Quote from: Jaeger on February 09, 2021, 04:42:44 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 08, 2021, 02:37:14 PM

Quote from: Pat on February 08, 2021, 01:55:20 PM
More importantly, I think you're talking past each other. The group who are saying exotic races are fine seem to be either new school or very old (0e) old school. Whereas the group who are saying that the most exotic race anyone played was an elf seem to be the post-OD&D crowd. It's worth remembering there was a major shift in tone in between OD&D and AD&D. OD&D told DMs that balrog PCs were fine, while the AD&D DMG has that notorious rant against playing monsters. It shouldn't surprise anyone that there was a strong shift in how people played.

Good point, especially the Gary paraphrase.  The problem isn't whether someone wants to play a game with gonzo races or not.  I could care less.  It's when people argue that gonzo PC races are the norm or the default for D&D.  That hasn't always been true, and therefore doesn't serve as an argument for or against such a policy...

I think that the prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard has a lot to do with a cultural shift in the game from 3.x on...

The prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard has a lot to do with a cultural shift in the game from 3.x on?

I guess you have some anecdote to back that up because you could not play a monster race using the core 3e rules.

Quote from: Shasarak on February 09, 2021, 04:55:26 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on February 09, 2021, 04:42:44 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 08, 2021, 02:37:14 PM

Quote from: Pat on February 08, 2021, 01:55:20 PM
More importantly, I think you're talking past each other. The group who are saying exotic races are fine seem to be either new school or very old (0e) old school. Whereas the group who are saying that the most exotic race anyone played was an elf seem to be the post-OD&D crowd. It's worth remembering there was a major shift in tone in between OD&D and AD&D. OD&D told DMs that balrog PCs were fine, while the AD&D DMG has that notorious rant against playing monsters. It shouldn't surprise anyone that there was a strong shift in how people played.

Good point, especially the Gary paraphrase.  The problem isn't whether someone wants to play a game with gonzo races or not.  I could care less.  It's when people argue that gonzo PC races are the norm or the default for D&D.  That hasn't always been true, and therefore doesn't serve as an argument for or against such a policy...

I think that the prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard has a lot to do with a cultural shift in the game from 3.x on...

The prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard has a lot to do with a cultural shift in the game from 3.x on?

I guess you have some anecdote to back that up because you could not play a monster race using the core 3e rules.

You'll notice he said it was due to the cultural shift that started with the 3.x rules.  Core 3.0 was the first version of D&D that had monsters mechanically built in the same manner as PCs so that you could just add class levels/templates/etc. to them.  That is the paradigm shift in how monsters and PCs were viewed that he is referring to...and then Savage Species specifically codified it in 3.0 just before 3.5 dropped.

The only official things before that were the BECMI Creature Crucibles for Fey, Lycanthropes, Sky Gnomes and Aquatics.  Those didn't seem to see widespread use except on their own...We played individual campaigns centered around one or the other books on a regular basis, but we never tried to use them in a more general campaign.  Maybe other people did use the stuff for regular campaigns, but you would have to do some checking on that.

Quote from: moonsweeper on February 09, 2021, 05:18:01 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on February 09, 2021, 04:55:26 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on February 09, 2021, 04:42:44 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 08, 2021, 02:37:14 PM

Quote from: Pat on February 08, 2021, 01:55:20 PM
More importantly, I think you're talking past each other. The group who are saying exotic races are fine seem to be either new school or very old (0e) old school. Whereas the group who are saying that the most exotic race anyone played was an elf seem to be the post-OD&D crowd. It's worth remembering there was a major shift in tone in between OD&D and AD&D. OD&D told DMs that balrog PCs were fine, while the AD&D DMG has that notorious rant against playing monsters. It shouldn't surprise anyone that there was a strong shift in how people played.

Good point, especially the Gary paraphrase.  The problem isn't whether someone wants to play a game with gonzo races or not.  I could care less.  It's when people argue that gonzo PC races are the norm or the default for D&D.  That hasn't always been true, and therefore doesn't serve as an argument for or against such a policy...

