D&D General The Importance of Page 33

[Ancalagon]

To those who say to accommodate players with an idea that doesn't fit.

So... would you let your players play Darth Vader/cybernetic Sith Lord? How about Winston/hyper-intelligent ape scientist from Overwatch?

 

[QuentinGeorge]

To those who say to accommodate players with an idea that doesn't fit.

So... would you let your players play Darth Vader/cybernetic Sith Lord? How about Winston/hyper-intelligent ape scientist from Overwatch?

You mean an oathbreaker paladin with warforged parts attached to his burned body, and an awakened ape artificer?

 

[clearstream]

You mean an oathbreaker paladin with warforged parts attached to his burned body, and an awakened ape artificer?

Interesting line of thought. So in our hypothetical no-spell-casters campaign, I can reskin my wizard character as a martial and use my spells mechanically as written?

 

[Dire Bare]

I'd just say this: There is no obligation to include any particular race, but if a player in you game wants to play a particular race, it is a service to the player to be able to accommodate them. Players often have odd concepts for PCs, and if DMs are too restrictive in their setting, the PCs never get a chance to hit the table.

This.

Like Glen, I'm a Mystara fan. I don't feel the need to add warforged to my campaign just to keep up with the latest D&D technology . . . but if an individual player wanted to play a warforged character in my Mystara game . . . we'd find a way to make it work. But no sense in twisting your brain about how to add in the whole zoo crew before your campaign even gets rolling.

 

[Dire Bare]

I was converting the Mystara setting to 5th and I got people asking me to shoehorn in Tieflings, Dragonborn, Drow, Half-Orcs, Half-Elves, and other races that were not found in the original setting. It is a fairly unique setting that had its own races not found outside of Mystara. I was trying to explain to people that the non-canon races were staying out, I wasn't going to add them just because the Forgotten Realms had them. Then I found the one line in the PHB that explained it better than I ever could.

"The Dragonborn and the rest of the races in this chapter are uncommon. They don't exist in every world of D&D, and even where they are found, they are less widespread than dwarves, elves, halflings, and humans."

What you leave out of a setting is just as important as what you leave in. Dragonlance famously ditched halflings for Kender and was drow and orc free (with a few continuity errors). Birthright also ditched orcs. Dark Sun committed genocide on a scale none of the other settings can even dream of matching. Ravenloft retconned out its drow (for licensing reasons). These omissions didn't lower the quality of any of the settings.

Strategic removal of races can make for some fantastic settings. For the MTG crowd, Llorwyn had no humans, and Innistrad had nothing but humans. If you only allow elves, nagpa, halflings and aranea you get Dark Crystal. Tieflings, goblins, humans, and dwarves give you Legend. Lupin, goblins, sidhe, and whatever those fire guys were makeup Labyrinth. If you take humans, orcs, Cirque du Soleil lesbian hippie amazons and no talent for film making whatsoever, and you get Dungeon Siege: In the Name of the King. You don't have to add everything to every setting, sometimes less is much more.

Regarding Mystara specifically . . . I agree with other posters that Mystara is a kitchen-sink setting that makes adding in the newer races pretty easy without breaking the setting. Other campaign settings I think do require a bit more fidelity to the original concept, but not so much Mystara! Besides, the setting changed and evolved rapidly as "basic" D&D evolved itself through the boxed sets (Expert, Companion, Masters, and Immortal) and even beyond the core 5 boxed sets. It ended up as crazy, perhaps even moreso, than the Realms and Greyhawk.

• Half-elves: It is a part of Mystara "lore" that half-elves don't exist . . . but later they were introduced! It's been a while so my memory is faulty, but the race that lives in Thanegia, the Serpent Peninsula, among those seashell looking buildings, were described as a race of half-elves! And a half-elven race with a pseudo-African theme, rather than pseudo-Celtic! I got a kick out of that back in the day! In my personal campaign, I'd decided that children from elf-human parents were rare, when children did occur they were usually sterile (not able to have kids themselves) and usually took strongly after one of their parents in appearance (and game stats), and super rarely would we get an actual AD&D style half-elf . . . and in some corners of the world, we got enough to form an entire culture! But if you asked most elves, they'd deny that "half-elves" were possible . . .
• Tieflings: I like giving the Diaboli story to the Tiefling racial stats. I also like making the "nightmare magic" of the realm Diaboli come from essentially psionics. In fact, that's how I worked psionics into my Mystara game, as the domain of the diaboli who had a settlement way up north in Norwold.
• Drow: The Shadow Elves fit into the drow niche in Mystara, but yet we have a drow depicted on the cover of the Alfheim Gazetteer! In my personal campaign, drow weren't evil elves living underground, but were like reverse albinos. Elves are naturally pasty pale, but every once in a while an elf is randomly born with jet black skin and snow white hair . . . these children are even more magically gifted than the average elf, and destined for great things . . . .

