Excerpt: Racial Benefits

[Torchlyte]

Um, that's why I said that both DM and player should be able to meet each other halfway?

I wasn't disagreeing with you, merely reframing the statement?

As long as the DM is doing the bulk of the work in making the game possible, I disagree. If someone doesn't like it, they can DM instead. The DM sacrifices his or her free time to prepare for the game, players do not.

The DM sacrifices a free time to prepare for the players. That's why we don't railroad.

Are you implying that your mind is SO limited and boxed in you can't fit within the confines of society some crash landed space marines or space elves? Why do you insult your own creativity and vision in such a way?

No, I'm employing that you would have to be incredibly thick to think Dragonborn = Space Marines. Slippery slope arguments, and more specifically in this case, straw man arguments, are logical fallacies.

Ah, the tyranny of the published word. What is acceptable in a fantasy game is not defined by what WotC publishes. By your logic, dragonborn were not acceptable in 3e (since they weren't core, or didn't even exist for that matter), but they are in 4e?

They existed in a splatbook.

 

[Torchlyte]

Hm? He says "if someone wants to play one, it'll be like Drizzt, the only member of that race around, with all the negative attention that brings." He's talking about his gameworld where dragonborn would be treated like drow are in most settings - as enemies of "civilized" folk. How is that a blanket statement?

If this was the intent then Drizzt was a poor example because he is connected with a type of player that everyone thinks is lame.

This is exactly why some people have been complaining about Tieflings and Dragonborn being in the PHB. Not everyone wants those kinds of exotic races to be typical player characters in their games, but since they're core races in the PHB, the DM is a dick if he doesn't allow them in his campaign.

How much enjoyment do you get out of not having a particular race in your campaign? How much enjoyment does a player get from being able to play that particular race in your campaign?

Everyone has to make their own decisions on a case-by-case basis for what character concepts they want to allow. I'm just trying to point out that the DM should be making this decision only to maximize total player enjoyment. When the players enjoy themselves, the DM does too... at least, that's how it works for me.

 

[Rechan]

If this was the intent then Drizzt was a poor example because he is connected with a type of player that everyone thinks is lame.



How much enjoyment do you get out of not having a particular race in your campaign? How much enjoyment does a player get from being able to play that particular race in your campaign?

It depends.

For instance, I get a hell of a lot of enjoyment when my campaign lacks Kender for instance.

Because the Kender are portrayed as, well, disruptive to adventures, plot, etc. The impression I've got is that some people who play them intentionally do so in order to screw people over. Steal their stuff, get the party in jail, etc etc. From the way I've seen people use it, it's a race made for the type of player that says "Hey, I'm going to do bad things and get away with it because my alignment is CN".

I recognize many people like Kender and play them without intentional game disruption in mind. And even though Kinder may not equal Intentional bad behavior from players, saying "No Kender" nips the potential problem in the bud.

The caveat here is that it depends upon the campaign. If it's mainly a joking, fun, traveling-con-men-and-pickpockets campaign, then kender fit right in. If however it's a much more serious, dark, or horror based, Kender break the mood.

 

[Rechan]

but since they're core races in the PHB, the DM is a dick if he doesn't allow them in his campaign.

No, I don't see it that way.

Wondering "Why would anyone WANT to play them" gets the response "They're in the Core".

But a DM has a right to say 'X Y and Z aren't in this campaign, I don't care if they're core'. If You're running a primitive type campaign setting, where everyone are cavemen and tribal guys, a scholarly wizard just doesn't fit in. If you're running an anti-hero campaign, a Lawful Good paladin just isn't going to fit; he's going to have serious confliction to the point that nothing will get done. No barbarians in a socialite/intrigue campaign set in the upper echalons of a city. And so on. If it would disrupt the flow of the game and simply Not Fit at All, then yeah. Go for it.

I mean, if the Psionics rules were out, and a DM wanted to say, "Hey. We're playing Dark Sun. Psionics, primitive, and some martial - that's the only power sources available," would anyone really begrudge him?

And the only reason why I do not say "No elves/dwarves/halflings in my game" is because they I think that'd alienate 80% of the available gamers around here. Otherwise I'd do it.

But putting aside my dislike of humans/demi-humans a second, if I looked at a player and said, "IN my campaign, elves are evil. Heart black as tar. They're feral, cruel, and steal babies in the night. So, playing an elf is not on the table, not in this campaign. Sorry," I feel I would be legitimate, despite the fact that they're in the Core.

