Do We Really Need Half-Elves and Half-Orcs?

OverlordOcelot said:

And an awful lot of arguments simply collapse when you acknowledge that people are just trying to find a game that's fun for them instead of attributing some other motivation to them.

Click to expand...

So when you say this, you mean like acknowledge that someone just wants to play a certain character they had in mind, and they're not out to ruin anyone else's fun?

Or no?

OverlordOcelot said:

I don't care about the difference between them in the context of this discussion. Whether a difference is jarring is up to the people involved in a game, it's not an objective matter that you get to sit back and arbitrate whether people jarred by it are wrong. I simply don't accept your contention that you are the arbiter of what is 'fundamentally disruptive' to games and that other players and DMs are not allowed to make the decision of what is disruptive for themselves. Some people enjoy playing "Dark Sun, but the PCs are all Star Fleet officers with light sabers", some people want to play only things supported by what's actually written, most people are in between those extremes.

Click to expand...

I'm not arbitrating anything. I'm suggesting. Yes, it's very much a subjective thing. I'm giving my view, and suggesting that maybe more DMs allow themselves to consider what I'm saying. It helped my game, maybe it will help others.

Obviously, there are those that disagree, and that's fine....but I don't think what I'm suggesting is all that drastic.

And stop with the mismatched genre expectations like Starfleet officers on Dark Sun. No one's talking about that. We're talking about options that actually exist in the core game.

OverlordOcelot said:

There's nothing weird about it; playing games is inherently a selfish act. The fundamental motive for gaming is enjoyment in some form, it's for the gamer's own benefit. Arguments criticizing someone for being 'selfish' fall apart when you acknoweldge that everyone involved is selfish, and you can then move on to real discussion. People make compromises because if you don't make any compromises, you end up with no one to game with.

Click to expand...

No, it's not. Selfish means that you lack concern for others. Choosing to play a game is not "inherently selfish". This seems especially at odds with a cooperative game.

OverlordOcelot said:

And if he doesn't choose another way to deal with it, then... what exactly? The only phrase you've used is that he's "messed up," or that it means that the setting is "fragile".

Click to expand...

You're taking those comments out of context. I said that if I let one of my players walk away from a game, then "In my mind, I've messed up". That's my personal view about my game, which I explained was played with personal friends. Why wouldn't that be a mistake?

And the setting being fragile is more about if the only thing that makes it unique is the lack of race X, then it's not that unique. If there's a lot more to the setting, or if the theme of the setting is inherently designed around the racial restriction, then that's something different.

OverlordOcelot said:

If you have one player who only wants to play if he can shoehorn in a gnome and another who doesn't want to play if gnomes are shoehorned in, then you're in a catch-22.

Click to expand...

Most of the concerns that have been cited in this thread have come from DMs, not from fellow players. So that's what I've mostly been discussing. If you have a player who hates gnomes so much that he doesn't want to play in a game where they're an option, and one that insists on playing a gnome, then yeah, it's a situation and it will have to be worked out.

I don't see how the gnome hater is any better than the gnome lover, in your opinion, since most settings would allow gnomes. Seems far worse in my opinion to try and dictate what other players are allowed to play.

OverlordOcelot said:

I guess all of those are examples that support my view that if there are players who find those changes off-putting, it doesn't mean that there is something wrong with those players or that the setting is 'fragile.' I'm not really sure what you're actually looking for examples of, since asking for examples doesn't make sense to me in this context.

Click to expand...

I just mean examples of racial restrictions that are integral to a setting concept. Any homebrew ones? The ones I gave are in published settings....and for the most part, they don't seem that meaningful to me. None of them bother me, but none really seem so setting-defining that I feel they absolutely must be upheld.

Do you have any examples of something so central to the campaign theme that removing it would be a drastic change?

WaterRabbit said:

When I played Dark Sun, the Dray weren't part of it. So I had to look them up. It looks like a NPC race to me and not really setup for PC play. Because they are an artificially created race by the Sorcerer-King Dregoth, they don't feel like they would be that numerous or work for a PC race. I would have to do a bit more reading on them to have an idea about them.

Edit: I doesn't look like reskinning Dragonborn to Dray is a good map of abilities, at least to me.

Click to expand...

All right, fair enough. Yes, they were added in a mega-adventure later in the original Dark Sun 2E run, and then were used to allow Dragonborn in 4E. I'm not as familiar with the 4E stuff, either, so I don't know how well it was handled. But I don't think I'd disallow the race, especially since efforts were made to include it.

