log in or register to remove this ad

 

Poll: How do you feel about new PC races?

How do you feel about approving new PC races for play in LPF?

  • Heck yeah! The more options the better.

    Votes: 2 11.8%
  • I'm open to considerately expanding the options.

    Votes: 9 52.9%
  • I'm against more PC races; we have enough as it is.

    Votes: 3 17.6%
  • *Expression of ambivalence*

    Votes: 3 17.6%

  • Total voters
    17

Qik

First Post
For those of you who have not been following, the discussion in this thread has led a more general consideration of approving new races for play in LPF, which is especially relevant in light of the impending release of the Advanced Races Guide. It'd be very helpful to get better idea of peoples' opinion on this matter, so feel free to chime in on the discussion if you're the chatty type, but even a vote would be very welcome.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

IronWolf

blank
Note: I am answering this from the player perspective, my judge hat is off for this comment.

I am fairly conservative in my view of mainstream races. I cringe when I see races expand much beyond the typical races included in the core rulebook. It starts to break down my idea of a fantasy world when PCs have these races as options.

I am fine with these races as NPCs and such, but less fond of unusual player class races. I have played in other parties in various games with "unusual" races and it just doesn't "feel" right to me.

With that said I am not really looking forward to the Advanced Races Guide.

This is of course a subjective opinion and I realize I am part of a larger group by participating in LPF. But I hope we do not see a rapid increase of playable races.
 

IronWolf

blank
Note: This is my comment on this subject with my judge hat on.

I have made my opinion as a player of LPF known in the above post. With that said, with the judge hat on I am willing to vote on race approvals with the inclination of the group as a whole in mind. So if the results of this discussion seem to favor including more races I will keep that in mind in future proposals for additions of new races to LPF.

While I have personal preferences on many issues, as a judge I try to consider the opinion of the group as a whole when it comes to voting.
 

Satin Knights

First Post
I like the option of the new races.

A) I get tired of the elven wizard, dwarf fighter, halfling rogue, gnome summoner, human everything pigeon holes that people slip into because they are the best optimizations for the given race.

B) The synthesist kind of blows the doors open, as we then get all sort of unique creatures wandering town. It is a shame that the overwhelming best optimization for the synthesist is the half-elf.

C) Players and GMs should play the xenophobic nature of NPCs up a little bit. Arianna hides under her custom cloak as she walks around town. She always assumes she is going to be met with dislike or hostility when moving about town unless she reverts back to the mermaid. They're so cute, nobody could harm a mermaid. :p

D) The diversity of non-standard races also ups the difficulty of identifying your enemy. If you see a gnome in a party of five and an weird looking creature, you know to focus fire on the gnome or the half-elf. It is not so cut and dry with advanced races.

That is why I like the Wayangs. "What's the fuss? It's a burgundy gnome instead of a lilac gnome." Well, not exactly. ;)

E) Judges will need to approve the advanced races and weed out the ones that are 100% cherry picked for just their skills. But, we have 2 people already looking over new characters as it is. Right now, we are doing the reverse a bit in "Are you sure? That option would hamstring you quite a bit, try this instead." advice. And if someone builds a new race, well then they will have to put up a bit of history and fluff into the wiki to give the race a background.

F) Of the latest characters built, 4 humans, 2 dwarfs, 2 half elf (synthesists), 2 tieflings, 1 elf (wizard). This time next year, I predict humans will still dominate. :yawn:
 

Systole

First Post
I'm against new races for the most part. I could be persuaded otherwise were the right race to come along, but with ~10 races, ~15 classes, and a whole living world of background to choose from, I find it hard to see what a new race brings to the table.

^^Just my subjective opinion.
 

jbear

First Post
I'm pretty neutral.

I don't tend to like playing weird races. But I'm quite happy for others who do to do so.
 

GlassEye

First Post
While I don't want to have a huge selection of races I wouldn't mind adding races on a limited basis. And when adding races I prefer them to be substantially different. I don't like a multitude of off-shoots or sub-races of the main races; high elf, gray elf, wild elf don't fit what you want then you can play a wood elf! Early in LPF history someone proposed an elf sub-race and we rejected it. I would prefer we not open the 'same race, minor differences' box.
 

sunshadow21

First Post
I think the key to me is that expanding the races can help flesh out the world if added properly. Things like making lizard folk playable would be a good way to add depth to the Great Delta, for example. If there is a place for them, and they go through a vetting process, it shouldn't be that much of an issue. For those races that are only slightly different, but still thematically appropriate, we might consider additional alternate racial features to account for them as another option. That being said, we need to be willing to ask ourselves if the addition is being made because it genuinely fits, or if it's because the race just sounds cool. If it's the latter, we need to think long and hard about it. As for the upcoming races book, I would say we need to read through it carefully before we approve any of it, but we need to do so with an open mind.
 

