Players: have you ever been racialy denied by you DM?
- Thread starter Argent Silvermage
- Start date
Piratecat
Sesquipedalian
Crothian said:
An obvious answer comes to mind.
I'd forbid kender as well. They tend to... change... the mood away from a serious campaign, especially when they're selected by characters who want to disrupt gameplay. I'm not saying you're one, Argent, but I've sure seen them.
Macbeth
First Post
I don't get to play much, i mostly DM (with the exception of the excelent game BardStephenFox runs), and in my last longterm campiagn we had a Kender. Worked out just fine. A little annoying, but nothing over the top.
I do however have some qualms about allowing drow, mostly because of the way my characters beahve with them. But I don't make this into a metagame "no drow" rule, I just have a campiagn where being a drow in any major good aligned area, or around an illithid, is not a good idea if you intend on living.
I do however have some qualms about allowing drow, mostly because of the way my characters beahve with them. But I don't make this into a metagame "no drow" rule, I just have a campiagn where being a drow in any major good aligned area, or around an illithid, is not a good idea if you intend on living.
monkeygrrl
First Post
my DM dislikes elves. in general, in his campaign world he specifies that humans are the dominant race and demihumans are rare. now, he's never really forbidden anyone from playing any race, but, he definately encourages humans, unless you have a really unique and interesting character.
personally I think he's had bad experiencees with people not really roleplaying their races, just taking them for the stat bonuses and other munchkiny stuff, except the elves. he just really doesn't like elves.
personally I think he's had bad experiencees with people not really roleplaying their races, just taking them for the stat bonuses and other munchkiny stuff, except the elves. he just really doesn't like elves.
Saeviomagy
Adventurer
Because dragonlance is pretty much alone in having not one, but 3 entire races who exist almost solely for comic relief.Crothian said:
Which kind of ruins any non-comedy game run with ones in it.
rogueattorney
Adventurer
The DM gets to define his/her campaign world and locale. For example, my last campaign started in a small, isolated rural village. It was a human settlement, with some scattered wood elves living nearby, but for a variety of reasons, both cultural and biological, humans and elves rarely mated. There was a halfling nation not too far away, and halfling travellers often stopped by on their way somewhere else. The south was a war-ravaged place, and not a few unfortunate woman refugees moved north bearing the half-orc spawn of their invaders. So, human, halfling, wood elf, and half-orc were the options. (Got nothing against Dwarves or Gnomes, they just weren't around. The campaign eventually moved to a fairly mountainous region, where a new dwarf PC played a prominant role.) S0, if you were playing in this campaign, I wouldn't allow you to be a kender, especially since halfling is a perfectly viable option.
As I understand it, however, that's not the issue. The issue is that gamers A, B, and C can choose to be kender, but gamer D can't. That's kind of silly. Either kender exist as a possible PC class in the campaign, or they don't.
R.A.
As I understand it, however, that's not the issue. The issue is that gamers A, B, and C can choose to be kender, but gamer D can't. That's kind of silly. Either kender exist as a possible PC class in the campaign, or they don't.
R.A.
milotha
First Post
After reading KODT, I've been threatening to bring in a pixie fairy fighter as my next character. The other players thought this was a rather amusing idea. When the GM started up a new campaign and asked us what we wanted to do/play, we all began chanting in unison "PIXIE FAIRY!! PIXIE FAIRY!!" in high squeeky voices. Our request was brutally denied. Oh, the fun it wouldn't have been.
Sejs
First Post
Kender.
*shudder*
The less kender there are, the better. Anywhere. Period.
Even tinker gnomes and gully dwarves can be tolerable if played right, though admittadly, that's rare. I have never seen a kender played that wasn't an annoying, disruptive, mood-killer. Oh, I'm not stealing from the party, I just have a racial trait that steals from the party that I have no control over, tee-hee.
*shudder*
The less kender there are, the better. Anywhere. Period.
Even tinker gnomes and gully dwarves can be tolerable if played right, though admittadly, that's rare. I have never seen a kender played that wasn't an annoying, disruptive, mood-killer. Oh, I'm not stealing from the party, I just have a racial trait that steals from the party that I have no control over, tee-hee.
