D&D 5E Greyhawk, and race options for Oerth PCs

[Zardnaar]

An all evil drow party, big challenge for the DM

Been their done that in 3E. The lolthite animated a bulette as a suitable mount.

 

[Dire Bare]

Wow.

I take such a completely different take on Greyhawk than many here. I look at this setting, which has space ships, people taking demon lords prisoner to become a god, ACTUAL gods walking around the setting, yak folk monks, and all sorts of other weirdness and wonder where the heck this idea that Greyhawk is humanocentric. There are serveral non-human nations, elven, dwarven, and places like Pomarj and the Bandit Kingdoms. All of this and people would be weirded out by a tiefling?

Naw, to me Greyhawk is the original kitchen sink. The whole point of the setting is that it has so many blank spaces that you can do anything with it. It's the DM's setting, far more than most published settings. Why would I want to limit it to a Tolkien pastiche with just the 4 basic races? Bleah. Talk about boring.

Hey, again, it's your Greyhawk, so, do what you want with it and that's great. Me, I'll stick to what I see as the original vision of Greyhawk, which is a little bit of everything D&D mixed into one cool setting.

Greyhawk, and other classic gaming and literary settings, certainly are jam-packed with weird and sentient creatures. Certainly, devil-people and dragon-people shouldn't stand out in that regard.

However, what exists in the setting and the make-up of the heroic adventuring party are two different things. In classic fantasy (and science fantasy!) stories, most of the heroes are human with only one or two being "strange" in some way. Star Wars is on my mind this week, and if you look at the OT "adventuring party" of Luke, Han, Leia, Lando, Chewie and the droids . . . . our weird or monstrous representative is of course Chewie. The droids are comic sidekicks/servants, everybody else is human. Most classic fantasy stories D&D is modeled after are similar. Elves, dwarves, and hobbits halflings are only one-step removed from mundane humanity, and don't seem as weird or monstrous as a Wookie, Dragonborn, or Tiefling.

As D&D and fantasy has evolved over the years . . . . we all want to play the "cool" races making our adventuring parties develop that "Mos Eisley Cantina" effect with straight-up human characters being the rarity sometimes!

Obviously, what race options are available is up to each group's tastes and there are no wrong answers. But to maintain that classic fantasy "feel" with the heroes being mostly human (or near-human elves, dwarves, etc), how do you encourage that without being the cranky DM who always says "No"?

I haven't DM'd in a while, but I've tossed around a "lottery" idea I might try during character and party creation. Put a bunch of tiles in a basket, with one tile marked "weird race", another "weird class", "legacy item", "driving backstory", or any other ideas that would be best limited to one or two PCs in the party. Each player draws a tile and can then use it, trade it with another player, or trade it in for an extra feat or something. The distribution of tiles can of course be customized for the feel of the campaign the DM wants to run.

 

[Zardnaar]

Greyhawk, and other classic gaming and literary settings, certainly are jam-packed with weird and sentient creatures. Certainly, devil-people and dragon-people shouldn't stand out in that regard.

However, what exists in the setting and the make-up of the heroic adventuring party are two different things. In classic fantasy (and science fantasy!) stories, most of the heroes are human with only one or two being "strange" in some way. Star Wars is on my mind this week, and if you look at the OT "adventuring party" of Luke, Han, Leia, Lando, Chewie and the droids . . . . our weird or monstrous representative is of course Chewie. The droids are comic sidekicks/servants, everybody else is human. Most classic fantasy stories D&D is modeled after are similar. Elves, dwarves, and hobbits halflings are only one-step removed from mundane humanity, and don't seem as weird or monstrous as a Wookie, Dragonborn, or Tiefling.

As D&D and fantasy has evolved over the years . . . . we all want to play the "cool" races making our adventuring parties develop that "Mos Eisley Cantina" effect with straight-up human characters being the rarity sometimes!

Obviously, what race options are available is up to each group's tastes and there are no wrong answers. But to maintain that classic fantasy "feel" with the heroes being mostly human (or near-human elves, dwarves, etc), how do you encourage that without being the cranky DM who always says "No"?

I haven't DM'd in a while, but I've tossed around a "lottery" idea I might try during character and party creation. Put a bunch of tiles in a basket, with one tile marked "weird race", another "weird class", "legacy item", "driving backstory", or any other ideas that would be best limited to one or two PCs in the party. Each player draws a tile and can then use it, trade it with another player, or trade it in for an extra feat or something. The distribution of tiles can of course be customized for the feel of the campaign the DM wants to run.

