4e / GSL Tiefling, Dragonborn : have they gained traction ?

[Hereticus]

If the DM does not like Dragonborn... just kill them off right away.

Even the slowest gaming group will eventually get the message.

[Dire Bare]

Originally Posted by rounser

Okay, that was after I tuned out. I think they should probably have stayed villains, and I think I'll try and remember them that way.

Heh, while I'd allow a draconian PC in a Dragonlance game, if I ever ran one . . . . I like them as villians better myself. Same goes for drow and klingons! But there's always room for a draconian "Drizzt" . . . .

[Dire Bare]

Originally Posted by Hereticus

If the DM does not like Dragonborn... just kill them off right away.

Even the slowest gaming group will eventually get the message.

Now that is a group I'd leave immediately. Punish a player for coming up with a character concept I didn't care for? I stopped doing that when I was 12 . . . no, wait, I didn't even do that way back then.

[Aus_Snow]

Originally Posted by Bumbles

So were Drow once upon a time, but then came a certain book series, and we all know where that lead.

Not disregarding what you posted after this bit, by the way, just hoping for a brief history lesson (well, the time of a specific turning point, anyhow). Does anyone here know when Drow were first introduced officially (be it in D&D, AD&D, Dragon magazine, or. . . er, something else official) as a PC race? Not meaning to derail anything, and it actually seems kinda on topic. Anyway, does anyone happen to know?

Oh, and what was the very first previously monster-only PC race in D&D of any kind? Half Orc, perhaps? And when did that make an appearance?

[rounser]

Does anyone here know when Drow were first introduced officially (be it in D&D, AD&D, Dragon magazine, or. . . er, something else official) as a PC race?

To my knowledge, Unearthed Arcana 1E. 1E Fiend Folio had some rules you might use in making a PC dark elf, but mostly UA. These are both based on the Giants/Drow series, though, and maybe a dragon article before that (knowing the source of much of UA).

[Remathilis]

Originally Posted by rounser

But that's what we're talking about by allowing everything in the core, all the time. It's kitchen sinking every campaign world. Dark Sun with dragonboob PCs. Ravenloft with dragonboob PCs. Etcetera.

Yeah like half-orcs in Dragonlanc... DOH!

Or gnomes in Dark Su... Ooops!

Or paladins in Ravenlof.... Dang it!

[Mark]

Originally Posted by Dire Bare

If I walked into a new game and new group and the GM shot down a request at a character concept, dragonborn or otherwise, I'd probably start looking for another game right quick.

Originally Posted by Dire Bare

Now that is a group I'd leave immediately.

Do you not usually research games to find out the ground rules before joining? Or, barring that, don't the DMs you run into usual either explain ahead of time that certain norms are in place for their campaign or ask you if you are willing to accept certain things before they let you join their games? If you keep running into situations like this you might want to communicate a little more before joining new games.

[Dire Bare]

Originally Posted by rounser

But that's what we're talking about by allowing everything in the core, all the time. It's kitchen sinking every campaign world. Dark Sun with dragonboob PCs. Ravenloft with dragonboob PCs. Etcetera.

No, not at all. A good example is muls, half-dwarves, from Dark Sun. They are an iconic race of the setting and help define the feel of it. If I allow half-dwarves in my home game, am I somehow making it just like Dark Sun? Of course not.

I allow anything and everything within the rules into my game. That doesn't make my game world identical to any other, nor does it make a kitchen sink world. I allow dragonborn, but nobody's asked to play one yet and as so they don't exist in my world . . . yet. If and when somebody asks, I'll allow them and I'm not really worried about diluting the purity of my world. Same goes for goliaths, wardens, invokers and other bits too.

If I created kingdoms and huge backstories for every race and class in my game that closely mirrored WotC's stuff, then that might start to make my world to look a little unfocused and kitchen-sink-esque . . . but even in that case, so what? I'm not writing novels in this setting, I'm running a table-top game for my friends every other week or so.

I've seen closed DM's shut down player ideas often enough in my gaming career, and I find it anti-fun for the most part. I love GMs who are open, because it frees everybody at the table to just relax and have fun! It's only a game afterall!

I do draw the line sometimes at player-created classes and races unless I trust the player to come up with something balanced. But I rarely outright say "no", I'd rather work with the player to rework the class or race (or feat or whatever) that to simply ban it.

[rounser]

If I allow half-dwarves in my home game, am I somehow making it just like Dark Sun? Of course not.

That's a mighty weak straw man you've set up there. I've not said that you'd make your world like Ravenloft by including lycanthrope PCs either. You're shadowboxing with this line of argument.

If you kitchensinked everything in the 4E core into every world, it would ruin them. Do you understand what this actually means? It's like using your entire spice rack on every dish. It's not good cooking, nor good worldbuilding.

[Dire Bare]

Originally Posted by Mark

Do you not usually research games to find out the ground rules before joining? Or, barring that, don't the DMs you run into usual either explain ahead of time that certain norms are in place for their campaign or ask you if you are willing to accept certain things before they let you join their games? If you keep running into situations like this you might want to communicate a little more before joining new games.