Essentially, whenever D&D added something new that I thought was cool, I came up with a loose story about how it fit into my Mystara campaign. Sometimes players would pick up those options, more often they wouldn't, but I always had fun world-building. And I never felt that any of the additions broke the setting in any way.

Now, if I were to run a Dark Sun game, I'd probably stick to the player options presented in the initial boxed set. When WotC updated the setting for 3rd and then 4th edition, they tried too hard to make a place for racial and class options that weren't in the original game, and it did dilute the setting, IMO.

How and when to add things is of course up to the individual DM and whether it's "right" or not depends on the campaign tone and style the DM is going for. Some campaigns easily take in wacky additions, others not so much. I do agree with some other posters that a good DM crafts his campaign, and it's restrictions, with their players in mind. I've played in more than a few games where the only person having fun was the DM!

 

[Li Shenron]

I'd just say this: There is no obligation to include any particular race, but if a player in you game wants to play a particular race, it is a service to the player to be able to accommodate them. Players often have odd concepts for PCs, and if DMs are too restrictive in their setting, the PCs never get a chance to hit the table.

Yes and no.

I would try to understand better why such player would insist on a specific character that doesn't fit the story, before accomodating. Some people are naturally drawn to challenge the rules: if you propose a heroic game they ask you if they can play an evil character, if you organize an all-evil campaign they just have to be the oddball redeemed villain, if you say core-only then casually it will be that time when they really really wanted to play a half-unicorn/half-warforged jedi psion-artificer please...

Insisting on a character concept at odds with the campaign theme, story or setting can be the symptom of an underlying attitude which can later damage everyone's fun.

Perhaps it is because the player only cares about her own agenda i.e. has a great story in mind for HER, and will play against the others and the adventures if it doesn't happen.

Or perhaps he has too much of a here-and-now attitude, and cannot accept playing something else that what's in his mind NOW.

When I get someone asking for an unfitting character I just tell them that if they put it aside for now in exchange for a more appropriate character, I promise I will organize the NEXT campaign (or at least a one-shot) around their unfitting PC. A player who is unable to accept the idea tells me they don't see themselves sticking around for long, so why should we twist our whole game to accommodate them, only to see them leave after a short while?

In brief, if a player doesn't seem interested and willing to service the group, why should the group service them?

 

[Ath'kethin]

Yes and no.

I would try to understand better why such player would insist on a specific character that doesn't fit the story, before accommodating.

[snip]

In brief, if a player doesn't seem interested and willing to service the group, why should the group service them?

Absolutely this.

For example, I ran a campaign once in a setting where I had decided there were no full casters except warlocks. One of my players really wanted to play a druid, but it turned out that what they REALLY wanted was a character that felt more comfortable around animals than humans/people. So that PC ended up a warlock devoted to Shub-Niggurath using the variant 14th level class features presented in the Primeval Thule Player's Companion. Specifically, that option replaced the warlock's normal 14th level ability with the druid's Wild Shape ability. The player wanted to play something not in the setting (as I had defined it anyway), but by exploring WHY he wanted to play the character he did we were able to accommodate those reasons.

Incidentally, that ended up being my favorite campaign I'd run (or played in) for over 20 years, and that player still raves about how great it was.

 

[clearstream]

...a good DM crafts his campaign, and it's restrictions, with their players in mind.

One kind of good DM might craft their campaign, and its restrictions, with their players in mind. Other kinds of good DM might craft their campaign, and its restrictions, with the experience they want to offer in mind. Either can work.

I've played in more than a few games where the only person having fun was the DM!

I don't believe that problem is settled by allowing players to bring into a campaign whatever races (reskinned or otherwise) that they desire. Of the struggling tables that I have observed, it has never been the main problem. A common cause of unfun sessions is lack of confidence: where a DM is nervous, or unsure, about upholding choices they have made.

 

[S'mon]

I think it behooves the GM to offer alternates where possible. There are no Dragonborn in Primeval Thule (they REALLY don't fit the setting), but I worked with one player who wanted one to come up with a 'half-giant' frost giant's son Goliath instead, and a second player to come up with a cool concept for a lizardfolk shaman PC.

 

[Bitbrain]

For me, it all depends on the “elevator pitch” at session 0.

If the initial presentation of the campaign depicts a world that has a very specific theme and feel to it, and the DM announces which PC races and classes they believe are thematically appropriate for their world... then yes, I will happily choose from the options they provide.

Otherwise, no. I won’t be satisfied unless you let me play what I want to play.

EDIT
Here’s hoping WOTC lets you release the book! I’m certainly enjoying watching your YouTube channel.