I kinda had this issue. Running Egyptian themed with some new options.

Outright said not Egypt humans would have some in game advantages, local knowledge etc.

Didn't end up with a single Not Egypt human.

Clown Parade.

Human not Italian.
Human not Viking
Aasimar (local at least)
Half Orc (from the deep desert)
Minotaur (local at least)
Ravenfolk (local at least).

FML.

In hindsight should have killed the campaign session 1 since the players didn't seem that interested in Egypt theme even if they picked it.

If you want to play clown car parade of races please pick that as a theme or lmk and I'll design the campaign around it.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Its a huge bummer to be told your favorite race "doesn't exist' and have to pick something else.

So, if someone wants to play a Wookie, or an Andorian, or a Narn, etc. you'd be fine with it? If someone wants to play Roland Deschain and there ain't no guns in your setting? If someone wants to play Doctor Manhattan and you're running Middle Earth? If someone wants to play a Gnome and you're running Dark Sun in the Age of Sorcerer-Kings? If someone wants to play a Cleric and you're running Dragonlance before The War of the Lance? If someone wants to play an Ithorian Jedi who has crash landed on the planet and you're running A Game of Thrones?

Stories have tone. Characters have settings that they belong to and settings they do not belong to. It's perfectly okay for certain characters to simply not belong in a given campaign. That's okay. Stick that character back in your binder and play them next time.

 

[Don Durito]

I kinda had this issue. Running Egyptian themed with some new options.

Outright said not Egypt humans would have some in game advantages, local knowledge etc.

Didn't end up with a single Not Egypt human.

Clown Parade.

Human not Italian.
Human not Viking
Aasimar (local at least)
Half Orc (from the deep desert)
Minotaur (local at least)
Ravenfolk (local at least).

FML.

Sometimes you just need to set a quota. This party must have 4 out of 6 humans. Than they have to sort out who really wants to be something else.

 

[Zardnaar]

Sometimes you just need to set a quota. This party must have 4 out of 6 humans. Than they have to sort out who really wants to be something else.

Yeah I would have been fine with 1-2 not Egypt humans and races like Ravenfolk are actually in the setting and that area. Same with Minotaurs as they're refugees.

Or just set it in a different part of the world.

 

[Dire Bare]

So, if someone wants to play a Wookie, or an Andorian, or a Narn, etc. you'd be fine with it? If someone wants to play Roland Deschain and there ain't no guns in your setting? If someone wants to play Doctor Manhattan and you're running Middle Earth? If someone wants to play a Gnome and you're running Dark Sun in the Age of Sorcerer-Kings? If someone wants to play a Cleric and you're running Dragonlance before The War of the Lance? If someone wants to play an Ithorian Jedi who has crash landed on the planet and you're running A Game of Thrones?

Stories have tone. Characters have settings that they belong to and settings they do not belong to. It's perfectly okay for certain characters to simply not belong in a given campaign. That's okay. Stick that character back in your binder and play them next time.

You are deliberately being hyperbolic and that doesn't add to the conversation.

It's reasonable to open the Player's Handbook, get excited about playing a dragonborn, tiefling, or elf, and then be bummed when your overly cranky "old school" DM says "No" to maintain a false sense of setting purity. At least, in a "standard" D&D game.

If a player has a character concept of playing a "Wookie" or an "Andorian" in a pseudo-medieval game of D&D? Why not? Easily done and not really much stranger than a dragonborn or even an elf. Use the racial stats of an elf, but give them blue skin and antennae. Player wants to build a Roland-style gunslinger? Swap out the guns for crossbows or wands . . . . use the Goliath racial stats, but make him super hairy and communicates in growls that everybody seems to understand, boom "Wookie"!

Now, as DM, if you are trying to create a certain tone and feel and want the party to be mostly human and/or "demihuman" . . . . then doing so thoughtfully is fine. This can model certain styles of storytelling that you might want to emulate in your game. But doing so thoughtfully and in concert with the players during a session zero will go a long way to making a fun game for everyone without gaining the rep of a cranky DM who always says "No" due to "reasons" . . . and even then you can probably find ways for players to create Wookies, Andorians, and gunslingers without breaking the tone/theme you're going for . . .

What irritates me when I'm joining a new group is when I ask the DM about the tone/feel/theme of the campaign and for guidelines for character creation . . . . and they can't really explain it but have a list of restrictions with arbitrary justifications. No dragonborn in my campaign! Why? Um, well, because? Gygax didn't invent them?