Thanks for assuming! If somebody asks me, "Hey, you play D&D? You wanna play with my group this Saturday?" If I'm free I'll usually say "yes" before "researching" the game. When I first sit down with the DM (or email), I'll ask for any house rules and I'll stick to them, including banned races or classes. There is so much out there I can always find a different class or race that will be fun.

But if the DM simply bans dragonborn (or something else) because they're just silly dragonbewbs who don't belong in a real D&D game . . . that's a warning sign this isn't a DM whose style is going to be fun for me. If he/she doesn't want me to play a dragonborn because they don't fit the campaign style they are running, well that's fine. It might seem a fine distinction, but it's all about attitude.

Besides, in 99% of these types of situations I've found myself in, I'll ask for any character creations rules or limitations and be told, "whatever you want". Then when I show up with my dragonborn, or soulknife, or whatever, I'm sneeringly told that class or race is lame and isn't allowed. Not fun.

But as I do prefer to play with folks who are open and fun . . . like me! . . . this is rarely a problem.

[Hereticus]

If the DM does not like Dragonborn... just kill them off right away.

Originally Posted by Dire Bare

Now that is a group I'd leave immediately. Punish a player for coming up with a character concept I didn't care for? I stopped doing that when I was 12 . . . no, wait, I didn't even do that way back then.

I agree with you.

The DM serves the role of refereeing the game, they do not own it and should not dictate.

I do not like inflexible DMs who are control freaks.

[Invisible Stalker]

Dragonborn and Tieflings have both been pretty popular in our games. In a commission of heresy of the highest order I kicked the gnomes out of the Kron Hills in Greyhawk and installed the dragonborn there.

I would most like to play the races in this order...

the races I prefer
1. Human
2. Eladrin
3. Dragonborn
4. Deva
5. Elf
6. Half-Elf

the tolerated
7. Dwarf
8. Genasi
9. Goliath
10. Halfling
11. Gnome

the hated
12. Shifters
13. Shadar-Kai
14. Drow
15. Tiefling
16. Half-Orc

[Bumbles]

Originally Posted by rounser

If you kitchensinked everything in the 4E core into every world, it would ruin them. Do you understand what this actually means? It's like using your entire spice rack on every dish. It's not good cooking, nor good worldbuilding.

I can understand what you're saying regarding working with less to make more, but I think you may want to work on how you're trying to express your idea.

Leaving out the dragonboobs comments might help, for example. It comes across as a bit derogatory.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by Dire Bare

If I'm free I'll usually say "yes" before "researching" the game.

(. . .)

Besides, in 99% of these types of situations I've found myself in, (. . .)

In over 35 years of gaming I think I may have found myself in a situation like you describe only a couple of times and both times poor communication can be blamed. Again, without making any assumptions, I can only suggest that if you seem to be in this situation as often as a "99%" figure might suggest (100+ such games?), you might need to have a bit more conversation before joining games.

[rounser]

Besides, in 99% of these types of situations I've found myself in, I'll ask for any character creations rules or limitations and be told, "whatever you want". Then when I show up with my dragonborn, or soulknife, or whatever, I'm sneeringly told that class or race is lame and isn't allowed. Not fun.

Alright. Take out the building up of false expectations and the sneering; is it okay then? Like Mark I can't say I've encountered your 99 percenters much.

[Dire Bare]

Originally Posted by rounser

That's a mighty weak straw man you've set up there. I've not said that you'd make your world like Ravenloft by including lycanthrope PCs either. You're shadowboxing with this line of argument.

If you kitchensinked everything core into every world, it would ruin them. Do you understand what this actually means? It's like using your entire spice rack on every dish. It's not good cooking, nor good worldbuilding.

Straw man? Shadow boxing? Do I even understand what this means? Whatever.

I think it's pretty clear we just have different ideas of what worldbuilding is all about. If I'm building a world that I'm going to write novels in, then I would probably be more selective. If I'm building a world to play D&D games in, then I won't be. Or if I'm using a published campaign setting, any of them, I also allow just about anything to go.

The only reason I can think of to be so selective is if I'm shooting for a real tight theme, like a low-magic setting with a more historical feel. Or a setting based off Greek mythology or something where dragons don't really play much of a part. But a standard D&D setting? Nah. D&D is already "kitchen-sink", even old-school D&D, and me allowing dragon-men or plant-men or whatever isn't going to really dilute it any further.

[Dire Bare]

Originally Posted by Mark

In over 35 years of gaming I think I may have found myself in a situation like you describe only a couple of times and both times poor communication can be blamed. Again, without making any assumptions, I can only suggest that if you seem to be in this situation as often as a "99%" figure might suggest (100+ such games?), you might need to have a bit more conversation before joining games.

Without making any assumptions, huh? Heh, without reading my entire post as well . . .