I think that the prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard has a lot to do with a cultural shift in the game from 3.x on...

The prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard has a lot to do with a cultural shift in the game from 3.x on?

I guess you have some anecdote to back that up because you could not play a monster race using the core 3e rules.

You'll notice he said it was due to the cultural shift that started with the 3.x rules.  Core 3.0 was the first version of D&D that had monsters mechanically built in the same manner as PCs so that you could just add class levels/templates/etc. to them.  That is the paradigm shift in how monsters and PCs were viewed that he is referring to...and then Savage Species specifically codified it in 3.0 just before 3.5 dropped.

The only official things before that were the BECMI Creature Crucibles for Fey, Lycanthropes, Sky Gnomes and Aquatics.  Those didn't seem to see widespread use except on their own...We played individual campaigns centered around one or the other books on a regular basis, but we never tried to use them in a more general campaign.  Maybe other people did use the stuff for regular campaigns, but you would have to do some checking on that.

Yes it was only the BECMI Creature Crucibles for Fey, Lycanthropes, Sky Gnome and Aquatics.

And All the Humanoids in 1993



And Skills and Powers (or 2.5e) in 1995



But yeah other then that it must have been the culture shift 10 years later with 3e that did it.

Quote from: moonsweeper on February 09, 2021, 05:18:01 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on February 09, 2021, 04:55:26 PM
The prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard has a lot to do with a cultural shift in the game from 3.x on?

I guess you have some anecdote to back that up because you could not play a monster race using the core 3e rules.

You'll notice he said it was due to the cultural shift that started with the 3.x rules.  Core 3.0 was the first version of D&D that had monsters mechanically built in the same manner as PCs so that you could just add class levels/templates/etc. to them.  That is the paradigm shift in how monsters and PCs were viewed that he is referring to...and then Savage Species specifically codified it in 3.0 just before 3.5 dropped....

Yes, thank you.

Quote from: Shasarak on February 09, 2021, 05:36:41 PM
But yeah other then that it must have been the culture shift 10 years later with 3e that did it.

You are right "started" is the wrong word. Cultural Shifts don't come out of nowhere.

"Codified" with 3e fits the situation better.

There was always a subset of players who wanted to play some special non-core thing. And supplemental material was made to cater to them. In 1e and 2e.

But since 3e we have seen a jump with each new edition expanding the core book PC races to a more furry friendly format.


Making D&D "Less Generic" for 3e was done on purpose:
https://www.enworld.org/threads/3e-and-the-feel-of-d-d.667269/

Quote from: Wherein Jonathan Tweet describes how subversive he was with 3e on February 09, 2021, 05:18:01 PM

For 3rd Edition Dungeons & Dragons, the big picture was to return the game to its roots, reversing the direction that 2nd Edition had taken in making the game more generic. The plan was to strongly support the idea that the characters were D&D characters in a D&D world. We emphasized adventuring and in particular dungeoneering, both with the rules and with the adventure path modules. We intentionally brought players back to a shared experience after 2E had sent them off in different directions.

Starting in original D&D, top-level fighters and clerics could build strongholds, and we dropped that. If you have had fun playing your character as an adventurer for level after level, why would you suddenly want to take on non-adventuring duties at 9th level? ...

Personally, one part of the process I enjoyed was describing the world of D&D in its own terms, rather than referring to real-world history and mythology. ...

In 2nd Ed, the rules referred to history and to historical legends to describe the game, ...But by the time we were working on 3rd Ed, D&D had had such a big impact on fantasy that we basically used D&D as its own source. For example, 2E took monks out of the Player's Handbook, in part because martial artist monks have no real place in medieval fantasy. We put them back in because monks sure have a place in D&D fantasy. The same goes for gnomes. The 3E gnome is there because the gnome was well-established in D&D lore, not in order to represent real-world mythology.

