Something in the setting Bothers You.
This thread is a place to discuss, vent, and share all those little details that bug the hell out of you in regards to settings and worlds. Please be as specific or general as you like. :D
I have two.
1) And here is the land of People Who Are Better Than You.
Somewhere, somehow, the campaign creator has placed a race or species that they absolutely love. As a result, that race is better. At everything. They are most likely smarter, stronger, smexier, more magically, technologically, and artistically inclined, and have more wisdom at age 3 than the entire rest of the world. Their cities make other races weep from the sheer magnificence, their sages have uncovered the secrets of the universe before the first bugbear bashed a skull, and their culture and virtue have eradicated all vices, all blemishes, all imperfections whatsoever. If they have one flaw, it is that they are incredibly arrogant about just how gosh darn awesome they are, so they won't lift a finger to help if the world is crashing down. Also, they probably live longer. And for some reason, your DM doesn't understand why you wish to kill every single one of them.
2) Here is where the Egyptian people live!
A perfect copy-paste of an existing Earth culture, which has somehow evolved in a world where people shoot fireballs and dragons roam the earth. Now, I understand the inspiration, there are many beautiful elements of the cultures we already have on this planet to use in fantasy. But it always baffles me how exactly a perfect copy of the Holy Roman Empire manages to exist and thrive next to the Generic Slave-Taking Wizard Nation, the Hobgoblin Sacrificial Temples/Sports, Bar, and Grill, and the mountains labeled Here There Be Illithid. One would think that maybe, just maybe, the fact that certain people can call down thunder and lightning or bring people back from the dead would have a minor influence on the nation. But maybe I'm just belligerent. :embarrass
See this everywhere and every time I see it I want to throttle the DM violently. Preferably to death. ****damn, I don't like _______ race either, but if I find an appropriate palce for them that doens't scream "GUYS, I REALLY HATE THIS RACE SO I'LL TAKE MY HATRED OUT ON THEM IN THE MOST IDIOTIC WAY I CAN" I'll stick them in there.
2.) I'm REINVENTING THE ****ING WHEEL HOLY **** AM I AWESOME NOW?
This. This a thousand times. While I like creativity and turning things upside down for the fun of it, at a certain point it gets stupid and I want to throttle the person who made it. Violently. Because they think they're so damn clever.
3.) Here's my 100% wonderful awesome custom ORIGINAL CREATION DO NOT STEAL race that is totally not an entire race of Mary Sues.
Seriously. Seriously. Die in a fire.
4.) As 3, but being anthropomorphic animals of some kind.
Die in a uncomfortably warm fire so that your death may be slow and exceedingly painful.
1) And here is the land of People Who Are Better Than You.
You know, I usually agree... because usually the people who fill this slot are elves. God it makes me hate elves sometimes. I mean, I love them when they are depicted in some new/exciting and not better than everyone else way... but I HATE it when I see Tolkien rip off, and also the first and best race, elves. But, Eberron kind of does this with dragons, and I sort of like the way they did!
Anyways, my major pet peeve.
1) Bland generic Tolkien rip off fantasy.
I get it, I really do. He wrote a great book. He told a great story. And, hell, its tough to tell new stories. But, for gods sakes, at least reskin the story, play with the tropes, and alter roles a little. Bland generic Tolkien rip off fantasy is what made me turn my back of Forgotten Realms, Dragon Lance, Greyhawk, and god knows how many home brew games. Give me something neat! Give me something weird! Give me something dark! Give me something funny! I don't care, just give me something that feels like I have not seen it before!
DM's not asking the players what they want to play. "I'm the DM, so we play in my world with my rules and that's that." Seriously. It gets old, and it's not uncommon in homebrew settings for the rules and world to seem arbitrarily tailored specifically to the DM's preference, not the entire table's.
And "Low Magic"
This is actually a corollary to number one, but more often than not in a low magic setting, it was foisted upon the players, not accepted from the beginning. Included in this is the DM's use of Mordy's Disjunction. It's the DM saying "I don't like that, so you can't have it."
My two peeves:
DM's not asking the players what they want to play. "I'm the DM, so we play in my world with my rules and that's that." Seriously. It gets old, and it's not uncommon in homebrew settings for the rules and world to seem arbitrarily tailored specifically to the DM's preference, not the entire table's.
And "Low Magic"
This is actually a corollary to number one, but more often than not in a low magic setting, it was foisted upon the players, not accepted from the beginning. Included in this is the DM's use of Mordy's Disjunction. It's the DM saying "I don't like that, so you can't have it."
Mordenkainen is a wonderful bastard. What kind of Wizard decides to make a spell to permanetly dick over another spellcaster?
There's also the Mansion spell. Like I said, Mordenkainen is awesome.
Maybe you just walked into town, a complete stranger from a distant land, but it seems the evil overlord knows everything about you. Maybe you're trying to disguise yourself as someone else, but it just seems that everyone you meet knew that guy was left handed and sees right through your disguise. Whatever it is, the bad guys knew you were going to do it, and they had a contingency plan for it. Whether or not the DM just made it up on the spot doesn't matter, just believe that they always know exactly what's going on.
Low Magic and anything close to being human only. These two examples **** me off and I usually skip over these in the quickness.
I've only ever been in one campiagn where it was human only and it totally worked and was enjoyable... Legend of the 5 rings... not sure how it would work in 4e now but in 3.5 it was good stuff.
Never played in a low magic setting and i never will.
My pet peeve? There is always an island of mystery and someone always knows there is a power artifact on it... even though no one who goes there ever returns.
1) nonononono... i'm too important to do this task... here, you do it.
high level NPCs who are too lazy/self-important to do their own job. i mean seriously... that wizard could just 'port in, nuke the place and 'port out in less then a minute or that fighter could just smash the wall, ignore the inhabitants and grab the idol for himself... and yet they ask some 5 random schmoes to do it. i don't mind doing a job for someone who's in actual trouble but it seriously irks me when i'm basically some guy's errand-boy.
2) nonononono... i'm too important to save the world... here, you do it.
a corollary of 1, that for some unfathomable reason, every time the world is in danger it's up to the PC's to save it... even though there are at least 4 good aligned NPCs somewhere in town that are better suited for the job. i mean seriously here, at least back us up!
3) the wizard 20/cleric 20/psion 20/fighter 20/...
AKA the super NPC. the guy the DM introduces, not necessarily as a DMPC but just there to look awesome and usually (unknowingly) overshadow the PCs. these folks that make your hard task look easy. and it grates my nerves to no end.
i'm currently playing in a game that regretfully has two of these guys who pop up every now and then. no matter what we do, these folks can do better. at least i still have polymorph...
as a corollary to 1 & 2 if these guys tag along for a while, they just sit back and let us do all the hard work until we're in trouble... then they clean house and berate us. sigh.
4) magic = good, machine = bad
for some reason the dark ages have been going on for over two thousand years. civilization has reached a certain limit and decided to stop innovating. entirely. sometimes this is due to a god's interference or the fact that people are just somehow too content with the status quo. the one race/country that tries to innovate or create are usually "evil" in the eyes of the people.
5) magic is rare... except for within the party
in a setting where magic is supposedly "rare", each party seems to find itself with 2.5 spellcasters on average. weird. weirder still, the party seems to be able to find all material components needed with ease.
6) it's like on earth, only different!
like dragoncat, the roman kobolds, egyptian lizardfolk, native american orcs, european elves, japanese goblins... i'll admit to having done some of this myself a bit, but some of these homebrew worlds are literally just earth with funny ears (mine are the rome-inspired kobolds. Best. Phalanx. Ever).
This is most apparent with magic. I personally dislike settings where everything and the kitchen-sink is thrown into it with no interconnection or relation to eachother. I prefer settings where in general there is some theme or pattern to it.
FR is the epitome of this Catch all Setting.
2) Elemental Magic is Most Abundant:
This has been a rant in my head for a very long time, but where magic (especially Arcane) is almost completely based around elemental magic, fireballs, frost, etc. Why don't we see more Spirit-magic, Sigil-magic, Blood-magic, etc, etc.
3) The Setting never Goes Beyond 14th Century:
I have always enjoyed settings that integrate technology into their settings or set in different time-periods. So I always disliked how no matter how long the setting lasts technology won't improve. I like my settings where knights charge firing revolvers.
4) Magic is the Be All End All:
Always disliked settings where basically everything powerful or important is magic based. I like it where simply normal martial abilities, technology, ingenuity, etc. is as important or more important then magic.
5) Black vs. White:
Nothing is ever black and white, so why should a setting be so? Hell even in my settings with alignment-based gods it is quite likely for a Lawful Good god to commit genocide if it sees it as fitting his pantheon.
6) Europe and Only Europe:
Only using the ideal Medieval Europe as a setting, you can have some of that. But why don't we see settings grounded instead in say Voodoo-Louisiana or Hindu-India.
If you play in my games the first boss will be a HUGE pig demigod. Yes, it does snort you to death.
I've only ever been in one campiagn where it was human only and it totally worked and was enjoyable... Legend of the 5 rings... not sure how it would work in 4e now but in 3.5 it was good stuff.
I'm not into any of that ****. When I play fantasy I want my non human races, the less there Tolkien like the better.
I'm not into any of that ****. When I play fantasy I want my non human races, the less there Tolkien like the better.
So I'm assuming your a big fan of Dragonborn and Tieflings?
So I'm assuming your a big fan of Dragonborn and Tieflings?
You say that as if it were a bad thing =P.
- Abberant monsters often feel like "Eh, might as well just throw stuff together like a duck-billed playtpus and hope it works"
- Evolution: despite breeding like bacteria, kobolds and goblins (and such creatures) never seem to develop much more than the capacity for being sneaky little bassturds. You'd think that with as much reproduction that occurs, they would advance somehow
- Rarely, if ever, Gods of absurd/small things. Like blankets or shoelaces. I mean, there's usually a God for everything else.
1) And here is the land of People Who Are Better Than You.
Somewhere, somehow, the campaign creator has placed a race or species that they absolutely love. As a result, that race is better. At everything. They are most likely smarter, stronger, smexier, more magically, technologically, and artistically inclined, and have more wisdom at age 3 than the entire rest of the world. Their cities make other races weep from the sheer magnificence, their sages have uncovered the secrets of the universe before the first bugbear bashed a skull, and their culture and virtue have eradicated all vices, all blemishes, all imperfections whatsoever. If they have one flaw, it is that they are incredibly arrogant about just how gosh darn awesome they are, so they won't lift a finger to help if the world is crashing down. Also, they probably live longer. And for some reason, your DM doesn't understand why you wish to kill every single one of them.
Ironically, I join you in hating this trope and have actually used it in one of my settings as a parody of sorts. It was a lawful good Mary Sue race, and a rebellion of virtually every other race was the core of the setting. It was actually a pretty damn good setting, and one of my personal favorites of the ones I've made (it's rare to have a lawful good antagonist, let alone an empire of lawful good antagonists... picture a friendly rendition of the Galactic Empire in a fantasy setting with cheery elf-like faces and muskets they use to enforce "the greater good").
That said, here are a few of the other clichés I hate.
Culture Of Personality
Why is it that humans seem to be the only race that can have any personality. Dragonborn are always loyal, elves are always nature freaks, dwarves are always stoic, gruff jerks and drow are always evil. Sure there are exceptions, but in real life, it's the groups of people with identical personalities that are the exception, not the other way around. It irritates me to no end. It's like somebody wrote up a list of stereotypes, then actually made a race for each and every one of them.
A Wizard Did It
Nothing annoys me more than taking a shortcut explanation with "it's magic, so it doesn't need explaining". Nothing. It's one thing to have magic involved, but nothing makes me more mad than to completely explain some gigantic event with "it's magic".
Everything Is Out To Kill You
I hate settings where the most dangerous, most powerful, most destructive things around are evil and want the human race destroyed. You'd figure with all these creatures that are superior to the human race that want them and their demihuman friends dead, they would be. This leads to....
Good Is Good, Evil Is Evil, That's That
I hate settings where morality is straight black and white. Not every evil creature should be a sick, cannibalistic, ****-happy monster; nor should every good character be a boy scout. There probably shouldn't even be a real division between the two. There are, after all, "evil deeds with good intentions" and "good deeds with evil intentions".
Cthuloid Horrors
What's so scary about a squid? I don't think they are that scary. So why is it that every single monster that is supposedly so horrific they could make you go insane by simply looking at it has got a squidlike appearance? You want to scare the crap out of a gamer, don't use evil seafood... let them get attacked by a giant roving ooze of half-digested Cheetos, and see if they ever sleep again.
Omnipotent/Omniscient Gods
I'm sorry, why do you have clerics when you could do whatever you want with a snap of your fingers and see everything you could possibly want to see? If you're omniscient, and you have the power to give and take away cleric powers, then why would you grant powers to anyone save for those who will most definitely not screw up? Shouldn't it be impossible for paladins to fall, since omniscient gods should know that they are going to fall and therefore not grant powers to people who will one day be fallen paladins? The number of blackguards that exist should therefore always be 0.
Those are the ones that came to mind. I might come up with more later.
I tried to play in one once where the DM was a feminist eco-freak. All humans were brutish and short-sighted, dedicated only to raping the environment and making money, and the only humans who came close to breaking the mold were the poor, oppressed women whose attempts at being kind to the earth were thwarted by those evil men at every turn who apparently only ever married for the purpose of saddling their wives with tons of kids. Apparently, even human rangers were hell-bent on hunting everything out of existence.
wizard 20/cleric 20/psion 20/fighter 20/... [/u]
AKA the super NPC. the guy the DM introduces, not necessarily as a DMPC but just there to look awesome and usually (unknowingly) overshadow the PCs. these folks that make your hard task look easy. and it grates my nerves to no end.
i'm currently playing in a game that regretfully has two of these guys who pop up every now and then. no matter what we do, these folks can do better. at least i still have polymorph...
as a corollary to 1 & 2 if these guys tag along for a while, they just sit back and let us do all the hard work until we're in trouble... then they clean house and berate us. sigh.
This is the WORST. It's not campaign setting-specific, but will make me leave the table faster than the pizza arriving.You say that as if it were a bad thing =P.
Oh, no, no, not at all. Dragonborn look rather fun to play, actually. :D
Even though you've got archmagi who can level cities and take out armies with the snap of their fingers, or who can create infinite suits of plate mail with fabricate, the world goes by as if these people just didn't exist. In fact, nobody seems to care that there are tons of ways to bypass conventional medieval defenses and they just go about happily building castles and start fortresses, completely ignoring that walls won't keep out any wizard of 3rd level or higher. Similarly, when the king dies, nobody suggests just raising him, instead everyone morns as though there was nothing that could be done. And nobody ever thought of combining portable holes and teleport spells for trade. Ever.
2. The endless war
Yes, planescape, I'm looking at you. As with any setting that has infinite battlefields and the like. It's bad as a PC to come up against an unwinnable war. It's ten times worse when you know that anything you might do is a drop in an infinitely large pond and that leads to the next one....
3. Low-level? Yeah you guys don't matter, don't even pretend that you're heroes.
This is the typical scenario in a world filled with high-level people, or at least enough where it's likely that the world actually doesn't need any help from low level people beyond doing dirty jobs that the higher level guys don't want to touch. If your low-level PCs fail, it's not going to be the end of Shadowdale or Cormyr. It's just not and you know it. Pretty much you can't be heroes.
) I'll turn the tables slightly:1) Players who assume the setting is a collection of tropes
My settings are usually nuanced and complex, and if it looks like I used a trope to define an entire nation or species, chances are that is just so that I can start from stock and develop it. As an example, in my current setting the characters have just learned to speak Kobold, and are beginning to wonder if they've been on the right end of the sword this whole time.
Nevertheless, even in my pretty forgiving group of players who are aware I do this, I occasionally get someone assuming they know a species/culture/group based on the tropes assocated with them.
2) RAW fluff
The RAW fluff is, in my opinion, absolutely pathetic. The gods are flavourless, the races' history is generically bad fantasy, even the planes have weird names and functions. I encourage my players to ignore the RAW fluff and create their own for their characters.
