does the MM include PC race choices?

[Jhaelen]

we still have the base problem that the wording of those two paragraphs in the MM lead perfectly reasonable people to two perfectly reasonable - but opposite - conclusions. ...So is the answer that we all agree to disagree? I have no idea.

Reading the section in the MM from a strict RAW viewpoint you're going to have a problem. Unless you're taking RAI into account it really doesn't make a lot of sense.

Frankly, I'm puzzled about your stance in this. You seem to insist seeing a problem where there is none.

In my game, RAW is meaningless - I only care about RAI. Since determining 'intent' can be tricky, what I'm really using is RAID (Rules As Interpreted by the DM)

Maybe you should try this, too

Mistwell: Actually, "guideline" and "rule" are synonyms. Whether or not that carries weight either way in this discussion I have no idea, but surely that makes sense as to why it's confusing? Technically I would call all of the PHB, DMG, and MM "guidelines." But it's really just semantics.

See Mistwell's answer!

Again, I feel, you're too set on trying to read everything as RAW. The books aren't everything! Sometimes you (as the DM) can and should (!) decide for yourself how something is supposed to work in YOUR game.

If the books said 'in situation X use rule A or rule B' which rule would you use?
Do you give up playing the game because there is no way for you to decide which rule to use?

 

[Akaiku]

The official character creator thinggy you can download from wizards has all the mm races in it and the little legal/house ruled indicator stays legal when you choose one.

However, my take is that all those are incomplete/beta races for player purposes. Gnomes specifically were referenced as being available via this table a while back by designers. So it kinda seems like it's intended to be prettymuch ok, but with an offical YMMV added on. Thusly the "Might work for pc's; Consult your gm."

 

[evilbob]

To me, the clear intent is that these races be used as advice on creating a differing version for use by players in some circumstances, and Dragon listed one of those versions using the guidelines.

And to me, the intent is that these races are ok for PC use. DMs are free to disallow them, but they -are- available for PC use. That's what I see as the RAW and the RAI. So I guess we disagree?

So it's impossible to say whether it's legal or not, unless your DM has already decided, and then the answer only applies to your particular game table. So if someone tells you "Your minotaur PC is not legal," you can say, "It's legal because my DM permits it, as allowed by the MM."

I appreciate this response and frankly I think you may be right - but I'm not sure this actually answers the question I'm worried about, which is mainly how does this get translated into a position on these boards? In other words, is this something that there will simply always be a deadlock on ("yes" vs. "of course not"), or is there some way to produce a clear-cut answer that we can all reference? For example, Mistwell's semantics example that "guideline" doesn't equal "rule" will convince some, but does there exist a better interpretation that could convince all?

Frankly, I'm puzzled about your stance in this. You seem to insist seeing a problem where there is none.
...
Sometimes you (as the DM) can and should (!) decide for yourself how something is supposed to work in YOUR game.

Actually, I'm trying to keep my own stance out of this as much as possible. You seem to be inferring that this is a problem that I am having with the rules for my own games: as I said earlier, it is not. This is a problem I am having/seeing with speaking about MM races on this board. The level of concern about what is "RAW" (or even "RAI") is naturally high; if there is a common point upon which there is mutual consensus and we can all point back to, perhaps more arguments can be averted in the future.

If the books said 'in situation X use rule A or rule B' which rule would you use?
Do you give up playing the game because there is no way for you to decide which rule to use?

This is a complete non sequitur to me. What does this even mean?

 

[Fundin Strongarm]

It's quite clear that MM races are only available for use by PCs in a campaign with the permission of that campaign's DM. "A player should only use one of the following races to create a character with the permission of the Dungeon Master." Some DMs may allow some or all MM races for their PCs to choose from while other DMs will not allow any.

In some ways it is a gray area between a "RAW/RAI" rule and "house" rule. In a sense, the RAW/RAI rule is essentially to tell the DM to house rule it as they see fit. Generally, RAW/RAI rules apply to all campaigns unless house-ruled out or changed by the DM. The key is that PC MM races clearly have to be ruled in by the DM. They are disallowed unless the DM allows them.

They therefore won't apply to all campaigns and so don't pass RAW/RAI muster. That leaves them being specific to each campaign at the DM's discretion -- ie. a house rule. At least that it how some (most?) people see it. Obviously, YMMV.

Further, the MM write up talks about the racial powers being "guidelines" (yes, that is different than rules!) for creating PC "versions" of monster races "within reason" and noting the racial powers "are more in line with monster powers than with player character powers." The whole paragraph implies 'house rule it since the skeleton we've provided is not intended for PCs.'

 

[Mistwell]

And to me, the intent is that these races are ok for PC use. DMs are free to disallow them, but they -are- available for PC use. That's what I see as the RAW and the RAI. So I guess we disagree?

