PHB2 Races = Mos Eisley Cantina

[AllisterH]

Cough, Cough, Cough, Cough.

You were saying?

THIS

When dragonborn were announced for 4e, my first assumption wasn't that WOTC was trying to create an out-there type of race or making D&D "different".

I always assumed it was because the dragonborn style race was EXTREMELY popular as was Dragons. Seriously, how many dragon-men type races did 3e come out with.

I personally never understood the appeal of them but SOMEBODY out there has to have been buying all those dragon related products (by my count, there are at least 3 dragon-books 3E produced...)

My thinking was the designers said "geez, look at how popular dragonmen are...might as well make it official anyway..."

 

[lutecius]

And I think that sounds unreasonable and a little too intense for me and my group, based on what you're saying here. I think this is a minor issue, and therefore I would tend to think anyone who doesn't is blowing it out of proportion. As is my right, as a DM and as a player. Other groups will, undoubtedly, have different perspectives than I do. Again, what are we arguing about here? Are you insisting that I should want to play with you (or someone else) no matter what? Doesn't that seem contradictory to you?

I can't speak for him but I think Fenes is insisting that his position is not unreasonable, as you keep saying.
It is a matter of preferences not reason.

Without going to extreme examples like rape, some people simply won't play games involving sexual content, evil PCs or steampunk or high magic campaigns. For others it's furries and dragonborns.

Whether they bother you personally or not, PC races affect the tone of a game. You potentially have to deal with them every session.

Would you play in a game with characters like Mallus' paladin? Apparently it's fun for him since he keeps bringing it up and i don't think it's morally offensive. But I find it both so icky and silly that it would certainly ruin the game for me, so i'd pass. Is that unreasonable?

Cough, Cough, Cough, Cough.

You were saying?

Of those, only DB of Bahamut, a late addition really compares and qualifies as a pc race. And they're all optional, definitely not an expected part of 3e. A lot easier for a DM to say no without being called a prima donna.

The silly races aren't the reason i don't play 4e and i don't think ph2 races are that bad but this debate proves that whether they're in the phb or not does matter after all.

 

[Obryn]

I can't speak for him but I think Fenes is insisting that his position is not unreasonable, as you keep saying.
It is a matter of preferences not reason.

I never said his position was unreasonable. I said I find his position unreasonable. I also said I would prefer not to play with someone who holds what I think a minor issue to be so critical.

Without going to extreme examples like rape, some people simply won't play games involving sexual content, evil PCs or steampunk or high magic campaigns. For others it's furries and dragonborns.

Again, like I said, other people can put whatever they'd like in their games. I'm only talking about myself and my game - and about the attitudes of people I like to play with.

I don't really know why this is an issue. He's arguing for his right to not play in a game with dragonborn. I'm saying I, also, have a right not to play games with people who would get so heated about having a race they don't care for in a game.

Are you arguing that I don't have that right?

Would you play in a game with characters like Mallus' paladin? Apparently it's fun for him since he keeps bringing it up and i don't think it's morally offensive. But I find it both so icky and silly that it would certainly ruin the game for me, so i'd pass. Is that unreasonable?

Given what I answered above, what do you think?

-O

 

[Hussar]

Are there elements that can break a game?

Of course. I, for one, have NEVER argued against this. Of course there are.

Are there reasons for ejecting something from your game?

Again, of course. A couple of pages back, I posted half a dozen of them and you could probably add, "Does this element bring in uncomfortable social elements that I don't want at my table" and that would cover rape or graphic depictions of torture or whatnot.

My sole point, and it's the point that Mallus has taken and explained much better than I do, is that perhaps, as a DM, if you are banning something just because, then that is not serving the game as well as you could be. Yes, your game will be perfectly fine and fun with no X.

That's not a question in my mind.

In my mind, your game would be better served in dialing back your personal preferences and working, as Mallus puts it, outside your comfort zone.

 

[lutecius]

I never said his position was unreasonable. I said I find his position unreasonable.

I see. That's completely different.

Again, like I said, other people can put whatever they'd like in their games. I'm only talking about myself and my game - and about the attitudes of people I like to play with.

I don't really know why this is an issue. He's arguing for his right to not play in a game with dragonborn. I'm saying I, also, have a right not to play games with people who would get so heated about having a race they don't care for in a game.

Are you arguing that I don't have that right?

So you keep asking, but I fail to see anyone arguing that.

The issue is your calling (sorry, finding) people unreasonable, wrong, raging nerds and prime donne because they won't play or even run games with elements they don't like. That's what I find unreasonable.