That said, it's better than the 3e fluff: at least I can extricate the 4e fluff with a handwave.
I've only ever been in one campiagn where it was human only and it totally worked and was enjoyable... Legend of the 5 rings... not sure how it would work in 4e now but in 3.5 it was good stuff.
Big thing there is...L5R/Rokugan isn't actually a D&D setting. The Oriental Adventures splatbook effectively ripped off and d20-ified the actual Legend of the Five Rings game concept and retooled it for D&D use (there's a whole chunk on how to import D&D races and classes in the book, I believe, plus at least two non-Rokugan races and a class or two slapped in for good measure), but in the end the setting's not really meant for anything but humans and Nezumi. So I can see why the campaign was run with only humans allowed.
Anyway, to the actual topic...my personal pet peeves about campaign settings? Here's the major ones I can think of, complete with goofy titles, just for the heck of it. Be warned, some of this spills over more into the mishandling of setting creation/use by DMs, and isn't really a peeve with settings themselves...
1) "The world is not enough": otherwise known as too much friggin' detail. This is my biggest problem with published settings; I couldn't get interested in Forgotten Realms largely because it felt like there was far too much to take in with regard to history of every known part of the world, the involvement of various deities in the world and their little quirks (Lolth and her lot, I'm looking at you!), ancient artifacts, various groups of prestige and common knowledge, various named and powerful NPCs, etc. I felt that there didn't seem to be enough space for any sense of discovery or the sheer adventure of going into the unknown.
This particularly presents a problem when you combine it with players that have access to the backstory of the setting in the form of novels and the like; I'd never have run FR with a particular friend of mine who was obsessed with the various FR novel series covering Drizzt and Elminster; he'd be the first to metagame or otherwise use his knowledge--even unintentionally--to throw the proverbial wrench into any interpretation of the setting that wasn't like the books. Players might know more about the setting than the DM, and the knowledge can be further distorted by multiple authors' interpretations of it.
Not to say that this can't happen in a homebrew, but the release of information to the players is more easily mitigated to what's vital, and the DM can change the world to more easily fit around what the players do, so it's infinitely more mutable at a glance than something that's in print and has years of stuff to back it up.
2) "Why am I doing this again?": back to an over-detailed setting, the idea that there are NPCs of epic or near-epic level lurking in a world, particularly those regarded as great heroes or villains makes one wonder what some lesser villain or budding hero is doing there. Especially when it's implied that those great heroes and villains are still involved in the affairs of the world; those minor villains would either get squashed by the big villains so there's no challenge to their power-base, or knocked down by the heroes to keep them from getting to world-domination levels by common logic, so why are there uprising heroes who are somehow the only ones who can challenge them? Why are new heroes suddenly involved--even inadvertently--in stopping the affairs of some BBEG, at that?
3) "Low Magic": plain and simple. I want my high-fantasy, crazy magical world in D&D. I want to see Wizards and Warlocks throwing around dangerous elemental power or eldritch energy straight out of Hell or wherever, magic artifacts of ancient power, etc., because if I didn't want fantastical things, I wouldn't be playing a game that's geared toward sword-and-sorcery types of fantasy themes. If I wanted grim-and-gritty (what some people seem to equate "low magic" settings to, it often seems), I'd play nWoD mortals-only, or Shadowrun, or even L5R with the Shadowlands on the rise. Those can do gritty, dark, potentially life-threatening danger far better IMO than an outright neutering of magic in D&D. Especially because it always seems that higher level play in D&D is practically tailored to either the need for magic or at least weapons that're either magic or meant to disrupt it to bypass DR, etc.
4) "The Rule of Cool" and the "I Just Don't Like 'Em!": this is not always a pet peeve...sometimes it's a very good thing, as the former can help justify why things that are slightly illogical are so, or otherwise cover for minor oddities. The second can also be used for good to a lesser extent, but it can still cover for why a DM might do something. I don't like it when it goes too far, particularly in homebrew; some people use it to justify their dislike of a race/class/spell/etc. by making them utterly unplayable in their setting, or make one race/class/etc. stand out as overtly good, or otherwise strain the concept of "My world, my way."
For examples of what I consider good/bad uses of the "Don't like 'em" concept (Because rule of cool is harder to define as when it's gone too far), my BF freely admits to not really liking Elves, but he doesn't go out of his way to make them a hated creature that won't even be able to get into a town without people wanting to burn them at the stake, or making them pure evil. They're just less prevalent, and slightly more insular in their communities, so they might not be a common sight but are by no means seen as monsters. It's a solution that leaves room for the possibility that a player might want to use one, and the DM will have to work with it, but that it can be less than ideal for the player. Just not impossible to work with.
In contrast--especially with 4e--it seems like a lot of people want to do just that with races like the Tieflings or Dragonborn, and try to use their appearance/RAW history fluff/classic RAW fluff as their reason to vilify them, particularly the Tiefling. And often, it seems to boil down to the person saying "I'm the DM, so I'm going to do this because it's my world, and I don't like them!", without any sense that they know what their players might think, or that they've considered alternate and less overt ways to make the race/class/whatever uncommon or otherwise not as likely to be seen in their world.
Those are about the most glaring peeves, I suppose. And I know if I take it any further than this, I'll really wind into a rant...therefore, I'm leaving it here.
So I'm assuming your a big fan of Dragonborn and Tieflings?
Yup
! Races I'm the biggest fan of are Yaun Ti, Gnolls, Minotaurs, Dborn, Tieflings, and Kobolds.Orc and human barbarians are cool sometimes too...
Or rather most of the people who love/hate it. You know who I'm talking about:
A) Those who believe that every word ever written concerning the Realms is & must always be a part of any Realms based game.
You kow what? I like the Realms in a general sort of way. But I've read alot of Realms crap over the years that just doesn't work for me. Places, items, NPCs, conflicts, whatever. So I simply view this mountain of company produced stuff as a chronicle of how someone else's campaign has unfolded. Maybe I'll borrow a bit, maybe I wont. Either way I can run a perfectly enjoyable Realms based game.
B) The people who maintain that everythings too detailed in the Realms. That there's no room for the PCs to actually do anything.
Bull****.
Once again, I can run you a perfectly fine FR game. And I can do this using all that empty space found on the map(s) OR smack in the middle of all the WoTC crap you can imagine.
Usually paired with low magic games, this is a world where a powerful organisation controls pretty much everything and is used as beating stick by the DM to make sure his world remain the way he wants it.
Said DM also rarely let you go against the organisation mo matter how powerful you are or even join them - you're supposed to carry on and consider them part of the world, like gravity.
The DM also usually consider this group to be super cool and original.
2 - It's a bird, it's a plane... it's super npc
Already mentioned several time, but it usually Group X will have several of those guys. A personal pet peeve of mine is when the game hinge on watching 2 super npcs duke it out with the pc basically unable to affect the outcome.
DM: "Oh yeah, that guy is cannon, he can't die."
Us: ... you couldn't have told us that before we got in the fight!
I'm with a bunch of you on hating uber-GMPCs.
We have three in one game I am in. Everybody in the game threatened to quit because of them so the GM agreed that we would never see them again. And yet, six months later they are still in the game "because we haven't gotten to a place in the story where it would be appropriate for them to leave" and the DM can't figure out why nobody wants to post ever (PbP). And this is despite the fact that one of the uber-GMPCs was pregnant until about a month ago and now has a one month old baby!!!!
My own:
The gods ain't listening
If the cleric is disloyal to his god, he doesn't loose his powers how?
Demons ignore guns/conventional armaments
NO, Demons have lots of HP and DR, they will just take the tank shell like it was a .22, a few more, or one good hit and he is down.
Same goes for missiles.
This is related to the Tolkien annoyance that other people have mentioned. Humans are generally a good race. Thin humans (elves)? Good. Short Humans (dwarves/gnomes/halflings)? Good. Green/scaly/furry/horned humans? Evil, and probably eat good-human flesh. Thin/short humans, but with weird skin (drow/duergar)? Evil. The only evil ones you normally see having exceptions are the drow, since they're pretty much just elves with dark skin. Give me some variety! Don't get confused when I don't want to judge every book by its cover!
We're Friends Because We're Both Evil!
Some DMs have this assumption that all evil beings, no matter how paranoid or self-serving, are willing to work with each other for the Greater Evil. Generally, any war against a monolithic evil grates on my suspension of disbelief, especially when it includes several different ethnocentric cultures working in harmony.
We're Friends Because We're Both Good!
The closest thing some campaign worlds see to a war between good races is a slight nod to the Tolkien-inspired elf-dwarf rivalry. There's rarely ever any serious conflict between PC-intended races. While this makes sense from a "get the party to not kill each other" standpoint, it hurts my sense of verisimilitude. Combine this with the previous one for the ultimate in Black vs. White with-us-or-against-us war that drives me nuts.
We're Friends Because We're Both Evil!
Some DMs have this assumption that all evil beings, no matter how paranoid or self-serving, are willing to work with each other for the Greater Evil. Generally, any war against a monolithic evil grates on my suspension of disbelief, especially when it includes several different ethnocentric cultures working in harmony.
We're Friends Because We're Both Good!
The closest thing some campaign worlds see to a war between good races is a slight nod to the Tolkien-inspired elf-dwarf rivalry. There's rarely ever any serious conflict between PC-intended races. While this makes sense from a "get the party to not kill each other" standpoint, it hurts my sense of verisimilitude. Combine this with the previous one for the ultimate in Black vs. White with-us-or-against-us war that drives me nuts.
It goes even further than that, every one is stippled, some parts are good, some are bad. For example my big bad good guy: Laetissimus, the dragon.
He may be a good guy, but he is a dragon, so I have him be somethign of a fascist, he thinks of his city as his hoard, etc.
Bad guys can be nice too. but that can be made to rub it in how cruel they are.
DM's not asking the players what they want to play. "I'm the DM, so we play in my world with my rules and that's that." Seriously. It gets old, and it's not uncommon in homebrew settings for the rules and world to seem arbitrarily tailored specifically to the DM's preference, not the entire table's.
How do you do this when homebrewing a world can take months and you aren't going to even be looking for players until you're done?
1) There are threats all around you and one wrong move will set off a lot of bad things happening…………. i.e. Pointing out danger.
I hate it when published settings give me pre-made ways to imperil the setting, pre-made BBEGs, pre-made conflicts, etc. because I get confused. And it's for the same reason I won't touch obviously dangerous settings as a player: I can't get my head around being a person who lives in such a world. My fear response goes to MAX. I need presented the point of view of safe living and then layer on the danger. So as a DM I like settings where I design all the peril myself, and as a player I like settings where I don't know the danger until it comes up in game.
2) Give up now. i.e. Grim and/or dark settings.
If I wanted a world with a whole lot of terrible problems that I can't solve I'd read the newspaper.
3) You are the bug to the world's windshield. i.e. Low-powered and/or gritty settings.
My low-powered setting is called "real life". I'm not interested in another one.
4) It's like the real world. What fun. i.e. Low fantastic quotient.
Ditto to #3. Plus a made-up world just doesn't feel right unless its got a lot of weird in it.
5) The only good demon is a dead demon. i.e. Assigning alignments/personalities.
All the really good arguments about this one have already been made. Repeatedly.
6) The darkness is hungry and will drain your soul. i.e. Associating darkness, death, cold, chaos. etc. with evil.
Just because people are afraid of these things does not mean they always have to be cast in the villain role. Give me some undead that don't hate the living, give me some creatures of darkness that are protective of others, give me some chaos that does good for the world.
7) This setting must correspond exactly to specification standard EX-993-7. i.e. Taking things seriously.
I don't care about versimilitude. I don't care about logic. I want a setting because it feels cool, feels like it's an old myth where the people had to make up the world, not because it would make a great college anthropology paper.
[snip]
6) The darkness is hungry and will drain your soul. i.e. Associating darkness, death, cold, chaos. etc. with evil.
Just because people are afraid of these things does not mean they always have to be cast in the villain role. Give me some undead that don't hate the living, give me some creatures of darkness that are protective of others, give me some chaos that does good for the world.
[/snip]
THIS. I hate when people go "NECROMANCY EVIIIIIIL EVIIIIIIL!!!! BURN!!!!"
Well guess what villager, I saved your bum, from the acolyte of Asmodeus that was swinging his radiant powers in your faces, with mah necromantic powas.
How do you do this when homebrewing a world can take months and you aren't going to even be looking for players until you're done?
depends on your method of world building. my own normally starts with an idea:
30 minute brainstorm i throw at the players
let's say... a magic-as-technology-ish setting where the weak "fleshies" are being killed by their magic-robot masters (warforged) and turned into techno-zombies. i like bleak and dystopian settings with robot masters and zombie outbreaks.
now that i have an idea i expound a bit:
warforged were originally created by... dwarves... to help them in the mines.
warforged need not eat/sleep/breathe so they could much easier send them into places for days on end that could cause problems for the dwarves. warforged hated being treated as objects as well as they were built to be superior to the dwarves and started a genocidal cleansing of the weaker, fleshy races.
the world's view on magic is pretty much the same as ours with machinery & technology: a tool to make our lives easier. the standard of living is (used to be) pretty high : clerical churches/clinics give easy access to healing. trade & travel via portals is common and gives access to exotic products & places. ect...
the players however never experienced this... they grew up in a world where those with healing are rationed within compounds for warforged use only. portals are heavily guarded. warforged & the zombies they can create are "birthed" (a term used to mock the fleshies) in special hidden factories called "wombs" (same as before). most fleshies live in small isolated camps or in well hidden villages away from the eyes of their cold masters.
the warforged have a pretty good grip on things, they control about 60-70% of the "world". fleshies are in trouble but have a lot still going for them:
-larger numbers
-their own networks & resources
-they still have their own weapons
-ect..
fleshies are in a really bad position but the warforged expanded too fast too soon so their numbers are still low & their resources straining a bit, even though they control a large amount of territory.
let's say... a magic-as-technology-ish setting where the weak "fleshies" are being killed by their magic-robot masters (warforged) and turned into techno-zombies. i like bleak and dystopian settings with robot masters and zombie outbreaks.
now that i have an idea i expound a bit:
warforged were originally created by... dwarves... to help them in the mines.
warforged need not eat/sleep/breathe so they could much easier send them into places for days on end that could cause problems for the dwarves. warforged hated being treated as objects as well as they were built to be superior to the dwarves and started a genocidal cleansing of the weaker, fleshy races.
the world's view on magic is pretty much the same as ours with machinery & technology: a tool to make our lives easier. the standard of living is (used to be) pretty high : clerical churches/clinics give easy access to healing. trade & travel via portals is common and gives access to exotic products & places. ect...
the players however never experienced this... they grew up in a world where those with healing are rationed within compounds for warforged use only. portals are heavily guarded. warforged & the zombies they can create are "birthed" (a term used to mock the fleshies) in special hidden factories called "wombs" (same as before). most fleshies live in small isolated camps or in well hidden villages away from the eyes of their cold masters.
the warforged have a pretty good grip on things, they control about 60-70% of the "world". fleshies are in trouble but have a lot still going for them:
-larger numbers
-their own networks & resources
-they still have their own weapons
-ect..
fleshies are in a really bad position but the warforged expanded too fast too soon so their numbers are still low & their resources straining a bit, even though they control a large amount of territory.
I hate reading world histories. Whenever I see a new campaign setting, 95 percent of the time, I'm hit by a huge block of text detailing the last ten thousand years of the world's history. It's an immediate turn off, and I tend to either stop reading entirely or just skim it. Why is the history of the world known so well in any case? Will the characters know all the events of the past ten millenia? Unless they're all scholars, I doubt it. And why is everything so certain? Most campaign histories are written in a definite tone, as though that version of events was the one, unimpeachable truth. Even today, with our modern methods of Anthropological and Historical fact-finding, we're not entirely sure what things were like ten thousand years ago.
Huge World Maps
I understand the desire for a big, epic world, but is it really necessary to draw out five continents? You could spend a whole campaign in an area the size of a State and still never see everything there is to see. Plus, unless you plan on spending the next several decades fleshing out your world, you're never going to detail all of that land.
