Paul Farquhar
Legend
If you don't want orcs then you don't need to have them.If I didn't want orcs in my game as a DM, why would I want them as a player?
Why do you want other players at other tables not to have orcs?
If you don't want orcs then you don't need to have them.If I didn't want orcs in my game as a DM, why would I want them as a player?
In this hypothetical scenario, I would not want other players at my table to have orcs. If they want them anyway, and I'm not running the game, and its a deal-breaker for them or me, I would walk away.If you don't want orcs then you don't need to have them.
Why do you want other players at other tables not to have orcs?
Honestly? I probably agree. I wouldn't bother using orcs in my Dragonlance campaign and I certainly, as a player, would never insist that I had to play one. That's just not something I'd do. But, again, it's certainly not going to break anything either. I've certainly had to deal with weirder character concepts than a half orc.Personally I don't see any actual need for orcs in dragonlance, given hobgoblins, minotaurs, and draconians are all right there and well-established in the setting, and pretty much have you covered for all your 'looming thuggy bad guy' and 'big beefy PC race with bad reputation' needs. And I wouldn't particularly want to play in a Dragonlance game that was all about orcs, because that's not the point of Dragonlance. But if a GM or player desperately wanted to have a bunch of orcs swept up alongside all the goblins and hobgoblins etc in the Dragonarmies, I could deal. I mean, I play in a FR campaign set in 'modern' Faerun and I still find most of the setting changes introduced to FR since 4th ed to be annoying and pointless, and I still manage to have fun there.
Which is fine, I would go the same way. But players who want orcs can have orcs, just as they could in 1982, that not something WotC has changed.In this hypothetical scenario, I would not want other players at my table to have orcs. If they want them anyway, and I'm not running the game, and its a deal-breaker for them or me, I would walk away.
I agree. I play homebrew, and my world makes allowances for pretty much anything. I feel published settings are a different beast, however, and should stay true to what they are.Which is fine, I would go the same way. But players who want orcs can have orcs, just as they could in 1982, that not something WotC has changed.
There is a currently a culture amongst some players that if it's in the rules it has to be allowed at the table, but that's all on those players, it has nothing to do with WotC.
I don't see evidence that the published settings are changing to the degree you think though. If orcs actually appear in the new Dragonlance adventure, I will admit to being wrong, but I don't think that is remotely likely. Sure, DMs can choose to allow orc PCs, but that has always been the case. Every setting becomes homebrew once people start playing in it. There is no "true" version of a setting.I agree. I play homebrew, and my world makes allowances for pretty much anything. I feel published settings are a different beast, however, and should stay true to what they are.
Fair enough. I'm done fighting over it anyway. We'll just have to see what they release.I don't see evidence that the published settings are changing to the degree you think though. If orcs actually appear in the new Dragonlance adventure, I will admit to being wrong, but I don't think that is remotely likely. Sure, DMs can choose to allow orc PCs, but that has always been the case. Every setting becomes homebrew once people start playing in it. There is no "true" version of a setting.
Consider DL1. When you play it, it perfectly possible for Tanis to die, romance Rastalin, or be Sir Not-Appearing-In-This-Adventure.
There is a currently a culture amongst some players that if it's in the rules it has to be allowed at the table.