Quote from: Christopher Brady;1044777So Elves must die.  Dwarves must die.  Definitely Gnomes...  But Halflings !

I was being facetious but tell me what you wish to play and I'll add it to the list of death.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1044781I was being facetious but tell me what you wish to play and I'll add it to the list of death.

So am I.  To be fair, we've all heard stories of how 'special' Elves are compared to all the other races, especially for those who love the Tolkienized/Demigod like versions.  

Personally, I'm cool with anyone playing with whatever, because if the player is going to be a disruptive 'speshul snoflak' it won't matter what they play.  I've had Dwarven Female characters who were... Pretentious, to say the least.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1044784So am I.

My bad. I thought you'd taken me the wrong way but I guess I got it wrong instead.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1044784To be fair, we've all heard stories of how 'special' Elves are compared to all the other races, especially for those who love the Tolkienized/Demigod like versions.  

That is often sadly the case, but I always make it clear in tolkienesque campaigns that to get the kewl powarz you have to play the role of warden/martyr for the world or become something evil and shady.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1044784Personally, I'm cool with anyone playing with whatever, because if the player is going to be a disruptive 'speshul snoflak' it won't matter what they play.

Agreed, although there are some clear favourites: Feral Tiefling, Gith, Dragonborn ad yawniem

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1044784I've had Dwarven Female characters who were... Pretentious, to say the least.

Sounds like a sociology teacher I once had. Even down to the whiskers.

As it happens, my wife's playing a Chaotic Neutral female dwarf who is violent greedy but loyal and brave. She rocks!

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1044761I had hope that 5th edition would have gotten rid of all that shit.

It was meant to be with certain races being classified as uncommon or rare but everything gets sacrificed at the altar of Adventurer's League and special snowflakes.  The Tomb of Annihilation game I'm running started as a 1 shot until the players all voted to play it instead of Planescape so I got stuck with a Kenku and a Dragonborn.

Quote from: KingCheops;1044843It was meant to be with certain races being classified as uncommon or rare but everything gets sacrificed at the altar of Adventurer's League and special snowflakes.  The Tomb of Annihilation game I'm running started as a 1 shot until the players all voted to play it instead of Planescape so I got stuck with a Kenku and a Dragonborn.

Well there is always the Girdle of Humankind.

Well, at least there is now.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1044761I had hope that 5th edition would have gotten rid of all that shit.

I would have liked to have had just the four core races. But it was not to be.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1046359I would have liked to have had just the four core races. But it was not to be.

  It would seem to go against the 'modularity' and 'D&D for everyone' pillars of the design.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1046389It would seem to go against the 'modularity' and 'D&D for everyone' pillars of the design.

Yeah but it's generated a situation of tons of people playing not only non-humans, but races that aren't classic archetypes. Instead they're playing these blue things or quasi-furries and it's all just ridiculous.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1047228Yeah but it's generated a situation of tons of people playing not only non-humans, but races that aren't classic archetypes. Instead they're playing these blue things or quasi-furries and it's all just ridiculous.

Is the table having fun?

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1047259Is the table having fun?

Can't he express a preference?

I also would have preferred to keep the races to the classic archetypes since 5th edition seemed to be very much a return to D&D roots.

Having said that, I have absolutley nothing against setting-specific races because there is no obligation for the DM to include them in his campaign.

Of course the DM can always say "there are no XYZ races from the PHB in this campaign" but that is a recipe for whines like "No fair! it's inthe PHB!"

You know the type: whiney bitches who want their own way just because they grace your dining chairs with their arse.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1047263Can't he express a preference?

He's making a blanket statement that anyone playing anything but his way is somehow ridiculous.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1047263I also would have preferred to keep the races to the classic archetypes since 5th edition seemed to be very much a return to D&D roots.

Having said that, I have absolutley nothing against setting-specific races because there is no obligation for the DM to include them in his campaign.

Then you're one up on most people here.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1047263Of course the DM can always say "there are no XYZ races from the PHB in this campaign" but that is a recipe for whines like "No fair! it's inthe PHB!"

You know the type: whiney bitches who want their own way just because they grace your dining chairs with their arse.

Never had them, so I honestly wouldn't know.  Maybe I did, but they'd be in AL and that allows quite a few race/class combo, so I've not heard anything.

Quote from: Mike the Mage;1047263You know the type: whiney bitches who want their own way just because they grace your dining chairs with their arse.

Having encountered these players far more frequently in the last couple of years, as a GM, I've gotten real good at filtering these people out before they ruin my fun.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1047316Maybe I did, but they'd be in AL and that allows quite a few race/class combo, so I've not heard anything.

And here I was thinking that Alabama still had issues with allowing certain race/class combos...

Quote from: Christopher Brady;1047316Then you're one up on most people here.

I would be surprised if anybody objected to the idea of new races for a new setting. Now, whether the setting is to their taste, is another question.

I have seen people on this site write about how they like Dark Sun, Talislanta and Jorune. The latter two I have fond memories and good copies of. These games have been around since the 80s iirc. {ETA: Dark Sun 1991}

One game that I had always wanted to play but had nevere been able to get my hands on is Lace & Steel.



Another 1980s game, this one. but an Australian game apparently, with cards for combat. All about courtly politics and swashbuckling adventure. Oh and PC centaurs and fauns.

I have a box set now, 30 years too late, but I have not got round to playing it yet.

Moreover, the very "retro" DCC, a darling of the OSR, has some bizarre races in its settings Hubris and Tales of the Fallen Empire. Hubris features Crow-like-Men (Avarian), Half-Demons and Living Constructs while Tales of the Fallen Empire has Ape-men (Ooruk) Lizard Men (Draki) and no elves, hobbits or dwarves in either of them.

Now I like Tales and I really really like Hubris but had they put any of those races in the DCC core rules I would have been pissed off.

As much as I liked the core races I am quite frankly bored with them. Not the point of never playing say a Elf or Dwarf ever again. If given a choice I would play a non-standard race. If the DM refuses I either play with the choices I am given. Or find another table to cater to my own needs. If one side is unhappy or both neither side is forced to play or deal with the other. I don't know why it seems to me at least here where everything must be a absolute.