D&D General The Monsters Know What They're Doing ... Are Unsure on 5e24

[AlViking]

When it comes to what I allow or don't allow in my game I let people know up front that I have some restrictions. It's a preference and because I've run games in the same setting pretty much forever. I also run for more than one group and occasionally we have crossovers. I have decades of games that have built on each other, it matters to me that the lore is consistent. You can't play a drow or a tortle because they have never existed.

But in my experience people don't really run different species all that different. I know I don't when I'm playing in an FR campaign. I played a tabaxi based off Puss in Boots which was fun but he didn't really need to be an anthropomorphic cat person.

In any case people should do what they want and when I DM I only want a handful of species I established long ago. I know the lore of the different species and how they fit in the world. It makes me a better DM.

That may not work for some people, and maybe somebody else will run a game we can both enjoy. Although it should go without saying that the best fit for a tortle is, of course, a ninja.

 

[Dire Bare]

I'm not sure banning draconian or even draconian adjacent PCs is arbitrary in a Dragonlance game.

I'm EXTREMELY permissive, but I would definitely have a conversation with a player that wanted to do that.

And I would explain how it would certainly have an effect on the group's interactions with the setting. Which means the other players would have to be ok with it too.

It certainly can be . . . or the DM could have a good reason beyond not being open to a reasonable character concept.

If I was looking at joining a Dragonlance game and came up with a dragonborn/draconian concept . . . and the DM shot it down . . . if their reasoning is similar to what's been shared in this thread, I'd walk. It sounds arbitrary and more about DM control than about collaboration with players.

But if during a Session Zero, if the DM or the other players expressed discomfort with a PC story involving the genocide of the metallic dragons during the creation of the draconians by Takhisis' servants . . . I'd accept that rationale, even if it doesn't bother me personally.

 

[Dire Bare]

What I was pointing out is that is not what Draconians were intended to be. Yes, they became playable later, but they were not put in Dragonlance so that players could play dragon-men. They were a replacement for orcs!

Yes . . . so what?

Dragonlance is over 40 years old with hundreds of game books, novels, comics, and video games. There's been a lot of development on almost every aspect of the setting.

Yes, draconians were initially evil, evil, evil and filled a similar niche as orcs in other settings. Okay. But both in the story (novels) and the game (player options), that changed.

A DM who shoots down my draconian PC because it "doesn't fit the setting" is a DM I'm not going to enjoy my time with, one who prioritizes a narrower view of canon than the publisher does than collaborating on player choice.

 

[Mort]

It certainly can be . . . or the DM could have a good reason beyond not being open to a reasonable character concept.

But that's the question.

Is coming in as a new player to a Dragonlance game (say it's set right during the War of the Lance) and insisting, to a group you hadn't played with yet, that you want to play a draconian, reasonable?

I don't know about you, but when starting with a new group, I don't pick a possibly thorny concept. I pick a neutral concept (which I'm still going to have fun with, there are lots of options), see how the group and I mesh, and if it's a good fit - then maybe go for something more meaty.

And that goes both DMing and playing. When DMing for a new group, I don't start with funky "out there" concepts until I know the group would actually like something different.

I have a friend who is, in my opinion, an exceptional DM. But he likes to swing for the fences when he runs and sometimes forgets to actually make sure the group is ready for whatever high concept he's dreamt up. He's blown up 2 gaming groups, in the past, doing this.

 

[Dire Bare]

Is coming in as a new player to a Dragonlance game (say it's set right during the War of the Lance) and insisting, to a group you hadn't played with yet, that you want to play a draconian, reasonable?

Yes, it most certainly is reasonable.

If the DM actually has a good reason for not wanting draconian PCs, we'd hopefully discuss that during Session Zero. And I could decide to stick with or abandon the character concept, or even to stick with or abandon the DM (and group).

It's not about not being allowed to play my favorite dragon-people or not, it's about avoiding games with DMs that have traits/habits that don't jive with my own preferences. DM control vs player collaboration.

Tell me "NO!" and I'm walking away from your game. Tell me "I'm not comfortable with that concept and here's why . . ." might just be reasonable and I'll change up my character concept.

Honestly, I didn't even see a draconian PC as even remotely problematic until this very thread. Still don't, really. But I can respect that others might link the story of the draconians' origins to real-world genocide and be uncomfortable with that.

But . . . if that's the case . . . making them evil mooks the heroes can slay guilt-free is actually worse. IMO.

 

[Mecheon]

Whoah.... no they absolutely weren't. Draconians were a replacement for orcs, and other 1E "bad guys to be killed". They weren't intended for players at all, and not until the book Draconian Measures and subsequently 3rd edition were they ever held up as a player race.

They were one of the first things to inspire the idea of playable dragon people as later developments of them made them very player associated

also to say nothing of orcs being long playable by that point

 

[Dire Bare]

They were one of the first things to inspire the idea of playable dragon people as later developments of them made them very player associated

also to say nothing of orcs being long playable by that point

Next you're going to tell me I shouldn't play Klingons in a Star Trek game . . .

Definitely no drow PCs, they're all evil . . . nobody reasonable would suggest that . . .

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Is coming in as a new player to a Dragonlance game (say it's set right during the War of the Lance) and insisting, to a group you hadn't played with yet, that you want to play a draconian, reasonable?

Anyone, player or DM, insisting on anything, is not reasonable.

It should be discussed and agreed upon by all parties. And if no agreement can be reached, those people should not be playing together.

 

[Belen]

Next you're going to tell me I shouldn't play Klingons in a Star Trek game . . .

Definitely no drow PCs, they're all evil . . . nobody reasonable would suggest that . . .

It depends on the game. If you’re part of a Federation crew during Kirk era, then it may not make sense to play a Klingon.

If Drow do not exist in the setting, then it does not make sense to play one either.

 

[mamba]

Yes, it most certainly is reasonable.

not the answer I would have given