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

[Older Beholder]

Everyone playing a game is selfish, people playing games are doing it for their own enjoyment, if they weren't being selfish they'd be off doing charity work. Trying to make the argument that being selfish is 'the worst' just doesn't work. Game preferences are inherently selfish, I consider anyone playing games to be selfish as there really isn't a non-selfish motive for entertainment.

People play games for a number of reasons. Particularly a TTRPG like D&D.
To say anyone participating in any form of entertainment are doing so for selfish reasons, is a gross generalisation.

People could be playing as a way to socialise and co-operation with friends in communal storytelling.
Some people play because they enjoy entertaining their friends.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Shoehorning is exactly what is being talked about here. If the setting doesn't have gnomes and you want to put one in despite that, you're trying to shoehorn a gnome into the game, plain and simple.

Let’s set semantics aside because we obviously view the word “shoehorn” differently.

Do you see the difference between saying “hey guess what....gnomes exist on Athas and always have” and “this gnome is actually a human that was changed by the Pristine Tower”? Or the difference between “in the city of Ur Draxa, there are a few gnomes who actually survived Nibenay’s pogrom, and there are rumors that some of the other races thought extinct may have been preserved by Borys for some nefarious purpose” and “this gnome is actually a sub-race of the halfling”?

Do these all seem equally jarring to the setting? It seems a matter of degree, no? Like, blowing your pinky toe off and getting shot in the head are both gunshot wounds, but we all know the difference.

Let’s go back to the Dray? How do you feel about their addition to the Dark Sun setting? And then about Dragonborn subbing for Dray in 4E?

No, what you are saying is that the DM either must make the changes, or must concede that the setting is 'fragile' and 'not all that strong' if he doesn't want to make the change. You actually ARE saying that if that is the case, then the setting, the DM, and/or the other players suck and should just accept that their desire to play in an actual 'Campaign world X' game is badwrongfun and let the X-phile player shoehorn whatever he wants into the world. I don't have any problem if a person wants to run 'setting X, but with gnomes'. What I have a problem with is the idea that if someone wants to run 'setting X, without the change to gnomes' that means that the person or the setting is weak or flawed or unreasonable or some other bad adjective.

No, I’m not. I’ll ask you to read again what I said.

I agree that players can make changes. For me, it’s an easy decision to not play a race that’s not a default part of a setting. I have no problem with that myself. But not all players are like me. For some players, restrictions are actually helpful. For others, they’re not.

So sometimes, it may be easier for the DM to make a change than it is for the player. That’s really all I’m saying.

Regarding the settings themselves, my comment is by no means an absolute. I’m sure there are examples we could come up with where adding a race is fundamentally disruptive. I’m sure it’s possible. But I also expect it’s less likely than most claim. Athas doesn’t fall apart if there’s a PC gnome. The Domains of Dread are noless scary with a Dragonborn. And so on.

My point being, what makes a setting unique is more than the races it does or doesn’t include. If all there is to a setting is a list of races that aren’t allowed, then yeah, I’d say the setting isn’t really that unique. Does that mean it’s badwrongfun? Not really.

Everyone playing a game is selfish, people playing games are doing it for their own enjoyment, if they weren't being selfish they'd be off doing charity work. Trying to make the argument that being selfish is 'the worst' just doesn't work. Game preferences are inherently selfish, I consider anyone playing games to be selfish as there really isn't a non-selfish motive for entertainment.

Everyone wants to have fun, sure. But people make compromises. You’re advocating for exactly that, so this weird “everyone’s selfish” idea seems odd.

And it's perfectly valid for the issue to be resolved by the DM saying 'this is the game I'm running', and the palyer saying 'cool, I'll play my gnome somewhere else'. But you're arguing that the DM is somehow bad if he chooses that option, or that if he chooses that option that the setting is flawed somehow. Everyone has a selfish game preference, if the preferences don't line up then you go game with someone else.