Hell, I would love to play a kobold. And I know I could do it well. But, I know that many, many people will not let them in the game. Therefore, I don't complain. Even if Kobolds were core, I would still respect a DM (even if I whined a little bit and tried to cajole him into it).

 

[ProfessorCirno]

"Hey, can I play a tiefling in this game?"
"Naw, it's not really good for the setting."
"Oh, ok."

Jesus people. It's not difficult. I've had to turn down requests from players when I found their characters to be obnoxious or not fitting with the setting. And get this, they don't freak out and fall to the floor sobbing. I've had character requests turned down, and I just shrugged and said "ok" and made a different one. And most of the time, looking back, they were right to refuse my character.

If someone wants to play with tieflings, then they will. If they don't, then they won't. I seriously doubt I'll run games using 4e's standard fluff, and my players will either go "Oh, ok" or leave. And then inevitably I'll play a game where that DM is using standard 4e fluff, and I'll either say "Oh, ok" or I'll leave.

Well, or, more likely, I'll make my character a human supremecist who looks down on and spits on tieflings. And if they don't like it, they can leave. Or murder me in my sleep. Which is just like those stinking, untrustworthy tieflings.

Edit:

Hell, I would love to play a kobold. And I know I could do it well. But, I know that many, many people will not let them in the game.

These people have something horribly wrong with them. Kobolds are always accepted at any of my games. Kobolds are awesome.

 

[Torchlyte]

"Hey, can I play a tiefling in this game?"
"Naw, it's not really good for the setting."
"Oh, ok."

Not everyone puts up a big fuss when they don't get what they want. That doesn't mean it doesn't bother them. It may not, and that's fine... but that's only the case if they weren't particularly excited to play that character concept in the first place.

I mean, if the Psionics rules were out, and a DM wanted to say, "Hey. We're playing Dark Sun. Psionics, primitive, and some martial - that's the only power sources available," would anyone really begrudge him?

True, but that's because the Dark Sun's negative flavor can have a net positive effect on the players. In other words, sometimes a player is happier with restrictions if it does indeed improve a campaign's flavor. This is in stark contrast to the "I'm the DM, it's my way or the highway" attitude that's been expressed on this thread up until now.

The caveat here is that it depends upon the campaign. If it's mainly a joking, fun, traveling-con-men-and-pickpockets campaign, then kender fit right in. If however it's a much more serious, dark, or horror based, Kender break the mood.

On the other hand, a cool way to take that horror further is to screw with the happy-go-lucky race. Look at Dark Sun's halflings.

 

[Rechan]

On the other hand, a cool way to take that horror further is to screw with the happy-go-lucky race. Look at Dark Sun's halflings.

Yet on the same token, the player has to go along with it.

"What do you MEAN Kender are sadistic torturors who tie people up and taunt them while cutting them? I won't play that!"

I doubt that would be fun for people who are big Kender fans.

I would feel the same way if a DM told me, "Sure, you can play a kobold. Because kobolds in my world are warm, fuzzy happy little gnome-like guys." That just takes the fun out of being a nasty little paranoid napoleon-with-scales.

 

[Wormwood]

Which is why I'm *thrilled* that 4e will come complete with an implied setting, so the players and myself can all start on the same page regarding the campaign world.

"Tieflings? Yeah, those guys come from Bael Turath and they fought against the Dragonborn a crapload of years ago. It's all there on page 14. Let's play."

Finally.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Which is why I'm *thrilled* that 4e will come complete with an implied setting, so the players and myself can all start on the same page regarding the campaign world.

"Tieflings? Yeah, those guys come from Bael Turath and they fought against the Dragonborn a crapload of years ago. It's all there on page 14. Let's play."

Finally.

I humbly disagree. By forcing a setting right form the start, it makes it more difficult to change settings or homebrew. One of 3.x's strengths was the lack of forced setting that allowed DMs to be creative.

 

[The Little Raven]

I humbly disagree. By forcing a setting right form the start, it makes it more difficult to change settings or homebrew.

Sounds like a personal problem, to me.

One of 3.x's strengths was the lack of forced setting that allowed DMs to be creative.

If I wanted to run 3.X straight, I was forced into a pseudo-Greyhawk setting off the bat. If having Moradin in the 3.X PHBs didn't prevent creativity, then how does having Moradin in the 4e PHB prevent creativity?