Humans with pointy ears
It's always been a pet peeve of mine that all the races in the PHB are "humans only a little different". What separates a halfling or a dwarf from a human other than build and culture? Nothing. What separates an Elf from a skinny human? Pointy ears. If all the races are going to be so similar, why not just make them all representative of different human cultures? This would even kill two birds with one stone by avoiding the "Monocultural Race with Identical Personalities" problem.
Thinly Disguised Racism
Speaking of poorly designed "races" - Elves who are all angelic, good caucasians. Orcs and Goblinoids as some twisted amalgam of all the "primitive native" stereotypes colonists propagated. Drow... do I even have to go into the Drow? Why is the term "race" used in any case? Why not "species"?
The "Four Elements"
Where did the New-Agey obsession with the "Four Elements" of Fire, Air, Earth and Water come from? Why do they show up all over the place? Why are they supposedly the fundamental forces behind everything? It's been said before, but I think it bears repeating.
1. High magic settings
I hate setting where there is a magic store on every corner, an epic level character in every town, and every rich guys can go down to the local temple to get his buddies brought back to life. I love magic in a campaign, but when its common its just not magic anymore. I prefer games where medieval lifestyles and technology are still valid.
2. Politically correct fantasy
I don't like setting that are free of sexism, racism, poverty, oppression, and religious persecution. I cannot suspend disbelief when I see pre-industrial societies that are more progressive and tolerant than modern nations are.
3. Fearless peons
I can understand that zombies will fight to the death, or religious fanatics, or any number of creatures or elite soldiers. But far too often I see a group of petty bandits fighting the party to the death even when its obvious that they are outmatched. Real people, particularly those who aren't trained soldiers and are mentally stable, tend to try to avoid certain death.
4. Bland religion
The real world has tremendous religious diversity - and each religion has its dogma, taboos, legends, rules, ranks (or formalized religion), rituals, history, morals, etc. Why then are clerics expected to simply be field medics with not concern for practicing his religion and why must all the deities be so mind numbingly generic?
5. Stereotypical generic demihumans
Of course, in playing D&D one must come to tolerate stereotypical demihumans to some degree, but as the years have past I have become increasingly intolerant of every elf civilization being the same as every other and every dwarf having the same personality.
6. Fan boism
When the DM creates a nation, culture, or NPC he should not like that creation too much. He shouldn't make them the coolest thing he can imagine and represent all the things he thinks are awesome. No matter what details the DM puts into his creation, if absolute adoration of what the creation represents is the primary motivator then its going to suck for the players who encounter it. This also goes for NPC's that represent an idealized version of the DM.
Thinly Disguised Racism
Speaking of poorly designed "races" - Elves who are all angelic, good caucasians. Orcs and Goblinoids as some twisted amalgam of all the "primitive native" stereotypes colonists propagated. Drow... do I even have to go into the Drow? Why is the term "race" used in any case? Why not "species"?
I've been saying the same thing for years!!! And people think I'm racist for thinking that fantasy stereotypes are racist. Honestly, fantasy races is what ruins DnD the most for me and it took me awhile to get over it and just ignore the stereotypes. I almost completely removed fantasy races from my campaign in favor of an all human campaign, but in the best I can do is to not treat fantasy races as stereotypes, and give them as much culture as humans get. So far I have a four hundred pound 6 foot dwarf lord, tall and lanky pale green goblinoids who lurk in the night, dragonborn clans who are divisive and prone to infighting, dwarven miners who are not tough and gruff fighters and freeze up if attacked by undead ghouls...
Sticking with the term race because it is a 'sacred cow' was something I wish the designers would have took a harder look at. 'species' or even 'origin' would have done better. Race makes no sense in classifying an elf from an orc and is a very outdated and (I'm gonna say it!) archaic term that should die a horrible death.
So yea, that's my main pet peeve in campaign settings...
end rambling...
30 minute brainstorm i throw at the players
let's say... a magic-as-technology-ish setting where the weak "fleshies" are being killed by their magic-robot masters (warforged) and turned into techno-zombies. i like bleak and dystopian settings with robot masters and zombie outbreaks.
now that i have an idea i expound a bit:
warforged were originally created by... dwarves... to help them in the mines.
warforged need not eat/sleep/breathe so they could much easier send them into places for days on end that could cause problems for the dwarves. warforged hated being treated as objects as well as they were built to be superior to the dwarves and started a genocidal cleansing of the weaker, fleshy races.
the world's view on magic is pretty much the same as ours with machinery & technology: a tool to make our lives easier. the standard of living is (used to be) pretty high : clerical churches/clinics give easy access to healing. trade & travel via portals is common and gives access to exotic products & places. ect...
the players however never experienced this... they grew up in a world where those with healing are rationed within compounds for warforged use only. portals are heavily guarded. warforged & the zombies they can create are "birthed" (a term used to mock the fleshies) in special hidden factories called "wombs" (same as before). most fleshies live in small isolated camps or in well hidden villages away from the eyes of their cold masters.
the warforged have a pretty good grip on things, they control about 60-70% of the "world". fleshies are in trouble but have a lot still going for them:
-larger numbers
-their own networks & resources
-they still have their own weapons
-ect..
fleshies are in a really bad position but the warforged expanded too fast too soon so their numbers are still low & their resources straining a bit, even though they control a large amount of territory.
these are notes taken via bouncing ideas off each other.
the original idea was
let's say... a magic-as-technology-ish setting where the weak "fleshies" are being killed by their magic-robot masters (warforged) and turned into techno-zombies. i like bleak and dystopian settings with robot masters and zombie outbreaks.
afterwords we just worked on the topic for a bit and decided if that's what we wanted. we settled on a more traditional fantasy setting, but that just gives me time to work on the evil robot masters idea and repitch it later.
Sticking with the term race because it is a 'sacred cow' was something I wish the designers would have took a harder look at. 'species' or even 'origin' would have done better. Race makes no sense in classifying an elf from an orc and is a very outdated and (I'm gonna say it!) archaic term that should die a horrible death.
That's because you're used to the term "Race" in the colloquial. There's really only 1 human race, and many ethnicities. Race is and should be something more dillineating: very much like species. Other than the idea of getting rid of the word I completely agree. I think wizards is starting to move forward with the idea as well, but there's still some time before tolkein's ethnic based inspirations dissipate.
Culture defines the races, and location defines culture. I keep very little else when defining npcs.
Introduce the cool things - but then think about how that would impact neighboring areas. Put in the sea of molten lava (Taladas), swirling maelstrom (Dragonlance) or a landscape altering magical effect that emerges after a recent war (Eberron). But use it! Craft cool stories and scenarios by following through on their ramifications. Perhaps the adventures must rescue a coastal village from the eroding force of the maelstrom; perhaps they must fight bandits, defending a settlement thats facing hard times on the edge of the Mournlands because it has irrevocably diminished local rainfall. Don't just have crystal mountains to have crystal mountains and crystal mountains would be cool. Integrate them. Maybe a new priestly order has emerged observing portents and prophecy hidden within the crystals but revealed as the sun sets in the west. Maybe a new material has been found within the crystal mountains that would give the local power-hungry wizard a significant advantage over his rivals.
Add "cool" to the geography and then use it to craft cool stories.
30 minute brainstorm i throw at the players
these are notes taken via bouncing ideas off each other.
……………………………………
afterwords we just worked on the topic for a bit and decided if that's what we wanted. we settled on a more traditional fantasy setting, but that just gives me time to work on the evil robot masters idea and repitch it later.
I'm just saying some people take longer to come to a coherent idea, so not all of us can ask what the players want first.
I've been saying the same thing for years!!! And people think I'm racist for thinking that fantasy stereotypes are racist. Honestly, fantasy races is what ruins DnD the most for me and it took me awhile to get over it and just ignore the stereotypes. I almost completely removed fantasy races from my campaign in favor of an all human campaign, but in the best I can do is to not treat fantasy races as stereotypes, and give them as much culture as humans get. So far I have a four hundred pound 6 foot dwarf lord, tall and lanky pale green goblinoids who lurk in the night, dragonborn clans who are divisive and prone to infighting, dwarven miners who are not tough and gruff fighters and freeze up if attacked by undead ghouls...
Sticking with the term race because it is a 'sacred cow' was something I wish the designers would have took a harder look at. 'species' or even 'origin' would have done better. Race makes no sense in classifying an elf from an orc and is a very outdated and (I'm gonna say it!) archaic term that should die a horrible death.
So yea, that's my main pet peeve in campaign settings...
end rambling...
Personally, I usually run (and prefer to play in) games where humans are the only race (err, humanoid species) that is playable. There will be various different human races, ethnicities, and nationalities but they're all human. This, in many ways, actually makes the culture of the setting much more diverse in that all different human groups have their own distinct culture, values, history, etc. Yet at the same time each member of any human race/nationality/ethnicity is still an individual and a three dimensional character - or at least has the potential to be.
In many ways, I see the existence of monoculture demihumans to distract from interesting cultural differences that can be portrayed in the world. A human may encounter some elves, and not be at all surprised that the elves act like elves are supposed to act and in essence the stereotype destroys any sense of exoticness or differences in thought processes that the elves and humans have. On the other hand, if you had a group of European-like humans encounter a group of African-like humans you could play out all sorts of scenarios where they don't understand each other culture or conflicts they might have or reasons why they might ally with each other - even though they're much more biologically similar than humans or elves. Likewise, when somebody makes a character in such a setting, they are forced to say things like "My character comes from hilly arid region where animal herding is common, we worship multiple gods, tribal chiefs from across the region meet together in a council and that is the basis of regional government, our people have taboos about touching the dead, etc." As opposed to saying "I'm an elf."
For example, in one place you could have a human kingdom with neighboring friendly dwarven and elven nations, threatened by goblins and orcs, and next to some lizardfolk-filled swamp. Across the mountains, you'll find a human republic with friendly dwarves and elves who help the humans against the threatening goblins and orcs and, probably, against the lizardfolk of the neighboring swamp.
In practice, each 'zone' of the map is set up to allow players to have the "full" D&D experience including access to all the PC races and standard monsters.
That bugs me.
It especially bugged me in Isaac Asimov's Foundation series. It's set in a virtually fantasy-free sci-fi world. Asimov is supposed to write rationally -- yet the decline of the Galactic Empire seems to be driven by a mystical fate or zeitgeist which was totally disconnected from cause and effect.
Uber-Powerful Good Guy NPCs who should be fighting the BBEG instead of sending the PC errand boys (Forgotten Realms).
Good aligned completely safe settings where there is nothing to do except be railroaded into an adventure.
Puzzles, riddles or mysteries of any kind.
Races that I have to attack on sight (Kender, Tinker Gnomes - Dragonlance)
DMs who tell you what "YOU did wrong" after the TPK that happens every Saturday night.
Every grunt fights to the last man, they never surrender or run away from hopeless battles. And every NPC is immune to reason, logic, bribery, tricks and threats.
Every grunt fights to the last man, they never surrender or run away from hopeless battles. And every NPC is immune to reason, logic, bribery, tricks and threats.
I wish I could say otherwise, but I only just discovered this myself as a DM. I used to hate when my players would try to parley or capture an enemy, because I didn't want to deal with the burden that put on me. How much information does he know, how much will he give, how will that information affect the rest of the adventure. What happens when the PCs set him free...or kill him...or take him along as a prisoner?
Soooo many potential challenges that would be more easily solved by just having him fight to the death.
Just recently, though, my players had a couple opportunities to capture enemies and I think they enjoyed the RP a lot each time. Neither incident derailed the adventure at all and, in some ways, actually enhanced it as the players gained a sense of events happening outside of their vision range. It still makes me nervous, but now that I've seen the benefits to the game I'm not as opposed to the idea.
That one drives me nuts. For some reason, despite the world history being really long, the max technolgy level ever attainable is high middle ages. This is always somewhat dubious.
- Excuse number 1: Magic makes science redundant. Not really valid because in most of the settings, those who have the magic don't seem to understand that they could make a LOT of money by marketing there skills and making the innovations. No, they always seem to like staying together and just studying, maybe sometimes helping avert (or create) world shatering catastrophies. The only exception of that one is Eberon, which I respect for that.
- Excuse 2: The laws of physics of the world are different and therefore prevent the invention of guns/electricity.... Highly dubious too. If one thing, humans are inventive and will always find other ways to develop if that isn't available. Heck, compressed air weapons or steam engines can hardly be made impossible without a REALLY different physics system.
- Excuse 3: The gods/omniscient concill of vagueness/nature spirits... are artificialy preventing the mortals from getting high tech. Well, that's the case of PTBs being douche bags but the irksome part is that usualy, they somehow are presented as the "good guys" and us mortals should shut the **** up.
2) Tech vs magic war:
In most settings where tech and magic cohabit, they are practically systematicly opposed. The most egregarious example is Arcanum (which is still a good game). Again, that does exactly make much sense. Science is afterall just application of natural events for the user's benefit. That magic may interefere with some physical reactions is perfectly logical in an EMP kind of way for electronics, but basic mecanics or steam powered... you lost me here.
On the other hand, the philosophical opposition between science supporters and magic supporters is perfectly fine and even logical. After all, mages are now starting to get serious competition and that is bad for business. Also, since with advancement can come polution or ecological consequences, that is also a logical source for conflicts.
3) Tech is useless:
The word where tech which is efficient in real life is completly useless. The most know example is the demons immune to guns and such but can be faced by teens with swords. Gaaahhhh!!!! Classic case: evil army of demons invades earth, armies, guns, tanks, chemical weapons and nukes are useless, guys with holy swords aren't. At least Warhammer 40k doesn't do that and demons are still a HUGE problem.
4) You are but a cog in the wheel of life:
Classic of you are not the heroes, the npcs are. A staple of World of Darkness and Warhammer which are naturaly crapsack worlds but do not belong in less ugly and pessimistic worlds.
5) Black and White morality: All members of one race being good/evil... Some actions always being good/evil despite pragmatic implications.... Star Wars and the inability to finish a big bad without risking the dark side is a huge wall banger (despite the hero having just slaughtered a legion of mooks without pity). Damn you Force Unleashed for a dumb ending for an otherwise great plot ! That's why I like Craig Daniel Bond, at least, he gets the job done.
6) Omniscient morality license:
The abilitie for gods/sages/prophets... to do actions which are, at best, moraly dubious, and still be treated as right. Kelemvor and his Wall of Faithless irks me like nothing else. Afteral, the Book of Vile Darkness, defines any destruction of soul as the ultimate evil, and yet, the god of death does it on a genocidal level, daily. Talk about double standards and hypocrisy. Heck, the ability for gods to do disproportionate retribution (often with extensive colateral damage) without anyone yelling at them (not even the author).
THIS. I hate when people go "NECROMANCY EVIIIIIIL EVIIIIIIL!!!! BURN!!!!"
Well guess what villager, I saved your bum, from the acolyte of Asmodeus that was swinging his radiant powers in your faces, with mah necromantic powas.
Wouldnt it make the most sense for necromancy to split into "white" and "black" necromancy? healing and hurting? This logic only works if you maintane that healing spells are necromancy, 3.x nixed that.
1) Technology Stagnation:
That one drives me nuts. For some reason, despite the world history being really long, the max technolgy level ever attainable is high middle ages. This is always somewhat dubious.
- Excuse number 1: Magic makes science redundant. Not really valid because in most of the settings, those who have the magic don't seem to understand that they could make a LOT of money by marketing there skills and making the innovations. No, they always seem to like staying together and just studying, maybe sometimes helping avert (or create) world shatering catastrophies. The only exception of that one is Eberon, which I respect for that.
- Excuse 2: The laws of physics of the world are different and therefore prevent the invention of guns/electricity.... Highly dubious too. If one thing, humans are inventive and will always find other ways to develop if that isn't available. Heck, compressed air weapons or steam engines can hardly be made impossible without a REALLY different physics system.
- Excuse 3: The gods/omniscient concill of vagueness/nature spirits... are artificialy preventing the mortals from getting high tech. Well, that's the case of PTBs being douche bags but the irksome part is that usualy, they somehow are presented as the "good guys" and us mortals should shut the **** up.