For the art in 3E, we took pains to have it seem to illustrate not fantasy characters in general but D&D adventurers in particular. For one thing, lots of them wore backpacks. For the iconic characters, we wrote up the sort of gear that a 1st-level character might start with, and the illustrations showed them with that gear. The illustrations in the 2E Player's Handbook feature lots of human fighters, human wizards, and castles. Those images reflect standard fantasy tropes, while the art in 3E reflects what you see in your mind's eye when you play D&D.

Descriptions of weapons in 2E referred to historical precedents, .... We dropped the historical references, such as the Lucerne hammer, and gave dwarves the dwarven warax. And if the dwarven warax isn't cool enough, how would you like a double sword or maybe a spiked chain?

The gods in 2E were generic, such as the god of strength. We pulled in the Greyhawk deities so we could use proper names and specific holy symbols that were part of the D&D heritage. We knew that plenty of Dungeon Masters would create their own worlds and deities, as I did for my home campaign, but the Greyhawk deities made the game feel more connected to its own roots. They also helped us give players a unified starting point, which was part of Ryan Dancey's plan to bring the D&D audience back to a shared experience.

Fans were enthusiastic about the way 3E validated adventuring, the core experience that D&D does best and that appeals most broadly. We were fortunate that by 2000 D&D had such a strong legacy that it could stand on its own without reference to Earth history or mythology. One reason that fans were willing to accept sweeping changes to the rules was that 3E felt more like D&D than 2nd Edition had.

Here's a real good one:

Quote from: Wherein Jonathan Tweet describes how subversive he was with 3e on February 09, 2021, 05:18:01 PM
Sometimes I wonder what 4E could have accomplished if it had likewise tried to reinforce the D&D experience rather than trying to redesign it.

He claims to have wanted to "return the game to its roots", yet he then proceeded to systematically divorce the game from referring to real-world history and mythology.

I almost forgot that infamous 3e supplement Orcs of Thar released in 1988

My bad, I forgot the Humanoids book...

...but like CC, Monsters and PCs used different rules.  Did you ever try to use either of them?  Those books attempted to shoehorn in monster races into a playable format using the PC rules and it usually required more tweaking, which creates a tendency not to experiment.  It generally only worked well in a 'monsters' campaign.

3.x rules were specifically codified from the get-go to be the same for PCs and Monsters...that is what led to the paradigm shift.  It was easy interchange PCs and Monsters for anybody using the rules, before that it required more 'work'.  Less work led more people to experiment and also allowed WOTC to easily create a book like Savage Species.

I'm not saying its bad, I'm just saying the big shift occurred because of the uniform rules style of 3e lead to much easier integration and experimentation.

Quote from: moonsweeper on February 09, 2021, 05:53:03 PM
My bad, I forgot the Humanoids book...

...but like CC, Monsters and PCs used different rules.  Did you ever try to use either of them?  Those books attempted to shoehorn in monster races into a playable format using the PC rules and it usually required more tweaking, which creates a tendency not to experiment.  It generally only worked well in a 'monsters' campaign.

3.x rules were specifically codified from the get-go to be the same for PCs and Monsters...that is what led to the paradigm shift.  It was easy interchange PCs and Monsters for anybody using the rules, before that it required more 'work'.  Less work led more people to experiment and also allowed WOTC to easily create a book like Savage Species.

I'm not saying its bad, I'm just saying the big shift occurred because of the uniform rules style of 3e lead to much easier integration and experimentation.

These were all the rules you needed to create a Minotaur character in 2e Dragonlance and half of that was Proficiencies.

Quote from: Jaeger on February 09, 2021, 05:48:21 PM
He claims to have wanted to "return the game to its roots", yet he then proceeded to systematically divorce the game from referring to real-world history and mythology.

I would love if D&D referenced real-world history and mythology.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 09, 2021, 06:54:36 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on February 09, 2021, 05:48:21 PM
He claims to have wanted to "return the game to its roots", yet he then proceeded to systematically divorce the game from referring to real-world history and mythology.

