On page 33 of the PHB is a sidebar, Uncommon Races. Races that might not exist in every D&D world, and even then, are less widespread than say, dwarves, elves, and halflings.
I treat the sidebar as a guideline. In our 4e homebrew for instance, dragonborn (or dray, as we called 'em) were a common race (along with tieflings, devas, shifters, minotaurs, wilden, genasi, and changelings). No dwarves, eladrin, elves, or halflings in that particular setting.
I'd love to hear how others handle races in their games. PC and otherwise 
.
I'm on my way out the door but I'll join in, later.
Race rarity is pretty meaningless. DMs will ignore it entirely when creating a world.
I used to prefer limiting the number of intelligent races that exist in a world. I generally find "kitchen sink" fantasy worlds a bit cheesy and kind of dumb.TO be honest, even having elves and dwarves and gnomes milling about in human cities feels off to me and detracts from their mystique. They end up just being humans with funny ears.
However when I gave 4E a go, players wanted to try out the unsual races - tiefling became more common, things like dragonborn and warforged started showing up...
So I sat down and created a new campaign world for my players and myself that could be kitchen sink-y without feeling cheesy or dumb. I thought about ways that all these different creatures could exist in the same world, and interact fairly normally, and how that would affect the world and what it would look like. I'm really happy with how it turned out and hope to use it a lot more.
For a good bit of inspiration, look up various depictions of "goblin markets" or "troll markets" for lots of magicla species in a melting pot.
Using exotic races is fine as long as you don't just put them in Medieval Fantasy World #14596 and expect everythign to stay the same. Spend at least a bit of time thinking about how the world would be different due to this interaction.
Also fine is deciding you want a gritty sword and sorcery world with only certain races, or certain monsters or certain classes. The important thing is to talk about it with your players first so that everyone is happy to go along with the campaign flavour that you all decide upon.
My approach uses the mechanics to drive the fiction, so I do not limit races in any way. If it's in the rules, it's fair game. If a player doesn't choose a particular race and there has been no mention of that race in the course of the game, the race might not exist in that world. Or maybe it does. We'll find out collectively during play. Whatever races the players do choose, I see them as the source of canon for the race they have chosen. When a question arises about their race during play, I ask them to answer it rather than decide myself.
iserith wrote:
I take Eberron's approach. There's room for everything in the game, somewhere. There are spots for high alchemy, areas for psychics, places for the dark and creepy. Etc.
I do it by continents in my Six Kingdoms setting.
Dragonborn and Tiefling are extremely rare in Vale and Moradon, uncommon in Turdo, and every dang where in Meztika.
Dwarves are only playable in Moradon or the Boggy Swamp. If a dwarf leaves Moradon or the Boggy Swamp, they goes insane in a 1+Level days if they don't go back. Unless they are a Dwarf King.
While I haven't DM'd yet, I generally don't enjoy worlds with too many intelligent races, but want to respect my players intrests. So I will do what I have done in the past.
I typically pay attention to what my players are playing, if there is three or more, make that my "civilization" race. Then as the game progresses take into account how the races of my other characters play into the world.
If I don't have a dwarf, and I don't have an interesting campaign arc for dwarves, than dwarves for all intents and purposes don't exist.
If I have one Tiefling, they are normally incredibly strange and rare, however if my player wants to be from a noble house of Tieflings, than suddenly many of the noble houses are descended from Bale Turath and horns and tails are a mark of pedigree.
Basically cooperative storytelling is best, and in most occasions I can easily rewrite an adventure idea I have for fighting a corrupt arcance aristocracy as human, Tiefling, or Elven on the fly.
Another idea I had for the kitchen sink in 4th Edition I tended to chunk groups of races into shared cultures. Shifters, Minotaurs, and Gnolls were beastmen barbarians, segregated into nomadic primal spirit or demon worshiping tribes, but narratively considered one set of peoples. Eladrin, Gnomes, Sprites, etc. were all part of a fey culture with Eladrin as the arcane focused nobles and the other races being the common folk of the fey. While Halflings, Humans, and Dwarves were "round ears" the salt of the earth folk who were more religion centric than the mageocracy and primal spirit focused groups mentioned previously. This made it easier to tell a meaningful story with the PC's integrated into the cacophany or races.
