Excerpt: Racial Benefits

[abyssaldeath]

I look at it this way. DnD is the most well known and popular RPG. As such it is going to attract more new commers then any other RPG. I think because of this there needs to be a base setting for these people to work from.

I would say most of us in this thread are veterans of PnP RPG's and as such the background fluff isn't nessasarily useful to us. Unfortunitly, we can't really look at this issue from our perspective when it comes to the core books for the reason I have given above.

I'm not too worried about really. If only for this reason: WotC created campain worlds. With all the campains worlds they are planning would't they try and keep setting fluff in the core books as minimal as possible to ease the transition when changing to any of the other campain world?

 

[Bishmon]

I would say most of us in this thread are veterans of PnP RPG's and as such the background fluff isn't nessasarily useful to us. Unfortunitly, we can't really look at this issue from our perspective when it comes to the core books for the reason I have given above.

Are we paying for the books? Then of course we can look at this issue from our perspective.

WotC undoubtedly has to try and find a balance due to a number of factors, some of which you mentioned. But the necessity of a balance and the number of those factors doesn't somehow invalidate the perspectives of large chunks of people buying the books.

 

[Xanaqui]

I disagree. As another poster pointed out, would you allow space marines in your D&D game to "maximize total player enjoyment?"

Depends on the game. In some campaign worlds, yes - as long as the other players don't object. I'd warn them about equipment problems in advance, though.

If a player insisted on playing such a character, I would ask them why they cant have any fun playing something that's available in the world. If a player refuses to play anything other than a Dragonborn, I would posit that it's the player, not the DM that is being unreasonable.

To take an example from my present campaign, I banned Orcs as a race (not half-Orcs). This is primarily because they were all killed a while ago as part of the backstory. However, if a player were really dying to play an Orc, I'd work out with them some way that they were the sole surviving Orc, and warn them that the vast majority of humanoids will want to kill them on sight (thus they should have a good Disguise skill, or something like that).

 

[Rechan]

I'm going to guess you hated LBB Traveller and the Hero System...

I don't know about the former, but the latter? GOD yes. It was a textbook. A calculus textbook, to be precise.

There's a reason that the HERO company sells things like Fantasy Hero and Ninja Hero, etc etc - because it's more inspiring than "Here's the mechanics. Do whatever."

 

[Rechan]

Because implied settings justify crunch that wouldn't otherwise exist.

On the flip side, look at Incarnum. The system is sound. However, the fluff, my GOD it's atrocious. And quite simply, no one uses that system.

But then, I disliked Incarnum because it was so intimately tied to alignment.

 

[drjones]

You are saying the only reason anyone would ever want to play Race X is because it "would have to be a drizzt kinda thing".

Please explain how that has anything to do with your game world, and how it ISN'T a blanket statement about people who like any race you Don't?

Here's a simple answer: Someone would have a stiff for playing one because it's in the freaking Core Rulebook.

Well you are reading this entirely wrong. Such a character would be a 'drtizzt kind of thing' because there would be few if any dragonborn in my setting so when one walked into town the locals would be surprised as hell to see one and respond appropriately. You know, like drittzt.

That you felt like going berserk about your misinterpretation of my statement is entirely your prerogative I suppose.

Unfortunately the subject itself is so entirely boring. Everyone I have ever played with since 1985 knew without any particular argument that the DM usually has an idea of how they want the world they are putting together to work and some give and take is required in character creation to fit into that world and make fun characters. Apparently on the internets this is a crazy notion and worthy of hyper analyzationifying, who knew?

 

[Lizard]

I don't know about the former, but the latter? GOD yes. It was a textbook. A calculus textbook, to be precise.

You went to much easier calculus class than I did. If all I had to do to pass calculus was 5th grade arithmetic, I'd be a biologist by now.

There's a reason that the HERO company sells things like Fantasy Hero and Ninja Hero, etc etc - because it's more inspiring than "Here's the mechanics. Do whatever."

Shrug. I buy them mostly for the new bits of crunch in them, like the detailed martial arts weapons (with all the rules to build them).

I got started with Champions in 1982. Once I got over the initial hump of "The powers are game mechanics, not absolutes -- 'armor' can be a 'luck field' that causes you to take less damage", I pretty much made it my game of choice...

 

[Rechan]

Yeah, this.

I'll repeat my standard mantra. An RPG book should seek to inspire the imagination as much as--if not more than--it seeks to convey the mechanical rules. If I pick up an RPG book and it doesn't get my imagination rolling, if it doesn't inspire me to create a new character, envision a world or portion of a world, or contemplate a new campaign, that book has failed, no matter how solid the mechanics may be.

Even bad flavor is better than no flavor, since it can still spark better ideas. But mechanics on their own aren't inspiring. If I can't be bothered to read the book, I certainly won't get around to using mechanics from it.

You know, it's funny. Yesterday I went to a used bookstore and was thumbing through the Monsternomicon. It's an Iron Kingdoms monster book. And a lot of the monsters were pretty typical from a mechanical point of view - improved grab, minor spell-likes, yawn.

But what really made the book just pop was that the information about the monster itself was told from the first-person perspective of a monster hunter/adventurer. He told anecdotes. As I was flipping through, I got irritated because I wanted the monster info without skimming the blather, but when I sat down to read the blather, it was really good and it made the otherwise hum-drum monsters really enticing. Each monster fit.

In addition, most of the monsters had a section called "Legends & Lore" which was just common to rare things told about them. There was some real Gold in there, like "Trapperkin abhore a mother's love; if a mother or a pregnant woman hugs a trapperkin, it will wither and die."

I even saw a monster entry and it made me say, "WHen I run a home brew game, this will be in there" because it just got my juices going.

Meanwhile, I look at the MM and its scores of humanoids, and you have to work at making them interesting.

 

[Rechan]

You went to much easier calculus class than I did. If all I had to do to pass calculus was 5th grade arithmetic, I'd be a biologist by now.

The math was hard to me. And a real stumbling block.

I got started with Champions in 1982. Once I got over the initial hump of "The powers are game mechanics, not absolutes -- 'armor' can be a 'luck field' that causes you to take less damage", I pretty much made it my game of choice...

I ran a Champions game for about six months.

I actually like the open-endedness of Hero's powers, of how they COULD be anything. But, the presentation of the book, and the heavy duty requirements of just running it, making adversaries, and making characters really turned me off.

 

[Rechan]

That you felt like going berserk about your misinterpretation of my statement is entirely your prerogative I suppose.

Some pointed this out a page ago and I apologized for misinterpreting it.