Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DammitVictor" data-source="post: 9803793" data-attributes="member: 6750908">Not going to comment on "circus troupe", but I agree with you about preferring a humancentric campaign. As an umpire, I have a strong preference for at least half the PCs to be human or half-human, and the rest to either be common or setting-specific races, with or without the one PC that has to be the monkey in the wrench.But it's also setting-specific; since that concept is vanishing from D&D rules and fandom... I don't really know what to do about it. (Besides the nothing I already do about it most of the time.) But certainly, my views on what constitutes "common" (or even human) depends on the setting.Tieflings and Tortles, man. Tieflings are human in Planescape, common in the Forgotten Realms, and wrenchmonkeys anywhere else. Tortles are setting-specific in Mystara, and wrenchmonkeys anywhere else.(Homebrew notwithstanding; when I'm making up an ad hoc setting, I usually do a couple of rounds of whitelist/blacklist with the players.)One thing that helps to reduce the problem is to insist on doing character creation at the table. The group creates the party. They'll make more reasonable choics and start with PCs they're more excited to play. It's win-win.It's certainly a justified trope from the perspective of verisimilitude... the problem is genre. It makes the setting less relatable and reduces immersion for the people playing in it.Weird only gets to be weird if there's a normal to keep it at arm's length. Otherwise, what you have is surrealism which pretty much detracts from any game unless it's the point of the game.It's still bad in 5E, don't get me wrong... but it used to be worse. I don't think there's a philosophical change at WotC that explains it, but WotC is much more loathe to add new (sub)classes and (sub)races with every supplement. Even when they do splash out big-- Mordenkainen's-- they're mostly just catching up on legacy content.Just because axe-grinding is the only joy I have left in life... it's a consequence of how small the design space of adding a new ancestry has become.Heart of the problem. Most of the "race bloat" comes from monster books; drow, gith, and thri-kreen were all 1E monsters before they became 2E ancestries. New playables are only rarely invented for that purpose.Monster books don't and shouldn't concern themselves with coherent worldbuilding, but no campaign setting should actually have all of the species of monsters in the core rules. Goes double for humanoids. And most of the non-humanoid monsters shouldn't even be species in the first place.Especially online. Nobody wants to play your game; they want to play their character in whatever game they can get into. I can't even run games on some PBP sites because this aspect of playstyle culture is baked into the structure of the site itself.The GM is also a player; their fun also matters. And this is a problem that makes the game less fun for lots of people, including a lot of the people that gravitate toward the more exotic character concepts.Immersion is an important part of "having fun" in a roleplaying game, and a setting with no throughline is hard to get immersed in.I got into the habit because I'm a compulsive mutlticlasser-- in AD&D-- but there's just not enough meat on the PHB races to make them attractive. (Except humans and their lin.) Likely a consequence of existing simultaneously in so many different worlds and "everyone knowing" what they are.Weird stuff gets to have an identity.</blockquote>

Verification