the tendency for D&D campaigns to be kitchen-sink affairs full of different, even divergent genre elements/influences-- that a _single_ element (race, class, etc.) _ruins_ the experience for them.
> 
> That seems petty, in my opinion.




So, do you think a single element - like say Jar-Jar Binks, or a spoonful of chili - can't ever ruin a movie or a dish? A player telling the GM "My PC goes and rapes the barwench" shouldn't be a game breaker for anyone, with all the violence in the game? Or a racist PC?

Or is it just that someone disliking things you can stomach is petty, while those who don't accept things you consider major are not petty?


----------



## Fenes (Mar 30, 2009)

Kask said:


> You _could_ say that but, you'd be wrong.  If the DM rules that you can't play a 1/2 Dandelion 1/2 dragon, you don't ever get in the game to be killed.
> 
> Notice, the player never had a say in the rule...




Not really. I said the Players rule too. They might not be able to force a DM to allow a race, but they can effectively ban a race if they refuse to work with a PC of said race. That's ruling as well.


----------



## Kask (Mar 30, 2009)

Fenes said:


> but they can effectively ban a race if they refuse to work with a PC of said race. That's ruling as well.




True, if a player wants to do a "protest sit out" they can screw around with the game.  But, the DM just boots them from the campaign... That's what I'd do.  Never been in that position though.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 30, 2009)

Fenes said:


> That their personal taste is somehow stupid just because they do not like a certain song - or can't get enough of another?



Note that I never said anything critical about people's tastes, only how they responded to something that wasn't to their taste. You'll note there's a difference.

Part of this, for me, is a refusal to treat D&D as a special case. It's just another social situation for me and my friends. If a buddy of mine refused to attend a party because I intended to play some music he didn't like, or serve I beer he didn't approve of, they'd get called petty (because, on the balance, isn't the party going to be fun?). Ditto w/a friend who refused to play in a campaign that sported Dragonborn.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 30, 2009)

Fenes said:


> I take offense at people saying "If you have no fun just because there's X in this game, you're wrong, since X is a minor thing". Everyone decides for themselves what is a minor and a major point in a game.



Did I say they didn't?  Of course everyone can have an opinion.  I don't need to hold all opinions equal, though.

I'm saying I am perfectly in my rights to disagree with someone else on what's major and what's minor.  And this will reflect on the kinds of players I let in my games, and the kind of DMs whose games I'm happy to play in.

So I guess I'm still confused.  What are you arguing?  It seems bizarre that you'd argue with me that everyone's entitled to an opinion about what is or isn't minor; but disagree that I'm entitled to an opinion on what kinds of people I enjoy playing with.  Or at least to imply I can't act on that opinion.

-O


----------



## Obryn (Mar 30, 2009)

Mallus said:


> Note that I never said anything critical about people's tastes, only how they responded to something that wasn't to their taste. You'll note there's a difference.



Yep, well-stated.



> Part of this, for me, is a refusal to treat D&D as a special case. It's just another social situation for me and my friends. If a buddy of mine refused to attend a party because I intended to play some music he didn't like, or serve I beer he didn't approve of, they'd get called petty (because, on the balance, isn't the party going to be fun?). Ditto w/a friend who refused to play in a campaign that sported Dragonborn.



Again, yep.  Like I mentioned before, I think it's the gaming prima donnas that are the issue.  And it's an issue of what kinds of people I like to game with, not an issue about some kind of objective right or wrong way to pretend to be an elf.  (Assuming elves are allowed, that is.)

-O


----------



## Mallus (Mar 30, 2009)

Fenes said:


> So, do you think a single element - like say Jar-Jar Binks, or a spoonful of chili - can't ever ruin a movie or a dish?



I don't think those comparisons are helpful. Movies and main courses aren't similar enough to D&D campaigns to make that question relevant. 



> A player telling the GM "My PC goes and rapes the barwench" shouldn't be a game breaker for anyone, with all the violence in the game? Or a racist PC?



I think there's a difference between wanting to play a gnome or a Dragonborn and wanting to play a rapist or a Klansman. 



> Or is it just that someone disliking things you can stomach is petty, while those who don't accept things you consider major are not petty?



Are really saying there's no difference between disliking gnomes and disliking rapists? This looks like category trouble...


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Mar 30, 2009)

Kask said:


> True, if a player wants to do a "protest sit out" they can screw around with the game.  But, the DM just boots them from the campaign... That's what I'd do.  Never been in that position though.



A classic example of the GM-in-control paradigm of most RPGs.


----------



## Kask (Mar 30, 2009)

Kwalish Kid said:


> A classic example of the GM-in-control paradigm of most RPGs.





Correct.  The most successful RPGs have this as part of the design.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 30, 2009)

Fenes said:


> A player telling the GM "My PC goes and rapes the barwench" shouldn't be a game breaker for anyone, with all the violence in the game? Or a racist PC?



I don't want to game with anyone who has fun with let's-pretend rape scenes.  I can say pretty categorically they're not the kind of person I want around, no matter the setting.



> Or is it just that someone disliking things you can stomach is petty, while those who don't accept things you consider major are not petty?



I have a strong feeling I'd get along better with someone who's normal but wants to play a Dragonborn, than I would with someone who dreams up rape scenes while expecting the other players and DM to sit there and listen.

