SPECIAL NOTICE
Malicious code was found on the site, which has been removed, but would have been able to access files and the database, revealing email addresses, posts, and encoded passwords (which would need to be decoded). However, there is no direct evidence that any such activity occurred. REGARDLESS, BE SURE TO CHANGE YOUR PASSWORDS. And as is good practice, remember to never use the same password on more than one site. While performing housekeeping, we also decided to upgrade the forums.
This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Playable races--where do you draw the line?

Started by Sacrosanct, March 26, 2015, 01:21:18 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

FaerieGodfather

I generally want mostly human parties, but for what the actual non-humans are, I'm pretty wide open-- I try to encourage human PCs via rules, and then I'm negotiable about playing anything else.

I'm usually the one that plays the freaks in my gaming groups, though.
Viktyr C Gehrig
FaerieGodfather\'s RPG Site (Now with Forums!)

GeekEclectic

The races available would depend on the game and the setting(possibly down to the specific location w/in the setting that the game takes place). As long as they're sapient, make sense in the setting and as part of the overall party, are easily able to communicate with other PCs and NPCs, and aren't evil(unless the game is one where the PCs are supposed to be, I guess), then I'm generally fine with whatever. I like to take at least a few minutes up-front to establish characters' histories(or lack thereof) and abilities(if relevant, which it often is) with each other so that they aren't thrown together blindly. There'll usually be some kinks to work out when a new party is formed, but I find this keeps that to a minimum.
Quote from: woodsmoke;822311Basically, I don't like the small races because they generally seem to attract/encourage goofy joke characters - which is perfectly fine if that's your thing, of course, but it's not what I want in my game.
I'm afraid I can't sympathize with this at all. I've seen some bad write-ups, sure, but if a player's taking "small" to be synonymous with "joke," then that's a problem w/ the player, not the race. I'm pretty good at making my intentions, tone-wise, known prior to a game, so it doesn't bother me at all to tell a player, "Yeah, your character doesn't fit the tone I stated. I said this was going to be a serious campaign, and you're making your character out to be a joke. Even serious games need some humor, yes, but please reign it in so that you're not disrupting the overall tone of the game."
"I despise weak men in positions of power, and that's 95% of game industry leadership." - Jessica Price
"Isnt that why RPGs companies are so woke in the first place?" - Godsmonkey
*insert Disaster Girl meme here* - Me

danskmacabre

If I'm running DnD, then any of the races provided in the PHB are fine with me I'd imagine.

That is unless I was running some sort of short campaign or oneshot with a very specific setting or circumstances, then the races (and probably lots of other options) would be restricted in various ways.

Batman

#18
For me it's specifically about system. In 3.5 it's just too limiting with the level adjustments to allow any but the occasional +1 or +2 LA Race. It was better to add templates to existing characters than have them start out at 5 racial HD and a +3 Level adjustment. The most exotic I've allowed in 3.5 was a centaur.

In 4e, things are a LOT easier to allow and I do with just about anything. From Satyrs to Pixies to Vampires to Shades to Werebears all work exceptionally well considering the system. I've only ever restricted a race or class based on setting with 4E.

Heck I even had a player want to play a Superman based character and so what I did was similar to the Vampire, specific class abilities that relies on Strength and Dexterity and his powers grew in level as he did. Eye-lasers were d8 encounter based and then d10 at 11th level at-will and then d12 with two attacks in Epic. Flight was base speed 1/encounter w/ a ceiling of 50 ft., base speed at-will w/ a ceiling of 100 ft. in Paragon,  and speed X2 at-will with no ceiling in Epic.

In 5e, I haven't really seen anything that strikes me as unwelcoming and so I'd probably low anything player oriented barring specific settings.
" I\'m Batman "

tuypo1

Quote from: Batman;822405For me it's specifically about system. In 3.5 it's just too limiting with the level adjustments to allow any but the occasional +1 or +2 LA Race. It was better to add templates to existing characters than have them start out at 5 racial HD and a +3 Level adjustment. The most exotic I've allowed in 3.5 was a centaur.

