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

[Don Durito]

I like Variant Humans, because they vary immensely, and allow you to have more freedom when creating your character. If you like, this can take the role of "cultural differences".

That's true - but in some ways that openness can make them seem vanilla. It's great for the player who wants options but not so great for the player who just wants a clear and simple hook to get them into the game.

 

[generic]

That's true - but in some ways that openness can make them seem vanilla. It's great for the player who wants options but not so great for the player who just wants a clear and simple hook to get them into the game.

But, humanity is not clear or simply defined. People are extremely varied, as are Elves, and Dwarves, and such.

 

[Oofta]

Honestly?

This sends up red flags to me. This suggests (and it may certainly be not true, only suggests) an inflexible DM who is opposed to new ideas and, frankly, if the DM is either incapable of adding or unwilling to add something as simple as a new race to a D&D game, what else is the DM going to be inflexible about? If I want to pursue some goal for my character, is the DM simply going to veto that because it doesn't make sense to him or her? If I want to play my character in this or that way, is the DM going to object because it doesn't make sense to him or her? Where does the line get drawn?

Now, this might totally be a non-issue. The DM might be perfectly fine. But, having been bitten by this sort of thing far too many times in the past, where overly controlling and overbearing DM's have tried to justify their actions by claiming setting purity, I would be very leery about joining the game unless I knew the DM from beforehand.

In a totally new DM? That I'd just met? Yeah, it would likely result in my thanking the DM politely but declining to play. Sorry, but, I've just been bitten too many times by this.

With that kind of attitude I'm probably not the DM for you. Hardly the end of the world, but my campaign has to be grounded and make sense to me first before I let some rando join the game.

I've enjoyed playing a wide variety of races including warforged, dragonborn and a gnoll. But that was in LFR/AL which I don't take seriously anyway.

 

[generic]

With that kind of attitude I'm probably not the DM for you. Hardly the end of the world, but my campaign has to be grounded and make sense to me first before I let some rando join the game.

I've enjoyed playing a wide variety of races including warforged, dragonborn and a gnoll. But that was in LFR/AL which I don't take seriously anyway.

Would you say that "there is no one true way, if you and your group are having fun you're doing it right."?

 

[Oofta]

Would you say that "there is no one true way, if you and your group are having fun you're doing it right."?

Sure. But not every DM is right for every player and vice versa. There are several reasons for that, one is wanting a more grounded* campaign instead of an anything goes campaign.

*not really sure "grounded" is the right word. But "not looking like Mos Eisley's Cantina" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue either.

 

[Salthorae]

*not really sure "grounded" is the right word. But "not looking like Mos Eisley's Cantina" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue either.

homogeneous?

 

[Don Durito]

Sure. But not every DM is right for every player and vice versa. There are several reasons for that, one is wanting a more grounded* campaign instead of an anything goes campaign.

*not really sure "grounded" is the right word. But "not looking like Mos Eisley's Cantina" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue either.

Grounded seems like the right word to me.

Sometimes, even if you can fit them in the setting you don't want characters who are outsiders to the setting. If I was playing a game in Fantasy China, I would probably look askance at the players if they all wanted to be characters wandering in from India, or Fantasy Europe. One outsider I might be ok with, but I would want some buy in to the basic conceits of the setting.

If the NPCs are talking about whether or not the Emperor has lost the mandate of heaven if it would be nice if they had created characters who had reason to take the concept seriously and not view it from the outside as some kind of superstition.

If the main kingdoms of the setting are human, and they're the ones under threat of invasion in the planned campaign, it would be nice if at least some of the players would agree to have something personal at stake.

 

[Zardnaar]

Grounded seems like the right word to me.

Sometimes, even if you can fit them in the setting you don't want characters who are outsiders to the setting. If I was playing a game in Fantasy China, I would probably look askance at the players if they all wanted to be characters wandering from India, or Fantasy Europe. One outsider I might be ok with, but I would want some buy in to the basic conceits of the setting.

If the NPCs are talking about whether or not the Emperor has lost the mandate of heaven if it would be nice if they had created characters who had reason to take the concept seriously and not view it from the outside as some kind of superstition.

Problem with allowing one outsider is if anyone else wants one.

Then you end up with half or more of the party being outsiders.

 

[Oofta]

homogeneous?

How about "not wanting a campaign world that has all the 40-ish races listed in official books because it starts looking like a fantasy version of a cos-play convention"?

 

[Zardnaar]

How about "not wanting a campaign world that has all the 40-ish races listed in official books because it starts looking like a fantasy version of a cos-play convention"?

Gonzo.

I don't like to Gonzo Spelljammer us kinda an exception as it's designed that way.