 

[Urriak Uruk]

I too dislike the menagerie party.

Tieflings = Iuz, killed on sight outside that empire's bounds.
Aasimar - killed on sight in evil lands.
Dragonborn - other side of Sea of Dust
Elves - drow are killed on sight. Other elves tend to the mystic.
Half-elves - vanishingly rare.
Dwarves - boring
Gnomes - just no.
Halflings - If you're starting in Greyhawk fine.
Centaurs - a party starting in the Bright Desert / Sulm might well be primarily centaurs.
Lizardfolk - southern jungles & swamps.
Minotaurs and all the rest - no. Most will be killed on sight.

Part of the problem - for me - is players not playing different races as, well, different.

I finally got around to reading my copy of Ghosts of Saltmarsh, and there is an NPC for every race here except for Aasimar, Dragonborn, Minotaur, and centaur.

And it's not like Saltmarsh is supposed to be a really cosmopolitan town. It's actually very intolerant based on how the dwarf and human populations react to each other.

 

[Oofta]

You are deliberately being hyperbolic and that doesn't add to the conversation.

It's reasonable to open the Player's Handbook, get excited about playing a dragonborn, tiefling, or elf, and then be bummed when your overly cranky "old school" DM says "No" to maintain a false sense of setting purity. At least, in a "standard" D&D game.

If a player has a character concept of playing a "Wookie" or an "Andorian" in a pseudo-medieval game of D&D? Why not? Easily done and not really much stranger than a dragonborn or even an elf. Use the racial stats of an elf, but give them blue skin and antennae. Player wants to build a Roland-style gunslinger? Swap out the guns for crossbows or wands . . . . use the Goliath racial stats, but make him super hairy and communicates in growls that everybody seems to understand, boom "Wookie"!

Now, as DM, if you are trying to create a certain tone and feel and want the party to be mostly human and/or "demihuman" . . . . then doing so thoughtfully is fine. This can model certain styles of storytelling that you might want to emulate in your game. But doing so thoughtfully and in concert with the players during a session zero will go a long way to making a fun game for everyone without gaining the rep of a cranky DM who always says "No" due to "reasons" . . . and even then you can probably find ways for players to create Wookies, Andorians, and gunslingers without breaking the tone/theme you're going for . . .

What irritates me when I'm joining a new group is when I ask the DM about the tone/feel/theme of the campaign and for guidelines for character creation . . . . and they can't really explain it but have a list of restrictions with arbitrary justifications. No dragonborn in my campaign! Why? Um, well, because? Gygax didn't invent them?

So let's say you want to join a game. The DM gives you a list of accepted races that includes standard other than dragonborn and tiefling. They're up front about it, it's in the preview campaign documentation.

I ask because as a DM I want to have a campaign world that makes sense to me. I just don't see a place for dragonborn in my world. They've simply never existed in the history of the campaign world that I've run for a very long time across multiple editions.

Is that really a show stopper for you? If it otherwise sounds like an interesting campaign?

 

[Hussar]

Why?
This is something i do not get about younger people, this "no limits, anything goes" above all other things.

I mean i get that you have no connection to older versions, but it seems to your generation that unless you have more choice than you ever need you feel restricted instead of challenged.

The real convo between DM and players should be rather like:
"i intend to run a greyhawk campaign (/darksun campaign / whatever classical setting /hpomebrew) and i want to allow following options because i got a good plot for these x being present there, but no plot for race y, and if someone insists on playing one i would have to do heavy retconning." (Insert anything you like for x or y even dragonborn)

So constructive players will take the second best choice they like then, which is hopefully present.

But it seems nowadays it is instead: "No matter what setting i do not care at all what lore i neeeeeed to play a x-race y-(multi-)class or i am out, i have absolutely no interest in everything else(/ feel insulted till the next stoneage) if i do not get exactly what i want (/to the letter)"

I exagerated a bit but that is the picture i get.

I'd point out that this is most certainly NOT a kids these days sort of thing. This has been part of things since pretty much day 1.

I don't understand why DM's get so worried about it either, to be honest. It's not like the character's race has to play front and center in the campaign anyway. Heck, I'd actually LOVE it if players would play up the race of their characters a bit more. But, if your campaign is so fragile that adding a dragonborn to it will shatter your enjoyment of the game, I really have to wonder just who is being more entitled here. Do you actually base campaigns off of the race of the PC's? "Oh, you're all human, so I guess I'll run this adventure, but, if two of you aren't human, I can't run it?" Really?