In 4e, things are a LOT easier to allow and I do with just about anything. From Satyrs to Pixies to Vampires to Shades to Werebears all work exceptionally well considering the system. I've only ever restricted a race or class based on setting with 4E.

Heck I even had a player want to play a Superman based character and so what I did was similar to the Vampire, specific class abilities that relies on Strength and Dexterity and his powers grew in level as he did. Eye-lasers were d8 encounter based and then d10 at 11th level at-will and then d12 with two attacks in Epic. Flight was base speed 1/encounter w/ a ceiling of 50 ft., base speed at-will w/ a ceiling of 100 ft. in Paragon,  and speed X2 at-will with no ceiling in Epic.

In 5e, I haven't really seen anything that strikes me as unwelcoming and so I'd probably low anything player oriented barring specific settings.
you mention using templates later on to create more interesting characters but i feel the rituals in savage species could give similar results

of cause the ideal was always monster classes but im no good at making them so its restricted to published ones
If your having tier problems i feel bad for you son i got 99 problems but caster supremacy aint 1.

Apology\'s if there is no punctuation in the above post its probably my autism making me forget.

soltakss

Quote from: Sacrosanct;822318Someone paying a minotaur or ogre?   Be prepared lol.

In one of the games I played in, a player had a minotaur PC, before I joined the game. They were crossing a wide, deep, fast-flowing river and tied ropes to everyone, so they could cross. The Minotaur went across, pulled by the PCs who had gone first, but fumbled his Swim roll and sank, having taken a lungful of water. Now, in RQ, a Minotaur who takes damage of any sort goes into a Battle Rage, where he is berserk and kills anything it sees, regardless of whether it is a friend or foe. The PCs saw him flail about in the water, dropped the ropes, waited for 10 minutes and pulled the corpse out.

I have seen a PC Minotaur nearly do a TPK on several occasions, when taking damage when fighting the last opponent. As a GM, it is always funny.
Simon Phipp - Caldmore Chameleon - Wallowing in my elitism  since 1982.

http://www.soltakss.com/index.html
Merrie England (Medieval RPG): http://merrieengland.soltakss.com/index.html
Alternate Earth: http://alternateearthrq.soltakss.com/index.html

tenbones

I don't draw any lines. If it's appropriate for the campaign - I'll allow it. If the rules don't exist, I'll make them.

If someone wants to play something inappropriate - they have to get past my snowflake test and sell it to me with a good background. It can't just be "because".

I've allowed:

Quicklings, Minotaurs, Half-Giants, Cambions, Lizardmen, Lycanthropes of all sorts, Duergar, Troglodytes (yeah - even published some rules for them /shiver), Thri-kreen, Xixchil, Scro, Dragons, I could go on...

If the setting permits it, and you can stat the creature - then it should be playable as long as it's not horribly disruptive to the party. As long as you understand that the abilities given to a creature is based on the assumption of a certain powerlevel - and what that powerlevel standard is up to the GM and his game.

I did a series of articles for Dragon at the editors request to show how to make Lycanthropes and Dragons playable PCs... wasn't easy to do, but it is doable.

Shipyard Locked

I care much less than I used to in D&D because I've come to think the point of D&D is its broad appeal, so why not go all the way? Goblins, sahuagin, dryads, whatever, we'll make it work.

I hold the line more firmly on games that have stronger and clearer themes that would be harmed by kitchen sink races. No orc PCs in Legend of the Five Rings, etc.

woodsmoke

Quote from: GeekEclectic;822376I'm afraid I can't sympathize with this at all. I've seen some bad write-ups, sure, but if a player's taking "small" to be synonymous with "joke," then that's a problem w/ the player, not the race.

I don't disagree at all, and freely admit it's very much a YMMV thing. Unfortunately, it's trap that, for whatever reason, most of the folks I've gamed with over the years have fallen into. There have certainly been exceptions - several of my favorite characters have been halflings and windlings played by people who were able to make it work, and probably my favorite was a halfling PC who spent an entire campaign effectively dancing a jig up and down the line between seriousness and shenanigans, to the great amusement of everyone at the table.