Are you honestly arguing there's no difference here?  You're going down a very self-serving path of relativity, as far as I can see.

-O


----------



## Kask (Mar 30, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I have a strong feeling I'd get along better with someone who's normal but wants to play a Dragonborn, than I would with someone who dreams up rape scenes while expecting the other players and DM to sit there and listen.




Amen to that.


----------



## Fenes (Mar 30, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I don't want to game with anyone who has fun with let's-pretend rape scenes.  I can say pretty categorically they're not the kind of person I want around, no matter the setting.
> 
> 
> I have a strong feeling I'd get along better with someone who's normal but wants to play a Dragonborn, than I would with someone who dreams up rape scenes while expecting the other players and DM to sit there and listen.
> ...




What I am arguing is that one single element can be a game breaker. Mallus argued against that. That game breaker can vary a lot. Some won't play with evil PCs even if those do not anything evil, some won't play with Dragonborn, but have no problem with lizardfolk.  

Same difference: Personal taste.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 30, 2009)

Fenes said:


> What I am arguing is that one single element can be a game breaker. Mallus argued against that.



Mallus didn't expect anyone to lump gnomes and rapists into the same category .


----------



## Obryn (Mar 30, 2009)

Fenes said:


> What I am arguing is that one single element can be a game breaker. Mallus argued against that. That game breaker can vary a lot. Some won't play with evil PCs even if those do not anything evil, some won't play with Dragonborn, but have no problem with lizardfolk.
> 
> Same difference: Personal taste.



I can't buy into a worldview where wanting to play a dragonborn is somehow morally equivalent to wanting to play out rape scenes.

I'm also not disagreeing with your comment about personal taste.  In fact, I'm _expressing_ my personal tastes.  And you're ... well, arguing about them, near as I can see.

I thought I've been making it clear that I choose my gaming groups based mainly on the people involved and their behaviors.  I don't want to play with prima donnas on either side of the screen, and I don't want to play with pretend rapists.  Either one will ruin my fun way more than being allowed or not-allowed to run a tiefling.

-O


----------



## Fenes (Mar 30, 2009)

The difference is that I don't call you petty for making your choices. I am not calling anyone names ("Prima donnas") for refusing to play in a game they have no fun in - no matter why they have no fun.

If people stopped calling others names for not playing like they do ("No dragonborn? Prima Donna!!!!") We'd not have edition wars, and a lot less trouble on the forums.

That. for me, is morally more important than what other like to roleplay as.


----------



## Kask (Mar 30, 2009)

Fenes said:


> If people stopped calling others names for not playing like they do ("No dragonborn? Prima Donna!!!!") We'd not have edition wars, and a lot less trouble on the forums.




That's a function of maturity.  I'm sure you choose your gaming group with that as one of the considerations.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 30, 2009)

Fenes said:


> The difference is that I don't call you petty for making your choices. I am not calling anyone names ("Prima donnas") for refusing to play in a game they have no fun in - no matter why they have no fun.
> 
> If people stopped calling others names for not playing like they do ("No dragonborn? Prima Donna!!!!") We'd not have edition wars, and a lot less trouble on the forums.
> 
> That. for me, is morally more important than what other like to roleplay as.



That's ... really not even close to what I'm saying.  I'm not directing anything at all at you, apart from at the basic level where we're talking with one another on a message board.

I'm saying this is about what kinds of people I'd want to play D&D with.  I have no idea what kind of person you are.  Therefore, I have no idea if I'd want to play D&D with you.

It's not about what kinds of things you like in gaming (with a few exceptions, like the aforementioned imaginary rapists, at which point I'll just call you a deranged ass and stay as far away from you as possible).  It's about how you present those preferences and work with a group of people who are all there to have fun.  A DM who lords his power over his players is a DM I probably don't want to play with.  But there's a vast difference between this and, say, a board of directors where the DM is the chairman.  By the same token, a player who insists on playing radically insane, murderous characters is a player I probably don't want in my game.

-O


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 30, 2009)

I want to jump in here for a moment and talk about a 3.0 game I ran about6 or 7 years ago.

      One member of the party was from a Magocracy where he was a guardsmen, (Malita) and had spent almost 5 years tracking a serial killer who raped and killed both men and women. His background was twisted and dark. He wrote it this way (with my approval) becuse he was playing a Paliden and wanted a 'nemisiss' that was as dark and vile as he was light and exulted.
        We had another party member who was from a small psionic heavy city state. His background included inhuman experaments with makeing intelagent items by psi like power ripping peoples mind out and attaching them to items as a type of slavery. He was appaled at his people and had long since ran away.
        Every player new there were some 'dark' parts of my world, and this was a excepted part of it, but most didn't know the enitre of these two stories.
       The PCs found out about the city state, and found that they made a psycioactive skin that had 7 diffrent demmons/devils dound to it. Almost everyone right away realized it was a bad Carnige rip off. But it got away.

        it was 2 or 3 games later they found a guy who's mind was messed up and he was catatonic, in the woods. I expected this to side track them to a local town, but they decided to instead leave the NPC with him ( a 3rd player character's 15 year old daughter) and continue to the ruins then come back for the two of them.
        Now the catch being that catatonic man was the serial killer wearing this new suit. It was 'bonding'. I thought he would wake up in town and there would be a whole show down thing. But the Pcs left him for 3 days with this girl. To make things worse we had a paliden that would use "Detect Evil" at the drop of a hat, but who did not do so here. 
        The PCs came back and I said "Look instead of discribing what is here we are going to flash forward 25 mins, and tell you what you figured out." then I explained who the guy was what he was wearing, and that he was a X level rouge with that artifact on, that he raped and killed the dauhgter in a gruesom way, and that he had fled but they could track him.

