D&D General The Importance of Page 33

[Fanaelialae]

But see, if the position is existing vs not existing there really isn’t a mutual solution.

then they defacto aren’t playing a Tabaxi but playing a human with different stats.

They are mechanically playing a tabaxi but cosmetically playing a human. If I tell you about a fight in my campaign where the players fought ogres, but that I reskinned them as purple-people-eaters, would you honestly tell me that they defacto did not fight ogres?

It was one example plucked from infinite possible examples, illustrating how two people with opposing views might have an adult conversation and arrive at a mutually satisfactory conclusion.

Another possibility might be that the DM allows the tabaxi, but warns the player that they will be viewed as a monster by townspeople. Which allows the player the opportunity to be a master of disguise, or take disguise self, or play a druid with wild shape and pretend to be someone's pet, or stay out of town and accompany the party via familiar.

Without knowing the specifics involved and the precise motivations of both parties, I cannot do more than speculate regarding potential solutions.

The point was simply to maturely discuss the matter and try to find a solution both parties are satisfied with.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Some examples seem to have purchase for you - like first contact - so extrapolate those to assume greater sensitivity. For me, a dwarf would stick out like a sore thumb in an EarthSea setting. The author could probably have integrated them successfully, but if she wanted to spend her energy on other aspects of her setting - that had greater payoff for her tensions and themes - then to me that would make far more sense.

There is a reason that the only example I’ve ever seen that made sense to me (for fantasy) was First Contact. Why would dwarves stick out? If I’d never read Earthsea, and I picked it up, andthe main character was a dwarf...nothing significant about the story has changed. He’s a dwarf. As long as the skin colors described in the book don’t get whitewashed in the process, literally nothing is lost. Whether anything is gained depends on how the races are presented, but nothing is lost by the simple inclusion of multiple fantasy races to the setting.

It is about Ravenloft and gothic horror as such.
Darn, if I am to eventually run away from something looking like a goblin, even as an experienced and battle hardened adventurer, then what will normal townsfolk do, when encountering a dragonborn?

If you want to play Ravenloft like a vanilla campaign your free to do it but imho you miss out all the fun

Edit for more clarity: The need to RP fear and madness is even more essential to Ravenloft than what races you allow there as a DM, but deducting from that you just cannot allow races who fall more or less under the =monster-category. In some domains this might even include elves!

Your deduction seems, to me, to go directly from question to answer without any reasoning along the way. How does playing a bugbear (an actual monster race) in Ravenloft interfere with RPing fear and madness?
If the PCs are roleplaying their characters, the situation is frightening, the bugbear is just as afraid as the human.

The fear of a zombie is not because it looks weird. It is because it is undead, literally a thing that should not be. Neither of those things are descriptions of tabaxi or dragonborn who are both living, breathing with thoughts and dreams.

Also, the tabaxi or Dragonborn is vastly more natural and less weird than a were-raven, magical mists, packs Of wolves that are conduits for the will of an ancient vampire, said vampire, or half of your neighbors being born without a soul.

But certainly a Tabaxi in Victorian London or any 18th century French setting would have caused much more terror than a man armed with a knife don't you think?


As I said upward, if you want to normalize moster races then make them big minorities in the normal population then it gets a bit believable, although sitill not my cup of tea.

Tabaxi and Dragonborn aren’t monster races, firstly.
Second, no. A tabaxi in Victorian London would inspire curiosity and some temporary fright. People would assume they’re some manner of mutated human or something. A carnival freak.
lastly there is no need at all to change Barovia in order to make them appropriate for it. The tone of the character is what will either add to or disserve the tone of the story.

My 16 year old artificer with an arcane prosthetic arm, who refers to her work as being a mechanic, from Lantan, who has never gone camping or hunting, and is totally out of her depth here, was a bigger gamble than playing a Tabaxi would have been, in terms of serving the tone and themes of the adventure. She is serving those ends, exactly because of how we are playing the fact that she is out of place here, but it could have ended up being atonal as hell. The kenku ranger who is a fairly amoral bounty hunter, fits just fine.

Say the exchange is exactly that: A is okay with Tabaxi, B is not. And B is DM. How would you resolve that dilemma?

The same as if both were players. My group doesn’t prioritize the preferences of the DM any higher than those of the players.

 

[Rdm]

They are mechanically playing a tabaxi but cosmetically playing a human. If I tell you about a fight in my campaign where the players fought ogres, but that I reskinned them as purple-people-eaters, would you honestly tell me that they defacto did not fight ogres?

It was one example plucked from infinite possible examples, illustrating how two people with opposing views might have an adult conversation and arrive at a mutually satisfactory conclusion.