I suppose I should amend my initial response to be, "Sure, if you prove you can handle it without veering off into Monty Python Land."
The more I learn, the less I know.

tuypo1

Quote from: tenbones;822438I don't draw any lines. If it's appropriate for the campaign - I'll allow it. If the rules don't exist, I'll make them.

If someone wants to play something inappropriate - they have to get past my snowflake test and sell it to me with a good background. It can't just be "because".

I've allowed:

Quicklings, Minotaurs, Half-Giants, Cambions, Lizardmen, Lycanthropes of all sorts, Duergar, Troglodytes (yeah - even published some rules for them /shiver), Thri-kreen, Xixchil, Scro, Dragons, I could go on...

If the setting permits it, and you can stat the creature - then it should be playable as long as it's not horribly disruptive to the party. As long as you understand that the abilities given to a creature is based on the assumption of a certain powerlevel - and what that powerlevel standard is up to the GM and his game.

I did a series of articles for Dragon at the editors request to show how to make Lycanthropes and Dragons playable PCs... wasn't easy to do, but it is doable.
see i think just because is a very good reason i dont see the value of backstorys at all a character should be defined by there personality not there past
If your having tier problems i feel bad for you son i got 99 problems but caster supremacy aint 1.

Apology\'s if there is no punctuation in the above post its probably my autism making me forget.

flyingcircus

I draw the line with Non-humanoid like races, such as Dragons, Balrogs, Demons, etc.  And most GM oriented monster races (those without enough details to make them into PC's).

I have allowed Orcs, Goblins, Trolls, Bugbears, Lizard Men and a Hill Giant (once).  But it depends on the game, setting & power level.
Current Games I Am GMing:  HarnMaster (HarnWorld)
Games I am Playing In None.

RPGNet the place Fascists hangout and live.
"The multitude of books is making us ignorant" - Voltaire.
"Love truth, pardon error" - Voltaire.
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" - Voltaire.

Bradford C. Walker

I prefer only Men, especially in my homebrews. If I'm using something else (e.g. the Realms), then I stay as close to "Dwarves, Elves, Men" as I can get; I don't like more choices than that anymore.

1of3

I'll play whatever fits my mood at the time.

Oh, you mean, what my fellow players play? Why would I care, as long as they do a good job?

LordVreeg

I actually allow a good amount of races and humanoids as well as lots of crossbreeds, as most crosses are fertile in my setting.  There are also many sub races, as well.
And many of the classics have been changed slightly.  But as an old world, a lot of the 'enemy/tribal' races are somewhat acculturated. So Orcs, Gnolls, Goblins, Bugbears (which are hyper intelligent and hyper sarcastic) and Ogres are also playable races, as well as the FratreCanis (Dog Brothers) of Steel Isle.

Due to the great variety and some advantages, as well as my predilection to  that 'Roll for character creation' feel, we roll for races as well as stats.  


I have done a few human only quasi historical Bronze Age stuff, as well.
Currently running 1 live groups and two online group in my 30+ year old campaign setting.  
http://celtricia.pbworks.com/
Setting of the Year, 08 Campaign Builders Guild awards.
\'Orbis non sufficit\'

My current Collegium Arcana online game, a test for any ruleset.

Terateuthis

My current 5e campaign starts at paragon tier and operates under a Zelazny-esque "Sufficiently Advanced Magitek = Transhumanism" paradigm. Given that, I not only allow broad latitude in racial selection, but also let PCs build their own custom races – once you hit the paragon tier, you leave your larval form behind, gradually shaping your phenotype in accordance with your desires + conscious and unconscious drives as you Ascend.

More generally, though, as others have said: Depends on the setting. I've run everything from my current kick-out-the-jams gonzo game to gritty humans-only sword & sorcery/low fantasy.

The only thing I don't care for is when a player votes to play in a narrowly focused setting, then immediately wants to be the lone Exception to the Rule. I'm fine in theory with you being a thri-kreen artificer/warlock... but why did you vote to play in a "Robin Hood's Merry Men" campaign set in a knockoff of medieval England?