         I had though the PC who just lost his (in game) daughter would be upset, but yet another PC (One who has a real life daughter of simalar age) was more outraged, and walked out. He said dark was one thing, but this was too far, he would come back for our next campiagn, but he was out for this.
           No one called him a premadonay. No one even said anything about it, if he can't hanndel that sort of thing then we will just adjust for the next time.


        How ever 1 PC in that game was a half dragon Fighter. (Infact that would be the PC who's daughter died) Had someone had the same reaction to me allowing the race then it would be diffrent.
           I can understand somethings push the wrong buttons, I really can, but to say "I can't play in a game with dragonborn" and then to defend that with "Well you don't want to play in a game with a rapest" is just beyond crazy...


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 30, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I can understand somethings push the wrong buttons, I really can, but to say "I can't play in a game with dragonborn" and then to defend that with "Well you don't want to play in a game with a rapest" is just beyond crazy...




You'll note I haven't tried to advance any such argument, mostly because I didn't think it would be helpful.

However, whether comparing a playing a game with a dragonborn in it to a game with a adult themes is crazy depends on what comparison you are drawing between the two things.   If by making the comparison you were trying to draw a moral equivalence between the two things, then sure, that's crazy.  But if by making the comparison you were trying to draw an aesthetic comparison between the two, then its really not that crazy - just confusing, provocative, and unnecessary.

I think the point that someone was trying to get across was that a campaign with adult themes is at one level just another aesthetic choice.  A person could object to certain adult themes at an aesthetic level, not because they though dealing with the subject in recreational role play was immoral, but simply because it made them uncomforable and they didn't like it as a personal preference.  At that level, whether the inclusion of adult themes is wrecking of your enjoyment or not is not objectively a bigger or smaller matter than space faring hamsters and teen mutant ninja turtles.

However, I agree that the comparison isn't particularly apt, in as much as the aesthetics of adult themes may not be the only thing at issue, where as almost no one would think space faring hamsters or teenage mutant ninja turtles are inherently moral or immoral content.

I should also point out in defence of the 'whether rapes occur in the campaign' = 'what races are presented' comparison, that the other side of the debate priorly jumped that shark as well with the, 'what races are presented in a campaign' = 'your a racist IRL' comparison.


----------



## rounser (Mar 30, 2009)

> This wasn't an ad hominen attack. I said 'an act can appear petty', and I stand by that.



Calling someone petty is playing the man and not the ball.  Of course it was an ad hominem attack, you're not trying for understanding here, just calling the other side names when you can't make sense any other way.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 30, 2009)

Dunno, I can't see how allowing rape and allowing dragonborn in your campaign are equivalent. I don't get uncomfortable trying to describe dragonborn. I don't know anyone who had a bad dragonborn situation, and I don't think small children and the elderly need be shielded from graphic depictions of dragonborn.

While in theory they could be used as examples of aesthetic choices, I fail to place them on the same level. 

Now, the more appropriate question (and the little more grandma-friendly) is how should players and DMs react to the removal of expected game elements (races, classes, magic) and what compromises should be reached so that both parties reach a mutually agreeable place?

Remathilis, who hopes to never type "dragonborn" and "rape" in the same sentence again...


----------



## Mallus (Mar 30, 2009)

rounser said:


> Of course it was an ad hominem attack, you're not trying for understanding here...



Please don't tell me my intent, eh?... danke. I just don't think it's sensible behavior to get so riled up over the inclusion of a specific race or class that it ruins the entire campaign experience. That seems like an overreaction. Moreover, it's behavior that I've never seen defended outside of RPG discussions --see my party/music analogy.

All I'm advocating is to chill out a bit, don't get so worked up over your preferences, live and let live...


----------



## Mallus (Mar 30, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> I don't get uncomfortable trying to describe dragonborn. I don't know anyone who had a bad dragonborn situation, and I don't think small children and the elderly need be shielded from graphic depictions of dragonborn.



You sir, have never seen my Dragonborn paladin .

We're working on the Story Hour now...


----------



## Kitirat (Mar 30, 2009)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I want to jump in here for a moment and talk about a 3.0 game I ran about6 or 7 years ago.
> ...
> I can understand somethings push the wrong buttons, I really can, but to say "I can't play in a game with dragonborn" and then to defend that with "Well you don't want to play in a game with a rapest" is just beyond crazy...




As a note, from my experience, Rape is the #1 no no in a D&D or any roleplaying game, especially if there is a woman in the game or anyone has a daughter.  Grewsome deaths, torture, pretty much everything thing goes except this, which is just too touchy a topic.  I think it is because of how real and frequent rape is as compared to murder in peoples lives.  1 in 10 to 1 in 8 women have been raped, so most everyone knows someone it has happened too and the contempation of it occuring to a child tends to makes fathers go justifyably anger.