I would love if D&D referenced real-world history and mythology.

Now that's just plain wrong. D&D is built in large part on references to real world history and mythology. It may not cater to whatever specific details you prefer.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 09, 2021, 06:54:36 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on February 09, 2021, 05:48:21 PM
He claims to have wanted to "return the game to its roots", yet he then proceeded to systematically divorce the game from referring to real-world history and mythology.

I would love if D&D referenced real-world history and mythology.

You did not hear that DnD is based off Jewish culture?

A whole race and two monsters if you can believe it!

Quote from: Shasarak on February 09, 2021, 06:29:20 PM

Quote from: moonsweeper on February 09, 2021, 05:53:03 PM
My bad, I forgot the Humanoids book...

...but like CC, Monsters and PCs used different rules.  Did you ever try to use either of them?  Those books attempted to shoehorn in monster races into a playable format using the PC rules and it usually required more tweaking, which creates a tendency not to experiment.  It generally only worked well in a 'monsters' campaign.

3.x rules were specifically codified from the get-go to be the same for PCs and Monsters...that is what led to the paradigm shift.  It was easy interchange PCs and Monsters for anybody using the rules, before that it required more 'work'.  Less work led more people to experiment and also allowed WOTC to easily create a book like Savage Species.

I'm not saying its bad, I'm just saying the big shift occurred because of the uniform rules style of 3e lead to much easier integration and experimentation.

These were all the rules you needed to create a Minotaur character in 2e Dragonlance and half of that was Proficiencies.

...but just like Orcs of Thar, that is a campaign-world specific race.  It would not be appropriate in Greyhawk or FR, for example.  This discussion is more centered on the complete circus effect now going on in the generic settings.

When we used to play 2e, we all ran specific campaign worlds...it allowed our money to go farther by each purchasing stuff for the different worlds.  I DMed Birthright and Planescape...and Planescape is still my all time favorite for TSR Campaign worlds.  I loved tieflings because no 2 were ever alike by the time players got done on the random special ability/looks/qualities tables in the Planewalker's Handbook.  But they were appropriate for that campaign setting.  Hell, Planescape or Spelljammer would be the only settings I would allow all of that stuff into because it fits there because of it being a Star Wars cantina type of place.

That being said, it doesn't matter to me what someone else does with their campaign.  I actually like 3e and always enjoyed playing it.  Its biggest flaw was the massive DM overhead associated with the universalist rules and the CR tables.  However, that universalist nature and the OGL is what really ignited the whole 'all monsters can be played' trend.  Before that, it was a bit here or there in one campaign world or another.  I also have no problem with the monster races as PCs idea, I just think that it has finally gone overboard with the menagerie effect coupled together with player's being upset when their Gnoll PC gets treated differently in town because Gnolls have a bloodthirsty raider reputation.

QuoteThrow in the hard feelings that your character (who isn't even the caster) can be killed because of some other player's bad dice roll and it's just not a great mechanic

That's very good mechanic for particular flavour of casters I like to emulate here. And mind it - you can have perfectly playable Warhammer team, multiple teams - that do not accept any walking nuclear bombs alongside, unlike D&D where without arcane caster you are usually at least a bit screwed.

QuoteBut since 3e we have seen a jump with each new edition expanding the core book PC races to a more furry friendly format.

Now let's not overexaggerate.
If anything it's more scale-y as dragonborn (nota bene totally new race made for 4e, not a pre-existing monster type) is only animalistic species in core 4e and 5e games.
Basically CORE races changes very very slowly, much slower than classess IMHO because at least in this regard 4E made big twisted mix with 8 core ones.

QuoteNow that's just plain wrong. D&D is built in large part on references to real world history and mythology. It may not cater to whatever specific details you prefer.

