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

[generic]

I wouldn't say that we need half-races, but I know that my players do.

Player One: "I'm playing a Tiefling because I like anime!"

Player Two: "I'm playing a tortured half-elf goth who happens to have a near-genocidal hate of Elves!"

Player Three: "So, can I play a half-dragon?"

Me: ...

 

[Coroc]

Player 4: I want to play a teenage hobit pirate ninja turtle....

 

[hawkeyefan]

I actually don't like any cliches including the examples you have put forth. What I look at is how is the culture presented in that setting. So in the Forgotten Realms, Drow have a certain cultural tendency (at least in the North). I my own homebrew setting (which I haven't run in awhile), I have drow as a surface race with a different culture that doesn't tie specifically to Lolth.

I agree that if I find something cliche isn't sufficient reason to exclude it, but I also never indicated that was the case either.

Okay, it seemed that you were implying the concept of a drow renegade being so cliche that it shouldn't be allowed. You put it forth as a reason to disallow the option...or at least, that's how it seemed.

The FR also has a whole culture of good aligned drow. Greyhawk lacks that....but I don't know if that would justify not allowing a player from playing a drow character.

When special exceptions to the setting are carved out it creates dissonance. All of the suggestions you made create that. Klingons are so tied to the Star Trek universe that when included in any other setting turn it into a Benny Hill skit instead of a serious game -- especially in Stradh.

I already indicated that a reskin of someones' idea to fit the setting works.

Klingons are essentially hobgoblins.

I agree about reskinning. That's a reasonable compromise of the kind I'm suggesting.

This so depends on the player. Some players really rise to the challenge of this. Others just get discouraged because you think that you are shooting down their idea.

Finally, this isn't just a DM vs. player thing. I personally hate it when another player at the table demands their snowflake carve out. Ultimately D&D is a team co-op game. If players aren't trying to make characters that work within the setting and the other player concepts it can totally ruin a game.

Again this should all fallout of a session 0. [On a side note I prefer the term prelude, but maybe that is because of too much VotM. ]

I agree with you, I think it's a discussion. I suppose, to maybe put it in another way and using some terminology you just used, I think that often the setting restrictions are just the DM demanding to be a snowflake.

I agree that both sides should discuss things and try to come to agreement. My point is that it seems, generally speaking, that the onus is more on the players to adapt to the DM's ideas more than the other way.

 

[Henry]

I've known some to say that the desire to play off-the-wall combos sometimes stems from a desire to escape the mundane nature of a 9-to-5, spouse-and-kids-and-the-family-dog life than many people have.

Have you ever wondered if people who live extraordinary lives, like say Sir Christopher Lee, are keen to play the most mundane characters imaginable if they played D&D? If the guy who's an ex-navy SEAL, former trauma surgeon, current politican who started soup kitchens in their spare time, wants to play a human champion fighter?

...or a merchant?

"So, with my +30 bonus for minding the shop the whole month, I made (rolls percentile).... YES! 12 gold pieces profit!"

"So, Chris, our party is off to the dragon's lair, you coming?"

"You must be joking! I have to be at the docks at first light for the fresh catches! That could add a +2 to my business profit checks!"

 

[hawkeyefan]

Sure, if you didn't want to go into the 80% or so domains that shunned or in some cases outright killed non-humans.

Did you ever see it played that way? Not from time to time in order to create some drama, but just simply every time the party goes to a town, they're chased off by mobs with pitchforks? And in the 2E days, it was pretty much elves, dwarves, and halflings.....are they really so different from humans to require that response? After a vampire sends packs of wolves to harry villagers before swooping in and carrying off the maiden....are the townsfolk really going to be scared of a halfling?

Again, I understand the setting is one of gothic horror...but it's also a D&D game. And it's one where the characters most likely come from one of the established "kitchen sink" fantasy worlds. The expectation is that there will likely be non-humans in the party.

I'm all for a DM trying to maintain the vibe of the setting, but if he can't accomplish that by including non-human races without townsfolk constantly being terrified of them, then I think the DM may have missed the point of what's actually important about the setting.

 

[Maxperson]

Did you ever see it played that way?

