Tiefling and half-orc should not be in the PHB

[Sunseeker]

I will never understand the appeal of "kitchen sink" or "garbage bin" D&D which demands that a place be found for everything that's ever been released, no matter how weird, off-the-wall, or nontraditional it may be, all in the name of not curtailing the choice options of certain people.

What happened to the days when we could expect that crazy races/classes/items/High Weirdness that were specific to one nontraditional setting would be included only on the player's guide to that setting? Why is that unreasonable?

What's truly so bad about restricting the initial, core, basic version of the game only to traditional elements that have a long and firmly-established pedigree of being included in the game's core? Just those elements that originally defined the game's roots and made it great in the first place! Do you people actually not like Dungeons and Dragons?

'Cause seriously, No True Scotsman and all that...

You write up all this and then tell us that WE are the ones playing a no-true-scotsman fallacy? Gimme a break.

Few things irritate me more than spending hours and hours preparing a plot plot outline in a particular setting in which what's available has already been defined beforehand, only to set it before the players and have That One Guy throw a tantrum because he can't make his Tainted Half-Dragonborn/Half-Shifter FactotumNinjaSorcerer concept work within the parameters of the campaign.

How is that an issue with having options? You're the DM, tell him NO. If he doesn't like it, then he is free to use the door. Honestly from what you say below it doesn't even sound like someone you'd play with.

And it's always That One Guy who does it. Every group has one--the guy who gets his jollies from playing nothing but oddball character concepts and rebelling against anything he defines as "too Normal." It's like he's going through some sort of personal identity crisis and has this driving psychological need to set himself apart and constantly remind everyone around him that he's not just another sheep in the flock like they are. He demands the spotlight, often in social situations within the story, and gets off on all the drama that surrounds NPCs being revolted by his unusual and generally monstrous PC, detracting from the fun of everyone else around the table, who probably just want to get on with the campaign's storyline and make some progress towards achieving their goal. He just wants the whole campaign to be about everybody celebrating his diversity.

Again, why are you even playing with this guy? I get that there are drama-y people out there but seriously, YOU are the DM, kick him out. It's not like there's a divine bond between the two of you can he can't be more than 5 feet away.

What you are complaining about is a PLAYER problem not a system problem.

Tell him "No," or "You can't do that," or "That's not available," and he flies off the handle, wanting to do it all the more now because he was told that he can't, adding the appeal of rebellion to the appeal of the Weird.

So what? Why are you playing with such an insane person in the first place?

I don't get this guy at all. To him, D&D is something very different than it is to me. He hates anything and everything old and traditional; if it's not cutting-edge and totally whacked-out Strange, it can't hold his interest. What made him this way? What was his early experience with the game like? What turned him off so much on the Things That Make D&D What It Is?

Your entire argument is completly unrelated to include "non-LOTR" races in Core. It's an issue with a drama-happy player who gets their kicks from stirring the pot. What's even more perverted is that your solution is to ban what you feel is "weird" from being played by ANYONE, ANYWHERE until expansions are released years down the road. Why isn't your solution just to not play with this guy?

 

[TwinBahamut]

What happened to the days when we could expect that crazy races/classes/items/High Weirdness that were specific to one nontraditional setting would be included only in the player's guide to that setting? Why is that unreasonable?

Because a lot of people like homebrew settings.

Why should people who like to homebrew have to buy setting books they don't want or need in order to get access to options that they might like? I mean, I love non-traditional races, and I almost always prefer to play in homebrew settings. I don't think that I'm that unusual...

What's truly so bad about restricting the initial, core, basic version of the game only to traditional elements that have a long and firmly-established pedigree of being included in the game's core? Just those elements that originally defined the game's roots and made it great in the first place! Do you people actually not like Dungeons and Dragons?

Well, what is wrong with including elements like the Dragonborn or Tieflings that have at least some of that exact same history of being included in the core?

Also, it is a complete fallacy to equate "not liking extremely limited racial options in the PHB" with "not liking D&D." That makes no sense at all.

 

[hikaizer]

I play a variety of DnD games, some in more Tolkien-esque settings and many in other bizarre settings. But really the one thought I've had from all of this discussion is the thought that why are we competing for space so much in the core books? I've seen comments of people complaining about races only taking up two pages in the core books if there are too many to choose from. However, isn't 5E supposed to be about choosing what you want mechanically? Wouldn't the core books really be about what you want mechanically out of your game and not thematically or setting-wise?

If you're not detailing all the setting information in the races section then really they don't need that much in the way of information. 4E actually did okay in this regard where they gave players a basic overview of the nature of the race and some sample names, as well as giving them mechanically what they needed.