The nice thing with the free feat at 1st level being so beefy is that a majority of players are chomping at the bit to play humans.
I tend to prefer worlds with many races, and while some might be rarer than others, being so many most people are used to seeing some odd wanders passing through, and just as long as they don't cause trouble they'll not get much worse than a few curious stares. And for the most part, even intelligent "monsters" fit in this category. If they're a member of an intelligent species then they're capable of being good or bad. Outsider types are a different matter, of course.
Though I am half-tempted to run a short campaign where one or more the core four races are rarer and scary (or in the humans' case, not rarer and scary because of that: "The invaders breed like orcs but they *work together*!!!").
The only races in my campaign with organized settlements are dwarves, elves, gnomes, halflings, and humans. Even of these, only dwarves and humans are common with the others tending to stay in remote or limited regions. That said, PCs can be almost anything, even if it's not in the book - there has been a least one lizardman (before there were dragonborn as a PC race), centaur, goblin, and half-ogre PCs over the years. There is enough weirdness in the campaign that most people are use to seeing fantastic things. There is more diversity among the cities than the rural communities, but in a land where a traveling magic show might contain an actual magician, dragonborn or warforged PCs won't send the farmers running for pitchforks and torches (usually)...
Oh, yeah, Drow are banned as PCs from my game... Yes, I know one guy in the FR inspired others to follow his lead, but he's not in my world...
Artifact wrote:
Our 4e setting is called Runegate. PCs use permanent magic gateways to travel from world to world (actually a series of mini-settings) The whole thing is inspired by SG-1.
Books on the table: PHB 1-3, DMG 1-2, MM 1-3, Also FRPG (for genasi) and EPG (for changelings).
Available Races: Changeling, Deva, Dray (a.k.a. Dragonborn), Genasi, Human, Minotaur, Shifter, Tiefling, Wilden
Unavailable Races: Dwarf, Eladrin, Elf, Gnome, Githzerai, Goliath, Half-elf, Half-orc, Halfling, Drow, Kalashtar, Shardmind, Warforged
Available Classes: Any.
= = =
This realm, called the Union, is governed by a line of deva emperors (called aeons)*. The Union is ancient and ageless, much like its deva caretakers. For the most part, the Union lacks racial prejudice and segregation [common to many other fantasy settings]. For instance, the concept of a separate “dray” society is foreign here. While there are indeed a few areas where dray outnumber humans, the dray don’t consider themselves a separate nation or people. Nor do humans view the dray that way.
Lifestyle—not race—is what separates people in the Union. In this realm, people fall into one of two broad groups: those who are nomads and those who are not. Nomads frequently use the Runegates to travel between worlds. They are wanderers, often sheltering in the most dangerous places, where men are as near to the gods as they are to death. Their wealth lies not in possessions. Nomads do not value gaudy clothing, a warm house, or a mass of personal fortune. They value their independence. [Inspired by the homogenous Al-Qadim setting]
); they're the same race, just one *bright* and the other *dark*. This gives devas of non-good alignment raison d'etre.
Devas were once angels; there was never a sundering among their own kind (unlike elves/eladrin/drow). Dark devas never work against their own kind (non-devas are fair game o' course). Constructive interaction between devas and dark devas isn't realistic though, so they keep themselves seperate from each other. This 'gentlemen's agreement' holds in part because outside of their immediate circles, most devas are isolated beings anyway (it's a big world ).
Rakshasas stole the secret of reincarnation from devas (some say they borrowed it from dark devas --nobody knows for certain). As far as rakshasas are concerned, they improved upon the process: rakshasas reincarnate immediately upon death and remember their former lives, devas do not. In response to this, devas share bonded incarnations.
That's awesome, Artifact. Deva was a race that I was always interested in exploring in 4e, but it was always in 2nd-4th place in my character concept lineup.
As for my campaign, I'm running it that every race is fair game. Every race certainly won't have equal spotlight time for the NPC's (some might be so rare that there won't even be an NPC of that race in the locale), but as for players, they're all game.
I fully appreciate a DM's perogitave to create the world they want to, but having been a player under a DM that had super strict regulations on what was allowed, I have a general distaste for that. I'm loathe to put my players through similar restrictions. I'd rather handwave it as the race is from another continent, moon, or whatever (if I can't think of anything compelling), than say no to what a player pays money for in the form of the PHB (or whatever else).
