TheRPGSite

Hello...

I'm just curious... What races do you like or hate as PCs? Or do you think seeing the same old options in fantasy games is getting a little tired? Just to note: I'm not a big D&D player except when it comes to the OSR side so I don't know much about the newer editions.

Ever since playing WFRP 1e I really got into human-centric games so that's generally my preference nowadays. But I did like Dwarfs the psychos they were. And maybe it's also because I'm more into lower fantasy now as well.

But I've really gone off elves (just too cool for school!). :(

I did like playing Ocs in MERP we played an entire campaign, it was a lot of fun (although we were not popular with humans).

I'm also getting a little tired of the various 'new' fantasy games being released with rejigging same material over and over again... That's one of the reasons I like Sybaroum. Sure, the races are in there but in name only. They've really tried to do something original. Like Elves, who are damn scary as they get older and pretty unrecognisable.

Do you think new game's designers should try to do something a little different with the usual fantasy races? Or are you happy enough with he status quo. Personally I'd like to see some of the tropes freshened up a bit, but that's just me.

Thoughts?

Ta'.

Tieflings and Dragonborn are awful.

The only race I'm aware of that I actively hate are DRAGONLANCE's gully dwarves. Tinker gnomes and kender can work if you dial down the self-parody quite a bit, but gully dwarves ... sorry, not feeling it.

Like:  Humans, a narrow slice of elves (roughly, either the 5E high elves or wood elves as a concept), dwarves, halflings.  It's rare for me to have a campaign without them, though the players don't always pick certain ones.

Dislike:  Tielflings, half anything including half elves, most "monsters as races", exotic sub races.

OK in small doses (not every campaign, rare player character):  Dragonborn (called something else, repurposed), gnomes (when not a monster or evil race), very occasionally one monster race as a people that is player character option--maybe goblin this campaign, orc or lizard man 2 or 3 campaigns later.  That kind of thing.

Elves.

Quote from: Nerzenjäger;1046215Tieflings and Dragonborn are awful.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1046220Like:  Humans, a narrow slice of elves (roughly, either the 5E high elves or wood elves as a concept), dwarves, halflings.  It's rare for me to have a campaign without them, though the players don't always pick certain ones.

Dislike:  Tielflings, half anything including half elves, most "monsters as races", exotic sub races.

OK in small doses (not every campaign, rare player character):  Dragonborn (called something else, repurposed), gnomes (when not a monster or evil race), very occasionally one monster race as a people that is player character option--maybe goblin this campaign, orc or lizard man 2 or 3 campaigns later.  That kind of thing.

Tieflings are awesome you potion of cure serious wounds factory line rejects.

I don't like Dragonborn much.  Though, I tell people it's the males that have breasts because, like seahorses, they have pouches to carry the eggs.

Tieflings are a bit annoying.

I don't hate elves but I tend to make them self centered assholes with a real dark side.

I hate halflings. Whether the traditional pseudo-hobbit pseudo-short English country gentlemen or WotC's later attempt at reinterpreting them to be some kind of diminutive ninjas, I just don't care for them. Neither fits into the kinds of worlds I want to play in (or run).

I don't like any of the other half races either (half-elf, half-orc). I don't think they should be separate races. Instead, it should be some kind of feat or trait you can take at character creation that modifies your character from the standard version of the race. I think HARP's implementation is fairly elegant.

Quote from: Nerzenjäger;1046215Tieflings and Dragonborn are awful.

Oh man... Ugh! They sound like every kid's wet dream to play. Very cheesy in my opinion and wouldn't suit my games at all. But each to their own and all. ;)

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1046216The only race I'm aware of that I actively hate are DRAGONLANCE's gully dwarves. Tinker gnomes and kender can work if you dial down the self-parody quite a bit, but gully dwarves ... sorry, not feeling it.

Not ever heard of them so I had to look at a wiki. Um... Yeah, they sound utterly pointless. Might be a bit of fun just chopping them to bits but other than that.

Quote from: David Johansen;1046224II don't hate elves but I tend to make them self centered assholes with a real dark side.

I could probably live with that alright. :)

So far nothing has really stood out as a hard "NO" for me. It is all about how someone plays the character.

Quote from: Nerzenjäger;1046215Tieflings and Dragonborn are awful.

I had to deal with my first Tiefling Edgelord in 1995. I also had my first Drizzt clone in 1995. I'll toss elves onto the list. There's a reason most of my games are Modern or Sci-Fi.

Quote from: Omega;1046237So far nothing has really stood out as a hard "NO" for me. It is all about how someone plays the character.

If I run D&D, I don't bar anything. I may not like stuff but I'm not going to bar core races because they annoy me.

For playable character races:

Likes: Humans, dwarves, elves, and orcs

Dislikes: Halflings, gnomes, goblins, 'half-races'

Hates: Dragonborn (stupid idea), Tiefling (more stupid idea), and anything weird (most stupid idea; Aarakocra, Kuo-toa, Satyr, etc.)

In my fantasy game, for player races, there are 3 'types' of humans ('standard', 'elite' (think 'high elf' version), and 'mutated' w/lizard blood, looks human, but with slightly reptilian 'features' like finely scaled skin, slightly 'hooded' eyes, and better able to heal), a dwarf race, 2 orc races (less savage looking and slightly more civilized than normal orcs), and a race I made that's essentially an amalgamation of goblin, halfling, and wild elf (forest/jungle dwelling in trees and earthen mounds; a bit feral; about the height of a dwarf, but not nearly as stocky). Elves are evil in my world and not a playable race. Apart from goblins and satyrs, my 'dislikes' and 'hates' from above don't even exist in my world.

I have no problem with the Freak Factory idea of lots of races in a game. My old 80's campaign was full of wierdo race characters, long before there were Dragonborn and Tieflings.


One race that does rub me the wrong way is the Kender. For one specific reason. They have the racial advantage of being immune to fear, but Death Knights override that because the setting's darling, Lord Soth should be scary to everyone.
*rolleyes*

Generally, I agree with Omega. It's how the character is played.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1046243One race that does rub me the wrong way is the Kender. For one specific reason. They have the racial advantage of being immune to fear, but Death Knights override that because the setting's darling, Lord Soth should be scary to everyone.

In our old Campaign, Krynn was eaten by Chthonic entities known as the Worm Gods.

I have a legacy dislike of gnomes.  Firstly, they had bad art when I was forming my opinion of them.  Gnomes were typically drawn to look goofy.  Secondly, they seemed so extraneous.  Don't want to play a dwarf or a halfling?  Here's the other short shit race!  Thirdly, my best friend WOULD NOT SHUT UP ABOUT HOW AWESOME HIS GNOME CHARACTER WAS.  I got so damn sick of hearing about his goddamn gnome.

I dislike Kender too.  I love Dragonlance, but Tas is extremely irritating.  There was a player component to this too.  We had a player who loved Tas in the novels and was just as much a klepto.  Whenever we brought up D&D, whether Dragonlance or not, he always insisted on playing Tas.

Not really fond of halflings/hobbits in general, but that's for no particular reason.

And... that's really it.

I like Dragonborn.  Cool reptile races are cool.  Dragons are cool.  Dragon men are double cool.  Lizard men are good, but Dragonborn have that extra oomph.  Plus the potential for wings.  Winged dragon men = triple cool.

I liked Eladrin.  Elves have been so downgraded and downplayed over they years to the point where they're just humans with pointed ears.  I liked the idea of nuElves which restored at least some of the exceptionalism of elves.  I liked the idea that they could do limited teleporting at will as it really emphasized a magic nature.

I like Humans.  Not everyone has to be some other species.

Quote from: Technomancer;1046227I hate halflings. Whether the traditional pseudo-hobbit pseudo-short English country gentlemen or WotC's later attempt at reinterpreting them to be some kind of diminutive ninjas, I just don't care for them. Neither fits into the kinds of worlds I want to play in (or run).

I don't like any of the other half races either (half-elf, half-orc). I don't think they should be separate races. Instead, it should be some kind of feat or trait you can take at character creation that modifies your character from the standard version of the race. I think HARP's implementation is fairly elegant.

Wouldn't be my favorite at all either... They were not too bad in WFRP as they are generally understated. But I really don't like the fact that they are the true heroes behind the scenes of Tolkien type stuff. I know that doesn't nessasasrily apply to an RPG but it's always at the back of my mind; like the poxy Ewoks who defeated the mighty Imperial army. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Nerzenjäger;1046215Tieflings and Dragonborn are awful.

Literally the worst part of the 5th edition PHB...I wish I could rip those pages out without fucking up my book.

Probably in the minority, but I really like halflings and even Kender. Heh.

Prefer human-only, tolerate basic elves/dwarves and really dislike most of the rest, such halflings and all the dragonborn and tiefling type garbage that I first saw in 4E. I wouldn't mind an occasional game where people played a robot, a slime, a fairy etc. Kind of a monster party, if you will.

Quote from: Brad;1046253Literally the worst part of the 5th edition PHB...I wish I could rip those pages out without fucking up my book.

Probably in the minority, but I really like halflings and even Kender. Heh.

I made a print copy of the basic rules on Lulu before the books came out. It works fine.

Quote from: Krimson;1046259I made a print copy of the basic rules on Lulu before the books came out. It works fine.

Will Lulu print copyrighted material?

I like most all races, and I add as many as possible - I like my pubs in a big city to feel like the Star Wars Cantina (and no my games are not human-centric).  

I don't even play short races of any sort (Halfling, Dwarf, Gnome), but I don't mind them being around when I GM.

Quote from: Krimson;1046259I made a print copy of the basic rules on Lulu before the books came out. It works fine.

The basic rules don't have paladins and gnomes...so that won't work.

Well I almost always play non-D&D fantasy settings that are either TFT-like (where there are dwarves, elves, orcs, goblins, hobgoblins, halflings, and maybe reptile men as PC options, but they're not the same things they are in D&D - orcs/elves/dwarves are closer to humans), home-brew and/or GURPS versions that are also generally more human and not D&D-like.

But, I tend to like dwarves, tend to find many elves boring, tend to find halflings annoying, tend to find orcs a bit violent and unlikable (with exceptions), find TFT goblin interesting but weak, and TFT hobgoblins weak and comical.

I'm pretty averse to various D&D races that seem weird or exaggerated to me, e.g. Drow, and the charicature-ish aspects of dwarves & elves & orcs & gnomes... But especially the stuff that seems weirder than I want to even exist in my gameworlds, like Dragonborn, Kobolds or Tieflings.

Quote from: Technomancer;1046227I hate halflings. Whether the traditional pseudo-hobbit pseudo-short English country gentlemen or WotC's later attempt at reinterpreting them to be some kind of diminutive ninjas, I just don't care for them. Neither fits into the kinds of worlds I want to play in (or run).

I have the same feeling about halflings. In fact, I feel that "country gentlemen" is the very definition of a villager, as opposed to an adventurer. That said, halflings as wily pygmy jungle folk fit just fine in my world.

Depends on the campaign.
In some, I can like humans, trolls, orks, drow, tieflings and their half-races, and dislike everything else.
In others, I can like only humans, and consider everything else a waste of paper.
In really well-made settings, like Glorantha, I can play any race without issues.

I have a mild distaste for tiefling as a race. I like the individual tiefling struggling with his dual infernal/human nature, but a whole race of that seems overkill to me. It's too much like "the Player Characters' race for juvenile emo players".

I have rarely seen an halfling well portrayed by a player, but I actually like this race.

I like drows mainly as an NPC race, though I acknowledge that there's a good roleplaying potential in a "Drow who is not Drizz't" PC (and in LARPs nothing beats a lithe chick who goes for the "evil Drow priestess" schtick ;-).

Dragonborns are "meh" to me.

I like well-played gnomes of the obnoxious sort.

I dig half-orcs.

I don't hate any race, I'm with Omega, it's not the race, it's how it's played.

But I do have issues, more confusion, about two races as typically portrayed in Dungeons and Dragons and that is the Gnome and Halfling.  They're often too much alike, with only a couple of superficial differences.  In fact, Gnomes seem to be a mashup of Dwarves and Halflings.  They have the Dwarven sense of crafting and live in Hobbit like burrows.

Personally, and I'm going to get burned at the stake for this, but I actually like what 4e tried to do with Halflings by making them into River Gypsies, it was inventive and different enough to give them a new identity that wasn't/isn't still leashed to Tokien.

I've only played in one non-D&D campaign that even had gnomes, and it was mainly one NPC gnome who was a D&D gnome and sort of a joke character, who to me seemed like a weird intrustion from the D&D-gnome-concept, which I don't really get. I don't really like "fantasy mechanicians" either, or at least I've never seen them well-done. The existence of fantasy mechanicians seems to signal to me that the setting is declaring that things don't need to make sense.

Tiefling, Dragonborn, Kender, Drow, Equestria. Just off the top of my head.

I've thankfully forgotten what Kender are, but I'm pretty sure... (does web search, ugh, yeah) ... I don't like them.

"Equestria" I am not going to research, but it reminds me TFT & GURPS have Centaurs, and that I don't like Centaurs to exist, even as NPCs.

Oh yeah and there are many terrible races I don't want to exist in GURPS Fantasy Folk, too. I even tried playing with some of them. Some could be ok, but I really like the number of non-human races to be limited, not abundant, as they tend to complicate a setting and make it less believable for me. GURPS Fantasy Folk has "Exalted Horses", which are a bit like My Little Pony or Flutter Ponies without wings or something, and are available in strawberry color IIRC. I played one in an arena combat once. It was also the first time I was trying out the GURPS momentum rules, and I charged forward to trample my opponent into the dirt. He stepped sideways, and my Exalted Horse found itself unable to decelerate in time to avoid crashing into the arena wall behind the foe, knocking itself unconscious, bringing my experience with Exalted Horses to a slapstick and mercifully quick halt! (So, I played an Exalted Horse for about two seconds of game time.)

Quote from: Chainsaw;1046257Prefer human-only, tolerate basic elves/dwarves and really dislike most of the rest, such halflings and all the dragonborn and tiefling type garbage that I first saw in 4E. I wouldn't mind an occasional game where people played a robot, a slime, a fairy etc. Kind of a monster party, if you will.

I'm kinda here as well... But wouldn't be adverse to playing something different for a one-shot or something.

Quote from: Omega;1046237So far nothing has really stood out as a hard "NO" for me. It is all about how someone plays the character.

That's definitely the most important part of it alright... But just certain character aspects just stick in my craw. I think some of these uber races would always bring out the bad in a lot of players (for the most part). Some are a bit too outlandish for my own personal taste as well. Becuase I tend to like low fantasy stuff for my actual fantasy settings.

Quote from: VincentTakeda;1046319Tiefling, Dragonborn, Kender, Drow, Equestria. Just off the top of my head.

I've not heard of the Kender, so I had to do another wiki. Pixie kind of things?? Another race definitely not for me...

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1046297Personally, and I'm going to get burned at the stake for this, but I actually like what 4e tried to do with Halflings by making them into River Gypsies, it was inventive and different enough to give them a new identity that wasn't/isn't still leashed to Tokien.

Halfings in Birthright are river gypsies.

As for my own tastes in random order, I like humans in all settings. Elves are boring to me in most settings except Dark Sun. Dwarfs are meh, as are halflings. Don't like half races, except perhaps Mül. Warforged are quite cool. I also liked tieflings in Planescape, but current all tieflings look the same and are a true race take is not so thrilling. Changelings are cool too. I have banned dragonborn from my games on the grounds of them being a 4e marketing move. Drow edgelords can go back underground for all I care, but on the other hand if I were to run/play an underdark campaign, suddenly they become a viable choice. Gnomes I can stand, but I can't see myself playing one.

Lion people as proud warriors? Fine. Ok, they're Klingons with fur.

Tiger men that are just ogre magi with stripes? Why not? Sounds cool.

Bipedal jaguars that want to stalk you in the jungle and capture you alive to sacrifice to their gods on the top of their ziggurat? Awesome.

"Cat people" that act like a cross between an annoyingly immature anime girl and a house pet because it's "cute"? Have that shit spayed or neutered before there are any more roaming the streets.

Quote from: Brad;1046253Literally the worst part of the 5th edition PHB...I wish I could rip those pages out without fucking up my book.

No need to worry.  If it is like many of the other 5e PHBs, it will fall apart soon enough and you can easily dispose of those pages then.   At least the Half- whatever races are optional.  

I dislike all of the 1/2- whatevs, 1/2 elf, 1/2 orc, 1/2 devil (tiefling), 1/2 dragon (dragonborn), 1/2 bird (aarakocra), 1/2 elemental (genasi) and with a recent Unearthed Arcana, 1/2 horse (centaur) and 1/2 bull (minotaur)  With the latter, should there also be a 1/2 cow option?  How about some gender options?  The lower half of the centaur and minotaur can be male and the upper half female?  (a little fantasy futanari to appease a certain sort.  Don't search that word at work, BTW.)  WotC missed an opportunity to be more inclusive here.  

Someone had to say it.    

Give elves the problems handling iron, like in folklore.  Makes things interesting.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1046262Will Lulu print copyrighted material?

There was no watermark and I just printed it for personal use. I did the same thing with Marvel Heroic Roleplaying Annihilation since that was the only way to get it in print.

Quote from: Brad;1046269The basic rules don't have paladins and gnomes...so that won't work.

But the SRD does and it's also free.

As with everything, depends on its implementation.

Dwarf: Warhammer "drunken Scotsmen" dwarves get really fucking old after a while as that's less a race than a one-note personality type. Tend to go back to Tolkien with these guys and then make them a bit weirder. Close-mouthed clannish greedy jerks in robes who wear iron masks to keep out the sun, keep tongueless goblin slaves, and refuse to sleep above ground. Had fun playing an lower upper-middle class dwarf who hired a valet.

Halfling: OK, as long as you don't try to turn them into badasses in a really forced and annoying way. Halflings aren't supposed to be badasses.

Elves: good as long as you make them properly fey, not a bunch of ren faire dorks.

Like the humanoid races as long as you differentiate them and give them their own cultures, not just a palette swap of the same basic thing. My last setting I cooked up had deranged druidic goblins, mercentary masochistic Quechuaish orcs, Aborigone/weird-ass gnoll biology gnolls, kobolds are figments of dragon memory, and lizardmen caravan merchants whose voices could only be heard by children due to their high pitch. Pretty much all of them the PCs got along better with than with my jerkass dwarves and elves.

In earlier years I would play anything but human - humans were boring! Bring on dwarves, elves, centaurs, pixies, mongrelmen, trolls (shadowrun) you name it I played it!

Recently however I prefer a low magic game and prefer humans and dwarves. Dislike Tolkien elves, but like Dark Sun version, or other versions where elves are decadent, twisted folk due to their insanely long lives (eg 13th Age's drug addled elf city, forget the name). Halflings I dislike, except again Dark Sun version, or Kender. Love kender! Warforged I also like.

Dislike gnomes. I dont get them, I guess they're mini elves? Definitely don't like Tieflings or Dragonborn. If half the party are monstrous, it makes the "real" monsters less scary. Although having said that, I like Draconians out of Krynn. As baddies.

I dont mind half orcs and so on. I quite like that idea actually.

Quote from: Krimson;1046331There was no watermark and I just printed it for personal use. I did the same thing with Marvel Heroic Roleplaying Annihilation since that was the only way to get it in print.