As far as half-orcs and half-dragon, etc, backstory is one thing; "rapes not occuring in this campaign" tend to be a bit softer; though the hardest core I'd suggest going even then is more along "semi-consentual sex" via magic influence, being a slave, hypnotized, etc.  i.e. there is a big difference between the person "giving in" for some reason (save a loved one, magic, possessed, etc) then being forcibly raped.    A BIG difference.  I personally simply will never go there, EVER.


----------



## Scribble (Mar 30, 2009)

I think a lot of "internet discussions" and maybe even real life discussions always try to paint things into a much more binary fashion then they actually are.

Is this action "petty" yes or no? 

When in reality things are much more complicated then that. To me a lot of it depends on the particular group, as well as the motivation of the person in question.

Sometimes I see people doing things like "leaving" the group not because a particular element truly "ruins" their fun, but because they know they can play "Well fine- I'm going home," as the ultimate trump card, and avoid any type of comprimise or further discussion. This forces his friends to decide to either choose his companionship, or the element in question. (And since he knows his friends will most likely choose his companionship... this makes it a petty action.)

But you really can't apply that to EVERY situation. Sometimes you just have to know the person to know when they're honestly just not going to enjoy it, or it really offends them in some way, as opposed to when they're just playing the trump card.


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 30, 2009)

Mallus said:


> You sir, have never seen my Dragonborn paladin .
> 
> We're working on the Story Hour now...




Oh my!


----------



## Fenes (Mar 30, 2009)

As I said - someone said that there was no single thing that would be a game breaker, and I think I proved him wrong since so many agree that some things are enough for them to stop a game. 

Unfortunately, those people are still stuck on "as long as I like it/tolerate it everyone has to like it/tolerate it or he's a prim donna".

Personally, I won't play with Dragonborn, I won't run a game with Dragonborn. It's not an expected part of D&D for me either - I play 3E.

Now, call me prima donna for that? Or some other choice names for not playing like you do, or playing another edition?


----------



## Obryn (Mar 31, 2009)

Fenes said:


> As I said - someone said that there was no single thing that would be a game breaker, and I think I proved him wrong since so many agree that some things are enough for them to stop a game.



I don't think anyone was arguing that point, really.  Also, do you think it's fair to equate "Bob won't play in a game with elves" with "Bob won't play in a game where characters rape barmaids." 



> Unfortunately, those people are still stuck on "as long as I like it/tolerate it everyone has to like it/tolerate it or he's a prim donna".



I have to wonder at this point - are you deliberately misconstruing what I'm saying because you think it makes your argument stronger?



> Personally, I won't play with Dragonborn, I won't run a game with Dragonborn. It's not an expected part of D&D for me either - I play 3E.



And I think that sounds unreasonable and a little too intense _for me and my group_, based on what you're saying here.  I think this is a minor issue, and therefore I would tend to think anyone who doesn't is blowing it out of proportion.  As is my right, as a DM and as a player.  Other groups will, undoubtedly, have different perspectives than I do.  Again, what are we arguing about here?  Are you insisting that I should want to play with you (or someone else) no matter what?  Doesn't that seem contradictory to you?



> Now, call me prima donna for that? Or some other choice names for not playing like you do,



Being a prima donna is not about what you like or don't like.  It's about your attitude when bringing it to the table.  I prefer to play with people who have reasonable, and even easygoing personalities.  If you don't fit this, I probably wouldn't want to play with you.  Should I?



> or playing another edition?



Oh, _come on._  Nobody went there.

-O


----------



## Remathilis (Mar 31, 2009)

Fenes said:


> Personally, I won't play with Dragonborn, I won't run a game with Dragonborn. It's not an expected part of D&D for me either - I play 3E.




Cough, Cough, Cough, Cough. 

You were saying?


----------



## AllisterH (Mar 31, 2009)

Remathilis said:


> Cough, Cough, Cough, Cough.
> 
> You were saying?




THIS

When dragonborn were announced for 4e, my first assumption wasn't that WOTC was trying to create an out-there type of race or making D&D "different".

I always assumed it was because the dragonborn style race was EXTREMELY popular as was Dragons. Seriously, how many dragon-men type races did 3e come out with. 

I personally never understood the appeal of them but SOMEBODY out there has to have been buying all those dragon related products (by my count, there are at least 3 dragon-books 3E produced...)

My thinking was the designers said "geez, look at how popular dragonmen are...might as well make it official anyway..."


----------



## lutecius (Mar 31, 2009)

Obryn said:


> And I think that sounds unreasonable and a little too intense _for me and my group_, based on what you're saying here.  I think this is a minor issue, and therefore I would tend to think anyone who doesn't is blowing it out of proportion.  As is my right, as a DM and as a player.  Other groups will, undoubtedly, have different perspectives than I do.  Again, what are we arguing about here?  Are you insisting that I should want to play with you (or someone else) no matter what?  Doesn't that seem contradictory to you?



I can't speak for him but I think Fenes is insisting that his position is not unreasonable, as you keep saying.
It is a matter of preferences not reason.

Without going to extreme examples like rape, some people simply won't play games involving sexual content, evil PCs or steampunk or high magic campaigns. For others it's furries and dragonborns.

Whether they bother you personally or not, PC races affect the tone of a game. You potentially have to deal with them every session.

Would you play in a game with characters like Mallus' paladin? Apparently it's fun for him since he keeps bringing it up and i don't think it's morally offensive. But I find it both so icky and silly that it would certainly ruin the game for me, so i'd pass. Is that unreasonable?



