D&D 5E Greyhawk, and race options for Oerth PCs

[billd91]

The second example came up recently in a game of Star Trek Adventures that my group played. We have one member of the group that is a huge Star Trek fan. We have two others who are also big fans, and then three that are moderate fans (including me). So the GM decided that the game would be set in The Next Generation era. One of the players who is a casual Star Trek fan wanted to make a Klingon character. The GM restricted that race because "there was only one Klingon Starfleet member at that time, and it was Worf". So the player wound up making another character. There was no big dustup or argument about it....but this struck me as really odd. The GM's sense of fidelity to the setting trumped the player's desire. Basically, the GM decided to maintain the unique nature of a NPC rather than allow the player to play what he wanted. As if having a second Klingon in Starfleet would somehow "ruin" the setting.

To me, this is a clear case where it's basically let the player play what they'd like. The justification to maintain the setting status quo as it relates to Worf seems a very odd decision to me. Who cares about Worf? He never even showed up in our game at all.

What if they had wanted to play another android like Data? A Klingon isn't that hard to justify even if someone wanted to keep Worf the only Klingon in Starfleet - they'd just have to be part of the officer exchange program that we saw in "A Matter of Honor" from season 2. Then, the'd still be part of the Klingon Empire as well as available on a Starfleet vessel - lots of plot hook connections both ways.

But Data really is supposed to be unique. You could come up with yet another Soong android, but that really would cheapen the chachet of being an android if you're just going to retcon more as you need them.

Of course, the most obvious alternative... if you want to be an android like Data - play Data.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[hawkeyefan]

What if they had wanted to play another android like Data? A Klingon isn't that hard to justify even if someone wanted to keep Worf the only Klingon in Starfleet - they'd just have to be part of the officer exchange program that we saw in "A Matter of Honor" from season 2. Then, the'd still be part of the Klingon Empire as well as available on a Starfleet vessel - lots of plot hook connections both ways.

But Data really is supposed to be unique. You could come up with yet another Soong android, but that really would cheapen the chachet of being an android if you're just going to retcon more as you need them.

Of course, the most obvious alternative... if you want to be an android like Data - play Data.

I agree about Worf entirely. I would never know that there was such a built in way around the issue as the officer exchange program that you cited (I''m not a huge Trek fan and I don't have the encyclopedic knowledge of the setting that the GM has) but if I was a GM I would have come up with any number of ways to make it work.

For Data, I would be a bit more understanding of the urge to stick to the lore. But, I still think it could be managed. Either you let the player be Data as you suggest, or you remove Data from the lore, and you introduce an entirely different android that the player can be. Or you change Data from some kind of unique being to something more common. You don't have to go as far as the Droids from Star Wars, but maybe allow the frequency of androids from the Aliens movies.

If on the other hand, Worf or Data and their uniqueness is going to factor into play in some meaningful way (kind of hard to imagine since they'd be NPCs rather than PCs, but anything is possible) then maybe it's a valid restriction by the GM. Since this didn't come up in any way, that wasn't the case in our game, so I think the GM erred.

Again, this is my point.....I think very often, some kind of compromise can be made.

 

[hawkeyefan]

First, we should all agree on a basic predicate to any reasonable discussion. The banning and/or vivisection of gnomes is a common good, regardless of reason or rationale.

Second, it is sometimes important to view this matter holistically. Much like other commenters have remarked, with varying degrees of humor or vitriol, that they would consider it a red flag if a DM bans certain options without reason, what about looking at this from the other perspective. What do you think about players that demand certain options, without reason. Your point says that the player "for some inexplicable reason" want to play a gnome.

In other words, there is an entire campaign world, one carefully constructed, that has an a priori and well-thought out reason (a genocide) for the lack of gnomes. This campaign world theoretically presented to the players, and there was table buy-in (yes, let's play that!). And then one player, instead of accepting the many base options that are allowed, or choosing some of the additional options that make sense for that campaign world, is like, "Screw y'all, Ima gnome. 'Cuz reasons."

There are many campaigns, and many DMs, and many campaign worlds that offer every option under the sun. On the other hand, if the table has agreed to play in a campaign world that has differences- either additions, subtractions, or modifications to the core rules, that is something that should be enjoyed.

Yeah, absolutely. This is why i said that I feel like these things are likely addressed in some way before they ever become an issue.

And since I mostly GM, I certainly get the point of view that a player who insists on something is just as much a red flag as a GM who does so.

But I also know that players may have a character concept or ideas for what they'd like to play well before a new game begins or is even decided upon. How often do you hear someone say something like "I think my next PC will be X"?

So to stick with the Athas and Gnomes thing.....this would likely come up at session zero or maybe in pre-game discussions. At that point, I'd expect it to be something like "Oh, Dark Sun, huh? I was kind of hoping to play a gnome next. Is there any way that can happen?"

Sure, maybe the DM just shuts it down. But he could also seek a way to make it work that won't be disruptive. And in this case, the setting of Athas actually allows for multiple ways to go about this. You could easily make this a meaningful thing like "the last of the gnomes" or you could make it totally unobtrusive such as "you were wounded near the Pristine Tower, and you were changed into your current form" or any number of other things.

