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?"

 

[Laurefindel]

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.

Sometimes it’s simply a matter of getting hold of previous material. I have some AD&D (1st and 2nd ed) and lots of 3rd ed material and so I keep playing a mish-mash of 1360s through 1370s FR, ignoring anything from the timeline during and post spell-plague. But for a lot of people, the 5e Sword Coast Adventure Guide and the tidbits of setting information in the adventures is what they have.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

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?"

I don't agree with it either, but it is something I have noticed, particularly in the last couple of years.

 

[cbwjm]

I don't agree with it either, but it is something I have noticed, particularly in the last couple of years.

I recall someone replying to me on Reddit when I said that you can't polymorph someone into a dinosaur because they don't exist in my setting, that I should include them because they were in the MM. Almost like they don't understand that everything in the books are just options.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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?"

yeah, but if when you invite someone to your 'indian cusine' party if they say "Hey, I don't like indian cusine, can you throw a burger on with it, or can I just bring Mc D's and enjoy the party?" most people that WANT there friends at the party will make some arrangement.

My personal experience is I don't like Chinese food. Several of my friends like it (one is really allergic to something they all seem to have in it, but we keep being told that is only America chinese food restaurants not the food itself) so when we are all hanging out (not that we do anymore...but in theory) if they want chinese food we go to the mall food court. They can get chinese and me and a few others can choose from cheese stake pizza or BK... you know what we figured out after college?

most people in the group that liked chinese food would choose something else when given the chance. I will never forget I was in my mid 20's when everyone but 2 of us wanted to go for chinese (there were 9 of us...again 1 allergic) and went to the mall... but only 2 GOT chinese food and one of the ones that WANTED chinese but got pizza said something to the effect of 'you know, I'm glad we came here, I much prefered pizza' and of the 7 that SAID they WANTED chinese, 4 of the 5 that didn't get it agreed (just insert what they got not all pizza).

It turned out (and to this day there are 5 of us left) that it was 1 or 2 people that wanted something and a group just going along, and it LOOKED like the out liers were saying they didn't... but those outliers were the majority just the only ones speaking up.

 

[Oofta]

yeah, but if when you invite someone to your 'indian cusine' party if they say "Hey, I don't like indian cusine, can you throw a burger on with it, or can I just bring Mc D's and enjoy the party?" most people that WANT there friends at the party will make some arrangement.

My personal experience is I don't like Chinese food. Several of my friends like it (one is really allergic to something they all seem to have in it, but we keep being told that is only America chinese food restaurants not the food itself) so when we are all hanging out (not that we do anymore...but in theory) if they want chinese food we go to the mall food court. They can get chinese and me and a few others can choose from cheese stake pizza or BK... you know what we figured out after college?

most people in the group that liked chinese food would choose something else when given the chance. I will never forget I was in my mid 20's when everyone but 2 of us wanted to go for chinese (there were 9 of us...again 1 allergic) and went to the mall... but only 2 GOT chinese food and one of the ones that WANTED chinese but got pizza said something to the effect of 'you know, I'm glad we came here, I much prefered pizza' and of the 7 that SAID they WANTED chinese, 4 of the 5 that didn't get it agreed (just insert what they got not all pizza).

It turned out (and to this day there are 5 of us left) that it was 1 or 2 people that wanted something and a group just going along, and it LOOKED like the out liers were saying they didn't... but those outliers were the majority just the only ones speaking up.

I would say being a DM is more like being the restaurant owner. You can decide that your menu will be just American Chinese* because that's what you want or you can decide that you will also provide burgers for people that don't like (or can't eat).

But as a DM I need to make a world that makes sense to me. I'll try to accommodate different people and their desires but I will never have an anthropomorphic elephant loxodon in my campaign.

*American Chinese is largely it's own style, it's not like a country with over a billion people has a single cuisine. Several things we think of as "Chinese food" are American fabrications.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I would say being a DM is more like being the restaurant owner.

this is why we clash so much I don't see the DM as owning the game (at least not any more or less then anyone else at the table)

 

[Cadence]

this is why we clash so much I don't see the DM as owning the game (at least not any more or less then anyone else at the table)

It feels like what he's getting at is that he won't run a game where he's not fairly happy with the set-up. Is that a controversial take?