I think the rarity applies well to NPCs but players characters are a different breed from the rabble and in my book anything goes.
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
I prefer worlds with as many races fitted in as possible, but in saying that I want the narrative to have a meaningful place for them. I want their culture and history to be defined and I don't want a DM turning to me and saying "well you tell me their culture and history." I DM plenty. If I'm interested in DMing I'll step into the DM chair. If I'm playing I want to define my character, but I want the DM to define the world. It helps give me something new to explore.
That said I prefer campaigns with racial restrictions. Last campaign I ran I virtually restricted everyone to humans. This campaign I'm opening the book and letting players play whatever they want. Next campaign I expect I'll restrict it to humans, Halflings elves, half-elves and Tieflings (dependent on which campaign I run). I like to alternate between tight themes and anything goes to help shake things up.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
I allow any intelligent creature to be chosen as a playable race. The PCs in my last campaign were: 2 elves, 1 halfling, 1 lizard folk, 1 dragon, & 1 Yuan-ti
I haven't started play yet, but i'm developing a campaign in a human dominated world. Non-human races are all rare, and some such as dragonborn or tieflings are extremely rare, the few that do exist use disguises or magic to conceal themselves. Most common (NPC) humans are highly racist against non-humans, especially the monsterous looking races.
Reasoning being that the world recently finished a great war, a great human empire won, but during the war it used propaganda and lies to paint all non-humans as terrible evil monsters. Dragonborn and tieflings were executed as monsters, halflings and dwarves enslaved, the elves, wise as they are, mostly fled the continent when war broke out. Gnomes were rare to start, and most of the humans just considered them to be a different variety of halflings. Clearly the human empire itself could certainly be called evil by most standards given things they did during the war and after, but as the victors they wrote the history books, and made themselves look to be saints to their own people.
Of course, the end of that great war wasn't the end of all war. The emperor who led his nation to victory died from a really nasty case of natural causes (poisoned wine is natural, right?) and his five children bickered and fought over control of the empire and caused it to splinter into seperate nations, all fighting for complete control.
Given all that, I'll allow platers to play any race they want, after giving them a basic rundown of the world's history and current status. A dwarf, halflingh, or gnome PC would either be an escaped slave, or a rare case of one granted freedom by a kind owner. A dragonborn, half-orc, or tiefling would have to use disguises to pass himself off as human. An elf or half-elf would be either an exile from the elf lands forced to live among humans, or living in one of the few small hidden elf villages among the wilderness (half-elf''s that lived among humans during the war were killed or escaped).
I do a little of everything. I'm sure I've ran worlds that had all the races and I've ran some that do not. I might even make up a few extras of my own at times. The setting is surpreme in my games but that setting changes from campaign to campaign. World building for the DM and world discovery by the players are parts of the payoff of the games I run.
If there was a race I absolutely couldn't stand personally then I'd ban it. No player should want to play a race I as DM hate in my campaign. Right now I'm not sure there is one. I don't love the tiefling but mostly because it doesn't always fit in my world. Still I could definitely define a world that had them and it wouldn't be a problem. I have dragonborn in my current setting. I tend to keep the big four but even then I refluff them so dramatically that sometimes it's like a drop and add of a new race.
Classes and mechanics on the other hand I ban/change freely.
TiaNadiezja wrote:
XunValDorl_of_HouseKilsek wrote:
iserith wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
“Because, really, who ever thought level adjustment was a good idea?”
*raises hand*
iserith wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
iserith wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Not everyone shares the "it doesn't exist until it's stated at the table" mindset Iserith. Not everyone wants that to be true.
They want the world to exist before their character, with rules and qualities inherent to it, and to insert themselves into that reality rather than reshaping it. If the rules say "All Fezborn wear hats" they want their Fezborn to have to wear a hat, rather than saying "Can I have the stats of the Fezborn, but with boots instead of a hat?". Because in the shared delusional space of the game, a Fezborn without a hat isn't a Fezborn.
...
And if you have to ask "Why Fez's?", we have no common ground. Good day sir!
DemoMonkey wrote:
iserith
Why does imagination lie only in contravening rules, rather than embracing them?
iserith wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
*sigh*
I am 100% certain that, by context, you knew exactly what I meant Iserith. However, I'll rephrase for you:
Why does imagination lie only in contravening/changing established fluff, rather than embracing it?
