Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kennew142" data-source="post: 4028260" data-attributes="member: 18490">I know where you're coming from. This was exactly where I was in previous campaigns. Note that I'm not implying that I've advanced, or made progress, or anything like that. My own tastes have changed. One of the things that every GM and gaming group must decide for itself is how they deal with non-human races. I don't think that numerous human cultures is terribly compatible with numerous non-humans. Too many human cultures marginalizes non-humans. It is possible to run an enjoyable game in either style. IMO it doesn't make sense to say that humans are open and accepting of dwarves, elves, halflings, gnomes and half-orcs, but not of tieflings and dragonborn. If the former are accepted because they are common in the campaign world, then shouldn't the others be accepted if they are common in the campaign world? It's okay for someone to say that he won't use them because he doesn't like them, or because they don't fit the flavor of the campaign. I think its a little ridiculous when they make claims that these races objectively could not be accepted by the human populace, or that they (as opposed to other non-humans) make the game unrealistic.I suspect that what we've seen thus far in the previews is not as prevalent as it would seem. The previewers are giving us a taste of the new coolness, in the same way that movie teasers/trailors show more violence (or funny) bits per minute than the movie will. I could be wrong, but I doubt it - and hope that I'm not.I will be including some magical terrain in my next campaign, but I expect it to stand out against the predominant mundanity of the whole. I hope that's the case with the new FR as well as published scenarios.</blockquote>

Verification