Well it started this way - so roots are present, but well system evolved later into it's own.
TBH that happens with a lots of fantasy settings, based on real history and myth, first editions, drafts are more closely rooted - but if franchise survives a lot it gets more and more OWN vibe.
Even Professor Tolkien is good example - earlier drafts are more closer to Germanic mythology, the more time passes, the more specific and different setting of his works become (sure roots are still there of course, alas).

QuoteI loved tieflings because no 2 were ever alike by the time players got done on the random special ability/looks/qualities tables in the Planewalker's Handbook.  But they were appropriate for that campaign setting.

TBH that's a good way to keep planetouched as playable race but limit it's SJW-glamour-factor - RANDOM TABLES OF PLANAR PROPERTIES.
You make thing twice about playing tiefling if it gives you as much chance of having pink skin, than beard made of tentacles (+2 to grapple).

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 09, 2021, 07:03:59 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 09, 2021, 06:54:36 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on February 09, 2021, 05:48:21 PM
He claims to have wanted to "return the game to its roots", yet he then proceeded to systematically divorce the game from referring to real-world history and mythology.

I would love if D&D referenced real-world history and mythology.

Now that's just plain wrong. D&D is built in large part on references to real world history and mythology. It may not cater to whatever specific details you prefer.

I meant literal references.

But speaking of catering, I would appreciate if they at least partially renamed a few monsters that are so utterly divorced from their source material that their name no longer makes sense and only causes confusion whenever you try to compare the two. What would be even better is if they allowed monsters to have multiple names, whether those names come from one language or multiple languages, as in real world bestiaries of folklore.

E.g. Medusa becomes Gorgon Medusa, Snake-Haired Woman, Queen of Serpents, that one hot chick who always wears a veil, etc. Gorgon becomes Gorgon Catoblepas, Iron Bull, Terrible Downlooker, Death Cow, etc. Lich becomes Lich Lord, Lich Mage, Archlich, Lord of Sorrow, Arcane Lich, Lich King, The Lovechild of Afgorkon and Koschey, Afgorkoschey, The Giant Without a Heart, Soulless Immortal Lich, Horcrux-user, Sauron, Ring-Wraith, Voldemort, Rasputin, He Who Must Not Be Named, the Dark Lord of the Sith, etc. Wight becomes Barrow-Wight, Mort-Wight, Lich-Wight, Draug, Draug-Wight, Again Walker, Mummy Without Bandages, etc.

Quote from: Shasarak on February 09, 2021, 07:21:22 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 09, 2021, 06:54:36 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on February 09, 2021, 05:48:21 PM
He claims to have wanted to "return the game to its roots", yet he then proceeded to systematically divorce the game from referring to real-world history and mythology.

I would love if D&D referenced real-world history and mythology.

You did not hear that DnD is based off Jewish culture?

A whole race and two monsters if you can believe it!

That many? Very loosely, it seems.

D&D dwarves have had their Jewish inspirations scrubbed away in D&D. They don't speak a Semitic language, aren't trying to reclaim and develop their homeland, and they aren't embroiled in war with Qurac.

The lich's phylactery is no longer limited to a Jewish prayer book so the name is an artifact more than anything else.

The clay golem has had its Jewish inspirations scrubbed away to the point that the name is an artifact. The name has been genericized so that it applies to any automaton, rather than those specifically made of clay.

Quote from: moonsweeper on February 09, 2021, 07:39:20 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on February 09, 2021, 06:29:20 PM

Quote from: moonsweeper on February 09, 2021, 05:53:03 PM
My bad, I forgot the Humanoids book...

...but like CC, Monsters and PCs used different rules.  Did you ever try to use either of them?  Those books attempted to shoehorn in monster races into a playable format using the PC rules and it usually required more tweaking, which creates a tendency not to experiment.  It generally only worked well in a 'monsters' campaign.

3.x rules were specifically codified from the get-go to be the same for PCs and Monsters...that is what led to the paradigm shift.  It was easy interchange PCs and Monsters for anybody using the rules, before that it required more 'work'.  Less work led more people to experiment and also allowed WOTC to easily create a book like Savage Species.