Another possibility might be that the DM allows the tabaxi, but warns the player that they will be viewed as a monster by townspeople. Which allows the player the opportunity to be a master of disguise, or take disguise self, or play a druid with wild shape and pretend to be someone's pet, or stay out of town and accompany the party via familiar.

Without knowing the specifics involved and the precise motivations of both parties, I cannot do more than speculate regarding potential solutions.

The point was simply to maturely discuss the matter and try to find a solution both parties are satisfied with.

Yes, they did not fight ogres. They fought something with the same stats, but they were not, in fact, ogres. In the game space they were something else. When someone is restricting a Particular thing for flavor by definition the flavor or ‘fluff’ if you will, is the thing that they are excluding.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

My campaign world is dangerous, monsters are real. A drow would be shot on sight.

So is mine, and yet no sapient races would be shot on sight as a normal reaction by normal people.
This is another thing where I’ve tried for years to understand what reasoning underpins the conclusion others have come to, and I’ve never managed it.

 

[Rdm]

There is a reason that the only example I’ve ever seen that made sense to me (for fantasy) was First Contact. Why would dwarves stick out? If I’d never read Earthsea, and I picked it up, andthe main character was a dwarf...nothing significant about the story has changed. He’s a dwarf. As long as the skin colors described in the book don’t get whitewashed in the process, literally nothing is lost. Whether anything is gained depends on how the races are presented, but nothing is lost by the simple inclusion of multiple fantasy races to the setting.


Your deduction seems, to me, to go directly from question to answer without any reasoning along the way. How does playing a bugbear (an actual monster race) in Ravenloft interfere with RPing fear and madness?
If the PCs are roleplaying their characters, the situation is frightening, the bugbear is just as afraid as the human.

Also, the tabaxi or Dragonborn is vastly more natural and less weird than a were-raven, magical mists, packs Of wolves that are conduits for the will of an ancient vampire, said vampire, or half of your neighbors being born without a soul.


Tabaxi and Dragonborn aren’t monster races, firstly.
Second, no. A tabaxi in Victorian London would inspire curiosity and some temporary fright. People would assume they’re some manner of mutated human or something. A carnival freak.
lastly there is no need at all to change Barovia in order to make them appropriate for it. The tone of the character is what will either add to or disserve the tone of the story.

My 16 year old artificer with an arcane prosthetic arm, who refers to her work as being a mechanic, from Lantan, who has never gone camping or hunting, and is totally out of her depth here, was a bigger gamble than playing a Tabaxi would have been, in terms of serving the tone and themes of the adventure. She is serving those ends, exactly because of how we are playing the fact that she is out of place here, but it could have ended up being atonal as hell. The kenku ranger who is a fairly amoral bounty hunter, fits just fine.


The same as if both were players. My group doesn’t prioritize the preferences of the DM any higher than those of the players.

You honestly believe that if this ...


walked around in Victorian London the result would be a mild ‘huh, that’s odd’?

seriously?

what in the entire history of the human race would lead you to that conclusion?

 

[Oofta]

So is mine, and yet no sapient races would be shot on sight as a normal reaction by normal people.
This is another thing where I’ve tried for years to understand what reasoning underpins the conclusion others have come to, and I’ve never managed it.

I think you're underestimating how paranoid people would be about non-human humanoids (or other creatures). It's not that every villager would head to the torch and pitchfork store, but I think enough would that playing a drow in my campaign would not be realistic.

A tabaxi? Probably a lycanthrope or maybe one of those bug-thing-bears the villager's uncle talked about from the war. Better safe than dead. A tabaxi in Victorian England would be a curiosity because monsters weren't real. Maybe I'm just more of a pessimist than you are but prejudice against those who look different runs deep.

But there's no right or wrong way, just explaining what would happen in my campaign.

 

[Orius]

What is this obsession with tabaxi anyway!?

 

[Fanaelialae]

Yes, they did not fight ogres. They fought something with the same stats, but they were not, in fact, ogres. In the game space they were something else. When someone is restricting a Particular thing for flavor by definition the flavor or ‘fluff’ if you will, is the thing that they are excluding.

Well, if that's the case for you the solution is easy. It sounds like reskinning would satisfy any objections you might have. The tabaxi isn't a cat person but a wild elf (or whatever).

That's not really a restriction at that point though. It's just a reskin. All of the crunch is still available, just with different fluff.

I could be mistaken, but I don't think that would actually be a satisfactory fix for all DMs. If it works for you though, great.

 

[Rdm]

What is this obsession with tabaxi anyway!?

They were brought up as an example so everyone keeps using them. It’s more convenient that finding something new to insert in every post.

 

[Fanaelialae]

What is this obsession with tabaxi anyway!?

Just an example that someone in this thread brought up. I think in regard to whether of not a tabaxi is a good fit for a Curse of Stradh campaign.