D&D 5E Monster Races and a quick sword thrust at the gate

[Sunseeker]

That is one thing that can make playing those races compelling.

Not everyone who plays them is interested in playing in a world where some races aren’t considered people, even by “good” people.

The monster story you're talking about here, is just one kind of game including PC goblins and gnolls. Eberron and many other properties present stories where there is, again, fantasy racism, but the players can actually explore that meaningfully outside of a “hide, run, or fight” scenario, because they have some rights, are understood to have souls and free will, and have made alliances with the other races.

A lot of good fantasy like that of Saladin Ahmed explore a world wherein members of wildly different races can be memebrrs of the same cultures and religions, as does Eberron. Playing an Orc in a world where some people think Orcs are the same as worgs or whatever, while others get that they aren’t, is much more compelling to me than a story where the org just has to hide being an orc all the time or fight of violently racist townsfolk. In Eberron, orca have a faith that is essentially the same as one of the major faiths (Silver Flame), and other Orcs are druids that protect the world from aberrations. The juxtaposition of that with ravager tribes of orcs from the Demon Wastes is ripe for extremely compelling stories.

I'm not disagreeing that there are a wide variety of fantasy settings, but the OP's setting is clearly one where the majority of the population thinks "monstrous races" are bad and dangerous. To the point that some of them would be killed on sight.

This is a very understandable, and arguably more common setting than not.

 

[Dausuul]

Yeah, but see, it sounds like that you as a player, making a conscious choice to play a monster, know that the onus is on you to go the extra mile to account for those extra challenges. It doesn't sound like you'd call the DM a jerk for having NPCs treat you like they would with any other monsters they happened to run across. And as you mentioned, this is why "might as well just tell them no" is something I don't agree with it. Because then they'd be called a jerk for not allowing something. I would allow it, but I'd let the player know what to expect, just like the OP did. And just like you said, it's then on the player to make plans on how to mitigate those other challenges.

Sure; it's good to give your players a chance to try the "monster in a hostile world" routine. That, I presume, is why the OP didn't ban them out of the gate (which is what a lot of folks seem to think he should have done).

But once it's become clear that your players are not willing or able to play a monstrous race in this world without getting themselves killed, there's no point continuing to crash into that wall. They'll gripe and moan either way, but at least they won't be derailing the campaign and dragging the rest of the party into disaster while they're at it.

(I do find myself curious to know how these PCs handle it when they come across a bunch of armed orcs or goblins or whatever. Do they give the monsters a chance to show they're non-hostile? Or do they draw their swords and go for the kill, no questions asked, no quarter given?)

 

[Hussar]

I imagine, [MENTION=58197]Dausuul[/MENTION], that most encounters with orcs or goblins start off with the DM asking for initiative and the players are almost never given the chance to not have combat. After all, the DM expects monsters to be killed on sight, so, why would he play his own monsters differently? That's the "right" way to play those monsters in that setting.

 

[Morrus]

Unacceptable behaviour. Do not post in this thread again.

If one wants to decide who the PCs are and limit their options in the world to an unreasonable degree and kill them off if they do anything the DM doesn't expect-- that DM needs to not be DMing and instead needs to just go and write a novel, because they are out-and-out far to anti-social to be engaging in a game like this.

This is the opposite of not posting in the thread again.

 

[Wulffolk]

The players asked to play monstrous character's.
The DM very clearly communicated the challenges that they would face.
The players decided to play monstrous races anyways.
The players did not play their character's with adequate consideration of the consequences of their choices.
Character's died and members of the group were upset.
Now the DM doesn't want to deal with this kind of reaction in the future so he bans monstrous races.

That is in no way the fault of an abusive jerk of a DM. That is on the players.

Now, if those players had asked the DM to run a campaign in which the only people that could judge others based on race and kill creatures on sight are player characters, and that NPCs of all races must welcome the characters openly and celebrate the arrival of a bunch of monsters as the potential heroes of the realm, without ever raising an eyebrow or drawing a sword . . . Well, if that DM had agreed to that campaign and then turned around at slaughtered them at the gates of the first city that they approached, then that DM would be punishing those players and have made "a dick move".

Look, I understand that a player that spent $50 on a book might want to play an option from that book. However, they need to realize that they are not entitled to. The game is a collaborative effort. They should maturely discuss their desire with the DM and ask if there is any way to make the idea work. Maybe even offer some suggestions or compromises that would help facilitate their character in the DM's setting. Then the player needs to respect that DM's decision no matter what he decides, or move on to another game.

I don't know how such a basic level of social grace requires 10 pages of discussion.

 

[Ganymede81]

The players asked to play monstrous character's.
The DM very clearly communicated the challenges that they would face.
The players decided to play monstrous races anyways.
The players did not play their character's with adequate consideration of the consequences of their choices.
Character's died and members of the group were upset.
Now the DM doesn't want to deal with this kind of reaction in the future so he bans monstrous races.