I share your pains with many a manga... If some kid, by focusing all his spirit on a sword can cut through, can a highly trained and focused pilot endow a guided missile?
But I was thinking of making a world that should be less dubious using excuse 2, instead of matter, they have alchemical solids... but due to the age of shadow they got some ideas and have a periodical table of them.
I also would have the elemental planes form a hypercube, and the world be a hyper cone...
1) Technology Stagnation:
That one drives me nuts. For some reason, despite the world history being really long, the max technolgy level ever attainable is high middle ages. This is always somewhat dubious.
Simply not developing the movable type printing press (or it not becoming wide spread) would have been enough to drastically stunt human development. Throw in a couple of Civilizations falling, some natural disasters, and you are half-way to a world that never gets past middle age tech. The other half comes in with the rampaging monsters hellbent on undoing the world itself.
2. Wood Elves, Sun Elves, Green Elves, Tree Elves, Sleeve elves, Carpet Elves. I mean, come on. Why so many sub-races for no reason?
3. I'm an elf i'm a hippy who hugs trees. Be boring and make boring elves for your setting, or think of new cool ideas like totemistic savages who live in the heart of the jungle, or desert dwelling nomads who ride giant lizards across sand seas.
I wish I could say otherwise, but I only just discovered this myself as a DM. I used to hate when my players would try to parley or capture an enemy, because I didn't want to deal with the burden that put on me. How much information does he know, how much will he give, how will that information affect the rest of the adventure. What happens when the PCs set him free...or kill him...or take him along as a prisoner?
Soooo many potential challenges that would be more easily solved by just having him fight to the death.
Just recently, though, my players had a couple opportunities to capture enemies and I think they enjoyed the RP a lot each time. Neither incident derailed the adventure at all and, in some ways, actually enhanced it as the players gained a sense of events happening outside of their vision range. It still makes me nervous, but now that I've seen the benefits to the game I'm not as opposed to the idea.
I assume that my PCs will take captives, because my players are smart. They realize that their enemies are fighting for a reason other than just to kill the PCs or die trying, and that even the rookie pawn probably knows something they can use. I build my adventures around this assumption -- they would actually be a lot more difficult if the PCs didn't take captives and interrogate them, as this is often the easiest avenue to get important information and keep the plot moving. I also don't try to stop them if they decide just to kill everyone; it just means they need to use alternate means to gain the info they were supposed to gain after a fight.
1) Technology Stagnation:
That one drives me nuts. For some reason, despite the world history being really long, the max technolgy level ever attainable is high middle ages. This is always somewhat dubious.
Would a short history like Earth has be any better? I'm just asking because I'm curious, I completely agree with you on this point.
So yeah have a big bad trying to take over the but don't assume the big bad will capture the heroes in chapter 3 or that the heroes will immediately go after the BBEG or whatever.
Forget your plot-points (or write a screnplay/novel), the world should be like a funfair, one where the rides are trying to kill you, but a funfair nonetheless.
If you have cultural details, then make them something the platers can do. If the people of Poor Quarter use a pot as a toilet and throw it out the window, then stick "Night Water" as a random encounter in Poor Quarter. They'll remember it.
A set plot. I mean what's the fun of fighting through chapter 1 to chapter 2? As a DM I've been pretty guilty of this, but I'm starting to realise that if I want to TELL people a story then there are better mediums. If you want to get together and make a story then RPGs are the ticket.
So yeah have a big bad trying to take over the but don't assume the big bad will capture the heroes in chapter 3 or that the heroes will immediately go after the BBEG or whatever.
Forget your plot-points (or write a screnplay/novel), the world should be like a funfair, one where the rides are trying to kill you, but a funfair nonetheless.
If you have cultural details, then make them something the platers can do. If the people of Poor Quarter use a pot as a toilet and throw it out the window, then stick "Night Water" as a random encounter in Poor Quarter. They'll remember it.
You only need to create a story if your players are less creative than you are,
and you only can create your own story if the are far less creative than you are.
A set plot. I mean what's the fun of fighting through chapter 1 to chapter 2? As a DM I've been pretty guilty of this, but I'm starting to realise that if I want to TELL people a story then there are better mediums. If you want to get together and make a story then RPGs are the ticket.
So yeah have a big bad trying to take over the but don't assume the big bad will capture the heroes in chapter 3 or that the heroes will immediately go after the BBEG or whatever.
Forget your plot-points (or write a screnplay/novel), the world should be like a funfair, one where the rides are trying to kill you, but a funfair nonetheless.
You only need to create a story if your players are less creative than you are,
and you only can create your own story if the are far less creative than you are.
I'm going to disagree on principle here. A good DM wears a lot of hats, and the storyteller hat is one of them. The best DMs, in my (biased) opinion, create campaigns that involve multiple simultaneous plotlines that include both alterable and unalterable events -- that is, both events that the PCs can interfere with and those that they cannot.
As a player, I want the DM to tell a story. I want there to be some focus to my adventures beyond simply looting ruin after ruin and tomb after tomb to get shinier and shinier goodies. I want this story to be responsive to my actions, and I want to be able to make decisions about how I fit into it.
As a DM, my philosophy on how I create a campaign is based both on my desires as a player and on my penchant for acting and storytelling. My campaigns have multiple specific storylines, all of which are crafted toward being interesting to the players as participants. Usually, each plotline is driven by the goals of an NPC or group of NPCs and is both dynamic and responsive -- that is to say, it creates change in the setting and can itself be changed by outside (PC) interference. IMX, players are more motivated by a campaign where they can tell that stuff is actually going on in the world than one where the DM says, "here is a setting. What do you want to do?"
None of this, by the way, means that I stifle player-driven plotlines -- far from it. In my current game, I have polled each of my players on their IC goals so that I am prepared for the kinds of stories they want to pursue for their characters. I've altered the goals and interests of a couple of prominent NPCs in ways that will facilitate the stories the players want to participate in. While I have already planned plotlines that will continue into epic levels, I'm setting up events that will force the players to make some difficult decisions as to how their characters will be involved in those plotlines fairly early in the campaign; my intention is that after a certain point I will tell them what's going on with various factions in the campaign and they will tell me what adventure they're going on this week.
Now, I will add this as a caveat: if your complaints are based on former DMs that have run a completely railroaded campaign -- i.e. they have already decided your course of action as a player and block you if you try to go off the tracks -- then I understand your complaints. Blocking and railroading are rookie errors, and one learns over time to avoid them.
Also I hate this thing when DM's complain about the party killing an NPC essential to the plot. If the NPC's dead, then the plot has changed - if you have god background and an imagination you can play through the consequences of the that character's death.
I think the original dungeon was a way of limiting the environment (physically) the DM had to develop. Obviously outside the dungeon it's harder to create an environment you can cut the players loose in.
For example you might have a civil war and an outline of the factions, motivations and movers and shakers in it. But you could leave the players free in how they interact with the conflict. And the result would be a powerful plot (though one written in game not beforehand).
Your method sounds like a good balance between the two.
Blocking and railroading are rookie errors, and one learns over time to avoid them.
As long as people understand that a rookie DM is entitled to a few mistakes. You'd loose a whole lot of people otherwise if the bar is set giantly high.
In other words, I construct my plots to have a general outline with a lot of wiggle room, and let the players decide what course to take through the plot.
I sometimes like to think of my campaign plot as a boulder on the top of a hill. There are many ways that boulder could go down the hill, but in the end, the boulder will be at the bottom.
In other words, I construct my plots to have a general outline with a lot of wiggle room, and let the players decide what course to take through the plot.
This.
Here ya go,
(>^o^)>
1) Catch all Setting:
This is most apparent with magic. I personally dislike settings where everything and the kitchen-sink is thrown into it with no interconnection or relation to eachother. I prefer settings where in general there is some theme or pattern to it.
2) Elemental Magic is Most Abundant:
This has been a rant in my head for a very long time, but where magic (especially Arcane) is almost completely based around elemental magic, fireballs, frost, etc. Why don't we see more Spirit-magic, Sigil-magic, Blood-magic, etc, etc.
4) Magic is the Be All End All:
Always disliked settings where basically everything powerful or important is magic based. I like it where simply normal martial abilities, technology, ingenuity, etc. is as important or more important then magic.
Catch-all settings, while they cure the "This is yet another standard fantasy setting" can get really annoying.
On the other hand, the setting in City of Heroes is the most Catch-all setting you can get- there just aren't restrictions on what kind of crazy things can team up with each other.
Let's see, this team has... a Knight that fell through a time warp, a mummified Pharaoh, a Jekyll/Hyde-esque guy, a catgirl who freezes people solid, and someone who won't get off his cell phone and is kicking robots to make them die.
Elemental magic... It'd be a pet peeve of mine, too, but I've seen it done well. You've got your whole fire/air/water/earth magic deal, but then there are the other interpretations of everything else that can be stuck in to the same elemental chart. Blood magic, spirit magic, etc can all be different magics but still have each spell fall under a general elemental guideline.
And speaking of magic, I share your disdain for thaumocracies.
Magic is cool and all, but it stops being cool, when non-magical people and things lose all importance.
1) After you end up in a fight with some guy you have never heard of before:
DM: "Oh yeah, that guy is cannon, he can't die."
Us: ... you couldn't have told us that before we got in the fight!
YES. DM's who are missing their Backup Plan Gland.
5) Black and White morality: All members of one race being good/evil... Some actions always being good/evil despite pragmatic implications.... Star Wars and the inability to finish a big bad without risking the dark side is a huge wall banger (despite the hero having just slaughtered a legion of mooks without pity). Damn you Force Unleashed for a dumb ending for an otherwise great plot ! That's why I like Craig Daniel Bond, at least, he gets the job done.
Black and White morality is infuriating. There is a LOT of grey area in between, damnit!
I sometimes like to think of my campaign plot as a boulder on the top of a hill. There are many ways that boulder could go down the hill, but in the end, the boulder will be at the bottom.
In other words, I construct my plots to have a general outline with a lot of wiggle room, and let the players decide what course to take through the plot.
That's *exactly* how I treat Time Travel- sorta based on how it works in Terry Pratchett's novels. The details can change, but eventually history ends up with the same result. It's resilient like that.
---
Regarding Technological Stagnation-
I'm fine with it, because it can happen inexplicably on earth.
When humans first invented the Rock With A Sharp Edge (sometimes called a handaxe), they were thrilled, made tons of them, used them all the time..
For the next MILLION years, they never thought to put the rock on a stick to make a throwing spear. This is a true story.
Stagnation happens, sometimes because of culture, sometimes because the race is just plain incapable of advancing further at that time.
---
Regarding elves, elves, everywhere-
I love elves to death, so I feel forced to defend them... until they get too abundant.
Once there are more than three types of elves in a setting, I get really annoyed- thus my settings contain Light Elves, Grey Elves, and Dark elves, all of which have disdain (or murderous feelings, depending on the individual) for each other. Having Sun, Moon, Grey, High, Dark, Wood, Wild, Strawberry, and Desert Elves is really unnecessary. >_<
And as far as "humans but with different ears" go, I try to give each race something that makes it significantly different from humans, whether it's what they evolved from or how their brains work or what sort of stupendous superhuman abilities they have.
Speaking of humans, in the ginormous setting I'm working on, Humans are a mythical creature. It makes me giggle.
I sometimes like to think of my campaign plot as a boulder on the top of a hill. There are many ways that boulder could go down the hill, but in the end, the boulder will be at the bottom.
In other words, I construct my plots to have a general outline with a lot of wiggle room, and let the players decide what course to take through the plot.
This is what I'm talking about. Only you put it much more succinctly :D .
What can I say? I like words, okay? ;)
Black and White morality is infuriating. There is a LOT of grey area in between, damnit!
QFT.
Okay anyone with a strong moral code is going to face dilemmas but the whole, "kill the baby or the world ends" is just an unpleasant, pointless and unfun DM power trip.
My death knight ate a baby to save the world one time.
If you said your baby ate a death knight, now that would be impressive.
But what are some campaign setting dealbreakers for you?
You work for a corporation. This MUST be part of your character.
Modern Earth setting with fantasy races that the public is in such shock over that they refuse to see them as the races that they are and instead just see them as odd-looking humans (Urban Arcana, I'm looking at you).
Anything where we have enough players, have all the bases covered, and the DM still insists on playing a DMPC. Especially if it's a certain DM whom I have written about extensively on this site...
No humans allowed.
We're Friends Because We're Both Evil!
Some DMs have this assumption that all evil beings, no matter how paranoid or self-serving, are willing to work with each other for the Greater Evil. Generally, any war against a monolithic evil grates on my suspension of disbelief, especially when it includes several different ethnocentric cultures working in harmony.
Also: We're Friends Because We're Both Evil! (as above but with "good" replacing all instance of "evil).
Here there be Cat People…and over there, Fox people…and up the street, Pigeon people…and around the corner, Starry-Nosed Wombat people…
A few rare or unique anthro-races can make for an interesting addition to a world (Gnolls, for example) but a humanoid anthro version of every
ing animal that walks, crawls, flutters, swims, flies, or wriggles makes me want to punch a baby.Here's the hot water tap, the cold water tap, and the magic tap
I simply cannot bear worlds with magic pretty much oozing out of every orifice. I don't dislike magic, but I think it should be special enough to actually be, you know, magical. It is also amazing how often this mega-magic power inhabits settings that adhere to…
You can't do that in the Middle Ages!
I despise worlds that are ostensibly "Fantasy", complete with magic and dragons and whatnot, but that must adhere to the DM's half-assed knowledge of history and technology. Despite the impact of non-human races, demons, gods, and all manner of magic Yee Oldee Fantasee Settingee just happened to turn out exactly like our own world in terms of technology.
My TV is made by RCA (Raistlin's Concise Arcana)
Settings where there is a magic-based anaolg to pretty much every real-world piece of technology. Magic TV, magic radio, magic computer, magic PDA, magic Belgian waffle iron, blah blah blah.
Here there be Cat People…and over there, Fox people…and up the street, Pigeon people…and around the corner, Starry-Nosed Wombat people…
A few rare or unique anthro-races can make for an interesting addition to a world (Gnolls, for example) but a humanoid anthro version of every
Why? It's better than "yet another human with different ears" or "yet another human with 1 or 2 odd body features" or "yet another human that looks human but it really isn't I know you can't tell the difference but they are trust me". It makes a lot more sense than anything except either human-only settings or races other than human that really don't look even the slightest bit human.
Why? It's better than "yet another human with different ears" or "yet another human with 1 or 2 odd body features" or "yet another human that looks human but it really isn't I know you can't tell the difference but they are trust me". It makes a lot more sense than anything except either human-only settings or races other than human that really don't look even the slightest bit human.
That's one reason I like Larry Niven's Known Space series. Major races are Humans, a hulking tigerlike race, and a species with 3 legs, 2 brainless heads that double as hands, and a braincase inside the body.
In the silly campaign? Oh heck yeah. Many a bard has had his career launched (or destroyed) by an appearance on "Faerunian Idol". ("Simon" is an orc barbarian. He doesn't make snide remarks if he doesn't like you. He just bashes your skull in with a Greatclub. "Paula" is a drow priestess who will forward your singing career if there's somethign she can gain from it, and "Randy" is a drunk dwarf who goes along with anything. "Simon" belched once and "Randy" sent him on to Round 2.)
That's one reason I like Larry Niven's Known Space series. Major races are Humans, a hulking tigerlike race, and a species with 3 legs, 2 brainless heads that double as hands, and a braincase inside the body.
Okay, that's understandable.
Yeah, no offense but this would take me longer than 30 minutes to come up with. A lot longer.
Really? I bet I can right out a cool camapign idea in less then 30 minutes. Here I go:
The Earth has changed. Rips in time and space have fluctuated, causing Earth to spin like a wheel on an axis. The elements mixed with some people, killing some but giving others power beyond all humans. It also "broke" evolution, and some genes in certain animals backtracked. Ostrich eggs hatch into Dinosaurs, whales give birth to killer marinen mammals, etc. Some entire species have been torn through time back to earth. Prehistoric creatures like mammoths and saber-tooth cats have re-evolved extremely quick, while Dodo birds perform their anual migrations from New Zealand to India. Some continents have regained the form from millions of years ago, others have sped up continental drift.