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
Sure.
If a DM runs a campaign with a background that would disallow one or more races, then I'd expect to not be allowed to take one of those races.
In my own campaign all characters had to be human until such time as contact had been made with secretive races such as dwarves and elves. Once contact had been made it becomes possible to take one of those races, but not others (and there are no gnomes at all in this world, and no halflings... only hobbits). A next campaign might be different again.
If a DM runs a campaign with a background that would disallow one or more races, then I'd expect to not be allowed to take one of those races.
In my own campaign all characters had to be human until such time as contact had been made with secretive races such as dwarves and elves. Once contact had been made it becomes possible to take one of those races, but not others (and there are no gnomes at all in this world, and no halflings... only hobbits). A next campaign might be different again.
The DM is Wise
My brother has, with me DM-ing. He used to play Bards because he didn't actually have any character concept beyond "schmooze with people." He's got magic, sure. And a bow, sure. And decent saves, good enough. And that's it, well darn. These characters were never suited for the dungeon delving expeditions that they were sent out on and were routinely being killed by fireballs or Air Elementals or whatever. So, for the sanity of the group that saw him more as a XP-leech of a cohort, I said simply that bards weren't going to be going on adventures unless they can come up with a dang fine reason.
Since then, he's gone to fight-based characters and he's currently doing a shockingly wonderful job role-playing a troll (Savage Species progressive monster) in our evil campaign -- the troll can say all of the dumb things that his bards did, but make it sound natural, and do all of the physically devastating things that his bards did and not need to be raised from the dead. His character has the most character in the current game and I'm utterly delighted.
So the moral of the story is that when your DM tells you that you simply can't play what you always play, perhaps it's because your DM has already seen you play it (or live it) and knows that the game needs something other than what you were wanting to bring to the table. And there's a very strong chance that your DM is right. So don't take it personally -- take it as a challenge to bring in a character that's so completely different that will shock and stun everybody (especially the DM) into having a riotously good time at the table.
[Of course, this situation would probably also be different if half of the other people were playing bards -- then my brother would be slighted and I'd be a bastard. But nobody else has a bard. I've only used one as an NPC and he died a quick and humiliating death, all the better demonstrating that bards aren't cut out for hard-core dungeon living no matter how excessively detailed the backstory that got them there.]
::Mr. Kaze (sounds mean, but is easily running the best campaign he's had in years with this kind of biased world-building)
Argent Silvermage said:
My brother has, with me DM-ing. He used to play Bards because he didn't actually have any character concept beyond "schmooze with people." He's got magic, sure. And a bow, sure. And decent saves, good enough. And that's it, well darn. These characters were never suited for the dungeon delving expeditions that they were sent out on and were routinely being killed by fireballs or Air Elementals or whatever. So, for the sanity of the group that saw him more as a XP-leech of a cohort, I said simply that bards weren't going to be going on adventures unless they can come up with a dang fine reason.
Since then, he's gone to fight-based characters and he's currently doing a shockingly wonderful job role-playing a troll (Savage Species progressive monster) in our evil campaign -- the troll can say all of the dumb things that his bards did, but make it sound natural, and do all of the physically devastating things that his bards did and not need to be raised from the dead. His character has the most character in the current game and I'm utterly delighted.
So the moral of the story is that when your DM tells you that you simply can't play what you always play, perhaps it's because your DM has already seen you play it (or live it) and knows that the game needs something other than what you were wanting to bring to the table. And there's a very strong chance that your DM is right. So don't take it personally -- take it as a challenge to bring in a character that's so completely different that will shock and stun everybody (especially the DM) into having a riotously good time at the table.
[Of course, this situation would probably also be different if half of the other people were playing bards -- then my brother would be slighted and I'd be a bastard. But nobody else has a bard. I've only used one as an NPC and he died a quick and humiliating death, all the better demonstrating that bards aren't cut out for hard-core dungeon living no matter how excessively detailed the backstory that got them there.]
::Mr. Kaze (sounds mean, but is easily running the best campaign he's had in years with this kind of biased world-building)
Similar Threads