Given what I answered above, what do you think?

That you haven't seen this character?

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

The issue is your calling (sorry, finding) people unreasonable, wrong, raging nerds and prime donne because they won't play or even dm games with elements they don't like. I find that unreasonable.

I think people have a right to their opinions. I find this a little unreasonable as well. If someone were to join my 4e D&D game and during character creation say "Let me get this straight, you allow Dragonborn in your game? Creatures that look like humanoid DRAGONS? Wow....I can't be a part of this game. You guys aren't playing any sort of D&D I'd be interested in." and then left...I'd be...Well, first I'd be baffled. Then more baffled. Then I'd probably try to figure out if I accidentally insulted this new guy to our game and he's using it as an excuse to get out of the game.

Because the idea that a race in a fantasy universe where nearly anything was possible was so horrible that you couldn't play it is really beyond what I could comprehend.

I don't allow evil characters in my games, but only due to practical issues with campaigns I've tried it with in the past. I've tried to run a game with PHB races only, but that was mostly due to balance reasons.

On the other hand, that's because I've seen players in my games get annoyed because someone else was evil and because someone else was much more powerful than them. As DM, it's my job to make sure everyone is having fun. Those things end up causing more problems than fun. Would I join a game that was all evil characters who were entirely from the monster manual? I'd probably give it a try. I always love to see how other people do it. Maybe they found a good balance and are having fun. Maybe I can learn from it. At least I get to play, that's what's important to me.

 

[Fenes]

In another discussion a few months ago I stated already: I would let someone play a half-dragon lizardfolk character. Dragon Disciple? No problem. Dragon Adept? Go ahead. Such stuff has a place in my campaign - but all choices carry consequences. I won't kill off PCs with "the NPCs lynch you" ploy, but most of those characters will have the same problems as good drows to fit in, and will have to do a lot more to earn the trust of others than normal races.

But I do not want Dragonborn in my campaign since they change the setting. As written, they are a civilized race, accepted by default in the average civilized city. That kind of flavor turns my stomach. I do not want an entire race/culture of lizardfolk being trusted by society as a default assumption. I do not want to run a setting that is as cosmopolitan as that. If I wanted to play that I'd run planescape.

And if someone wants to play a dragon-like character in my campaign they can pick any of the above mentioned concepts. But if they insist of playing a dragonborn, aka "non-freak", aka "member of socieity in good standing", with all the fluff from WotC, I'll show them the door. That concept has no place in my campaign. It's like someone expecting me to change my setting so that Drows are no longer a generally evil race living in the Underdark, but just another race mingling with the rest and generally being good and trusted.

And that's why Dragonborn are a game breaker for me: They carry assumptions with them (cutlure, societiy) that change the setting into something I do not like to run.

 

[FireLance]

And that's why Dragonborn are a game breaker for me: They carry assumptions with them (cutlure, societiy) that change the setting into something I do not like to run.

While I respect your reasons for not allowing dragonborn in your campaign because of the implied assumptions that they carry, I wonder how upfront you are about your reasons to the players and how far you are willing to compromise? For example:

1. If your player is willing to accept that the standard assumptions about dragonborn do not apply in your campaign, and that his character will be viewed with suspicion and occasional hostility, would you allow him to play a dragonborn?

2. If your player just wants the mechanical benefits of playing a dragonborn, and is willing to accept that his character will be viewed with suspicion and occasional hostility, would you allow him to play a "half-dragon lizardfolk" that had the same racial traits as a dragonborn?

3. If your player wants the mechanical benefits and the "proud warrior race" background of playing a dragonborn, and is willing to reflavor his character's appearance so that he looks more human-like (perhaps he is from a noble family that has a draconic bloodline) would you allow him to play a human-looking dragonborn?

4. If you would agree to any of the above, do you see it as part of your responsibility as a DM to highlight the possibility to the player? Do you see it as something that a good (or nice) DM might do, but is not actually an obligation on his part? Or do you think it is solely the player's responsibility to ensure that his character fits into the DM's campaign setting?

 

[Fenes]

While I respect your reasons for not allowing dragonborn in your campaign because of the implied assumptions that they carry, I wonder how upfront you are about your reasons to the players and how far you are willing to compromise? For example:

1. If your player is willing to accept that the standard assumptions about dragonborn do not apply in your campaign, and that his character will be viewed with suspicion and occasional hostility, would you allow him to play a dragonborn?