Many scientists and researchers beleive that this was a defense mechanism of the earth itself, to send it into a spiraling choas and then emerge bettered. And sure enough, now the population of earth has greatly decreased, technology has broken down and been put out of use in places everywhere, and entire seperate cultures and religions have united to become one and survive. This is not to say there is still not problems: roving bands of machine-gun weilding marauders plauge the huge desert that is now Antartica. Packs on ever spreading vicious, intelligent creatures spread from an unknown place in Central America, slaughtering humans. Some virus like form of energy has infected people in North America, turning them into vicious creatures with pale skin, pupiless eyes, and high levels of agility and cunning, yet harmed by sunlight. In a certain country of Europe, wolf genes have been mixed and mutated with that of human genes, creating a deadly cunning hybrid that stalks the dark pine forests of guess what European country.
Well, there you have it. A campaign setting where Eskimos fight with saber tooth cats, Americans battle for survival from a deadly transforming virus, killer wolf-men ravage the forests of Europe, and Antartica is a vast, extremelly hot wasteland ruled by gangsters and mutations. And I was just coming up with that as I went. Ah man. 32 minutes.
Well, there you have it. A campaign setting where Eskimos fight with saber tooth cats, Americans battle for survival from a deadly transforming virus, killer wolf-men ravage the forests of Europe, and Antartica is a vast, extremelly hot wasteland ruled by gangsters and mutations. And I was just coming up with that as I went. Ah man. 32 minutes.
I'm still not this good.
I'm just saying "What do you do if you know it's going to take longer to come up with the setting than most sane people are willing to wait?" Or, at least, a good setting.
I'm also going to agree with Jayne Cobb on the animal people. I hate hate hate animal people. Well, unless they're Kuo-toa or Rakshasas. That is, if you use them, they better be well on the weird side.
I'm also going to agree with Jayne Cobb on the animal people. I hate hate hate animal people. Well, unless they're Kuo-toa or Rakshasas. That is, if you use them, they better be well on the weird side.
Do you require the same criteria of your humanoid races/species?
Why? It's better than "yet another human with different ears" or "yet another human with 1 or 2 odd body features" or "yet another human that looks human but it really isn't I know you can't tell the difference but they are trust me". It makes a lot more sense than anything except either human-only settings or races other than human that really don't look even the slightest bit human.
It does not "make more sense" in the slightest, and there are a lot more options than "humans with funny ears on" for non-human races.
It does not "make more sense" in the slightest
Why? I hear so many times that people say they are tired of the "humans with funny ears or foreheads" approach.
and there are a lot more options than "humans with funny ears on" for non-human races.
What besides the two I listed in the post you quoted?
Do you require the same criteria of your humanoid races/species?
No, but I do require them to not be humans (except for the ones that are humans), animals, or both. Elves, dwarves, etc. have clearly established differences that show they are not humans. Animal people usually don't have this distinction: 99% of the time, a cat person is simply a combination of a cat and a human. The reason things like kuo-toa and yuan-ti are cool is that they are clearly not just a human with animal traits or vice-versa. They are weird creatures with alien traits that a human cannot easily relate to or simply ascribe to an animal -- kuo-toa, for instance, don't act like fish any more than they act like humans.
My honest opinion is that animal people are not only uninteresting, but uncreative and annoying. No amount of argument is going to change my opinion on that. I'm not trying to tell anyone not to use them, or even that they're playing the game wrong if they do. I'm just saying they bug me -- my honest answer to the question asked by the OP and the subject of the thread.
No, but I do require them to not be humans (except for the ones that are humans), animals, or both.
So what you're saying is not that you hate animal people but you hate humans in animals skins.
So what you're saying is not that you hate animal people but you hate humans in animals skins.
In that case I guess humans' armor is limited to cloth, chainmail, and full plate, since leather, hide, and scale all involve humans in animal skins.
No, but I do require them to not be humans (except for the ones that are humans), animals, or both. Elves, dwarves, etc. have clearly established differences that show they are not humans. Animal people usually don't have this distinction: 99% of the time, a cat person is simply a combination of a cat and a human. The reason things like kuo-toa and yuan-ti are cool is that they are clearly not just a human with animal traits or vice-versa. They are weird creatures with alien traits that a human cannot easily relate to or simply ascribe to an animal -- kuo-toa, for instance, don't act like fish any more than they act like humans.
My honest opinion is that animal people are not only uninteresting, but uncreative and annoying. No amount of argument is going to change my opinion on that. I'm not trying to tell anyone not to use them, or even that they're playing the game wrong if they do. I'm just saying they bug me -- my honest answer to the question asked by the OP and the subject of the thread.
I want to wander a little OT here, but only because you're in danger of making me take a second look at a PC I got years ago in a poker game. (We were putting up anything as an ante.) She's a cat-like humanoid, but there wasn't much going on with her, which is why her creator was willing to put her up. I've been wanting to use her, but didn't want to go with just a furry, somewhat feral human. How would you make such a humanoid animal PC interesting? (Assume that she's of a Good alignment.)
So what you're saying is not that you hate animal people but you hate humans in animals skins.
I'm saying what I said. D&D passed its threshold of animal people for me in 3E: goat people, badger people, bat people, thirty-one flavors of fish people. Yak people. Bee people. Are you serious? Bee people? I'm sorry, I just don't find this garbage convincing. Or take the Giff from 2E's Spelljammer setting. They're hippopotamus people. WHY ARE THEY HIPPO PEOPLE? There's no reason for it; it was just a lack of creativity. Come up with a better idea for your humanoids than to make them animal people. The 4E MM already has as many animal people as I can take seriously, and the minotaur is pushing it -- the only reason I don't think it's just stupid is that it's actually taken from Greek myth.
I want to wander a little OT here, but only because you're in danger of making me take a second look at a PC I got years ago in a poker game. (We were putting up anything as an ante.) She's a cat-like humanoid, but there wasn't much going on with her, which is why her creator was willing to put her up. I've been wanting to use her, but didn't want to go with just a furry, somewhat feral human. How would you make such a humanoid animal PC interesting? (Assume that she's of a Good alignment.)
How would I play a cat girl and not hate it? Um. In the case you suggest, I would make her a rakshasa. Yeah, the good alignment thing. But alignment isn't absolute in 4E; you could have a good rakshasa -- an ancient creature that has been reincarnated in the same form any number of times, and has done great evil in the world. Remembers a lot of it, since it reforms with the same body and memories sometime after death. Thinks itself a hunter and a destroyer by nature, but over its past several lifetimes has had a slow epiphany: as it sees how its actions create ripples through time, it finds that it starts to prefer building to destroying, nurturing to savaging. It turns its thoughts to creating a legacy: manipulating the creatures around it toward creating an open, utopian society. It does so clandestinely, as it is acutely aware that the universe is full of hostile forces such as it once was itself that would happily knock over its house of cards just for the pleasure of doing so. So it keeps up the hunter/destroyer habits, culling the chaotic evil forces in the world that endanger its vision. It has recently reincarnated, and so it hasn't come into its full supernatural powers yet (seeds of an epic destiny?) and its memories are still somewhat hazy, but its sense of purpose is clear.
Presto, you're a penitent demon. I might even not slap you for playing a cat girl if this was the concept you brought to my table.
I'm saying what I said. D&D passed its threshold of animal people for me in 3E: goat people, badger people, bat people, thirty-one flavors of fish people. Yak people. Bee people. Are you serious? Bee people? I'm sorry, I just don't find this garbage convincing. Or take the Giff from 2E's Spelljammer setting. They're hippopotamus people. WHY ARE THEY HIPPO PEOPLE? There's no reason for it; it was just a lack of creativity. Come up with a better idea for your humanoids than to make them animal people. The 4E MM already has as many animal people as I can take seriously, and the minotaur is pushing it -- the only reason I don't think it's just stupid is that it's actually taken from Greek myth.
I still don't get it: do you actually hate animal people for some definable reason, or just because you think they've been done too much? If it's the latter then what would you have preferred them to do?
And if it's that latter I have to say I have the same reaction to humanoid races, only I have an extra reason to hate them: I think it's supremely arrogant to think that intelligent creatures must look like us.
I still don't get it: do you actually hate animal people for some definable reason, or just because you think they've been done too much? If it's the latter then what would you have preferred them to do?
And if it's that latter I have to say I have the same reaction to humanoid races, only I have an extra reason to hate them: I think it's supremely arrogant to think that intelligent creatures must look like us.
I think you're arguing just for the sake of arguing. Slap some fur on a human and PRESTO! A new race! Gee, what supreme creativity! Let's do it a few bazillion more times and we'll be up to MM27 before you know it!
I think you're arguing just for the sake of arguing. Slap some fur on a human and PRESTO! A new race! Gee, what supreme creativity! Let's do it a few bazillion more times and we'll be up to MM27 before you know it!
What I'm trying to find out is why this seems more objectionable that slapping a new forehead on a human. Or not even doing that! I see way too many human-looking races, and I'm past the same point Ramses III seems to be with regard to the ever-growing legion of humanoids. What I want to know is why while this is happening people are decrying the less-used animal people.
And Here Come the Player Characters
This technically isn't true. We invent the world for player characters, populate it for players, set up challenges for player characters.
But it irks me when, say, the 3rd-level Barbarian charges down and manages to one-shot the 10th-level Wizard that I had planned to serve as a recurring baddy, because the guy won initiative.
Having a system where the rest of the world functions on a quasi-realistic silver standard, but the characters have tons of gold AND get charged for things at inflated gold rates, is just whack.
I just find that the idea of elves who regard every other race as inferior to the point of worthlessness and are obsessed with caste and racial purity within their own race is rather tiresome. I'm not sure exactly why, but I guess that whenever I see it I just tend to find it poorly implemented -- a sort of slapdash cut-and-paste job from the racial supremacists and fascists within humankind into D&D, rather than a thoughtful exploration of the idea which takes into account how the whole idea of Nazi-like elf supremacists might interact with the rest of a fantasy world given the other aspects of D&D such as the abundance of magic, the limitations of mediævil technology, dragons, etc.
Maybe I don't really have a problem with Nazi elves per se, but just have a problem with all attempts at it that I've seen so far, and all attempts that I've seen so far have been (in my view) poorly done.
What I'm trying to find out is why this seems more objectionable that slapping a new forehead on a human. Or not even doing that! I see way too many human-looking races, and I'm past the same point Ramses III seems to be with regard to the ever-growing legion of humanoids. What I want to know is why while this is happening people are decrying the less-used animal people.
Then perhaps the point is that animal people are humans with fur while they've at least made (most) humanoids sufficiently different enough in regards to cultures and more exotic physical features. Remember 1e orcs? They were depicted as human bodies with a pig's head slapped on. I always substituted the Warhammer "orks" because they looked more goblinoid, more alien. (Yeah, I was a little disappointed to see them taken out of the goblinoid family in 4e.) Maybe that's right where the point is. Animal people look too recognizable. In Traveller, I had the same feelings about the Vaarg and the Aslan. There was some race of dinosaur people somewhere in D&D, "saurials" I think they were called. I would have favored an advanced saurian race as looking more like the Sleestax from the old show "Land of the Lost". You don't duct-tape a sword to my dog's paw and tell me he's now a monster. (Although the corgi, Meatball, has been acting peculiar lately...).
As to why a humanoid shape is favored over any others (I can think of other forms that would offer a predatory creature a distinct advantage over humanoid), who can say? I have nothing to add on that matter except that 49 out of 199 monster types (didn't count subtypes) in the 1e MM are humanoid without actually being human. (Ghosts, wights, etc., are specifically identified as undead humans, so they were excluded, as were devils and demons whose shapes are arguably mutable). That's only about 25%. The rest are bestial or incorporeal. Do we have a count for the current edition?
From my position it's mostly about, I think, a certain primal quality. Humans and human-like creatures don't evoke that (except under cetain circumstances), so I look to animals and alien creatures that at least use animal shapes in their look. So I guess I do need a bit of recognizability. Something that looks alien just doesn't look like anything to me.
say a creature that floats on gas bags,
or a squid like creature...
but these are better for sci-fi than fantasy. In fact the humanoid animals are pretty much a staple of the fantasy genre. I like how one guy just made halflings into all those creatures.
If you want further discussion on making alien creature, please make another thread, perhaps on D20 modern.
Anyway, to wrap up, SilvercatMoonpaw, I can respect that. I just have a hard time imagining myself putting a broadsword through something that looks like my kitty!:D
Strip some fur off one of us and PRESTO! A new race! Gee, what supreme creativity! Let's do it a few bazillion more times and we'll be up to MM27 before you know it!
Fix't for what the catpeople think.
2. Wood Elves, Sun Elves, Green Elves, Tree Elves, Sleeve elves, Carpet Elves. I mean, come on. Why so many sub-races for no reason?
4E's helpful in that regard:
Eladrin = High Elves
Elves = Wood Elves
Drow = Dark Elves
No more are needed.
I also think an awesome plot point would be the PCs taking down an Epic-level monster (say, Blazing Rorn the Fury) who earlier in the plot kills off one of the epic NPCs (say, Elminster).
2. Wood Elves, Sun Elves, Green Elves, Tree Elves, Sleeve elves, Carpet Elves. I mean, come on. Why so many sub-races for no reason?
I never understood where this comes from, because it is identifiably not true.
The Monster Manual (3.X) has only six: High, aquatic, gray, wild, wood, and drow.
There are actually nearly as many dwarves: hill, mountain, deep, duergar, and derro.
There are three halfling races (lightfood, talfellow, deep), and three gnomish (rock, svirfneblin, sylvan), so I guess elves and dwarves outnumber halflings and gnomes. And humans.
Most campaign settings use the same basic six, but rename some of them. Sun and Moon elves from the Realms, for example, are just high and gray elves, respectively. This leads to the misconception that there are more, when in fact there are simply the same number as there have always been.
14 dwarves
13 gnomes
12 humans
10 halflings
8 half-elfves
7 half orcs
14 goblinoids
12 "other humanoids"
8 reptilians
6 orcs
4 shape shifters
2 gnolls
Most of these come from splat books like unearthed arcana and such.
I think the anti-elf hate is just for all the Drizzt clones.
May they all die horribly.
May they all die horribly.
Define what you mean by "Drizzt clone" and I may or may not have something to say about that.
Like, do you mean anyone who wants to play a CG drow, or just specifically anyone who wants to play a dual-wielding CG drow elf ranger?
I think the anti-elf hate is just for all the Drizzt clones.
May they all die horribly.
Amen.
Define what you mean by "Drizzt clone" and I may or may not have something to say about that.
Like, do you mean anyone who wants to play a CG drow, or just specifically anyone who wants to play a dual-wielding CG drow elf ranger?
Mostly the latter. Anyways, a neutral "good" Aboleth is much more interesting, especially when it helps others because of an karma-like philosophy.
Amen.
May the Lord be praised!
I meant alien as in "strange or exotic", not alien as in "from another planet".
Yeah, that's how I was using the word as well.
Yeah, that's how I was using the word as well.
Actually that is what I meant too, most ET's from sci-fis are far from Alien as I was talking of it. Most aberrations would do the job better... actually, that is pretty much the job of aberrations, being strange and exotic... as well as creepy.
THIS. I hate when people go "NECROMANCY EVIIIIIIL EVIIIIIIL!!!! BURN!!!!"
Well guess what villager, I saved your bum, from the acolyte of Asmodeus that was swinging his radiant powers in your faces, with mah necromantic powas.
And that makes you not evil how??
Campaigns that try to be different with little tweaks and give a reason that makes absolutely no sense. Case in Point: Dragonlance. Ok, I get that steel is really valuable because of all the wars. What I don't get is when people get their hands on the steel they make coins instead of arms and armor. Idiots.
LoL...
And that's exactly why my own DL games have always (from the day I first purchased DL1 all those years ago) simply run on the GP standard.
Sure steals still valuable. And you'll pay through the nose for quality weapons/armour....
