D&D 5E Access to Races in a Campaign

[Lanefan]

I find those moments are actually false drama or false tension, just like how having to roll a die in order to do something might appear to add tension to a situation even when it really doesn't (i.e. it is the game element which the player is feeling tension over, not the narrative which is actually tense).

Either way there's more tension.

I find it very important in enabling a player to actually understand how much risk a course of action involves for there to be a more consistent and predictable quality to combat. Having no idea whether or not your character can actually match their foe is not, in my opinion, helpful beyond the very first round of engagement.

The bigger question is *should* the character (or player) ever be able to fully understand the risk, or know whether they can match their foe or not?

For example, in last night's session the party faced off against a chasme for the first time and were unsure how difficult it would be to face it head on and come out victorious so they could collect the treasures it was lazily sifting through when they came upon it. In the first round it scored a critical hit, and because I don't roll all of the dice there was zero chance that the players underestimate the danger of the creature because of a low roll (nothing is more misleading than a critical hit for minimum damage) and also zero chance of a single pair of lucky rolls (a crit for high damage) killing off a character with no opportunity to learn or interact.

However there's also zero chance of a party getting lucky and taking out something they shouldn't, or a weak foe getting lucky and hammering the party, and this takes some of the fun out of it for me as player, never mind as DM.

Example: in a game I play in now and then (it runs only when something else for whatever reason doesn't) our last action was to have two characters take out by themselves* a demon that was supposed to be a major challenge for the whole party. We're still not sure how we did it other than we got lucky in that when we hit the thing we rolled well on damage, and it didn't hurt us as badly as random chance says it should have. And to me this is why we do this; for moments like this where you really beat the odds. But when randomness is minimized or removed entirely there's no odds to beat, and that's just not as exciting.

* - they were by themselves because the rest of the party was engaged in a full-out brawl within itself behind the play, and the two had gone slightly ahead and got cut off. Nominations doubtless coming for play of the year (for the two) and most humourous incident (for the rest) for our annual awards, from the same sequence!

Example the other way: last weekend in the game I run a fairly powerful party were near a hidden entrance to a dungeon after dark, waiting for a planned diversion to draw the occupants' attention elsewhere; and a group of half a dozen Orcs** blundered right into their midst (both Orcs and party horribly failed their perception/surprise rolls). The resulting combat, which on paper should have taken a couple of segments at most and probably been pretty quiet, went on for a noisy round and a half - those Orcs were heroic! - and kinda butchered the party's chance of sneaking in. This encounter, which I'd normally rate at the "stupidly easy" level, wasn't; and caused them some headaches.

** - as opposed to true "wandering monsters" these Orcs had left via the same entrance earlier - the party had even found their tracks - and were returning just after nightfall as they were supposed to.

Lan-"the character of this name was in fact the one that started the brawl, long story"-efan

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

The bigger question is *should* the character (or player) ever be able to fully understand the risk, or know whether they can match their foe or not?

My answer is Yes, absolutely. Not being able to understand the risk or assess if you are overmatched means not being able to make intelligent choices, and thus having your character's fate determined by the random number generator alone with no ability to sway your odds meaningfully.

However there's also zero chance of a party getting lucky and taking out something they shouldn't

False.

...or a weak foe getting lucky and hammering the party

Also false.

..and this takes some of the fun out of it for me as player, never mind as DM.

My players report great enjoyment of it, and as a DM I find it more enjoyable than rolling damage was in the past because my turn is resolved in half as much time meaning less opportunity for the players' attention to wander while the assortment of foes are doing what they do.

But when randomness is minimized or removed entirely there's no odds to beat, and that's just not as exciting.

You are overestimating the effect of not rolling damage, and underestimating how thrilling situations like a party of 3rd level characters facing a pair of wraiths and managing to find victory without casualties are because those wraiths couldn't roll lower than average damage.

This encounter, which I'd normally rate at the "stupidly easy" level, wasn't; and caused them some headaches.

Such encounters can still play out in near exactly the same way when not rolling damage - I've specifically had it happen that a player get a string of low rolls at the same time that I got a string of high rolls so they spent 3 rounds getting hit by a goblin that would die in a single hit if the character could ever land one.

Basically, don't knock it until you try it, because you are completely misreading the effects of the difference in practice.