Remathilis said:


> Cough, Cough, Cough, Cough.
> 
> You were saying?



Of those, only DB of Bahamut, a late addition really compares and qualifies as a pc race. And they're all optional, definitely not an expected part of 3e. A lot easier for a DM to say no without being called a prima donna.

The silly races aren't the reason i don't play 4e and i don't think ph2 races are that bad but this debate proves that whether they're in the phb or not does matter after all.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 31, 2009)

lutecius said:


> I can't speak for him but I think Fenes is insisting that his position is not unreasonable, as you keep saying.
> It is a matter of preferences not reason.



I never said his position _was_ unreasonable.  I said I _find_ his position unreasonable.  I also said I would prefer not to play with someone who holds what I think a minor issue to be so critical.



> Without going to extreme examples like rape, some people simply won't play games involving sexual content, evil PCs or steampunk or high magic campaigns. For others it's furries and dragonborns.



Again, like I said, other people can put whatever they'd like in their games.  I'm only talking about myself and my game - and about the attitudes of people I like to play with.

I don't really know why this is an issue.  He's arguing for his right to not play in a game with dragonborn.  I'm saying I, also, have a right not to play games with people who would get so heated about having a race they don't care for in a game.

Are you arguing that I don't have that right?



> Would you play in a game with characters like Mallus' paladin? Apparently it's fun for him since he keeps bringing it up and i don't think it's morally offensive. But I find it both so icky and silly that it would certainly ruin the game for me, so i'd pass. Is that unreasonable?



Given what I answered above, what do you think?

-O


----------



## Hussar (Mar 31, 2009)

Are there elements that can break a game?

Of course.  I, for one, have NEVER argued against this.  Of course there are.  

Are there reasons for ejecting something from your game?

Again, of course.  A couple of pages back, I posted half a dozen of them and you could probably add, "Does this element bring in uncomfortable social elements that I don't want at my table" and that would cover rape or graphic depictions of torture or whatnot.

My sole point, and it's the point that Mallus has taken and explained much better than I do, is that perhaps, as a DM, if you are banning something just because, then that is not serving the game as well as you could be.  Yes, your game will be perfectly fine and fun with no X.

That's not a question in my mind.

In my mind, your game would be better served in dialing back your personal preferences and working, as Mallus puts it, outside your comfort zone.


----------



## lutecius (Mar 31, 2009)

Obryn said:


> I never said his position _was_ unreasonable.  I said I _find_ his position unreasonable.



I see. That's completely different.



> Again, like I said, other people can put whatever they'd like in their games.  I'm only talking about myself and my game - and about the attitudes of people I like to play with.
> 
> I don't really know why this is an issue.  He's arguing for his right to not play in a game with dragonborn.  I'm saying I, also, have a right not to play games with people who would get so heated about having a race they don't care for in a game.
> 
> Are you arguing that I don't have that right?



So you keep asking, but I fail to see anyone arguing that.

The issue is your calling (sorry, _finding_) people unreasonable, wrong, raging nerds and prime donne because they won't play or even run games with elements they don't like. That's what I find unreasonable.



> Given what I answered above, what do you think?



That you haven't seen this character?


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 31, 2009)

lutecius said:


> The issue is your calling (sorry, _finding_) people unreasonable, wrong, raging nerds and prime donne because they won't play or even dm games with elements they don't like. I _find_ that unreasonable.




I think people have a right to their opinions.  I find this a little unreasonable as well.  If someone were to join my 4e D&D game and during character creation say "Let me get this straight, you allow Dragonborn in your game?  Creatures that look like humanoid DRAGONS?  Wow....I can't be a part of this game.  You guys aren't playing any sort of D&D I'd be interested in." and then left...I'd be...Well, first I'd be baffled.  Then more baffled.  Then I'd probably try to figure out if I accidentally insulted this new guy to our game and he's using it as an excuse to get out of the game.

Because the idea that a race in a fantasy universe where nearly anything was possible was so horrible that you couldn't play it is really beyond what I could comprehend.

I don't allow evil characters in my games, but only due to practical issues with campaigns I've tried it with in the past.  I've tried to run a game with PHB races only, but that was mostly due to balance reasons.

On the other hand, that's because I've seen players in my games get annoyed because someone else was evil and because someone else was much more powerful than them.  As DM, it's my job to make sure everyone is having fun.  Those things end up causing more problems than fun.  Would I join a game that was all evil characters who were entirely from the monster manual?  I'd probably give it a try.  I always love to see how other people do it.  Maybe they found a good balance and are having fun.  Maybe I can learn from it.  At least I get to play, that's what's important to me.


----------



## Fenes (Mar 31, 2009)

In another discussion a few months ago I stated already: I would let someone play a half-dragon lizardfolk character. Dragon Disciple? No problem. Dragon Adept? Go ahead. Such stuff has a place in my campaign - but all choices carry consequences. I won't kill off PCs with "the NPCs lynch you" ploy, but most of those characters will have the same problems as good drows to fit in, and will have to do a lot more to earn the trust of others than normal races. 

But I do not want Dragonborn in my campaign since they change the setting. As written, they are a civilized race, accepted by default in the average civilized city. That kind of flavor turns my stomach. I do not want an entire race/culture of lizardfolk being trusted by society as a default assumption. I do not want to run a setting that is as cosmopolitan as that. If I wanted to play that I'd run planescape. 

