Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Levistus's_Leviathan" data-source="post: 8811283" data-attributes="member: 7023887">They are. Removing the restriction of not being able to play Orcs is objectively a tiny change compared to removing the Core from Ravenloft or Phlogiston from Spelljammer. Adding a whole history for Dragonborn in Eberron was an objectively bigger change than adding the possibility of playing an Orc/Half-Orc. Those are bigger, more important changes that will impact those entire settings, not just individual tables that decide to play with Orcs/Half-Orcs. Removing the restriction of not being able to play Orcs/Half-Orcs is a tiny change in comparison.And playability is always, always more important than whatever nonsense "narrative fidelity" is. This is a game. It's meant to be playable. The canon of a 40-year-old YA trilogy should never take precedence over making sure that people enjoy playing in the setting.Through my conversations with you, it doesn't seem like you want a game. You want worlds. You want canonical stories, metaplots, and convoluted timelines with characters that you do not play taking the forefront (Raistlin, Tanis, Goldmoon, etc). And there's nothing wrong with liking canonical stories and convoluted timelines. I like a ton of Star Wars and MCU movies/shows because of that. It works in settings where you're getting the story told to you. It doesn't work in roleplaying games like D&D. The players and their campaign should never be second fiddle to the main story. They should be the main story.</blockquote>

Verification