Hmmm. I've been looking to get my Transformers RPG printed up, so I have it in proper book format.

Quote from: The Exploited.;1046234Oh man... Ugh! They sound like every kid's wet dream to play. Very cheesy in my opinion and wouldn't suit my games at all. But each to their own and all. ;)

There's only one place for crazy stuff like that: RIFTS. And there you can play a Dragon proper. THAT's a kid's wet dream.

Kind of depends on the campaign. I'm normally okay with dwarves, elves, and humans as a default. Not too big on halflings (swap them out with more Germanic-spirit kobolds to make them a bit more interesting than Small-sneaky humanoid), and orcs really bug me (not as a monster, but as a playable race).

Quote from: Nerzenjäger;1046357There's only one place for crazy stuff like that: RIFTS. And there you can play a Dragon proper. THAT's a kid's wet dream.

haw haw... That's very true! I remember a lad in our group playing a young dragon (it was rather annoying). :)

Quote from: antiochcow;1046358orcs really bug me (not as a monster, but as a playable race).

I get that... One of the things I get very sick of is when players play a monster as they would as a slightly grumpy human. For me, Orcs are pretty alien emotionally compared to humans at any rate. So the only way to do the role any justice is to try to get into that monstrous mindset.

Quote from: Daztur;1046346Dwarf: Warhammer "drunken Scotsmen" dwarves get really fucking old after a while as that's less a race than a one-note personality type.

Very true

Quote from: Daztur;1046346Halfling: OK, as long as you don't try to turn them into badasses in a really forced and annoying way. Halflings aren't supposed to be badasses.

Elves: good as long as you make them properly fey, not a bunch of ren faire dorks.

Seconded.

Quote from: Nerzenjäger;1046215Tieflings and Dragonborn are awful.

Yes, they are.

Quote from: Psikerlord;1046351Dislike gnomes. I dont get them, I guess they're mini elves?

The way that gnomes work for me is to play them surface according to the stereotypes--mostly cheerful, good-natured little people.  Then make them slightly sinister due to (insert appropriate campaign reason here that is unknown to the players).  That's why I use them sparingly in only some campaigns.  If a player gets a gnome, they are an outcast that doesn't know campaign secret, either, but might have some clues about it in their background.

Quote from: Skarg;1046320He stepped sideways, and my Exalted Horse found itself unable to decelerate in time to avoid crashing into the arena wall behind the foe, knocking itself unconscious, bringing my experience with Exalted Horses to a slapstick and mercifully quick halt! (So, I played an Exalted Horse for about two seconds of game time.)

Ha! Great mental image. At least it was over quick. My brother had a similar experience playing a dragon in an arena match we ran for experimental purposes, except he flew into a heavy parapet which knocked him unconscious while trying to strafe a line of bowmen with his flame breath, then fell around 200 feet into a moat below and drowned before he came to his senses (p.s. if you're wondering about the layout of the castle, no, it was not at all plausible or realistic; it was just a big playground arena designed to take up our entire playmat!)

I was always under the impression that the "Exalted Horses" as they're called were supposed to be imitations of Shadowfax and other 'intelligent/noble' horses along those lines; I'll have to go back and take another look at the entry. I've never used them at all, personally, and regardless of the intent behind them I'm hardpressed to imagine a scenario where they would fit into any of my campaigns.

As far as the thread topic goes, early Warhammer Fantasy nurtured a fondness in me for different varieties of lizardmen. I don't usually scatter them all around though as I prefer them to be more generally secluded when not living primarily inside their own enclaves (their biology and eating/speaking restrictions making them somewhat alien to more 'mundane' character races). In the settings I run racial monocultures don't exist, so each geographic region where lizardmen are present tends to have traditions, behaviors and mannerisms distinct from the others. I'll sometimes throw one into role as a smith or potter if they're found at all in cooler climates, where a hot kiln or etc. consistently firing in their home is itself a form of comfort.

I don't really hate any fantasy character races, but unless I can find a place where they actually fit into the setting and plausibly occupy their own niche then I usually cut them or alter them drastically enough to make them a more interesting/plausible fit. I tend towards "less is more" and only add what I think will be interesting and distinct enough to be worth wasting words and playtime on.

I will say that I hate the "pastiche effect" where there are 12 different variants each of 18 different races, where the lines between and conceptual boundaries blur to the point of meaninglessness. Why not just have, say, 4 to 8 extremely distinct fantasy character races with very interesting histories, places in the world and well-fleshed interactions between them?

I'd really like to see something a little different in the fantasy genre... I really wonder why people just keep regurgitating the same old material.

It seems every time I log into Drivthru there's a new fantasy game with the obligatory tagline: New fantastic quick and easy system! Better then anything you've seen before. Now you can play as a Human, Elf, Dwarf or Hobbit. Help Save the kingdom from DRAAAGONS!

At least Dark Sun was doing something different.

Sigh... :(

These types of games have already been done really well especially in OSR. It seems most people are trying to reinvent the wheel but as far as I'm concerned it already exists. So why not do something a little different like Symbaroum, etc.?

Well it's a setting-conceit thing for me. If we're talking Spelljammer or Planescape anything goes for me.

But races I think are dumb and/or redundant in modern D&D:

Half-orcs. Never liked them.
Dragon-anything. Stupid.
Tieflings/Aasimar - INCREDIBLY overplayed. Conceptually I kinda get it. But they're the super-snowflakes that no one plays remotely consistent with their conceits. Anyone that wants to play one in my game is in for a ride...
Eladrin - They're called Elves. Pick a sub-race and stfu.

Quote from: The Exploited.;1046408I'd really like to see something a little different in the fantasy genre... I really wonder why people just keep regurgitating the same old material.

You should make a thread called "Pitch me a one-page Fantasy setting".

Quote from: tenbones;1046480Well it's a setting-conceit thing for me. If we're talking Spelljammer or Planescape anything goes for me.

Yeah, this is fair. If I'm playing Rifts or Gamma World I'd fully expect everything and more to be thrown in the gumbo pot. Part of the appeal and all.

Quote from: The Exploited.;1046386I get that... One of the things I get very sick of is when players play a monster as they would as a slightly grumpy human. For me, Orcs are pretty alien emotionally compared to humans at any rate. So the only way to do the role any justice is to try to get into that monstrous mindset.

Yeeep. It bugs me even more when they're portrayed as simply misunderstood, as if they're just basically humans but with grey or green skin.

Quote from: The Exploited.;1046408I'd really like to see something a little different in the fantasy genre... I really wonder why people just keep regurgitating the same old material.

"You can only be avant-garde so long before you become garde."  (Not sure who said it.)  That's because it's all people making a character that is going to be played by a person, and there is nothing new under the sun.  The more "different" that people try to be, the less material is there to rebel against.

I've a particular love of what used to be the Core Race. Humans, Halflings, Dwarves and Elves. Gnomes IMO are just a type of Halfling, and Orcs...I'm neutral.

Dragonborn can fuck right off. Teiflings were ok when they looked like humans just...off. Now that both races have gone full freak show, I can't stand them. And I like monstrous races like Lizardmen and Hobgoblins.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1046536Dragonborn can fuck right off. Teiflings were ok when they looked like humans just...off. Now that both races have gone full freak show, I can't stand them.

Compare: A Tiefling from Shadows over Amn with the latest Tiefling art

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2581[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1046547Compare: A Tiefling from Shadows over Amn with the latest Tiefling art

[ATTACH=CONFIG]2581[/ATTACH]

I'm assuming the left one is a Tiefling, but he looks like a scarred half-elf...  Not very interesting.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1046559I'm assuming the left one is a Tiefling, but he looks like a scarred half-elf...  Not very interesting.

Old school Tieflings had small tells, like claws, glowing eyes or a faint oder of brimstone. They could pass for normal if they tried, but were generally reviled for their otherworldly ancestry.

NuTieflings are freak show snowflakes that should have been drowned at birth.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1046582NuTieflings are freak show snowflakes that should have been drowned at birth.

They fit a  Robert Lynn Asprin style of world, if that is what you are going for. Tieflings, or rather infernal ancestory, can also be done on the minimalist way like the Damien Thorn/He Never Died (Henry Rollins)/Balthazar (Constantine film). I guess the default compromise is some telling feature that gives it away on a cursory inspection.

I thought Fantastic Heroes & Witchery did it really well. Check out the free pdf at http://www.dcrouzet.net/heroes-witchery/

p15,

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1046582Old school Tieflings had small tells, like claws, glowing eyes or a faint oder of brimstone. They could pass for normal if they tried, but were generally reviled for their otherworldly ancestry.

NuTieflings are freak show snowflakes that should have been drowned at birth.

Honestly, what I wonder is why they weren't drowned at birth;).

There is a proverb in Italian

Ogni scarrafone è bello a mamma sua

Even a cockroach  is beautiful to his mother

ETA: plus that whole Rosemary's baby cult thing.

I mean, how do you think Rupert Murdoch was allowed to grow up?

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1046612There is a proverb in Italian

Ogni scarrafone è bello a mamma sua

Even a cockroach  is beautiful to his mother

ETA: plus that whole Rosemary's baby cult thing.

I mean, how do you think Rupert Murdoch was allowed to grow up?

The cult was what I was thinking, too. And you make a good point about the mothers:).
Of course, it implies weird things about the setting if there's a whole race of those that were allowed to grow up;).

Is there a Tiefling nation?

Is there even a Tiefling ethnicity?

I would make a guess that 9 time out of 10 the back story of the Tiefling is some orphan/outcast/illegitimate/unwanted child of human parents in a conservative society.

Yep, a woe-is-misunderstood-accursed-me wankfest for a drama queen with added angst.

Quote from: antiochcow;1046498Yeeep. It bugs me even more when they're portrayed as simply misunderstood, as if they're just basically humans but with grey or green skin.

Absolutely man... Being 'misunderstood' is really cheesy. When I GM, I make sure everyone is on the same page when we decide to play something different so to speak. I also impart that if you are paying something like an Orc or an Ogre (or whatever) then you are absolutely not human and shouldn't behave like a grumpy cockney.

Quote from: tenbones;1046480Well it's a setting-conceit thing for me. If we're talking Spelljammer or Planescape anything goes for me.

But races I think are dumb and/or redundant in modern D&D:

Half-orcs. Never liked them.
Dragon-anything. Stupid.
Tieflings/Aasimar - INCREDIBLY overplayed. Conceptually I kinda get it. But they're the super-snowflakes that no one plays remotely consistent with their conceits. Anyone that wants to play one in my game is in for a ride...
Eladrin - They're called Elves. Pick a sub-race and stfu.

I'd agree with you mate... The setting can determine what type of character you can get away with. If it's a bit of an oddball setting then I can see a diverse range of characters being available I've not really a problem with that per se. I more hate the twee nature of certain character concepts. Like the munchkin Tieflings or Dragon born.

Like what a few OPs have already said you could mold a good game out of them - if the GM made a concerted effort and had the right players. Like some kind of horrific cult or Rosemary's baby. That'd probably send da' emo kids home running!

Quote from: AsenRG;1046613The cult was what I was thinking, too. And you make a good point about the mothers:).
Of course, it implies weird things about the setting if there's a whole race of those that were allowed to grow up;).

We are actually getting into interesting territory here with horror, cults, and infernal babies.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1046535"You can only be avant-garde so long before you become garde."  (Not sure who said it.)  That's because it's all people making a character that is going to be played by a person, and there is nothing new under the sun.  The more "different" that people try to be, the less material is there to rebel against.

Yeah, I'd pretty much agree, that everything has been done before. The trick is to take the bits you want and then arrange it in the way you want the game to play. It's all on the back of giants! :)

But what really surprises me (and bugs me), is that game designers keep regurgitating the same old fantasy tropes and try to sell it as something new. At least games like 'Belly of the beast' are different takes on the traditional fantasy setting. Although, while I really like the game it feels a little sparse in places.

Also, it's how these characters are played by players...

Quote from: The Exploited.;1046622Yeah, I'd pretty much agree, that everything has been done before. The trick is to take the bits you want and then arrange it in the way you want the game to play. It's all on the back of giants! :)

But what really surprises me (and bugs me), is that game designers keep regurgitating the same old fantasy tropes and try to sell it as something new. At least games like 'Belly of the beast' are different takes on the traditional fantasy setting. Although, while I really like the game it feels a little sparse in places.

Also, it's how these characters are played by players...

I agree with all that.  Then I'd take it a step further:  You'll get more interesting rearranging of bits by the players if the stuff they start with is more traditional fantasy.  The pursuit of novelty by game designers has given us a host of Drizzt clones, and then a pile of tielfings and dragonborn by the players that have learned to sneer at Drizzt clones.  The instinct by some players to rebel is itself regurgitated, because all of their easy, good options are being made tired by the designers.

Contrast that with what I did in my current campaign:  I made "drow" just another elf race for the most part, except that they lived in mountains, and for the most part got along with dwarves well, unlike their wood elf cousins (who are generally friendly with anyone that wasn't cutting down their trees, and not with anyone else, and tend to have an Irish wanderlust) and their high elf cousins (who are generally snooty and isolationist).  That's not saying anything about how I view drow all the time.  It's how it works in this particular campaign.  That's almost bog standard high elf and wood elf, with drow toned down to fit a niche that could almost be bog-standard.  Sounds boring.

What I got out of that conceit was:  A wood elf ranger that was distrustful of people because she hadn't traveled much, a wood elf that was a sailor druid and a very different personality, a drow rogue that was quite friendly if sly.  Later, as I added a second group, we got some stereotypical characters, as you'd expect with new players, but also got a snooty high elf rogue.  And that's the way the characters started.  Their personalities have emerged and changed and grown in play.

PCs are often supposed to be a little weird.  They need a backdrop to be weird against.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1046614Is there a Tiefling nation?

Is there even a Tiefling ethnicity?

I would make a guess that 9 time out of 10 the back story of the Tiefling is some orphan/outcast/illegitimate/unwanted child of human parents in a conservative society.

Yep, a woe-is-misunderstood-accursed-me wankfest for a drama queen with added angst.

  Depends on the version. 4E, which dialed up the size of the horns and tails, also made them a distinct offshoot of humanity with their own ancient empire and cultural history.  Not a nice history--being the remnants of an Evil Empire that pledged themselves and their posterity to devils--and with a lot of room for 'misunderstood outsider', but not just something that would 'pop up' among humans unexpectedly.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1046628Depends on the version. 4E, which dialed up the size of the horns and tails, also made them a distinct offshoot of humanity with their own ancient empire and cultural history.  Not a nice history--being the remnants of an Evil Empire that pledged themselves and their posterity to devils--and with a lot of room for 'misunderstood outsider', but not just something that would 'pop up' among humans unexpectedly.

See now THAT would make a good infernal race: Evil Empire of devil worshippers. Lawful Evil as a society with slavery, torture and expansionism. If you wanna play a good tiefling, you are an outcast at home and abroad. People hate you because of your race and what they did. You wanna "explore themes of social justice"? Okay, you play a tiefling, let's call them Men of Zarnok (Hungarian for tyrant), and not only do you face prejudice, your nation actually deserves it.

Popcorn at the ready...

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1046629See now THAT would make a good infernal race: Evil Empire of devil worshippers. Lawful Evil as a society with slavery, torture and expansionism. If you wanna play a good tiefling, you are an outcast at home and abroad. People hate you because of your race and what they did. You wanna "explore themes of social justice"? Okay, you play a tiefling, let's call them Men of Zarnok (Hungarian for tyrant), and not only do you face prejudice, your nation actually deserves it.

Popcorn at the ready...

When you want to play a drow, but lawful with more accessories.

Races that I despise are ones which players typically play in order to piss everybody else off at the game table like Kender, Malkavians, Gungans, and Ewoks.

In my fifth edition campaign the evil kingdom of Throndar's nobility are mostly tieflings.

At one point the party wandered into a farming village and their wizard was mistaken for a warlock.  A cry went up "A witch!  A witch," the characters prepared for battle, "hurrah a witch."  They were then feasted and pestered for minor magical cures and solutions.

Quote from: jeff37923;1046633Races that I despise are ones which players typically play in order to piss everybody else off at the game table like Kender, Malkavians, Gungans, and Ewoks.

But then you relocate the game and absentmindedly forget to mention it to said player and all is well. :D

Quote from: David Johansen;1046634In my fifth edition campaign the evil kingdom of Throndar's nobility are mostly tieflings.

Were they, with a few rare exceptions, sinister tyrants with dark secrets that made the Lannisters look like the Waltons?

Or like this...

http://eleoradraws.tumblr.com/post/133412874540/my-beautiful-tiefling-paladin-azami-from-our-5th

Quote from: Krimson;1046635But then you relocate the game and absentmindedly forget to mention it to said player and all is well. :D

Nope. I either:

A) Refuse to let the character to be created for that race.

or

B) Kill that character off within the first 5 minutes of the game.

Quote from: jeff37923;1046633Kender, Malkavians, Gungans, and Ewoks.

Those character races that should be nuked of the face of RPGs altogether.

Quote from: jeff37923;1046637Nope. I either:

A) Refuse to let the character to be created for that race.

or

B) Kill that character off within the first 5 minutes of the game.

Odds are good that a disruptive player is just going to find another way to be disruptive. I'm not a fan of disallowing things that are in the rules or killing off characters out of spite. That just encourages them. And sometimes players do need to be removed. And at least one time physically ejected from the property.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1046614Is there a Tiefling nation?

Was.  An empire that got in conflict with, I think Dragon Born and both sides got smushed pretty badly to the point where the Teefies got scattered around the continent.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1046614Is there even a Tiefling ethnicity?

Yes.  They are a half-human, half-devil species that breeds true.  In Greyhawk and the Forgotten Realms.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1046614I would make a guess that 9 time out of 10 the back story of the Tiefling is some orphan/outcast/illegitimate/unwanted child of human parents in a conservative society.

Not in baseline D&D 4 and 5e.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1046614Yep, a woe-is-misunderstood-accursed-me wankfest for a drama queen with added angst.

And Good aligned Drow get a pass on this because they look like Elves?  Or Half-Elves, who were a playable outsider archetype first?

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1046614Is there a Tiefling nation?

Is there even a Tiefling ethnicity?

I would make a guess that 9 time out of 10 the back story of the Tiefling is some orphan/outcast/illegitimate/unwanted child of human parents in a conservative society.

Yep, a woe-is-misunderstood-accursed-me wankfest for a drama queen with added angst.

If you include 4e materials, then there was a Tiefling nation. Of course, it fell and the survivors of that fall are all outcasts now so crank the angst up a little further.

I tend to play around with the races until I like them. For example, I do not have half-elves as a biological crossing of humans and elves (which I do not have as being interfertile). Instead they are humans that lived and bred in the Feywild (where I have elves originate as per Fey Ancestry) and were changed (much like how TORG cosms can alter people, except the change sticks even after the half-elves leave the Feywild). They are referred to as half-elves because the changes make them "elf-like" not because of blood.

Quote from: Krimson;1046644Odds are good that a disruptive player is just going to find another way to be disruptive. I'm not a fan of disallowing things that are in the rules or killing off characters out of spite. That just encourages them. And sometimes players do need to be removed. And at least one time physically ejected from the property.

I don't have a problem with ejecting a disruptive player. Those races I mentioned, are usually early indications that the player intends to be disruptive.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1046582Old school Tieflings had small tells, like claws, glowing eyes or a faint oder of brimstone. They could pass for normal if they tried, but were generally reviled for their otherworldly ancestry.

NuTieflings are freak show snowflakes that should have been drowned at birth.

So, old school Tieflings were supposed to be reviled in theory, but actually weren't reviled in practice because they could easily pass as normal. New school Tieflings are actually reviled and people claim they "should have been drowned at birth". It sounds like the new Tieflings hit their design goals better than the old ones.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1046647And Good aligned Drow get a pass on this because they look like Elves?  Or Half-Elves, who were a playable outsider archetype first?

Well Drow are even more a case of angsty-snowflake bollocks.

Interestingly enough, Fantastic Heros and Witchcraft, linked above, has Drow as a form of elven tiefling.

 I am not stopping any other DMs from whatever they like in their campaign, btw. Just expressing MY preference as requested in the title of this thread.

Would definitely have menagerie foolks in an Asprinesque setting or Planescape or Talislanta which is one of my faves.

I just intensly dislike the tiefling, drow, dragonwank "speshul" characters in what is, in the main, vanilla D&D.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1046648If you include 4e materials, then there was a Tiefling nation. Of course, it fell and the survivors of that fall are all outcasts now so crank the angst up a little further.

Ohhh, that's too easy. An ex-empire? Scattered diaspora?

Nope.

That  makes the tiefling the persecuted minority.

Fuck that.

If I ran them Tieflings would be the dark lords of GranBretan crossed with Greyhawk's Horned Society. They a part of an empire that enslaves its neighbours, tortures its enemies and practices genocide on halflings.

Why?

Because they are fucking EVIL. They are full blown sadistic power hungry narcissists and worship dark infernal spirits. Human sacrifice, blood sports, black masses, the lot.

After all, if you accept that they are spiritually and biologically linked too Hell, which is by definition, the place of ultimate wickedness and suffering, then they are, as a rule, going to be a nation of See-You-Next-Tuesdays.

Players can choose to be tieflings with a non-evil alignment, but they could not live in sucha society on a long term basis.

Quote from: jeff37923;1046656I don't have a problem with ejecting a disruptive player. Those races I mentioned, are usually early indications that the player intends to be disruptive.

Oh really?  Prejudiced much?

Quote from: Xuc xac;1046659So, old school Tieflings were supposed to be reviled in theory, but actually weren't reviled in practice because they could easily pass as normal. New school Tieflings are actually reviled and people claim they "should have been drowned at birth". It sounds like the new Tieflings hit their design goals better than the old ones.

That's what blows my mind.  The new version does what the previous version wants to, but better.  Almost like new ideas have some validity!  Who knew?

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1046661If I ran them Tieflings would be the dark lords of GranBretan crossed with Greyhawk's Horned Society. They a part of an empire that enslaves its neighbours, tortures its enemies and practices genocide on halflings.

Why?

Because they are fucking EVIL. They are full blown sadistic power hungry narcissists and worship dark infernal spirits. Human sacrifice, blood sports, black masses, the lot.

After all, if you accept that they are spiritually and biologically linked too Hell, which is by definition, the place of ultimate wickedness and suffering, then they are, as a rule, going to be a nation of See-You-Next-Tuesdays.

Players can choose to be tieflings with a non-evil alignment, but they could not live in sucha society on a long term basis.

Excuse me, I have a question.  Why are you against speshul snoflaks when you just created an option for a 'persecuted minority' in the hands of the players?  Why are you enabling the very thing you claim to hate.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1046674Oh really?  Prejudiced much?

Against players who tell me they want to play Kender, Malkavians, Gungans, or Ewoks? You bet your fuckin' ass.

Quote from: jeff37923;1046683Against players who tell me they want to play Kender, Malkavians, Gungans, or Ewoks? You bet your fuckin' ass.

I've seen one Gungan character that didn't hurt my brain. He was laconic Force Adept with some kind of prestige class that made him into a badass staff/fist/foot monk type. And he jumped good (like Samurai Jack). We jokingly referred to him as "Raj Raj the Anti-Binks."

I love any race that makes sense in the setting. I hate the rest.

I'm deeply burnt on the standard D&D race trio (elf, dwarf, half-schmuck) and that's why my OD&D is humanocentric.

That said, if a GM showed me why his Aelph, Dwarph and Runtling homebrew races were freshly reinvented and well blended into his setting, I'd be happy to play.

Quote from: jeff37923;1046683Against players who tell me they want to play Kender, Malkavians, Gungans, or Ewoks? You bet your fuckin' ass.

There is ONE reason I freaking love to play Gungans, Ewoks and Gully Dwarves! The LoLz. Nuffin but the LoLz.

Interestingly enough, only Jar Jar was shown to be an idiot Gungan. The rest lacked his mastery of Drunken Monkey Kung Fu!

Though, I've seen players run Ewoks as hairy halfling cannibals in space. That was fun too.

Quote from: jeff37923;1046683Against players who tell me they want to play Kender, Malkavians, Gungans, or Ewoks? You bet your fuckin' ass.

:D

I'd probably have a schizoid embolism if someone asked if they could play a Gungan or ecock. Thank frag I'm playing with some sane people.

Quote from: The Exploited.;1046702or ecock.

ecocks are the wurst.

I don't have that much I hate about most traditional D&D PC races. I dislike the takes on them in different settings. Im cool with the default coices of default AD&D Greyhawk and happily add even more choices from stuff like Planescape. If I would change anything in the basic setup of PC races I would make elves a bit more feylike and consider mergeing dwarves and gnomes into one but still kall them gnomes.

 I am even cool with kender if the DM enforces that the player himself does not have any real agency att all (suggestions may or may not be accepted by DM) on what they decide to "borrow" from anyone. Just a passive racial quirk in which the player can open his lootbag and check what he's character "borrowed today" and probably not know himself.

I don't really care for Wildens, Warforged and Dragonborn. Just kind of boring and  I don't see the need to shoehorn them into settings they never used to be a part of.

Quote from: jeff37923;1046656I don't have a problem with ejecting a disruptive player. Those races I mentioned, are usually early indications that the player intends to be disruptive.

I'm more interested in the character concept as a whole rather than the races they choose. I myself have used the aforementioned not liked Tieflings and Gungans and NPCs. The former has appeared several times as the owner of an Inn of various names because I keep forgetting what I call it, who hires adventurers to clear out the Ice Penguins and fits them with gear, feeds them and gives them a place to stay until they are ready to venture forth because Sigil is my default starting point in D&D. Ice Penguins because she has a portal to the paraelemental plane of Ice, which means she has the coldest beer in the Cage. The Gungan was an engineer who was at first despised. I even used the accent to speak for him, but unlike Jar Jar (who actually redeemed himself in Clone Wars), this one was competant. Loathing turned to love when he upgraded the obligatory Corellian Stock Light Frieghter's Sheild to something that could withstand hits from a Star Destroyer.

I once had a player play a Kender from Krynn who yes, stole things from everyone, including players. However, said Kender also handed stuff out when needed, claiming that they were just keeping the stuff safe. In other words, they played the Kender properly, having no concept of ownership of property and being genuinely helpful.

As for the aforementioned relocation of game, and physical ejection of a player. Those were two incidents that happened in my 33 years of roleplaying. I think that is a pretty good track record. I really really don't like barring the use of races that are in the rules, even if I personally don't like them. I do not want to be Captain Buzzkill. I have players who want certain adventures to happen, or certain gear, and I give them the chance to get it. But I do it in the context of giving everyone else a chance to take part and reap the rewards as well. Lethality is low in my games, but this not because of hand holding, but more that I remind players that fleeing is always an option. Well, except when it isn't but they usually have some sort of warning that they are entering a place where you succeed or die. If despite my warnings, players decide to charge off headlong into stupidity, then they get to find out what happens when they charge headlong into stupidity.

Mostly my games are about having fun. If I have a group of murderhobos, then we are going to murderhobo. If I have a group of roleplayers, they we are going to roleplay. I don't care. I don't run scripted adventures. I just make NPCs and locations, and figure out what's going on as I go along, and if players surprise me, no one is more pleased than myself. I always try and make sure everyone has something to do that is relevant and useful.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1046703ecocks are the wurst.

I know man... The should be downright illegal!:cool:

Quote from: The Exploited.;1046718I know man... The should be downright illegal!:cool:

They are in some states.

It's funny, while I almost always play humans/near-humans (main one currently a quarter-elf as we're playing the kids of the previous generation and the previous PC hooked up with a half-elf), I tend to run and create settings with a lot more unique options.

All the "normal" races in my setting have a twist (the dwarves are all arcane cyborgs because an ancient curse causes parts of their bodies to wear out at a different rate, the elves are literally fallen angels, gnomes are the embodied dreams of children who live like Peter Pan and the Lost Boys, and humans include all the half-races).

Then more unusual stuff (giants, dragons, sprites, elemental beasts, Minotaurs, centaurs, bat-like goblins, sapient golems, demon-tainted humans and hideous mutants that include orcs, ogres, trolls, troglodytes and cyclops in the current setting) is available on top of that.

The thing I absolutely cannot stand with races is when they don't even try to explain how multiple wildly different sapient (and generally warlike) species evolved on the same world and haven't wiped each other out. My settings always answer these in one way or another; ex. generally only the humans evolved naturally and everything else was either created with magic (the beastmen and golems were slave races created by past empires; mutants were created by a magical cataclysm two centuries ago) or come from another realm of existence (elves, gnomes, elemental beings like giants and dragons) or are men who were altered by contact with otherworldly entities (dwarves were forged from men by the demons who once rules; malfeans are the descendants of the half-demon overseers of that same Demon Empire who's demonic blood always breeds true).

I've been fortunate that the groups I typically run for tend to go more thematic when it comes to group structure and build for it. One of the things that makes backgrounds work in my games are we sit down and hash them out before the game begins so everyone has a reason to be part of the group... the aforementioned "heirs of past heroes" was one such theme; in another it was decided they'd all be members of a human criminal gang working out of the human ghetto in a kitchen sink fantasy metropolis ruled by elves. My main requirement as a GM is that all the PCs have to know each other and have a reason to adventure together before the first session starts so I don't have to do anything contrived like "you meet in a bar."

 Other than that, I don't care what starting scenario they all agree to; I can challenge a bunch of young nobles (even a king and his court) as easily as I can the blacksmith's son and innkeeper's daughter.

The point though is they typically use "one rare teammate" approach when it comes to theme building where most play a common species (human, occasionally an elf or dwarf) and one makes a fish out of water (a dragon, a unicorn, a tiefling or just someone from a distant land with different customs) to add contrast. This occasionally happens in reverse too where everyone decides to run some type of unusual species (ex. a group of dragons who hatched from the same clutch) and one more mundane figure (ex. a human who saved and befriend one of the hatchlings).

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1046243I have no problem with the Freak Factory idea of lots of races in a game. My old 80's campaign was full of wierdo race characters, long before there were Dragonborn and Tieflings.


One race that does rub me the wrong way is the Kender. For one specific reason. They have the racial advantage of being immune to fear, but Death Knights override that because the setting's darling, Lord Soth should be scary to everyone.
*rolleyes*

Generally, I agree with Omega. It's how the character is played.

Kender are not totally immune to fear. just immune to most conventional spell and aura type fear. In the books they have been effected by powerful auras from things like demon princes and gods. Though unfortunately one book noted that a kender would likely shake off the fear from a demon prince and start pestering them with questions...

Thats not so much the problem as their obsessive kelptomania which is supposed to come across as cute and innocent but more oft comes across as just damn annoying. Same with the tinker gnomes obsession with complexity. The thing most forget because its so often swept under the rug is that both races are the result of a super curse. Its not a personality quirk. Its literally curse hardwired into them.

Excuse me, I have a question:  Why do people assume that all Kender are uniform, that every single player HAS to play the race the EXACT same way?  I thought PC's were special by the virtue that they are adventurers, meaning they step out of the social norm.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1046297I don't hate any race, I'm with Omega, it's not the race, it's how it's played.

But I do have issues, more confusion, about two races as typically portrayed in Dungeons and Dragons and that is the Gnome and Halfling.  They're often too much alike, with only a couple of superficial differences.  In fact, Gnomes seem to be a mashup of Dwarves and Halflings.  They have the Dwarven sense of crafting and live in Hobbit like burrows.

Personally, and I'm going to get burned at the stake for this, but I actually like what 4e tried to do with Halflings by making them into River Gypsies, it was inventive and different enough to give them a new identity that wasn't/isn't still leashed to Tokien.

Gnomes are based on legends. Effectively magic hill dwarves in D&D. There was also a popular book series about gnomes way back. But that came out in 76 and may have influenced the AD&D gnomes? Also they seem at least partially patterned on Leprechauns. In BX D&D they are a monster race and in the campaign I played in the DM had them arrayed against the halflings as enemies. Some sort of competition for choice hill lands after kicking the goblins out. And also had a large hill kingdom north of an elven forest kingdom.

Though Top Ballistia for BECMI took the gnomes and turned them into a pretty good setting book much like the others in the CC series did for undersea and lycanthrope themed settings.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1046728Excuse me, I have a question:  Why do people assume that all Kender are uniform, that every single player HAS to play the race the EXACT same way?  I thought PC's were special by the virtue that they are adventurers, meaning they step out of the social norm.

Because Dragonlance was a good book series but a shit setting to play in? The klepto and fearlessness is hardwired into the race.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1046728Excuse me, I have a question:  Why do people assume that all Kender are uniform, that every single player HAS to play the race the EXACT same way?  I thought PC's were special by the virtue that they are adventurers, meaning they step out of the social norm.

Its a part of the race. Its not a personality trait they pick up.

Other than that players are free to play them however. And have. Ive seen some evil kender PCs at cons and damn they make for some scary assassins in the right hands.

Its just that it feels like the majority of players play them exactly as described. They arent like say AD&D elves who tend to not have so much of their personalities hardcoded into the race.

Quote from: The Exploited.;1046324I've not heard of the Kender, so I had to do another wiki. Pixie kind of things?? Another race definitely not for me...

Nope. Pixies got their own entry later. :D

Kender are from Dragonlance. Short race with an overall childlike build and attitude, but with more adult elven features and the pointy ears. The main features were they were just short of totally immune to fear. And they were all kleptomaniacs. Tooootally iiiiinocent kleptos. They also tend to be very inquisitive and talkative. All-of-them...

As noted above the fearlessness and klepto are racial elements rather than personality quirks. Part of the curse that created them in the first place. Same with the Tinker Gnomes. They cant not make things overcomplex.

By hardcoded/hardwired, I believe you're referring to the curse that makes Kender what they are. Those annoying traits are not just personality aspects that can be changed by a player anymore than saying a Drow sees well in daylight.

In D&D 5e, the Kenku are the current "cursed to be a pain in the ass" race. They mimic those around them--they don't even have voices of their own--and they are supposedly incapable of original thinking. Yeah, that sounds like a fun one to play...:rolleyes:

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1046674Excuse me, I have a question.  Why are you against speshul snoflaks when you just created an option for a 'persecuted minority' in the hands of the players?  Why are you enabling the very thing you claim to hate.

Really, how so?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1046559I'm assuming the left one is a Tiefling, but he looks like a scarred half-elf...  Not very interesting.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1046582Old school Tieflings had small tells, like claws, glowing eyes or a faint oder of brimstone. They could pass for normal if they tried, but were generally reviled for their otherworldly ancestry.

NuTieflings are freak show snowflakes that should have been drowned at birth.

Planescape is where I believe Tieflings started out and there they tended to have one or more odd features, usually small horns or goat legs and especially a tail.

A pair of Planescape Tieflings.
(https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/forgottenrealms/images/1/18/Tieflings_PWHB_PS.png/revision/latest?cb=20140911080635)
and another that could pass for human without the tail.
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5f/1e/7b/5f1e7b41c132ec93553fa381d533d300.jpg)

3e and on they seem to have lost that "look like whatever you want" aspect. Though one of the supplements for 5e added back that element a little. Theyve also waffled back and fourth as to wether they are just all the offspring of human/demon pairings or are a stable race or are under a curse or whatever the heck next.

The "scarred elf" that I posted a picture of was actually the portrait picture of Haer'Dalis in Baldur's Gate: Shadows Over Amn.

Quote from: Krimson;1046716I'm more interested in the character concept as a whole rather than the races they choose. I myself have used the aforementioned not liked Tieflings and Gungans and NPCs. The former has appeared several times as the owner of an Inn of various names because I keep forgetting what I call it, who hires adventurers to clear out the Ice Penguins and fits them with gear, feeds them and gives them a place to stay until they are ready to venture forth because Sigil is my default starting point in D&D. Ice Penguins because she has a portal to the paraelemental plane of Ice, which means she has the coldest beer in the Cage. The Gungan was an engineer who was at first despised. I even used the accent to speak for him, but unlike Jar Jar (who actually redeemed himself in Clone Wars), this one was competant. Loathing turned to love when he upgraded the obligatory Corellian Stock Light Frieghter's Sheild to something that could withstand hits from a Star Destroyer.

I once had a player play a Kender from Krynn who yes, stole things from everyone, including players. However, said Kender also handed stuff out when needed, claiming that they were just keeping the stuff safe. In other words, they played the Kender properly, having no concept of ownership of property and being genuinely helpful.

As for the aforementioned relocation of game, and physical ejection of a player. Those were two incidents that happened in my 33 years of roleplaying. I think that is a pretty good track record. I really really don't like barring the use of races that are in the rules, even if I personally don't like them. I do not want to be Captain Buzzkill. I have players who want certain adventures to happen, or certain gear, and I give them the chance to get it. But I do it in the context of giving everyone else a chance to take part and reap the rewards as well. Lethality is low in my games, but this not because of hand holding, but more that I remind players that fleeing is always an option. Well, except when it isn't but they usually have some sort of warning that they are entering a place where you succeed or die. If despite my warnings, players decide to charge off headlong into stupidity, then they get to find out what happens when they charge headlong into stupidity.

Mostly my games are about having fun. If I have a group of murderhobos, then we are going to murderhobo. If I have a group of roleplayers, they we are going to roleplay. I don't care. I don't run scripted adventures. I just make NPCs and locations, and figure out what's going on as I go along, and if players surprise me, no one is more pleased than myself. I always try and make sure everyone has something to do that is relevant and useful.

It has been my repeated experience that players choosing those races do not do so to bring about a unique character that defies the stereotype. I wish it were so. Instead they tend to choose those character races for the comic relief aspect, even though they are the only ones who find it funny. As it is, I'd rather be Captain Buzzkill for the one potentially disruptive player then GM Buzzkill for allowing a disruptive player to screw up the game for the whole group.

I don't dislike Gungans, I dislike Jar Jar Binks. Ewoks are like dogs, you just need the right seasonings.

Quote from: The Exploited.;1046619We are actually getting into interesting territory here with horror, cults, and infernal babies.

Yes, indeed:)!
"In the ancient empire of Am'Shaan, (read the "m" and "sh" without a pause between them, or it becomes a curse), almost 1 in 6 of the citizens is a tiefling. Today, they're people like everyone else, though often drawn to violent trades, from soldiers to city lantern bearer (who have the obligation to protect the - usually drunk - patron that hired them and lead him or her safe to the address, all for a hefty sum of course). Their ancestors, or the ancestors of those that survived, mostly belonged - literally and/or voluntarily - to the cult of the Snake, which prescribed couplings with the cult's demons on the sacred nights. The eventual, albeit thought rare, offspring resulting from such unions became leaders of the cult.
When the cult of the Snake was outlawed 268 years ago, like all cultists, the thieflings had to choose between conversion and being put to the sword. It is to be noted that a lot less tieflings chose the sword than the cultists from other races. They also showed piety in the new-found religions, shaming the accusers who kept talking about a plan. Snakes don't plan ahead, as the tieflings kept pointing out...
Since then, they keep their numbers mostly steady, despite their often violent trades. It is to be noted that tiefllings are prone to couplings with other races, but are almost exclusively marrying among themselves."


Admittedly, the thing I find most interesting is how few people chose to talk about races they like;).

Quote from: AsenRG;1046743Yes, indeed:)Admittedly, the thing I find most interesting is how few people chose to talk about races they like;).

That was some creative stuff, mate! I like it.

And you're right, it would be good to see something about what people like.

So, I like elves. I espeically the elves as they have been done in the following.

Vog Mur, for Rolemaster,  featured some amazing tyrnaical half-elves and almost ephemeral hidden eleven mages. This was, for me, what Rolemaster was perfect for, but after Iron Wind and Tanara the originality and sheer classiness had gone.

Forgotten Realms Grey Box 1st edition AD&D was going in the right direction and certainly the Moonshae's Llewyrr were vey fae and mysterious, but like a lot of FR, it went tacky and gaudy IMO.

Burning Wheel - for as much as I cannot bring myself to grok this game, the elves are brilliant. Immortal but doomed to Grief, or worse, Spite. Not as angsty as it sounds.

Fantastic Heroes and Witchery - did possibly the best mainstream OSR version of elves IMO: with the classes like Warden and Forestal they are really evocative.

Beyond the Wall (again:D)- do great playbooks that lend a sense of mystery to the PC..and because of their "time being over" the receive less Fortune Points balancing their immortality and immnity to disease.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1046636Were they, with a few rare exceptions, sinister tyrants with dark secrets that made the Lannisters look like the Waltons?

Or like this...

http://eleoradraws.tumblr.com/post/133412874540/my-beautiful-tiefling-paladin-azami-from-our-5th

Yikes!  A truly terrifying specimen! She could still have dark secrets.  Bill the cat's heavy metal star career ended when he was caught studying the bible with a nun :D

But yeah, Throndar is pretty openly lawful evil.  The king is supported by lawful evil deities and binding legal contracts.  I just got tired of some players rampaging around the world like some kind of murder hobos so when we started a new campaign, I wrote "EVIL KINGDOMS" right on the map and put them in a society which accepts greed, murder, vengeance, conquest, and dishonesty as the natural course of nature.  Where compassion is seen as criminal levels of stupidity and weakness and everyone, from the king to a little old granny on the street would slit your throat for a copper piece if the opportunity presented itself.

Devils are seen as tough but fair.  Devilish blood is seen as a sign of nobility and station.  Demons and witches are worshiped by the common folk as Robin Hood like heroes.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1046746That was some creative stuff, mate! I like it.

Glad to hear that:)! Though I wouldn't call it especially "creative". That's what I call "5 out of my 15 minutes of prep for a campaign"...because that's how long it took me to type it out as part of a forum post (editing included).
Generally, I write 3 such "setting clarifications" for every campaign. Then I think how they interact, and how this changes outward behaviour of some key players. And then we start, with a setting that has both everything it needs to function, and those 3 clarified elements;).

QuoteAnd you're right, it would be good to see something about what people like.

So, I like elves. I espeically the elves as they have been done in the following.

You like ELVES:eek:?!?
Ah well...:cool:

QuoteForgotten Realms Grey Box 1st edition AD&D was going in the right direction and certainly the Moonshae's Llewyrr were vey fae and mysterious, but like a lot of FR, it went tacky and gaudy IMO.

"Tacky and gaudy" is definitely part of how I'd describe FR.

QuoteBurning Wheel - for as much as I cannot bring myself to grok this game, the elves are brilliant. Immortal but doomed to Grief, or worse, Spite. Not as angsty as it sounds.

I grok the game, I just don't like some of its premises:D! Especially player/GM turns killed it for me (after having tried them with Torchbearer).

QuoteFantastic Heroes and Witchery - did possibly the best mainstream OSR version of elves IMO: with the classes like Warden and Forestal they are really evocative.

But they're ELVES:D!!!

QuoteBeyond the Wall (again:D)- do great playbooks that lend a sense of mystery to the PC..and because of their "time being over" the receive less Fortune Points balancing their immortality and immnity to disease.

I agree, the Fae in Beyond the Wall are among the few I actually kinda like:p!

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1046746That was some creative stuff, mate! I like it.

Glad to hear that:)! Though I wouldn't call it especially "creative". That's what I call "5 out of my 15 minutes of prep for a campaign"...because that's how long it took me to type it out as part of a forum post (editing included).
Generally, I write 3 such "setting clarifications" for every campaign. Then I think how they interact, and how this changes outward behaviour of some key players. And then we start, with a setting that has both everything it needs to function, and those 3 clarified elements;).

QuoteAnd you're right, it would be good to see something about what people like.

So, I like elves. I espeically the elves as they have been done in the following.

You like ELVES:eek:?!?
Ah well...:cool:

QuoteForgotten Realms Grey Box 1st edition AD&D was going in the right direction and certainly the Moonshae's Llewyrr were vey fae and mysterious, but like a lot of FR, it went tacky and gaudy IMO.

"Tacky and gaudy" is definitely part of how I'd describe FR.

QuoteBurning Wheel - for as much as I cannot bring myself to grok this game, the elves are brilliant. Immortal but doomed to Grief, or worse, Spite. Not as angsty as it sounds.

I grok the game, I just don't like some of its premises:D! Especially player/GM turns killed it for me (after having tried them with Torchbearer).

QuoteFantastic Heroes and Witchery - did possibly the best mainstream OSR version of elves IMO: with the classes like Warden and Forestal they are really evocative.

But they're ELVES:D!!!

QuoteBeyond the Wall (again:D)- do great playbooks that lend a sense of mystery to the PC..and because of their "time being over" the receive less Fortune Points balancing their immortality and immnity to disease.

I agree, the Fae in Beyond the Wall are among the few I actually kinda like (though still prefer them fried with cheese and fries:p)!

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1046728Excuse me, I have a question:  Why do people assume that all Kender are uniform, that every single player HAS to play the race the EXACT same way?  I thought PC's were special by the virtue that they are adventurers, meaning they step out of the social norm.

Early on in the franchise (Chronicles and Legends era) all Kender were portrayed as fairly uniform.  Also, since Tas was the primary representative of Kender, there was a tendency to extrapolate from him as the representative of the entire race.  All Vulcans are like Spock syndrome.

Tas's one unique character trait setting him apart from his race seemed to be that he could actually learn and adapt his behaviour.  I think there is at least one time in the books where this is flatly stated about Tas.  So Tas's PC quality is that he has some level of empathy for others and isn't stuck in repeating the same stereotype of his entire race.

Now that I think of it, the whole race being the stereotype kind of fits with their origin.  IIRC, the Kender race was created by the Greystone of Gargath as a curse upon dwarves.

I used to hate the idea of Dragonborn and Tieflings, but now I'm ok with them. I've never liked Kender, and Tinker gnomes seem like an NPC race, rather than one for PCs. As long as someone plays their character reasonably (i.e. not a d*ck) then I'm ok with whatever race they choose. Even if it's only so much window dressing over basically-a-human. If everyone's having fun it's fine. But I do set up campaign effects for unusual PC races. Tieflings will be suspected and blamed for thefts and killings that occur when they're around; Dragonborn will attract fear and wonder; Aasimar and other oddities will be pointed at and followed around - or possibly even worshipped! Good luck keeping a low profile if you're a party of oddities!

It seems to me that very often, the stereotypical behavior of non-human races tends to confine and replace (and/or mainly remove) the individual personality from the way people play those characters (both in RPGs and in dramas).

I have seen players who, when I tossed them an ordinary human NPC that was with the party to play, they had a great time playing them as an interesting person who had heartfelt aspirations and did interesting things... and then in a later session when they brought a new detailed PC that was a [Flavor] Elf or something, they largely sat around as if they were trying to be as generic and passive as possible, and the personality that showed up seemed like the player's own persona plus [Flavor] Elf stereotypes.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1046740I don't dislike Gungans, I dislike Jar Jar Binks. Ewoks are like dogs, you just need the right seasonings.

I didn't really like the d20 versions of Star Wars, but I knew some people who played.  They had an open invitation for me to join their game.

The only thing I ever looked at d20 Star Wars and wanted to play was a Gungan Jedi.  That had me psyched.  I made up the character, and it passed the first big test.  I still wanted to play this character after I wrote him up.  I was EXCITED to play this character after I wrote him up.

I watched Phantom Menace several times, because I genuinely like the movie, but also because I was studying Gungan speech.  I practiced speaking like the Gungans.  I think I had it down pretty damn good.  I had this Gungan as Tibetan monk sort of thing going.  There was definitely a joke aspect to the character, but I was approaching it in full seriousness.  I guess a good parallel would have been a drunken kung fu master.  He wasn't going to fight with drunken kung fu, but he was going to be this somewhat comical character who was actually flat out serious after the superficial presentation had been scratched.

I really can't understate it.  I was super excited to play this character.

I told them what I wanted to play and they said they really didn't want any Prequel stuff in their game, and they definitely didn't want a Gungan.  If I wanted to play anything else other than an Ewok, I was still welcome.  It wasn't an objection to a Jedi.  It was purely "Prequels and Jar Jar sucks."  Which always made me wonder why they were playing the d20 version since it was the Prequel edition.

I never played in their Star Wars game.  They kept asking me to play, but I never saw anything else that I wanted to play in that game system.

Human-only is my preference. I only play humans as a player, and if I'm choosing the setting, it's one without any playable "fantasy races". Antagonists can be reptilian or amphibian or avian - not mammalian and not identifiable.

Anymore I just prefer that people play Men. That's what their mans are regardless of their race choice anyways, so why pretend? (Similarly, I prefer these days to keep classes down to the Fundamental Four.)

Races I like are Humans (all kinds, I loved the way they did them in Mongoose Conan), Dwarves and 5e Goliaths, but I think it's because they've got a decent enough history, or just enough to add on to.

I find dwarves attract lazy people oddly enough.

Quote from: Skarg;1046769It seems to me that very often, the stereotypical behavior of non-human races tends to confine and replace (and/or mainly remove) the individual personality from the way people play those characters (both in RPGs and in dramas).

I have seen players who, when I tossed them an ordinary human NPC that was with the party to play, they had a great time playing them as an interesting person who had heartfelt aspirations and did interesting things... and then in a later session when they brought a new detailed PC that was a [Flavor] Elf or something, they largely sat around as if they were trying to be as generic and passive as possible, and the personality that showed up seemed like the player's own persona plus [Flavor] Elf stereotypes.

A good point; that may be the player paralyzed with a sense of "maybe that's not the way a [Flavor] Elf would or should act" and thus doesn't act at all, unless it's squarely within the stated stereotypes for [Flavor] Elf.

I find typical PC races like elf and dwarf not much of a problem, because players usually don't get hung up on the flavor/background in the current game. And players usually find it easier when there's a trivial stereotype to follow: dwarfs have Scottish accents and view beards as important, and after players hit those two stereotypes they then feel free to play an actual character.

As a player, I don't like races that make the world silly. I'm willing to learn about weird races that are not silly in the course of play, so it depends on the GM being consistent with them and not making them silly, even if they turn out to be about the same as other races.

For player characters in my game, I accept almost any race (that doesn't make my world silly) as long as the character can effectively adventure with the other player characters. Similar size, similar mobility, suited to similar environments, and able to function in the same social situations as the rest of the PCs. More annoying than dragonborn and tieflings are human barbarians who refuse to enter cities and have to interrupt any actual adventuring to remind the table that they do not understand anything they have encountered; or paladins who can't adventure with thieves or unlawful characters or otherwise dictate other players' character choices; or any character who is seriously insane.

I like Palladium's Wolfen.

I like the Races of the Dragon version of Dragonborn.  Switching from another race for draconic traits to fight Bahamut's holy war was more interesting than being a race of failure dragon-people.

I dislike Eberron's Kalashtar because they are dull and redundant.

I dislike Kender for the usual reasons.

Quote from: jeff37923;1046739It has been my repeated experience that players choosing those races do not do so to bring about a unique character that defies the stereotype. I wish it were so. Instead they tend to choose those character races for the comic relief aspect, even though they are the only ones who find it funny. As it is, I'd rather be Captain Buzzkill for the one potentially disruptive player then GM Buzzkill for allowing a disruptive player to screw up the game for the whole group.

I never had problems with special snowflakes killing my fun. Sure there was the evil Tiefling in my 1995 Planescape game whose player really wanted a katana for mechanical reasons. So one day he found a scroll called Summon Katana. It summoned Katana Jirokoyama, a Solar in the service of Ameterasu Omikami, who had a big katana. He handed the katana to the Tiefling. It was a Holy Avenger and his hands began to smolder. That pretty much ended his whining about a katana.

Quote from: Krimson;1046827I never had problems with special snowflakes killing my fun. Sure there was the evil Tiefling in my 1995 Planescape game whose player really wanted a katana for mechanical reasons. So one day he found a scroll called Summon Katana. It summoned Katana Jirokoyama, a Solar in the service of Ameterasu Omikami, who had a big katana. He handed the katana to the Tiefling. It was a Holy Avenger and his hands began to smolder. That pretty much ended his whining about a katana.

So you were Captain Buzzkill for the one potentially disruptive player, got it. I wish that my tabletop gaming experience had been devoid of such disagreeable players as yours seems to have, but I guess that is what differentiates GMs.

Quote from: jeff37923;1046855So you were Captain Buzzkill for the one potentially disruptive player, got it. I wish that my tabletop gaming experience had been devoid of such disagreeable players as yours seems to have, but I guess that is what differentiates GMs.

Yes 23 years ago. I have grown up a little since then. If you're the same person you were at half your current age that would be kind of sad.

Quote from: Krimson;1046858Yes 23 years ago. I have grown up a little since then. If you're the same person you were at half your current age that would be kind of sad.

"A man who views the world the same at fifty as he did at twenty has wasted thirty years of his life." - Muhammad Ali

Quote from: AsenRG;1046743Yes, indeed:)!
"In the ancient empire of Am'Shaan, (read the "m" and "sh" without a pause between them, or it becomes a curse), almost 1 in 6 of the citizens is a tiefling. Today, they're people like everyone else, though often drawn to violent trades, from soldiers to city lantern bearer (who have the obligation to protect the - usually drunk - patron that hired them and lead him or her safe to the address, all for a hefty sum of course). Their ancestors, or the ancestors of those that survived, mostly belonged - literally and/or voluntarily - to the cult of the Snake, which prescribed couplings with the cult's demons on the sacred nights. The eventual, albeit thought rare, offspring resulting from such unions became leaders of the cult.
When the cult of the Snake was outlawed 268 years ago, like all cultists, the thieflings had to choose between conversion and being put to the sword. It is to be noted that a lot less tieflings chose the sword than the cultists from other races. They also showed piety in the new-found religions, shaming the accusers who kept talking about a plan. Snakes don't plan ahead, as the tieflings kept pointing out...
Since then, they keep their numbers mostly steady, despite their often violent trades. It is to be noted that tiefllings are prone to couplings with other races, but are almost exclusively marrying among themselves."


Admittedly, the thing I find most interesting is how few people chose to talk about races they like;).

Nice! That's a cool idea. :)

Quote from: Krimson;1046858Yes 23 years ago. I have grown up a little since then. If you're the same person you were at half your current age that would be kind of sad.

My my, aren't we touchy? I was willing to just chalk it up to a different set of experiences between us, but you seem to be taking this rather personally.

Quote from: Kiero;1046862"A man who views the world the same at fifty as he did at twenty has wasted thirty years of his life." - Muhammad Ali

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -  George Santayana

Quote from: jeff37923;1046868My my, aren't we touchy? I was willing to just chalk it up to a different set of experiences between us, but you seem to be taking this rather personally.

Touchy? Not really. I'm certainly not the same person at 46 than I was at 23. Maybe I should have added a :P at the end of the last post. I'm a little too concerned about a mountain lion leaving animal entrails lying around my neighborhood to be worried about teh interwebs at the moment.

Quote from: The Exploited.;1046863Nice! That's a cool idea. :)

Feel free to use it, if you like it;). Just tell us how it went!

I generally have an aversion towards most elven races. I get that dwarves and gnomes and such also tend to come in a rather generic stereotype, but at least they usually end up being funny. While the standard elf I see so often is either a buzzkill or just straightup boring.

I also dislike most forms of "animal" races, like Catpeople or some such. Usually because both players and creators put exactly zero effort into making them interesting beyond "Lol I am Cat.".

Flying races can be a potential nuisance if the player is trying to game the system. But otherwise they have some major drawbacks and it usually balances out.

I heavily dislike 3.5's seeming obsession with having an elf sub-race for every occasion. Tieflings should just be a template that you add onto a base race, same with Aasimar. Lizardfolk > Dragonborn, every time.

Honestly though, I'm fine with any race in theory, it's only when I get parties where everyone's a difference ancestry, none of which are native to the area, that I start getting annoyed.

I think the current D&D races are stale and uniform. We should take inspiration from more creative works of fantasy fiction, like Adventure Time.

For example, I replaced the generic dwarves, gnomes and warforged with the colorful "nomes" from the 80s movie Return to Oz and Amazon Prime's Lost in Oz, and I replaced the Poul Anderson troll clones with the diverse trolls from Dreamwork's Trollhunters. They have some intriguing similarities: both are carved from stone and brought to life, certain mundane substances are toxic to them (chickens and eggs are toxic to nomes, sunlight is toxic to trolls), and they come in a variety of dramatically different physical forms. In my setting in particular, the Troll King (from In the Hall of the Mountain King) and the Nome King (from the Oz books) are mortal enemies.

I similarly tweaked goblins into a physically diverse group, inspired by Maleficent's goons in Disney's Sleeping Beauty, the goblins in Jim Henson's Labyrinth, the Hungarian fantasy novel The Princess and the Goblin, and Lego Elves. The goblin nobility, in contrast to peasant and militia goblins, appear like attractive humans or elves perpetually dressed for a masquerade ball. Unlike the Troll King or Nome King, the position of Goblin King is not hereditary but determined by who is currently wearing the Goblin King's crown. Like the Ice King's crown, the Goblin King's crown grants incredible power and immortality at the cost of eroding the wearer's original identity until they no longer remember being anyone other than the Goblin King.

Humans because they are usually presented in the most boring way possible in too many rpgs especially fantasy rpg. Are written as being better than other races for no good in game reason simply for being "human". At least Earthdawn gave humans imo a good reason for being the top of the food chain. In other rpgs it's mostly "reasons and feels" on behalf of the rpg designers imo.

Non-human races which I don't have a problem with. It just that too often than not those same races are evil, would usually not be allowed to enter most good aligned races settlements and simply tossed in as options to be different than D&D who for the longest time disallowed many non-human races. Palladium Fantasy is imo a good example of this. It's great I can be a Troll or Ogre yet unless the GM and/or player comes up with a good reason he is not going to enter the human settlement. At the very least no without proving he is different than the rest of his kind. Earthdawn once again did a proper way of introducing non-human races. Each can have good, evil or neutral individuals none being real extremes of the other.


Kender I don't mind if the right person is playing them. Note the "right" person. Otherwise it's a disaster in the making. The sad part the writers did make them one of their more memorable creations. Almost no one likes them at least in my experience. Gully Dwarves are dumb the writers of the Dragonlance novels try their damn best to try and make the reader like them yet imo most races would have killed them off long ago.

Like or just find average WAY too many to list at this point

Always thought Dwarves were top of the food chain in Earthdawn.

Quote from: sureshot;1047301Humans because they are usually presented in the most boring way possible in too many rpgs especially fantasy rpg. Are written as being better than other races for no good in game reason simply for being "human". At least Earthdawn gave humans imo a good reason for being the top of the food chain. In other rpgs it's mostly "reasons and feels" on behalf of the rpg designers imo.

That's not a problem with the race, but either the presentation, and/or the way you're reading the explanation:).

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1047368Always thought Dwarves were top of the food chain in Earthdawn.

They are, in the version I've played, at least.
But the explanation mostly amounts to "reasons and feels", and some boring setting history stuff;)!

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1047368Always thought Dwarves were top of the food chain in Earthdawn.

They are in the province of Barsaive, which is the core setting, but beyond there humans are more numerous and elves are often more influential.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1047374They are in the province of Barsaive, which is the core setting, but beyond there humans are more numerous and elves are often more influential.

Well, obviously we're talking about the core setting.
And why are there such differences? Weren't Horrors a world-wide event, thus having the best cairns would have equal impact everywhere?

Quote from: AsenRG;1047380Well, obviously we're talking about the core setting.
And why are there such differences? Weren't Horrors a world-wide event, thus having the best cairns would have equal impact everywhere?

The dwarfs didn't necessarily have the best kaers. The 'best' kaers were those built with Theran help but that indebted the people to the Therans. IIRC, Throal cheated the Therans and used what they learned to make their kaer. This is part of why the Therans want to put down the upstart kingdom of Throal.

I think dwarves are my least favorite standard race. With elves they at least made an effort to make them different in most settings. Dwarves are pretty much identical wherever you go.

Quote from: Longshadow;1047431I think dwarves are my least favorite standard race. With elves they at least made an effort to make them different in most settings. Dwarves are pretty much identical wherever you go.

Eberron Dwarves are basically Renaissance bankers with short trimmed beards. Piss one of and instead of a axe in the face, you'll likely get jumped in an alley later.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1047394The dwarfs didn't necessarily have the best kaers. The 'best' kaers were those built with Theran help but that indebted the people to the Therans. IIRC, Throal cheated the Therans and used what they learned to make their kaer. This is part of why the Therans want to put down the upstart kingdom of Throal.

Thank you for reminding me of this setting detail:). Though I suspect the GM might have houseruled this part last time we played.

Dislike half races.  I ref it as, the character may be an orc in Greyhawk, for example.  The character doesn't have to be a half whatever to be able to be a player character, if it is a legit type in the campaign world and ref approved.

There was a ref that always proclaimed, when the topic of dragons was brought, that the dragon illustrations in the AD&D Monster Manual were all males and female dragons had breast, which any one with logic could deduce were at least as prominent as those of gynosphinx.  So, when I saw dragonborn, it made me think he had his vindication. However, he really wanted busty standard dragons Wizards! D&D and its half measures!

I think dragon boobs are silly fetish material and wrote them out of my setting. It's a running joke that mammals automatically assume female dragonborn are male because they lack boobs.

Ah...but what of the story of the people of Draco Tittius Maximus.  They must be told!

In the end, I just let them be as written.  The one campaign I used that assortment of races was rather short anyway.  Kind of fun fire breath bonus attack, though.

As a rule I can't stand any sort of humanoid animal race for players, with the exception of course that it's done really well, typically it strikes me as anime style bullshit. Any sort of dog folk, cat folk, lion folk, etc is an automatic no from me.

I really hate the whole tiefling thing as well, another hard pass from me.

I'm also not generally a fan of halflings. They seem to specific to Tolkien's work for me, I just can't divorce them from Middle Earth in my head.

I've never been mad on half races myself. I know its a fantasy game! But I always felt that the races would not genetically 'fit'. :) Like humans trying to mate with chimps or something.

That's my own low fantasy preferences I guess. :)

Quote from: Arkansan;1047519As a rule I can't stand any sort of humanoid animal race for players, with the exception of course that it's done really well, typically it strikes me as anime style bullshit. Any sort of dog folk, cat folk, lion folk, etc is an automatic no from me.

I watched Thundercats, Swat Kats, Road Rovers, etc as a kid so it does not alienate me as it would if I was only familiar through terrible anime. Making the beastfolk stand out as something other than funny looking humans is something I struggle with.

Quote from: Arkansan;1047519I really hate the whole tiefling thing as well, another hard pass from me.

I did not mind tieflings, since I was introduced to them through Planescape: Torment before the 4e debacle. My conception of them is a lot broader as well, including basically any mortal race tied to the lower planes (or chaotic planes, for those using a simplified Moorcockian alignment system) whether that be through a demon/devil ancestor, pacts with demons/devils, or being a race native to the lower planes.

Quote from: Arkansan;1047519I'm also not generally a fan of halflings. They seem to specific to Tolkien's work for me, I just can't divorce them from Middle Earth in my head.

Halflings are specific to Tolkien's work. D&D actually faced legal threats for copying them. Speaking of which, the traditional D&D PC races are mostly ripped straight from Tolkien with the exception of gnomes and half-orcs. Half-orcs have barely any foundation in Tolkien's work. Gnomes are just straight-up garden gnomes and their origin in the writings of Paracelsus (where they are earth elementals) is completely ignored.

There is a lot you could do to re-imagine the traditional fantasy races simply by going back to the original myths. Dwarves in mythology (https://ogresvstrolls.wordpress.com/tag/dwarves-gnomes/) and elves in mythology (https://ogresvstrolls.wordpress.com/?s=elves) are very different from D&D or even Tolkien.

Quote from: Arkansan;1047519As a rule I can't stand any sort of humanoid animal race for players, with the exception of course that it's done really well, typically it strikes me as anime style bullshit. Any sort of dog folk, cat folk, lion folk, etc is an automatic no from me.

Yeah, it's the biggest issue that I have with the Traveller Imperium: Aslan and Vargr kinda get on my nerves. I know the whole rationale/origin stuff but still. It's almost annoying as the two-dimensional star maps.

Traveller 2300 was way more original when it comes to races. And had 3d star maps with a proper XY and Z on their star maps.

Anyway, I feel okay about saying that since the original CT had no implied setting. Imperium Shmerium

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1047531Anyway, I feel okay about saying that since the original CT had no implied setting. Imperium Shmerium

Always good to read someone that understands or even acknowledges this!  Traveller (1977)

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1047512I think dragon boobs are silly fetish material and wrote them out of my setting. It's a running joke that mammals automatically assume female dragonborn are male because they lack boobs.

I always tell people dragonborn are like sea horses and the males carry the eggs in sacks on their chests.

Quote from: Kuroth;1047532Always good to read someone that understands or even acknowledges this!  Traveller (1977)

The name escapes me right now, but there is a wonderful blog on this very topic.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1046650I tend to play around with the races until I like them. For example, I do not have half-elves as a biological crossing of humans and elves (which I do not have as being interfertile). Instead they are humans that lived and bred in the Feywild (where I have elves originate as per Fey Ancestry) and were changed (much like how TORG cosms can alter people, except the change sticks even after the half-elves leave the Feywild). They are referred to as half-elves because the changes make them "elf-like" not because of blood.

I tend to like this (base concept) for any race that you might consider a 'human, but with facial-prosthetic makeup and that one consistent personality trait'-race. Playing an elf? No, elves are bizarre otherworldly creatures with a truly alien mindset. I'm playing one of the people of which is a little too near the veil of the seelie court, and children born in that village have 'elfin' traits.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1046728Excuse me, I have a question:  Why do people assume that all Kender are uniform, that every single player HAS to play the race the EXACT same way?  I thought PC's were special by the virtue that they are adventurers, meaning they step out of the social norm.

Quote from: spon;1046767As long as someone plays their character reasonably (i.e. not a d*ck) then I'm ok with whatever race they choose.

Spon pretty much provides my response. If someone can not-be-a-dick, than they can play whatever. Kender have the unfortunate status of having listed traits which one might hide dickish behavior behind a defense of 'but I'm just realistically playing my kender character!' Don't do that, and they are fine (but then one wonders what the motivation is to play them. I've not run into anyone that wanted to).

As to my preferences--I'm fine with most races, although I've also enjoyed games where everyone was human. Like most things, if you do it well, it is fine. If you do it poorly (the dicks and snowflakes and whatever people have mentioned), than anything can be problematic. But if I had my druthers-- I would include one or two standard fantasy races (no strong preferences on which, but please no overlap. We do not need dwarves, halflings, and gnomes), one or two truly alien mindset characters (be it robots, sentient slime monsters, or just reptile), and one or two of the bad guy races able to be playable, mostly such that the others can be declared not and alwaysbad (and the playable two are not misunderstood snowflakes. One can be 'sure I'm evil, but a kind of evil you can work with,' and the other can be, 'we aren't evil, we're just on the other side of military/national divide').

Quote from: The Exploited.;1047523I've never been mad on half races myself. I know its a fantasy game! But I always felt that the races would not genetically 'fit'. :) Like humans trying to mate with chimps or something.

I always wrote reasons for interbreeding into the backstory. Elves in my setting are literally reflections of Men in the spirit world while Shades are the shadows of Men in the spirit world so they all mate just fine. Orcs are humans mutated in an arcane cataclysm (and ogres are orcs who continue to mutate as they age). Dwarves are humans re-engineered by the Demon Empire to make better miners. Avatars (elemental spirits) and Demons (fallen elemental spirits) are both embodied spirits who helped create the world... they get to be creative with genetics of things in the world if they desire (and it should be noted that half-avatars and half-demons aren't limited to humans... Hell Hounds are the result of a demon breeding with a wolf in the days of the Demon Empire).

That's the sum total of halfbreed races in my games; half-elves, half-shades, half-dwarves, half-avatars, half-orcs/ogres and Malfeans (demon-blooded). With the exception of Malfeans they're generally considered to be humans. Technically they shouldn't even be called "Half" since the traits can turn up several generations after the fact (ex. the offspring of a human and a half-elf has about a 50/50 shot at being a human or a half-elf). A better term might be "X-blooded" (i.e. elf-blooded, shadow-blooded, avatar-blooded, etc.).

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1047512I think dragon boobs are silly fetish material and wrote them out of my setting. It's a running joke that mammals automatically assume female dragonborn are male because they lack boobs.

Why?  Why are you assuming that Dragonborn (who are of human descendants as well) don't give birth to live young?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1047570Why?  Why are you assuming that Dragonborn (who are of human descendants as well) don't give birth to live young?

  The 4E PH does, IIRC, make it pretty clear that they hatch from eggs. If that doesn't, Wizards Presents: Races and Classes definitely does.

Quote from: David Johansen;1047535I always tell people dragonborn are like sea horses and the males carry the eggs in sacks on their chests.

OK, that's a good way to achieve some brainmelts for cheap:D!

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1047536The name escapes me right now, but there is a wonderful blog on this very topic.

Tales to Astound, by Chris Kubasik. I highly recommend it, FWIW;)!

Gnomes.  I don't like gnomes.  I don't know why I just don't.  I play with a friend who really likes gnomes.  So I included them in the world.  This is how I described them.

QuoteAnd last, and definitely least, is the gnome.  Yes, gnomes exist in this world.  Gnomes are the unfortunate offspring of a a dwarf and a halfling.  They of hairy feet and hairy face are neither fish nor fowl but fortunately infertile (much like a mule.) They seem to inherit the worst traits of their parents.  They are grumpy, gluttonous and greedy.  They live underground like their forebears but unlike dwarves and halflings they live in mud holes and are grubby and smell gamy.  They seem to dislike the world and everyone in it.  Fortunately, there are very, very few of them.

I also don't like half-orcs.  Because of my view of orcs, I can't get it out of my head that they're all products of rape.

Quote from: Narmer;1047616I also don't like half-orcs.  Because of my view of orcs, I can't get it out of my head that they're all products of rape.

My half-orcs are the product of an evil mad sorcerers attempt to crossbreed orcs and men to create super soldiers with the strength of orcs and intelligence of men. What he got was the opposite, not much smarter than an orc and barely stronger than a man. Evil sorcerer abandoned them to the wilds, where they live bleak semi-nomadic existences, shunned by both of the pure races from which they were created.

Still kind of rapey, I guess

Quote from: AsenRG;1047615Tales to Astound, by Chris Kubasik. I highly recommend it, FWIW;)!

THAT is the one. Cheers cos I was looking for that awesome sauce

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1047646THAT is the one. Cheers cos I was looking for that awesome sauce

Thanks Mike and AsenRG!

Beside all the awesome Traveller clarity, he has some pretty interesting ideas on there about point crawl adventure organization and campaign design.  

He has weapon cards for the 1977 edition of Traveller, which I have never seen before.  Very cool.  Not always sure if the various players want more in front of them (I just let them know if they succeed and the result dice they may need to roll), but definitely downloaded those for a future try out!

Doesn't 5th have little notes in many monster descriptions for player character use in the monster manual?  I really have zero interest in 5th, but I thought that was good idea, if I recall correctly.  Any of those stand out as well done or extra stupid?  Honestly, I would rather have all of the non-human types in the monster manual with PC use notes (elf, dwarf, etcetera), which would underscore how they are campaign world dependent, rather than default.

[As a call back to a DM of yore, I would have been fine with Draco Tittius Maximus. He was very creative, if totally mad! Somehow it would have worked in one of his exotic campaign worlds.]

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1047572The 4E PH does, IIRC, make it pretty clear that they hatch from eggs. If that doesn't, Wizards Presents: Races and Classes definitely does.

So they are platypus people in disguise?

The whole "Magic dragon people cant never ever have breasts!" is one of the more retarded arguments. Right up there with "Orcs are Black People!" or "Orcs are RAPE!"

Quote from: Narmer;1047616I also don't like half-orcs.  Because of my view of orcs, I can't get it out of my head that they're all products of rape.

Thats been false since pretty much the start.

Quote from: Kuroth;1047659Doesn't 5th have little notes in many monster descriptions for player character use in the monster manual?  I really have zero interest in 5th, but I thought that was good idea, if I recall correctly.  Any of those stand out as well done or extra stupid?  Honestly, I would rather have all of the non-human types in the monster manual with PC use notes (elf, dwarf, etcetera), which would underscore how they are campaign world dependent, rather than default.

[As a call back to a DM of yore, I would have been fine with Draco Tittius Maximus. He was very creative, if totally mad! Somehow it would have worked in one of his exotic campaign worlds.]

No mention of that at all in the MM. Theres no notes on any race about using them as PC races in the 5e MM. There is though Volo's Guide which adds several new monster races as PCs.

Quote from: Omega;1047703No mention of that at all in the MM. Theres no notes on any race about using them as PC races in the 5e MM. There is though Volo's Guide which adds several new monster races as PCs.

My bad.  I think I was recalling Heroes and Other Worlds, which I was making campaign stuff at the same time as the draft copies of 5th were about.  Something I would have liked, I suppose.

Quote from: Chris24601;1047562I always wrote reasons for interbreeding into the backstory. Elves in my setting are literally reflections of Men in the spirit world while Shades are the shadows of Men in the spirit world so they all mate just fine. Orcs are humans mutated in an arcane cataclysm (and ogres are orcs who continue to mutate as they age). Dwarves are humans re-engineered by the Demon Empire to make better miners. Avatars (elemental spirits) and Demons (fallen elemental spirits) are both embodied spirits who helped create the world... they get to be creative with genetics of things in the world if they desire (and it should be noted that half-avatars and half-demons aren't limited to humans... Hell Hounds are the result of a demon breeding with a wolf in the days of the Demon Empire).

That's the sum total of halfbreed races in my games; half-elves, half-shades, half-dwarves, half-avatars, half-orcs/ogres and Malfeans (demon-blooded). With the exception of Malfeans they're generally considered to be humans. Technically they shouldn't even be called "Half" since the traits can turn up several generations after the fact (ex. the offspring of a human and a half-elf has about a 50/50 shot at being a human or a half-elf). A better term might be "X-blooded" (i.e. elf-blooded, shadow-blooded, avatar-blooded, etc.).

I think it could work if you run it like that as you've said... And that you've worked compatibility into the background of the world.

Quote from: Nerzenjäger;1046215Tieflings and Dragonborn are awful.

Agreed, as are those quasi-elemental races.

Quote from: Omega;1047702Thats been false since pretty much the start.

Maybe in whatever world you play in.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1047646THAT is the one. Cheers cos I was looking for that awesome sauce

Quote from: Kuroth;1047647Thanks Mike and AsenRG!

Beside all the awesome Traveller clarity, he has some pretty interesting ideas on there about point crawl adventure organization and campaign design.  

He has weapon cards for the 1977 edition of Traveller, which I have never seen before.  Very cool.  Not always sure if the various players want more in front of them (I just let them know if they succeed and the result dice they may need to roll), but definitely downloaded those for a future try out!

Glad to help, and to spread Tales to Astound. It's certainly worth reading, IMO;)!

Quote from: The Exploited.;1047706I think it could work if you run it like that as you've said... And that you've worked compatibility into the background of the world.

Yup, it also let me lump all the "half" races under the human entry.

Frankly, in terms of world-building I'm kind of the opposite of the "hate dragonborn and tiefling" sentiments. The classic D&D races (elves, dwarves, halflings) minus their extended lifespans and minor cosmetic features (akin to Star Trek's bumpy foreheads) may as well just be stereotypes of various human groups. You could replace the elves of most settings with an aloof society of nature magic wielding humans who live in the woods (and extend their lives with magic if necessary), the dwarves with gruff hard drinking human mining folk in the hills and the halflings with idealised pastoral common folk humans and nothing would change about the setting.

Why even bother including fantasy races like that? Why even pretend they're anything other than humans with a Hat (in the tv tropes sense) so you can use the Hat instead of developing a real human personality for a character? To the credit of the 5e "Adventures in Middle Earth" did just that; the Dwarves of the Lonely Mountain, the Elves of Mirkwood and Hobbits of the Shire are listed right in the middle of the Bardings, the Dunedain, the Men of Bree, the Men of the Lake, the Men of Minas Tirath and the Riders of Rohan as "Races of Men."

As such, unless they've got something really specific to set them apart I wouldn't waste page count on them and would focus on something meaningfully distinct... like dragonmen or a 4e-style tiefling species where they all got warped into semi-infernal forms that breed true and have innate infernal abilities.

This doesn't mean don't include elves, dwarves or halflings, but for God's sake make them something more than a human with pointed ears. Make them something a human couldn't be just by being born into another human culture.

For example in my setting the demons were sloppy when they warped men into dwarves. The demons considered them expendable and didn't expect them to live long in their hellish mines. It wasn't even noticed until they'd won their freedom, but because the process of creating them was so sloppy their body parts (organs and limbs) actually wear out at different rates starting in their twenties (life expectancy in the mines was about 20-25).

To combat this, the dwarves started replacing the parts as they wore out with arcane artifice... and not content to simply replace when they could improve, this artifice allowed them to exceed the baseline abilities of their frames; see in total darkness, lift great weights, hold their breath for an hour, etc. They became in essence arcane cyborgs.

Culturally they also differ from humans because, due to the progressive risks of organ failure taking out their reproductive organs, they start families VERY early... 15-16 years of age and most are grandparents (i.e. early to mid-thirties) by the time they even look to start an adventuring career with all familial duties long behind them (as a contrast with the late teen/twenty-something human adventurers leaving home to seek their fortune so they can eventually settle down).

That's a dwarf species worthy of being its own entry instead of a sidebar under the human entry which dwarves in most fantasy settings probably should be.

So yeah, even if I almost entirely play humans, give me settings with playable giants, minotaurs, magitech cyborgs, sapient golems and even dragons. That's something that actually sounds interesting to play in to me.

Quote from: Omega;1047701So they are platypus people in disguise?

The whole "Magic dragon people cant never ever have breasts!" is one of the more retarded arguments. Right up there with "Orcs are Black People!" or "Orcs are RAPE!"

How often were you offered a fantasy race whose females did not have prominent boobs, much less played one?

The complaint concerns the annoying trend that fantasy races always conform to human ideals of beauty and sexual dimorphism (i.e. anorexic barbie dolls with impossibly large boobs) regardless of whether they are reptilian, invertebrate, made of rock (http://robothyena.tumblr.com/post/69851398783/wildstar-character-design-female), lack mouths (http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/File:DarkTemplar_SC-G_Cncpt2.jpg), etc. The only reason you would ever want to draw boobs on those hideous xenos scum is if you entertain sexual fantasies about drinking nice, warm dragon/rock/demon/zombie/whatever milk fresh from the tap. That is furry magical realm (https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Magical_realm) bullshit and I want no part of it outside of deliberate fetish porn.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1048067How often were you offered a fantasy race whose females did not have prominent boobs, much less played one?

The complaint concerns the annoying trend that fantasy races always conform to human ideals of beauty and sexual dimorphism (i.e. anorexic barbie dolls with impossibly large boobs) regardless of whether they are reptilian, invertebrate, made of rock (http://robothyena.tumblr.com/post/69851398783/wildstar-character-design-female), lack mouths (http://starcraft.wikia.com/wiki/File:DarkTemplar_SC-G_Cncpt2.jpg), etc. The only reason you would ever want to draw boobs on those hideous xenos scum is if you entertain sexual fantasies about drinking nice, warm dragon/rock/demon/zombie/whatever milk fresh from the tap. That is furry magical realm (https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Magical_realm) bullshit and I want no part of it outside of deliberate fetish porn.

Ah great. Now I have "Whizzard" stuck in my head. :D

I really dislike Tolkien style elves.  So much so that I have never included them as NPCs in any game I have run over the decades.

Drow also suck. Any race where the Player Characters almost always play AGAINST the race's archetype sucks.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1048400Drow also suck.

Of course they do. But at least they've got practice:D!

Quote from: RPGPundit;1048400Drow also suck. Any race where the Player Characters almost always play AGAINST the race's archetype sucks.

That is why I like to introduce dark elves from other settings where they are considered adventurer material, like EverQuest, Lineage, Warcraft or pretty much any MMO where dark elves are PCs.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1048400Drow also suck. Any race where the Player Characters almost always play AGAINST the race's archetype sucks.

Dark Elves in my game are a caste distinction. The high elves rule and commune with the gods, the common elves are the merchants, craftsman and soldiers, the low elves are the peasants and the dark elves are those who have rejected their ordained place in the Divine Order and so become outcasts. Dark elves not only have no rights in elven society they are actually hunted because their are a finite number of elven souls (they reincarnate) and every elf who denies their place in the Divine Order causes an imperfection in that Order that must be corrected.

This naturally includes most PCs, but is not exclusive to them. Roughly 10% of the elven population have done something to that got them declared part of the dark caste (maybe they wanted to be a blacksmith and not a farmer) and so live in exile among the other races (for protection as much as anything). It is estimated by the elven ruling families that if the number of dark elves hits 15% they will be completely unable to sustain their civilization (particularly when the bulk of them are low elves seeking better lives) so they grow ever more fanatical about their pogram (to the point that they've attacked smaller communities that dark elves resided in just to 'recycle' the elven souls 'trapped' there), particularly when elven children are born to dark elves instead of into the castes, thus further depleting their numbers.

Quote from: Chris24601;1047930Yup, it also let me lump all the "half" races under the human entry.

Frankly, in terms of world-building I'm kind of the opposite of the "hate dragonborn and tiefling" sentiments. The classic D&D races (elves, dwarves, halflings) minus their extended lifespans and minor cosmetic features (akin to Star Trek's bumpy foreheads) may as well just be stereotypes of various human groups. You could replace the elves of most settings with an aloof society of nature magic wielding humans who live in the woods (and extend their lives with magic if necessary), the dwarves with gruff hard drinking human mining folk in the hills and the halflings with idealised pastoral common folk humans and nothing would change about the setting.

Why even bother including fantasy races like that? Why even pretend they're anything other than humans with a Hat (in the tv tropes sense) so you can use the Hat instead of developing a real human personality for a character? To the credit of the 5e "Adventures in Middle Earth" did just that; the Dwarves of the Lonely Mountain, the Elves of Mirkwood and Hobbits of the Shire are listed right in the middle of the Bardings, the Dunedain, the Men of Bree, the Men of the Lake, the Men of Minas Tirath and the Riders of Rohan as "Races of Men."

As such, unless they've got something really specific to set them apart I wouldn't waste page count on them and would focus on something meaningfully distinct... like dragonmen or a 4e-style tiefling species where they all got warped into semi-infernal forms that breed true and have innate infernal abilities.

This doesn't mean don't include elves, dwarves or halflings, but for God's sake make them something more than a human with pointed ears. Make them something a human couldn't be just by being born into another human culture.

For example in my setting the demons were sloppy when they warped men into dwarves. The demons considered them expendable and didn't expect them to live long in their hellish mines. It wasn't even noticed until they'd won their freedom, but because the process of creating them was so sloppy their body parts (organs and limbs) actually wear out at different rates starting in their twenties (life expectancy in the mines was about 20-25).

To combat this, the dwarves started replacing the parts as they wore out with arcane artifice... and not content to simply replace when they could improve, this artifice allowed them to exceed the baseline abilities of their frames; see in total darkness, lift great weights, hold their breath for an hour, etc. They became in essence arcane cyborgs.

Culturally they also differ from humans because, due to the progressive risks of organ failure taking out their reproductive organs, they start families VERY early... 15-16 years of age and most are grandparents (i.e. early to mid-thirties) by the time they even look to start an adventuring career with all familial duties long behind them (as a contrast with the late teen/twenty-something human adventurers leaving home to seek their fortune so they can eventually settle down).

That's a dwarf species worthy of being its own entry instead of a sidebar under the human entry which dwarves in most fantasy settings probably should be.

So yeah, even if I almost entirely play humans, give me settings with playable giants, minotaurs, magitech cyborgs, sapient golems and even dragons. That's something that actually sounds interesting to play in to me.

Well the value of the traditional races is that a cliche is worth a thousand words. "Elf" is a much more efficient way of saying "an aloof society of nature magic wielding humans who live in the woods (and extend their lives with magic if necessary)." Players aren't going to read much background information so efficiency in setting information is important. The same thing applies to stealing historical human culutres. Saying "Viking" lets you skip a ton of exposition that the players aren't going to listen to.

Then you throw in some twists onto the basic cliche to make it more fun, but starting with the cliche gives players a starting point.

That said, upping the weirdness of elves and dwarves helps a lot but you can't take it too far without losing players. The simplest way is to strip all of the Warhammer Fantasy gunk off of dwarves and just go back to Tolkien dwarves and even exaggerate that a bit. With elves just make them standard fairytale jackass fey guys instead of environmentalist parables and that works fine.

With halflings having them be cornball doofuses who somehow manage to pull through anyway amuses me.

Quote from: Longshadow;1047431I think dwarves are my least favorite standard race. With elves they at least made an effort to make them different in most settings. Dwarves are pretty much identical wherever you go.

I think that the Warhammer Fantasy drunk Scotish dwarves have spread so far people have forgotten a bit of how different Tolkien's LotR dwarves were from that. It's easy to play up those elements (greed, insularity, dourness, etc.) and get something different that feels fresh.

Quote from: Daztur;1048583I think that the Warhammer Fantasy drunk Scotish dwarves have spread so far people have forgotten a bit of how different Tolkien's LotR dwarves were from that. It's easy to play up those elements (greed, insularity, dourness, etc.) and get something different that feels fresh.

I played in a 3.5 D&D game where the dwarves were played closer to Russians, complete with a (probably unrealistic) Russian mafia analog. Their grim culture frowned upon bragging, and while they still drank--even heavily--public drunkenness was both a crime and brought then great shame. Somehow, I think D&D5e would try this with duergar rather than the hill & mountain boys.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1048586I played in a 3.5 D&D game where the dwarves were played closer to Russians, complete with a (probably unrealistic) Russian mafia analog. Their grim culture frowned upon bragging, and while they still drank--even heavily--public drunkenness was both a crime and brought then great shame. Somehow, I think D&D5e would try this with duergar rather than the hill & mountain boys.

You're not properly of Slavic descent unless you can be totally blitzed while the people around you can't even tell that you've been drinking.

Quote from: jeff37923;1046683Against players who tell me they want to play Kender, Malkavians, Gungans, or Ewoks? You bet your fuckin' ass.

Quote from: Daztur;1048583I think that the Warhammer Fantasy drunk Scotish dwarves have spread so far people have forgotten a bit of how different Tolkien's LotR dwarves were from that. It's easy to play up those elements (greed, insularity, dourness, etc.) and get something different that feels fresh.

I kind of dislike what I know about the orcs and dwarves in both Warhammer and Warcraft. They seem charicature-ish and comic-book-like.

Really it just makes Warhammer orks more terrifying.  These guys love to fight, they're a bunch of idiot hooligans, but they don't feel pain like we do, and they are bigger and tougher and don't need to eat as much so you can't starve them out or out wait them, and they're coming just to fight you for fighting's sake and if you surrender they'll just mistreat you just to try and get you to where you'll fight so they can crush you.  They're the high school bully writ large.  They're every abuse and humiliation heaped on your shoulders until you break and they delight in it.  They love it, and they love the way you cry and wail and suffer, they just love it and it makes them laugh.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1048400Drow also suck. Any race where the Player Characters almost always play AGAINST the race's archetype sucks.

Drow in Forgotten Realms suck, sure. It's either play against the archtype or see how many babies you can kick and puppies you can rape before the Paladin murders you.

Drow in other settings that don't carbon copy the psychotic little buggers are ok though.

Quote from: Skarg;1048724I kind of dislike what I know about the orcs and dwarves in both Warhammer and Warcraft. They seem charicature-ish and comic-book-like.

Warhammer Dwarves are Orcs are supposed to be charicatures. That's pretty much the point. Warcraft I couldn't say, since they rewrite them constantly.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1048400Drow also suck. Any race where the Player Characters almost always play AGAINST the race's archetype sucks.

So anyone who plays adventuring Dwarves, Hobbits, Elves suck too?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1048919So anyone who plays adventuring Dwarves, Hobbits, Elves suck too?

No, because being an adventurer is a default premise of the game. Unless the culture of any of those was "adventuring of any kind is strictly forbidden".

Quote from: RPGPundit;1049114No, because being an adventurer is a default premise of the game. Unless the culture of any of those was "adventuring of any kind is strictly forbidden".

90+% of human populations in medieval society were peasants/serfs tied to the land and forbidden to own weapons or armor. The clergy were largely tied to their parishes/diocese and the nobles had to manage and protect the the land they swore their oaths to their overlord for in an area before rapid communication was possible. Other than a once in a lifetime pilgrimage or military campaign few of these people traveled more than a league or two from where they were born.

The lifestyle to which the typical D&D adventurer belongs in actual medieval society would that of the outlaw which, by definition, fell outside the social norms of human society. At best in late medieval times they might qualify as a mercenary company... which was barely a step up from banditry in terms of society unless they had a current patron for their services.

Humans as a whole AREN'T adventurers or heroes. That's one of the reasons we tell stories about those few of us who are. Human heroes and adventurers are probably about as rare among humans as Drizzt is among the Drow. They are the 1-in-a-million exceptions that prove the rule.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1049114No, because being an adventurer is a default premise of the game. Unless the culture of any of those was "adventuring of any kind is strictly forbidden".

Isn't that Hobbits? Every hobbit in Tolkien's books falls into one of two categories:
1). Never leaves home and thinks Bilbo is crazy for leaving home and making friends with dwarves and elves and wizards.
2). Leaves home and constantly wishes they were back in the Shire doing nothing in their local pub.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1048730Warhammer Dwarves are Orcs are supposed to be charicatures. That's pretty much the point. Warcraft I couldn't say, since they rewrite them constantly.

Warhammer orcs and dwarves are fine in Warhammer, but it gets really freaking annoying when they start infecting every other RPG to the point that the default assumption of dwarf has become "drunk Scotsman" somehow.

Quote from: Chris24601;104917690+% of human populations in medieval society were peasants/serfs tied to the land and forbidden to own weapons or armor. The clergy were largely tied to their parishes/diocese and the nobles had to manage and protect the the land they swore their oaths to their overlord for in an area before rapid communication was possible. Other than a once in a lifetime pilgrimage or military campaign few of these people traveled more than a league or two from where they were born.

The lifestyle to which the typical D&D adventurer belongs in actual medieval society would that of the outlaw which, by definition, fell outside the social norms of human society. At best in late medieval times they might qualify as a mercenary company... which was barely a step up from banditry in terms of society unless they had a current patron for their services.

Humans as a whole AREN'T adventurers or heroes. That's one of the reasons we tell stories about those few of us who are. Human heroes and adventurers are probably about as rare among humans as Drizzt is among the Drow. They are the 1-in-a-million exceptions that prove the rule.

Which is why setting material that supposes that standard PC-style adventurering bands (as opposed to mercenary or trading companies) are a recognized social institution. It's like running an A-Team campaign and having a list of crack commando units sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit listed in the fucking phone book. Really makes me cringe. Either have the PCs be part of some kind of normal historical group (drinking buddies of the local iron age warlord or whatever) or have them be a weird one-off exception in the world.

Quote from: Daztur;1049251Which is why setting material that supposes that standard PC-style adventurering bands (as opposed to mercenary or trading companies) are a recognized social institution. It's like running an A-Team campaign and having a list of crack commando units sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit listed in the fucking phone book. Really makes me cringe. Either have the PCs be part of some kind of normal historical group (drinking buddies of the local iron age warlord or whatever) or have them be a weird one-off exception in the world.

My default assumption is always the exception route, though more one-in-a-million than one-off. Which is also why I really don't see a problem with more fantastical PC options either.

Myth and fantasy are rife with tales where one of the protagonist's companions is something well outside the norm; a demigod, a dragon, a fairy, a centaur, a golem, the one good member of an evil species, an angel in disguise (the latter is right out of Tolkein) etc.

Role-playing games may not be stories, but one of the appeals is to create a fantastical character like those from stories. If someone wants to play one of those other one-in-a-million character types I say go ahead and let them.

It's also worth noting that not all of the non-human options needs to follow the same ratio of 'heroes-to-normals' as humans do. For some it could even be that EVERY member of the species is 'heroic' in ability (ie. there are no dragon commoners; every dragon is one-in-a-million). Just because a species is exceptionally rare doesn't mean a PC can't be a member of that species of you're using the 'PC's are rare and exceptional' model for the system.

The only way limiting the species options to 'Men' (ie. humans, elves, dwarves, hobbit expies) makes sense is if you are going the 'normal and common part of society' route where the PC's aren't in any way exceptional compared to the average member of their species.

Personally, I don't think D&D (particularly 3e and 5e) models the latter very well; not with spellcasting being the expected solution to so many problems; 4e outright rejected this approach and presented its system as one where every PC is intended to be a once-in-an-Age hero (ironically, it was the one that could best model a completely mundane world with only non-magical human PC's and not need massive house-ruling).

A plausible medieval society can exist when less than one-in-a-million people have even a single level in a spellcasting class; where a cleric is akin to a miracle-working saint and a wizard is a legendary figure as rare as a dragon. It falls apart when every village priest has cleric levels and the village herbalist has levels in wizard and every singer at the tavern has class levels in bard.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1049114No, because being an adventurer is a default premise of the game. Unless the culture of any of those was "adventuring of any kind is strictly forbidden".

Have you actually read D&D Dwarf or Elf lore?  Dwarves are often clannish traditionalists with a comfortably (for them) rigid caste system that one is born in and is expected to be happy and who shun the outside world.  Meaning the average Dwarf is going to look at an adventuring one like he's a freak that needs to leave.  Now.

Non-Drow Elves are no less restrictive, despite their flighty, 'free love' and generally nice seeming demeanor, they prefer their own kind and view outsiders with distrust and benevolent contempt (kinda like the Japanese, actually...  Huhn...) and anyone who wants to leave is often seen as a wayward child that will grow out of it.  They might indulge it, but they'll never approve of it.

And someone already explained Hobbits, who I will never understand the appeal of.

Do you want to know why the 'Adventure Coupon' style of adventure resonates so much with a lot of gamers?  

Because by and large, humans tend to not really be that adventurous.  We, like Hobbits, prefer to stay home where it's safe and comfortable, but can be roused to action when something big and major happens, thus 'The Adventure Coupon'.

By definition, Player Characters ARE the 'special snowflakes' of the Fantasy genre.  They go where most of their own kind never will.

My point stands.

In theory I prefer PCs to not be special snowflakes and be something that makes sense and is "normal" in the context of the society that they're in. Stuff like the companions of an iron age warlord, or some mercenary scum hired as caravan guards, or some local boys living in their home village who might be called on to help if there's a crisis since the local baron is useless, or the local baron and his staff.

But the traditional roving band of murderhobos works well in game terms and it's fun. Heroic murderhobos (as opposed to a band of bandits) don't make much sense as a social institution so if the PCs are going to be murderhobos then having them be some kind of rare one-off makes sense since it allows a mode of play that's fun without twisting the setting into knots to explain them. Just let the PCs be special, don't have the innkeep start saying things like "another band of adventureres, eh, you're the third ones this week, hope you have your adventuring licenses in order" that just sucks all the fun out of murderhoboing.

Quote from: Daztur;1049251Which is why setting material that supposes that standard PC-style adventurering bands (as opposed to mercenary or trading companies) are a recognized social institution. It's like running an A-Team campaign and having a list of crack commando units sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit listed in the fucking phone book. Really makes me cringe. Either have the PCs be part of some kind of normal historical group (drinking buddies of the local iron age warlord or whatever) or have them be a weird one-off exception in the world.

I think this is one of those cases where if you inspect it closely enough, traditional D&D tropes made sense very early on, but a lot of them carried on without the assumptions that made them reasonable (in no small part, I'm guessing, because a lot of people don't really care if the tropes hold up under intense scrutiny any more than it matters to them if the D&D world economy makes sense, etc.). In a Dying Earth-inspired pseudo-frontier western, you can have a society which the social norm is diligent hard work and making a living as a dirty farmer taming the untamed wilderness and it making sense that those people for whom that lifestyle is a bad fit would look to the hills potentially full of [strike]gold[/strike]fabulous artifacts of a lost civilization. In that context, it's fairly reasonable that said society would expect a certain percentage of their young folk to try to make a living in that divergent endeavor.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1049437I think this is one of those cases where if you inspect it closely enough, traditional D&D tropes made sense very early on, but a lot of them carried on without the assumptions that made them reasonable (in no small part, I'm guessing, because a lot of people don't really care if the tropes hold up under intense scrutiny any more than it matters to them if the D&D world economy makes sense, etc.). In a Dying Earth-inspired pseudo-frontier western, you can have a society which the social norm is diligent hard work and making a living as a dirty farmer taming the untamed wilderness and it making sense that those people for whom that lifestyle is a bad fit would look to the hills potentially full of goldfabulous artifacts of a lost civilization. In that context, it's fairly reasonable that said society would expect a certain percentage of their young folk to try to make a living in that divergent endeavor.

Indeed, the classic D&D tropes work a lot better if your setting is some combo of Wild West meets Sci-Fi Post-Apocalypse (of the "sufficiently advanced technology" variety) with some medieval trappings ladled on top... or, more simply, Thundarr the Barbarian.

My campaign world is pretty much exactly this (magitech utopia wiped out in an arcane cataclysm 200 years prior that wiped out 98% of the population and mutated half the survivors into hideous monstrosities like trolls and orcs... isolated pockets of civilization, many who survived because of access to some piece of pre-cataclysm magitech or architecture, are only now becoming stable enough to look beyond their immediate survival to the monster-haunted and ruin-filled wilderness that surrounds them and prospects of the resources (including lost magitech) that might make the difference between extinction, mere survival or being able to thrive) and the tropes work beautifully.

Quote from: Chris24601;1049455Indeed, the classic D&D tropes work a lot better if your setting is some combo of Wild West meets Sci-Fi Post-Apocalypse (of the "sufficiently advanced technology" variety) with some medieval trappings ladled on top... or, more simply, Thundarr the Barbarian.

My campaign world is pretty much exactly this (magitech utopia wiped out in an arcane cataclysm 200 years prior that wiped out 98% of the population and mutated half the survivors into hideous monstrosities like trolls and orcs... isolated pockets of civilization, many who survived because of access to some piece of pre-cataclysm magitech or architecture, are only now becoming stable enough to look beyond their immediate survival to the monster-haunted and ruin-filled wilderness that surrounds them and prospects of the resources (including lost magitech) that might make the difference between extinction, mere survival or being able to thrive) and the tropes work beautifully.

I really like this approach.  I like my settings similar to this without the magitech.  Just pockets struggling to survive in a ruined landscape.  Whatever the small groups find in the ruins can improve the chances of survival of the village/town.  But it's really dangerous out there and only a few are willing and able to brave the adventure.  Strangers are almost always viewed with suspicion.

I don't really try to justify why the setting is the way it is. There is a pseudo-medieval fairy tale land and right next to it is a wild west pulp frontier. There are ruins of past civilizations, crashed alien space ships, living dungeons and spawn points. There are coal towns build around living dungeons which have economies based entirely on delving into the abyss to acquire the resources and relics it produces from nowhere. Monsters (including human bandits) are produced from nowhere by spawn points, sidestepping the ethnics of killing people or having to worry about the impossible ecology of a death world. The party are either murderhobos who plunder the frontier, questers who rescue princesses from dragons, members of a temp agency who perform odd jobs like "kill ten rats", or oscillate between these.

Quote from: Narmer;1049472I really like this approach.  I like my settings similar to this without the magitech.  Just pockets struggling to survive in a ruined landscape.  Whatever the small groups find in the ruins can improve the chances of survival of the village/town.  But it's really dangerous out there and only a few are willing and able to brave the adventure.  Strangers are almost always viewed with suspicion.

Just to clarify, when I say magitech; I mainly mean magic items that magic as understood by the PCs is incapable of reproducing (but which were able to be produced by the 'magitech' utopia that preceded the current age). Some might be more techie-looking than others (ex. the Apparatus of Kalwash and Iron Golems), but mostly I mean things like magical weapons and armor (particularly those with extra abilities), flying carpets, teleportation circles, etc.

Thus, as befits the classic D&D tropes, if you, your patron or your community wants or needs a particular magic item (or lost spell) then you're going to need an adventurer to go out into the monster haunted ruins and find it for you because the knowledge of how to actually build one from scratch has been lost.

It also plays a role in explaining why certain species exist in the world; an empire that existed before the magitech one specialized in a type of magic called Biomancy and played mix-and-match genetics with all manner of creatures; creating things like minotaurs, centaurs, gnolls, lizardmen, wyverns, griffins, etc. as slave labor and/or as living weapons.

Quote from: Warboss Squee;1048730Warhammer Dwarves are Orcs are supposed to be caricatures. That's pretty much the point.

Is it? I haven't paid a lot of attention to Warhammer, but I liked the flavor of a lot of what I did read in, er, the unofficial fan-made adaptation-to-GURPS of WarhammerFRPG... that is, the magic system for dwarves looked interesting, but I can't see putting up with having them all be played as cliche` drunkards with pseudo-Scottish accents - that just sounds terrible.

Quote from: Skarg;1049493Is it? I haven't paid a lot of attention to Warhammer, but I liked the flavor of a lot of what I did read in, er, the unofficial fan-made adaptation-to-GURPS of WarhammerFRPG... that is, the magic system for dwarves looked interesting, but I can't see putting up with having them all be played as cliche` drunkards with pseudo-Scottish accents - that just sounds terrible.

Yeah, Warhammer Fantasy (and 40k, at least in origin) is pretty much a deliberately cliché-ridden satire. In its defense, I think that's actually to its strength as it twists the concepts enough to create humorously interesting conceits of its own.

Quote from: Chris24601;1049490Just to clarify, when I say magitech; I mainly mean magic items that magic as understood by the PCs is incapable of reproducing (but which were able to be produced by the 'magitech' utopia that preceded the current age). Some might be more techie-looking than others (ex. the Apparatus of Kalwash and Iron Golems), but mostly I mean things like magical weapons and armor (particularly those with extra abilities), flying carpets, teleportation circles, etc.

Thus, as befits the classic D&D tropes, if you, your patron or your community wants or needs a particular magic item (or lost spell) then you're going to need an adventurer to go out into the monster haunted ruins and find it for you because the knowledge of how to actually build one from scratch has been lost.

It also plays a role in explaining why certain species exist in the world; an empire that existed before the magitech one specialized in a type of magic called Biomancy and played mix-and-match genetics with all manner of creatures; creating things like minotaurs, centaurs, gnolls, lizardmen, wyverns, griffins, etc. as slave labor and/or as living weapons.

Ahh, thanks for the clarification.  Then what you described actually sounds pretty much what I like.

Quote from: Narmer;1049519Ahh, thanks for the clarification.  Then what you described actually sounds pretty much what I like.

Yeah, I get the confusion because some people use the term to refer to modern technology powered by magic, but technically the term is more about magic being used AS technology (i.e. studied and applied in practical and repeatable ways) and that's essentially what the magitech utopia did. They had sufficiently mastered arcane magic to the point that mass production of all manner of magic devices to make one's life easier was the norm. There was an entire network of teleportation circles running on a hub-and-spoke schedule akin to modern airline model. Crystal balls functioned the way we'd use voice chat. There's some magic quill in D&D that duplicates any text it touches onto a clean page... Welcome to Arcane Kinkos, etc.

All that got blown to bits by the Cataclysm so while there are all sorts of items that can do those things out there in the ruins, the knowledge base needed to actually reproduce all but the most basic items has been lost (for reference... imagine how many technologies we'd lose if the global population dropped from 7+ billion to just 70 million tomorrow with no rhyme or reason to who perished and who was spared).

The fact that the largest city in the region (population 15,000) has a functioning teleportation circle is a HUGE deal because, even though the few addresses they have (they were at a spoke, not a hub) no longer work (another city about a week's travel upriver found the remains of theirs, so its likely whatever one they had an address to was destroyed) its address can still be used to perform teleportation rituals (which can be performed anywhere by someone skilled in the ritual) TO the portal in the city, meaning that while it might take time to get someplace, getting BACK is easy (and thus causes much of what is unearthed by adventurers in the region to end up in the city before it goes someplace else).

Thus, you have a logical reason for your "city of adventure" whose major industry is actually catering to adventurers and selling off what they bring back.

Quote from: Chris24601;104917690+% of human populations in medieval society were peasants/serfs tied to the land and forbidden to own weapons or armor. The clergy were largely tied to their parishes/diocese and the nobles had to manage and protect the the land they swore their oaths to their overlord for in an area before rapid communication was possible. Other than a once in a lifetime pilgrimage or military campaign few of these people traveled more than a league or two from where they were born.

The lifestyle to which the typical D&D adventurer belongs in actual medieval society would that of the outlaw which, by definition, fell outside the social norms of human society. At best in late medieval times they might qualify as a mercenary company... which was barely a step up from banditry in terms of society unless they had a current patron for their services.

Humans as a whole AREN'T adventurers or heroes. That's one of the reasons we tell stories about those few of us who are. Human heroes and adventurers are probably about as rare among humans as Drizzt is among the Drow. They are the 1-in-a-million exceptions that prove the rule.

We've had this nonsensical conversation before. So this time you're not just wrong, you're boring.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1049367Have you actually read D&D Dwarf or Elf lore?  Dwarves are often clannish traditionalists with a comfortably (for them) rigid caste system that one is born in and is expected to be happy and who shun the outside world.  Meaning the average Dwarf is going to look at an adventuring one like he's a freak that needs to leave.  Now.

Non-Drow Elves are no less restrictive, despite their flighty, 'free love' and generally nice seeming demeanor, they prefer their own kind and view outsiders with distrust and benevolent contempt (kinda like the Japanese, actually...  Huhn...) and anyone who wants to leave is often seen as a wayward child that will grow out of it.  They might indulge it, but they'll never approve of it.

And someone already explained Hobbits, who I will never understand the appeal of.

Do you want to know why the 'Adventure Coupon' style of adventure resonates so much with a lot of gamers?  

Because by and large, humans tend to not really be that adventurous.  We, like Hobbits, prefer to stay home where it's safe and comfortable, but can be roused to action when something big and major happens, thus 'The Adventure Coupon'.

By definition, Player Characters ARE the 'special snowflakes' of the Fantasy genre.  They go where most of their own kind never will.

My point stands.

There's still a big difference than that and having every fucking Drow PC being a dual-scimitar wielding good-aligned total-reject from everything his society stands for.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1049762We've had this nonsensical conversation before. So this time you're not just wrong, you're boring.

Translation: I can't argue with anything you said (just like I couldn't last time) so I'm just going to insult you because my fragile ego can't take admitting I might be wrong about something. Maybe if you didn't keep spewing the same tired OneTrueWay arguments I wouldn't have to keep repeating the same facts to refute them.

Oft repeated facts ARE boring. That doesn't make them any less true or not the best tool to refute a faulty (and oft-repeated) argument.

Quote from: Chris24601;1049778Translation: I can't argue with anything you said (just like I couldn't last time) so I'm just going to insult you because my fragile ego can't take admitting I might be wrong about something. Maybe if you didn't keep spewing the same tired OneTrueWay arguments I wouldn't have to keep repeating the same facts to refute them.

Oft repeated facts ARE boring. That doesn't make them any less true or not the best tool to refute a faulty (and oft-repeated) argument.

Here is an article (https://aprilmunday.wordpress.com/2017/10/29/travelling-in-the-middle-ages/) with sources debunking the stereotype that medieval people rarely traveled. In fact, the middle ages saw a boom in transportation (http://www.thefinertimes.com/Middle-Ages/transportation-in-the-middle-ages.html).

EDIT: And here is an entire essay (https://www.zum.de/whkmla/sp/1213/jeannedarc/mdh1.html) with citations.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1049807Here is an article (https://aprilmunday.wordpress.com/2017/10/29/travelling-in-the-middle-ages/) with sources debunking the stereotype that medieval people rarely traveled. In fact, the middle ages saw a boom in transportation (http://www.thefinertimes.com/Middle-Ages/transportation-in-the-middle-ages.html).

EDIT: And here is an entire essay (https://www.zum.de/whkmla/sp/1213/jeannedarc/mdh1.html) with citations.

Just glancing at these articles it still seems that only a small portion of the population traveled significantly or regularly.

I've always been enamored by plant/fungi or insectoid/mantian races but I can't see how to play one in a setting.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1049764There's still a big difference than that and having every fucking Drow PC being a dual-scimitar wielding good-aligned total-reject from everything his society stands for.

And again you're shifting the goal posts with false and hyperbolic information.  And not addressing that every player character IS in essence the equivalent of a 'dual scimitar wielding reject from their society' by simply being ADVENTURERS.  Having a Class in a D&D style game makes the character unusual.

My point still stands.

Quote from: Narmer;1049825Just glancing at these articles it still seems that only a small portion of the population traveled significantly or regularly.

How much of today's population travels significantly or regularly? Is it accurate to say that over 90% of the modern human population lives and dies in the same town or city they were born in?

People back then traveled if they had reasons to travel. The single most common reason was take part in the economy, just like today. In general, population centers were and still are reliant on a network of resource distribution stretching across the continent. If you need to buy something, you went to market. If they did not have it, you went to another market.

There was no invisible tether keeping people tied down. If they needed to leave, such as to avoid war or starvation or a natural disaster, then they left.

But I don't see what this has to do with adventuring seeing as adventurers have never existed in reality. Sure, we have mercenaries, criminals, tomb raiders, vigilantes and so forth, but adventurers in the sense of mythic heroes or fairytale questers or the modern murderhobos have never existed in reality. Arguing about medieval stereotypes is irrelevant to that.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1049852How much of today's population travels significantly or regularly? Is it accurate to say that over 90% of the modern human population lives and dies in the same town or city they were born in?

Not disproving his point...

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1049852People back then traveled if they had reasons to travel. The single most common reason was take part in the economy, just like today. In general, population centers were and still are reliant on a network of resource distribution stretching across the continent. If you need to buy something, you went to market. If they did not have it, you went to another market.

There was no invisible tether keeping people tied down. If they needed to leave, such as to avoid war or starvation or a natural disaster, then they left.

But if they didn't need to, they wouldn't.  Kinda like most Fantasy races in a Fantasy game.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1049852But I don't see what this has to do with adventuring seeing as adventurers have never existed in reality. Sure, we have mercenaries, criminals, tomb raiders, vigilantes and so forth, but adventurers in the sense of mythic heroes or fairytale questers or the modern murderhobos have never existed in reality. Arguing about medieval stereotypes is irrelevant to that.

Maybe not now, but yes there were.  What do you think the explorers of the new world were?  They were men, and some women, who wanted to seek out something more than they had, or wanted to prove a point and did it.  But like PC's in a game, they were not the norm.

Pundy is still wrong. Chris24601 original point still stands.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1049807Here is an article (https://aprilmunday.wordpress.com/2017/10/29/travelling-in-the-middle-ages/) with sources debunking the stereotype that medieval people rarely traveled. In fact, the middle ages saw a boom in transportation (http://www.thefinertimes.com/Middle-Ages/transportation-in-the-middle-ages.html).

EDIT: And here is an entire essay (https://www.zum.de/whkmla/sp/1213/jeannedarc/mdh1.html) with citations.

Read the articles. Interesting stuff, but none of it disproves the point that the career of wandering hero fell well outside the social norms of society. If anything, it underscores the lack of adventurers among the general populace as most of those able to travel used well traveled routes for business or pilgrimage and then returned home when their business was done. I believe I even mentioned in my post that pilgrimage and war as reasons one might leave home, but those were temporary and exceptional conditions and the goal of those journeys was to finish one's business (spiritual, military and/or economic) and then return home.

That is NOT a D&D adventurer; who are, by and large, wandering mercenaries and treasure hunters who live in no fixed location (at least not until name level and sometimes not even them), own no land and owe fealty to no one and whose underlings serve for coin (or promise of coin) rather than as sworn vassals. They fall so far outside the social norms of the period that they'd almost certainly be outlaws.

As it relates to the moved goalposts, I'd agree with Mr. Brady that every PC is basically a Drizzt for their species, but also add that while I've seen plenty of Drow played, I've never actually seen even one Drizzt clone.

I've seen a Drow cleric of Elistree (the goddess of good-aligned Drow in the Realms... so many thousands to tens of thousands of good-aligned Drow exist in the Realms since that's the threshold for being a lesser god as Elistree is according to Deities & Demigods).

I've seen a CN Drow psion who's main deviation from Drow culture was that they were willing to form genuine alliances with non-Drow to help her overthrow the current Drow queen and replace her.

I've seen a Drow assassin who lives in exile (his family was on the wrong side of a power struggle) selling his services to the highest bidder.

They're all unique in their own way, just like every PC is.

Quote from: Narmer;1049825Just glancing at these articles it still seems that only a small portion of the population traveled significantly or regularly.

Sure, but the problem the people making the argument have is that they're trying to pretend that if you run Lion & Dragon you'd be playing serfs with no prospects. The PCs would obviously belong to that percentage of people who did travel.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1050128Sure, but the problem the people making the argument have is that they're trying to pretend that if you run Lion & Dragon you'd be playing serfs with no prospects. The PCs would obviously belong to that percentage of people who did travel.

And Pundit fumbles his deflection roll. No one was discussing your little faux medieval rpg.

We were discussing that PC's in general are exceptional individuals not typical representatives of a given species. The argument presented was that Drizzt is no more atypical for a Drow than a high level fighter is atypical for humans. Pundit can't actually refute that so he's trying to change the subject.

Quote from: Chris24601;1050150And Pundit fumbles his deflection roll. No one was discussing your little faux medieval rpg.

We were discussing that PC's in general are exceptional individuals not typical representatives of a given species. The argument presented was that Drizzt is no more atypical for a Drow than a high level fighter is atypical for humans. Pundit can't actually refute that so he's trying to change the subject.

This is why I redefine dark elves so that they are an acceptable PC race.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1050152This is why I redefine dark elves so that they are an acceptable PC race.

Except my point, and I believe Mr. Brady's as well, is that they're already an acceptable PC race. A drow deciding to run away from drow society and become a good-aligned wandering adventurer is no more rare than a human deciding they want to be a wandering murder-hobo.

Both are quite rare in the world, but every PC is an exception. In addition, in the very setting that Drizzt originated in, there's an actual lesser goddess who's portfolio is good-aligned drow. Since she's a lesser goddess and not a demigod that means she's got a minimum of many thousands of good aligned drow worshipers, possibly even tens of thousands. That basically means that Drizzt being good-aligned drow isn't even something unique to himself... what sets him apart is the same thing that sets every PC adventurer apart... that they're willing to be a wandering murder-hobo despite coming from a society where such activities are definitely NOT the norm of behavior.

Quote from: Chris24601;1050181Drizzt being good-aligned drow isn't even something unique to himself... what sets him apart is

That R.A. Salvatore got published:). That's all there is to it, apart from lots of descriptions of battles that are taking pages upon pages!

And I don't know why this conversation keeps going. PCs are people who are ready to go places and take risks. Period.
And yes, most such people have unique traits;).

That most players choose to play wandering mercenaries just tells me more about the way most players choose to unwind after a day at work.

Quote from: AsenRG;1050203That R.A. Salvatore got published:). That's all there is to it, apart from lots of descriptions of battles that are taking pages upon pages!

This is very reductive.  There is a reason adventure novels sell, and that's because certain characters resonates with the reader.  And as much as I HATE the Drizzle, he does have his appeal.  He's the visual extreme of the hero trope, comes from an oppressive, violent society that's well known and tries to be better than it, and to prove to others that at least ONE Drow is worth respecting.  It's very Teenager, but it's also VERY popular.

Quote from: AsenRG;1050203And I don't know why this conversation keeps going. PCs are people who are ready to go places and take risks. Period.

Because we have one section of the 'community' who believe that their way is the 'right way' and is trying to remove any real nuance and interesting conversation.  And frankly, there's so many examples proving them wrong.

Quote from: AsenRG;1050203And yes, most such people have unique traits;).

That most players choose to play wandering mercenaries just tells me more about the way most players choose to unwind after a day at work.

Why?  Do you also believe that those who like action movies or the horror genre also have 'problems'?

Quote from: Chris24601;1050181Except my point, and I believe Mr. Brady's as well, is that they're already an acceptable PC race. A drow deciding to run away from drow society and become a good-aligned wandering adventurer is no more rare than a human deciding they want to be a wandering murder-hobo.

You are correct, Sir.

Quote from: Chris24601;1049870I've seen a Drow cleric of Elistree (the goddess of good-aligned Drow in the Realms... so many thousands to tens of thousands of good-aligned Drow exist in the Realms since that's the threshold for being a lesser god as Elistree is according to Deities & Demigods).

I don't think they were ever all meant to live in the realms - just somewhere in the Prime Material plane.
So if we assume that there are 10000 worlds then each setting only needs one!

Quote from: TJS;1050429I don't think they were ever all meant to live in the realms - just somewhere in the Prime Material plane.
So if we assume that there are 10000 worlds then each setting only needs one!

Each setting's Prime Material Plane has its own gods and is a distinct reality. The Realms, Oerth, Krynn, etc. aren't different worlds in the same 'galaxy'/universe you could reach with a sufficiently fast FTL drive. They're essentially alternate 'Earths' akin to the DC multiverse.

The Forgotten Realms further established that the gods with equivalents in other settings (ex. Bahamut and Tiamat, the Egyptian pantheon of Mulhorand, etc.) are alternate reality doubles of each other (so the Realms' Bane and the Neranth Bane are akin to Superman from Earth-1 and Earth-2) and each with their own sets of worshippers.

Thus, the intention with Elistree was that there are actually thousands of good aligned Drow in the Forgotten Realms who have their own lesser goddess as a patron.

Quote from: Chris24601;1050460Each setting's Prime Material Plane has its own gods and is a distinct reality. The Realms, Oerth, Krynn, etc. aren't different worlds in the same 'galaxy'/universe you could reach with a sufficiently fast FTL drive. They're essentially alternate 'Earths' akin to the DC multiverse.

The Forgotten Realms further established that the gods with equivalents in other settings (ex. Bahamut and Tiamat, the Egyptian pantheon of Mulhorand, etc.) are alternate reality doubles of each other (so the Realms' Bane and the Neranth Bane are akin to Superman from Earth-1 and Earth-2) and each with their own sets of worshippers.

Thus, the intention with Elistree was that there are actually thousands of good aligned Drow in the Forgotten Realms who have their own lesser goddess as a patron.

When was this determined?

Because by my memory other worlds were precisely a thing you could visit with a sufficiently fast Spelljammer.

Quote from: TJS;1050505When was this determined?

Because by my memory other worlds were precisely a thing you could visit with a sufficiently fast Spelljammer.

It was determined by the time of Spelljammer actually in that no god's influence extended beyond its own crystal sphere. The Tiamat in one crystal sphere might be nearly identical to the Tiamat in another crystal sphere, but they are actually two separate entities with their own worshippers.

This concept of separate gods for each realm was maintained in Planescape and referred to again in the 3e era (I believe in "Faiths & Pantheons"; the FR specific version of "Dieties & Demigods).

There's also just the fact that Elistree literally only appears in Forgotten Realms specific material that suggests she's not a multiversal goddess with just a few worshippers on a thousand worlds, but a 'local' goddess who has several thousand worshippers on a single world. In fact all the gods are presumed to work this way; lesser gods have several thousand to tens of thousands of worshippers on a single world (because 2-10 worshippers on a thousand worlds would be a single temple on a given world... something no one outside of the town it actually resided in would even be aware of).

Also worth remembering is that a lot of campaigns don't even presume there are multiple worlds out there in the first place so the number of worshippers for each tier of gods is written as 'this is how prevalent the deity's faith is on a single world' because that's what a typical DM is going to find useful. Frankly if it presumed the numbers as 'across the entire multiverse' then only the greatest of the greater gods (i.e. those with tens to hundreds of millions of worshippers) would have sufficient numbers on any world to even be noticeable.

In other words; yes, there are intended to be enough good-aligned drow in the Forgotten Realms setting to support the existence of a lesser deity devoted to them. As it relates to the topic at hand that means

Quote from: Chris24601;1050512This concept of separate gods for each realm was maintained in Planescape and referred to again in the 3e era (I believe in "Faiths & Pantheons"; the FR specific version of "Dieties & Demigods).

That doesn't sound right to me.  Planescape just says where specific gods live - it doesn't separate them based on where they come from.  In fact that really doesn't make any sense.  In planescape you have gods from various different worlds knocking around with Thor and Odin.

Of course I recall 3E made some changes with cosmology and determined that FR had to have it's own thing.

QuoteThere's also just the fact that Elistree literally only appears in Forgotten Realms specific material that suggests she's not a multiversal goddess with just a few worshippers on a thousand worlds, but a 'local' goddess who has several thousand worshippers on a single world.

No she's in Monstrous Mythology which is setting neutral.  I can't recall her appearing in any other non-FR material but Kiaransalee (another Drow goddess) does - she appears in the Vault of the Drow in Oerth in the Planescape adventure Dead Gods where she has enough followers to be having a civil war with those of Lolth and by Canon - both FR and Montrous Mythology she originates not from Toril, but from the world of Threnody, which seems to strongly imply that, at least at some point, the Drow pantheon was considered a multiversal one.

QuoteIn fact all the gods are presumed to work this way; lesser gods have several thousand to tens of thousands of worshippers on a single world (because 2-10 worshippers on a thousand worlds would be a single temple on a given world... something no one outside of the town it actually resided in would even be aware of).

The only source I can recall from this was Monstrous Mythology 2E - and I'm pretty sure it said nothing about a single world (that may have been changed at a later date of course - probably 3E).

QuoteAlso worth remembering is that a lot of campaigns don't even presume there are multiple worlds out there in the first place so the number of worshippers for each tier of gods is written as 'this is how prevalent the deity's faith is on a single world' because that's what a typical DM is going to find useful. Frankly if it presumed the numbers as 'across the entire multiverse' then only the greatest of the greater gods (i.e. those with tens to hundreds of millions of worshippers) would have sufficient numbers on any world to even be noticeable.

Well yes that would seem to be a logical corollary - but I doubt that much thought was necessarily given to it.

QuoteIn other words; yes, there are intended to be enough good-aligned drow in the Forgotten Realms setting to support the existence of a lesser deity devoted to them. As it relates to the topic at hand that means

The problem with that is you're drawing an intention out of a logical corrollary, when it seems to be contradicted by more concrete setting elements.

In 2E, there was Drizzt and then there was a small cult of Elistrae in Skullport with special swords of (from hazy memory) I would guess dozens of good aligned Drow, with the implication there could be a few such cells elsewhere in the realms.  And then there were player characters.

I submit that it's far more likely that the designers never really gave much thought to the changes in canon they made between editions and the implications of the maths they wrote for different statuses of gods then that they ever intended that there be 1000s of good aligned drow in the Forgotten Realms.

In my DCC campaign, Dark Elves look all over-the-top with black armor and badass swords and heavy-metal names like Drakon Nightmare or Talon Nightshade, and are all sinister-like... and all speak in high-pitched squeaky voices.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1050742In my DCC campaign, Dark Elves look all over-the-top with black armor and badass swords and heavy-metal names like Drakon Nightmare or Talon Nightshade, and are all sinister-like... and all speak in high-pitched squeaky voices.

Sound like Warhammer Dark Elves. Minus the squeaky voices, but the image in my head is making me laugh.

This badass imposing elf saunters towards you looking metal as fuck, and he sounds like the old priest from The Princess Bride.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1050742In my DCC campaign, Dark Elves look all over-the-top with black armor and badass swords and heavy-metal names like Drakon Nightmare or Talon Nightshade, and are all sinister-like... and all speak in high-pitched squeaky voices.

Were you inspired by LARPers:D? Because that's the first thing I thought of upon hearing this description!

Quote from: AsenRG;1050766Were you inspired by LARPers:D? Because that's the first thing I thought of upon hearing this description!

Hah! Not really. It was more as an attempted sort of revenge against the drow-fans that love the idea of drow being all dark, sinister, and badass. They look that way in the Last Sun, until they open their mouths, and then no one can take them seriously, and they get all upset about that.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1051118Hah! Not really. It was more as an attempted sort of revenge against the drow-fans that love the idea of drow being all dark, sinister, and badass. They look that way in the Last Sun, until they open their mouths, and then no one can take them seriously, and they get all upset about that.

EverQuest (and many other MMORPGs) seemed to have success with dark elves that were recognizably evil but still allowed adventurers as a career path. Of course, MMORPGs are generally unburdened by a classical alignment mechanic.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1051118Hah! Not really. It was more as an attempted sort of revenge against the drow-fans that love the idea of drow being all dark, sinister, and badass. They look that way in the Last Sun, until they open their mouths, and then no one can take them seriously, and they get all upset about that.

So, it was still aimed at LARPers, just not only them;)! But "drow-fans that love the idea of drow being all dark, sinister, and badass" describes quite a few people I'd met when I was trying that kind of activity.

Quote from: AsenRG;1051205So, it was still aimed at LARPers, just not only them;)! But "drow-fans that love the idea of drow being all dark, sinister, and badass" describes quite a few people I'd met when I was trying that kind of activity.

Considering the number of Drow fanboys I've dealt with over the years, I'm totally ok with this. It got to the point I'd rather home brew a horse race for a Brony.

That said, I played in a Fading Suns pbp with a Brony that was unsurprisingly, playing one of the horse aliens. Far less aggravating.

Quote from: AsenRG;1051205So, it was still aimed at LARPers, just not only them;)! But "drow-fans that love the idea of drow being all dark, sinister, and badass" describes quite a few people I'd met when I was trying that kind of activity.

What other kind of drow fan is there? People who just really like clothes with spider web patterns printed on them?

Quote from: Xuc xac;1051238What other kind of drow fan is there? People who just really like clothes with spider web patterns printed on them?

Amusingly enough, there are such people, drows exist in fantasy after all:p!
But I meant mostly tabletp fans of the drow;).

Also, why am I getting the "Non-English characters are not accepted" message?

Quote from: AsenRG;1051312Amusingly enough, there are such people, drows exist in fantasy after all:p!
But I meant mostly tabletp fans of the drow;).

Also, why am I getting the "Non-English characters are not accepted" message?

Because Xuc uses ascii character and someone turned that function off for the board.

Quote from: AsenRG;1051312Also, why am I getting the "Non-English characters are not accepted" message?

I got that message persistently in one post because I put a semicolon immediately after D&D. It still gives that error message but with a little extra information that I don't recall from the first time I encountered this; &D followed by semicolon at the end of the error message. I managed to get the following into my post by putting an extra SIZE tag around the semicolon.

Non-English characters are not accepted: &D;

Hmm, what's worse: Drow fans or Bronies? Tough call.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1051764Hmm, what's worse: Drow fans or Bronies? Tough call.

Bronies, of course:D!

Quote from: AsenRG;1051803Bronies, of course:D!

Yeah, I reluctantly agree.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1050742In my DCC campaign, Dark Elves look all over-the-top with black armor and badass swords and heavy-metal names like Drakon Nightmare or Talon Nightshade, and are all sinister-like... and all speak in high-pitched squeaky voices.

I'd expand this approach to include vanilla Tolkien elves and high elves or whatever they're called as well.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1051764Hmm, what's worse: Drow fans or Bronies? Tough call.

It's all the same to me. But I think squeaky voices on My Little Ponies aren't as controversial, so how would you take the piss out of Bronies in an RPG...? I suppose giving My Lilttle Ponies metal grunt voices might work.

I prefer humans. By far.

In my homebrew, I tend to cast other fantasy races more as "monsters" than as "PC material." Humanoid and demi-human races are all related varieties of dark and light faeries, and are considered monsters. However, I allow "changeling" PCs (a faery child that was left in the place of a stolen human infant, so raised by humans) and "dwarf" PCs (a human child that was twisted or stunted or "marked" at birth in some way, such that the parents "left it for the dwarfs" so that it was raised by faeries).

In a more standard D&D fantasy setting, I'm tolerant of elves, dwarves, and half-orcs (although I have less patience for the overdone stereotypes for all three of these). I'm less fond of gnomes and halflings. I can't stand kender or gully dwarves or tinker gnomes (and wouldn't allow them in the setting at all). I don't consider tieflings or dragonborn to be playable races: they're firmly in the monster category.

As I get older I prefer human-only campaigns more and more. They seem to have another level of seriousness.

Unless, of course, you're running a non-serious campaign. In my DCC campaign I've had PCs who were fishmen, mutants, and all kinds of other weirdos.

I don't really hate most of the standard races.

I just think they've become too ubiquitous.  I just feel the game has changed now so that it's become less of a toolkit and more of a particular D&D setting which has never been properly explained (it's some kind of weird hybrid of 4E's default setting and Forgotten Realms) and which doesn't interest me and if I want to play it my way I then have to go through and strip out all the things I don't like.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1052967As I get older I prefer human-only campaigns more and more. They seem to have another level of seriousness.

Unless, of course, you're running a non-serious campaign. In my DCC campaign I've had PCs who were fishmen, mutants, and all kinds of other weirdos.

Seriousness and weirdness are not mutually exclusive. Star Trek and Star Wars are treated completely seriously despite being totally weird the moment you start thinking about them.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1052232Yeah, I reluctantly agree.

It's the sign of objectivity:)!

Quote from: RPGPundit;1052967As I get older I prefer human-only campaigns more and more. They seem to have another level of seriousness.

Unless, of course, you're running a non-serious campaign. In my DCC campaign I've had PCs who were fishmen, mutants, and all kinds of other weirdos.

Same here, though I've always preferred them, it was just on instinct.
Of course, the caveat applies;).

Quote from: Joey2k;1046227I hate halflings. Whether the traditional pseudo-hobbit pseudo-short English country gentlemen or WotC's later attempt at reinterpreting them to be some kind of diminutive ninjas, I just don't care for them. Neither fits into the kinds of worlds I want to play in (or run).

I don't like any of the other half races either (half-elf, half-orc). I don't think they should be separate races. Instead, it should be some kind of feat or trait you can take at character creation that modifies your character from the standard version of the race. I think HARP's implementation is fairly elegant.

That sounds interesting.

I've allowed some human PCs to start with a special ability over and above their ability scores and class skills. It could be something like faster movement, sixth sense or whatever. These are then justified because of traces of blood from other creatures. Like all those Greek and Norse heroes descended from gods, giants, elves or nymphs. Adding orcs, ogres, elves, etc to this mix works for me.

Quote from: Gabriel2;1046250I have a legacy dislike of gnomes.  Firstly, they had bad art when I was forming my opinion of them.  Gnomes were typically drawn to look goofy.  Secondly, they seemed so extraneous.  Don't want to play a dwarf or a halfling?  Here's the other short shit race!  Thirdly, my best friend WOULD NOT SHUT UP ABOUT HOW AWESOME HIS GNOME CHARACTER WAS.  I got so damn sick of hearing about his goddamn gnome.

I dislike Kender too.  I love Dragonlance, but Tas is extremely irritating.  There was a player component to this too.  We had a player who loved Tas in the novels and was just as much a klepto.  Whenever we brought up D&D, whether Dragonlance or not, he always insisted on playing Tas.

Not really fond of halflings/hobbits in general, but that's for no particular reason.

And... that's really it.

I like Dragonborn.  Cool reptile races are cool.  Dragons are cool.  Dragon men are double cool.  Lizard men are good, but Dragonborn have that extra oomph.  Plus the potential for wings.  Winged dragon men = triple cool.

I liked Eladrin.  Elves have been so downgraded and downplayed over they years to the point where they're just humans with pointed ears.  I liked the idea of nuElves which restored at least some of the exceptionalism of elves.  I liked the idea that they could do limited teleporting at will as it really emphasized a magic nature.

I like Humans.  Not everyone has to be some other species.

I'd rather keep the gnomes and jettison dwarves and halflings. In my campaign, all the halflings, leprechauns, gnomes, red caps and brownies are lumped together as The Little People. The same basic stats and abilities, with mainly cosmetic differences.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1049764There's still a big difference than that and having every fucking Drow PC being a dual-scimitar wielding good-aligned total-reject from everything his society stands for.

I think that has more to do with DMs and players lacking imagination and just copying Drizzt, than anything to do with the dark elves themselves as described in the modules or the Fiend Folio.

Many years ago when we played Vault of the Drow, our party recruited about a dozen Drow and half-Drow to join the group. The DM didn't want to bother rolling up stats for them, so he let each player roll up one dark elf and one half-Drow and the closest anyone came to one Drow fighter who was a double-specialist with daggers -using one in each hand. The one I rolled up used a pair of hand crossbows like six-shooters.

https://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?23940-(D-amp-D)-Drow-PCs&p=580232&viewfull=1#post580232

The lack of novelty you describe is easily cured for any race/class combination.

Quote from: Elfdart;1053526I've allowed some human PCs to start with a special ability over and above their ability scores and class skills. It could be something like faster movement, sixth sense or whatever. These are then justified because of traces of blood from other creatures. Like all those Greek and Norse heroes descended from gods, giants, elves or nymphs. Adding orcs, ogres, elves, etc to this mix works for me.

I like that approach; it also leaves room for discovering additional qualities later. (OK, that could also get out of hand.)

Racial abilities tend to get overshadowed in D&D because they don't (mostly) advance as the character does, so they contribute little to the character in play as they reach higher levels, or they're just a prerequisite for some race-specific overpowered class.

Humans. I like humans.

[video=youtube_share;RwvqXDdIeeM]https://youtu.be/RwvqXDdIeeM[/youtube]