2. If your player just wants the mechanical benefits of playing a dragonborn, and is willing to accept that his character will be viewed with suspicion and occasional hostility, would you allow him to play a "half-dragon lizardfolk" that had the same racial traits as a dragonborn?

3. If your player wants the mechanical benefits and the "proud warrior race" background of playing a dragonborn, and is willing to reflavor his character's appearance so that he looks more human-like (perhaps he is from a noble family that has a draconic bloodline) would you allow him to play a human-looking dragonborn?

4. If you would agree to any of the above, do you see it as part of your responsibility as a DM to highlight the possibility to the player? Do you see it as something that a good (or nice) DM might do, but is not actually an obligation on his part? Or do you think it is solely the player's responsibility to ensure that his character fits into the DM's campaign setting?

I do not play 4E, so there are no mechanical benefits a dragonborn can offer. As for concepts I go a long way to make a character fit in, and I point out the possible options, but the character will fit the setting, not the other way around.

But as things are, if the player wants Dragonboobs he'll have to play a half-dragon with mamallian ancestry, not something that lays eggs.

 

[Celebrim]

1. If your player is willing to accept that the standard assumptions about dragonborn do not apply in your campaign, and that his character will be viewed with suspicion and occasional hostility, would you allow him to play a dragonborn?

No, he would have to play a member of one of the seven 'free peoples'. All other races are servitor races, and are presumed (or in fact are) to be mentally enslaved to a particular diety or otherwise manifestations of a particular dieties will. In any event, a character from a servitor race would take crippling xenophobia penalties on social interactions, if monsterous would be treated as a monster, and would quite concievably be in a position where I would feel inclined to dictate his behavior (in the form of 'your diety is controlling your will'). IMO, telling a player how his character should behave is the big no-no, so playing a servitor race just brings up all sorts of problems I don't want to deal with. This is one of the primary campaign elements and I'm not going to comprimise on it.

2. If your player just wants the mechanical benefits of playing a dragonborn, and is willing to accept that his character will be viewed with suspicion and occasional hostility, would you allow him to play a "half-dragon lizardfolk" that had the same racial traits as a dragonborn?

No. Granted, I don't even know what the 3e racial traits of dragonborn are, but the player was someone I trusted I might let them play say a Dwarf with draconic ancestory and use the same racial traits as dragonborn. It's worth noting that whether we altered his base racial stats or not, he could take bloodline feats as a Drawven sorcerer that would let him for example, breath fire, acquire a slightly draconic appearance, and so forth. If he took the Blood Sorcerer feat, he could even be a pretty decent 'gish'. But he would be a drawf (or whatever race) for the purposes of the game.

3. If your player wants the mechanical benefits and the "proud warrior race" background of playing a dragonborn, and is willing to reflavor his character's appearance so that he looks more human-like (perhaps he is from a noble family that has a draconic bloodline) would you allow him to play a human-looking dragonborn?

All my races are proud warrior races. Anything that isn't a proud warrior race gets extinct in a hurry. But if he wants 'proud warrior race' as a primary attribute, it just screams Orine to me. Again, I have no idea what the mechanical benefits of being dragonborn are, but I'd be willing to comprimise slightly on his base racial traits. I really would think it is unnecessary, but if I had a problem player holding up the game I'd do what I could to get the game running for the sake of everyone else.

If you would agree to any of the above, do you see it as part of your responsibility as a DM to highlight the possibility to the player? Do you see it as something that a good (or nice) DM might do, but is not actually an obligation on his part? Or do you think it is solely the player's responsibility to ensure that his character fits into the DM's campaign setting?

As a DM its my responcibility to help a player understand any of the mechanical options available to them, and to help steer them to something which inspires them and that they find enjoyable to play. It's my responcibility to try to put together some options that is as close as can be managed to any reasonable idea that the player might have. Those are my responcibilities during character creation. But I'm under no obligation to make any particular mechanical advantage or particular flavor available to the character. Ultimately, I think I can overrule just about anything. The idea situation for me is that a player new to my game acts as if he's never played before, and that he's being introduced to the game for the first time with biases, preconceptions, or baggage and instead brings to the table all the guilessness, trust, wonder, couriousity, and zeal of a new player. It's the players responsibility to create a character that is within the scope of the setting and which is entertaining for himself, the other players, and me. If he really honestly thinks that he can't create an entertaining character who isn't a dragonborn, then I'm probably going to agree with him that he's better off at some other table. I would consider that more of an admision of failure on his part than a failure on my part. I would consider it a failure on my part if nobody at the table thought that they could create an interesting character.