I wonder what effect deleting dark vision would have on the numbers at a macro scale. Nobody has mentioned it so far in the thread, but it seems to come up frequently as a consideration when people are on the fence about a racial choice.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;814098I wonder what effect deleting dark vision would have on the numbers at a macro scale. Nobody has mentioned it so far in the thread, but it seems to come up frequently as a consideration when people are on the fence about a racial choice.

This is true, especially if the rest of the party already has darkvision and you'd be the only schmuck in need of a light source.

Quote from: Panjumanju;814062Thank you everyone for your suggestions. I think in the future I'm going to go with the suggestion that many of you have made of constructing a random human/demi-human table.

//Panjumanju

Railroading via forced random is still railroading.

But. If your campaign setting is humanocentric and demi-humans are rare. That is a different story totally.Then just DONT ALLOW THEM AS PCS! Really. There are gnomes in OD&D and BX. But they are not a PC race.

Just say to the players. "Hey. I'd like to run a campaign where the characters are all humans." and if they walk then they walk.

Quote from: Natty Bodak;814098I wonder what effect deleting dark vision would have on the numbers at a macro scale. Nobody has mentioned it so far in the thread, but it seems to come up frequently as a consideration when people are on the fence about a racial choice.

I have one player who does that. The others dont care and promptly forget they have it if they have it.

Quote from: Omega;814116Railroading via forced random is still railroading.

But. If your campaign setting is humanocentric and demi-humans are rare. That is a different story totally.Then just DONT ALLOW THEM AS PCS! Really. There are gnomes in OD&D and BX. But they are not a PC race.

Just say to the players. "Hey. I'd like to run a campaign where the characters are all humans." and if they walk then they walk.

Railroading at character creation? Really, are you going to say that's a thing?

It's not that I only want humans - I just don't want humans to be the minority of the party. That's the problem.

//Panjumanju

Quote from: Omega;814116Railroading via forced random is still railroading.

Jesus Wept.  God forbid the Special Snowflake may have to actually make up a character that makes sense within the setting.

GM = "You can't have a Dalek PC in Greyhawk."
Omega = "Stop railroading me!"

Quote from: Omega;814116But. If your campaign setting is humanocentric and demi-humans are rare. That is a different story totally.Then just DONT ALLOW THEM AS PCS!

So making them non-existent as PCs is better than having a rare occurrence actually be rare via roll?

Fun random idea:

Have a deck of races, classes, backgrounds, whatever.

Deal out cards, can drop any extras for another draw, maybe let players trade.

I actually do like how 5e has limited Darkvision. It is only 60' and gives Disadv on Perception (WIS) checks for sight. And from the core PHB races, everyone gets to hear...

The challenge is getting a GM to incorporate the Stealth/Hide versus multi-sensory Perception contest in a dynamic manner. Too often it can be glossed into an "I Win!" button. It's also one of the reasons Thieves' Skills were seen as so much of a headache retrospectively.

GMing is an art. It can be a challenge to reinforce non-mechanical (or fluid) restrictions meaningfully. Soft tethers to power, such as social friction, or limits to racial advantages, really have to be played up to sink in.

(Viking Hat GM: It helps to grind them down until they squeal, next grind them some more until the crying stops and they cease resisting, and then ease up on the punishment. Explicit setting pain hurts. Once warned, don't choose it blithely.)

Quote from: Panjumanju;814119Railroading at character creation? Really, are you going to say that's a thing?

It's not that I only want humans - I just don't want humans to be the minority of the party. That's the problem.

A problem without solution if you aren't willing to dictate race, since one player's choice to play a non-human limits the remaining players' choice to human (once almost half the players have chosen non-humans) even if you haven't, or else you have to accept that you may get no humans. One player forcing a choice on another (e.g., "you can't play a thief because I'm a paladin") at character creation annoys me, even if it can't really be called railroading. If everyone ends up with an elf wizard, so be it.

Quote from: CRKrueger;814123Jesus Wept.  God forbid the Special Snowflake may have to actually make up a character that makes sense within the setting.

GM = "You can't have a Dalek PC in Greyhawk."
Omega = "Stop railroading me!"

So making them non-existent as PCs is better than having a rare occurrence actually be rare via roll?

No. I am saying that not wanting non human races in the campaign and then likely tossing out a roll table thats heavily weighted to human because otherwise what the hell was the point in wanting a human-centric group when no one might get one?

Now if you say straight up. "Everyone rolls for random race". Eh. I might grumble. I might not. I an NOT  a fan of totally randomized chargen. Its one of the resons I detest 4eD&D Gamma World. You choose your name, gender, starting weapon and armour. All else is randomized.