And if someone wants to play a dragon-like character in my campaign they can pick any of the above mentioned concepts. But if they insist of playing a dragonborn, aka "non-freak", aka "member of socieity in good standing", with all the fluff from WotC, I'll show them the door. That concept has no place in my campaign. It's like someone expecting me to change my setting so that Drows are no longer a generally evil race living in the Underdark, but just another race mingling with the rest and generally being good and trusted.

And that's why Dragonborn are a game breaker for me: They carry assumptions with them (cutlure, societiy) that change the setting into something I do not like to run.


----------



## FireLance (Mar 31, 2009)

Fenes said:


> And that's why Dragonborn are a game breaker for me: They carry assumptions with them (cutlure, societiy) that change the setting into something I do not like to run.



While I respect your reasons for not allowing dragonborn in your campaign because of the implied assumptions that they carry, I wonder how upfront you are about your reasons to the players and how far you are willing to compromise? For example:

1. If your player is willing to accept that the standard assumptions about dragonborn do not apply in your campaign, and that his character will be viewed with suspicion and occasional hostility, would you allow him to play a dragonborn?

2. If your player just wants the mechanical benefits of playing a dragonborn, and is willing to accept that his character will be viewed with suspicion and occasional hostility, would you allow him to play a "half-dragon lizardfolk" that had the same racial traits as a dragonborn?

3. If your player wants the mechanical benefits and the "proud warrior race" background of playing a dragonborn, and is willing to reflavor his character's appearance so that he looks more human-like (perhaps he is from a noble family that has a draconic bloodline) would you allow him to play a human-looking dragonborn?

4. If you would agree to any of the above, do you see it as part of your responsibility as a DM to highlight the possibility to the player? Do you see it as something that a good (or nice) DM might do, but is not actually an obligation on his part? Or do you think it is solely the player's responsibility to ensure that his character fits into the DM's campaign setting?


----------



## Fenes (Mar 31, 2009)

FireLance said:


> While I respect your reasons for not allowing dragonborn in your campaign because of the implied assumptions that they carry, I wonder how upfront you are about your reasons to the players and how far you are willing to compromise? For example:
> 
> 1. If your player is willing to accept that the standard assumptions about dragonborn do not apply in your campaign, and that his character will be viewed with suspicion and occasional hostility, would you allow him to play a dragonborn?
> 
> ...




I do not play 4E, so there are no mechanical benefits a dragonborn can offer. As for concepts I go a long way to make a character fit in, and I point out the possible options, but the character will fit the setting, not the other way around.

But as things are, if the player wants Dragonboobs he'll have to play a half-dragon with mamallian ancestry, not something that lays eggs.


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 31, 2009)

FireLance said:


> 1. If your player is willing to accept that the standard assumptions about dragonborn do not apply in your campaign, and that his character will be viewed with suspicion and occasional hostility, would you allow him to play a dragonborn?




No, he would have to play a member of one of the seven 'free peoples'.  All other races are servitor races, and are presumed (or in fact are) to be mentally enslaved to a particular diety or otherwise manifestations of a particular dieties will.  In any event, a character from a servitor race would take crippling xenophobia penalties on social interactions, if monsterous would be treated as a monster, and would quite concievably be in a position where I would feel inclined to dictate his behavior (in the form of 'your diety is controlling your will').  IMO, telling a player how his character should behave is the big no-no, so playing a servitor race just brings up all sorts of problems I don't want to deal with.  This is one of the primary campaign elements and I'm not going to comprimise on it.



> 2. If your player just wants the mechanical benefits of playing a dragonborn, and is willing to accept that his character will be viewed with suspicion and occasional hostility, would you allow him to play a "half-dragon lizardfolk" that had the same racial traits as a dragonborn?




No.  Granted, I don't even know what the 3e racial traits of dragonborn are, but the player was someone I trusted I might let them play say a Dwarf with draconic ancestory and use the same racial traits as dragonborn.  It's worth noting that whether we altered his base racial stats or not, he could take bloodline feats as a Drawven sorcerer that would let him for example, breath fire, acquire a slightly draconic appearance, and so forth.  If he took the Blood Sorcerer feat, he could even be a pretty decent 'gish'.  But he would be a drawf (or whatever race) for the purposes of the game.



> 3. If your player wants the mechanical benefits and the "proud warrior race" background of playing a dragonborn, and is willing to reflavor his character's appearance so that he looks more human-like (perhaps he is from a noble family that has a draconic bloodline) would you allow him to play a human-looking dragonborn?




All my races are proud warrior races.  Anything that isn't a proud warrior race gets extinct in a hurry.  But if he wants 'proud warrior race' as a primary attribute, it just screams Orine to me.  Again, I have no idea what the mechanical benefits of being dragonborn are, but I'd be willing to comprimise slightly on his base racial traits.   I really would think it is unnecessary, but if I had a problem player holding up the game I'd do what I could to get the game running for the sake of everyone else.



> If you would agree to any of the above, do you see it as part of your responsibility as a DM to highlight the possibility to the player? Do you see it as something that a good (or nice) DM might do, but is not actually an obligation on his part? Or do you think it is solely the player's responsibility to ensure that his character fits into the DM's campaign setting?