DemoMonkey wrote:
iserith wrote:
kev777 wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
DemoMonkey wrote:
My current world is "play whatever you want". If there isn't stats for it we can come up with stats. I avoid the patchwork feel by using humans as the common base and having most races originate from far off places where no action in the campaign will take place. Humans are pretty easy going in my world and won't look twice at whatever strange creature ambles through town, so it all works out.
iserith wrote:
Iserith wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
kev777 wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
kev777 wrote:
iserith wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Karnos wrote:
iserith wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
iserith wrote:
A DM that feels beholden to the rules is a DM I would not enjoy playing with. Note I'm not saying your a bad DM because you hold the rules sacrosanct over the enjoyment of your players.
JohnLynch wrote:
iserith wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
iserith wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
My response to a hypothetical request to play a Dragonborn
"whats a Dragon born?.
Half Dragons exist, are uber rare, NPCs only and would resemble the 3.5 ones probably stapled onto a 4-8 hit dice creature and be challenge rating 2 or 3.
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
TiaNadiezja wrote:
Iserith's style (as he's communicated it on these boards) is that there is no world until the players tell him what they want to play. So a DM using this style hasn't left Dragonborn out or out them in. Dragonborn are in quantum state and are both out and in until someone wants to play one.
this style for some DMs is left for race and class alone though. Some things (like guns) do not exist at all unless WotC produces a 5th edition supplement with them. Only then are they included, but even then some (like iserith) don't like guns in fantasy so would prefer not to have them Even if said rules existed.
iserith wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
kev777 wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
iserith wrote:
Iserith wrote:
kev777 wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
iserith wrote:
"If a no to the specific idea is appropriate, the first response still ought to be "Why?" Without "Why?" you don't find out the core of what the player wants, and you give up their inspiration."
You know, that is actually a really useful piece of advice. I don't think I had ever thought about it in exactly those words before.
Thank you Tia.
JohnLynch wrote:
I will note that there are, in fact, guns in my D&D. Primative muskets and cannons.
iserith wrote:
CCS wrote:
CCS wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
CCS wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
iserith wrote:
kev777 wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
kev777 wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
iserith wrote:
kev777 wrote:
Iserith wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
kev777 wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Iserith wrote:
Without resorting to our fandom's general-purpose adjectives for things they don't like, could you take a couple of items on your banned list and explain why they're there? I want to understand this.
[/quote] Ok, I'll give you a few: psionics. I have never liked psionics. Really in most media, but Particularly as expressed by D&D rules of any edition to date. Just not my thing. And as I think it's important for a DM to be familiar with what the PCs are capable of? Were psionics in my game, then I'd have to keep up on them. But since I don't even enjoy the concept, let alone reading the rules for them, that's a problem..... so there's simply no psionics in my games......... Spelljammer: NO. Look, TSR, WoTC, & other rpg companies live by publishing stuff. It's what they do. To that end they've got to try & attract as many types as possible. More power to them. But that doesn't mean that {I} have to buy into them. In the case of Spell jammer? I find the whole concept stupid. I'm not DMing it or anything from it. If I want to run a space/Sci-Fi (or even Steam/Magi-punk) there's many other entire game systems that do it better.......JohnLynch wrote:
CCS wrote:
iserith wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Kinda sucks having someone blocked and yet still seeing his posts constantly because of quotes.
It seems that the logic he is using that the PHB doesn't have guns, so 5e doesn't have guns at all?
I guess that means anything in the MM, DMG, future suppliments, or upcoming campaign sourcebooks, is unusable?
Guns were a basic part of the 2nd edition PHB, and more were added in the 2nd editon Forgotten Realms Adventures book. I think it's rather foolish to assume they will never exist in 5e based on one single book being released so far. The 5e PHB doesn't have dragons, so does that mean dragons are not part of D&D?
Guns are not strictly forbidden, so they are banned from my games forever.
Metagaming is not strictly forbidden, so it's perfectly welcome and encouraged in my games forever.
Anyone else notice the inconsistency?
iserith wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Karnos wrote:
iserith wrote:
kev777 wrote:
Not sure why this 'argument' is still going. Some people like to never say "no". Others do not.
