PHB2 Races = Mos Eisley Cantina

[Akaiku]

The world is designed to the basic default PC races. I only ban outright, races that are too powerful. If a player wants to play something else and they know the possible consequences why ban it? You make no sense.

If a race or class they want to play is so contrary to normal play in the campaign you are running as to not be able to meaningfully participate in the story that everyone else is trying to play, that choice becomes non-viable.

"You can, but then you'd die" is, to many people, synonymous with "No, you really can't." To others, they think you are exaggerating, as just dieing instantly when you get into a common situation isn't fun and they don't believe you mean exactly what you said.

 

[Kask]

that choice becomes non-viable.

That's up to the individual player to decide, maybe they want the challenge. I run run a world centric game. If a PC jumps off a cliff, they fall. I don't ban cliff jumping in the game just because it is "non-viable". LOL

 

[kenmarable]

I must be an anomaly here. I am actually sick of the core PHB races after so many years that I cannot picture myself ever playing an elf, dwarf, halfling or gnome ever again. So I actually prefer to select exotic races to play for the unique gaming experience.

Definitely! For example, I haven't had any interest in playing a human for about 3 editions now.

In 1e, absolutely.

In 2e, the Complete Book of Humanoids would tend to disagree with you.

-O

That book (along with the 3e Savage Species) were among my most used. In 1e, I just made up my own weird races.

 

[Obryn]

Naw, all kinds of crap was spewed by 3rd party pubs back then. The vast majority of groups didn't use it.

But the 2e DMG would agree with me. Always be wary of crap books.

So um... lemme see if I got you here. Your argument has stopped being about what TSR did/didn't publish, and now you're just declaring evidence counter to your point "crap"* and saying we need to disregard it.

I <3 moving goalposts!

Going back to my point, let's look at the most popular published settings from the early days of gaming. I think you'd be hard pressed to find ones with a bigger fanbase than Wilderlands/CSIO and Empire of the Petal Throne. Both are weird (with the latter kind of burying the needle for weird PC races). Both are, at their core, science fantasy. Both have withstood the tests of time and remain popular today, third party or not, which kind of contradicts your assertion that they are "crap."

Bizarre fantasy is not a new thing. In fact, I think it would be very fair to say that sharp distinctions between sci-fi and fantasy are a rather new phenomenon, at least when it comes to D&D. (See, for example, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks.)

-O

*And, amusingly, calling the CBoH crap while praising the 2e DMG.

 

[Rechan]

I must be an anomaly here. I am actually sick of the core PHB races after so many years that I cannot picture myself ever playing an elf, dwarf, halfling or gnome ever again. So I actually prefer to select exotic races to play for the unique gaming experience.

This, a thousand times.

I much prefer the Babylon 5 approach, where the Human is rare-ish, and at best the odd-man out.

But then, I want to run a game where there are no dwarves, halflings, or elves. There's fey races that are fey, there are shifters and warforged and insect-people in their place.

 

[EricNoah]

Book like this is a list of ingredients. No need to use them all in each dish you create.

 

[Kask]

Going back to my point, let's look at the most popular published settings from the early days of gaming. I think you'd be hard pressed to find ones with a bigger fanbase than Wilderlands/CSIO and Empire of the Petal Throne. Both are weird (with the latter

I was in college at the time and worked in a game shop. Wilderlands had almost no sales. Greyhawk out sold it at least 100:1. So, no it wasn't popular. Empire of the Petal Throne was not a D&D setting so I don't know why you mention it, might as well compare the 3rd Imperium setting.

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

I actually like playing Humans because they are boringly normal, as a race, actually
the character can therefor be much more fun!

I love history...so I don't like grimy, xenophobic, nasty, squalid real historical Europe etc. ick!!
ok in some areas/settings though, but not for lot of my homebrew

 

[Greg K]

Naw, all kinds of crap was spewed by 3rd party pubs back then. The vast majority of groups didn't use it.

Of course, all kinds of crap was spewed by WOTC and TSR. Complaints followed from many DMs about the number of supplements and how various elements broke their game.

 

[Obryn]

I was in college at the time and worked in a game shop. Wilderlands had almost no sales. Greyhawk out sold it at least 100:1. So, no it wasn't popular. Empire of the Petal Throne was not a D&D setting so I don't know why you mention it, might as well compare the 3rd Imperium setting.

Hey, you were the one who wanted to use "published by TSR/WotC" as a metric, which EPT absolutely was. And seriously, it was an OD&D variant no matter how you dress it up.

As for Greyhawk, I have no doubt it sold well. But it, too, had more than its share of weirdness. Come on - barrier peaks? Also, since much of the Wilderlands material had been around for a few years before the first Greyhawk setting material was published, I don't think you're making an apples to apples comparison.

Finally, I think it's disingenous to use PC races as the main "weirdness" metric in a fantasy setting. No 3e race is anywhere near as bizarre as a gelatinous cube. Or a Lurker Above. Or a cloaker. Or a beholder, for that matter. (And once we get into Fiend Folio, all of those look positively sensible.)

-O