Quote from: Shasarak on February 09, 2021, 08:40:32 PM
You could play "monster races" in ...

The operative words here being "You Could".

Lots of non-PHB optional, supplemental material you cite there.

I read that you could play a Kender back in the day. I hear they were a big hit.


All I'm saying is I believe that the overall Gamer Culture around D&D has gradually shifted to the point that Multiple Monster races are now standard in core gameplay.

PHB Core Races-

OD&D: Human, Half-Elf, Elf, Dwarf, Hobbit Halfling

B/X: Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling

1e: Human, Half-Elf, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Gnome, Half-Orc

2e: Human, Half-Elf, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Gnome

3e: Human, Half-Elf, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Gnome, Half-Orc

4e: Human, Half-Elf, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Eldarin, Tiefling, Dragonborn

5e: Human, Half-Elf, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Gnome, Half-Orc, Tiefling, Dragonborn


For some reason post 3e, the number of core PC monster races in the PHB seems to increase with every edition.

There just might be an underlying trend in D&D gamer culture with (obviously) earlier roots that seems to have really gained ground around the time 3e was released.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 09, 2021, 08:54:06 PM

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.

Lots of people complain about Jurassic Park's inaccuracies, particularly their continued usage despite our new knowledge. But I digress.

Not that I actually expect anybody to adopt my suggestions, I'm not that stupid or narcissistic. I'm likewise not obligated to adopt Gygax's jargon in my own writing, nor is anyone else. A rose by any other name.

By the same token, we can't argue that any particular usage is right or wrong because words change meaning over time. For example, I find D&D's stubborn refusal to let words expand in meaning as per natural language drift to be anal-retentive. In any case, that's why I suggested adding clarifiers in the names to reflect their expanded meanings rather than changing them wholesale: Gorgon Medusa, Catoblepas Gorgon, Draug-Wight, Horcruxed Lich, Poul Troll, etc. This would free up the original names taken from folklore to be used in additional contexts, including more (or less) folkloric takes. For example, using the name "wight" to refer to spirits of buildings and natural features as in neo-paganism: house-wight, land-wight, forge-wight, etc... or weirder things like color wights from the Lightbringer series. Or introducing any of the many varieties of trolls from Scandinavian folklore and popular culture that have nothing to do with the Andersonian troll. Whatever.

Not that I actually expect anybody to adopt my suggestions, I'm not that stupid or narcissistic. I'm likewise not obligated to adopt Gygax's jargon in my own writing, nor is anyone else. A rose by any other name.

Quote from: Jaeger on February 09, 2021, 09:43:06 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on February 09, 2021, 08:40:32 PM
You could play "monster races" in ...

The operative words here being "You Could".

Lots of non-PHB optional, supplemental material you cite there.

I read that you could play a Kender back in the day. I hear they were a big hit.


All I'm saying is I believe that the overall Gamer Culture around D&D has gradually shifted to the point that Multiple Monster races are now standard in core gameplay.

PHB Core Races-

OD&D: Human, Half-Elf, Elf, Dwarf, Hobbit Halfling

B/X: Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling

1e: Human, Half-Elf, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Gnome, Half-Orc

2e: Human, Half-Elf, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Gnome

3e: Human, Half-Elf, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Gnome, Half-Orc

4e: Human, Half-Elf, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Eldarin, Tiefling, Dragonborn

5e: Human, Half-Elf, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Gnome, Half-Orc, Tiefling, Dragonborn


For some reason post 3e, the number of core PC monster races in the PHB seems to increase with every edition.

So you meant to say, starting with 4e PC monster races in the core PHB have increased with every edition.

QuoteThere just might be an underlying trend in D&D gamer culture with (obviously) earlier roots that seems to have really gained ground around the time 3e was released.

You seem to be confusing people that play the game with the people that make the game.

There was no ground swell call for Dragonborn and Tiefling PC races before the 4e PHB came out.  In fact 4e not having Gnomes as a core race out of the gate was often cited as one reason why it did so poorly.

Greetings!

Jaeger, you are spot on about this. All of the apologists are missing the point entirely. Yes, in past decades, through various editions, there ptional, supplemental rules that allowed a player to play some kind of monstrous freak character.

Generally speaking, however, it was relatively quite unusual. Most players in most campaigns played conventional character races.

