Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
World-Building DMs
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 6770387" data-attributes="member: 6801228"><p>Tried to find a place to snip and save space, but honestly I agree with you in the practical sense. No amount of philosophizing or arguing is going to change peoples minds once they are set, and I am looking at this from a "generic" perspective, simply because you cannot possibly cover all possible examples and worlds. </p><p></p><p>I also don't disagree with worlds having specific restrictions. For example, there are no Half-orcs in my games. Instead anybody playing what would normally be a Half-orc is simply just an Orc. I did not come up with this restriction though. One of my players brought up to me that he was very uncomfortable with the implied half-orc origin and I decided to change it. Luckily the Half-Orc player I had was completely on board with it and we loved the new concept. I just kind of kept it going since then, though different world different reason. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Two points to this I suppose. </p><p></p><p>I can accept your reasoning for Tieflings. In a game where the world is more dark ages and fearfully superstitious I would agree that character would cause a lot of disruption. However, if that is the reason you give me and then it is not reflected in the game world, that is going to strike me as quite odd. After all, the wizard or dragon sorcerer could just as easily be burnt for practicing dark magics or looking different. Human villagers would be quite hostile to elves and dwarves for being different and strange. It becomes a whole package.</p><p></p><p>Second, while I completely get the line about proving ones skill before being allowed to try disruptive characters, it simply rubs me the wrong way. I even agree with it, it just seems like bad phrasing to me</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>We seem to be speaking from different perspectives on this point. The package of "Gnome" does exist. I can point to it in the PHB. My point was a player asking to play a race may be asking for the entire deal, not just a series of personality quirks. That isn't to say gnomes look the same or act the same or even exist in your world, but a gnome is more than a "fey-based trickster with a love of small animals who stands under 3 ft tall". It can be reduced to that point, but reducing by it's nature loses something in the process. </p><p></p><p>I get that is why you are asking the question you are asking, but if you're going to custom tailor something to fit what they need, is not usually simpler to just let them play a gnome?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>In playing a Gnome cleric, to me, that means I should look at the Gnomish pantheon. My characters actual religious practices might change slightly (this particular gnome is actually part of a "cult" and focuses on worshiping the entire pantheon and the idea of community instead of a single diety, and of course "community" could be covered by any number of other deities if I absolutely needed to), but this brings me back to what I was saying above. A player picking a race may be wanting more than simply a body structure and stats. Gnomes have gods and culture and everything that comes with it. For me personally, choosing to play a race (and especially a class like cleric which ties so deeply into that) means looking into what all of that will mean.</p><p></p><p>And, honestly, saying I want to play a Gnome cleric worshipping from the Gnome Pantheon in a DnD game is more like asking to play a Jedi with midochlorians in a sci-fi game that includes jedi and midochlorians as options than asking to play a Jedi when approaching a DnD game. Now, if you decided your world was more Star Trek than Star Wars then obviously my concept does not work, but if we are playing Star Wars and the DM says he hates a wookies and therefore wookies don't exist then I would be surprised. If he said we're playing 200 years in the future and all the wookies were killed in the war, so I can't play one, that is more understandable. </p><p></p><p>What I think we're talking past here is reasonable expectations. If I come to a table expecting everything in the PHB to be allowed, and then I'm told things are not allowed, that is going to raise my eyebrows. I can't say I wouldn't adapt to your world, simply that if I came to the table with a set of expectations that was reasonable, I might try and understand the reasoning of why my concept was not allowed. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I was talking about how the mechanics informed the concept. I remember (sub-teacher typing during plan period, so brain is mush) that someone asked "Why are you pitching mechanics and not a character concept?" My point was that they can be one and the same. A person may want to play a Goliath not only because of their strength bonus and damage reduction ability, but also because of the lore and thematics of the race. These things can be separated, but if a player wants both, then seperating them might not make things better.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Until they have sat down and heard about your world, then they must make decisions based on assumptions. If you say you are running a DnD game, and a player is really excited about playing a Tiefling Warlock because they know DnD and see those options in the PHB, then they have no reason to assume that will not be allowed. </p><p></p><p>The time line of the discussion is important as well. I'm thinking of a player approaching before session zero, and the DM's world not being presented until session zero. This is in the large scale of things a minor issue, and perhaps I'm making a bigger deal than it will ever be, since I suspect I'm a little defensive on this issue. It's just something I've seen discussed a lot.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>For me, that's a big leap. I don't see Tieflings as being that close to Demons. To take this into the realm of chemistry and medicine for a second, I can accept Demons as being uranium (pure evil by nature) with no problem. However Tieflings are not a smaller piece of plutonium, they are the result of the "decay chain", closer to Bismuth. Dangerous and connected to the radioactivity of their ancestor, sure. Defined by it, no. </p><p></p><p>You see Tieflings as being different then okay, but nothing about them tells me that they have no choice between good and evil. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>As a personal tangent, That is the complete opposite of my homebrew. My choice was to have all the gods belong to racial pantheons, with the ones "unclaimed" meaning they defaulted to human, as most DnD products have a human bias (shocking, I know). This led me to stating my humans are by far the most religious of all the races, seeing as they have so, so many gods and goddesses to choose from. </p><p></p><p>It is an interesting choice, just the exact opposite of the route I went.