Poll: How do you feel about new PC races? - Page 2




What's on your mind?

View Poll Results: How do you feel about approving new PC races for play in LPF?

Voters
21. You may not vote on this poll
  • Heck yeah! The more options the better.

    5 23.81%
  • I'm open to considerately expanding the options.

    10 47.62%
  • I'm against more PC races; we have enough as it is.

    3 14.29%
  • *Expression of ambivalence*

    3 14.29%
+ Log in or register to post
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24
  1. #11
    Registered User
    Scout (Lvl 6)

    Artur Hawkwing's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Northwest of DC
    Posts
    990

    Ignore Artur Hawkwing
    My communities:

    I'm really torn. I think the best approach is take it race by race, break them down and see what they're about. Me, personally, I tend to avoid 'alternative' races unless it is a requirement of the campaign (as my half-red dragon centaur bard would attest), but to have the option of exploration might be good. It would also make us consider that races position with E'n. Like the example already given of the Delta having lizard-folk...

    The only thing I can really contribute is that I think, at least at first, there should be a leash kept on the number of new races added. Instead of dumping the whole thing into the wash all at once, try a couple a lot of people seem interested in.
    I fight beneath this flag against the Darkness. Pay no attention to the cost in land and lives, this war must be won by the light!

    Living Pathfinder: Canasta Emeraldas, Human Bard Level 1

    Retired LPF: Audra Frost, Human Monk, Level 6 | Marcus Cole, Half-Elf Ranger 3/Wizard (Admixture Evocation) 1

 

  • #12
    Community Supporter COPPER SUBSCRIBER
    Waghalter (Lvl 7)

    sunshadow21's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2,706

    Ignore sunshadow21
    My communities:

    Quote Originally Posted by IronWolf View Post
    I think there is plenty of room to write "ecology of" articles for the wiki to build up fluff for races without the requirement to make them a playable race to justify writing fluff for them.

    I don't think adding more PC races in order to encourage the writing of fluff is a good justification for a large amount of races.
    I said it could help; I didn't say it was the only way to do it. It is one factor that is worth considering if enough people show interest in playing a particular race or if a region really develops over time to the point where it might make sense to allow that race to be a PC race.

  • #13
    Registered User
    Myrmidon (Lvl 10)



    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,875

    Ignore jkason
    My communities:

    As a player, I think I tend to be most interested in new races when they're actually most different. If I'm going to be something non-human, I just think it's fun to be really non-human. A lot of the core races just feel like 'tweaked human' (human that stops growing at child-size, human with pointy ears, squat & dense human that sees in the dark, blended-with-humans that look fairly human anyway). I just think there's so much stuff that reads like everything else, that races that are more 'out of the box' seem to draw my attention.

    Not quite sure why tengu and merfolk didn't manage to draw me in. I guess Birdfolk who can't fly or glide make me sad; likewise water folk who can barely move aboveground.

    Or I'm turning into a dirty optimizer without even noticing.

    I think SK has a point about reaction to races, and I think it's another point we might want to consider in approving or rejecting races: I think maybe part of the integration process might need to include how X race is (normally) received by the various other races. Helps inform character creation, and helps GMs with a bit of a guideline about integration.

  • #14
    Registered User
    Cutpurse (Lvl 5)

    Qik's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Orleans, US
    Posts
    1,925

    Ignore Qik
    My communities:

    Quote Originally Posted by IronWolf View Post
    I think there is plenty of room to write "ecology of" articles for the wiki to build up fluff for races without the requirement to make them a playable race to justify writing fluff for them.

    I don't think adding more PC races in order to encourage the writing of fluff is a good justification for a large amount of races.
    Quote Originally Posted by sunshadow21 View Post
    I said it could help; I didn't say it was the only way to do it. It is one factor that is worth considering if enough people show interest in playing a particular race or if a region really develops over time to the point where it might make sense to allow that race to be a PC race.
    Quote Originally Posted by Artur Hawkwing View Post
    I'm really torn. I think the best approach is take it race by race, break them down and see what they're about. Me, personally, I tend to avoid 'alternative' races unless it is a requirement of the campaign (as my half-red dragon centaur bard would attest), but to have the option of exploration might be good. It would also make us consider that races position with E'n. Like the example already given of the Delta having lizard-folk...