Nowadays, however, monstrous freak characters are *everywhere* in virtually every group, by the trainload. And more importantly, such monstrous freak characters are typically obnoxious, whining bitch snowflakes. I realize that many of the erudite, mature veterans here maintain that they, or the players in their game groups, are thespians par excellence, and outstanding gamers in every way, whether they are playing a standard, conventional race character, or some exotic race. I have confidence in their sincerity.

However, the many groups of gamers I see, in my experience at Adventure's League, don't play exotic races rarely--they play monstrous freak characters routinely--in fact, I would say the majority of parties are composed of a monstrous circus of freaks. The conventional, standard character races are the minority, and often when players select such characters, they are questioned for their wisdom in doing so, in comparison to the uber-cool, special freak races. And, I have seen many of the gamers that choose to play such monstrous freak races, also typically are obnoxious, drama-queen snowflakes. Both the gamer choices of monster freak characters, and the level of obnoxious, drama-queen players have increased in recent years significantly, regardless of what the sincere members here would like to believe.

If I restricted myself to only playing with my private, home groups, I too might have a benighted view of the current state of gamers and gaming--none the less, the reality from what I have seen with many different groups, is a distinctly unfortunate and lamentable dynamic that definitely is increasing. Pundit also often discusses these same kinds of dynamics in his video program, so it isn't like you woke up alone in some weird "Twilight Zone". Other people as well, including myself, have noticed much the same dynamics and trends going on through the gaming hobby.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on February 09, 2021, 11:48:12 PM
However, the many groups of gamers I see, in my experience at Adventure's League, don't play exotic races rarely--they play monstrous freak characters routinely--in fact, I would say the majority of parties are composed of a monstrous circus of freaks. The conventional, standard character races are the minority, and often when players select such characters, they are questioned for their wisdom in doing so, in comparison to the uber-cool, special freak races. And, I have seen many of the gamers that choose to play such monstrous freak races, also typically are obnoxious, drama-queen snowflakes. Both the gamer choices of monster freak characters, and the level of obnoxious, drama-queen players have increased in recent years significantly, regardless of what the sincere members here would like to believe.

What's the range of your experience with organized play? I have occasionally dipped my toe into organized play at local Bay Area conventions over the past 15 or so years - and I always find it markedly inferior to general play, for reasons having nothing to do with monstrous races. I think by intention, it's flattening everything out -- making every run the same and every run boring. And the people drawn to this sort of play are the lowest common denominator as well. I didn't notice any trend regarding races - there were just as many obnoxious players with gnomes, elves, and humans as there were playing dragonborn. Then again, I had a limited sample - since I've only played one or two games every few years before leaving again.

Do you (or anyone) have experience with organized play under 1e and 2e? I went to a handful of conventions as a teenager in the 1980s, and the D&D tournament modules that I played had similar problems - though not quite the same. There was a lot of bullshit about collecting points, and the structure of challenges made things dull -- emphasizing puzzle-solving and to some degree memorization of the Monster Manual.

For me personally, I find that endlessly repeating Tolkien in every fantasy game is fucking boring. I enjoy playing settings and campaigns that break out of that mold. My last in-person campaign had a setting where all the PCs were orcs, kobolds, hobgoblins, and similar races. I enjoy Tolkien and have run some cool Middle-Earth games, but I also like variety.

Quote from: Shasarak on February 09, 2021, 08:40:32 PM


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.

You keep missing my point.

Yes, all of those campaign settings had a unique 'monster race' or two that were baked-in/added very early...except for Planescape and Spelljammer which were the over-the-top settings, designed to add anything from the other settings.

0e would have whatever the DM created or allowed since the settings were basically all homebrew.

3e used unified mechanics for monsters and PCs...this, along with proliferation due to OGL, and the spread of info through the internet, made it much easier for people to develop 'playable' monsters...which culminated in the Savage Species book a few years later.  This is all a good thing.

I don't really understand what you have against 3e 

...Over the years, one of the useful things from 3e (easy ability to add a monster PC to the campaign if you want) has become overused to the point that you are seeing a traveling circus effect (which can also be blamed on hyper-optimization to get that last possible +1)...and now more and more monster races are being added without them really fitting the campaign settings...but that is hardly the fault of 3e, its just a downstream effect.

Quote from: Aglondir on February 07, 2021, 08:11:14 PM

Quote from: Omega on February 07, 2021, 06:53:40 PM
Of course Pundit ignores the little fact that even before publication the D&D players were playing everything from a Balrog to a Vampire and all sort of other critters that various "purity" snobs conveniently ignore. The game allowed you to do about anything as long as the DM was on board for it.

Players playing weird races today? Thats so 70s.