Quoted for truth.

The DM predicted that playing monstrous races would not turn out well, made an error in judgment in allowing this option despite of that prediction, then had the tact to fix his error when his prediction came true.

I call that learning and growing as a DM, though it sounds like a problem that should have been avoided to begin with.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

I don't know how such a basic level of social grace requires 10 pages of discussion.

Probably because most of the posts have consisted of pointless finger pointing trying to claim one side or the other is in the wrong.

I look at it differently. The players didn't have a good time in this DM's game. That is a failure of the GROUP, not any individual. You claim that the DM made it perfectly clear the costs of playing a monstrous race. Yet, obviously, he didn't, since, well, the players didn't understand. Now, they might have deliberately misunderstood, but, again, since it's multiple players and not just that one guy, I'm not quite sure just how "clear" this point was made.

But, all that aside, the basic point is, as I said before, you have a mismatch in expectations. Fair enough. It happens. You deal with it and move on. The best time to have dealt with that would have been before the players wasted several hours of play on a character that cannot work in that campaign. But, in any case, you have to sit down and talk as a group to make those expectations clear.

 

[GameOgre]

Well,no pc was ever actually killed at the front gate. I just thought that was a good tittle and cut to the heart of the matter. The fact that some of my players want to play monster characters but do not want to have any negatives socially at all and certainly do not ever want to be judged by their race to the point of being attacked.

Even when displaying that exact same behavior towards any unusual race they come across. For instance the bugbear kills bugbears on sight.

There have been several rather messy deaths but even after explaining in detail beforehand about how they will be perceived by most (good races) they encounter(and the danger of being perceived that way)....I went out of my way to give them some places that did not do so and made sure that when they went to some of the other more dangerous places they knew the increased dangers of those places well ahead of time.

Frankly,it's not fun to have your character killed,so while I do kill characters, in general I try NOT to do so. While I try to appear unbiased in my games,I am actually not. I am on the pc's side! They are the stars of my game after all.

However, the times when they carelessly(as opposed to carefully navigating them and keeping out of sight or avoiding the appearance of evil behavior) entered into those more dangerous areas and then threw caution to the wind and either directly confronted bigoted elements in a threatening manner or in some cases outright participated in VERY questionable behavior and acts in very public displays I held nothing back and let them reap the consequences of their choices in rather bloody ways.

For instance:

The Bugbear rogue killed a neutral cleric of the city in the middle of the high Market (he had good cause to confront the cleric,not good cause to murder him and certainly doing so openly as a bugbear in the middle of Waterdeep and then killing several citizens that tried to stop him was VERY unwise. Even as a human those acts could prove fatal! As a bugbear? Certain doom.

A Goblin who snuck into a town under constant attack by orc and goblin raiders and that had suffered greatly at their hands(Orc and Goblin ears could be turned in at the front gate for gold reward,Huge Sign) and preceded to attack a Dark Necromancer who was only known as a powerful Noble of that town in a jewelry store.

A Orc who actually did some good deeds and was initially welcomes into the village because of those actions who when confronted with a bigoted merchant (who's wife had recently been slain by orcs) slew him out of hand over being refused to be served.

On top of those deaths there have been constant demands by the players of monster characters that they be treated the same as elves and dwarves ect...even in areas where Elves and Dwarves wouldn't be treated well. Even ALMOST to the point of almost outright attacking those doing so but not doing so because of fear of reprisals.

I run a game that sometimes does have lots of dungeon adventures but also has lots of city adventures and some of my players can actually handle monster races fine. They realize the dangers and act accordingly.

For instance the Lizardfolk Moon Druid is known far and wide as a hero and can often enter places that all Lizardfolk but him would be attacked. He also is smart enough to often use animal form with normal adventuring races (like a Hawk,small cat or dog ect) when it would NOT be in his best interests to reveal his actual race.

This is why I didn't want to ban all such race choices.

Also as I pointed out to them many many times it is often far more possible to enter into such locations as the sole monster race in a party of normal race characters(leave him alone we tamed this goblin and he works for us) verse nothing but monster adventurers.

It's starting to detract from my enjoyment of the game though as I often have to do mental gymnastics to figure out a way for them to be accepted. Hence the threads start.

I even offered to run a planescape game( a setting i fell there is much less outright threat to pc's over race) but the party wasn't interested.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well,no pc was ever actually killed at the front gate. I just thought that was a good tittle and cut to the heart of the matter. The fact that some of my players want to play monster characters but do not want to have any negatives socially at all and certainly do not ever want to be judged by their race to the point of being attacked.

Even when displaying that exact same behavior towards any unusual race they come across. For instance the bugbear kills bugbears on sight.

There have been several rather messy deaths but even after explaining in detail beforehand about how they will be perceived by most (good races) they encounter(and the danger of being perceived that way)....I went out of my way to give them some places that did not do so and made sure that when they went to some of the other more dangerous places they knew the increased dangers of those places well ahead of time.

