D&D 5E SURVIVOR Supplement Edition--Volo's Guide Wins!

[happyhermit]

Happy.



Seriously though, I always have mixed feelings around these threads and I usually avoid them because I don't like voting stuff down that other people like. Most of these things are beloved by many and are works of art that people put a lot of sweat and thought into. I think I am pretty passionate about ttrpgs and have fairly specific preferences, but it's pretty hard for me to really hate on much of anything, though that's obviously not the case for many, which is fine.

I am not a huge fan of monstrous races generally, but they have been a useful tool at times, got a lot of mileage out of Tabaxi in particular. I really like Volo's on the whole, a bigger book might have been nice.

 

[Gradine]

I'm just happy that the one I wanted from the start won one of these finally. I'm also pretty excited to have gotten the final vote, never managed that before.

I've never understood the issue with monster races before, but then I generally play in Eberron, where that kind of thing is sort of the norm.

 

[Eltab]

I think the winner inevitable at this point lol

… I've seen other Survivor threads where adherents of #3 and #2 ganged up to wipe out #1 ...

 

[JonnyP71]

I've never understood the issue with monster races before, but then I generally play in Eberron, where that kind of thing is sort of the norm.

I guess this is where grognardiness comes to the fore for some of us.... I dislike Eberron, and am only really comfortable running (and playing) in a more old-school setting built around some of the tenets of real world Medieval history, Tolkien and 1E expectations. Greyhawk is very much my world of choice - pre wars. I would never allow monstrous race PCs in a game I DM unless the party was entirely comprised of one race, because the hatred between races (and even tribes within a race) is very real, and unsurmountable - Elves will ALWAYS hate Hobgoblins with no exceptions. Gnomes and Kobolds are mortal enemies - and my Kobolds are NOT draconic! Plus, Half Orcs are almost always the product of sexual violence between a male Orc and a Human Female, as a loving relationship between the races is not possible, and any human female who has a willing sexual relationship is totally depraved. These aspects of my game lore are non-negotiable.

That why Volo's, to me, is little more than another Monster Manual - albeit a very good one, as the sections of monster ecology are excellent

It's the love of history, and developing a somewhat grounded, more historical feel in my games, that made Creative Campaigning really resonate with me when I 1st set eyes on it recently - because there are sections in it that promote and assist with my desired style of play. I work on trying to ensure technology and social attitudes align with the time-period too, and frequently use themes of religious, racial and sexual persecution, especially in defining the attitudes of the enemy. I guess the modern ideal of an anything goes, heroic from the outset, everything is redeemable style of fantasy just ain't my thing.

 

[Maxperson]

I guess this is where grognardiness comes to the fore for some of us.... I dislike Eberron, and am only really comfortable running (and playing) in a more old-school setting built around some of the tenets of real world Medieval history, Tolkien and 1E expectations. Greyhawk is very much my world of choice - pre wars. I would never allow monstrous race PCs in a game I DM unless the party was entirely comprised of one race, because the hatred between races (and even tribes within a race) is very real, and unsurmountable - Elves will ALWAYS hate Hobgoblins with no exceptions. Gnomes and Kobolds are mortal enemies - and my Kobolds are NOT draconic! Plus, Half Orcs are almost always the product of sexual violence between a male Orc and a Human Female, as a loving relationship between the races is not possible, and any human female who has a willing sexual relationship is totally depraved. These aspects of my game lore are non-negotiable.

For my part, I think that there are always exceptions to the rule. Even in 2e, there was a demoness in Planescape that was good and the PCs were trying to help her escape or something. You say that half-orcs are always the product of sexual violence, but orcs are also not universally evil. I could see a scenario where a non-evil orc rescues a woman from his tribe and as she gets to know him during the journey back, starts to fall for him, and him with her. An alternate Beauty and the Beast tale as it were.

That said, I'm a tad disappointed that it was a monster book that won. I think the other two offered a lot more to the game.

 

[JonnyP71]

but orcs are also not universally evil.

They are in my games... The only good Orc is a dead Orc. (same goes for Drow, Duergar, Gnolls, Hobgobs, Goblins and Kobolds)

 

[Maxperson]

They are in my games... The only good Orc is a dead Orc. (same goes for Drow, Duergar, Gnolls, Hobgobs, Goblins and Kobolds)

Which is fine, but that's homebrew to your game. In D&D, they have not been universally evil.

 

[JonnyP71]

Going back to the 1E modules which pretty much set my expectations in stone in my youth, I don't remember seeing a single instance of any of them being anything other than evil... I know the possibility was hinted at in snippets buried away in the hardback books, but never saw it happen in practice. And between 1983 and 1992 when I initially played, the 1E modules published between 1978 and 1985 WERE my D&D stories, along with mostly failed teenage attempts to recreate the Tolkien stories. Were they any 'non-evil' Orcs in Tolkien? If so I don't remember them.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I believe Gary Gygax himself was OK with monstrous races, saying that he had no problems if someone played a dragon, as long as they started at level 1. I don't know if that's the exact quote, but I remember Mike Monard saying that of Gary more than a few times.

 

[TwoSix]

I believe Gary Gygax himself was OK with monstrous races, saying that he had no problems if someone played a dragon, as long as they started at level 1. I don't know if that's the exact quote, but I remember Mike Monard saying that of Gary more than a few times.

To be fair, he contradicted himself on this over time. In "Men and Magic", circa 1974, he said that referees should be willing to accommodate whatever players might be interested in. By the time the 1E DMG came out, around 1980, the DMG explicitly said that he thought that playing monsters was a bad idea (and might indicate some psychological issues by the person desiring to do so!)