It's past time that we call bullshit on this. Was there a game in the 70s Lake Geneva where someone played a balrog once? Sure, ok. And yes, someone back then played Lord Fang and Gygax loved it so much he tried to kill the character, or invented turning undead, or something.

But to claim that this was representative of anything is nonsense. No one played PC monsters in any of the groups I was in. You choose a race from the option in the PHB, and if you tried any of that garbage no one would game with you.

YMMV, I guess?

Except Mike has stated here and elsewhere it was fairly common and the players regularly recruited monsters into their retinue and were able to then select those as PCs if the current died. Just like any other retainer.

Also Dragon had at least one article for B or BX for freefom character creation allowing you to play anything. And later there were three expansions for BX or BECMI for playing a very large array of monsters and one monster-centric mini campaign settings.
Hell, Dragon alone had every few issues at least one new player race that was half the time a MM creature. Several being player submitted.
Various settings have added new races that were prior monsters.
AD&D has that section on how to convert characters from Gamma World. 2e was cross compatible with GW as well. Not to mention that small section of advice cautioning on how to allow players to play monsters as well.
And so on.

But golly gee that must have all neeeever happened and this is allllll 5es fault and those mean ol snowflakes wanting to ruin D&D!

And before this Pundit and others were bitching about how those mean ol snowflakes want to reuin D&D by playing, ghasparoones! Elves and Dwarves! Get thee to a fainting couch.

Take out a loan and buy a clue. Every style of play has been there from the get-go. Human only campaigns? Plenty, Bog standard mix of Humans and Demis? Plenty. Monsters tossed in? Plenty.

You bitch and whine about how the SJWs want to restrict your play and then turn around and declare you want to do the exact same thing.

QuoteBut 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.

This would be utterly ridiculous and straight up stupid.
In this case New School is right - D&D definitions evolved from original legends/myths (not to mention many of those you mentioned were not even a thing in those times) and forged certain own identity of various things - D&D basilisks, D&D medusas, D&D demons and devils, D&D liches (in this case I'm quite sure it was D&D who forged modern lich from some archaic word for "corpse", so I'm quite sure it's totally off your point). And when we discuss those monsters in D&D context, we discuss them in context of almost 50 years of D&D, not in context of ancient Bulgarian folklore from 9th century AD.

Not to mention those names are simply NOT COOL. (Also - Sauron would be equivalent of high level LE outsider - what it even has to do with liches).
And real-life folklore can suck it, and make other games and lores with more faithful representations.

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

TBH term phylacterium is greek and it was never limited to Jewish scroll-amulets, simply Greek-speaking Jews adopted it for it.

QuoteFor some reason post 3e, the number of core PC monster races in the PHB seems to increase with every edition.

I have to say I'd hardly call any of races appearing post-3 as monster-races. May understanding is that monster race is like taking existing monster from Bestiary/Manual and PC-ing him.
Meanwhile dragonborn are utterly new, tieflings never were monsters - they were just rare planar race from planar settings, closest would be half-orc I assume.
Meanwhile orcs, goblinoids, giantkin, gnolls and many other classical monsters are still sadly relegated to some supplements. (Aside of PF but their Goblins are simply movie Gremlins, not mangusta-people from FR so that does not count )

QuoteNot that I actually expect anybody to adopt my suggestions, I'm not that stupid or narcissistic. I'm likewise not obligated to adopt Gygax's jargon in my own writing, nor is anyone else. A rose by any other name.

Well sure but if we talk about D&D we talk about D&D. So basilisks have 8 legs and no chicken's head.

QuoteSo you meant to say, starting with 4e PC monster races in the core PHB have increased with every edition.

Unless you count gnomes as monster race I think 5e and 4e are on equal note in what is considered monster race here.

QuoteNowadays, however, monstrous freak characters are *everywhere* in virtually every group, by the trainload. And more importantly, such monstrous freak characters are typically obnoxious, whining bitch snowflakes. I realize that many of the erudite, mature veterans here maintain that they, or the players in their game groups, are thespians par excellence, and outstanding gamers in every way, whether they are playing a standard, conventional race character, or some exotic race. I have confidence in their sincerity.

