I don't like Dragonborn: Please come and bring friends.

[Wiseblood]

The eternally-defended races are the LotR ripoffs, and that makes them the races that people who get tired of things are likely most tired of. No matter what, race-wise, D&D will continue to favor ripping off that one guy. Over and over and over again forever. You can always depend on Bilbo to show up in Undermountain, if you can depend on anything.

And Dragonborn are Weis/Hickman ripoffs, see.

Or possibly Marvel.

 

[Incenjucar]

And Dragonborn are Weis/Hickman ripoffs, see.

No they stole it from anime.

I mean WoW.

I mean Gym Class.

 

[hafrogman]

Personally I'd be fine with certain races showing up in the MM, perhaps devoid of their sample name entries and place among the iconic characters . . . but other than that, they HAVE to get the full race treatment if people are going to count it as including them.

3.X and 4e monster races were particularly bad about this, and it's been a while since I looked through the 2e Humanoid Handbook, but I don't remember it being much better.

So what is the full race treatment?

> Balance, playtesting and an eye to them being balanced and viable races. All the rules that 3.X applied to its races went out the door for the monster races, particularly with respect to ability scores. 4e had the notoriously overpowered 'Oversized' ability.

> Height/Weight/Age charts. Yeah, it's a little thing, but it cheeses me off.

> Support. If dwarves, elves and halflings get feats in the PHB, then there should be at least something for the also-ran races. Perhaps not a feat for each race, perhaps a small selection of more general "monsterous" feats, themes and backgrounds?

> Continued Support. When it comes time for the 'Races of X', or 'Complete Book of X' race-type splat books, don't forget the 'Races of the Little Dark Corner Where Certain People Don't Have to Admit They Exist' book.

 

[CleverNickName]

The eternally-defended races are the LotR ripoffs, and that makes them the races that people who get tired of things are likely most tired of. No matter what, race-wise, D&D will continue to favor ripping off that one guy. Over and over and over again forever. You can always depend on Bilbo to show up in Undermountain, if you can depend on anything.

You are right, D&D will always have elves, dwarves, and halflings. I really don't see a problem with that. The issue, I think, comes from people who want to force a certain style or theme onto those who don't want it.

Sometimes, it is the DM who is forcing it. "Ugh, no dragonborn. They don't exist in this game world, choose again."

Other times, it is the Player who is forcing it. "Aw man, not another lame LotR campaign! Why don't I just change my name to Gandalf?"

Is it okay to do one, but not the other? Of course not. So the answer is a compromise. I think a good compromise is to include the non-traditional D&D races in the core rules...but to include them in the Monster Manual. That way, DMs don't feel like they are being force-fed something they might not want ("but it's in the Player's Handbook!"), and players don't feel like they are being starved of something they do ("where can I find the dragonborn?").

 

[Belphanior]

I always find anti-LOTR comments in Dragonborn threads for some reason. Some people like The Lord of the Rings and/or Dragonborn, some people don't, and that's fine. But how does the inclusion of dragonborn in the Player's Handbook prevent someone from playing a LotR-style game of D&D? And, conversely, how does excluding dragonborn from the Player's Handbook force someone to play a LotR-style game?

Nobody is forced to play LotR-style if dragonborn aren't included, nor does anybody here object to other people who do play in that style.

But we do object to the "LotR uber alles" vibe that threatens to strip the game down to only those elements that were present in LotR. But D&D is not LotR. It's the game with mind flayers, gelatinous cubes, beholders, and yes even dragonborn.

Seriously, D&D has just as much in common with 1001 nights as with Lord of the Rings. Where do you think genies, rocs, flying carpets, dancing swords, and ghouls came from?

 

[Sunseeker]

I always find anti-LOTR comments in Dragonborn threads for some reason. Some people like The Lord of the Rings, some people don't, and that's fine. But how does the inclusion of dragonborn in the Player's Handbook prevent someone from playing a LotR-style game of D&D? And, conversely, how does excluding dragonborn from the Player's Handbook force someone to play a LotR-style game?

