PHB2 Races = Mos Eisley Cantina

[Celebrim]

Can you understand how that can seem, well, petty?

No, I can't. Because as other's have pointed out, who seems petty in this sort of argument is entirely subjective.

The DM provides you with 9 PC races, 14 different classes, 6 different ability scores to configure as you will with point buy, 40 different skills to choose from, and gives you a selection of 600 feats, traits, and disadvantages with which to customize your character - some of which change your character so much as to effectively be a different race or class. You can play characters with inspirations as diverse as Conan, Tarzan and Elastagirl. And you say to the DM, "This sucks. I can't find one character concept in all of this that interests me. I want to play a Giff."

Who is being petty?

 

[rounser]

And another thing...

For those campaigns saddled with someone's insistence on a choice of a freaky monster PC race, it's not unreasonable to expect the other PCs to attack it on sight if it has no place in the setting, and/or looks like a monster.

This actually happened with a shortlived goblin PC of mine. Yes, I got the monster PC I wanted, after nagging the DM for it. He lasted three rounds, I think, because the DM introduced him as "You see a goblin walk into the room", and out of habit they all rolled for initiative. Although frustrating, we had a good laugh about how he barely got out the words "Stop-ow!..I-want-ow!...to-be-ow!....your....friend...ow...urrrrgh..." before expiring.

By then I'd got the message and rolled up something more appropriate.

Yes, I know, very badwrongfun and politically incorrect for the latest D&D accepted wisdom. But then, the latest accepted wisdom as suggested by inclusion of core monster races and an implied right to use them everywhere like some multiplanar homogenous kitchen sink freakshow could just well be completely wrong, and severely compromising D&D's usefulness as a worldbuilding kit.

There's an essay in the 1E DMG decrying monster PCs to this effect, for instance, and though I don't agree with everything Gary wrote, it does point to the fact that this is just another fashion, and entirely subjective as to it's merits.

 

[Obryn]

Can you understand that what for you is a minor detail is a major thing for others - and vice versa?

No, I absolutely understand that. And, much like all matters of opinion, I can disagree with their assessments, or think they're being unreasonable in them.

I'm speaking of what sorts of DMs and players I enjoy playing with. I'm not speaking of who is a good DM, or a good player. I don't know what you're arguing here.

-O

 

[Fenes]

No, I absolutely understand that. And, much like all matters of opinion, I can disagree with their assessments, or think they're being unreasonable in them.

I'm speaking of what sorts of DMs and players I enjoy playing with. I'm not speaking of who is a good DM, or a good player. I don't know what you're arguing here.

-O

I take offense at people saying "If you have no fun just because there's X in this game, you're wrong, since X is a minor thing". Everyone decides for themselves what is a minor and a major point in a game.

 

[Remathilis]

And another thing...

For those campaigns saddled with someone's insistence on a choice of a freaky monster PC race, it's not unreasonable to expect the other PCs to attack it on sight if it has no place in the setting, and/or looks like a monster.

This actually happened with a shortlived goblin PC of mine. Yes, I got the monster PC I wanted, after nagging the DM for it. He lasted three rounds, I think, because the DM introduced him as "You see a goblin walk into the room", and out of habit they all rolled for initiative. Although frustrating, we had a good laugh about how he barely got out the words "Stop-ow!..I-want-ow!...to-be-ow!....your....friend...ow...urrrrgh..." before expiring.

By then I'd got the message and rolled up something more appropriate.

Yes, I know, very badwrongfun and politically incorrect for the latest D&D accepted wisdom. But then, the latest accepted wisdom as suggested by inclusion of core monster races and an implied right to use them everywhere like some multiplanar homogenous kitchen sink freakshow could just well be completely wrong, and severely compromising D&D's usefulness as a worldbuilding kit.

There's an essay in the 1E DMG decrying monster PCs to this effect, for instance, and though I don't agree with everything Gary wrote, it does point to the fact that this is just another fashion, and entirely subjective as to it's merits.

IMHO, Someone here was being a jerk.

If your DM wasn't going to treat a monster PC as a PC (as opposed to a PvP joke encounter) and didn't tell you (No monster PCs), he was begin a jerk. Nothing is more frustrating than "Guess what the DM is thinking" D&D.