THIS. I hate when people go "NECROMANCY EVIIIIIIL EVIIIIIIL!!!! BURN!!!!"
You raised the body of my grandmother for your battle and thereby desecrated her corpse. I severely doubt you were even decent enough to return it to the grave after you were done...or asked permission in the first place, of her spirit or of her next of kin. And let's not forget that some other form of magic (fireball) could probably have accomplished the same thing without raising corpses.
I don't think that all necromancers are evil or callous. I do think it makes sense for people to believe this because, let's face it, necromancy is based around something that at least requires a skewed view on what is socially acceptable and what is not.
There is "stop saying all Necromancers are evil" and then there is "stop making the NPCs treat Necromancers the way you'd expect a balanced person to." You're arguing for the latter.
It's the difference between "Stop saying my CG drow is a Drizzt clone" and "stop saying my dual-scimitar wielding CG drow ranger with a panther animal companion is a Drizzt clone."
They are most likely smarter, stronger, smexier, more magically, technologically, and artistically inclined, and have more wisdom at age 3 than the entire rest of the world. ... If they have one flaw, it is that they are incredibly arrogant about just how gosh darn awesome they are, so they won't lift a finger to help if the world is crashing down. Also, they probably live longer. And for some reason, your DM doesn't understand why you wish to kill every single one of them.
Yikes! I so know that feeling... I just finished a Star Wars game where I was actually a player and not the D.M. for a change. Even the N.P.C.s that had similar stats as the P.C.'s always got every thing right, while the players always got everything wrong! Not to mention all of the mega-god-like N.P.C.'s that wouldn't lift a finger for anything.
The only thing that kept the game running is that everyone knew it was this D.M.s first time running a game, so we all gave him a break offering gentle suggestions as for him to stop being such a megalomaniac and give our characters a break sometimes too...
Hopefully he learned...
1. Maps with countries showing just a few cities. Real countries should have many dozens if not hundreds of little villages, hamlets, burgs, as well if it is feudal manor lords, baronies, counties, etc. It's like there is wilderness than bang a city. Where are rural areas? Most of the medieval world was rural! Heck most of the world was until the late 19th century. Until then the few very large cities only kept up their numbers due to a steady and heavy influx of folks from the country.
2. Worlds with too many monsters or not enough regions without monsters, at least in context of the commoners...how they do survive? Where do they live? How do enough survive to grow the food, provide the stock from which adventurers rise if the world is swarming with monsters everywhere? There should be regions with monsters, and extensive regions with very few monsters (maybe the odd fey, a haunted house with a ghost, small scale stuff, but not, oh, step out the door, roll d6 to see if orcs or shadar-kai are attacking today).
3. I loooove the Forgotten Realms, ran and run a long long campaign there, but I dislike how everytime there was a desert, they stuck an Arabic culture there. You had the Bedine in Anauroch, Calimshan, an Arabic people in the Hordelands and you still had Zakhara. I was able to explain Calimshan and Zakhara, but I deleted the Bedine. They seperated by vast distance and hostile terrain.
4. The phaerimm. Beyond monty haul.
5. Races that are just humans with animal heads. I not against mythologically based ones or one that have real cultures, but just saying "here be cat people" and "there be alligator people" doesn't strike me as imaginative or interesting. One or two, sure, and some like lizardfolk are quite good, but if done too much just irritates me.
6. If you have dragons, you need to explain where it is that they live, what it is that they eat. If you have a world where the PCs see say only one red dragon and that is all they ever see...where are the rest? I mean, fine, if that is all there is, if that is part of your world, but seems some worlds only have enough of one species or another to provide the PCs for a challenge on that adventure. If they have a griffon mount, great, where are the rest of the griffons? Are they common in one area? Are they almost extinct? What? Are they just over the hill? Around the next bend?
7. Big one for me...if the PCs can do it, so should many NPCs, and they should have done it long, long ago. If potions of longetivty and raise the dead exist, it makes ZERO sense that only the PCs use it. Most kings, nobles, wizards, and rich merchants should be immortal unless the ability to cheat death has serious side effects or is extraordinarly rare. If the PCs can create gold, they should been beaten to that idea long, long ago. Gold should be utterly worthless.
8. Rolling the hoards of intelligent monsters AFTER they die. If they have the magic item, they should have used it already, use it on the PCs during the encouner, used it often, or if it is useless traded it for something they can use.
9. Where do all these magic items come from? Worlds without a background for that bother me. Someone had to have made them. The world should be chock full of busy busy artificers and wizards and/or ancient ultrapowerful long dead empires.
10. Ignoring logistics for fantasy armies. Savage orc army invading the kingdom? Heroic army of knights riding out to meet them? Sounds great. What are they eating? Who is fixing their armor? Who is caring for the horses? Who is guarding the food? Who is guarding the supply lines? What water are they drinking? Do they sleep in tents at night? Who is carrying those tents, who sets them up and takes them down?
11. Savage humanoids that just attack attack attack and portrayed as not being smart enough for wizards or even starting their own fires but oh look they can speak six languages! What? How do they learn all those languages? Johnny orc is coming along great in Kobold, but he can't get the inflection right in Goblin and don't me start on conjugations in Underdark! He has to study harder! Can we get Rosetta?
12. In a world with adventurers, demons, dragons, etc banks and jewerly stores should not exist. They can easily be robbed, robbed without even breaking a sweat.
An evil necromancer might raise weak zombies/skeletons anyway, just for the sake of sadistically traumatizing grandma's friends and relatives, but at that point we're getting into arguments along the lines of "what if a wizard used magic missile to kill your grandmother? That would be horrible, wouldn't it? Magic missile is evil!"
BTW, I actually don't have a problem with saying that all undead-creating necromancers are evil -- or at least that all undead creation is evil, and that a well-intentioned necromancer who tries to create undead for good is ignorant or delusional1. I just think some of the arguments here (i.e. "What if a necromancer reanimated your dead grandma?") are pretty weak sauce.
Footnote
1. I want to play a necromancer who got into necromancy thinking that it was okay, based on the sorts of necromancy-apologist arguments you see on these forums, because he found necromancy really neat. (He found the spells elegant and fun to work with, he found he had an intuitive knack for it, etc.) Then, later, once he gets into it (and studies it for several years), he realizes that it really is twisted stuff, and that he had been deluding himself with bogus rationalizations as an excuse to study a practice he really enjoyed but was immoral, and now wants to get out.
5. Races that are just humans with animal heads. I not against mythologically based ones or one that have real cultures, but just saying "here be cat people" and "there be alligator people" doesn't strike me as imaginative or interesting. One or two, sure, and some like lizardfolk are quite good, but if done too much just irritates me.
Do you also hate "humans with pointy ears"? I ask because I see people say "I hate animal people" and then give the exact same reasons why I hate humanoids. So I wonder why these people also don't say "I hate rehashed humans" or something to that effect.
Do you also hate "humans with pointy ears"? I ask because I see people say "I hate animal people" and then give the exact same reasons why I hate humanoids. So I wonder why these people also don't say "I hate rehashed humans" or something to that effect.
If that is all there is, sure. I had the same problems with Star Trek the Next Generation. Do it a few times, fine, particularly if the culture is interesting, but every race is just a slightly made up human, I have a problem.
I mean sometimes people don't even change the name. Dragon had an article one, I think titled Mythic Races of Africa, and it was all animal people with names like Mantis Men and Hyena Men. Didn't even get an original, unique name.
I don't view goblins or orcs as rehashed humans, I believe them to be original and interesting in their own right.
I mean sometimes people don't even change the name. Dragon had an article one, I think titled Mythic Races of Africa, and it was all animal people with names like Mantis Men and Hyena Men. Didn't even get an original, unique name.
Except that's what they're called, translated into English.
The fundamental truths of the universe are very well established, rather same-y, and equally acknowledged by all of the churches/religions, who differ only in which god they're choosing to root for.
(Corollary: The gods in question are typically more akin to overpowered spoiled brats rather than being particularly godlike.)
Offenders: Most official and unofficial settings. Notable exception: Eberron.
"Pick a god, any god..." aka "My god is bigger than your god!"
The fundamental truths of the universe are very well established, rather same-y, and equally acknowledged by all of the churches/religions, who differ only in which god they're choosing to root for.
(Corollary: The gods in question are typically more akin to overpowered spoiled brats rather than being particularly godlike.)
Offenders: Most official and unofficial settings. Notable exception: Eberron.
QFT. I for one would like to see more fantasy religions that take into account the diversity of real-world religions, i.e. here's a polytheistic religion, over there is a monotheistic religion, here is the country where the two collide and a third mystical faith is emerging at the same time. Different sects that follow the same religion would be nice, too: technically Christianity is a single religion, but there are big differences between the faiths of Gnostics, Roman Catholics, and Baptists (or going even further into the fringe, Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses).
(Corollary: The gods in question are typically more akin to overpowered spoiled brats rather than being particularly godlike.)
A lot of ancient gods are exactly like that.
One of my friends does this all the time. Pisses me off. Takes the fun out of being creative.
B) I just want you to start off in my superhero game without powers; don't worry, you'll get them. Any session now. Honest. No, I can't say when but the wait will be worth it. Honest. Any day now.
Does it surprise you that it's the same DM?
As for low-magic and human only, I've done it a couple times... sort-of. At the beginning it was human or halfling only, but later on players could swap out for something cool if they wanted. It was also only low magic to start; they couldn't start as a wizard exactly, but could be any spontaneous caster. Going for a real dark ages kind of feel, and it worked well. They gained magic later and as per normal, but it was meant to feel extraordinary when they did.
Vampire ruled nations or cities that don't seem to have enough humans to account for keeping these guys fed. I mean, if it is a large cabal, and they feed on more than one human a night...pretty soon no people, they either die out or leave.
Evil creatures and people banding together just because they are evil, for no other reason than that. If it is logical, if it is a marriage of convenience, sure, but just because they have the same alignment?
Sticking elves in EVERY woodland on the map.
Sticking dwarves on EVERY mountain range on the map.
Not really a pet peeve, just curious why most settings don't seem to take into account the faster breeding rates of goblinoids and orcs. They should be much bigger factors, not just a few random encounters in the local dungeon, section of Underdark, or mountain range. There should be entire goblin nations, entire regions ruled by orcs.
Everything Is Out To Kill You
I hate settings where the most dangerous, most powerful, most destructive things around are evil and want the human race destroyed. You'd figure with all these creatures that are superior to the human race that want them and their demihuman friends dead, they would be. This leads to....
If you check in the new 4E ForgottenRealms Campaign Guide, there's a section titled "Threats" and these are threats against the world, not the PC's.
However, in my games, organizations might try to kill the PC's because they messed up their plan, not because they exist.
I recently read a book (Gods of Manhattan) in which if you were a very influential or famous person from there (ex: Babe Ruth) then you could become a god. There was even a god of china! How awesome is that?
The Gigantic Continent of Everything
How some worlds *cough, ForgottenRealms, Greyhawk, cough* had to have every single type of environment 50 times, but the cool ones (for me: Sword Coast, Bloodstone Lands, Thay, and the North) were never really described as they should have been. They were just the places with an environmental factor.
1) If there is a religion that forms the foundation of popular society, it must be controlled by corrupt bastards.
I interpret this as a repressed instinct to lash out at your parents for making you go to church during your formative years. The absolute worst offender in thsi category is Eberron's Church of the Silver Flame. Now, the way it's actually written, this can be a bunch of pretty nice guys. They have a noble enough calling, and seem like a pretty benevolent order of paladins. However, nobody seems capable of including them in their games without having the entire bureaucracy controlled by clones of Tim Curry playing Cardinal Richelieu. The idea that there's a corrupt hypocrisy claiming to be the good guys is interesting the first time you see it, but I honestly feel like the norm now is to have not a single member of the organization actually exemplify its ideals. Even my beloved Planescape had the inscrutably hypocritical Harmonium faction, a group of idiots who believe whole-heartedly in being evil in the name of good.
2) Relatedly, paladins, archons, and other agents of Lawful Good believe entirely in Law, but hardly at all about Good.
This is the crap that launched a thousand flamewars, but it's also one of my campaign setting pet peeves when a DM tries to be philosophically provocative by having an agent of lawful goodness commit evil and try to justify it. (To avoid starting an argument, I'll temper this by saying that this is my interpretation...) Just because you're lawful good doesn't mean that you refuse to tolerate anyone else not being lawful good. It doesn't mean that you support witch hunts, genocide, or totalitarianism. Although people who are lawful but not good might support these things, the fact that you are good means that you cannot. DMs like to throw in the occasional Miko Miyazaki and pretend that NPCs struggling between being lawful good and being a psychopath is compelling.
1) If there is a religion that forms the foundation of popular society, it must be controlled by corrupt bastards.
I think this is generally more about any organization that forms the foundation of popular society. There just do not seem to be any powerful societal forces for good in most campaign settings.
2) ……paladins, archons, and other agents of Lawful Good believe entirely in Law, but hardly at all about Good.
Of course, I agree with this statement, and the previous one except for the one factor I mentioned.
I think, however, I do understand why those things are done, though I strongly disagree with using them. It seems to be that setting designers believe no setting should have truly successful Good in it without the PCs there to prop it up. So no setting has any place where Good can win on its own, necessitating (because of the need for "internal consistency") to nerf both the societal forces for Good (churches) and the agents of Good (the angels, etc.) to explain why Good doesn't win.
Technology and culture never advances. Why are there sets of full plate armor and rapiers in 1,000 year old tombs?
Total agreement there. I have no problem with people playing in a medieval setting of course, that is there choice, the choice of many, and many times has been my choice, but why must it have ALWAYS been at that level? Technology rose and fell many times in our world's history and it is a popular misconception that there were no advancements in the Middle Ages. Many things appeared in the Middle Ages, such as the university that awards diplomas, the early origins of the novel, the concept of guilds, great advances in construction in castles and cathedrals, armor construction (which advanced and improved throughout the era), sword construction, mining, milling...the list goes on.
Perhaps part of the problem is the morbid fear and/or extreme dislike of dreaded GUNS and GUNPOWDER rearing their ugly heads in the setting, people seem adamantly opposed to that.
I think this is generally more about any organization that forms the foundation of popular society. There just do not seem to be any powerful societal forces for good in most campaign settings.
Of course, I agree with this statement, and the previous one except for the one factor I mentioned.
I think, however, I do understand why those things are done, though I strongly disagree with using them. It seems to be that setting designers believe no setting should have truly successful Good in it without the PCs there to prop it up. So no setting has any place where Good can win on its own, necessitating (because of the need for "internal consistency") to nerf both the societal forces for Good (churches) and the agents of Good (the angels, etc.) to explain why Good doesn't win.
***Yes, it seems all D&D settings and indeed all fantasy settings in novels or games seem to shy away from power forces for good. All sorts of evil ones, from evil empires to evil city states with far-reaching aims and abilities (such as Zhentil Kheep in the FR) to evil churches and cults (Eberron is full of them) exist, and that's good, they provide great villians and make for great adventures.
But why no good? There are a few here and there, such as the Church of the Silver Flame in Eberron (though as disucussed elsewhere in this thread, how good it is in practice, really, plus look what they did to the shifters), the Harpers in the FR, the Bladesingers to an extent, but many of these organizations are pretty weak.
1. If there were too many (or any?) strong good organizations do writers and game designers fear that the PCs/main characters would have no one to fight as the fight would already be over or the PCs would be basically bystanders in some epic world war? (Don't like that one, there is plenty of evil in the D&D universe and lots of battles to fight, the good guys, no matter how powerful, can't be everywhere and do everything).
2. Do they fear that a good organization would not let the PCs have much freedom of choice, that if they joined one they wouldn't be able to chose to go adventuring as they like? Basically akin to joining the army (don't like that model, as look at Star Trek or the Rebellion in Star Wars; sure the main characters are members of organizations of good and have missions and orders and chains of command, but they sure have plenty of discretion and adventures).
3. Would it provide too many crutches for the PCs, too many people to call upon when they were in need, the idea being if there is a good organization, why do they send low level parties sans magic items to tackle evil? (Again, don't like this one, they can't be everywhere, this organiztion for good).
