Do We Really Need Half-Elves and Half-Orcs?

[Dessert Nomad]

I don’t think that’s really what I’m putting forth. At all.

I think that is what's being put forth by the 'you can shoehorn it in, why aren't you doing that?' crowd, which you're supporting. The question keeps getting framed as is "Is it possible to somehow mangle the setting only mildly to give this one guy what he wants" without regard to the fact that doing so runs explicitly counter to what the DM (and probably other players) actually want. Phrasing like "we've established that it's possible" leads right into "so you need a really good reason not to do this" with a subtext of "you're a bad GM who's power tripping against this innocent victim if you don't do it".

If we assume the worst motives about either side, then yes....it’s a case of someone who’s being a jerk, either the player or the DM.

Assuming the worst motives is pointless, if a DM just wants to piss players off then the whole game is dysfunctional, and if it's literally the worst then he's only hosting the game to lure players into his basement so he can murder them and eat their flesh, which is way outside the scope of this argument. Assuming that a DM wants to run a game that he's stated his intent to run with the setting he's described, however, is not making a big, nor is assuming that at least some of the other players also share this vision. And observing that the gnomophile wants to play a gnome in spite of it clashing with the wants of the DM and probably other players requires no assumptions at all.

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

Usually, with my group, one of us says, "Hey I want to DM a new campaign, what kind of game do people want to play?"

Then the DM might say, "I was thinking homebrew XYZ, which is low magic and only humans."

And someone else might say, "that's neat can we do a thief's campaign in that setting?"

And if someone says, "cool! If you dm, I'd like to play a gnome!"

To me that says, "I don't want to play in your homebrew setting where it's low magic and only humans." That's the player's vote. If they get outvoted, they can choose to play with the setting or they can choose not to play.

Or maybe the group finds some kind of compromise where the gnome fits, somehow... but it probably won't be the originally proposed human-only campaign setting the DM was originally thinking.

 

[Gammadoodler]

Just because it 'can be done' doesn't mean it should be done; I certainly don't think someone attempting to run a WW2-era Call of Cthulhu game should allow dragonborn PCs, for example. There seems to be an assumption by a number of people here that the desire of one player to play a race that doesn't fit the background is the only desire for the campaign that matters, which is weird. Why does the DM's desire to run an actual Dark Sun game automatically lose to gnomeophile, instead of the other way around? And if we put it to a vote, why wouldn't the vote of five players and a DM who want an actual Dark Sun game not win over gnomeophile's desire to play in a variant Dark Sun world? If gnomeophile really only wants to run a gnome, it's not like there's a shortage of games with gnomes allowed.

I find this line of argument to be extremely selfish and unfriendly, and the gnomeophile comes off pretty bad; "I know all of you want to do X, but I want to do Y and so I'll guilt trip you until you give up X and do Y."

To me, there are different circumstances and motives at work. It's not a matter of "players should be able to choose whatever they want". It's "has the player demonstrated an understanding of the world and how their character would fit into it?". The "I just like playing x race" player and the "I'd like to explore playing a character in a world where their race is supposed to be extinct." player are different cases and should be treated differently (assuming the player normally acts in good faith and the group is comfortable with them).

If it takes more twisting of the world than the DM is comfortable with, maybe it doesn't work out in either case. The point is that the DM can afford to be thoughtful regarding what will "break" their setting for players that are making good faith efforts to engage with it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think that is what's being put forth by the 'you can shoehorn it in, why aren't you doing that?' crowd, which you're supporting. The question keeps getting framed as is "Is it possible to somehow mangle the setting only mildly to give this one guy what he wants" without regard to the fact that doing so runs explicitly counter to what the DM (and probably other players) actually want. Phrasing like "we've established that it's possible" leads right into "so you need a really good reason not to do this" with a subtext of "you're a bad GM who's power tripping against this innocent victim if you don't do it".

No, I’m not really saying you can shoehorn it in. That has a connotation that implies a heavy-handedness that I don’t think is necessary.

There are degrees to how a seemingly incongruous element can be incorporated into a setting. Exactly how depends on the element, the setting, how much they may seem to clash, and the DM and players involved.

The default expectation from most people’s posts in this thread is that when this happens, the onus is on the player to adapt. I’m not saying that should never be the case. Not by any means. What I am saying is that te DM should consider making changes as well. That should be on the table. Most likely, something can be worked out.