 

[billd91]

I agree about Worf entirely. I would never know that there was such a built in way around the issue as the officer exchange program that you cited (I''m not a huge Trek fan and I don't have the encyclopedic knowledge of the setting that the GM has)

It was a pretty memorable episode - and one of the really good ways ST:TNG started to explore Klingon culture. If you haven't seen it, I heartily recommend it.

 

[Dire Bare]

Well you just sound a bit paradox with this post, you make so much drama about someone not being allowed to play dragonborn, which just not fits in everybodies world, and otoh you got two players of which one just plays the standard human ranger, but this archetype gets its niche protection from the creative player who wants to play a guy with a darker side?
The only precondition I would have in this case (unless the campaign is really a black-white good vs evil with no nuances thing then I'd agree with your post), would be that the player of the dark character must not start intra party fighting.
Other than that I assure you, no matter the setting ( except for the plain good evil example I gave) the player with the dark concept will bring more fun and life and RP to your table than the ranger guy.

Restricting players unnecessarily in a way you suggest (unless the setting is the exception I mentioned and even there you yourself noticed Raistlin as an exception in the exception), is far more intrusive for me, because that's character and roleplay which you restrict, and not some fluff about whether you are a human or a human covered with scales and with a tail (most dragonborn players) or a reptile humanoid with traits which differ really from how humans act and value things (some few dragonborn players).

Huh?!

I must not have communicated my thoughts clearly, sorry.

I don't like evil or mercenary style campaigns, as a player or DM. But I do NOT ban evil-alignments for the characters. If one of my players wants to play an evil PC, we'll have a more in-depth discussion about it than perhaps the other players who want to play "good guys". I WANT the player to be able to realize their character concept, but in a way that everybody has fun, myself included. During that discussion, we might decide to try a different type of character, or go forward with the evil PC. If the evil character does become a problem for the game, we'll deal with it collaboratively at that point.

 

[Coroc]

Huh?!

I must not have communicated my thoughts clearly, sorry.

I don't like evil or mercenary style campaigns, as a player or DM. But I do NOT ban evil-alignments for the characters. If one of my players wants to play an evil PC, we'll have a more in-depth discussion about it than perhaps the other players who want to play "good guys". I WANT the player to be able to realize their character concept, but in a way that everybody has fun, myself included. During that discussion, we might decide to try a different type of character, or go forward with the evil PC. If the evil character does become a problem for the game, we'll deal with it collaboratively at that point.

Still, even if you do allow evil characters (i would not allow that at all for some campaigns), what do you think is more invasive, prohibiting a race/class or prohibiting a certain RP concept?

For me it is clearly the second, i hope you get what i try to express:
E.g.

a) Lets say the character wants to play a dragonborn rogue
The DM says no dragonborn please chose another race.

b) Let's say the dragonborn rogue is allowed and he is a bit on the shady side, and decides to lift a shop in the homebase city of the PCs which could lead to ruining the reputation of the whole party
The DM says, no now you go to far, you won't do that

c) Let's say the dragonborn rogue is of CN alingment and gets caught while shoplifting. He decides to off the shopkeeper to prevent him fro mcalling the city guard.
Now the good/neutral party he is associated with would eventually be handled by officials as complicit with a murderer, if things come to light.
The DM says your character is CN, he might do that but in the end he decides not to
(That is big meta of course, to prevent to ruin the setting for everyone else)

How would you rule in b) or c) (I know you would allow the character so a) is not an issue for you) and if you would intervene in these cases isn't that a much harsher intrusion on the PC than denying a) ?

 

[Dire Bare]

And that is the beef I sometimes have with those people (not my players, they prefer humans quite often anyway, because they like being true in their roleplaying):

If they at least would admit, that the reason for their choice is more often for mechanical reasons or for liking the look or flair of a race, which they still play like a human instead of accusing the DM being not flexible.

There is no problem with someone not feeling good at RP but still wanting to play an elf or dragonborn, but there is a problem if someone claims the DM is single viewed for disallowing one or more of the races in his campaign, even if they are part of the core 4 or PHB. Those books are neither the law nor the bible.

I might not be understanding your point, but I am confused.

Folks who get bummed or irritated with DM's not allowing certain races (or other character options) are terrible role-players? There's no correlation there, sorry. My desire to play a dragonborn, elf, or human has no relationship to my role-playing skill. And if I am an "unskilled" role-player, I'd rather the group I'm with try to help me improve rather than simply banning character choices they perceive as role-playing challenges.

 

[Dire Bare]

Should a DM allow a player to roll a Vulcan or a Hobbit character in a Star Wars game or should he have the right to say that it's outside the limits of what he envisions for the campaign? Ultimately, that's the question. In my opinion, the DM sets the tone and, within reasonable limits, he should be allowed to exclude certain elements from the game.

I would totally allow Vulcans and Hobbits in a Star Wars game. Can't think of a reason why that wouldn't work, even if I had a Star Wars purist at the table.

 

[Dire Bare]

If someone has the final say, they're the one who will ultimately have to make a call about that kind of things. I love the way you think but I've never met a group where everyone agreed on everything and made every decision unanimously.

Playing the game, building the characters, and even building the world collaboratively does not require unanimity. A simple democratic vote works just fine. Or even just an informal read of the table's views on whatever is going on.