We aren't going to convince each other to DM our games differently. So why prosthelytize?
CCS wrote:
autolycus wrote:
As for the original topic of the thread, I'm open to any and all races.
The real world is a massive melting pot, and I see no reason why a fantasy world can't be.
And I enjoy the exercise of figuring out how different fantasy races have come to terms with one another.
Cultural and political differences are fun for me to wrap my brain around.
And looks like I gotta go.
iserith wrote:
kev777 wrote:
iserith wrote:
CCS wrote:
sailoroswald wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
It's always by campaign setting, in my ongoing Planescape campaign, pretty much anything goes, I might frown on an Aboleth Monk.
In my feudal Japanese setting, not so much.
P.S. There are firearms and laser guns in the 3.0 DMG.
iserith wrote:
kev777 wrote:
iserith wrote:
autolycus wrote:
I haven't needed the stats for guns yet because I've made clear that, in skilled hands, they're inferior to the weapons PCs use in D&D - they're slow and inaccurate and primarily useful because they're easy (Simple weapons) and a mass of barely-trained peasants with them can break a cacalry charge reliably. Artillery is a different matter - powerful and requires skill - but you can't exactly haul a cannon into a dungeon.
However, one of my PCs has a "magic" item that's an earlier, more expensive, and more skill-intensive version of a firearm - a nonmagical weapon that fires bursts of flame using a lightly-enchanted alchemical powder.
Here's the stats for the firewand, developed between myself and my player. Primary credit goes to Ghaliyah on these forums; I mostly balance-checked:
Firewand (longarm): 2d10. Fire, exotic, two-handed, long load, heavy, ranged (20/60).
Flame piece (pistol): 2d6. Fire, ranged (15/40), exotic, long load, light.
Long Load: Requires 1 action to load.
Feat: Firewand Training
*Gain proficiency with firewands and flame pieces.
*Ignore disadvantage at close range when using a firewand or flame piece.
*May spend an attack within an Attack action to load a firewand or flame piece.
*double ability score bonus damage with firewands and flame pieces.
*may make an area 1 attack with a firewand or flame piece as a special attack action (Dex save 8+proficiency bonus+Dex mod).
Forgive the 4e notation; it's just a simpler way to say "10-foot radius around you." A very skilled wielder of the firewand can use it as a mini-flamethrower.
I expect that a longarm will be 1d10, fairly short Short range (it's not rifled) but longer than a longbow Long range, and have Long Load. A pistol will be 1d8, very short Short range (on par with thrown weapons), slightly longer than a shortbow Long range, long load. Both simple.
iserith wrote:
Zyph wrote:
Sailing_Pirate_Ryan wrote:
iserith wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
iserith wrote:
autolycus wrote:
iserith wrote:
So I think this thread has led me to an important realization.
I've never gotten the "No because that isn't (insert setting name)" arguement for banning races and just now I think I've gotten a better idea why.
It was when someone said "it wouldn't be Dragonlance then, but a setting inspired by Dragonlance"
When I read that my first thought was the Dragonlance books years ago, then I realized "what is a pure dragonlance game?" You can list off all the setting restrictions and rules (Like the three magic moons of Kyrnn) but any of that can be picked up and put into a "world inspired by" setting. So, is the "game" then just having all the proper elements, cities, and npcs in their correct alignments on the map?
This is where I lose track of the arguement. I don't like a world that is too well defined, I've never, and probably will never, run a setting game because for me those "Settings" have set events and characters that need to be and react in the proper ways. Great for reading novels, but where is my creativity if I'm just reading from a setting book. I much prefer crafting my own worlds, even though I'm not nearly as good at it. So I would never and perhaps could never run an "Eberron" or "Dark Sun" game, but instead "games inspired by" because I don't want all the history and lore that come with it, and the fact that my players may have more knowledge of the setting than I do.
If I'm going to build a world anyways, what's the point of my telling someone "No that race doesn't exist", sure they can exist, it gives me something I need to work with a challenge to build around.
And thinking on the "culture of dragonborn" has also helped solved world-building problem I was having. Thank you 
I have a question (and this seems an appropriate place to ask ): During 4e's run, I ran across the term dual-heritage races, in reference to half-elves and half-orcs. Does anyone have any idea where that term originated?