Frankly,it's not fun to have your character killed,so while I do kill characters, in general I try NOT to do so. While I try to appear unbiased in my games,I am actually not. I am on the pc's side! They are the stars of my game after all.

However, the times when they carelessly(as opposed to carefully navigating them and keeping out of sight or avoiding the appearance of evil behavior) entered into those more dangerous areas and then threw caution to the wind and either directly confronted bigoted elements in a threatening manner or in some cases outright participated in VERY questionable behavior and acts in very public displays I held nothing back and let them reap the consequences of their choices in rather bloody ways.

For instance:

The Bugbear rogue killed a neutral cleric of the city in the middle of the high Market (he had good cause to confront the cleric,not good cause to murder him and certainly doing so openly as a bugbear in the middle of Waterdeep and then killing several citizens that tried to stop him was VERY unwise. Even as a human those acts could prove fatal! As a bugbear? Certain doom.

A Goblin who snuck into a town under constant attack by orc and goblin raiders and that had suffered greatly at their hands(Orc and Goblin ears could be turned in at the front gate for gold reward,Huge Sign) and preceded to attack a Dark Necromancer who was only known as a powerful Noble of that town in a jewelry store.

A Orc who actually did some good deeds and was initially welcomes into the village because of those actions who when confronted with a bigoted merchant (who's wife had recently been slain by orcs) slew him out of hand over being refused to be served.

On top of those deaths there have been constant demands by the players of monster characters that they be treated the same as elves and dwarves ect...even in areas where Elves and Dwarves wouldn't be treated well. Even ALMOST to the point of almost outright attacking those doing so but not doing so because of fear of reprisals.

I run a game that sometimes does have lots of dungeon adventures but also has lots of city adventures and some of my players can actually handle monster races fine. They realize the dangers and act accordingly.

For instance the Lizardfolk Moon Druid is known far and wide as a hero and can often enter places that all Lizardfolk but him would be attacked. He also is smart enough to often use animal form with normal adventuring races (like a Hawk,small cat or dog ect) when it would NOT be in his best interests to reveal his actual race.

This is why I didn't want to ban all such race choices.

Also as I pointed out to them many many times it is often far more possible to enter into such locations as the sole monster race in a party of normal race characters(leave him alone we tamed this goblin and he works for us) verse nothing but monster adventurers.

It's starting to detract from my enjoyment of the game though as I often have to do mental gymnastics to figure out a way for them to be accepted. Hence the threads start.

I even offered to run a planescape game( a setting i fell there is much less outright threat to pc's over race) but the party wasn't interested.

A lot of this is quite different from the implications of the first post.

But taking all this into consideration, why does it require mental gymnastics at all? Why not just build a world that doesn't assume that humans would attack a bugbear on sight just because he's a bugbear?

Also, ignoring any potential clarification from your players, since we just have what you're saying, it sounds like the players' problem isn't that they want ot play bugbears without consequences. It really seems like they want to play disruptive characters, who do things like murdering merchants over fantasy racism in the middle of the city. A player that does that with no expectation of consequences is...not playing in good faith, IMO.

So, the problem seems to have nothing actually to do with monster races, and everything to do with players wanting to play murder hobos, and a world that has strong assumptions of violent fantasy racism (even though that doesn't really match FR's lore, espeically in the major cities of the Sword Coast, unless you're playing in the setting assumptions of bygone eras) while your players have very different expectations about fantasy racism.

You need to have a real discussion about all of this with them, from the fantasy racism expectation disconect, to the murder hobo disconect, and figure out what sort of game you can all agree on.

 

[GameOgre]

A lot of this is quite different from the implications of the first post.

But taking all this into consideration, why does it require mental gymnastics at all? Why not just build a world that doesn't assume that humans would attack a bugbear on sight just because he's a bugbear?

Also, ignoring any potential clarification from your players, since we just have what you're saying, it sounds like the players' problem isn't that they want ot play bugbears without consequences. It really seems like they want to play disruptive characters, who do things like murdering merchants over fantasy racism in the middle of the city. A player that does that with no expectation of consequences is...not playing in good faith, IMO.

So, the problem seems to have nothing actually to do with monster races, and everything to do with players wanting to play murder hobos, and a world that has strong assumptions of violent fantasy racism (even though that doesn't really match FR's lore, espeically in the major cities of the Sword Coast, unless you're playing in the setting assumptions of bygone eras) while your players have very different expectations about fantasy racism.

You need to have a real discussion about all of this with them, from the fantasy racism expectation disconect, to the murder hobo disconect, and figure out what sort of game you can all agree on.

I decided just to ban any race not in the player handbook. Done. Their did complain but I offered to let them DM and roll up a character and they declined. I agree somewhat that some of them are murderhoboish but I'm fond of them anyway.