Anyway, yes, add that to my list of pet peeves, a setting should have strong and real organizations for good, preferably several. Maybe one could model them off of real world organizatons.
Instead of Doctors Without Borders, there could be some fantasy Healers Without Borders for instance. Instead of environmental organizations like we have, there could be one of rangers and druids but with roughly similiar aims (and so much more power). What would a Red Cross type organization be like in a fantasy setting with magic? Several of the knightly orders such the Knights Templar and Hospitlar could provide good models, international orders of paladins, fighters, and supporters with some stated transnational goal.
Good aligned churches should have real bite in a fantasy setting. I mean think about it...they would have the support of true beleiving peasants, craftsmen, farmers, sailors, ranchers, townsfolk, all their alms going into the collection plate to pay for magic item creation, training priests and paladins. What temporal lord wants beholders, mind flayers, vampires, or evil dragons on their land? Why wouldn't they donate profusely to some good church who just LOVES to go after such things?
Wow, it seems like my pet peeves are the opposite of everybody else's. well, here goes anyway.
1. High magic settings
I hate setting where there is a magic store on every corner, an epic level character in every town, and every rich guys can go down to the local temple to get his buddies brought back to life. I love magic in a campaign, but when its common its just not magic anymore. I prefer games where medieval lifestyles and technology are still valid.
2. Politically correct fantasy
I don't like setting that are free of sexism, racism, poverty, oppression, and religious persecution. I cannot suspend disbelief when I see pre-industrial societies that are more progressive and tolerant than modern nations are.
3. Fearless peons
I can understand that zombies will fight to the death, or religious fanatics, or any number of creatures or elite soldiers. But far too often I see a group of petty bandits fighting the party to the death even when its obvious that they are outmatched. Real people, particularly those who aren't trained soldiers and are mentally stable, tend to try to avoid certain death.
4. Bland religion
The real world has tremendous religious diversity - and each religion has its dogma, taboos, legends, rules, ranks (or formalized religion), rituals, history, morals, etc. Why then are clerics expected to simply be field medics with not concern for practicing his religion and why must all the deities be so mind numbingly generic?
5. Stereotypical generic demihumans
Of course, in playing D&D one must come to tolerate stereotypical demihumans to some degree, but as the years have past I have become increasingly intolerant of every elf civilization being the same as every other and every dwarf having the same personality.
6. Fan boism
When the DM creates a nation, culture, or NPC he should not like that creation too much. He shouldn't make them the coolest thing he can imagine and represent all the things he thinks are awesome. No matter what details the DM puts into his creation, if absolute adoration of what the creation represents is the primary motivator then its going to suck for the players who encounter it. This also goes for NPC's that represent an idealized version of the DM.
Yes, yes, and yes. I was seriously worried when I started reading this thread that I was the only one that thought this way. :D
1) Absolutely can't stand all of these extra humanoid races that get created for the sake of looking pretty, extending from the fan boyism experience. To top it off, if they're races with wings and beaks and differing limbs and all of that jazz, and all of this is fully functional, sometimes in a superior way to humans, it has no purpose except when a human and said race are competing and said race needs to show off for its creator and/or fans - the different physical features seem to have brought on NO consideration from their creator/user as to how they might have affected their cultural development.
I'm working on a sci-fi setting called Dystopian Universe that tries to address that issue at least partially - I take the basic concept of a race and try and build up from the basic body chemistry and skeletal structure, etc. to that point. I've got reptilian humanoids of the conspiracy theory fame that have eight fingers so their mathematics system is different, they have internal sex organs and regurgitate food for children like birds, etc., all of which affects their culture and mindset.
2)Nonhuman races that except for this or that piece of stereotypical, horribly poor flair that separates them, follows a certain culture and period of human development as its own culture. This is similar to #1. Ironically the only thing I think is good about them is something no one else likes; that the races are all good at something specific and have their own niches, when humans are "jack-of-all-trades" sort-of individuals - what's wrong with this? Humans should be the basis where everything else is built from. They're pretty good at everything because they've done it all in history or myth. I like the concept of nonhumans being extreme versions of humans, especially if they're not "natural" to the point of being unsuitable as common player races. IMO either they should be more on the monster side and should either exist as the aforementioned extremities that come from human imagination or from some sort of supernatural/biological catastrophe.
PC's are above the law - slit the waitress's throat in front of a packed tavern cos she spilled your beer? Go for it. You're ****ing heroes wielding artifacts. You're untouchable.
PC's are demi-gods - everyone's a freaking chosen of this god or that god. And that bad guy chasing the party? Yep, another god... No one is tougher than you, of course, except gods.
Party's alignments make no sense whatsoever - so you got a holier than thou LG paladin and an insane CN servant of Primordial gods sitting around a table, taking orders from the evil mofo warlock party leader? MMmmmkay. And why aren't they killing each other?
PK Party - every PC background was designed to kill another PC in the party.
Monty Haul - the entire party wields multiple artifacts like Pokeballs.
Deus Ex Machina - the party is so over the top out of control that nothing short of repeated divine intervention by the DM can progress the plot.
Most places are apparently temperate. Go a kingdom or two north, and it is frigid cold. Go a kingdom or two south, and it is baking hot.
A kingdom is hardly the size of a modern nation-state in Europe, let alone something like the USA and Canada. On something the size of earth, you have to go a long, long way before latitude makes a difference in temperature.
Northern hemisphere / west coast biases
Why is north cold and south hot? Why isn't it that the south is cold and the north is hot? Why do a rather large number of setting have an important western coast, and a theoretical eastern coast?
Weird weather / weird terrain:
Okay, now I'm being a bit of a nut, but half the time the weather patterns have nothing to do with the placement of mountains, ocean currents, etc. Additionally, the mountains that do exist don't seem to have any geological basis. At least some people have the good sense to make their terrain and weather outright artificial. But I've gotten a bit sick of having a river valley (V-shaped) actually look more like a glacial valley (U-shaped). But I'm a social science student, so it's probably just me that cares about physical geography?
I charge a certain well-known published setting - which shall remain unnamed - of falling squarely into this category.
1) Absolutely can't stand all of these extra humanoid races that get created for the sake of looking pretty, extending from the fan boyism experience. To top it off, if they're races with wings and beaks and differing limbs and all of that jazz, and all of this is fully functional, sometimes in a superior way to humans, it has no purpose except when a human and said race are competing and said race needs to show off for its creator and/or fans - the different physical features seem to have brought on NO consideration from their creator/user as to how they might have affected their cultural development.
I'm working on a sci-fi setting called Dystopian Universe that tries to address that issue at least partially - I take the basic concept of a race and try and build up from the basic body chemistry and skeletal structure, etc. to that point. I've got reptilian humanoids of the conspiracy theory fame that have eight fingers so their mathematics system is different, they have internal sex organs and regurgitate food for children like birds, etc., all of which affects their culture and mindset.
2)Nonhuman races that except for this or that piece of stereotypical, horribly poor flair that separates them, follows a certain culture and period of human development as its own culture. This is similar to #1. Ironically the only thing I think is good about them is something no one else likes; that the races are all good at something specific and have their own niches, when humans are "jack-of-all-trades" sort-of individuals - what's wrong with this? Humans should be the basis where everything else is built from. They're pretty good at everything because they've done it all in history or myth. I like the concept of nonhumans being extreme versions of humans, especially if they're not "natural" to the point of being common player races. IMO either they should be more on the monster side and should either exist as the aforementioned extremities that come from human imagination or from some sort of supernatural/biological catastrophe.
Um, aren't these two ideas mutually contradictory? If you design a race based upon logical outgrowth of its biology shouldn't there be a chance that it would be just as, if not more, "jack-of-all-trades" than humans?
Um, aren't these two ideas mutually contradictory? If you design a race based upon logical outgrowth of its biology shouldn't there be a chance that it would be just as, if not more, "jack-of-all-trades" than humans?
My original comment regarding humans being "jacks-of-all-trades" was that that made them realistic... as you've seen them in every role historically or fictionally, but most settings don't take the time to do the same with other humanoid races, pegging orcs as some form of primitive viking/mongol cross, dwarves as some sort of viking/roman cross, elves as the upper class of the races with lots of magic and extremely long history that should have given them the opportunity to advance past our real-world civilization five or six times by now, et cetera. I just don't think nonhuman races when used in that regard are necessary at all. Maybe if they're instead used exactly as they're portrayed - as exaggerations of specific human traits and transposed cultures - then they become interesting.
My original comment regarding humans being "jacks-of-all-trades" was that that made them realistic... as you've seen them in every role historically………
Huh, I've just always felt it unrealistic that humans get placed in the "adaptable" role when historically we're a pretty pathetic lot when it comes to change.
Huh, I've just always felt it unrealistic that humans get placed in the "adaptable" role when historically we're a pretty pathetic lot when it comes to change.
Compared to what?
Compared to what?
Compared to our perception of ourselves as innovative.
As for pet peeves, I guess mine would be arrogant players who always believe that their ideas are the best and complain about every aspect of the game world/setting they are currently involved in because of course they could do better and everyone would love it.
A Wizard Did It
Nothing annoys me more than taking a shortcut explanation with "it's magic, so it doesn't need explaining". Nothing. It's one thing to have magic involved, but nothing makes me more mad than to completely explain some gigantic event with "it's magic".
Magic is actually very difficult to explain, as the reason magic works is never actually explained to us in great detail. We can't go and come up with a scientific reason behind magic, because, under the definition of magic;
n.
1. The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural.
2.
a. The practice of using charms, spells, or rituals to attempt to produce supernatural effects or control events in nature.
b. The charms, spells, and rituals so used.
3. The exercise of sleight of hand or conjuring for entertainment.
4. A mysterious quality of enchantment.
adj.
1. Of, relating to, or invoking the supernatural.
2. Possessing distinctive qualities that produce unaccountable or baffling effects.
Supernatural is also defined as: 1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
Granted in D&D we do deal with well more than the natural world for our settings, but it's a bit more difficult to explain in words something that's just a concept for mystery and "unaccountable or baffling effects."
There's my two cents on trying to explain why magic works. Next;
Good Is Good, Evil Is Evil, That's That
I hate settings where morality is straight black and white. Not every evil creature should be a sick, cannibalistic, ****-happy monster; nor should every good character be a boy scout. There probably shouldn't even be a real division between the two. There are, after all, "evil deeds with good intentions" and "good deeds with evil intentions".
Actually, this is one I wanted to agree with. It seems, with 4th Edition including less reason mechanics-wise than 3.x for alignments, that we should just get rid of that system entirely. It's been said billions of times that morality cannot be expressed in black and white definitions of good and evil.
1) They had planned for everything, and new everything
Maybe you just walked into town, a complete stranger from a distant land, but it seems the evil overlord knows everything about you. Maybe you're trying to disguise yourself as someone else, but it just seems that everyone you meet knew that guy was left handed and sees right through your disguise. Whatever it is, the bad guys knew you were going to do it, and they had a contingency plan for it. Whether or not the DM just made it up on the spot doesn't matter, just believe that they always know exactly what's going on.
Actually, there could be reasons for this, not the least of which is a villain capable of a Xanatos Gambit. Tricksy little bastards they are.
1.)
3.) Here's my 100% wonderful awesome custom ORIGINAL CREATION DO NOT STEAL race that is totally not an entire race of Mary Sues.
Didn't you see the flow chart? Every character is a Mary Sue, it doesn't matter if you're a blind, deaf, quadruple amputee with a totally intriguing background. It's been done before. A lot. Get over the fact that you and all characters that will exist from now until the apocalypse are Mary Sues and there's nothing you can do about it.
[Edit]: OH, I didn't see the other pages. That's me, posting on old material again. >.>
2. Too many humanoid races. Humans, elves, half-elves, dwarves, orcs, goblins--those are my typical staples. I like reducing the number of humanoid races, and INCREASING cultural, religious, regional, and philosophical differences.
3. Monsters with IQs of 0.
4. Still waters. Nothing happens unless the PCs directly cause it. There are no ripples, and the water is mirror-flat before the PCs launch their boat and set sail through the campaign.
Not really a pet peeve, just curious why most settings don't seem to take into account the faster breeding rates of goblinoids and orcs. They should be much bigger factors, not just a few random encounters in the local dungeon, section of Underdark, or mountain range. There should be entire goblin nations, entire regions ruled by orcs.
I have an answer that might satisfy you: infighting.
Basically, goblin vs. goblin and orc vs. orc conflicts that happen in the "uncivilized" areas of the world are rather common and bloody, and thus keep the goblin and orc populations in check.
1. Tech. Seriously. No steam power, no gunpowder, no clockwork gizmos, etc....
...4. Still waters. Nothing happens unless the PCs directly cause it. There are no ripples, and the water is mirror-flat before the PCs launch their boat and set sail through the campaign.
Tech I can see. Necessity is the mother of invention, and where there is magic, then that replaces the need. Secondly, instead of building something new and unproven - why wouldn't you just improve your magic? In this world, if you wanted to get to work faster, would you try to build yourself something cool, or would you invent magic and advance it to the point where it can compete with the cars people already have?
Actually, what I would like to see is the use of magical items. A waterwheel using an endless canteen? What about floating cities supported by immovable rods... or a flying machine that climbs with two of three of them. If my characters survives his adventure, he's going to be buying as many everlasting provisions as he can, and bringing them back to his tribe, so they will never go hungry again. Why? Because it's practical and probably a lot more useful than most anything else he could do.
Still waters, however, I really do have an issue with. I don't mind campaigns where some big change is happening at the same time the campaign starts, but if the world is locked into a specific balance, where everything cancels out... then I'm going to get miffed.
Compared to our perception of ourselves as innovative.
Compared to every other creature we've ever encountered we're exceptionally adaptable.
I am trying to work our old firearms system into 4e, but it's having a tough fit so far, so I may have to scrap it and go with something else. As far as a peeve relating to this goes, not allowing sensible technological advancement drives me up the walls. My brother tried to force a jump from blunderbusses to lasers by claiming that it wasn't that much of a leap to see that mirrors could focus light, which was step one for a laser. THAT I could easily say 'no' to. But I don't see early firearms as a problem for my game, or clunky, early steam engines. Remember that it took awhile for steam power to catch on, so in my game steam power is loud, unreliable, dangerous, and inefficient, the same reasons it didn't catch on at first in the RW.
In my game, of course. It's not for everybody.
Compared to every other creature we've ever encountered we're exceptionally adaptable.
What creatures? We had one species a few thousand years back that's close enough for this sort of comparason and all the rest aren't applicable because they don't have brains possessing near-enough capabilities for it to even matter. That's a terrible sample size.
Humans don't see themselves as adaptable compared to other fantasy races because we compare ourselves to them, we don't have any to do that. We think we're adaptable because we compare ourselves to creatures that can't possibly compete with us.
Humans are the adaptable and have a strong spirit
Many flavour texts for humans make a point of their will to survive and their adaptability. These are not uniquely human traits! These are traits necessary for the survival of a sentient species! Without a will to survive a species would die when no-one can be bothered to hunt for food. Without adaptability the species could never make use of technological advances. Without these traits, the species would not be around for you to play them.
Race = Personality
Elves are aloof. Dwarves are merry. Gnomes are studious. Halflings are tricksters. Dragonborn are stern. All rubbish. A similar claim would be that all white people are dominating, or all black people are angry, or that all Asians are good at maths. It's complete nonsense.
Want to use the maps? Great! Want to borrow some whacky sub-race from it? Rock on! But make it your own world.
Worlds where every race/class/alignment/multi-class combo is allowed in the same party
When the CE half-Tiefling/half-Illithid 10th Sorcerer/5th Car Mechanic/6th Dread Necromancer is teamed up with the LG Half-Dragon/Hill-Giant 9th Berserker/15th Pacifist Dishwasher... I need a drink. When everything is possible, nothing is exceptional.
Any area that is utterly Utopian or Dystopian
Even in a perfectly benign Kingdom some jackass is going to be disgruntled and want to change it.