No, I’m not saying the DM is bad. I’m saying e should see if there’s another way to deal with it.

And as for “other games”, maybe that’s not something that applies to everyone. For me, I only play with my friends. The same group every time, with occasional additions or absences. So we all want to play....but we also all want to play together. Perhaps that’s why I don’t share that “everyone’s selfish” view?

If I did something that made one of my players not want to play, in my mind, I’ve messed up. This doesn’t apply to all circumstances, but that’s how I’d feel.

"Consider" and "agree to" are two different things. Also, I've found that DM's with a strong vision tend to become very invested into the setting and the game. And they've often given a lot of consideration to how to get the setting to work. Based on this, the player should consider this, wouldn't you think?

Yes. I’ve said this already.

Players should consider making a change.

So can DMs.

False dichotomy. People can be invested in characters that actually make sense in a setting, the idea that people who come up with characters that do make sense in a setting are just picking a race/class combo from a list is both insulting and inaccurate. And in my experience, an awful lot of people who want to ignore the setting and create a character that runs contrary to it aren't invested in an interesting concept. Instead they are either just repeating a pattern that has worked for them in the past, or actually just want to keep playing the same character over and over regardless of whether that character makes sense in the world.

My example was not meant to be absolute. Some players do just look at what’s allowed and pick. That’s not an insult. Unless you think that’s somehow wrong to do? Some players aren’t invested in a setting. The DM may be psyched for it, and maybe some of his players are, too, and they spend time making characters strongly tied to the setting. Then another player just picks based on what’s allowed. He says “human fighter” and the character he comes up with could exist in pretty much any setting.

There’s nothing wrong with that, honestly. But if I have a choice between a character whose player has given a lot of thought to his character even if it seems not to fit in some way, or a character who fits and then there’s nothing more...then I have a hard time imagining wanting to go with the one who fits. It just seems like a lesser priority to me.

I think that your argument that a setting is 'fragile' and 'not all that strong' if anyone wanting to play the setting feels that shoehorning in additional races messes with their enjoyment of the setting is the thing that actually is 'not all that strong'. Trying to pretend that the setting or the players who enjoy the setting are 'fragile' if shoehorning races in isn't to their liking is just an attempt to poison the well.

I never said any players are fragile. I realize that you’re inferring a lot from what I’m actually saying, but please don’t put words in my mouth.

Got any examples you can think of that support your view? Gnomes in Athas, Dragonborn in Oerth, Orcs in Krynn? Anything?

 

[Dessert Nomad]

People play games for a number of reasons. Particularly a TTRPG like D&D.
To say anyone participating in any form of entertainment are doing so for selfish reasons, is a gross generalisation.

No, it's simple fact. Doing stuff you enjoy instead of stuff that benefits other people is inherently selfish, it's not a generalization it's simply what the words mean. Talking about games becomes much simpler when you acknowledge that people are playing to do stuff that's fun for them, and not out of some sort of service to the greater good or loyalty to a cause. 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.

 

[oreofox]

No, I’m not saying the DM is bad. I’m saying e should see if there’s another way to deal with it.

And as for “other games”, maybe that’s not something that applies to everyone. For me, I only play with my friends. The same group every time, with occasional additions or absences. So we all want to play....but we also all want to play together. Perhaps that’s why I don’t share that “everyone’s selfish” view?

If I did something that made one of my players not want to play, in my mind, I’ve messed up. This doesn’t apply to all circumstances, but that’s how I’d feel.

I think that's where this misunderstanding is coming from. You only play with the same friends every time. Everyone knows what everyone likes, so whomever is DM would be certain to include that in whatever setting they run. I did the same when I created my setting. I knew my sister loved elves and wouldn't play in a setting without them, so I included them in my setting. Unfortunately I've never been able to play with her in this setting, so doing that was a bit of a waste in the end.