 

[Sunseeker]

My answer is Yes, absolutely. Not being able to understand the risk or assess if you are overmatched means not being able to make intelligent choices, and thus having your character's fate determined by the random number generator alone with no ability to sway your odds meaningfully.

I agree. It's like the saying: There are known knows, known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

There will always be something the players don't know, but they should be able to make a reasonable threat assessment about anything they're getting into, and of course, the less they know about something should generally be an indication that it is more dangerous.

 

[MechaPilot]

If it's appropriate for the campaign, then yes I do restrict what races can be chosen.

However, fantasy can excuse a lot of things.

Consider my homebrew setting. In it, there are no orcs. What if a player wanted to play an orc or half-orc character? Is there any real reason why the character couldn't have originated on another world and somehow ended up on my own world? Not really. Likewise, the character could also be a native who has been cursed or otherwise transformed into an orc or half-orc.

 

[Marandahir]

So, my generally ploy in my homebrew setting is to have races that fit the standard roles, but cast them in new forms. If I outright remove a race, rather than not having it in the game, I put it as extremely rare.

For example, Humans. They've been done a bit to death, and I decided I wanted two "Human-like" races – Half-elves and Goliaths – to take their place. But if someone REALLY had to be a Human, could not take no for an answer, then there are extremely rare cases where a Half-elf and a Goliath have a kid, and the result is the Mongrel that is a Human.

But usually, people play Human because they're versatile and because they're few assumptions on the race in terms of social casting. That means Half-elves are probably the way to go in my setting, where Half-elves aren't the mongrels, but the norm.

 

[S'mon]

My answer is Yes, absolutely. Not being able to understand the risk or assess if you are overmatched means not being able to make intelligent choices, and thus having your character's fate determined by the random number generator alone with no ability to sway your odds meaningfully.

I suspect you must be hiding your rolls. Roll your dice in the open and the players will see the monster's damage dice and get a good idea of its attack bonus & AC. Personally I'm happy to tell players those. You can definitely have knowledge plus randomness.

That said, in 4e I like static monster damage as a time saver, and because the dice rolled tend to be completely arbitrary, it's the average damage that is pre-set. 5e is more old school & I prefer rolling in 5e.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I suspect you must be hiding your rolls. Roll your dice in the open and the players will see the monster's damage dice and get a good idea of its attack bonus & AC. Personally I'm happy to tell players those. You can definitely have knowledge plus randomness.

I don't know if you meant to quote me or someone else - but I don't hide rolls from my players.

 

[Greg K]

I had a player play Jim Adler the "Village" Hammer once, and it was a blast. Of course, he actually chose to play a gnomish illusionist. He also happened to be a local advocate, and over time, he gathered followers that would tail the village security and report to them anytime someone was arrested. He would then show up at the jail and offer to serve as their advocate with the local constable. It added a ton of roleplaying. Consequently, the same player played a human bard named James Brown in another campaign, that also happened to add plenty of hillarity and excitement to the game. That was a 2nd edition campaign, and I loved the way he played the character so much, that I had to have a copy of the character sheet after the campaign ended. James Brown makes appearances is most of my campaigns at somepoint no matter what the edition I am using. Because its all about the story. I give in on game mechanics all the time because I want a great story.

To each their own. They don't sound awesome to me. I would walk out of games with those characters, because it not the style of game for which I am looking.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

My answer is Yes, absolutely. Not being able to understand the risk or assess if you are overmatched means not being able to make intelligent choices, and thus having your character's fate determined by the random number generator alone with no ability to sway your odds meaningfully.

I'm almost surprised people haven't accused me of making a sock-puppet here: I have said, if not word for word than at least idea for idea, the exact same thing in multiple threads now. Like, this is weirdly similar to my own beliefs on the subject. Not that I'm complaining! I absolutely believe that games should do everything they can to help players make informed choices, to learn from poorly made choices in the past, and to adapt their available tools and approaches in response to that learning. (It's part of why I like 4e as much as I do; its clarity, transparency, and openness to refluffing and retraining powerfully enables all three things.)

 

[Mouseferatu]

Huh. I'm always fascinated at people's different preferences.

Me? I wouldn't want a campaign that used average damage, as a player or as a DM. I like the extra level of randomness and uncertainty. I like having some idea, but also requiring some guesswork, in judging a challenge. (I've developed a brand new, largely random initiative system for several reasons, but one of which was that the standard cyclical initiative system of 3E-5E was way too ordered and predictable for my tastes.)