As a DM its my responcibility to help a player understand any of the mechanical options available to them, and to help steer them to something which inspires them and that they find enjoyable to play.   It's my responcibility to try to put together some options that is as close as can be managed to any reasonable idea that the player might have.   Those are my responcibilities during character creation.  But I'm under no obligation to make any particular mechanical advantage or particular flavor available to the character.  Ultimately, I think I can overrule just about anything.  The idea situation for me is that a player new to my game acts as if he's never played before, and that he's being introduced to the game for the first time with biases, preconceptions, or baggage and instead brings to the table all the guilessness, trust, wonder, couriousity, and zeal of a new player.  It's the players responsibility to create a character that is within the scope of the setting and which is entertaining for himself, the other players, and me.   If he really honestly thinks that he can't create an entertaining character who isn't a dragonborn, then I'm probably going to agree with him that he's better off at some other table.  I would consider that more of an admision of failure on his part than a failure on my part.   I would consider it a failure on my part if nobody at the table thought that they could create an interesting character.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 31, 2009)

lutecius said:


> I see. That's completely different.



You really don't see a difference?  I'm not claiming I have access to any kind of universal truth on the subject.  I don't think there _is_ a fact of the matter as to who is or is not reasonable.  I'm saying that _I think_ he is being unreasonable, and that I don't want to play games with _people_ I find unreasonable.  Gaming is a lot about the personalities of the people you're gaming with.  I don't think my personality would mesh with someone who refused to play in a game if another person were playing a dragonborn.



> So you keep asking, but I fail to see anyone arguing that.



Then what are you arguing?  Really - I could not be more confused.  I'm saying I wouldn't want to game with a person who got too heated about a fantasy race in D&D, on either side of the screen.  Are you arguing that I don't have the capacity to decide this?  Are you arguing that, regardless of whether I find them unreasonable, I should game with them?

I'm arguing my opinion, and you seem to be worried that my opinion doesn't match up with some kind of reality.  Or that I'm being unfairly critical.  Which is fine - after all, I think you and he are being unfairly critical about something else entirely.



> The issue is your calling (sorry, _finding_) people unreasonable, wrong, raging nerds and prime donne because they won't play or even run games with elements they don't like. That's what I find unreasonable.



OK, good!  You can find that unreasonable!  You can say, "I don't want to play with Obryn because I believe he has said this."

And, to explain yet again, a DM banning a race in a game does not make them a prima donna.  A DM freaking out about a race could be.  A player being mildly unhappy because another player is running a Dragonborn is not wrong or a raging nerd.  A player who would refuse to sit down at a table with one is one I'd probably rather not have at the table anyway.



> That you haven't seen this character?



Nope, I did.

And I'd say that it's his group's decision.  

If he came to my group, it would be more about how he presented everything and how well he got along with the existing group than it would anything else.

-O


----------



## Fenes (Mar 31, 2009)

Obryn said:


> You really don't see a difference?  I'm not claiming I have access to any kind of universal truth on the subject.  I don't think there _is_ a fact of the matter as to who is or is not reasonable.  I'm saying that _I think_ he is being unreasonable, and that I don't want to play games with _people_ I find unreasonable.  Gaming is a lot about the personalities of the people you're gaming with.  I don't think my personality would mesh with someone who refused to play in a game if another person were playing a dragonborn.




There is no difference between saying "I think X is a prima donna" and "X is a prima donna".


----------



## Obryn (Mar 31, 2009)

Fenes said:


> There is no difference between saying "I think X is a prima donna" and "X is a prima donna".



Would you say there's no difference between "Dragonborn are a stupid PC race" and "I think Dragonborn are a stupid PC race"?

One is an opinion asserted as fact, and the other is a fact about an opinion.  If you don't see a distinction, I see why you're confused.  In either case, there's no actual fact of the matter, and people can reasonably disagree about it.  The first statement asserts something about the world, while the second asserts something about an opinion.

-O


----------



## Fenes (Mar 31, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Would you say there's no difference between "Dragonborn are a stupid PC race" and "I think Dragonborn are a stupid PC race"?




Would you say there is a difference between calling an opinion or PC race names, and calling a player names?

It doesn't matter if you say "I think X is a prima donna" or "X is a prima donna" - you're insulting X in both cases.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 31, 2009)

Fenes said:


> Would you say there is a difference between calling an opinion or PC race names, and calling a player names?
> 
> It doesn't matter if you say "I think X is a prima donna" or "X is a prima donna" - you're insulting X in both cases.



I don't see that I ever called anyone a prima donna in this thread.  I think you're making a connection that's not there, leaping from "This characteristic could indicate a gaming prima donna" to "_everyone_ with this characteristic is a gaming prima donna" or maybe to "Obryn just called me a prima donna."  That's not the connection I'm making.  Like I've said, it's about attitudes, not actions.

Now, I have said there was a chance I wouldn't want to play D&D with you, because as far as I can tell from this thread, our approaches to gaming don't match.  But "gaming prima donnas" are just one subset of a larger group of "people Obryn doesn't know he'd want to game with," and someone in the latter set is not necessarily a member of the former.  Gaming is a social activity, and I take personalities and attitudes into account more than I do abstract design philosophies.