Youngest generation of zoomers are often whiny snowflakes with obsession on uniquenes.. Ultimately this is generational problem.
If there was no snowflake races in D&D they would simply play snowflake members of usual races beings equally obnoxious. I mean they manage to be obnoxious snowflakey in real life quite well, despite not being tieflings or dragonborns XD

QuoteFor me personally, I find that endlessly repeating Tolkien in every fantasy game is fucking boring. I enjoy playing settings and campaigns that break out of that mold. My last in-person campaign had a setting where all the PCs were orcs, kobolds, hobgoblins, and similar races. I enjoy Tolkien and have run some cool Middle-Earth games, but I also like variety.

Now TBH D&D was never repeating Tolkien.
They re-wrote almost all races - partly because Gygax was inspired by other fantasy writers more, partly due to balance.
In fact only one really Tolkienian D&D is 5e Adventures in Middle Earth because they are sort of 5e version of The One Ring, probably only really good Tolkienian system overall.
Elves were turned into faerie hippies, dwarves into drunken Scottish miners, orcs into green barbarians, hobbits into kenders...

Quote from: Omega on February 10, 2021, 02:43:54 AMYou bitch and whine about how the SJWs want to restrict your play and then turn around and declare you want to do the exact same thing.

I've said before that it often feels like certain OSR pushers aren't complaining because of what the SJW's are pushing... but because THEY aren't the ones getting to push their gaming preferences on everyone.

Frankly, it's why I want nothing to do with the OSR in regards to my own system and consider the brand toxic. There are far too many people like the above in the movement and very few people have much tolerance for One True Wayist BS.

There's a huge difference between "play what you want, but it's not for me" and "if you aren't playing the way I like you're doing it wrong and are either misguided or a bad person."

So my project is non-OSR and that does mean that, like Palladium's Rifts, you can play giants, dragons, centaurs, ravenkin, cyborg dwarves, golems, trolls, orcs, ogres, shadow men, malfeans, sprites and talking animals in addition to elves and gnomes and humans right out of the box.

That said, most of my playtesters have still chosen mostly humans (which to be fair, does include those with elven, dwarvish, eldritch, shadow and mutant ancestries), elf or other very common alternatives, but for me it's important to have the options there because it's always easier to cut out than to add.

Quote from: Omega on February 10, 2021, 02:43:54 AM
But golly gee that must have all neeeever happened and this is allllll 5es fault and those mean ol snowflakes wanting to ruin D&D!

And before this Pundit and others were bitching about how those mean ol snowflakes want to reuin D&D by playing, ghasparoones! Elves and Dwarves! Get thee to a fainting couch.

Take out a loan and buy a clue. Every style of play has been there from the get-go. Human only campaigns? Plenty, Bog standard mix of Humans and Demis? Plenty. Monsters tossed in? Plenty.

You bitch and whine about how the SJWs want to restrict your play and then turn around and declare you want to do the exact same thing.

LOL you made my day.

For all the gamers here claiming that the SJws are restrictive and repressive they can be just as bad. To me Pundit has become as bad as the SJWs he complains about. More often than not most games used the core races. Yet I'm not going to assume that because I never saw it at my table at least before 3E it never happened. Nor is it bad thing to me at least. If it were simply live and let live and play as you want it's one thing. Instead not only did it never happen, not only did the rules not allow it which they did, it's the " well if your playing anything but standard core your doing it" line of gatekeeping bullshit. Of all the places I expected gatekeeping to happen here was the last place.

@ Shark

All due respect to the Great white simply having a bad experience with organized play is not indicative of a wide spread problem in the hobby. Sure some are assholes who want to act like snowflakes it's the exception not the norm. That like an gay SJW gamer  claiming all gamers are homophobic because one table and only one discriminated against them for being gay.

Quote from: jhkim on February 10, 2021, 12:47:46 AM

Quote from: SHARK on February 09, 2021, 11:48:12 PM

...........

For me personally, I find that endlessly repeating Tolkien in every fantasy game is fucking boring. I enjoy playing settings and campaigns that break out of that mold. My last in-person campaign had a setting where all the PCs were orcs, kobolds, hobgoblins, and similar races. I enjoy Tolkien and have run some cool Middle-Earth games, but I also like variety.

I'm with Jhkim. I think one of the reasons that I have always enjoyed Sci-Fi RPGs more than Fantasy is that Science Fiction has so much more variety to it.

Also gear porn.  Gear porn is always great.

For me, it depends on the setting.

I had a homebrew AD&D low-fantasy campaign with a strong influence from folk tales and myths, and besides humans, the only other two player races were elves and dwarves. And everytime I run al-Qadim, humans were the only available PC race.

