Tiefling, Dragonborn : have they gained traction ?

[Hereticus]

If the DM does not like Dragonborn... just kill them off right away.

Even the slowest gaming group will eventually get the message.

 

[Dire Bare]

Okay, that was after I tuned out. I think they should probably have stayed villains, and I think I'll try and remember them that way.

Heh, while I'd allow a draconian PC in a Dragonlance game, if I ever ran one . . . . I like them as villians better myself. Same goes for drow and klingons! But there's always room for a draconian "Drizzt" . . . .

 

[Dire Bare]

If the DM does not like Dragonborn... just kill them off right away.

Even the slowest gaming group will eventually get the message.

Now that is a group I'd leave immediately. Punish a player for coming up with a character concept I didn't care for? I stopped doing that when I was 12 . . . no, wait, I didn't even do that way back then.

 

[Aus_Snow]

So were Drow once upon a time, but then came a certain book series, and we all know where that lead.

Not disregarding what you posted after this bit, by the way, just hoping for a brief history lesson (well, the time of a specific turning point, anyhow). Does anyone here know when Drow were first introduced officially (be it in D&D, AD&D, Dragon magazine, or. . . er, something else official) as a PC race? Not meaning to derail anything, and it actually seems kinda on topic. Anyway, does anyone happen to know?

Oh, and what was the very first previously monster-only PC race in D&D of any kind? Half Orc, perhaps? And when did that make an appearance?

 

[rounser]

Does anyone here know when Drow were first introduced officially (be it in D&D, AD&D, Dragon magazine, or. . . er, something else official) as a PC race?

To my knowledge, Unearthed Arcana 1E. 1E Fiend Folio had some rules you might use in making a PC dark elf, but mostly UA. These are both based on the Giants/Drow series, though, and maybe a dragon article before that (knowing the source of much of UA).

 

[Remathilis]

But that's what we're talking about by allowing everything in the core, all the time. It's kitchen sinking every campaign world. Dark Sun with dragonboob PCs. Ravenloft with dragonboob PCs. Etcetera.

Yeah like half-orcs in Dragonlanc... DOH!

Or gnomes in Dark Su... Ooops!

Or paladins in Ravenlof.... Dang it!

 

[Mark]

If I walked into a new game and new group and the GM shot down a request at a character concept, dragonborn or otherwise, I'd probably start looking for another game right quick.

Now that is a group I'd leave immediately.

Do you not usually research games to find out the ground rules before joining? Or, barring that, don't the DMs you run into usual either explain ahead of time that certain norms are in place for their campaign or ask you if you are willing to accept certain things before they let you join their games? If you keep running into situations like this you might want to communicate a little more before joining new games.

 

[Dire Bare]

But that's what we're talking about by allowing everything in the core, all the time. It's kitchen sinking every campaign world. Dark Sun with dragonboob PCs. Ravenloft with dragonboob PCs. Etcetera.

No, not at all. A good example is muls, half-dwarves, from Dark Sun. They are an iconic race of the setting and help define the feel of it. If I allow half-dwarves in my home game, am I somehow making it just like Dark Sun? Of course not.

I allow anything and everything within the rules into my game. That doesn't make my game world identical to any other, nor does it make a kitchen sink world. I allow dragonborn, but nobody's asked to play one yet and as so they don't exist in my world . . . yet. If and when somebody asks, I'll allow them and I'm not really worried about diluting the purity of my world. Same goes for goliaths, wardens, invokers and other bits too.

If I created kingdoms and huge backstories for every race and class in my game that closely mirrored WotC's stuff, then that might start to make my world to look a little unfocused and kitchen-sink-esque . . . but even in that case, so what? I'm not writing novels in this setting, I'm running a table-top game for my friends every other week or so.

I've seen closed DM's shut down player ideas often enough in my gaming career, and I find it anti-fun for the most part. I love GMs who are open, because it frees everybody at the table to just relax and have fun! It's only a game afterall!

I do draw the line sometimes at player-created classes and races unless I trust the player to come up with something balanced. But I rarely outright say "no", I'd rather work with the player to rework the class or race (or feat or whatever) that to simply ban it.

 

[rounser]

If I allow half-dwarves in my home game, am I somehow making it just like Dark Sun? Of course not.

That's a mighty weak straw man you've set up there. I've not said that you'd make your world like Ravenloft by including lycanthrope PCs either. You're shadowboxing with this line of argument.

If you kitchensinked everything in the 4E core into every world, it would ruin them. Do you understand what this actually means? It's like using your entire spice rack on every dish. It's not good cooking, nor good worldbuilding.

 

[Dire Bare]

Do you not usually research games to find out the ground rules before joining? Or, barring that, don't the DMs you run into usual either explain ahead of time that certain norms are in place for their campaign or ask you if you are willing to accept certain things before they let you join their games? If you keep running into situations like this you might want to communicate a little more before joining new games.

Thanks for assuming! If somebody asks me, "Hey, you play D&D? You wanna play with my group this Saturday?" If I'm free I'll usually say "yes" before "researching" the game. When I first sit down with the DM (or email), I'll ask for any house rules and I'll stick to them, including banned races or classes. There is so much out there I can always find a different class or race that will be fun.

But if the DM simply bans dragonborn (or something else) because they're just silly dragonbewbs who don't belong in a real D&D game . . . that's a warning sign this isn't a DM whose style is going to be fun for me. If he/she doesn't want me to play a dragonborn because they don't fit the campaign style they are running, well that's fine. It might seem a fine distinction, but it's all about attitude.

Besides, in 99% of these types of situations I've found myself in, I'll ask for any character creations rules or limitations and be told, "whatever you want". Then when I show up with my dragonborn, or soulknife, or whatever, I'm sneeringly told that class or race is lame and isn't allowed. Not fun.

But as I do prefer to play with folks who are open and fun . . . like me! . . . this is rarely a problem.