Not everyone plays with the same people. Not everyone is able to play face-to-face. Not everyone has a friend group to play with. A DM offers to run a campaign set in his personally created setting. Everything available within this setting is outlined in the player handout. The DM created this in some edition in the past, and has run numerous campaigns within this setting. Reading the player handout, saying you want to play, and then coming in with a character that has a race or class (or even both) that was labeled as unavailable is a disrespectful dick move.

Not everything needs to be generic fantasy setting. Dark Sun has a certain theme, and part of this theme is the races and classes available. Dragonlance has a certain theme, and part of that theme is the races and classes available. Some DM's homebrew setting has a certain theme, and part of that theme is the races and classes available.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

Do you see the difference between..Regarding the settings themselves, my comment is by no means an absolute. I’m sure there are examples we could come up with where adding a race is fundamentally disruptive.

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.

Everyone wants to have fun, sure. But people make compromises. You’re advocating for exactly that, so this weird “everyone’s selfish” idea seems odd.

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.

No, I’m not saying the DM is bad. I’m saying e should see if there’s another way to deal with it.

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".

If I did something that made one of my players not want to play, in my mind, I’ve messed up. This doesn’t apply to all circumstances, but that’s how I’d feel.

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.

Got any examples you can think of that support your view? Gnomes in Athas, Dragonborn in Oerth, Orcs in Krynn? Anything?

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.

 

[MNblockhead]

Seems silly to keep debating a point of preference.

Generally, I try to be very accommodating. My current campaign is especially so.

But there are times when I want to run a very narrowly focused campaign. Some that I've been thinking of:

1. A party of human wizards in a world where arcane magic has been been banned an almost completely lost to the world. Driven underground. They are part of secret society or hidden coven who seek to relearn these long lost--and forbidden--arts.

2. A party of goblins, fighting human intrusions into their ancestral lands.

And, well, I could go on. But the point is that if I want to run a campaign with certain limitations, I simply state that. If a potential player asks to play an orc barbarian and him human-wizard campaign, I simply state that only human wizards are allowed. If that doesn't appeal to that potential player, there are other games that player can play, or, even better--run.

Maybe I don't get any players. Oh well. I can't run that campaign then, but that has never happened. Maybe I need to push the boundaries better.

"We will only be playing gnome-sized pink centaur illusionists who are adverse to violence. And, uh, their gender changes ever full moon."

Hmmm...no...I am pretty sure I would get PLENTY of players for that.

Kinda hard to make a campaign concept that nobody would be interested in.

 

[Older Beholder]

No, it's simple fact. Doing stuff you enjoy instead of stuff that benefits other people is inherently selfish, it's not a generalization it's simply what the words mean. Talking about games becomes much simpler when you acknowledge that people are playing to do stuff that's fun for them, and not out of some sort of service to the greater good or loyalty to a cause. 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.

An act itself is not selfish, rather that comes down to the reason for the act.
You can’t assume you know why someone is doing something.
Just because there are more altruistic things you can do with your time doesn’t mean anything less is ultimately selfish.

You could selfishly give to charity because it makes you feel better, without caring how it helps others.
Or you could unselfishly play D&D with your friends when you’d rather play poker or something else you enjoy more.
It's relative.

Words have meaning, sure, but they can have multiple meanings within different contexts.

Personally I think that players should compromise to the DM’s ideas for the most part as the DM puts in the most work, but I can still think of times when the DM should probably be the one to compromise:
Eg: If a DM was introducing new players to the game, you’d expect her to be more open to letting players choose something they really want to play rather than try to make them fit into a niche idea.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

An act itself is not selfish, rather that comes down to the reason for the act.
You can’t assume you know why someone is doing something.
Just because there are more altruistic things you can do with your time doesn’t mean anything less is ultimately selfish.

I certainly can and do assume that people who play games are playing them because they enjoy playing games. There may be additional motivations, and motivations for why they're playing this game instead of another game, or their enjoyment may derive from something like 'spending time with this group of players' instead of 'engaging with the mechanics of the game', but ultimately people play games because they want to play a game.

