I'll be honest, that one probably would have snuck past me, too. Probably because it's Buttercup mentioning one of Humperdinck's (few) virtues. And also happens just a couple lines before The Man In Black threatens to hurt her for "lying."
----
I've got a question for the thread in general (which you, Ilbranteloth, are of course free to answer as well):
Is part of the problem with dragonborn the fact that they are official?
Sometimes, I get the feeling that there is a deep antipathy, with certain segments of the gaming population, for "novelty" in the...for lack of a better term, "narrative" content of D&D. Novel mechanical ideas aren't necessarily seen as good or bad (e.g. 5e's "universal" proficiency score, or 4e's one-and-done +5 "training" value), and it seems like many DMs from all styles of play are open to cool player suggestions if presented in the right way. But for some reason, dragonborn (even more than tieflings or drow) seem to really stick in peoples' craw. The idea of playing something draconic isn't weird in the global sense--it's well known, by now, that Gygax allowed people to play (young) dragons and even balrogs at his table, as long as they grew into their power in some way, rather than just starting off awesome. And while I've seen (what I consider) far too many DMs who open conversations about their campaigns with lengthy, detailed, and occasionally vitriolic lists of all the things they'll never ever let you play in their games, I still hold out hope that most DMs are cool enough to listen when the player has a cool idea they'd like to bring to life.
So...yeah, I guess my question is (whether specific to Faerun or not): Is the fact that dragonborn are in the book when you didn't "ask" for or "want" them there what really makes them a "problem"? Or is it more fundamental than that--that people just can't accept lizards-with-epic-halitosis as an option thematically "equivalent to" a dwarf or even a half-orc (since the 4e mechanics were well-balanced and the 5e ones are, if anything, on the weak side)?
The short answer is:
Yes, the novelty side has worn off for me, I'm much more interested in the narrative content, and new rules should support my game and not get in the way or intrude upon that narrative.
I'm always willing to consider any idea they have, including dragonborn or tiefling (see below), but it IS entirely dependent upon how they present it. If they are invested in the character, then we can work with it. If it's just because it's cool and they want to play it because it makes them different than everybody else, or gives them powers that others don't have, I'm probably not interested.
By making them official, it opened up the floodgates. Players often don't care if it fits your world, and you're not being fair if you don't let them play one. So it's not so much whether or not it's official, but the conflict it creates when, as a DM, we opt to not include something in our campaign.
The long answer is:
My campaign is fairly traditional since it's been going on for so long. The world is humanocentric. I'm one of those types that explores the nature of people and the world in my stories. It's all about the development of the character, how they fit into the world, and character growth. It's a Tolkienesque approach, where the journey and growth of the characters is the real story, not the adventures that they get into.
Yes, the game is about having fun, killing monsters and getting treasure. But after a while that gets kind of old. But if you develop the characters, then people get invested in the game, and maybe we learn something. I know I have.
If the focus is on special abilities, the character 'build', the 'I want to be different by playing a unique race or class,' then the game starts to revolve around the rules, trying to find more abilities that make me unique. It pulls you out of the story and into the 'game' and it also tends to be centered on 'me' instead of 'us' at the very least, and hopefully the world that you're involved in if you move beyond that. It's exacerbated by the fact that most (in my experience) people who want to play them are just looking to be 'better' than the other characters in the campaign. These people also tend to be the ones that grow tired of their character when the novelty has worn off, and they want to start a new character. This
The 5th edition has recognized that the ever-expanding ruleset to always have something new isn't sustainable, nor good business practice. Sure there's a group of gamers that are entirely focused on the game aspect of D&D. For them it's about the 'build' and getting more power, and being unique as in 'totally different than everybody else.' Or at least in character design. That's an entirely valid approach, and if that's what they enjoy, it's what they should do.
In terms of dragonborn and tieflings in the Forgotten Realms specifically, it has to do with the nature of the races and how they've changed over the years. When it was a hidden nature I found it interesting. But TSR and WotC, like many game companies, felt the need to have new things for the players to do. Initially almost every release was geared toward the DM. But in any given game the DM is 25% or less of the participants. How do we sell to the others? Make up more stuff for the players. New classes, new abilities, new races. Hey, I jumped in totally in the '80's - this was cool stuff!
