Only the Lonely: Why We Demand Official Product

[Paul Farquhar]

However, by the definition provided, no official D&D setting is truly humanocentric otherwise you could not really play non-humans without having a miserable play experience. And who wants that?

We-ell, we did have two Conan modules released back in the 1980s, so Hyboria was, at least briefly, an official setting.

 

[Maxperson]

This reply doesn't even come close to answering my post - this does not explain how adding races makes settings worse. How does adding Dragonborn to Forgotten Realms make the setting worse? Why does adding Tabaxi or Goliaths to Forgotten Realms not make the setting worse? Why does adding Dragonborn to Dark Sun make the setting 'worse'. Define 'worse' in this context? Worse than what? Why is the original 2e edition version of Dark Sun better without Dragonborn in your 'opinion'?

A campaign setting is designed with X, Y and Z races. Dark Sun or example came out in 1991 with very specific races in it. In order to force Tabaxi in, you either have to do something drastic to the setting in order to get them there, which many will find to be unpalatable, or else you have to ignore the decades of gaming where there were no Tabaxi in the marketplaces or anywhere else the players went in the world and suddenly they are everywhere, which many will find to be unpalatable. It makes the setting worse for people who want things to make sense or not be drastically setting altering.

As an example, the Forgotten Realms was released in 1987 and I bought it. No mention of Saurials anywhere. I played the game for years before the novel with Saurials in it was written in 1991. They didn't make it into the game until 1996 and suddenly we have Dinosaur born in the game. Supposedly they were brought to the world by a god, which altered the world. I hated it and said no. Dragonborn are the same. They don't exist in my game.

 

[billd91]

Actually, it was intentional. Star Wars is not humancentric, even though most player characters are human. Firefly/Serenity is humancentric - everyone is human.

If everyone is human, you don't need to describe it as humanocentric. Humanocentric really only matters if humans aren't the only relevant groups around, but humans are dominant - culturally, politically, and as the backdrop society around the focus of the campaign setting.

 

[generic]

A campaign setting is designed with X, Y and Z races. Dark Sun or example came out in 1991 with very specific races in it. In order to force Tabaxi in, you either have to do something drastic to the setting in order to get them there, which many will find to be unpalatable, or else you have to ignore the decades of gaming where there were no Tabaxi in the marketplaces or anywhere else the players went in the world and suddenly they are everywhere, which many will find to be unpalatable. It makes the setting worse for people who want things to make sense or not be drastically setting altering.

As an example, the Forgotten Realms was released in 1987 and I bought it. No mention of Saurials anywhere. I played the game for years before the novel with Saurials in it was written in 1991. They didn't make it into the game until 1996 and suddenly we have Dinosaur born in the game. Supposedly they were brought to the world by a god, which altered the world. I hated it and said no. Dragonborn are the same. They don't exist in my game.

But, you do realize that this cannot possibly be argued as objectively making the setting worse, because that is a matter of preference. Do I agree with you? Yes, I do, in fact, agree with your contention that Forgotten Realms has been made worse over time. I entered the game in 4E, as I am too young to have entered much earlier, and, I was so dissuaded from playing the setting by internet dwellers complaining about changes to the setting, that I did not play FR until I began playing 5E. I do not wish to imagine having one of my favorite settings, say, Eberron, be destroyed by careless inclusions.

However, this all comes down to preference, which is why you cannot prove that the setting was made worse. Do we all know that the setting was made worse? Yes, intuitively, many of us do. But, there will always be those who insist on evidence, even when it is in the field of subjectivity.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

It depends how you introduce them. If you have Waterdeep market suddenly teaming with Saurials, that's terribad. But if adventurers uncover a secret valley full of dinosaur people, that's fine.

And with FR, it's connected to the rest of the multiverse via Spelljammer and Planescape, so a PC could be a planar traveller, even if there are no others of there kind on the planet.

 

[Maxperson]

That's how they where added, not the fact a race was added.

The addition of a new race, regardless of the method, is world/setting altering. The Dragonborn are a race that is both populous and capable of producing many level 20+ PC class PCs and NPCs or the equivalent power NPCs(depending on the method you use to make NPCs).

If they had been running around loose in the world the entire time, they would have been known about and been present in Greyhawk and other cities/countries for entire 40 years it has been a published setting.

There are three choices I can see that result from Dragonborn entering the setting. 1) you retcon that they were around the entire time, but SOMEHOW no player or DM knew it while they were adventuring and creating adventures in Greyhawk. Not a good solution. 2) you just ignore that they popped in and don't bother to explain it. Probably the best of the bad solutions. 3) You have a world altering event, like they were imprisoned magically as a race for 10 bazillion years and just got released, came from another world en masse, or some other way, which is the most setting destructive method.

 

[Maxperson]

But, you do realize that this cannot possibly be argued as objectively making the setting worse, because that is a matter of preference. Do I agree with you? Yes, I do, in fact, agree with your contention that Forgotten Realms has been made worse over time. I entered the game in 4E, as I am too young to have entered much earlier, and, I was so dissuaded from playing the setting by internet dwellers complaining about changes to the setting, that I did not play FR until I began playing 5E. I do not wish to imagine having one of my favorite settings, say, Eberron, be destroyed by careless inclusions.

However, this all comes down to preference, which is why you cannot prove that the setting was made worse. Do we all know that the setting was made worse? Yes, intuitively, many of us do. But, there will always be those who insist on evidence, even when it is in the field of subjectivity.

There is no objectivity here, unless you are looking at sales numbers and can definitively link a drop to the release of the race.

 

[generic]

There is no objectivity here, unless you are looking at sales numbers and can definitively link a drop to the release of the race.

My point exactly... Did you read my whole post...?

 

[Maxperson]

Sure, the DM is free to make abitary decisions about what races players can play, but if the race is in the world it's in the world, irrespective of if the DM lets you play as one or not.

I've never met a DM that just made random decisions about what races can be played. They have reasons, which excludes arbitrary.

 

[Maxperson]

My point exactly... Did you read my whole post...?

I did, perhaps you missed in the post you quoted where I say, "...which many will find to be unpalatable" and " I hated it and said no."

Clearly I was talking about subjective and not objective.