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Chaosmancer, post: 6770387, member: 6801228"] Tried to find a place to snip and save space, but honestly I agree with you in the practical sense. No amount of philosophizing or arguing is going to change peoples minds once they are set, and I am looking at this from a "generic" perspective, simply because you cannot possibly cover all possible examples and worlds. I also don't disagree with worlds having specific restrictions. For example, there are no Half-orcs in my games. Instead anybody playing what would normally be a Half-orc is simply just an Orc. I did not come up with this restriction though. One of my players brought up to me that he was very uncomfortable with the implied half-orc origin and I decided to change it. Luckily the Half-Orc player I had was completely on board with it and we loved the new concept. I just kind of kept it going since then, though different world different reason. Two points to this I suppose. I can accept your reasoning for Tieflings. In a game where the world is more dark ages and fearfully superstitious I would agree that character would cause a lot of disruption. However, if that is the reason you give me and then it is not reflected in the game world, that is going to strike me as quite odd. After all, the wizard or dragon sorcerer could just as easily be burnt for practicing dark magics or looking different. Human villagers would be quite hostile to elves and dwarves for being different and strange. It becomes a whole package. Second, while I completely get the line about proving ones skill before being allowed to try disruptive characters, it simply rubs me the wrong way. I even agree with it, it just seems like bad phrasing to me We seem to be speaking from different perspectives on this point. The package of "Gnome" does exist. I can point to it in the PHB. My point was a player asking to play a race may be asking for the entire deal, not just a series of personality quirks. That isn't to say gnomes look the same or act the same or even exist in your world, but a gnome is more than a "fey-based trickster with a love of small animals who stands under 3 ft tall". It can be reduced to that point, but reducing by it's nature loses something in the process. I get that is why you are asking the question you are asking, but if you're going to custom tailor something to fit what they need, is not usually simpler to just let them play a gnome? In playing a Gnome cleric, to me, that means I should look at the Gnomish pantheon. My characters actual religious practices might change slightly (this particular gnome is actually part of a "cult" and focuses on worshiping the entire pantheon and the idea of community instead of a single diety, and of course "community" could be covered by any number of other deities if I absolutely needed to), but this brings me back to what I was saying above. A player picking a race may be wanting more than simply a body structure and stats. Gnomes have gods and culture and everything that comes with it. For me personally, choosing to play a race (and especially a class like cleric which ties so deeply into that) means looking into what all of that will mean. And, honestly, saying I want to play a Gnome cleric worshipping from the Gnome Pantheon in a DnD game is more like asking to play a Jedi with midochlorians in a sci-fi game that includes jedi and midochlorians as options than asking to play a Jedi when approaching a DnD game. Now, if you decided your world was more Star Trek than Star Wars then obviously my concept does not work, but if we are playing Star Wars and the DM says he hates a wookies and therefore wookies don't exist then I would be surprised. If he said we're playing 200 years in the future and all the wookies were killed in the war, so I can't play one, that is more understandable. What I think we're talking past here is reasonable expectations. If I come to a table expecting everything in the PHB to be allowed, and then I'm told things are not allowed, that is going to raise my eyebrows. I can't say I wouldn't adapt to your world, simply that if I came to the table with a set of expectations that was reasonable, I might try and understand the reasoning of why my concept was not allowed. I was talking about how the mechanics informed the concept. I remember (sub-teacher typing during plan period, so brain is mush) that someone asked "Why are you pitching mechanics and not a character concept?" My point was that they can be one and the same. A person may want to play a Goliath not only because of their strength bonus and damage reduction ability, but also because of the lore and thematics of the race. These things can be separated, but if a player wants both, then seperating them might not make things better. Until they have sat down and heard about your world, then they must make decisions based on assumptions. If you say you are running a DnD game, and a player is really excited about playing a Tiefling Warlock because they know DnD and see those options in the PHB, then they have no reason to assume that will not be allowed. The time line of the discussion is important as well. I'm thinking of a player approaching before session zero, and the DM's world not being presented until session zero. This is in the large scale of things a minor issue, and perhaps I'm making a bigger deal than it will ever be, since I suspect I'm a little defensive on this issue. It's just something I've seen discussed a lot. For me, that's a big leap. I don't see Tieflings as being that close to Demons. To take this into the realm of chemistry and medicine for a second, I can accept Demons as being uranium (pure evil by nature) with no problem. However Tieflings are not a smaller piece of plutonium, they are the result of the "decay chain", closer to Bismuth. Dangerous and connected to the radioactivity of their ancestor, sure. Defined by it, no. You see Tieflings as being different then okay, but nothing about them tells me that they have no choice between good and evil. As a personal tangent, That is the complete opposite of my homebrew. My choice was to have all the gods belong to racial pantheons, with the ones "unclaimed" meaning they defaulted to human, as most DnD products have a human bias (shocking, I know). This led me to stating my humans are by far the most religious of all the races, seeing as they have so, so many gods and goddesses to choose from. It is an interesting choice, just the exact opposite of the route I went. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
World-Building DMs
Top