Everyone gets to pick out what characteristics they look for in a game or in a group of gamers.  This just happens to be mine.  I enjoy laid-back games with laid-back players, and presumably laid-back players and DMs won't refuse to play a game where one PC has a character race they find aesthetically unappealing.  From your statements in this thread, I am assuming that you are not laid back in the ways I find important for people I game with.  That's all.  I'm not impugning you or anyone else as a human being or as a D&D player - I'm talking about my preferences for the people I play with.

(And, on the other side of the coin, I would also assume that I, as a laid-back gamer, am too laid-back for many other gaming groups who prize a more serious tone, and I presumably would not find myself a good fit for their tables.)

-O


----------



## Celebrim (Mar 31, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Would you say there's no difference between "Dragonborn are a stupid PC race" and "I think Dragonborn are a stupid PC race"?




I would say there is no difference between the two.  The only way that they would be different is if you thought your opinion was wrong, which would call into question why you held it as an opinion in the first place.

Let's put it this way, if I said, "I think Morrus is stupid.", there wouldn't be any significant difference between that and saying, "Morrus is stupid."  If I think Morrus is stupid, then I think that my subjective assessment reflects the objective facts and that even if I cannot yet establish Morrus's lack of intelligence objectively, I'm asserting that if we could that my opinion would remain sound.



> One is an opinion asserted as fact, and the other is a fact about an opinion.  If you don't see a distinction, I see why you're confused.  In either case, there's no actual fact of the matter, and people can reasonably disagree about it.  The first statement asserts something about the world, while the second asserts something about an opinion.




If you assert an opinion about an objective quality or about something that implies objective value, then its not just an opinion.  Saying, "I find his position unreasonable.", is the same as saying, "His position is unreasonable."  "I Find" in particular, because of its connection with the langauge of mathematics and logic proofs, carries the conotation of stronger assertion than "I think", because it implies you discovered some tangible evidence.  The only thing that keep you from being full in 'ad hominem land' is you are criticizing the position, not the person: "I find his position unreasonable." rather than "I find him to be unreasonable."  However, "I find his position unreasonable." isn't that far off from "I find him to be the sort of person who holds unreasonable opinions."  

When you say, "I find his position to be unreasonable.", you are saying, "He objectively does not have a right to hold his position."  That may not be what you mean to say, but that's what you said.  Unreasonable things are things that sane people should be able to agree are not valid.  If you are really wanting to emphasis the fact that you are holding an opinion, you probably should concede the reasonableness of the contrary opinion.  If you don't concede the reasonableness of the contrary opinion, then you aren't holding an opinion at all.


----------



## Obryn (Mar 31, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> I would say there is no difference between the two.  The only way that they would be different is if you thought your opinion was wrong, which would call into question why you held it as an opinion in the first place.
> 
> Let's put it this way, if I said, "I think Morrus is stupid.", there wouldn't be any significant difference between that and saying, "Morrus is stupid."  If I think Morrus is stupid, then I think that my subjective assessment reflects the objective facts and that even if I cannot yet establish Morrus's lack of intelligence objectively, I'm asserting that if we could that my opinion would remain sound.



No, in this case, I can't be asserting a position about the fact of the matter, because I don't believe there to be a fact of the matter about which I _could_ hold a position.  I'm holding a position based on my subjective experience, not based on access to any objective metaphysical truths.

An attitude that I find reasonable, someone else might find unreasonable.  Something I believe minor, someone else may believe crucial based on their other attitudes and beliefs.  There's no objective fact of the matter in either case, because it's based on subjective experience.

I mean, we can wander down the epistemological trail here, but I think we're getting pretty far astray from what I think is my main point - I prefer to game with people who have certain attitudes.  If you have wildly different attitudes, I may not prefer to game with you, and presumably vice-versa.

I don't believe there's an objectively right or a wrong way to pretend to be an elf.



> When you say, "I find his position to be unreasonable.", you are saying, "He objectively does not have a right to hold his position."  That may not be what you mean to say, but that's what you said.  Unreasonable things are things that sane people should be able to agree are not valid.  If you are really wanting to emphasis the fact that you are holding an opinion, you probably should concede the reasonableness of the contrary opinion.  If you don't concede the reasonableness of the contrary opinion, then you aren't holding an opinion at all.



I've been conceding the reasonableness of the contrary opinion all along.  I'm speaking subjectively about me, my game group, and the people I want to game with.

-O


----------



## Fenes (Mar 31, 2009)

And I prefer to talk with people who are a bit more polite than you.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 31, 2009)

Celebrim, would your answers to Firelance change if you were not running your particular homebrew?

If, for instance, you were running Forgotten Realms, and someone wanted to play a tiefling character, would you allow it?


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 31, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Would you say there's no difference between "Dragonborn are a stupid PC race" and "I think Dragonborn are a stupid PC race"?
> 
> One is an opinion asserted as fact, and the other is a fact about an opinion.  If you don't see a distinction, I see why you're confused.  In either case, there's no actual fact of the matter, and people can reasonably disagree about it.  The first statement asserts something about the world, while the second asserts something about an opinion.
> 
> -O



For reference, folks, moderation on this board asserts that there *is* a difference. We are far more likely to get cranky about "Dwarves are stupid" than we are "I think dwarves are stupid," because the former involves you stating your possibly incorrect opinion as a truism. While everyone is welcome to hold their own opinion, I have very little patience for other people telling me what I'm required to think.

Either way, I think this thread is about done, so I'll swing it closed.


----------