Players who want to play a character they love from fiction regardless of the world's milieu
You like Manga? Great. There is no place for your fav hero, Kazuko Puffy AmiYumi in this grim setting, sorry. No, that Figurine of Wondrous power does NOT appear as a striped red/white ball and if you call the summoned animal 'Pikachu' one more time I will kill you.
DM's that totally map out and envision their world...
This might need some explanation. OCD world-builders are too invested in everything they build. They subsequently feel that players that don't see EVERYTHING in the world aren't appreciating it enough. Thus, you as a player, are forced into an encounter with Carl (the local homeless guy in some backwater town) because Carl has a FASCINATING back-story which you were just about to miss (mostly because you couldn't care less)...
DM's that totally map out and envision their world...
This might need some explanation. OCD world-builders are too invested in everything they build. They subsequently feel that players that don't see EVERYTHING in the world aren't appreciating it enough. Thus, you as a player, are forced into an encounter with Carl (the local homeless guy in some backwater town) because Carl has a FASCINATING back-story which you were just about to miss (mostly because you couldn't care less)...
Too in love with my setting to let the players have any impact on it is even worse. The world is stuck in a statis that the players can't make a dent in, every plot is mapped out well in advance, every PC must play to type... ick.
Still waters, however, I really do have an issue with. I don't mind campaigns where some big change is happening at the same time the campaign starts, but if the world is locked into a specific balance, where everything cancels out... then I'm going to get miffed.
I would also be miffed if the PCs didn't have a chance to change or impact their locale/environment/world. That's not what I'm getting at. My objection is when everything is locked into that harmony (or level of discord) at all times unless the PCs become involved. I like to have lots of things going on, and to feel like the world is dynamic and somewhat fluid, with the PCs having an opportunity to even make world-changing things happen if that's how the game unfolds.
I guess it makes the most sense putting it this way: I like campaigns to be like the NBA in that on any given night during the regular season, there could be 1-15 games going on. Depending on their actions, the PCs could wind up hogging all the SportsCenter time and win the NBA Championship. While they're in the process of doing so, however... other guys are out there playing and changing some things, as well.
I guess it makes the most sense putting it this way: I like campaigns to be like the NBA in that on any given night during the regular season, there could be 1-15 games going on. Depending on their actions, the PCs could wind up hogging all the SportsCenter time and win the NBA Championship. While they're in the process of doing so, however... other guys are out there playing and changing some things, as well.
But this isn't always due to DMs not thinking about it. It's sometimes because a DM just does not have the brainpower to keep track of that many different pieces of the game.
But this isn't always due to DMs not thinking about it. It's sometimes because a DM just does not have the brainpower to keep track of that many different pieces of the game.
Quite true.
Too in love with my setting to let the players have any impact on it is even worse. The world is stuck in a statis that the players can't make a dent in, every plot is mapped out well in advance, every PC must play to type... ick.
Good point. Those are the campaigns where you snap in the middle of the session and go WAY out of character...
DM: So you are standing amongst the lower dignitaries as the solemn procession begins...
Player: Great! I whip off my clothes, grab the Duke's scepter, ride it like a hobby-horse, all the while screaming "The Ettins are coming! The Ettins are coming!"
DM: So you are standing amongst the lower dignitaries as the solemn procession begins...
Player: Great! I whip off my clothes, grab the Duke's scepter, ride it like a hobby-horse, all the while screaming "The Ettins are coming! The Ettins are coming!"
Hey, I'd kill to have this happen.
Super-NPCs: Sometimes I just feel like walking into some backwater village and blowing it to hell with a barrage of fireballs, but nooooooo that uber-epic retired adventurer always stops you with the inevitable item-of-anti-magic that they always seem to have handy. That's not challenging that's just being a jerk DM
Player: Great! I whip off my clothes, grab the Duke's scepter, ride it like a hobby-horse, all the while screaming "The Ettins are coming! The Ettins are coming!"
Hey, I'd kill to have this happen.
LOL. If you were in one egregious campaign, you would have seen me do it... with my LG Paladin no less.
What creatures? We had one species a few thousand years back that's close enough for this sort of comparason and all the rest aren't applicable because they don't have brains possessing near-enough capabilities for it to even matter. That's a terrible sample size.
Humans don't see themselves as adaptable compared to other fantasy races because we compare ourselves to them, we don't have any to do that. We think we're adaptable because we compare ourselves to creatures that can't possibly compete with us.
By the same token you can't show a single example of a comparable species that is more adaptable. As you are the one making the claim that human beings are not adaptable, despite the fact we've adapted to nearly every environment on this planet, in contradiction to the most common representation of humans in dungeons and dragons the onus is on you to support your position with facts. I don't have to prove my point, you have to prove yours.
What creatures? We had one species a few thousand years back that's close enough for this sort of comparason and all the rest aren't applicable because they don't have brains possessing near-enough capabilities for it to even matter. That's a terrible sample size.
Humans don't see themselves as adaptable compared to other fantasy races because we compare ourselves to them, we don't have any to do that. We think we're adaptable because we compare ourselves to creatures that can't possibly compete with us.
The fact that we are not extinct is proof enough that we are an adaptable race. Think about all the things that worked (and sometimes still work) against use.
Creatures bigger than us.
Creatures stronger than us.
Creatures faster than us.
Creatures with fur.
Creatures with claws.
Creatures with better vision.
Creatures with better noses.
Creatures with better hearing.
Creatures that echolocate.
Creatures that can fly.
Creatures that can burrow.
Creatures that can breath underwater.
Creatures that outbreed us.
Creatures that can consume a wider variety of foods.
Those are just the other creatures we had to compete with. Lions, tigers, and bears, oh my! What about all the other events that frequently threaten to wipe us out.
Disease
Hurricanes
Earthquakes
Floods
Tsunamis
Forest Fires
Droughts
Flash Freezes
Blizzards
Desertification
All we had were opposable thumbs, upright movement, and really big brains. And yet, to my knowledge, we are the only creature on this planet to continusously inhabit each and every non-aquatic part of the planet. We live in the Saharra and Sibera, on islands and continents, landlocked or on a coast, in the mountains and in the valleys, 365/24/7. We don't have to migrate or hibernate to make it through, but we can do both. All the other animals had avantages we didn't, be we are the apex preditor of the earth because we adapted.
A fantasy race may have been able to do the same thing, but they are just fantasy races. Dreams dreamed by our imaginations. Just because we didn't lose doesn't mean others didn't try.
To deny that to fantasy humans would mean changing their entire history and that would make them something else entirely. It's not entirely fair, but we know what humans are like, they have a history because we are their history and their basis.
All of this brings me to my pet peeve.
1) Humans
I'd like to play a game where there aren't humans. Take everything else from the real world, but keep humans out. They're too comfortable, too predictable. You can redefine what an elf or a dwarf is, but you can't redefine the human, only a human's individual culture. So you end up with Elves, Dwarves, and everything else being an individual uniform cultures. But that's not strange to anyone because they're 'not humans', because humans have a dozen different cultures based on their location.
If you play a game without humans, without that comfortable base by which to measure everything, then flat stereotypes become glaringly obvious (and thus, have to have more attention). People naturally spend a lot more time fleshing out their humans because they know more about them (because, y'know, they are one!). Take humans out of the game and, even though it makes more work for you, everything else will benefit.
I equally enjoy games where there is nothing but humans. Humans fighting humans, the way it's always been.
This thread is a place to discuss, vent, and share all those little details that bug the hell out of you in regards to settings and worlds. Please be as specific or general as you like. :D
I have two.
1) And here is the land of People Who Are Better Than You.
Somewhere, somehow, the campaign creator has placed a race or species that they absolutely love. As a result, that race is better... Their cities make other races weep from the sheer magnificence, their sages have uncovered the secrets of the universe before the first bugbear bashed a skull, and their culture and virtue have eradicated all vices, all blemishes, all imperfections whatsoever... And for some reason, your DM doesn't understand why you wish to kill every single one of them.
2) Here is where the Egyptian people live!
A perfect copy-paste of an existing Earth culture, which has somehow evolved in a world where people shoot fireballs and dragons roam the earth. Now, I understand the inspiration, there are many beautiful elements of the cultures we already have on this planet to use in fantasy. But it always baffles me how exactly a perfect copy of the Holy Roman Empire manages to exist and thrive next to the Generic Slave-Taking Wizard Nation, the Hobgoblin Sacrificial Temples/Sports, Bar, and Grill, and the mountains labeled Here There Be Illithid.
Interesting. Being a devotee of history and mediaeval literature (which includes self-consciously imitative stuff like Tolkien), I want to play in a world where 1) not all things are equal: the high elves/angels/Melniboneans or whatever should be otherworldly, excruciatingly beautiful and awesome... and players cannot be them; and where 2) references to classic nations, myths and cultures abound: anachronistic settings full of democratic cosmopolitan multi-racial cities replete with magic shoppes and taverns and thieves guilds find no resonance with me: give me a Holy Roman Empire and throw in Venice, Byzantium and Damascus! And hide all the monsters in the mountains: no monster civilizations please.
1) Bland generic Tolkien rip off fantasy.
I get it, I really do. He wrote a great book. He told a great story. And, hell, its tough to tell new stories. But, for gods sakes, at least reskin the story, play with the tropes, and alter roles a little. Bland generic Tolkien rip off fantasy is what made me turn my back of Forgotten Realms, Dragon Lance, Greyhawk, and god knows how many home brew games.
I too despise Shannara, Belgariand and any other weak copy of Tolkien ... however, a game run in actual Middle Earth can be fun: I played in one of those once. Much better than almost any world most people can come up with. The man spent his whole well-educated life working on it: many world-designers have never willingly read a book written before 1980, certainly not before 1800.
[FONT="Times New Roman"][SIZE="4"]Interesting. Being a devotee of history and mediaeval literature (which includes self-consciously imitative stuff like Tolkien), I want to play in a world where 1) not all things are equal: the high elves/angels/Melniboneans or whatever should be otherworldly, excruciatingly beautiful and awesome... and players cannot be them; and where 2) references to classic nations, myths and cultures abound: anachronistic settings full of democratic cosmopolitan multi-racial cities replete with magic shoppes and taverns and thieves guilds find no resonance with me: give me a Holy Roman Empire and throw in Venice, Byzantium and Damascus! And hide all the monsters in the mountains: no monster civilizations please
I like your world concept. I once had a setting that was based off of the idea that time as we know it is finitely small, that each passing moment at it's smallest level has a gap between itself and the next one. The fantasy world existed in those gaps, and from time to time the moments would overlap, such as on Samhain and at the equinoxes. Our scientists will never find the missing link because it doesn't exist. Humans from the fantasy world slipped "between time" and wound up in this strange, feral, primitive and unsettled world. The monsters they encountered were neanderthal and cromagnon humanoids whom they supplanted quickly due to advanced brains, gear, etc. We are the descendants of those heroes. Folklore as we know it is based on stories told by our ancestors who came from that world, but we dismiss the old accounts as myths, legends, or wild, shamanistic hallucinations. Even the pagans have it wrong. Elves would laugh at the idea that they are peaceful nature spirits, and the modern Vatican has no idea how close it has come to true demons and devils that can slip through the gaps in time whenever they want. The worlds overlap but don't see each other except through the use of powerful magic, which flows poorly here. Weak ley lines and all.
That was how I blended the real world and the fantasy world in one campaign. My current group except for one doesn't know this game foklore. May be time to dust it off...
This thread makes me feel very inadequate about my campaign designs
Yes, but after reading the whole thing, myself, I have seen a lot of examples where one person hates something and wants the opposite, and about two posts later someone else makes the exact opposite argument and wants what the other person hated.
You can't please everyone all of the time.
If your players love generic fantasy, they're not going to be happy if you try to "break the mold" with their favorite races, or put pseudo-technology into the campaign because it doesn't make any sense that it wouldn't be there.
Even the blandness of the premade campaigns is something that fans of those campaigns like (and probably don't agree is bland). I personally can't stand Greyhawk, but the majority of my group has a lot of fond memories of it.
Good point. Those are the campaigns where you snap in the middle of the session and go WAY out of character...
DM: So you are standing amongst the lower dignitaries as the solemn procession begins...
Player: Great! I whip off my clothes, grab the Duke's scepter, ride it like a hobby-horse, all the while screaming "The Ettins are coming! The Ettins are coming!"
Ok, that was pure awesome.
-Cal
Buy as many Ring of Three Wishes as you possibly can, and end up with a whole buttload of money to spend on upgrading your character so much that he can outclass any living being and any living creature known to D&D existence!!!
That pisses me off!!!:headexplo :headexplo :headexplo :headexplo :headexplo
The Infinite Money cheat.
Buy as many Ring of Three Wishes as you possibly can, and end up with a whole buttload of money to spend on upgrading your character so much that he can outclass any living being and any living creature known to D&D existence!!!
That pisses me off!!!
A campaign world which would allow anyone to BUY a wish: now that would tick me off. That is a far, far cry from Aladdin and his lamp or the fisherman and the sea.
THIS. I hate when people go "NECROMANCY EVIIIIIIL EVIIIIIIL!!!! BURN!!!!"
Well guess what villager, I saved your bum, from the acolyte of Asmodeus that was swinging his radiant powers in your faces, with mah necromantic powas.
It's the digging up corpses thing. People hate it when you turn their Uncle Bob into a zombie.
Even if the pc is a necromancer that may not actually do that, the reputation for it is still there.
On furries, though this is generally a YMMV thing and is a pretty subjective and arbitrary thing to get into spats over, but they can work if you do them well enough, in that they're not humans with animal costumes.
For example, I have a race of rabbits called the Usagi, who are fairly different from humans in terms of body structure and pre-established culture. They're small and wiry, with a heavier focus on the rabbit instead of the human. Think Peter Rabbit as opposed to Roger Rabbit. Their culture is a mix of aspects from Japan, Waterhip Down's mythology, and my own tweaks. From what I've heard, they're quite likable. Once again, YMMV, and I am guilty of making a race of humanoid cats in the same setting (but cats, rabbits, and dogs only, no badgers or foxes or anything) with some fairly human traits. It's just a matter of preference, and I'm careful enough to make each race as believable as I can. And of course, if you don't like them, I always have a better part of the canon races available.
My "They're good if you can use them right" argument also stretches to DMPCs. I'm not saying they're a wise choice for everyone, in fact they're hard to pull off right, but they work when you do.
As another example, an old recurring DMPC was an immortal natural spellcaster named Equani. Equani was a tauren (I steal them shamelessly), and a very old one at that. He's creaky and feeble, and uses a walking stick at all times. He occasionally uses cantrips, but for the most part seems powerless, which he attests to his old age interfering with his power. He is completely anonymous except for as the medicine man of a small town. He never carried a 'better than you' or heroic attitude, and was more or less a grandfatherly figure to the party. The most times he ever directly aided the PCs in a campaign was thrice: Once when they were level 1 and got their butts kicked by some goblins that I thought they would have been able to handle- but that was more of a way to keep them alive, as they knew Equani well as the town healer and medicine man and it was a decent parallel of Obi-wan driving away the Tusken raiders. The second, and one of his rare crowning moments of awesome, was after his power was reawakened. He used a great wave of force (and a resulting earthquake) to break down the massive locked/barred/enchanted adamantium doors of the BBEG's lair. The final time was where he and an old friend met and went to hold off with the BBEG's army of minions (who were away on false information at the time of gate crashing) while the PCs made their way up BBEG tower to finish the campaign. It wasn't "I'll kill the boss for you," it was, "I'll take these folks, but the boss is your responsibility. I won't be able to clean up for you if you fail. Now go. Go!" Never once did he tag along just to clean up if the PCs failed, and half the time the most help they got from him was an occasional reward and a lot of confusing but strangely relevant sayings and proverbs. I have never had a complaint against him.
As for things I find uncomfortable (I'm a bit too moderate to be truly irked by a design), it's when too much has been changed. Shift up to Renaissance or Steampunk, add and remove a race here or there, even rewrite the pantheons. When you're dealing with a completely rewritten race list, though, that's something else completely. Not all that bad, mind you, at least until said DM decides that major mechanical sections of the game need rewriting, too.