More than anything else I think all that's needed is two sections to the races chapter, with each race having a very simple overview of the default setting stereotype. Then the more specific information is found in the DMG who is the person who really needs most of that information. Any few specific questions the PCs might have aren't going to be related to how to write up their character sheets and so the DM can answer them her/himself.

 

[TwinBahamut]

Get a copy of the Dungeon Masters Guide, first edition.
Turn to Appendix N
Pick any novel
Enjoy

And if anybody is still looking for the "Essence" of D&D? It's here.

So, the question is... Is the "Essence of D&D" that exact list of fantasy novels that a bunch of guys liked several decades ago, or is it the idea that D&D should include ideas from of a wide variety of works of contemporary fantasy? I think the latter is far more important. Why should D&D just stop changing and adapting and be mired in reliving the 70s? It would die if it did, and I'd be happy to see it die if it took that kind of short-sighted approach. I want a game that's relevant to me, not a game that solely appeals to the nostalgia of a time from before I was even born. Fortunately, I don't think it will take that approach, so I'll be happy to play the game for quite some time to come.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Maybe what we need is a list of books we DON'T want WotC to use for inspiration.

Twilight, I'm looking at you.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Except these don't fit the requirements of "the races are human, elf, dwarf, halfling and gnome."

None of them do.

Your response is insufficient, especially considering the examples I gave. If I'm wrong, defend your argument.

Otherwise, to Pythonize, it's not an argument, it's just contradiction.

 

[thewok]

What happened to the days when we could expect that crazy races/classes/items/High Weirdness that were specific to one nontraditional setting would be included only in the player's guide to that setting? Why is that unreasonable?

They're still here. I don't think anyone's really asking for warforged, shifters, changelings, kalashtar, genasi (which I call an FR race because I didn't play 2E), muls, thri-kreen, and the like. We're asking for races which already have been core races to continue to be core races.

What's truly so bad about restricting the initial, core, basic version of the game only to traditional elements that have a long and firmly-established pedigree of being included in the game's core? Just those elements that originally defined the game's roots and made it great in the first place! Do you people actually not like Dungeons and Dragons?

Of course we like D&D. But our definition of D&D seems to be a bit more broad than yours. D&D has grown beyond cleric, magic user and fighting man. It's grown beyond human, elf and dwarf. It's become something more--something all its own, and some nontraditional races--like them or not--are now a core part of Dungeons & Dragons.

 

[Sunseeker]

I play a variety of DnD games, some in more Tolkien-esque settings and many in other bizarre settings. But really the one thought I've had from all of this discussion is the thought that why are we competing for space so much in the core books? I've seen comments of people complaining about races only taking up two pages in the core books if there are too many to choose from. However, isn't 5E supposed to be about choosing what you want mechanically? Wouldn't the core books really be about what you want mechanically out of your game and not thematically or setting-wise?

If you're not detailing all the setting information in the races section then really they don't need that much in the way of information. 4E actually did okay in this regard where they gave players a basic overview of the nature of the race and some sample names, as well as giving them mechanically what they needed.

More than anything else I think all that's needed is two sections to the races chapter, with each race having a very simple overview of the default setting stereotype. Then the more specific information is found in the DMG who is the person who really needs most of that information. Any few specific questions the PCs might have aren't going to be related to how to write up their character sheets and so the DM can answer them her/himself.

Exactly, a stat-block and a fluff page takes up what, all of two pages? Maybe a page and a half? We're looking at what, somewhere between 15 and 20 pages for approx 10 races? That's not really a lot of room that could have been "better spent" on other things. Honestly I think we could probably collapse all the "pertinent information" needed to play a race mechnically into a single page, and then include 20 races with little trouble.

I mean, I want my PHB, DMG and MMs to be jam-packed with "relevant information", and I want a lot of it for my money. For 35-45 dollars PER BOOK, it darn well better have lots and lots of info, not just "the basic 4 races/classes". "the basics" is what I expect to find in something like the Red Box, in which case I'm fine with only a few choices.

 

[Mattachine]

Of course we like D&D. But our definition of D&D seems to be a bit more broad than yours. D&D has grown beyond cleric, magic user and fighting man. It's grown beyond human, elf and dwarf. It's become something more--something all its own, and some nontraditional races--like them or not--are now a core part of Dungeons & Dragons.

Exactly. Core is not OD&D or AD&D. It has grown and changed.

 

[Pour]

Yes they should. Put all races from all editions' PHB in there. If the designers can manage the classes, they certainly can manage the races.