I'm not saying its bad, I'm just saying the big shift occurred because of the uniform rules style of 3e lead to much easier integration and experimentation.

These were all the rules you needed to create a Minotaur character in 2e Dragonlance and half of that was Proficiencies.

...but just like Orcs of Thar, that is a campaign-world specific race.  It would not be appropriate in Greyhawk or FR, for example.  This discussion is more centered on the complete circus effect now going on in the generic settings.

When we used to play 2e, we all ran specific campaign worlds...it allowed our money to go farther by each purchasing stuff for the different worlds.  I DMed Birthright and Planescape...and Planescape is still my all time favorite for TSR Campaign worlds.  I loved tieflings because no 2 were ever alike by the time players got done on the random special ability/looks/qualities tables in the Planewalker's Handbook.  But they were appropriate for that campaign setting.  Hell, Planescape or Spelljammer would be the only settings I would allow all of that stuff into because it fits there because of it being a Star Wars cantina type of place.

That being said, it doesn't matter to me what someone else does with their campaign.  I actually like 3e and always enjoyed playing it.  Its biggest flaw was the massive DM overhead associated with the universalist rules and the CR tables.  However, that universalist nature and the OGL is what really ignited the whole 'all monsters can be played' trend.  Before that, it was a bit here or there in one campaign world or another.  I also have no problem with the monster races as PCs idea, I just think that it has finally gone overboard with the menagerie effect coupled together with player's being upset when their Gnoll PC gets treated differently in town because Gnolls have a bloodthirsty raider reputation.

You could play "monster races' in ODnD

You could play "monster races" in Dragonlance in 2e

You could play "monster races" in Dark Sun in 2e

You could play "monster races" in Spelljammer in 2e

You could play "monster races" in Birthright in 2e

You could play "monster races" in Mystara in BECMI/DnD

You could play "monster races" in Faerun in 2e

You could play "monster races" in Planescape in 2e

But the real trend of playing "monster races" started in 3e.  Somehow.  Some thing to do with refined mechanics and easier character creation, descending armour class being the only thing holding back huge swaths of people from playing Minotaurs.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 09, 2021, 08:11:46 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 09, 2021, 07:03:59 PM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on February 09, 2021, 06:54:36 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on February 09, 2021, 05:48:21 PM
He claims to have wanted to "return the game to its roots", yet he then proceeded to systematically divorce the game from referring to real-world history and mythology.

I would love if D&D referenced real-world history and mythology.

Now that's just plain wrong. D&D is built in large part on references to real world history and mythology. It may not cater to whatever specific details you prefer.

I meant literal references.

But speaking of catering, I would appreciate if they at least partially renamed a few monsters that are so utterly divorced from their source material that their name no longer makes sense and only causes confusion whenever you try to compare the two. What would be even better is if they allowed monsters to have multiple names, whether those names come from one language or multiple languages, as in real world bestiaries of folklore.

E.g. Medusa becomes Gorgon Medusa, Snake-Haired Woman, Queen of Serpents, that one hot chick who always wears a veil, etc. Gorgon becomes Gorgon Catoblepas, Iron Bull, Terrible Downlooker, Death Cow, etc. Lich becomes Lich Lord, Lich Mage, Archlich, Lord of Sorrow, Arcane Lich, Lich King, The Lovechild of Afgorkon and Koschey, Afgorkoschey, The Giant Without a Heart, Soulless Immortal Lich, Horcrux-user, Sauron, Ring-Wraith, Voldemort, Rasputin, He Who Must Not Be Named, the Dark Lord of the Sith, etc. Wight becomes Barrow-Wight, Mort-Wight, Lich-Wight, Draug, Draug-Wight, Again Walker, Mummy Without Bandages, etc.

We've been down this road before. You're welcome to your opinion, but you come across as a pedant. Like complaining that Jurassic Park is misleading and confusing because they didn't get every detail about dinosaurs correct.