But when you start dumping (as TSR did) everything into the Forgotten Realms it begins to stretch credibility. And they went both directions - ever more fantastic, and ever more mundane. Hey, we should have a campaign based on the ancient Aztecs (really, no). Oh, put it in the Forgotten Realms. Hey, we have a new ruleset, we have to reshape the Realms to fit. Plus, it's getting old, let's drop in parts of another planet, that would be cool (not so much). And that's how we can add these new races. We don't have to worry about the fact that they haven't been there for the last few thousand years and people just didn't notice. In the case of the dragonborn and the influx of new tieflings, it was a sudden, 'here they are, new races have invaded your world,' with little support or explanation beyond a few entries in the Campaign Setting. There was no development beyond 'wouldn't this be cool?' Now, of course, we have precedence. TSR or WotC in the 3rd edition introduced something that a group, it might be a small but vocal group, it might be a larger group, wants in their game. And I think that WotC learned from TSR's mistakes. Council of Wyrms was a campaign setting where you could play dragons. Cool right? Maybe it wasn't implemented in a way that people connected with. But the larger business issue is that it will sell more if connected to an existing, established campaign.
Plus the world doesn't need more races. Over the years there have been all sorts of new humanoid races as monsters, and eventually playable PC classes as well. Most get very little traction. It seems to be because people have grown tired of orcs and goblins, but in the end that's what's believable and works well within the setting.
Now Erin M Evans appears to have done some very cool things with it and run with it in a big way. I haven't read any fiction in a long time, but I might get around to them because they look like awesome books and for the little bit I have read, I really like her writing. And the stories probably work them into the Realms very well. Except that the races don't feature in other author's Realms books. Oh, there might be one mentioned here or there, since they are now part of the world. But they aren't integrated into the Realmslore as a whole, either by the fiction authors or the game authors.
Contrast with Spellfire, another exception to the rule, and how it feels like it's part of the living, breathing Realms (largely because it's Greenwood), but also that its absence in other writings is a non-issue. Why? Because it's very, very rare. If dragonborn and tieflings are supposed to be 'standard' and more common, then they should be. And they aren't.
The concept of 'dragonmen' as it's been implemented isn't really what I'm interested in either. Originally it was based on the idea that some (primarily good) dragons could polymorph. And that certain of those dragons spend considerable time in humanoid form in civilized locations. Hey, what if they had a kid with a human? They had a few special abilities, but were largely human. Also very, very rare.
Spellfire is another good example. Everybody suddenly wanted spellfire because it was now a rule. Except that it's exceedingly rare. Essentially, for players it's best to design the standard, the norm. When you codify the 'exception' it becomes the new standard because everybody wants to do it.
In the case of the last player I had who wanted to play a dragonborn, I worked with them and recast it as my old-style half-dragon. They new they had some unusual heritage, but didn't know what (they were an orphan). Part of the adventure was to determine what that was, and from what they learned they believed they were half steel dragon. The other aspect they were investigating was this strange anklet they had, that was enchanted so they could not remove it.
Of course, they didn't stick with the game. I suspect in part because I wasn't running the type of game they wanted. Perhaps they wanted the 'standard' dragonborn and my approach didn't work for them. The character lives on, though, although he's not with the group on regular adventures. He also learned that the anklet was forcing him to stay in his humanoid form, and that he was in fact a young steel dragon. If they had stayed with the campaign, this would have come out much later, because it would have taken some time to learn the secret of the anklet and how to remove it. At the same time, everybody else in the party has their own personal mysteries they are trying to solve as well, and they've been following clues as they find them (many of which have been intertwined).
So in my campaign, I like to be a bit more subtle. Most things are fairly mundane. By centering the world on an approximation of our world in an earlier time, it forms a frame of reference that everybody can understand to judge how fantastic the fantastic really is. We're over a year in real time into this campaign, playing weekly, and they are only 6th level.
The 'monster as a character' thing on one hand can expand the level of intellectual discussion. Orcs aren't really evil, they are just raised that way. Except in the end we want them to be just evil so we can kill them with impunity. That there are actually races and beings that exist solely for the purpose of war, oppression, and are a deadly threat to life as we know it, whether it's a band of 6 or 60,000. I still push that boundary a bit, because players (or more specifically characters) should stop and consider their actions when killing any intelligent living creature.
It's not for everybody. And for me, dragonborn and tieflings have sort of become sort of a poster-child that signals that there's a good chance that this player probably isn't looking to play the same sort of game I am. Admittedly, a big part of it is that I've done the monster as a PC, the munchkinizing, the 'we play by every rule written' and 'tactical combat is better' approach. And everybody is entitled to find the game style that works for them, whether it's a phase or their permanent preference.
But 5th edition came along as my daughter was getting old enough to play, and I want her to experience what I did in the '70's. In addition they are undoing a lot of the changes that I didn't like in the 4th edition Forgotten Realms. Call it old school, whatever you want. But I've tried so many systems, so many variations, and settled on this as my preferred campaign to run.
Ilbranteloth