I also advocate this approach becase I’ve found that it really helps players be engaged in the story and the world, and it forces me to think of creative solutions. So generally speaking, when a player has made such a request in my game and I’ve agreed, it’s actually had a positive impact on our game. Sometimes in multiple ways.

Assuming the worst motives is pointless, if a DM just wants to piss players off then the whole game is dysfunctional, and if it's literally the worst then he's only hosting the game to lure players into his basement so he can murder them and eat their flesh, which is way outside the scope of this argument. Assuming that a DM wants to run a game that he's stated his intent to run with the setting he's described, however, is not making a big, nor is assuming that at least some of the other players also share this vision. And observing that the gnomophile wants to play a gnome in spite of it clashing with the wants of the DM and probably other players requires no assumptions at all.

You’re assuming the worst motives on the part of the player. That he has no reason other than selfishness to want to play a particular race. So set that aside. Drop assuming the worst (and of course I meant in the context of gaming) about the player. I’m not assuming the worst of the DM; I’ve said a few times if this is just selfishness at play, then the problem isn’t really game related.

So the player’s not being an entitled brat and the DM’s not being a power mad tyrant. The DM is genuine in his vision for the setting. The player is genuine in his desire to play the restricted option. They need to talk it out and figure out how to resolve the issue.

I’ve found that players with such a strong vision tend to become very invested in the character and the game. And they’ve often given a lot of consideration to how to get the concept to work. Based on this, the DM should consider it, wouldn’t you think?

I assume most people would want their players invested in their characters rather than simply looking at the list of what’s allowed and picking a race/class combo that’s on the list.

I also donmt think settings are so fragile that such an alteration ruins them. If so, then I don’t know if the setting’s theme was all that strong to begin with.

 

[oreofox]

I find people are more creative when there are restrictions and boundaries in place, limiting what can be chosen. If I don't like the choices available within a certain setting, I just won't play.

An example: My sister absolutely loves elves. I asked her if she would ever play in a setting without elves, and without hesitation she said absolutely not. If we were to play with a DM who pitches a setting that contains no elves, my sister would just say she isn't interested in playing, and do other things while those of us who would have no problem with a setting with no elves would begin creating our characters. She won't demand the DM to cram elves in there or else the DM is a bad DM. She will tell us to have fun and probably go read books or draw.

My dream character is a gnoll paladin trying to escape his or her demonic ancestry inherant with the race. The vast majority of DMs wouldn't allow such a character (one because it doesn't have an official write-up, and two because it's typically an always-evil enemy monster race). I don't demand a DM try to justify the existance of such a character because I want to play it. I keep that character on the shelf (probably for all eternity) and come up with a character that sounds interesting within the guidelines and limits of the setting.

 

[JacktheRabbit]

You don't even need the setting actually - you could run a campaign where the world is typical D&D, but players are all members of one of the 'monster' races and see humans only as obstacles. Playing a bunch of kobolds making their way against softskins is certainly a reasonable setup for a campaign.

The main point being that no race is any more necessary or unnecessary or interesting or boring than any other. It all depends on what the DM wants to create and mold his campaign around.

 

[MNblockhead]

My dream character is a gnoll paladin trying to escape his or her demonic ancestry inherant with the race. The vast majority of DMs wouldn't allow such a character (one because it doesn't have an official write-up, and two because it's typically an always-evil enemy monster race). I don't demand a DM try to justify the existance of such a character because I want to play it. I keep that character on the shelf (probably for all eternity) and come up with a character that sounds interesting within the guidelines and limits of the setting.

Well, you'd be welcome in my campaign. That sounds awesome!

 

[Charlaquin]

My dream character is a gnoll paladin trying to escape his or her demonic ancestry inherant with the race. The vast majority of DMs wouldn't allow such a character (one because it doesn't have an official write-up, and two because it's typically an always-evil enemy monster race). I don't demand a DM try to justify the existance of such a character because I want to play it. I keep that character on the shelf (probably for all eternity) and come up with a character that sounds interesting within the guidelines and limits of the setting.

Yeah, I would absolutely allow a character like that in my games. Of course, gnolls aren’t always-evil in my games - just usually evil, and PCs are always exceptional individuals.