Originally Posted by Dire Bare

But as I do prefer to play with folks who are open and fun . . . like me! . . . this is rarely a problem.

99% of the time I've found myself in those situations, but those situations have been quite rare.

Obviously, if the DM has restrictions that the player doesn't hear until he sits down with his newly rolled-up character, there has been a communication breakdown. But I think it's fair if asked to sit down to a 4th Edition D&D game, to assume races and classes from the existing rules are allowed, unless told otherwise.

And if my new DM wants to ban a race from the published rules, that's fine, but it is a sign of a "closed DM" to me and a hint that this might not be the game for me (it's not a given, just a sign). So I sit down and play a few sessions only to later decide it's not a good fit . . . so what? No skin off anybody's back, I just move on and the group just keeps playing the way they like.

I don't think sitting down to a new game of D&D should require all that much more "research" than sitting down to a new game of poker. It's a game. An involved game that many have turned into a lifestyle hobby (including myself), but still a game.

[Dire Bare]

Originally Posted by rounser

Alright. Take out the building up of false expectations and the sneering; is it okay then? Like Mark I can't say I've encountered your 99 percenters much.

I hope I'm not developing a habit of quoting myself, but . . .

Originally Posted by Dire Bare

But if the DM simply bans dragonborn (or something else) because they're just silly dragonbewbs who don't belong in a real D&D game . . . that's a warning sign this isn't a DM whose style is going to be fun for me. If he/she doesn't want me to play a dragonborn because they don't fit the campaign style they are running, well that's fine. It might seem a fine distinction, but it's all about attitude.

[Mark]

Originally Posted by Dire Bare

Without making any assumptions, huh? Heh, without reading my entire post as well . . .

If I do not quote your entire post, you assume I didn't read it? Okay.

Originally Posted by Dire Bare

99% of the time I've found myself in those situations, but those situations have been quite rare.

You either do not understand how percenatges work or believe that 100 times or more is rare.

Originally Posted by Dire Bare

Obviously, if the DM has restrictions that the player doesn't hear until he sits down with his newly rolled-up character, there has been a communication breakdown.

That would be my other point.

Originally Posted by Dire Bare

But I think it's fair if asked to sit down to a 4th Edition D&D game, to assume races and classes from the existing rules are allowed, unless told otherwise.

I think if you wind up in as many games that are not to your liking as your posting indicates then all of those DMs are not communicating well.

Originally Posted by Dire Bare

And if my new DM wants to ban a race from the published rules, that's fine, but it is a sign of a "closed DM" to me and a hint that this might not be the game for me (it's not a given, just a sign). So I sit down and play a few sessions only to later decide it's not a good fit . . . so what? No skin off anybody's back, I just move on and the group just keeps playing the way they like.

If you know that a banned race is going to make you leave a campaign after several games you probably shouldn't join in the first place. The time of your own that is wasted is multiplied by however many other players are in the campaign. You might also have taken a seat from someone else with more dedication to a campaign that would have stayed with the group rather than ignored an obvious sign and left later. It's kinda rude, actually.

Originally Posted by Dire Bare

I don't think sitting down to a new game of D&D should require all that much more "research" than sitting down to a new game of poker. It's a game. An involved game that many have turned into a lifestyle hobby (including myself), but still a game.

You seem to want to downplay the obvious communication difficulties that arise from your experiences (by throwing quotes around the word "research") when all it really means is that you should be more forthcoming with the other members of a group, a group that is kind enough to invite you to play. It really isn't much different than walking off a softball field in the third inning of the first game of a season because playing fast pitch is something you've decided retrospectively is not your bag. Sure, they are both just games but it doesn't reduce your responsibility to be honest and up front with the other participants. At the very least, you should let people know that you have a habit of walking off after a campaign has begun because of thingsyou knew in advance so that the other players have the option of inviting someone else to play who has fewer stipulations and quirks.

[Bumbles]

Originally Posted by Mark

You seem to want to downplay the obvious communication difficulties that arise from your experiences (by throwing quotes around the word "research") when all it really means is that you should be more forthcoming with the other members of a group, a group that is kind enough to invite you to play.

You have this backwards, or at least, you're leaving out one very important aspect, namely the group's responsibility to make things clear on their own.

I don't know about anybody else, but if I'm making a campaign, and I have something different, or something basic excluded, I'll include it in my handout.

If somebody tells me a "whatever" then that's when I'll be concerned when they say no to something, and I don't mean a "no because it won't fit with what's going on in the game" but the derisive and snide noes that involve terms like dragonboobs.

At the very least, you should let people know that you have a habit of walking off after a campaign has begun because of thingsyou knew in advance so that the other players have the option of inviting someone else to play who has fewer stipulations and quirks.

Could be a bit less judgmental, don't you think? Me, I think it's important to be fair with a group, get a genuine feel for them, before you decide to leave or not. Which may happen, but if you're going to knock a guy because he didn't just up and leave, but tried to give the group a chance, then well, I'm concerned that you're the one with the bad expectations.