I think gnomes were labeled as a monster in 4E, at least initially maybe they were added as a playable race later on, so they were likely easier to leave out. I know that Tieflings and Eladrin were also added to Dark Sun. Again, this seems odd to me, but I don't think it makes the setting not work. However, I'm curious if they reworked these races at all, or had some backstory to explain their presence.

What I meant was I would be less inclined to run a game with limitations for new players, compared to a group that has been playing together for years. Meaning I wouldn't reduce the options from the core rules, not letting someone play a Jedi in CoC isn't really the same as not letting someone play a half Orc or half elf in D&D

I'm not saying you can't come up with examples that wouldn't work, I'm just saying there might be cases that would. And that each case should be considered on its merits.


For example, Ravnica doesn't have gnomes, but it wouldn't be a game breaker to let a player play an Izzet League gnome raised by Modrons if that's what they wanted.

hawkeyefan said:

So when you say this, you mean like acknowledge that someone just wants to play a certain character they had in mind, and they're not out to ruin anyone else's fun? Or no?

Click to expand...

If the character they had in mind ruins someone else's fun then it does, regardless of whether it was intended or not. If Jimmy wants to play a star fleet officer or gnome in a game where shoehorning in star fleet officers or gnomes will make the game not what other people playing (including the DM) want, then he's interfering with their fun regardless of whether that is his goal or not. If I decide I want to have a picnic in the middle of a soccer field, I'm interfering with the fun of the people trying to play soccer, even if my intent is just to have a nice picnic.

I'm not arbitrating anything. I'm suggesting. Yes, it's very much a subjective thing. I'm giving my view, and suggesting that maybe more DMs allow themselves to consider what I'm saying. It helped my game, maybe it will help others.

Click to expand...

Yes you are attempting to arbitrate, and I'm calling you out on it. You keep stating that you get to decide what is too 'drastic' of a change, or what fits the genre of a particular game, or what people are allowed to consider integral to a setting. But you don't get to tell people what they're allowed to enjoy; that's entirely up to the people playing (including the GM). The below is a perfect example:

Obviously, there are those that disagree, and that's fine....but I don't think what I'm suggesting is all that drastic.

And stop with the mismatched genre expectations like Starfleet officers on Dark Sun. No one's talking about that. We're talking about options that actually exist in the core game.

Click to expand...

Here you are stating that you get to decide what is too drastic for other people, and insisting that you get to decide what mismatched genre expectations are not only OK in the game but are even allowed to be talked about! But it's just not true; if someone feels that shoehorning gnomes into their game is as bad as shoehorning star fleet officers into their game, that's their own call to make, you don't get to tell them that they need your approval to decide what they like in their game.

I don't see how the gnome hater is any better than the gnome lover, in your opinion, since most settings would allow gnomes. Seems far worse in my opinion to try and dictate what other players are allowed to play.

Click to expand...

It's really simple: the person who hates shoehorning gnomes into a game where they don't belong is not trying to push someone to shoehorn gnomes into a game where they don't belong, or trying to get someone to remove gnomes from a game where they do belong. He's trying to play in a game where the ground rules suit him. Meanwhile the player wanting to shoehorn gnomes into the game is trying to change one of the few games that suit the gnome hater instead of joining one of the plentiful settings that suit himself.

It's clearly the gnomeophile that is trying to dictate what other players are allowed to play; no one is actually telling him he can't play his gnome, just that he can't play it in one game. Meanwhile he's telling everyone that doesn't want the damn gnome that they are 'far worse' than him for the crime of trying to play a game that meets their preferences.

I just mean examples of racial restrictions that are integral to a setting concept. Any homebrew ones? The ones I gave are in published settings....and for the most part, they don't seem that meaningful to me. None of them bother me, but none really seem so setting-defining that I feel they absolutely must be upheld.

Do you have any examples of something so central to the campaign theme that removing it would be a drastic change?

Click to expand...

All of the examples you listed would be considered integral to their setting and removing the restrictions would be a drastic change by some people's standards, so they are all valid examples. As I've said, you don't get to judge what other people are allowed to consider 'drastic' in their games or what they're allowed to find 'integral' to a setting in their head. That's you attempting to arbitrate what they're allowed to do. Again, I don't accept your contention that you are the arbiter of what is a 'drastic change' and what isn't, or what other people are allowed to find 'meaningful', or what people are allowed to be 'bothered by'.

