Too weird for town....

[Immortal Sun]

Players wanting to play monster races should ALWAYS clear it with the GM.

At least that my opinion on the subject.

And realistically, any GM offering the ability to play a monster race should either make their players understand they WILL be killed on sight (by ya know, doing so) or be offering up a world that is more tolerant towards monstrous races.

 

[Hussar]

Note, I never said that alignment is a legacy thing. To be fair, in 5e, it largely is, but, that wasn't the legacy bits I was pointing to.

In earlier D&D, monstrous races were extremely unbalanced. Particularly in pre-3e, but, even 3e had all sorts of issues with trying to balance races for play. So, often the notion of "this race is hated" was used to balance the totally unbalanced mechanics.

And it doesn't work. Either the DM flat out bans all monstrous races because he or she doesn'T want to deal with the mechanical imbalances, or the "this race is hated" stuff gets left by the wayside because no one at the table really wants to deal with it.

My point was, trying to create mechanical balance with role-play elements is a failure. It just does not work.

Now, every situation is going to be different. There is no blanket right answer here. 5e races are, largely, mechanically balanced. Again, no one is playing a goblin to "get more power". I think it behooves the DM to know his players and talk to the player about how much that player wants the race choice to matter in the game. Maybe he just thinks it's cool to play an Aaracockra. Not that he wants to power game or whatever, but, he just wants to be Hawk Man. Cool. No problems. Wasting excessive table time on stuff that the player has no interest in will just result in unhappy players and a garbage game.

If the player wants to play up the monstrous aspects? Fine, no worries. If the player doesn't want to play up the monstrous aspects, that is ALSO fine and no worries. IOW, do what is actually fun at the table.

 

[Immortal Sun]

Note, I never said that alignment is a legacy thing. To be fair, in 5e, it largely is, but, that wasn't the legacy bits I was pointing to.

In earlier D&D, monstrous races were extremely unbalanced. Particularly in pre-3e, but, even 3e had all sorts of issues with trying to balance races for play. So, often the notion of "this race is hated" was used to balance the totally unbalanced mechanics.

And it doesn't work. Either the DM flat out bans all monstrous races because he or she doesn'T want to deal with the mechanical imbalances, or the "this race is hated" stuff gets left by the wayside because no one at the table really wants to deal with it.

My point was, trying to create mechanical balance with role-play elements is a failure. It just does not work.

Now, every situation is going to be different. There is no blanket right answer here. 5e races are, largely, mechanically balanced. Again, no one is playing a goblin to "get more power". I think it behooves the DM to know his players and talk to the player about how much that player wants the race choice to matter in the game. Maybe he just thinks it's cool to play an Aaracockra. Not that he wants to power game or whatever, but, he just wants to be Hawk Man. Cool. No problems. Wasting excessive table time on stuff that the player has no interest in will just result in unhappy players and a garbage game.

If the player wants to play up the monstrous aspects? Fine, no worries. If the player doesn't want to play up the monstrous aspects, that is ALSO fine and no worries. IOW, do what is actually fun at the table.

The problem here is the reliance on the player. Balancing the equation requires two elements. The DM is role-playing here too, the townsfolk, the monsters, the world. It's like a game of chicken. Just because the player isn't driving towards you, doesn't mean you're not driving towards them.

 

[Hussar]

The problem here is the reliance on the player. Balancing the equation requires two elements. The DM is role-playing here too, the townsfolk, the monsters, the world. It's like a game of chicken. Just because the player isn't driving towards you, doesn't mean you're not driving towards them.

If relying on the player is ever a problem, you have much larger problems at your table than someone playing an oddball race.

 

[jgsugden]

...To imply that you can't have depth to a campaign because some races are by nature evil is insulting.

Great. I never said that. Read what I said again.

 

[Li Shenron]

Suppose you've got a dangerous pet. Or that your character concept is "hideous monster." Or that you've chosen one of the races with an image problem, like drow or duergar. How do you deal with it when your PC is too socially unacceptable to go into town?

Comic for illustrative purposes.

In most cases, I just tell the players that they should simply leave their dangerous pets somewhere out of town, or keep them hidden if possible, otherwise there is a high chance of trouble.

Monstrous characters are a bigger problem, because I would have to tell the PCs themselves to stay at bay, meaning that they will be effectively out of the game for a while. Luckily, none of my players in 5e has ever played monstrous characters (except a Centaur, but that inspires more awe than fear), but if it happens then what to do normally depends on the fantasy setting... in a game set in Planescape obviously anything is fine.

 

[Hussar]

[MENTION=6801845]Oofta[/MENTION], it seems my "legacy" comment was problematic. As I said, it's the notion of using in game "role play" to balance mechanics that is the legacy of older editions. Not alignment.

Just to be absolutely clear.

 

[Oofta]

I wish racism, misogyny and bigotry didn't exist. But they do. I try to run my NPCs as real people, flaws and all. People tend to not accept people that are different, that are outsiders or not seen as allies.

I don't see acknowledging that and making it part of the texture of the culture as a bad thing. While it's not a huge issue in most games it does come up now and then, whether you're a human in an dwarven city or a gnome in a human one.

 

[jgsugden]

It feels weird to e that people are defending an approach here: These are fantasy worlds, they have fantasy rules, and DMs can do whatever works for them and their group. Your goblins can be killing because it is the way they know how to get food to survive, because they have an innate instinct for evil, or because they have no souls. Whatever works for you - all of these options can be part of a great story.

 

[5ekyu]

And realistically, any GM offering the ability to play a monster race should either make their players understand they WILL be killed on sight (by ya know, doing so) or be offering up a world that is more tolerant towards monstrous races.

Agreed...

In my Shards, Shimmer and Shadow campaign, i put in the pre-gen setting info the background about "monster races" that establishged why and how and which were "accepted" and listed all available player character races divided into three categories:
Good: Common, no real unusual reactions to you being there (barring local prejudice or individual bias)
Odd: Exotics, gather attention, not common but not necessarily negative - attract attention.
Ugly: "Accepted" to some degree but will often see bias and prejudice and harder to get trusted. Locals and individuals vary of course as to degrees and extremes.

Then they made their choices and see them in play. however, the divisions were not solely based along PHB vs Monster etc... so for instance tieflings were not in the good category.

But a good deal of the races were allowed for the first time in our campaigns in this game and it showed - we have a goliath, lizardfolk, a genasi and a tiefling - along with a human bard who sometimes wonders about his choices.

So far, it has been great!