Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Not a Decepticon" data-source="post: 9467750" data-attributes="member: 7020527">The only setting on the list you provided that doesn't have Orcs is Krynn. Birthright has Orogs, who canonically in wider D&D lore are a race of Orcs. Dark Sun had Orcs, they were victims of genocide. If you claims this means they do not count, then the same applies to Gnomes. So lack of Orcs in ONE (1) setting decides what counts or not.And on this topic, I will challenge what is or isn't a classic setting too - Why Dark Sun or Birthright over, say, Wilderlands of High Fantasy, which I suspect many more people played in? Hell, for most of modern auciences none of these settings are as influential as Eberron.Also, you are switching the goalpost - it moved from "humans are necessary to be relatable" to "settings need a relatable race and that's msot often humans". Two DIFFERENT points.No we're not, because you arbitrairly excluded Tieflings, even though they're not actually children of Fiends.I acussed you of being to ham-strung on how this were done "traditionally".No. Explain to me why Kobold is inherently more silly as a player optionthan an Elf.Assumption based on nothing.If Kobolds and Tortles stepped up, why would it be laughable? Again, how would that be inherently sillier than 4 Hobbits, 2 humans, Elf, Dwarf and AN ACTUAL ANGEL? How is it any more ridiculous than a human girl and her dog, a metal man, a scarecrow and a talking lion? Are you going to tell me somehow Dorothy's presence alone makes the Wizard of Oz grounded and realistic?Oh so I see - you now want to exclude people who don't look like yourself, is that what it is about? You stuggle to project yourself onto people who are too different from you?MY POINT WAS that, despite not being humans, Hobbits were still MORE relatable than two humans (or Gandalf, who is not a human, but an angel), proving no, we don't need humans to be relatable.You are entitled to your worng opinion, it only shows how poorly you understand how the game has been evolving since 2e.I would like entire game in SRD, but SRD is not what you're arguing - you just want to enforce arbitrary rules what is and isn't "real, serious" fantasy, forcuing us to the limits of the same tolkien-copied stuff, and to do that you try to dismiss Planescape and Spelljammer, despite their massive influence over the decades. You are actively revising history of D&D to fit your narrative.I am pointing out the most well-known and popular character of one of settings you have lsited as classic, one who inspired hundreds if not thousands of players, is not human and his best-known stories are entierly Drow and Drow perspective.And if you limit this to just gamign tables, then this argument is even more insulting, as you now insinuate that players are too stupid to actually embody and identify with their characters, and will always first and foremost relate to Bob the Human, played by Larry from Accounting, than their own creation.You are limiting Mystara severely if you only do just Karameikos. If you want run Mystara generic, sure, be my guest, but the setting is far too rich for that to not be a waste.Your point is that the adventuring parties must have a human, that's a different argument, stop shifting goalposts.But people do play Wookies or Droids. In fact, I heard of game where entire table was the same droid type as R2-D2.Why? Why must there be a "good" reason beyond "It's what we want?". In fact, who gets to decide what is and isn't an outside? Who made you the authority in the what is or isn't an outsider of each specific world? What are your criterias, who vetted and tested them? How do you account for bias?Now you're deflecting, seems you really were getting mad.Without proving a single reason why should I care.</blockquote>

Verification