If you continued to pester him despite him telling you his campaigns racial choices, you were being the jerk. You ignored his warnings, you got what you deserve.

If the PC race choice was something normally assumed to be a PC race but was treated like a monster (Here is a tiefling. Kill it! Wait! Tieflings in the PHB) the DM was being a extra big jerk. (unless of course, you ignored his forewarning that tieflings, drow and other misunderstoods aren't allowed and rolled one up anyway).

I see no problem with allowing an occasional reformed monster, but I require a lot more of those PCs than I do of PHB races (or expansion races), but I tell my players what is allowed. I try to be liberal, but in return I expect my PCs don't run around as half-ochre-jelly-axiomatic-half-black-dragon-bugbear or similar nonsense.

 

[Fenes]

I see no problem with allowing an occasional reformed monster, but I require a lot more of those PCs than I do of PHB races (or expansion races), but I tell my players what is allowed. I try to be liberal, but in return I expect my PCs don't run around as half-ochre-jelly-axiomatic-half-black-dragon-bugbear or similar nonsense.

I have to add that it's not just the DM that rules what races are played in the campaign, but the players too. Vetoing by "Our PCs kill that race on sight" works.

 

[Mallus]

The DM provides you with 9 PC races, 14 different classes, 6 different ability scores to configure as you will with point buy, 40 different skills to choose from, and gives you a selection of 600 feats, traits, and disadvantages with which to customize your character - some of which change your character so much as to effectively be a different race or class. You can play characters with inspirations as diverse as Conan, Tarzan and Elastagirl. And you say to the DM, "This sucks. I can't find one character concept in all of this that interests me. I want to play a Giff."

Who is being petty?

The DM who says --given, as you've just pointed out, the tendency for D&D campaigns to be kitchen-sink affairs full of different, even divergent genre elements/influences-- that a single element (race, class, etc.) ruins the experience for them.

That seems petty, in my opinion.

I'm not trying to argue taste (I'm not that foolish...). I'm talking about how a person reacts to something that isn't to their taste. Given how much stuff goes on --and goes into-- your average D&D campaign, it seems borderline ridiculous to talk about how one element, or even a small set of elements, can spoil the whole of the experience. At that point "taste" starts to resemble "pathology", IMHO.

Look, I have my petty preferences too. I hate gnomes. As far as I'm concerned they belong in shabbily-decorated gardens, not fantasy adventures stories. Our current 4e homebrew is the first setting I've run that allows them in roughly 20 years (thanks to collaborative setting design). Are they going to ruin my fun? Heck no... because the setting/campaign has many more wonderful things in it.

 

[Wormwood]

If this thread has taught me everything, it is the vital importance for a gaming group to have a strong social contract.

For example, my group decides well in advance of any game what its parameters are. If someone wants to run D&D without Elves (for example) on their next turn as DM, we would talk it over as a group long before the campaign started. Being friends first and gamers second helps a great deal.

Haven't had a problem in *years*---at least since we began viewing RPGs more as a shared group activity than the old "My game, my rules." philosophy.

 

[Remathilis]

I have to add that it's not just the DM that rules what races are played in the campaign, but the players too. Vetoing by "Our PCs kill that race on sight" works.

I guess my players all have the "Detect PC" at-will, because I've never seen vigilante justice meeked out like that.

Then again, we've been playing as a group for over ten years, so we don't make PCs to screw each other over (anymore).

 

[Mallus]

Can you understand how making a fuss over not getting to play some bizarre contrived race in someone else's campaign where it has no place can seem not only petty and petulant, but also bad manners?

I'm not talking as a player (I should have made that clearer), I'm speaking as someone who primarily DM's. I strive fairly hard to accommodate players w/tastes and playstyles different from my own. I seek compromise and synthesis.

I have my own list of likes and dislikes. But I think it's, well, petty to reject characters simply because they don't match my aesthetic. Plus, I've found that the campaign is more interesting when I'm forced to play outside of my taste/comfort zone and integrate a character I don't like. I see it as a challenge, something that can lead to interesting play -- where as simply vetoing the character leads to nothing.

We could go around in circles like this, or you can, well, drop the ad hominem attacks.

This wasn't an ad hominen attack. I said 'an act can appear petty', and I stand by that.