 

[Older Beholder]

Leaving out a couple of races isn't that big of a deal.
Looking through Ravnica I noticed a lot of core of races are excluded...

Half orcs
Half elves
Dwarves
Gnomes
Halflings
Dragonborn
Tieflings

I think there's a line about them not being completely banned, just that they would be from someplace else. Although there isn't much about planewalking, like a lot of things in Ravnica it's a bit vague.

If I thought my players wouldn't enjoy that I'd probably just start in a standard setting and then plane hop there, this was how I used to run Ravenloft.

 

[Dessert Nomad]

No, I’m not really saying you can shoehorn it in. That has a connotation that implies a heavy-handedness that I don’t think is necessary.

Shoehorning is exactly what is being talked about here. If the setting doesn't have gnomes and you want to put one in despite that, you're trying to shoehorn a gnome into the game, plain and simple.

The default expectation from most people’s posts in this thread is that when this happens, the onus is on the player to adapt. I’m not saying that should never be the case. Not by any means. What I am saying is that te DM should consider making changes as well. That should be on the table. Most likely, something can be worked out.

No, what you are saying is that the DM either must make the changes, or must concede that the setting is 'fragile' and 'not all that strong' if he doesn't want to make the change. You actually ARE saying that if that is the case, then the setting, the DM, and/or the other players suck and should just accept that their desire to play in an actual 'Campaign world X' game is badwrongfun and let the X-phile player shoehorn whatever he wants into the world. I don't have any problem if a person wants to run 'setting X, but with gnomes'. What I have a problem with is the idea that if someone wants to run 'setting X, without the change to gnomes' that means that the person or the setting is weak or flawed or unreasonable or some other bad adjective.

You’re assuming the worst motives on the part of the player. That he has no reason other than selfishness to want to play a particular race. So set that aside. Drop assuming the worst (and of course I meant in the context of gaming) about the player. I’m not assuming the worst of the DM; I’ve said a few times if this is just selfishness at play, then the problem isn’t really game related.

Everyone playing a game is selfish, people playing games are doing it for their own enjoyment, if they weren't being selfish they'd be off doing charity work. Trying to make the argument that being selfish is 'the worst' just doesn't work. Game preferences are inherently selfish, I consider anyone playing games to be selfish as there really isn't a non-selfish motive for entertainment.

So the player’s not being an entitled brat and the DM’s not being a power mad tyrant. The DM is genuine in his vision for the setting. The player is genuine in his desire to play the restricted option. They need to talk it out and figure out how to resolve the issue.

And it's perfectly valid for the issue to be resolved by the DM saying 'this is the game I'm running', and the palyer saying 'cool, I'll play my gnome somewhere else'. But you're arguing that the DM is somehow bad if he chooses that option, or that if he chooses that option that the setting is flawed somehow. Everyone has a selfish game preference, if the preferences don't line up then you go game with someone else.

I’ve found that players with such a strong vision tend to become very invested in the character and the game. And they’ve often given a lot of consideration to how to get the concept to work. Based on this, the DM should consider it, wouldn’t you think?

"Consider" and "agree to" are two different things. Also, I've found that DM's with a strong vision tend to become very invested into the setting and the game. And they've often given a lot of consideration to how to get the setting to work. Based on this, the player should consider this, wouldn't you think?

I assume most people would want their players invested in their characters rather than simply looking at the list of what’s allowed and picking a race/class combo that’s on the list.

False dichotomy. People can be invested in characters that actually make sense in a setting, the idea that people who come up with characters that do make sense in a setting are just picking a race/class combo from a list is both insulting and inaccurate. And in my experience, an awful lot of people who want to ignore the setting and create a character that runs contrary to it aren't invested in an interesting concept. Instead they are either just repeating a pattern that has worked for them in the past, or actually just want to keep playing the same character over and over regardless of whether that character makes sense in the world.

I also donmt think settings are so fragile that such an alteration ruins them. If so, then I don’t know if the setting’s theme was all that strong to begin with.

I think that your argument that a setting is 'fragile' and 'not all that strong' if anyone wanting to play the setting feels that shoehorning in additional races messes with their enjoyment of the setting is the thing that actually is 'not all that strong'. Trying to pretend that the setting or the players who enjoy the setting are 'fragile' if shoehorning races in isn't to their liking is just an attempt to poison the well.