does the MM include PC race choices?

[77IM]

Another way to look at it: Does the term "optional rule" mean anything?

Other RPGs (and even other versions of D&D) include optional rules; what could they mean by that? I always took it to mean, that an optional rule is a rule that is NOT in effect unless the DM specifically says it IS, as opposed to the regular rules, which ARE in effect unless the DM says they're NOT.

By this definition, the using the MM races for PCs is an optional rule even though the text doesn't actually use the term "optional rule" (because the text does say that the DM has to specifically allow them, instead of specifically disallowing them, which is the definition of an optional rule).

-- 77IM

 

[Plane Sailing]

I have never really understood this stance.

If I were to ask a question on the rules of dnd, I would naturally expect it to be answered or discussed in accordance with the RAW (or at least, individual interpretations of what RAW may entail if it proves to be ambiguous). Any replies should at least make an effort to reference dnd mechanics, and not be based off any houserules unless the question explicitly calls out for such provisions (eg: I don't like the way item creation is handed in 3e. Does anyone have a homebrew version they can share?).

Conversely, if I were to ask a question on how a particular aspect of item creation was to be handled in 3e, the last thing I would want is how you executed an item creation variant in your own game. I really couldn't care less if someone had ruled that crafting a particular item took only a fraction of the time it was supposed to take, as I don't see what impact that could have in my game, especially since I am likely not implementing said houserule.

One concession I would make is if it accompanies the reply along the line of "According to the rules, you would have to do XXX, but I think that it is problematic because of so-and-so reason, so I would recommend that you implement this-and-that, or at least keep my suggestion in mind".

Can anyone explain to me the significance of said rule for Enworld? Or am I misinterpreting its context? If it indeed is a houserule, why can't/shouldn't I call a spade a spade?

You need to gain an understanding then.

The rules forums are expressely not for legalistic interpretation of rules in the books.

They are for people to discuss the rules of, say, D&D, in any way they want. There is a house rules forum for people who want to talk about inventing entirely new rules, or making big changes to rules or whole new classes and stuff - but it is completely appropriate for people to talk about the way that they implement the written rules for their game in this forum - including how they bend them, tweak them or slightly modify them for their own purposes. In sharing their own experiences, they can raise issues or show solutions that may appeal to other people too.

You may need to assume that everyone is prefacing their statements with "what I do is..." or "what I think is..."

Thanks.

 

[evilbob]

Other RPGs (and even other versions of D&D) include optional rules; what could they mean by that? I always took it to mean, that an optional rule is a rule that is NOT in effect unless the DM specifically says it IS, as opposed to the regular rules, which ARE in effect unless the DM says they're NOT.

Seems like a good way to put it.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

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.

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.)

We agree.

 

[evilbob]

We agree.

Lol - I think we just hit a milestone.