D&D General D&D, magic, and the mundane medieval

[Paul Farquhar]

If I didn't want orcs in my game as a DM, why would I want them as a player?

If you don't want orcs then you don't need to have them.

Why do you want other players at other tables not to have orcs?

 

[Micah Sweet]

If you don't want orcs then you don't need to have them.

Why do you want other players at other tables not to have orcs?

In this hypothetical scenario, I would not want other players at my table to have orcs. If they want them anyway, and I'm not running the game, and its a deal-breaker for them or me, I would walk away.

 

[Hussar]

Well one should always play what’s fun.

But it does seem rather extreme. And it does mean that finding tables is going to be a challenge.

 

[humble minion]

Personally I don't see any actual need for orcs in dragonlance, given hobgoblins, minotaurs, and draconians are all right there and well-established in the setting, and pretty much have you covered for all your 'looming thuggy bad guy' and 'big beefy PC race with bad reputation' needs. And I wouldn't particularly want to play in a Dragonlance game that was all about orcs, because that's not the point of Dragonlance. But if a GM or player desperately wanted to have a bunch of orcs swept up alongside all the goblins and hobgoblins etc in the Dragonarmies, I could deal. I mean, I play in a FR campaign set in 'modern' Faerun and I still find most of the setting changes introduced to FR since 4th ed to be annoying and pointless, and I still manage to have fun there.

 

[Hussar]

Personally I don't see any actual need for orcs in dragonlance, given hobgoblins, minotaurs, and draconians are all right there and well-established in the setting, and pretty much have you covered for all your 'looming thuggy bad guy' and 'big beefy PC race with bad reputation' needs. And I wouldn't particularly want to play in a Dragonlance game that was all about orcs, because that's not the point of Dragonlance. But if a GM or player desperately wanted to have a bunch of orcs swept up alongside all the goblins and hobgoblins etc in the Dragonarmies, I could deal. I mean, I play in a FR campaign set in 'modern' Faerun and I still find most of the setting changes introduced to FR since 4th ed to be annoying and pointless, and I still manage to have fun there.

Honestly? I probably agree. I wouldn't bother using orcs in my Dragonlance campaign and I certainly, as a player, would never insist that I had to play one. That's just not something I'd do. But, again, it's certainly not going to break anything either. I've certainly had to deal with weirder character concepts than a half orc.

As far as FR goes though, what changes? They reset nearly everything, AFAIK, to pre-4e and, other than maybe the dates being a bit off, there's absolutely no reason you cannot use older FR material in current games. I mean, good grief, my players are currently under the Cloister of Saint Ramedar. That's all stuff that was developed back in 2e. It's really not much of a change.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

In this hypothetical scenario, I would not want other players at my table to have orcs. If they want them anyway, and I'm not running the game, and its a deal-breaker for them or me, I would walk away.

Which is fine, I would go the same way. But players who want orcs can have orcs, just as they could in 1982, that not something WotC has changed.

There is a currently a culture amongst some players that if it's in the rules it has to be allowed at the table, but that's all on those players, it has nothing to do with WotC.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which is fine, I would go the same way. But players who want orcs can have orcs, just as they could in 1982, that not something WotC has changed.

There is a currently a culture amongst some players that if it's in the rules it has to be allowed at the table, but that's all on those players, it has nothing to do with WotC.

I agree. I play homebrew, and my world makes allowances for pretty much anything. I feel published settings are a different beast, however, and should stay true to what they are.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I agree. I play homebrew, and my world makes allowances for pretty much anything. I feel published settings are a different beast, however, and should stay true to what they are.

I don't see evidence that the published settings are changing to the degree you think though. If orcs actually appear in the new Dragonlance adventure, I will admit to being wrong, but I don't think that is remotely likely. Sure, DMs can choose to allow orc PCs, but that has always been the case. Every setting becomes homebrew once people start playing in it. There is no "true" version of a setting.

Consider DL1. When you play it, it perfectly possible for Tanis to die, romance Rastalin, or be Sir Not-Appearing-In-This-Adventure.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't see evidence that the published settings are changing to the degree you think though. If orcs actually appear in the new Dragonlance adventure, I will admit to being wrong, but I don't think that is remotely likely. Sure, DMs can choose to allow orc PCs, but that has always been the case. Every setting becomes homebrew once people start playing in it. There is no "true" version of a setting.

Consider DL1. When you play it, it perfectly possible for Tanis to die, romance Rastalin, or be Sir Not-Appearing-In-This-Adventure.

Fair enough. I'm done fighting over it anyway. We'll just have to see what they release.

 

[reelo]

There is a currently a culture amongst some players that if it's in the rules it has to be allowed at the table.

Something that I absolutely disagree with. The Rulebooks are akin to a giant recipe book. If I throw an "indian cusine" dinner party and somebody gets upset because there are no sushi rolls and enchiladas, I'll just shrug and say "Tough luck! There's Murgh Makhani, though, and Rogan Josh, and Aloo Gobi, even Pakoras, and Naan, and Biryani. Why don't you try those?"