    The only thing I can really contribute is that I think, at least at first, there should be a leash kept on the number of new races added. Instead of dumping the whole thing into the wash all at once, try a couple a lot of people seem interested in.
    My point was essentially what Artur and sunshadow said: that adding more playable races will simply further encourage the development of corresponding fluff, be it historical, political, geological, etc. I think it's natural that one would be more inclined to develop the mythology of E'n when one is directly involved in that mythology.

    Also, to be clear: I'm certainly not encouraging a wholesale licencing of monster races for PCs. I'm of the middling variety, in that I'd like to have the option of approving new races if there's something that strikes me as desirable, not just for me, but for E'n in general. I'm not even set on making a Wayang PC, for example, but even if I don't, I'd love to still have the option of doing so.

    People (unsurprisingly) seem to differ on what attracts them to a race, but it seems like a fair bit of people at least would like to have the option on the table.

  • #15
    Registered User
    Cutpurse (Lvl 5)

    Qik's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Orleans, US
    Posts
    1,925

    Ignore Qik
    My communities:

    I hasten to add that I'm not necessarily declaring a final analysis of public opinion; I more just wanted to draw the distinction between disagreeing on what kind of nonstandard races one would like to have approved for play with disagreeing on whether or not nonstandard races should be approved at all.

  • #16
    Registered User
    Cutpurse (Lvl 5)

    DalkonCledwin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    The Blood Plains of Stovokor
    Posts
    1,095

    Ignore DalkonCledwin
    My communities:

    what about the possibility that if an individual can come up with a reasonable reason justifying why his character should be a given race from a role playing perspective (and not necessarily just from a mechanical perspective) even if that race is not normally allowed in Living Pathfinder, if we then allow the judges to give that player the opportunity for a case by case proposal type situation where for just that one character there is the opportunity to get the race approved.

    Granted this could theoretically be a logistical nightmare for the judges, but I could also see it being a huge reward for people who have proven themselves as excellent role players and want to do something special with their second or even third characters. Something on the scale of a veterans perk so to speak?
    Fae'shiel Aeros, Level 5 || Tonris, Level 6

  • #17
    Registered User
    Cutpurse (Lvl 5)



    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    452

    Ignore TSS
    My communities:

    Quote Originally Posted by jkason View Post
    As a player, I think I tend to be most interested in new races when they're actually most different. If I'm going to be something non-human, I just think it's fun to be really non-human. A lot of the core races just feel like 'tweaked human' (human that stops growing at child-size, human with pointy ears, squat & dense human that sees in the dark, blended-with-humans that look fairly human anyway). I just think there's so much stuff that reads like everything else, that races that are more 'out of the box' seem to draw my attention.
    Jkason hit how I feel on the head. The common races just feel like humans with some different perks. Is that bad? No but its not necessarily good either. I haven't played a common race since D&D 3.5 launched and especially the Eberron setting, I am playing both a human and a dwarf in two different Eberron setting games however, since I love the warforged and the shifter, 100% roleplaying goodness there. It wouldn't bother me one bit if there was a warforged, shifter, or dragon/lizardfolk race included. I also love dog/catfolk races.

    This is what I think on new races.

  • #18
    Registered User
    Myrmidon (Lvl 10)



    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,875

    Ignore jkason
    My communities:

    Quote Originally Posted by DalkonCledwin View Post
    what about the possibility that if an individual can come up with a reasonable reason justifying why his character should be a given race from a role playing perspective (and not necessarily just from a mechanical perspective) even if that race is not normally allowed in Living Pathfinder, if we then allow the judges to give that player the opportunity for a case by case proposal type situation where for just that one character there is the opportunity to get the race approved.

    Granted this could theoretically be a logistical nightmare for the judges, but I could also see it being a huge reward for people who have proven themselves as excellent role players and want to do something special with their second or even third characters. Something on the scale of a veterans perk so to speak?
    I think a per-player racial allowance not only complicates logistical issues, but also might lead to new player confusion. Consider: new player browses the wiki to get an idea for character concepts. Comes across someone with a unique race and, realizing the race is apparently under-represented, comes up with a character for it thinking she'll be bringing something under-utilized to the table. Then she submits and gets shot down.

