D&D General The Importance of Page 33

[The Glen]

I was converting the Mystara setting to 5th and I got people asking me to shoehorn in Tieflings, Dragonborn, Drow, Half-Orcs, Half-Elves, and other races that were not found in the original setting. It is a fairly unique setting that had its own races not found outside of Mystara. I was trying to explain to people that the non-canon races were staying out, I wasn't going to add them just because the Forgotten Realms had them. Then I found the one line in the PHB that explained it better than I ever could.

"The Dragonborn and the rest of the races in this chapter are uncommon. They don't exist in every world of D&D, and even where they are found, they are less widespread than dwarves, elves, halflings, and humans."

What you leave out of a setting is just as important as what you leave in. Dragonlance famously ditched halflings for Kender and was drow and orc free (with a few continuity errors). Birthright also ditched orcs. Dark Sun committed genocide on a scale none of the other settings can even dream of matching. Ravenloft retconned out its drow (for licensing reasons). These omissions didn't lower the quality of any of the settings.

Strategic removal of races can make for some fantastic settings. For the MTG crowd, Llorwyn had no humans, and Innistrad had nothing but humans. If you only allow elves, nagpa, halflings and aranea you get Dark Crystal. Tieflings, goblins, humans, and dwarves give you Legend. Lupin, goblins, sidhe, and whatever those fire guys were makeup Labyrinth. If you take humans, orcs, Cirque du Soleil lesbian hippie amazons and no talent for film making whatsoever, and you get Dungeon Siege: In the Name of the King. You don't have to add everything to every setting, sometimes less is much more.

 

[jgsugden]

I'd just say this: There is no obligation to include any particular race, but if a player in you game wants to play a particular race, it is a service to the player to be able to accommodate them. Players often have odd concepts for PCs, and if DMs are too restrictive in their setting, the PCs never get a chance to hit the table.

 

[ZeshinX]

I'd just say this: There is no obligation to include any particular race, but if a player in you game wants to play a particular race, it is a service to the player to be able to accommodate them. Players often have odd concepts for PCs, and if DMs are too restrictive in their setting, the PCs never get a chance to hit the table.

Pretty much describes the case for my group (I DM). I run my games in the Forgotten Realms (primarily, though we played in Golarion during the 4e era). I usually run it in the setting's "current year" for whichever edition we're playing, but it's not entirely the "as written" Realms. In my Realms, the Spellplague never happened. So there was no geographic upheavals, and no parts of Abeir came to Toril.

So, one player, who enjoyed 4e and played in games of D&D 4e with another group (in addition to our PF games) loooooves him the dragonborn. He always enjoyed anthropomorphized races, and the dragonborn were the cherry on his sundae.

There are no dragonborn in my Realms, since what originally brought them to (at least canonically) Toril never occurred. I was not a fan of the dragonborn strictly because I was not a fan of 4e and did not want them present in my game. However, this player absolutely loved the option. So, I worked with him so he could play a dragonborn character in my Realms setting where no dragonborn exist...we made his particular character a draconian from Krynn (same 5e dragonborn stats et al, we just called him a draconian and he was from Krynn). He walked through a portal on Krynn, and POOF, he found himself on Toril. The trip through the portal messed up his memories, so he has no idea where on Krynn he encountered this portal, why he stepped through it, or any particular memories about his life on Krynn, or even where this side of the portal is/was (though he does posses some very vague memories and feelings...but he feels they could also be lingering effects of his trip through the portal).

So, not only did he get to play his dragonborn, I was also able to satisfy my particular feelings about it...and we had some absolutely wonderful narrative options for him to explore (i.e. possibly regaining his memories over time, reactions from people throughout Faerun who have never seen someone like him, and so on).

Always options.

 

[DammitVictor]

It's funny that almost everyone seems to frame this in terms of restricting playable character kith to whatever was in the Player's Handbook for 3.X (or 2e if you don't like half-orcs) or occasionally for Dark Sun enthusiasts to ban Gnomish rapier-wielding Paladins. The OP here is talking about banning Half-Elves and Half-Orcs (and Gnomes again) because they didn't exist in Classic D&D.