I use 'dual-heritage' in my games as a way to gloss over (if you will) the messy backrounds of races like half-orcs and muls (both of which are common in our 3.5 setting). Actual lineage doesn't matter much to me. The players can go into more detail if they want though. Extremely curious where that term originates (positive I didn't dream it up myself).
I've been busy, busy the last couple of days. Didn't expect the thread to explode like it has. Finally have a few hours to unwind. Reading now . . .
JohnLynch wrote:
I actually take race rarity seriously. If something doesn't exist in my world - it doesn't exist. For example, my home-brew world doesn't have drow... they were wiped off the map during the War of Chaos. The Twilight Elves and the Sanguine Elves exist however, though both are significantly different than any of the other races. Twilight Elves know how to craft magitech, creating mithral implants which count as 'slots' for magical effects, but are internalized in the person rather than worn. Sanguine Elves have their own abilities, and are usually distrusted by other elves. Also, my world doesn't have gnomes, but do have a race of feral, ghoulish halflings which scare the hell out of everyone. If I were running a different setting, neither of these races would exist. They're unique to that one setting.
Same thing with canon material. No half-orcs in Krynn. No gnomes in Athas. No muls in Forgotten Realms.
iserith wrote:
iserith: The difference is that in one case we have a player playing by the rules of the game he agreed to play: D&D 5e, for example. In the other we have restrictions on those rules put in place by the DM: no dragonborn, for example.
I'm kind of curious.
Let's say you get the Campaign Books for 5E, specifically of the Forgotten Realms, Dragon Lance, Dark Sun, and Greyhawk. Each book lays out what's in the setting.
If the game master specifically chooses one campaign book to use... have you stopped playing 5E?
Now, if these books existed for prior editions, and the game master says they're using the same setting, but updating to 5E... with the limits of those campaign settings in place....
Are they still playing 5E?
Because even WotC accepts that the different game worlds have things which aren't in the other game worlds.
Ebberon has the Warforged.
Krynn has Kender.
Forgotten Realms have Sun and Moon Elves.
Greyhawk has Gray Elves.
Mystara has Night Dragons - and I would love to see those converted to 5E. (Seriously -- destroy soul by wrapping wings around target. Yowza)
Chaosmancer wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Tashiro wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
So what would someone wanting to play a sword and sorcerery game with guns using the 5th edition rules and some homebrew rules be told?
JohnLynch wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
Considering I'm converting my BECMI campaign to 5E, this came up. We have a PC with a rifle and a pistol, and I needed to convert those to 5E. We also converted the crossbow Feat into a new Feat for using these weapons as well.
iserith wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
iserith wrote:
JohnLynch wrote:
When I start a D&D game the first the players know of it is when I tell them - usually these days in an email, in the olden pre-net days with a photocopied or handwritten sheet - of a description of the groundrules for the campaign, including important house rules and a list of banned/added classes races and source material. The rules may be based on a secret in the campaign, a desire to set a certain tone, or (and I cop to this right up front) my personal aesthetic preferences. (Such as no halflings. Ever. Can't trust them, they're tricksy, out to ruin my campaign, my preciousss campaign....)
So when the players show up to the first game session with a character, it is always going to be after the ground rules have been set. By showing up for that first session they have automatically "bought in" and agreed to the campaigns ground rules. If they didn't, they wouldn't be seated at the table.
So if that player pulls up a chair and slaps down a character that directly contravenes those ground rules, I have to ask "Why?". Because it seems contrary. More than contrary, it actually strikes me as discourteous.
Edit to add the flipside:
The corollary of this, of course, is if a player shows up with a character that violates none of those ground rules, but I just don't like it or didn't think of banning it in advance? Too bad, that's on me. Telling them they can't play it at that point would be contrary and discourteous on my part.
iserith wrote:
I was disappointed with the section that listed uncommon races. Either include a race in the PHB or don't, then let the table decide. If the uncommon section was included to be true to forgotten realms, then take care of it in a setting book and leave the PHB alone.
I just read it as 'in vanilla D&D, this is true'.
If you're not running vanilla D&D, then it doesn't have to be true.
...are we still on some odd people's daft ego-trip...?
...NO....
...yeah...no-nah-no-no-no...nah...nah-nah-noo!
NO!