Qik

First Post
I think sunshadow makes a good point about how adding new races may potentially encourage/facilitate the development of corresponding fluff that might not otherwise be developed. My little write up on the Wayang was intended to be a first step in that process, which I believe could lead to some interesting results.
 

IronWolf

blank
I think sunshadow makes a good point about how adding new races may potentially encourage/facilitate the development of corresponding fluff that might not otherwise be developed. My little write up on the Wayang was intended to be a first step in that process, which I believe could lead to some interesting results.

I think there is plenty of room to write "ecology of" articles for the wiki to build up fluff for races without the requirement to make them a playable race to justify writing fluff for them.

I don't think adding more PC races in order to encourage the writing of fluff is a good justification for a large amount of races.
 

Artur Hawkwing

First Post
I'm really torn. I think the best approach is take it race by race, break them down and see what they're about. Me, personally, I tend to avoid 'alternative' races unless it is a requirement of the campaign (as my half-red dragon centaur bard would attest), but to have the option of exploration might be good. It would also make us consider that races position with E'n. Like the example already given of the Delta having lizard-folk...

The only thing I can really contribute is that I think, at least at first, there should be a leash kept on the number of new races added. Instead of dumping the whole thing into the wash all at once, try a couple a lot of people seem interested in.
 

sunshadow21

First Post
I think there is plenty of room to write "ecology of" articles for the wiki to build up fluff for races without the requirement to make them a playable race to justify writing fluff for them.

I don't think adding more PC races in order to encourage the writing of fluff is a good justification for a large amount of races.

I said it could help; I didn't say it was the only way to do it. It is one factor that is worth considering if enough people show interest in playing a particular race or if a region really develops over time to the point where it might make sense to allow that race to be a PC race.
 

jkason

First Post
As a player, I think I tend to be most interested in new races when they're actually most different. If I'm going to be something non-human, I just think it's fun to be really non-human. A lot of the core races just feel like 'tweaked human' (human that stops growing at child-size, human with pointy ears, squat & dense human that sees in the dark, blended-with-humans that look fairly human anyway). I just think there's so much stuff that reads like everything else, that races that are more 'out of the box' seem to draw my attention.

Not quite sure why tengu and merfolk didn't manage to draw me in. I guess Birdfolk who can't fly or glide make me sad; likewise water folk who can barely move aboveground.

Or I'm turning into a dirty optimizer without even noticing. ;)

I think SK has a point about reaction to races, and I think it's another point we might want to consider in approving or rejecting races: I think maybe part of the integration process might need to include how X race is (normally) received by the various other races. Helps inform character creation, and helps GMs with a bit of a guideline about integration.
 

Qik

First Post
I think there is plenty of room to write "ecology of" articles for the wiki to build up fluff for races without the requirement to make them a playable race to justify writing fluff for them.

I don't think adding more PC races in order to encourage the writing of fluff is a good justification for a large amount of races.

I said it could help; I didn't say it was the only way to do it. It is one factor that is worth considering if enough people show interest in playing a particular race or if a region really develops over time to the point where it might make sense to allow that race to be a PC race.

I'm really torn. I think the best approach is take it race by race, break them down and see what they're about. Me, personally, I tend to avoid 'alternative' races unless it is a requirement of the campaign (as my half-red dragon centaur bard would attest), but to have the option of exploration might be good. It would also make us consider that races position with E'n. Like the example already given of the Delta having lizard-folk...

The only thing I can really contribute is that I think, at least at first, there should be a leash kept on the number of new races added. Instead of dumping the whole thing into the wash all at once, try a couple a lot of people seem interested in.

My point was essentially what Artur and sunshadow said: that adding more playable races will simply further encourage the development of corresponding fluff, be it historical, political, geological, etc. I think it's natural that one would be more inclined to develop the mythology of E'n when one is directly involved in that mythology.

Also, to be clear: I'm certainly not encouraging a wholesale licencing of monster races for PCs. I'm of the middling variety, in that I'd like to have the option of approving new races if there's something that strikes me as desirable, not just for me, but for E'n in general. I'm not even set on making a Wayang PC, for example, but even if I don't, I'd love to still have the option of doing so.

People (unsurprisingly) seem to differ on what attracts them to a race, but it seems like a fair bit of people at least would like to have the option on the table.
 

Qik

First Post
I hasten to add that I'm not necessarily declaring a final analysis of public opinion; I more just wanted to draw the distinction between disagreeing on what kind of nonstandard races one would like to have approved for play with disagreeing on whether or not nonstandard races should be approved at all.
 

DalkonCledwin

First Post
what about the possibility that if an individual can come up with a reasonable reason justifying why his character should be a given race from a role playing perspective (and not necessarily just from a mechanical perspective) even if that race is not normally allowed in Living Pathfinder, if we then allow the judges to give that player the opportunity for a case by case proposal type situation where for just that one character there is the opportunity to get the race approved.