But it goes the other way, too.

It doesn't matter how "common" the PHB says a kith is-- in the DM's setting, it's exactly as common as the DM says it is. The only Player's Handbook kith that exist in my Shroompunk setting are Humans, with all of the others being mashups of supplemental PC kith and playable monsters. The setup of the setting might theoretically allow you to play a Dwarf, Elf, Halfling, or Gnome from a distant World... but by default the answer is "No." If I wanted to exclude Humans, I could have excluded Humans, too.

 

[Greenstone.Walker]

Players don't want to play "a particular race"; they want to play whatever it is you are not including.

As soon as you exclude monks, the player who has played five fighters and paladins will suddenly want to play a monk. No underdark races in your game? The person who always plays humans now wants to play a deep gnome. You are disallowing death domain clerics? Guess what the new player wants.

 

[Ancalagon]

Players don't want to play "a particular race"; they want to play whatever it is you are not including.

As soon as you exclude monks, the player who has played five fighters and paladins will suddenly want to play a monk. No underdark races in your game? The person who always plays humans now wants to play a deep gnome. You are disallowing death domain clerics? Guess what the new player wants.

I don't think that's true all the time.

... but it certainly is true some of the time.

 

[Stormonu]

I can understand limiting races for a certain setting or for a certain feel.

On the other hand, if a player can come up with a good character concept they want to try, I'll give it a shot.

On the DM's side of the table, I've thrown in NPCs from other worlds or one-offs for the PCs to encounter. I feel it would be unfair if I did that, but the players couldn't.

Spoiler

The first I can remember was Xoltz, a warforged that appeared in Greyhawk. The players found him as a hollow bronze shell on a sacrificial altar atop a Amelio step pyramid. Ages ago, the shell was animated for a short time as a construct by inserting still-beating human hearts into the body. The PCs had a battle with a dragon atop the pyramid, and upon defeating it, cut out its heart and put it into the bronze shell. It awakened the shell as a servant to the party, but the dragon's heart made it a living thing. Later, after a character death, one of the players took over playing Xoltz.

The second recently was Jin, an eberron Changling bard (bar dancer) - again, in Greyhawk. I used her to replace an untrustworthy NPC from the adventure I was running. Initially, she only joined the party with the intent to eventually betray them. However, the charismatic tiefling in the group won her over, and she forsook her old masters. Unfortunately, she was killed by a water weird before she could be used as a PC character in the next session.

 

[Ath-kethin]

I'd just say this: There is no obligation to include any particular race, but if a player in you game wants to play a particular race, it is a service to the player to be able to accommodate them. Players often have odd concepts for PCs, and if DMs are too restrictive in their setting, the PCs never get a chance to hit the table.

If I'm running a Dragonlance game and the player insists on running an orc, they're at the wrong table or they're trolling. There are other games/tables/groups they could join.

Why would a person come to a campaign setting defined by its selection of character options and insist on playing something that isn't one of them?

It's a disservice to a group to a) insist on playing something that doesn't fit the campaign at all or b) allow a player to do so.

I'm not gonna tell anyone how to play; if you want orcs and regular halflings and the gold standard in your Dragonlance game, go to town. But if a DM/group wants to play Setting X and Setting X lacks dragonborn or goblins or even elves, I don't see why that group should allow someone to play one of those things just cause the player has an idea or concept in mind for it.

 

[Fenris-77]

The setting is part of the pitch, and that includes what races and whatnot are allowed. If you dont like the pitch, don't play in the game. I don't think anyone should feel obliged to allow X just because a player has a concept they like. If that concept doesnt work for the setting, just save it for another time. The setting should demand at least as much respect as player desires.

 

[cbwjm]

I think half-orcs and half-elves would be an easy add, they may not be common in Mystara but they could probably exist.

Tieflings could sub in for diaboli, rather than drow, players might be better directed toward shadow elves. Dragonborn are the most problematic for Mystara or at least I can't think of a region where they would exist, a players of one might be a singular creation of some Alphatian wizard.

Really though, I think players should buy into the setting and look at those options before asking about playing something outside the setting.