D&D General The Importance of Page 33

[doctorbadwolf]

@doctorbadwolf ..I definitely wouldn’t want to play with a DM who views any compromise on their precious campaign vision to be bad gaming. ....
Every time I have compromise on something I really DIDN'T want. I got the short end of the stick. KEY WORDS "DIDN'T WANT". Those players became bad players. Skipping sessions after saying they be there. Wanting MORE and MORE changes. ETC. So If you don't want to compromise on your special PC vision, don't. I see you at bad movie night and see when you when you GM.
insert evil grin. Now have you made a decision on my super logical elf who has a magical martial weapon which requires save vs death or turn to ash. Oh my message stone allows me to call for a group teleport once an hour. insert evil grin.

Yeah you can “evil grin” all you want, those aren’t anything like the same sort of thing as letting someone play a human in my campaign where I had wanted to have no humans originally.

 

[Ancalagon]

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

Maybe, if there are warforged or artificers in my world. If not... wan wan waaaaaaaaan!!!!! /sad trumpet

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Isnt Mystare already the setting with the full range of possible furries? Cat-people on the moon? Full on fire arms next to medieval knight? Empire of greatly differing technological powers? Skyship or Gnome magi-tech flying city? Flamingo elves? And even worse: an 'hollow' at the center of the planet to house engendered species!

I'm a big fan of the setting class restrictions per race, they kinda are well explained in the setting. But...for restricting existing race? Nha, the setting already houses a ridiculous number of crazy gonzo races. Adding a dragongorn who emerged from the Hollow world or a warforged made by the gnomes does not seems far-fetched next to half of the actual races the setting already has

In addition, the Known World is much, much larger than the Mystara setting. For all we know, there could be a continent full of Dragonborns or Warforged out there.

 

[Coroc]

It's funny that almost everyone seems to frame this in terms of restricting playable character kith to whatever was in the Player's Handbook for 3.X (or 2e if you don't like half-orcs) or occasionally for Dark Sun enthusiasts to ban Gnomish rapier-wielding Paladins. The OP here is talking about banning Half-Elves and Half-Orcs (and Gnomes again) because they didn't exist in Classic D&D.

But it goes the other way, too.

It doesn't matter how "common" the PHB says a kith is-- in the DM's setting, it's exactly as common as the DM says it is. The only Player's Handbook kith that exist in my Shroompunk setting are Humans, with all of the others being mashups of supplemental PC kith and playable monsters. The setup of the setting might theoretically allow you to play a Dwarf, Elf, Halfling, or Gnome from a distant World... but by default the answer is "No." If I wanted to exclude Humans, I could have excluded Humans, too.

I like your post, but you said something about a dual gnome wielded by an oversized two handed rapier which was a holy sword in its past life or something along that line.
Shouldn't such an extraordinary race class combo exist in all settings per default and the DM be forced to go extraordinary steps just to shoehorn it in? Maybe if he cannot find any meaningful way, let us say he plans a darksun setting where neither rapiers nor gnomes exist, then just explain to be magic? Or if that doesn't work out then blame it on psionics?

 

[clearstream]

@doctorbadwolf ..I definitely wouldn’t want to play with a DM who views any compromise on their precious campaign vision to be bad gaming. ....

That's putting words in the mouths of DMs. The wonderful experience I'd like to offer has these particular races and cultures. If you'd like a different experience, I would not accuse you of bad gaming. Reframing your comment, do you believe that your precious character vision is more important than a DM's campaign vision? Would you accuse a DM of bad gaming if they chose to uphold their creative vision?

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Maybe, if there are warforged or artificers in my world. If not... wan wan waaaaaaaaan!!!!! /sad trumpet

ok, replace warforged for iron golem and artificer for wizard.

 

[Hussar]

Isnt Mystare already the setting with the full range of possible furries? Cat-people on the moon? Full on fire arms next to medieval knight? Empire of greatly differing technological powers? Skyship or Gnome magi-tech flying city? Flamingo elves? And even worse: an 'hollow' at the center of the planet to house engendered species!