    All that said, the mention of 'veterans perk' has me thinking on long-ago discussions of alternate DMC uses. I think allowing DMC to get a 'rare race' character runs afoul of the same problem I mentioned above, but I'm wondering if DMC might be useful for things like helping to support the adoption of a given race? Possibly this skews the judge paradigm too much, but I thought it might be worth mentioning.

  • #19
    Registered User
    Cutpurse (Lvl 5)

    Qik's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Orleans, US
    Posts
    1,925

    Ignore Qik
    My communities:

    Quote Originally Posted by DalkonCledwin View Post
    what about the possibility that if an individual can come up with a reasonable reason justifying why his character should be a given race from a role playing perspective (and not necessarily just from a mechanical perspective) even if that race is not normally allowed in Living Pathfinder, if we then allow the judges to give that player the opportunity for a case by case proposal type situation where for just that one character there is the opportunity to get the race approved.

    Granted this could theoretically be a logistical nightmare for the judges, but I could also see it being a huge reward for people who have proven themselves as excellent role players and want to do something special with their second or even third characters. Something on the scale of a veterans perk so to speak?
    One of the issues I have with this is that the criteria you suggest is pretty subjective: it would require us to basically pass judgement on the roleplaying abilities of a specific player, which is something I'm really uncomfortable with. By rewarding players who play the game a certain way, we're tacitly saying that the way they play the game is somehow better, or more correct, than how others do so, which is something I'm really uncomfortable with. It seems too exclusive to me.

    Quote Originally Posted by jkason View Post
    I think a per-player racial allowance not only complicates logistical issues, but also might lead to new player confusion. Consider: new player browses the wiki to get an idea for character concepts. Comes across someone with a unique race and, realizing the race is apparently under-represented, comes up with a character for it thinking she'll be bringing something under-utilized to the table. Then she submits and gets shot down.

    All that said, the mention of 'veterans perk' has me thinking on long-ago discussions of alternate DMC uses. I think allowing DMC to get a 'rare race' character runs afoul of the same problem I mentioned above, but I'm wondering if DMC might be useful for things like helping to support the adoption of a given race? Possibly this skews the judge paradigm too much, but I thought it might be worth mentioning.
    Using DMCs is something I'm more comfortable with, in that the whole purpose of DMCs is to incentivise running a game on here. So I could possibly get on board with that; I certainly think we need more options for DMCs.

    That said, I'd vastly prefer to make it an all-or-nothing thing, in part for the reasons jk outlined. I'd just rather the choice of races to be equal opportunity. I'm also not sure that rarefying their usage solves any problems in the eyes of the dissenters.

  • #20
    blank COPPER SUBSCRIBER
    Spellbinder (Lvl 16)

    IronWolf's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    6,849

    Ignore IronWolf
    My communities:

    Quote Originally Posted by Qik View Post
    That said, I'd vastly prefer to make it an all-or-nothing thing, in part for the reasons jk outlined. I'd just rather the choice of races to be equal opportunity. I'm also not sure that rarefying their usage solves any problems in the eyes of the dissenters.
    I'm already on record on wanting to slow down the new races, but I do agree that if I am the minority and we vote in more races, then it should be an equal opportunity and not restricted by subjective role-playing ability or to people with DMCs.

  • + Log in or register to post
    Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

    Similar Threads

    1. A design goal: making different races FEEL different.
      By Aberzanzorax in forum General RPG Discussion
      Replies: 49
      Last Post: Monday, 2nd January, 2012, 05:31 PM
    2. How do you make your races feel unique and/or more original?
      By Sandwich in forum General RPG Discussion
      Replies: 15
      Last Post: Wednesday, 31st December, 2008, 02:56 PM
    3. Simple Poll - How do you feel about 4E Right Now?
      By DaveMage in forum Older D&D Editions and OSR Gaming
      Replies: 100
      Last Post: Sunday, 28th October, 2007, 10:11 PM
    4. *POLL* Do You Feel That Greyhawk is a Dead Campaign Officially?
      By SHARK in forum General RPG Discussion
      Replies: 82
      Last Post: Thursday, 13th September, 2007, 04:00 PM
    5. Poll: How do you feel about 4E
      By Thurbane in forum Older D&D Editions and OSR Gaming
      Replies: 45
      Last Post: Sunday, 19th August, 2007, 01:42 PM

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •