Quote from: jibbajibba;633424I think the ability to build new class/sub-class and races is something all DMs should be comfortable with and I woudl prefer to see a DM 'points based' little tool kit for building them.

I'd prefer NOT to see a points-based tool kit for building races and classes. I've seen enough of them, and they are no longer appealing. And it gives players the wrong ideas.

In the PHB, I'd like classic vanilla fantasy races of whatever combination.

But I want player stats for everything you could reasonably play in the MM. So if I happen to want to play a gnoll, drow, harpy, warforged, changeling, vampire, or whatever it should be easy.

I prefer the classic: human, gnome, elf, dwarf, halfling, half-orc, half-elf. For core. I do think the MM needs monsters as races rules for different campaign settings and having a humanoids book is a good idea.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;633074Men.

You don't need anything else in the core.  Everything else can be, and should be, punted to setting supplements.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;633089Half orcs should be there. A defining part of AD&D and (later) 3e.

These are my kind of answers.

Quote from: SacrosanctAre they though? I mean, I still play AD&D, and over the past 30+ years of playing, they hardly felt essential. In fact, if my memory doesn't fail me, the didn't become an identifier of AD&D until they were removed in 2e, like the assassin. Then all the sudden they became cool because they were "edgy" and "dangerous".

They were absolutely ubiquitous when I started playing (although they became less common as people swithced from photocopied AD&D to legit books, and more and more people started to come in via FR and DL novels). The only thing more cool than a half-orc was a half-orc assassin, but they make for excellent anti-heroes in all classes they can have.

The 2e switch may have been part of it (and, well, 2e is, khm, 2e), but it's also a basic vs. AD&D thing.

Quote from: elfandghost;633004That's right what D&D races would be your must haves for the main 'Player's handbook' or similar book. Choose from any past D&D Campaign Setting, Dragon Article or 'Core Rule book. As a secondary option choose which race gets the chop, with no save vs. death or chance for raise dead.

1. Elves (artistic people)
2. Dwarves (tough bastard people)
3. Hobbits (simple people)
4. Orcs (warrior-savage people)

and to Chop...
Humans!  Since a lot of these races are basically presented as "different Human cultures in funny makeup" anyway.

JG

Quote from: talysman;633511I'd prefer NOT to see a points-based tool kit for building races and classes. I've seen enough of them, and they are no longer appealing. And it gives players the wrong ideas.

Like I said DM only. Makes the DM actaully think about there world rather than havign players coming to them with some crappy supliment stuff saying can i play an elven Ghost slayer .
Setting books to have their own races natch.

Quote from: jibbajibba;633675Like I said DM only. Makes the DM actaully think about there world rather than havign players coming to them with some crappy supliment stuff saying can i play an elven Ghost slayer .
Setting books to have their own races natch.

Right. Because never in the history of RPGs has a player ever looked at the DM-only tools and asked for a custom character.

Just make the race-build stuff simple, non-point-buy, and not mechanically attractive. I don't care if a player wants to play an interesting custom race. I just don't want a player to choose a race (custom or non-custom) because of mechanical advantages.

Quote from: talysman;633775Right. Because never in the history of RPGs has a player ever looked at the DM-only tools and asked for a custom character.

Just make the race-build stuff simple, non-point-buy, and not mechanically attractive. I don't care if a player wants to play an interesting custom race. I just don't want a player to choose a race (custom or non-custom) because of mechanical advantages.

As as a DM I wouldn't let them. If the DM doesn't have big enough balls to tell his players that they can't play a 1/2 elf , 1/2 giant Spectre as a race then they are in the wrong job.
But if you are encouraging a DM to create their own worlds, populated with races that are thought out and integrated within that template I don't think giving them guidance on doing it can be considered a bad thing.

My whole point is that DMs are not encouraged or supported enough in world building.. they are taught that all stuff has to be official and be centrally sanctioned and also that all central sanctioned stuff is official.

I would look to totally destroy those ideas. You can't play an elf because in my world there are 3 playable races Lizardmen, Humans and Sharish (goes on to describe the Sharish)  I don't want a dozen offical settings with the same races with different shaped foreheads. I want each setting to be a unique setting and I want to encourage DMs to really think about the world they want to create and not opt for all the same standard out of the box stuff.

Humans are the base race everything else is a custom race tied to a setting but encourage the DMs to create their own settings populated with their own races, classes and monsters.

Quote from: jibbajibba;633779As as a DM I wouldn't let them. If the DM doesn't have big enough balls to tell his players that they can't play a 1/2 elf , 1/2 giant Spectre as a race then they are in the wrong job.
But if you are encouraging a DM to create their own worlds, populated with races that are thought out and integrated within that template I don't think giving them guidance on doing it can be considered a bad thing.

And why can't a DM say no if the race design system is non-point-buy and in the PHB? That's where our disagreement is. You're holding up the need for DM training on world creation and DM control of what goes into the world as some kind of reason why a detailed point-buy design system is necessary. I'm telling you that detailed point-buy design systems are the problem, not player accessibility. They engage players (and the DM) with the system, instead of with the fictional world. They create exploits. They make people want to fiddle with math instead of fiddle with ideas.

How much say the players get in setting creation is a matter of taste. Same as how integrated the setting is. Some people like lots of player input, lots of gonzo elements, or both. Some don't like either. Either way, it's irrelevant to what makes a good game.

I'd be good with the following races detailed:

High Humans (Advanced state of civilization, learning & technology)
Low Humans (Tribal clans, farmers, hunters and villagers)
Primitive Humans (cavemen & barbarians)
Dwarves
Elves

Though the option to play ANY race should exist.

Oh, and I'd just do Halflings as a variety of Low Human who happens to be short.

Quote from: talysman;633791And why can't a DM say no if the race design system is non-point-buy and in the PHB? That's where our disagreement is. You're holding up the need for DM training on world creation and DM control of what goes into the world as some kind of reason why a detailed point-buy design system is necessary. I'm telling you that detailed point-buy design systems are the problem, not player accessibility. They engage players (and the DM) with the system, instead of with the fictional world. They create exploits. They make people want to fiddle with math instead of fiddle with ideas.

How much say the players get in setting creation is a matter of taste. Same as how integrated the setting is. Some people like lots of player input, lots of gonzo elements, or both. Some don't like either. Either way, it's irrelevant to what makes a good game.

Well to be fair I never said detailed I said point buy. The current one I am working with has 6 points. Though I might increase it to 10 points depended on tryign to make up some extremes for a fairyland world type. And as I also pointed out there will be a random race generator as well. the points are just there to act as a suggestion for what creates relatively playable and balanced races.

I think some DMs need guidance on world creation. Sure there is the caveat that you can ignore these guidelines and build your own races but its worth a few paragraphs to discuss the issues that may occur if you select say Centaur as a PC race in a world that is largely dominated by human cities and where you expect most play to take place in those cities.
You are right I am specifically asking for DMs to take responsibility to establish consistent settings that match the game they want to play and stop slagging off rulesets that include stuff they don't like like say Dragonborn or Gnomes as PC races.

I want DMs to take a lot more responsibilty for the settings they run and thing a lot more about how economics, religions, races, classes, magic and all that fit together. And yes it is absolutely a play style choice.