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

[Zardnaar]

Yeah, there may be reasons to say no. I get that. But there are also reasons to say yes.

I think that a lot of the time, people say no out of reflex, but if they paused for a moment and gave it some thought, maybe there’d not just be a way to say yes, but that it may lead to something interesting.

Like the hidden menace race idea you mention.....maybe it was drow, but a PC wanted to be a drow. Now, they could easily be from some other drow culture, but maybe it’s already been established that there’s only one drow culture in this world. But then the DM thinks....what if the hidden menace race isn’t the drow, but is instead some new enemy? And maybe they’re in the underdark and they’re so horrible, drow are fleeing to the surface. And then the campaign has a hidden enemy that the players actually aren’t familiar with and the player gets what he wants.

Depends on how much work you've put into it.
If you've mapped out a Drow city, written up an adventure, NPCs list etc.

 

[Oofta]

I think it really comes down to communication. Ideally, the DM would have some level of player input on the chosen setting. Or at least, that seems ideal to me. So if that’s the case, then hopefully whatever races players are interested in will have been given consideration. If there’s some mismatch, hopefully one side can explain their case and win the other over, or some compromise can be had.

Yes, we can all think of players who requested utterly ridiculous concepts that were disruptive and also min-maxed to the extreme.

We can also come up with examples of DMs who just don’t want to allow things they don’t like, and who think that their generic fantasy setting is not generic at all because hey, no elves! Wow.

Putting aside those extremes, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a setting going for a specific theme, and therefore having some possible restrictions on race and class. I also can’t blame players for wanting to play the options in the book. The Fabulous World of Gwynnthwirl isn’t in the PHB. But Dragonborn are. They’re probably more excited about that than the setting.

So as with most of these things, it takes consideration and communication. Both sides could do with being a little more willing to work with the other side.

One question I have for those who don’t like the plethora of race options for PCs....do you still have gnolls and bullywugs and kuo-toa and drow and ettercaps and orcs and goblins and giants and lizardmen and kenku and fetchlings and shadar-kai and kobolds and so on? Or is it just player options that you want to limit?

Let's see. I basically have orcs, gnolls, goblins of various stripes. Ogres, trolls and giants are descendants of giants from Jotunheim and are pretty rare. There are Drow and a handful of other races in the underdark. Even then they are kind of sorted out with orcs being the dominant evil humanoid race in the north with gnolls and hobgoblins duking it out further south. I keep thinking some day I may throw Yuan-Ti in if I ever make it to the southern jungles, but they'd be the result of worshipping a snake god.

So I have about the same number of "monstrous" races as "demi-human" races, about a half dozen. Of course I still fall into the silly D&D trope of other monsters wandering everywhere but I try to justify those.

Other than that, it's undead, demons, lycanthropes or humans who are the bad guys. I may have used lizard-men here and there but I don't remember the last time.

So no, I don't have 30-some-odd monstrous humanoids running around either.

 

[TiwazTyrsfist]

Ok, I understand limiting races, and in particular I understand, in specific settings, limiting the more inhuman races, Tieflings, Dragonborn, etc.

I'm a little confused by the high level of hatred for Gnomes though. Why are Gnomes unpopular in particular? I mean it's not like their Drow or Kender.


Also, a number of people should review this list before posting again (List of fallacies - Wikipedia)

 

[Zardnaar]

Ok, I understand limiting races, and in particular I understand, in specific settings, limiting the more inhuman races, Tieflings, Dragonborn, etc.

I'm a little confused by the high level of hatred for Gnomes though. Why are Gnomes unpopular in particular? I mean it's not like their Drow or Kender.


Also, a number of people should review this list before posting again (List of fallacies - Wikipedia)

It's mostly just Lowkey who hates gnomes and people on the forums play along.

Or the odd 4E player justifying their removal from the PHB.

Generally I think it's just more apathy. I haven't been overly interested in them since 2E where they at least had the illusionist thing.

Kender need to be banned throughout the multiverse. Including Krynn but they may be acceptable as An PCs only.

Players you don't want.

"Can I play a CN Kender thief"?

DM X-card right there.

 

[Don Durito]

Gnomes are probably left out because they were often left out in 2E days.

Dark Sun: humans, dwarves, elves, half-elves, halfings. No gnomes.
Dragonlance: Gnomes yes. But not IIRC to begin with.
Birthright: Humans, elves, dwarves, half-elves, halflings?. No gnomes.

The Player's Handbook is just being strictly correct when it says they "don't exist in all D&D worlds".

Even when they're not explicitly excluded they do tend to get forgotten about.

Really. I don't think it was that gnomes were particularly hated. It's just that, when you're cutting back on races, in order to give each one a clear place in the setting, it's easy to get to gnomes and think "who cares?". They're just not as 'iconic'.

 

[Don Durito]

(List of fallacies - Wikipedia)

What's the name for the fallacy that involves bringing up fallacies when no one is actually trying to formulate a strict logical argument in the first place?

 

[Fenris-77]

Jokes about Gnomes are funny. I plead guilty. I don't hate Gnomes though.

 

[billd91]

Gnomes are probably left out because they were often left out in 2E days.

Dark Sun: humans, dwarves, elves, half-elves, halfings. No gnomes.
Dragonlance: Gnomes yes. But not IIRC to begin with.
Birthright: Humans, elves, dwarves, half-elves, halflings?. No gnomes.

Even when they're not explicitly excluded they do tend to get forgotten about.

Really. I don't think it was that gnomes were particularly hated. It's just that, when you're cutting back on races, in order to give each one a clear place in the setting, it's easy to get to gnomes and think "who cares?". They're just not as 'iconic'.

They're not always portrayed as particularly distinctive. They're a lot like dwarves, but not quite. They've got some similarities with elves, but not quite. They're a bit like halflings, but not quite. It's one of the reasons I like what Paizo did with gnomes - they made them distinctive and more fun.

 

[Zardnaar]

Kender+ blade barrier. Kender blender.

 

[Fenris-77]

What's the name for the fallacy that involves bringing up fallacies when no one is actually trying to formulate a strict logical argument in the first place?

Depending on the exact nuance it could be cast as an appeal to accomplishment if the poster was making an attempt to suggest that "I know about fallacies and therefore you're wrong". I suspect it's rather not that though, and fallacies don't apply just to strictly logical arguments. People make all manner of fallacious claims here, most of which get brought up and identified as 'wrong' without specific reference to fallacy. Cherry picking, hasty generalization, and a whole variety of questionable cause fallacies are quite common though.