[MENTION=6976536]OverlordOcelot[/MENTION]

Okay. You're not listening to me and we're in a lunacy spiral, so I'll just say we have to agree to disagree, and bid you good day, sir.

hawkeyefan said:

What I'm saying is that the DM should think about the "no half-orc" restriction and consider its actual importance to the campaign world, and consider if there was some way to make it work.

It's really not that crazy to me for this to happen. The DM should also not be a jerk. "Well, I said no half-orcs, so you probably shouldn't play in this game" is really borderline to me.

Now, maybe the DM determines that there's no way to make it work. Okay, so be it....hopefully he discusses some acceptable options with the player that get the player interested in the game. Hopefully they work something out one way or another.

And I agree that settings can and should have a different theme than the more generic "kitchen-sink" fantasy that is kind of the default expectation of the game. I really like Dark Sun and Ravenloft and Planescape, and each has its own feel. However, I don't think that racial restrictions are as important to the feel of those settings as many seem to think. Adding a half-orc to Dark Sun doesn't ruin the theme of the setting. It may stand out, it may be a departure that a DM or players are not willing to make....and I get that, it's fine in a general way....but I don't think it's a very strong reason to turn a player away from a game. I suppose that in this regard, I'm more concerned with the game or social aspect of D&D rather than the story aspect.

Click to expand...

It depends on the player. Let's say this is an online game. The DM advertises he wants to play a "by the books" Dark Sun game. That is, no gnomes, tieflings, wizards, or whatever else the base Dark Sun does not include (I was never a fan of the setting, and know next to nothing, but it is typically one people always talk about, and was brought up earlier in this thread, so will continue using it). The DM gets 47 applications. 1/2 didn't read anything and are the type to apply to every single game no matter what, and are typically the types to be tossed away. That leaves us with about 23 people. The DM just wants 5 players, so goes through and picks out the best 5, with 2-3 on a waitlist for the inevitable flakers. Now, everyone knows what is allowed, what is available, and what isn't. One player, despite knowing going in, really wants to play a gnome sorcerer. They've been really jonesing to play one. They come into session 0 and put forth the gnome sorcerer character. The DM tells them no, choose something else. They say they really want to play this gnome sorcerer. DM says can't play that character in this game, choose another. Player refuses, DM says the player will need to find a different game. Removes that player, brings in one of the waitlist.

To me, the player would be in the wrong. Now, if the setting was something more wide-open, then the DM would be in the wrong. Planescape would allow the choice to be damn near anything in D&D that is available for a player. All settings were connected. And in a way, Ravenloft would be as well. They have Lord Soth from Dragonlance in there. Sure, a dragonborn, tiefling, orc, firbolg, etc might have a hard time in some of the domains, but Ravenloft as a setting would allow just about anything.

As an addendum to the part where I said the DM would be in the wrong: This, of course, precludes the DM taking a pre-existing setting such as Forgotten Realms and having it changed over the years, or even using an older version of Faerun where Dragonborn didn't exist.

oreofox said:

It depends on the player. Let's say this is an online game. The DM advertises he wants to play a "by the books" Dark Sun game. That is, no gnomes, tieflings, wizards, or whatever else the base Dark Sun does not include (I was never a fan of the setting, and know next to nothing, but it is typically one people always talk about, and was brought up earlier in this thread, so will continue using it). The DM gets 47 applications. 1/2 didn't read anything and are the type to apply to every single game no matter what, and are typically the types to be tossed away. That leaves us with about 23 people. The DM just wants 5 players, so goes through and picks out the best 5, with 2-3 on a waitlist for the inevitable flakers. Now, everyone knows what is allowed, what is available, and what isn't. One player, despite knowing going in, really wants to play a gnome sorcerer. They've been really jonesing to play one. They come into session 0 and put forth the gnome sorcerer character. The DM tells them no, choose something else. They say they really want to play this gnome sorcerer. DM says can't play that character in this game, choose another. Player refuses, DM says the player will need to find a different game. Removes that player, brings in one of the waitlist.

To me, the player would be in the wrong. Now, if the setting was something more wide-open, then the DM would be in the wrong. Planescape would allow the choice to be damn near anything in D&D that is available for a player. All settings were connected. And in a way, Ravenloft would be as well. They have Lord Soth from Dragonlance in there. Sure, a dragonborn, tiefling, orc, firbolg, etc might have a hard time in some of the domains, but Ravenloft as a setting would allow just about anything.