That's the way it was. If you didn't play it that way enabling non-humans to be playable, then that's fine. But you fixed the "problem" yourself. It doesn't cease to be a "problem" in general just because you fixed it for your game. You claimed that the nature of Ravenloft allowed non-humans to be playable by its nature, and that's simply a false statement. The nature of Ravenloft made humans the only really viable choice if you didn't want to limit your adventuring to those few domains that were accepting of non-humans.

Not from time to time in order to create some drama, but just simply every time the party goes to a town, they're chased off by mobs with pitchforks? And in the 2E days, it was pretty much elves, dwarves, and halflings.....are they really so different from humans to require that response?

In Ravenloft, yes.

After a vampire sends packs of wolves to harry villagers before swooping in and carrying off the maiden....are the townsfolk really going to be scared of a halfling?

Sure! Because everyone knows that halflings and other non-humans are in league with vampires and other monsters.

Again, I understand the setting is one of gothic horror...but it's also a D&D game. And it's one where the characters most likely come from one of the established "kitchen sink" fantasy worlds. The expectation is that there will likely be non-humans in the party.

And the expectation is also that it will cause no end of troubles in Ravenloft...........if they go to any of the domains that hates non-humans.

I'm all for a DM trying to maintain the vibe of the setting, but if he can't accomplish that by including non-human races without townsfolk constantly being terrified of them, then I think the DM may have missed the point of what's actually important about the setting.

No. The setting is quite clear about how non-humans are to be treated. It's you who seems to have missed the point of the setting. It's not a setting you choose to play in unless you want bad things to happen to and around your PCs. That's what the setting is all about. The xenophibic racism of the setting is just a part of that.

 

[WaterRabbit]

IME most players fall in love with a particular concept but actually never roleplay that concept. I have been playing since AD&D first came out and it is unusual to see someone actually RP their character. This is one of the reasons I don't see the need for a bunch of races. Most people cannot even RP a human that has a slightly different viewpoint than themselves much less a different race. Most of the time they come across as simple charactertures.

I believe in part it is because of the kitchen sink approach of D&D. In the '90s I had a group playing version 3. All of them came up with "cool" character concepts, but none of them actually played even their alignment much less their "cool" idea.

That same group playing Vampire the Masquerade was exactly the opposite. Every player dropped deep into their role and had unusual and interesting interactions.

I observed the same thing with a different group playing Shadowrun vs. D&D.

On the other hand, in Champions all the players did was focus upon how "cool" their power concept was and did little roleplaying.

I have also observed that the same players that always want to play a new race have some combat power idea in mind. However, it rarely works out because a good DM challenges the players on a variety of fronts so that one-trick pony becomes boring to play. So instead they roll up a different character with a different race with the same personality and a different "trick".

These same players also tend to choose names for their characters which clash with the setting -- character names that fit better in a Monty Python skit.

I am not saying this applies to all groups. I am sure others have had different experiences. Mine come from playing and running a games for almost 40 years. I have played with at least 20 different groups not counting conventions and observed many more. I am also not saying one way is better than the other -- whatever makes the game fun for the whole group.

Limiting what races you allow in your game might also make it easier to find players who are more compatible with each other. Those that hate it will move on and those that can create interesting characters with even a single race choice will stay.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That's the way it was. If you didn't play it that way enabling non-humans to be playable, then that's fine. But you fixed the "problem" yourself. It doesn't cease to be a "problem" in general just because you fixed it for your game. You claimed that the nature of Ravenloft allowed non-humans to be playable by its nature, and that's simply a false statement. The nature of Ravenloft made humans the only really viable choice if you didn't want to limit your adventuring to those few domains that were accepting of non-humans.

There is no "the way it was" or at least, there is no one the way it was. The nature of Ravenloft and how it connected to the other campaign worlds of TSR absolutely allowed for the inclusion on non-human races. How is this false?

Xenophobia is one aspect of the setting, yes. Is it a major aspect? I'm sure that varied from table to table. It is mentioned in the books, sure, and it is more prevalent in some domains. But is it essential to the setting? Can it be downplayed without losing the gothic horror vibe?

Can an elf not be in a gothic horror story?

Also, can't the xenophobia be largely dealt with through disguise and so on? I'm not saying that it can't be present. I'm saying that the DM absolutely has the ability to not make it the end all be all if the players included non-humans in their group.