Eg: If a DM was introducing new players to the game, you’d expect her to be more open to letting players choose something they really want to play rather than try to make them fit into a niche idea.

I would not expect a DM to allow Jedi in his gritty Call of Cthulhu campaign just because a new player wants to, no. If a campaign is based off of a niche idea, expecting the people who enjoy the niche idea to give it up is unfair to them... and the expectation that other people will give up what they enjoy for you because you're new is actually very selfish. The new player's selfish desire to play a character that doesn't fit the game the other people want to play doesn't trump everyone else's enjoyment, and the idea that the other people involved should be criticized as selfish if they don't do what the new person selfishly wants falls apart when you acknowledge that the new person is also being selfish.

 

[WaterRabbit]

So when it comes to the gnome in Dark Sun, Ithink we’ve established that it can be done in one way or another. Whether mutation or by some kind of stasis or planar traveler or simply a halfling variant....different solutions for different degrees. Of course we could also just say that there are gnomes on Athas, that they were never wiped out. Give them a bit of a grim tweak....maybe they roam the Silt Sea as pirates on silt skiffs, scavenging and raiding, and there you go.

But maybe another example would help; what about Dragonborn? I mean, to me, Dark Sun is really the 2E stuff. The original boxed set and its associated products. I didn’t hang around 4E long enough to make it to their take on Dark Sun. But I know they included the Dragonborn in the form of Dray.

So here’s the perfect example of a race that was not a part of the setting as originally presented which was then added later on.

Now, I would personally not really want Dragonborn in Dark Sun because of the whole dragon transformation aspect for defilers and the Sorcerer Kings being in various stages, with Borys as the only actual Dragon. Having a bunch of dragonmen running around seems to weaken that element of the setting. I’d lean toward not having them in the setting. I’d simply leave them out.

But ifa player said he wanted to play one, then I’d really think it over. How would it be best toincorporate the idea of a Dragonborn to Athas? Should I go with how the official material handled it? Or some other way?

How do you feel about the Dray? How did they impact the setting in your opinion?

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.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think that's where this misunderstanding is coming from. You only play with the same friends every time. Everyone knows what everyone likes, so whomever is DM would be certain to include that in whatever setting they run. I did the same when I created my setting. I knew my sister loved elves and wouldn't play in a setting without them, so I included them in my setting. Unfortunately I've never been able to play with her in this setting, so doing that was a bit of a waste in the end.

Not everyone plays with the same people. Not everyone is able to play face-to-face. Not everyone has a friend group to play with. A DM offers to run a campaign set in his personally created setting. Everything available within this setting is outlined in the player handout. The DM created this in some edition in the past, and has run numerous campaigns within this setting. Reading the player handout, saying you want to play, and then coming in with a character that has a race or class (or even both) that was labeled as unavailable is a disrespectful dick move.

Not everything needs to be generic fantasy setting. Dark Sun has a certain theme, and part of this theme is the races and classes available. Dragonlance has a certain theme, and part of that theme is the races and classes available. Some DM's homebrew setting has a certain theme, and part of that theme is the races and classes available.

I absolutely agree. I'm really providing some suggestions based purely on my experiences. Those are different from many others. But, given that organized play typically includes a standardized expectation...so Adventurer's League and similar groups have set guidelines for what is or is not allowed....so in general, I'm kind of talking about home games. Or online games, these days, which are huge.

And the kind of mismatched expectation I'm talking about is one that would likely come up in a Session 0. So if the DM provides some kind of campaign handout prior to play....at that point, the player says "hey, I see it says I can't be a half-orc....I was kind of bouncing around an idea for a half-orc character. Is that really the case? Any leeway on that?" and then they discuss. I'm not describing someone showing up for Session 1, having already been made aware of the expectations for the game, and saying "Oh yeah I saw that, but I made a half-orc anyway".

Again, that's a player being a jerk. I wouldn't defend that.

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.