I have no problem whatsoever with exotic player races if they're commonplace in the setting. I'm ok with tieflings and githzerai in Planescape, trolls in Shadowrun, thri-kreen and half-giants in Dark Sun, or shistavanens and togrutas in Star Wars.

But inserting things like the 4e tieflings (which is vastly different from the original Planescape one) or dragonborn in Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk and making them as ubiquitous as halflings and dwarves just seems odd to me. Maybe its the traditionalist in me, but I think they don't fit those settings at all. Just like I don't think elves and gnomes fit an Arabian Nights-inspired setting as al-Qadim.

Snowflake players are pet-peeves of mine. I've never allowed drow PC because, in my personal experience, it was the favorite PC race for those players (the tiefling apparently fills this niche nowadays) and I prefer them as mysterious, evil bastards. Good drow are extremely rare - and I believe they would prefer to organize a resistance movement in the Underdark rather than escaping to the surface world where they would be hunted down and killed at first sight. But I digress.

Anyway, I could allow some exotic and rare PC races, like half-ogre or a lizard man, in a Forgotten Realms campaign since they already exist in the setting (and there would be consequences - they'd would never be treated the same as the more human-looking races), but writers changing an entire setting and inserting things they pulled from their arses "just because"? LOL no, thanks.

Just my two coppers.

There are cultural changes that WotC made when they took over that, I think, have increased the prevalence of new and more exotic PC races, although by no means was it original to the newer editions of the game. It was 2nd Edition, after all, that gave us rules for dragon and undead PCs.

One is a rules-based change--the class and level limits of O/B/AD&D died thoroughly with the launch of 3E and have never made a real comeback since.

The other is what might be called 'tighter integration.' There are two strains in D&D from the beginning, IMO--"D&D as a specific game/genre/experience," and "D&D as a toolkit." TSR swung between the two based on time and management (Gygax moved towards specificity with the AD&D project, but 2E was all-in on toolkit material and adaptation to the numerous settings), but while WotC has provided plenty of tools, it has also been big on 'making all these tools work together' and 'making games fit with the core D&D experience.' Thus, things that would have been setting-specific or contradictory in earlier days have been both made to work together and made 'universal' parts of D&D.

Quoteand I believe they would prefer to organize a resistance movement in the Underdark rather than escaping to the surface world where they would be hunted down and killed at first sight. But I digress.

Technically I think most of Elistraee followers are surface dwelling, because still it's easier to get niche there, and some deal with other Woodland Critters, than to delve among Llothians.

QuoteAnyway, I could allow some exotic and rare PC races, like half-ogre or a lizard man, in a Forgotten Realms campaign since they already exist in the setting (and there would be consequences - they'd would never be treated the same as the more human-looking races), but writers changing an entire setting and inserting things they pulled from their arses "just because"? LOL no, thanks.

To certaing degree this was problem as editions started to take drastic changes, and each time each mayor settings - so AT LEAST - Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms and later Eberron has to fit Core races and classes. Faerun get shortest stick as it was most popular due games, and most rich with lore (which I have little love for but still) so each edition just explode things altogether.
I mean - planetouched was one thing - you just treat FR tieflings as they were before - rare and not race on it's own (like PoL 4e basic setting) but just mortals born with pinch of other blood, but to fit dragonborns in Faerun they had to literally clusterfuck to parallel universes together XD

But that's overall problem with settings crafted to fit game inside - and not game build around setting.

Quote from: SHARK on February 09, 2021, 11:48:12 PM
Nowadays, however, monstrous freak characters are *everywhere* in virtually every group, by the trainload. And more importantly, such monstrous freak characters are typically obnoxious, whining bitch snowflakes.

I don't know when or how or why* it started, but I 'member back in the 90's when a group would sit down to play Vampire and somebody -had- to play a Werewolf, or they'd sit down to play Werewolf and somebody -had- to play a Mage**, or they'd sit down to play Mage and somebody -had- to play a were-dinosaur-with-demonic-investments-and-ghoul-powers-and-also-some-levels-of-Paladin-even-though-it-was-a-different-game-system.

Point being: this is an old thing, common to pretty much any game with "core" options and "supplemental" ones.

*Okay, I think I know -why- this is.  In a game where everybody is unique and special and different, some players have to feel -extra- special or else they feel like their character is "boring".  Some players out grow this with experience, some prefer the gonzo play style. 
** Alright.  Wanting to play a Mage in old-school World of Darkness games regardless of anything else isn't bad form.  It's just plain common sense.  (and while I'm half-joking when I say that, I'd never do that to somebody wanting to run a -Werewolf- game)