I assume he doesn't expect players to play in one they aren't happy with either, and thus some DMs may choose never to run anything and some players may never find a game they want to play in.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It feels like what he's getting at is that he won't run a game where he's not fairly happy with the set-up. Is that a controversial take?

yes and no. If it was "Man I don't want to run darksun but I will run a homebrew dessert post apocalyptic setting" that's cool but we have over the last 2 years clashed repeatedly over his 'my way or the highway' DMing style.
Our clash (and why I can't imagine what made him think jumping in to respond to me responding to @reelo would be helpful at all) is almost always that I think the table as a whole needs to weigh things and make it work for the table, and he (and others on here) think the DM gets to be the final say, no matter what.

I assume he doesn't expect players to play in one they aren't happy with either, and thus some DMs may choose never to run anything and some players may never find a game they want to play in.

this strikes me as completely odd and is against all my experiences... in 1995 I made a game for my friends, 75% of games I ran since then all the way up to a month or so ago (last time I ran a campaign) that is what it is... we agree to being friends and playing BEFORE the setting and the game details...
now I have run at store's and con's where I wasn't friends at the start of the campaign with all my players, but by week 7 or 8 I was.

In my mind the idea that I would draw up a game idea (putting ANY amount of time into it) make up restrictions (no X or Y) then say "Only people who agree with this idea/world can play" is just ALIEN...

EVEN WORSE, I am imagining one of my friends coming to saterday night game (something we have played more or less the same group since 2003ish) and saying "here is my world" and when someone says "Cool I have this half orc idea" being told "No half orcs, no orcs" and when the question of "Why is there a reason" comes up the DM just saying "My game dude, play or don't I don't need a reason I said no orcs" doesn't even just feel ALEN, but aggressive and advasarial... what is the friend that wanted to play the half orc going to do, just quit hanging out with his friends on Saturdays?

TBH it almost seems like blackmail "if you want to spend your free time role playing with friends you have to do it MY way cause I am incharge"

 

[Cadence]

yes and no. If it was "Man I don't want to run darksun but I will run a homebrew dessert post apocalyptic setting" that's cool but we have over the last 2 years clashed repeatedly over his 'my way or the highway' DMing style.
Our clash (and why I can't imagine what made him think jumping in to respond to me responding to @reelo would be helpful at all) is almost always that I think the table as a whole needs to weigh things and make it work for the table, and he (and others on here) think the DM gets to be the final say, no matter what.

this strikes me as completely odd and is against all my experiences... in 1995 I made a game for my friends, 75% of games I ran since then all the way up to a month or so ago (last time I ran a campaign) that is what it is... we agree to being friends and playing BEFORE the setting and the game details...
now I have run at store's and con's where I wasn't friends at the start of the campaign with all my players, but by week 7 or 8 I was.

In my mind the idea that I would draw up a game idea (putting ANY amount of time into it) make up restrictions (no X or Y) then say "Only people who agree with this idea/world can play" is just ALIEN...

EVEN WORSE, I am imagining one of my friends coming to saterday night game (something we have played more or less the same group since 2003ish) and saying "here is my world" and when someone says "Cool I have this half orc idea" being told "No half orcs, no orcs" and when the question of "Why is there a reason" comes up the DM just saying "My game dude, play or don't I don't need a reason I said no orcs" doesn't even just feel ALEN, but aggressive and advasarial... what is the friend that wanted to play the half orc going to do, just quit hanging out with his friends on Saturdays?

TBH it almost seems like blackmail "if you want to spend your free time role playing with friends you have to do it MY way cause I am incharge"

For us, when it's time for a new game the potential DMs make pitches and the group tries to choose the one that made the most people happy.

Typically we have some back and forth about options.

I just don't see how "I want to run something set in Krynn (or somewhere with no Orcs) or in a historical setting (with no Orcs), or where everyone is a kobold..." Is that strange of a pitch.

Pitching a character idea that directly conflicts with a setting is fine. Needing to play that character that conflicts with it right now and not being able to find a back up character idea seems bizarre. I want players to pitch creative ideas. Always wanting to be the square peg for a round hole would annoy me. Same as DMs with no flexibility at all. ("How about a human who looks orcish for some reason? A curse? A pact?". "No, I want to be from a tribe of Orcs in your all human pseudo-France!").

 

[Vaalingrade]

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 is excluding them the point of Dragonlance?

I think that's really the heart of the debate. The appeal of DL to some seems to be the authorial nod to hedge out most player species.