PHB2 Races = Mos Eisley Cantina

[Mallus]

Jack7's post was what Williams S. Burroughs would have written if he were addicted to nerdery instead of opiates.

Note: this is a compliment... I like Burroughs.

 

[resistor]

I'm not inherently opposed to the publication of weird-and-interesting PC races (though I don't like them in MY campaign, and didn't in 3e either), I think there's a few differences this time around because of how 4e presents them.

1) Everything Is Core

In 3e, there was a pretty clear picture of what "default" D&D looked like, and it was also pretty clear that later supplements were not "on by default." The new policy changes this. It creates an assumption that supplements, particularly PHB2/3/4/12452, is "on by default." This makes it harder for DMs who want to run campaigns without the weird-and-interesting races, because, the be honest, the further ones game is from the default, the more specialized its audience and the harder it will be to find/retain/train new players.

2) Deliberate Spreading of Content

To compound the above issue, 4e has deliberately taken a policy of holding some "classic" content in reserve for later versions of the PHB/DMG/MM, in order to ensure more sales. However, this also creates complications for the DM. In 3e, a DM who only wanted the traditional basic races could just say "We're only using the PHB1." Now, that content is (deliberately) spread throughout several books, so the DM has to create a specific list of X and Y are allowed, but Z isn't. Again, this has the effect, at least psychologically, of removing the game further from the new "default D&D."

 

[Phaezen]

I'm not inherently opposed to the publication of weird-and-interesting PC races (though I don't like them in MY campaign, and didn't in 3e either), I think there's a few differences this time around because of how 4e presents them.

1) Everything Is Core

In 3e, there was a pretty clear picture of what "default" D&D looked like, and it was also pretty clear that later supplements were not "on by default." The new policy changes this. It creates an assumption that supplements, particularly PHB2/3/4/12452, is "on by default." This makes it harder for DMs who want to run campaigns without the weird-and-interesting races, because, the be honest, the further ones game is from the default, the more specialized its audience and the harder it will be to find/retain/train new players.

2) Deliberate Spreading of Content

To compound the above issue, 4e has deliberately taken a policy of holding some "classic" content in reserve for later versions of the PHB/DMG/MM, in order to ensure more sales. However, this also creates complications for the DM. In 3e, a DM who only wanted the traditional basic races could just say "We're only using the PHB1." Now, that content is (deliberately) spread throughout several books, so the DM has to create a specific list of X and Y are allowed, but Z isn't. Again, this has the effect, at least psychologically, of removing the game further from the new "default D&D."

Query, because I would really like to know.

Is a DM saying race x,y and z and classes f and q are not present in this campaign setting really that much of a dealbreaker to people?

I would not have a problem with this myself, and I have done it as well, although I do try and give my players reasons for not allowing the race or class. Its not as if in previous editions DMs might not have allowed psionics in the game. By default if you are running a homebrew campaign setting you will be deviating from the default setting assumptions.

Phaezen

 

[Mad Zagyg]

I'm not inherently opposed to the publication of weird-and-interesting PC races (though I don't like them in MY campaign, and didn't in 3e either), I think there's a few differences this time around because of how 4e presents them.

1) Everything Is Core

In 3e, there was a pretty clear picture of what "default" D&D looked like, and it was also pretty clear that later supplements were not "on by default." The new policy changes this. It creates an assumption that supplements, particularly PHB2/3/4/12452, is "on by default." This makes it harder for DMs who want to run campaigns without the weird-and-interesting races, because, the be honest, the further ones game is from the default, the more specialized its audience and the harder it will be to find/retain/train new players.

2) Deliberate Spreading of Content

To compound the above issue, 4e has deliberately taken a policy of holding some "classic" content in reserve for later versions of the PHB/DMG/MM, in order to ensure more sales. However, this also creates complications for the DM. In 3e, a DM who only wanted the traditional basic races could just say "We're only using the PHB1." Now, that content is (deliberately) spread throughout several books, so the DM has to create a specific list of X and Y are allowed, but Z isn't. Again, this has the effect, at least psychologically, of removing the game further from the new "default D&D."

Resistor, you speak in FACTS.

It is much easier to add exotic flavors to a soup than it is to remove them once they are mixed in.

 

[Kask]

Resistor, you speak in FACTS.

It is much easier to add exotic flavors to a soup than it is to remove them once they are mixed in.

True, it also makes it more difficult to create a campaign world that is high quality.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

Query, because I would really like to know.

Is a DM saying race x,y and z and classes f and q are not present in this campaign setting really that much of a dealbreaker to people?

I'm sure there are players out there who balk when told they can't use everything in every book that's come out yet, but overall I think it's a bit exaggerated as a problem. I've played in several campaigns where the available options were limited, sometimes pretty sharply ("Only dwarves and gnomes are available as starting races," for example), and nobody complained.

 

[Lurks-no-More]

True, it also makes it more difficult to create a campaign world that is high quality.

Beg your pardon?

 

[Mournblade94]

I don't even like 4e and when I saw that particular piece of art I thought it looked good.

WoTC is doing a good job on appearance if nothing else.

 

[resistor]

Is a DM saying race x,y and z and classes f and q are not present in this campaign setting really that much of a dealbreaker to people?

Dealbreaker? Probably not. Doesn't me I like it, though.

I think the issue is mostly one of perception. What do players expect when you say "Want to join our D&D game?" In 3e, at least, the default assumption was that they used the PHB, and possibly some supplements. Today, because of the everything-is-core and spreading-of-content policies, the default is shifting to be up-to-date core books, and possibly some supplements.

As to why this is a problem, well, again, it's perceptual. Most players are looking for whatever the current norm is, so you'll have to look harder to find someone who's interested in your non-norm game.

Beyond that, there's just the feeling on marginalization on the part of those who preferred a more restricted core. Their preferred style used to be fairly mainstream within the D&D-playing populace, and now it seems to be more marginalized. And nobody likes feeling like that.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Gnome? Half-Orc? Goliath? What's so Mos Eisley about them?
[sblock=That's Mos Eisley]

[/sblock]

If anything, the problem of most of the 4E races is that they are all just humanoids with funny skin colors and pointy ears and unusual body size. We don't have creatures with

The most alien creature is the Dragonborn, because he has scales.

---

I feel that there is a lot of worrying about games that are not yours going on here.

Come on, what's the big deal if someone else uses Savage Species to run Mind Flayers alongside Humans, Drow and Tiefling PCs? Or uses PHB II to run Dragonborn alongside Humans, Elves, Devas and so on?

Is this some kind of badwrongfun thing: "But that's not how _we_ like to play. We don't want a rule system that might make it easy to play the game in any other way but the way I am used to!"

I don't know about other people games, but my experience is that it's very easy for a DM to say "No, I won't allow this race/class/feat/PrC/Paragon Path/Magic Item". Do you really constantly have trouble telling your players no? If that's the case, ever considered the idea that maybe, just maybe, you're running the wrong game for the players you have, and maybe you need either change your game or change your players?

If you have a group that doesn't like Devas and Dragonborn, don't use them. If you have a group that does like them, use them.
If you have a group with mixed opinions on that, don't use "it's not core" as a lame excuse to say No to someone. Don't use "but it's core" as your lame excuse to say why you HAVE to have your way.
Discuss it and arrive at a fair compromise! Not everyone of us might be an adult, but at some point you gonna have to learn acting like one.