As an addendum to the part where I said the DM would be in the wrong: This, of course, precludes the DM taking a pre-existing setting such as Forgotten Realms and having it changed over the years, or even using an older version of Faerun where Dragonborn didn't exist.

Click to expand...

Having never played online in this way, this is a good point. Same as if it was a public game at a store or a con; things will be different depending on the method.

hawkeyefan said:

Having never played online in this way, this is a good point. Same as if it was a public game at a store or a con; things will be different depending on the method.

Click to expand...

True. A DM who runs Adventure League or Pathfinder Society or whatever other organized play really has no say in what the players can or can't bring to the table. DMs who run online can make some rather ridiculous "rules" (a better word escapes me at the moment) in what the players can make and will still have to sift through a lot of applications. A DM who plays face to face with a group of friends probably knows what they like and would build a world that incorporates those things. I also believe that same group of friends would be willing to play in a more restricted game brought forth by a DM, to see how it plays out. Usually that type of game doesn't go on for long, or is a side thing to take a break from the main game.

oreofox said:

True. A DM who runs Adventure League or Pathfinder Society or whatever other organized play really has no say in what the players can or can't bring to the table. DMs who run online can make some rather ridiculous "rules" (a better word escapes me at the moment) in what the players can make and will still have to sift through a lot of applications.

Click to expand...

Are the rules really ridiculous if a lot of people want to play under those rules? I'm not being facetious here, I don't think it's fair to tell people that playing under a set of rules that they like and a bunch of other people like a 'ridiculous'. I'm generally more in favor of a low amount of restrictions, but if there are people wanting to play all kobolds or no gnomes or Dark Sun by the book I don't think it's bad for them to do so. That's been my bone of contention with others, that they're saying 'these people are playing wrong for wanting a game with rule X that I don't like, they should ignore rule X because I think it's reasonable to do so'.

A DM who plays face to face with a group of friends probably knows what they like and would build a world that incorporates those things. I also believe that same group of friends would be willing to play in a more restricted game brought forth by a DM, to see how it plays out. Usually that type of game doesn't go on for long, or is a side thing to take a break from the main game.

Click to expand...

That depends a lot on the group setup. A lot people play in groups that are more 'what friends and FOFs have schedules that line up on day X and want to join this campaign' than 'this group of people will play together indefinitely and the game should include all of them'. The people in 'married' groups tend to value group unity over anything else (and tend to run into various Geek Social Fallacies), while the people in 'shared hobby' groups that just happen to play together tend to switch around games and expect that some people won't be interested in a particular campaign.

OverlordOcelot said:

Are the rules really ridiculous if a lot of people want to play under those rules? I'm not being facetious here, I don't think it's fair to tell people that playing under a set of rules that they like and a bunch of other people like a 'ridiculous'. I'm generally more in favor of a low amount of restrictions, but if there are people wanting to play all kobolds or no gnomes or Dark Sun by the book I don't think it's bad for them to do so. That's been my bone of contention with others, that they're saying 'these people are playing wrong for wanting a game with rule X that I don't like, they should ignore rule X because I think it's reasonable to do so'.

Click to expand...

I didn't mean it in an overall negative term when I said ridiculous. I was talking more general, in that a DM who does it online can advertise a very restricted game and still get loads of people who want to play. By that I mean something like "Playing in such setting (could be homebrew or published), where all the characters must be halfling barbarian identical siblings (probably quadruplets or quintuplets depending on number of players) with short brown hair, green eyes, talk with a lisp. Point buy of 10. Play every Monday for 10 hours starting at noon" or something similarly restrictive. The DM would probably still have to sift through quite a few applications despite a lot of people thinking those are ridiculously restrictive. But, if everyone in that game enjoys it, that is plenty awesome. I never would.

As for me, the "what friends and FOF have schedules that line up on day X and want to join this campaign" doesn't register with me. I guess I am weird. When I get a game going, I say we will be playing on this day every week/2 weeks between these times. If you can't consistently make it, I'd rather you sit out. Getting together after the game ends and saying "I can play on this day at this time next week, what about you guys?" just isn't something I want to be a part of. I guess I just view playing D&D differently from most people. I view it as much a commitment as my job or a doctor's appointment or going to a bar with friends every Friday night or such.