And if there arent any Daleks in D&D then why would someone be wanting to play one? Thats the players crazy not the DMs. The DM might work with the idea. But they could tell the would be Dalek to take a hike. Gary or whomever was DMing for Geezer could have just as likely said "NO" when he asked to play a Balrog.

As for omission vs roll off. In one case the GM is laying down that these things arent here. Like when the original players of Dragonlance were told "No clerics, No half-orcs, no halflings." Whereas tinkering up a weighted table says what? You are going to play a human and one of you "might" get something else because I dont want you to but dont want to say flat out no.

And so on.

Quote from: CRKrueger;814123Jesus Wept.  God forbid the Special Snowflake may have to actually make up a character that makes sense within the setting.

GM = "You can't have a Dalek PC in Greyhawk."
Omega = "Stop railroading me!"

So making them non-existent as PCs is better than having a rare occurrence actually be rare via roll?

No. I am saying that not wanting non human races in the campaign and then likely tossing out a roll table thats heavily weighted to human because otherwise what the hell was the point in wanting a human-centric group when no one might get one?

Now if you say straight up. "Everyone rolls for random race". Eh. I might grumble. I might not. I an NOT  a fan of totally randomized chargen. Its one of the resons I detest 4eD&D Gamma World. You choose your name, gender, starting weapon and armour. All else is randomized.

And if there arent any Daleks in D&D then why would someone be wanting to play one? Thats the players crazy not the DMs. The DM might work with the idea. But they could tell the would be Dalek to take a hike. Gary or whomever was DMing for Geezer could have just as likely said "NO" when he asked to play a Balrog.

As for omission vs roll off. In one case the GM is laying down that these things arent here. Like when the original players of Dragonlance were told "No clerics, No half-orcs, no halflings." Whereas tinkering up a weighted table says what? You are going to play a human and one of you "might" get something else because I dont want you to but dont want to say flat out no.

And so on.

As a thought experiment, try offering Men and one other kind of person as your races.  In 0D, there are presumed to be dwarf and elf clerics, but you can't play one. Like, move dwarves and elves and whatever into NPC land, and just allow Men and hobbits. That would also solve the dark vision problem. Plus hobbits are capped at 4th level as fighters, so that's a real, immediate limit.

It's not draconian to really pare down the choices. This is part of the process of building an implied setting.

Quote from: Opaopajr;814138I actually do like how 5e has limited Darkvision. It is only 60' and gives Disadv on Perception (WIS) checks for sight. And from the core PHB races, everyone gets to hear...

I would like to take this moment and this example to bitch about how some useful, some would say necessary, information is obfuscated in the rules text.

To know that those with darkvision get disadvantage on perception checks in total darkness, you can't just read the darkvision entry. Or just the dim light entry. Or just the lightly obscured entry.  You have to read all three of them and tie them together.

You have to read that darkvision makes total darkness effectively dim light. Then you have read about dim light being a particular case of a lightly obscured area.  
Then you have to read that lightly obscured areas impose disadvantage on perception checks.

Mention that shit right there in the darkvision entry, please.

¡Ai Caramba!

Quote from: Panjumanju;814062Thank you everyone for your suggestions. I think in the future I'm going to go with the suggestion that many of you have made of constructing a random human/demi-human table.

//Panjumanju

Yeah, no. Terrible idea. I prefer playing non-humans. If they are part of the setting and are playable races, I'll likely want to play one. This, dangling the possibility in front of my face while setting up the odds to frustrate me, would piss me off way more than simply saying "only humans".

Quote from: Panjumanju;814119Railroading at character creation? Really, are you going to say that's a thing?

Sure would feel like it to me, so - yes, it is now.

QuoteIt's not that I only want humans - I just don't want humans to be the minority of the party. That's the problem.

And that's going to create problems for the group. Anyone not getting to play what they want, who is watching someone else get to play the thing the didn't get, may well be jealous, frustrated, and angry. If you want to piss your players off, go right ahead.


You're the DM, you run the world, let the players run their characters.

Quote from: apparition13;814164...And that's going to create problems for the group. Anyone not getting to play what they want, who is watching someone else get to play the thing the didn't get, may well be jealous, frustrated, and angry. If you want to piss your players off, go right ahead.

You're the DM, you run the world, let the players run their characters.

You've raised some proper criticism of my preliminary plan, but I don't see you offering any solutions here, beyond "suck it". Can you be more productive than this? How would you solve this problem?

//Panjumanju