Granted this could theoretically be a logistical nightmare for the judges, but I could also see it being a huge reward for people who have proven themselves as excellent role players and want to do something special with their second or even third characters. Something on the scale of a veterans perk so to speak?
 

Caim

First Post
As a player, I think I tend to be most interested in new races when they're actually most different. If I'm going to be something non-human, I just think it's fun to be really non-human. A lot of the core races just feel like 'tweaked human' (human that stops growing at child-size, human with pointy ears, squat & dense human that sees in the dark, blended-with-humans that look fairly human anyway). I just think there's so much stuff that reads like everything else, that races that are more 'out of the box' seem to draw my attention.

Jkason hit how I feel on the head. The common races just feel like humans with some different perks. Is that bad? No but its not necessarily good either. I haven't played a common race since D&D 3.5 launched and especially the Eberron setting, I am playing both a human and a dwarf in two different Eberron setting games however, since I love the warforged and the shifter, 100% roleplaying goodness there. It wouldn't bother me one bit if there was a warforged, shifter, or dragon/lizardfolk race included. I also love dog/catfolk races.

This is what I think on new races.
 

jkason

First Post
what about the possibility that if an individual can come up with a reasonable reason justifying why his character should be a given race from a role playing perspective (and not necessarily just from a mechanical perspective) even if that race is not normally allowed in Living Pathfinder, if we then allow the judges to give that player the opportunity for a case by case proposal type situation where for just that one character there is the opportunity to get the race approved.

Granted this could theoretically be a logistical nightmare for the judges, but I could also see it being a huge reward for people who have proven themselves as excellent role players and want to do something special with their second or even third characters. Something on the scale of a veterans perk so to speak?

I think a per-player racial allowance not only complicates logistical issues, but also might lead to new player confusion. Consider: new player browses the wiki to get an idea for character concepts. Comes across someone with a unique race and, realizing the race is apparently under-represented, comes up with a character for it thinking she'll be bringing something under-utilized to the table. Then she submits and gets shot down.

All that said, the mention of 'veterans perk' has me thinking on long-ago discussions of alternate DMC uses. I think allowing DMC to get a 'rare race' character runs afoul of the same problem I mentioned above, but I'm wondering if DMC might be useful for things like helping to support the adoption of a given race? Possibly this skews the judge paradigm too much, but I thought it might be worth mentioning.
 

Qik

First Post
what about the possibility that if an individual can come up with a reasonable reason justifying why his character should be a given race from a role playing perspective (and not necessarily just from a mechanical perspective) even if that race is not normally allowed in Living Pathfinder, if we then allow the judges to give that player the opportunity for a case by case proposal type situation where for just that one character there is the opportunity to get the race approved.

Granted this could theoretically be a logistical nightmare for the judges, but I could also see it being a huge reward for people who have proven themselves as excellent role players and want to do something special with their second or even third characters. Something on the scale of a veterans perk so to speak?

One of the issues I have with this is that the criteria you suggest is pretty subjective: it would require us to basically pass judgement on the roleplaying abilities of a specific player, which is something I'm really uncomfortable with. By rewarding players who play the game a certain way, we're tacitly saying that the way they play the game is somehow better, or more correct, than how others do so, which is something I'm really uncomfortable with. It seems too exclusive to me.

I think a per-player racial allowance not only complicates logistical issues, but also might lead to new player confusion. Consider: new player browses the wiki to get an idea for character concepts. Comes across someone with a unique race and, realizing the race is apparently under-represented, comes up with a character for it thinking she'll be bringing something under-utilized to the table. Then she submits and gets shot down.

All that said, the mention of 'veterans perk' has me thinking on long-ago discussions of alternate DMC uses. I think allowing DMC to get a 'rare race' character runs afoul of the same problem I mentioned above, but I'm wondering if DMC might be useful for things like helping to support the adoption of a given race? Possibly this skews the judge paradigm too much, but I thought it might be worth mentioning.

Using DMCs is something I'm more comfortable with, in that the whole purpose of DMCs is to incentivise running a game on here. So I could possibly get on board with that; I certainly think we need more options for DMCs.

That said, I'd vastly prefer to make it an all-or-nothing thing, in part for the reasons jk outlined. I'd just rather the choice of races to be equal opportunity. I'm also not sure that rarefying their usage solves any problems in the eyes of the dissenters.
 

IronWolf

blank
That said, I'd vastly prefer to make it an all-or-nothing thing, in part for the reasons jk outlined. I'd just rather the choice of races to be equal opportunity. I'm also not sure that rarefying their usage solves any problems in the eyes of the dissenters.

I'm already on record on wanting to slow down the new races, but I do agree that if I am the minority and we vote in more races, then it should be an equal opportunity and not restricted by subjective role-playing ability or to people with DMCs.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top