Or perhaps a group made up entirely of non-humans works to save the village despite being hated and feared? Nah....that concept has no legs.

In Ravenloft, yes.

Sure! Because everyone knows that halflings and other non-humans are in league with vampires and other monsters.

And the expectation is also that it will cause no end of troubles in Ravenloft...........if they go to any of the domains that hates non-humans.

No. The setting is quite clear about how non-humans are to be treated. It's you who seems to have missed the point of the setting. It's not a setting you choose to play in unless you want bad things to happen to and around your PCs. That's what the setting is all about. The xenophibic racism of the setting is just a part of that.

Part of it, yes. But not the point of the setting. If you think the point of Ravenloft is to have any no-humans run off from settlements, then okay. I don't think that is the point of the setting. I think the idea of xenophobia is one element that is meant to reinforce the point of the setting. And I don't think that letting that element be less prominent in one game does anything to diminish the vibe of the setting.

The same way that allowing a gnome in Dark Sun would not make Athas any less of a dangerous environment.

The DM has input on the game, and can work with what the players bring to the table without so easily compromising the setting they've chosen.

 

[Aldarc]

The same way that allowing a gnome in Dark Sun would not make Athas any less of a dangerous environment.

The presence of a gnome in Athas "would not make Athas any less of a dangerous environment," but Dark Sun's tone and aesthetic is more than its dangerous environment. It's also its lack of orcs, gnomes, kobolds, and such. Why are these species extinct? Mass genocide by the champions of Rajaat. Would the genocide somehow be less of a genocide if a small pocket of gnomes still existed? No. It still qualifies as genocide. But it does defang some of the Sorcerer-Kings, or at least Nibenay, "Bane of Gnomes." Part of the appeal of Dark Sun to me is that some of these typical D&D races are utterly extinct, especially gnomes. I don't think that a player should presume that they can bring any and everything to the table, especially if the GameMaster or rest of the table agrees to a play within a setting. The player should probably engage in communication with the GM or participate with an openmind in a Session 0 before declaring that they will play a gnome in Dark Sun.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The presence of a gnome in Athas "would not make Athas any less of a dangerous environment," but Dark Sun's tone and aesthetic is more than its dangerous environment. It's also its lack of orcs, gnomes, kobolds, and such. Why are these species extinct? Mass genocide by the champions of Rajaat. Would the genocide somehow be less of a genocide if a small pocket of gnomes still existed? No. It still qualifies as genocide. But it does defang some of the Sorcerer-Kings, or at least Nibenay, "Bane of Gnomes." Part of the appeal of Dark Sun to me is that some of these typical D&D races are utterly extinct, especially gnomes. I don't think that a player should presume that they can bring any and everything to the table, especially if the GameMaster or rest of the table agrees to a play within a setting. The player should probably engage in communication with the GM or participate with an openmind in a Session 0 before declaring that they will play a gnome in Dark Sun.

I agree wholeheartedly about the discussion ahead of time in a session zero.

Dark Sun's tone is that the world is dying, I'd say....which means it's a very dangerous place. The environment, the gear, the society, the magic system, the creatures, the rulers.....all those elements are designed to make things difficult for the PCs. The desert, the lack of readily available metal, the slave society....all of these are setting elements that support the harsh, dying world vibe. Altering any of them could impact the setting's vibe, I would agree. I just don't think that any change MUST impact the vibe. It should be considered whenever any change is made, but I think something on the scale of allowing a gnome does not disrupt anything. And it may even open up some interesting aspects of play that tie tightly into the setting.

Making a change like bringing back all the eliminated races? That's something that would have a much larger impact. Just the gnomes? Or even just one gnome? Not so much. Perhaps it does diminish Nibenay to some extent, but plenty of the sorcerer kings failed in their genocides. I don't really think much less of Borys because dwarves are still around. And do the PCs even know about that? And is there some way to make the gnome present without making Nibenay having failed, if that matters to the DM? Perhaps a mutation by the Pristine Tower? Pretty simple, and using an element that already exists in the setting.

Really all I'm advocating for is for the GM to consider making changes as much as the player should consider it.