I'm a big fan of the setting class restrictions per race, they kinda are well explained in the setting. But...for restricting existing race? Nha, the setting already houses a ridiculous number of crazy gonzo races. Adding a dragongorn who emerged from the Hollow world or a warforged made by the gnomes does not seems far-fetched next to half of the actual races the setting already has

Yeah, I gotta kinda wonder at the notion of Mystara as a "restrictive" setting. I mean, no tieflings, but, you have Diaboli. Lupins are there. As well as Rakasta. Mystara's a pretty gonzo setting where anything goes is pretty par for the course. I'm finding it pretty hard to imagine that dragonborn or tieflings would be terribly difficult to add in.

 

[DammitVictor]

Yeah, I gotta kinda wonder at the notion of Mystara as a "restrictive" setting. I mean, no tieflings, but, you have Diaboli. Lupins are there. As well as Rakasta. Mystara's a pretty gonzo setting where anything goes is pretty par for the course. I'm finding it pretty hard to imagine that dragonborn or tieflings would be terribly difficult to add in.

Dark Sun's got a lot of weird-ass races, too, and it's still defined by its exclusions. It doesn't matter whether a setting is "vanilla" or "gonzo", what matters is what's supposed to be a part of the setting and what isn't. Maybe you can use the tiefling rules to represent the Diaboli, with or without some adjustment, but Diaboli are part of the setting. Drow and Dragonborn aren't, Goliaths aren't, Thri-Kreen aren't.

Other side of the coin, Dragonlance is as vanilla as it gets, but Dragonborn are a perfect fit-- as long as you remember to flip their alignments.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Dark Sun's got a lot of weird-ass races, too, and it's still defined by its exclusions. It doesn't matter whether a setting is "vanilla" or "gonzo", what matters is what's supposed to be a part of the setting and what isn't. Maybe you can use the tiefling rules to represent the Diaboli, with or without some adjustment, but Diaboli are part of the setting. Drow and Dragonborn aren't, Goliaths aren't, Thri-Kreen aren't.

Other side of the coin, Dragonlance is as vanilla as it gets, but Dragonborn are a perfect fit-- as long as you remember to flip their alignments.

I don't know that Dark Sun is defined by its exclusions. It only excluded one race in 2E - gnomes. In 4E it had all the PHB races.

 

[Dire Bare]

Dark Sun's got a lot of weird-ass races, too, and it's still defined by its exclusions. It doesn't matter whether a setting is "vanilla" or "gonzo", what matters is what's supposed to be a part of the setting and what isn't. Maybe you can use the tiefling rules to represent the Diaboli, with or without some adjustment, but Diaboli are part of the setting. Drow and Dragonborn aren't, Goliaths aren't, Thri-Kreen aren't.

Other side of the coin, Dragonlance is as vanilla as it gets, but Dragonborn are a perfect fit-- as long as you remember to flip their alignments.

I think trying to keep fidelity to a setting as written is a fool's quest. Restricting racial options in Mystara . . . because dammit that race doesn't currently exist in Mystara . . . is an attitude of "no" and exclusion I like to avoid in my games. But restricting racial options to achieve a specific theme, tone, or feel . . . that I can get behind and respect.

Mystara doesn't really have a tight theme. It's a mish-mash of classic D&D tropes, silly humor, and D&D-but-different elements. Adding in classic tieflings, dragonborn or practically anything doesn't "break" the setting IMO. I'd have a hard time respecting a DM who told me, "Sorry, but you can't play a dragonborn as they don't exist in Mystara".

Other campaign settings more closely try to emulate a specific sub-genre, tone, or feel, like Birthright, Ravenloft, and Dark Sun. Trying to pare down the character options to better model the campaign feel makes sense, although of course I think some DM's take it too far. A good DM always remembers that D&D is a collaborative game and will be open to player ideas . . . those too stuck on their precious campaign integrity, published or homebrew, are games I find less fun. On the flip-side, good players are open to the ideas of the DM and should be willing to give their campaign ideas an honest try.

Any published setting is simply intended as a place for you to start, and D&D has always encouraged DM's to modify and customize published settings. Sticking to them as written just for the sake of respecting canon, bleh.