PHB2 Races = Mos Eisley Cantina

[Dragonbait]

Originally Posted by Wolfwood2

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]

Originally Posted by Wolfwood2

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]

Originally Posted by Obryn

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]

Originally Posted by Kask

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]

Originally Posted by Mallus

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]

Originally Posted by Hexmage-EN

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...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]

Originally Posted by Kask

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]

Originally Posted by Wolfwood2

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]

Originally Posted by Wolfwood2

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Kask

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]

Originally Posted by Akaiku

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]

Originally Posted by Runestar

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.

Originally Posted by Obryn

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]

Originally Posted by Kask

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

Originally Posted by Kask

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]

Originally Posted by Runestar

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]

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

[Kask]

Originally Posted by Obryn

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Kask

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]

Originally Posted by Kask

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