For the former, it doesn't. But the latter tends to come up because folks who advocate only the "core 4" races and the same for classes(rogue, fighter, wizard, cleric), tend to often talk about D&D as though it's primary purpose is to replay LOTR(which is fairly boring and really railroady).

 

[Dausuul]

I always find anti-LOTR comments in Dragonborn threads for some reason.

I expect most of them are from me. I see all the dragonborn hate and feel compelled to remind people that elves and dwarves need hating too.

(I'm actually a big Tolkien fan. I just wish we could leave Middle-Earth in Middle-Earth, and do something else in D&D.)

 

[Incenjucar]

You are right, D&D will always have elves, dwarves, and halflings. I really don't see a problem with that. The issue, I think, comes from people who want to force a certain style or theme onto those who don't want it.

Absolutely nothing wrong with using D&D as a proxy to explore a world you like. It's trying to cram that same experience down everyone's throats that brings up contention. Also I personally find it a bit absurd since there are actual LotR RPGs. But if your DM really wants to get a lich going and you really want to be Bilbo and your friend really wants to be a dragonborn gladiator, hey, D&D is a fantastic crossover game.

Sometimes, it is the DM who is forcing it. "Ugh, no dragonborn. They don't exist in this game world, choose again."

Other times, it is the Player who is forcing it. "Aw man, not another lame LotR campaign! Why don't I just change my name to Gandalf?"

Is it okay to do one, but not the other? Of course not. So the answer is a compromise. I think a good compromise is to include the non-traditional D&D races in the core rules...but to include them in the Monster Manual. That way, DMs don't feel like they are being force-fed something they might not want, and players don't feel like they are being starved of something they do.

I disagree on the whole "pump DMs with more power whether they want it or not" philosophy, so I cannot agree. I feel that, in as few books as possible, all of the most basic concepts should be made available to players. If they want to get crazy specific stuff and put that in an MM, fine, whatever.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't see a problem with either one, honestly. But I have noticed that most of the people who do NOT want dragonborn are DMs, and most of the people who DO want them are players. So maybe this whole argument has more to do with control over world-building than anything else.

It's not a problem if you play with the same group and same world for a long period of time.

But if you ever played with different groups, revolving casts, new groups as a DM, new DMs as a player... you'll see the the world and the same PCs. And it could get boring after a while unless you have dedicated method actors as players and DMs.

It never felt like a DM vs player thing.

It's a Tradition vs Creativity thing.
Scottish accented Mountain Dwarves with axes or Jamaician accented Jungle Dwarves on elemental elephants.

There are those who have an established view of the game and its content and wish it remained untouched.

And there are those who jumped away from a traditional view and are willing to make totally new world and peoples.

 

[hafrogman]

I don't see a problem with either one, honestly. But I have noticed that most of the people who do NOT want dragonborn are DMs, and most of the people who DO want them are players. So maybe this whole argument has more to do with control over world-building than anything else.

I haven't noticed this at all. Perhaps time for a separate poll with more options than yes/no? I've seen complaints from people saying that if something's in the PHB, the DM can't say "no", but never an accompanying claim or example to show that they are the DM who the players feel free to ignore.

If I had to guess, it's more of an issue of control. Steve and Jim play in Greg's campaign, and Steve hates dragonborn. Jim shows up to game with a dragonborn and Greg says "sure, whatever's in the PHB", now Steve is pissed. Steve wants to control what Jim plays, but can't.

Moreover, there seem to be a lot of people who want to make sure than when new gamers pick up these books for the first time, and introduce themselves to this hobby we all share, they want to make sure that new gamers don't get crazy ideas into their heads like "Dragonborn belong in D&D" or "Paladins can be any alignment". These people want to be sure that new gamers realize there is only ONE way to play TRUE D&D. . . THEIR WAY!

DMs don't need to have control issues, they're already in control. It's the people that can't control their fellow gamers that lash out in frustration.