So you feel that not only does the word "guidelines" mean exactly the same thing as rules, but the word "versions" has no meaning at all in that sentence?

And now you have offerred yet a third twist on the text...that it's not by default "disallowed unless your DM approves" but instead is "approved unless your DM disallows"?

Nuh uh. There is no reasonable interpretation that gets you to that last point. The "guidelines" and "versions" was already extremely iffy, but that last one is a flat-out no-go.

 

[DEFCON 1]

In other words, is this something that there will simply always be a deadlock on ("yes" vs. "of course not"), or is there some way to produce a clear-cut answer that we can all reference?

The answer to this question (and apparently to the whole point of your original post) is:

This is something there will always be a deadlock on.

Reason being... there is no rules question ever posted on these boards that will receive 100% acceptance as being true. Won't happen. For a myriad of reasons.

* Sometimes the rule is written poorly
* Sometimes the rule is contradicted elsewhere
* Sometimes the person interpreting the rule is using previous edition knowledge in trying to answer it
* Sometimes the person doesn't understand standard English grammar and thus is misinterpreting what the rule is actually saying
* Sometimes people are just asswipes who feel like arguing a rule just for the sake of arguing or they think they're being funny by being a dillweed

Take your pick.

Universal acceptance of something that is written on the internet is a myth.

 

[Jhaelen]

Actually, I'm trying to keep my own stance out of this as much as possible.

Well, had I realized you'Re only interested in this question because you enjoy discussing philosophical problems, I'd have refrained from making any comments.

The level of concern about what is "RAW" (or even "RAI") is naturally high

I'd say the level of concern is unnaturally high. All this talking about 'RAW' was THE fashion in 3E. And it was bad. I'd say it's about time we get rid of it and return to trying to give practical advice to people looking for actual advice on this board.

if there is a common point upon which there is mutual consensus and we can all point back to, perhaps more arguments can be averted in the future.

This is a complete non sequitur to me. What does this even mean?

What I was trying to say is that RAW is never sufficient to actually play a game. A DM will always have to make her own decisions about how to rule things in the game. Trying to stick with RAW a DM will have to stop the game whenever something comes up in the game that doesn't have a clear, written rule.

Did I get my meaning across this time? If not, I'll give up and blame the fact that English isn't my first language...

 

[evilbob]

So you feel that not only does the word "guidelines" mean exactly the same thing as rules, but the word "versions" has no meaning at all in that sentence?

I really dislike semantics arguments, but I did bite... So, basically, for the sake of what we're trying to say here, yes: guidelines is functionally equivalent to rules, and the word "versions" doesn't add anything to the sentence. "Versions" could be replaced with "characters", except that it'd be redundant.

And now you have offerred yet a third twist on the text...that it's not by default "disallowed unless your DM approves" but instead is "approved unless your DM disallows"?

This isn't what I meant, but I completely understand why you would read it that way; I misspoke. Maybe a better way to say my second sentence would be, "DMs can allow or disallow them freely, but RAW/RAI they are for PC use." That may not be the best wording either, but to cut to your point: yes, I understand that "a player should only use one of the following races to
create a character with the permission of the Dungeon Master" does not mean the player has permission whether or not the DM says so, but in fact says the opposite.

The key is that PC MM races clearly have to be ruled in by the DM. They are disallowed unless the DM allows them.

Your explanation makes the most sense to me so far. If you take the second paragraph as explanatory text, especially referring to the third sentence of the first paragraph, that seems to better solidify the fact that all MM races for PCs are, in fact, houserules. In other words, you could write it: "This information can also be used as guidelines for creating player character (PC) versions of these creatures, but a player should only use one of the following races to create a character with the permission of the Dungeon Master." That seems to reflect what was said in the MM and more clearly paint the picture that these rules fall under "of course not."


I guess it's all just troubling since it effectively means that any discussion that involves races from the MM will be fair game for someone to call "houserule" on. Maybe a new, better term could be used... like "opt in" rules or something...




So ultimately, the answer to my thread question is:
No, but it does have a list of houserules that are core-supported choices for PCs if your DM allows.

Do we agree? (Wordsmiths, feel free to improve.)

 

[evilbob]

Did I get my meaning across this time?

You get your meaning across just fine. But like DEFCON 1's response, you're just saying a lot of things I already agree with that don't really help answer my question.

Sorry my philosophical musings bore you.

 

[Fundin Strongarm]

So ultimately, the answer to my thread question is:
No, but it does have a list of houserules that are core-supported choices for PCs if your DM allows.

Do we agree? (Wordsmiths, feel free to improve.)

Sure, I guess, with the further proviso that "guidelines", "version", "within reason" and 'the powers are monster powers, not PC powers' actually mean something. You can't throw all those words out of that paragraph as meaningless or semantics.