As Mike Monard has said on a few occasions, Gary had said that you can play a balor if you want, just start at level 1.
So my question is, what weird monstrous races would you allow, and how many have you actually had in your games or played yourself? I know that these two lines don't necessarily intersect, as I would probably allow a lot more races than I've actually seen in game.
For me, I do have limits. Heck, I'm not all that fond of having dragonborn and tieflings as "common" races in my campaign world ;). That being said, these are probably races I would allow and/or have been interested in playing myself as long as the player works with the DM to have a decent backstory and plausibility:
the common humanoids (orcs, goblins, lizardmen, etc)
minotaur
pixies/sprites
wemic
centaur
three-kreen (only in darksun probably)
Over the past 35 years, I've only actually seen played:
minotaur
wemic
ogre
goblin
three-kreen
If we are talking the lands of D&D, over the years I've allowed basically anything. Over the years I have become a bit more discriminating. Generally speaking the race needs to be setting appropriate and the player needs to have a reason other than Trolls are cool.
I've played a 5-legged centaur with a spider's head (Thanks to Jake's Amulet, which loses the impact when used by a centaur, and the Spider Mask that transforms your head into that of a giant spider for a while) and I've also played a Grotoran in Glorantha (giant with 3 arms and a big bow). Both were fun to play, for various reasons.
I've seen people play a Minotaur, Morokanth (giant talking tapir-beast with a War Slug, good for climbing up walls), a Duck, many trolls, elves, dwarves, an intelligent shadow cat and an intelligent baboon.
Where would I draw the line? Probably nowhere. I'd even allow a giant - good in combat, crap at hiding, lousy in tunnels, first to be targeted by missile fire.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;822269So my question is, what weird monstrous races would you allow, and how many have you actually had in your games or played yourself?
Not too many really. I'm much more interested in consistent than gonzo in my settings and PCs.
In D&D
- One PC -leopard from the southern jungles. I think he was a black leopard because the PC was black like the other jungle peoples. The player wasn't.
- One PC Rhino-rider, a big guy in plate armor riding a barded rhinoceros (like those in the plains of Prax in Glorantha), this was probably while I was deciding to switch from AD&D to Runequest.
In Runequest/Glorantha
- One PC was a duck. He reached the level of Swordpriest of Humakt. The player used a Donald Duck voice and his tag line when the situation was dangerous was "Oh no! Duck soup for me."
In Call of Cthulhu
- One PC was a werewolf. (Different player than for the D&D shape changer.) This was for a solo campaign. I don't know that I would have done that with a group unless we were trying to have a Hellboy style campaign.
In Star Wars D6
- One PC was a Human replica droid like Gurri in Shadows of the Empire. The droid actually thought she was human.
I've had a player end up as a Sparrow. In a setting where pretty much everything sentient is normally human- or human-looking, no less. This was more of a comedy-esque take on the setting, but it ended up working pretty well.
Outside of intentionally gonzo stuff... probably the strangest in-setting was a cat in the Dead Inside RPG. Animalish-people aren't that weird in the more spiritual areas, but I don't think we ever figured out whether the character was supposed to be a spiritually uplifted cat, a shapechanged human, or something weirder.
As long as the mechanic support or can be hacked into supporting the race or species, there aren't any serious exploits, and doesn't look like a bad hentai refuge, I'm generally ok with it. That said, anyone willingly playing a gnome or gnome-like character is inviting themselves to some sorta game of football.
If we're talking wider than D&D, I've had everything from tunneling dragons to talking mice as PCs. I don't see why PCs should be particularly restricted.
I've only had a dolphin PC in a one-shot, but I hope to play a real Blue Planet campaign at some point.
You can have a very wide range of PCs without being "gonzo" in terms of the world.
I pretty well draw the line at the standard Tolkien races most of the time, though I generally nix halflings as well as gnomes in D&D. You can still play a small humanoid if you want to, just make 'em a human midget. Tieflings and dragonborn are right the fuck out, as are lizardmen and trolls unless we're playing Earthdawn, in which case I'll probably cut windlings*. Basically, 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.
This is all for conventional fantasy gaming, of course. Different genres, especially those designed to be more gonzo, will generally require a more open approach.
*And elves, because I'm a fantasy racist and house rule they were all in the Wyrmwood when the Ritual of Thorns was enacted. And no, you cannot play a blood elf. Fucking vanilla pointy ears are bad enough.
I think that the secret is that if players are allowed to play strange races with benefits, that they should also have to take on the disadvantages. For example, if a player wants to be a demonic creature, then demonic creatures ought not be accepted in town as commonplace. Or perhaps the party might not automatically trust that character. Or something like that. There should be some social (e.g. "role playing") ramification to making those selections.
There are two approaches considering different races I like. There is either a very limited selection of races (or simply just humans and no other sentient species or playable species at all) or there is a complete chaos of different species and creatures all over the place. The middle ground, I found comparatively boring.
So, in the last D&D game we played, the only non-human PC races were Dragonborn and Tieflings (which were both 'unnatural' magical constructs, the results of magical experimentation and vile transmogriphication and had human ancestors). In the Star Wars game before, there were dozens, if not hundreds of different aliens involved. For the next game, there will be humans, tieflings of sorts, winged monkeys and giant apes (the tieflings will have random chaotic features).
Quote from: jhkim;822309You can have a very wide range of PCs without being "gonzo" in terms of the world.
That depends on a number of things.
Some worlds contain a kitchen sink smorgasbord of species. D&D often fits that bill. To some extent, Glorantha does as well. Star Wars, at least in the Mos Eisley cantina is species smorgasbord on steroids. Which basically makes almost any individual alien in Star Wars unremarkable.
Some settings have a bunch of species living together in relative harmony, kind of like modern New York City or London. Some D&D city write ups or Glen Cook's Garrett mystery stories are like that.
Some worlds or settings don't. have either of those set ups. In that case a very wide range of PCs ends up as a bizarre, exaggerated group of characters. Which is the pretty much the definition of gonzo.
Gonzo is like tutti-frutti ice cream. There's nothing wrong with tutti-frutti ice cream if the flavor is to your taste, but its profoundly unappealing if it isn't.
Quote from: finarvyn;822314I think that the secret is that if players are allowed to play strange races with benefits, that they should also have to take on the disadvantages. For example, if a player wants to be a demonic creature, then demonic creatures ought not be accepted in town as commonplace. Or perhaps the party might not automatically trust that character. Or something like that. There should be some social (e.g. "role playing") ramification to making those selections.
Oh, I totally agree. I had a player play a tiefling recently, and she had a pretty difficult time getting around a particularly rural town of suspicious people. Someone paying a minotaur or ogre? Be prepared lol.
It totally depends on the setting and what sort of game we're after.
Sometimes it just doesn't make sense to have non-humans PCs... other times it doesn't make sense not to.
If somebody really really wants to play say... a dragon... there might be some way to accommodate them... maybe.
I don't like too much "snowflaking" (though, let's be honest--every character is our own special snowflake [this is why I like Supers games--it's EXPECTED), but I always seem to allow something in there. The wife wanted a half Goblin in the 5E playtest, so we used halfling stats, and made the character half Gob-Half, er, halfling (a quarterling?). Memorable character. She's running an Orc right now, but playing her as something like a Klingon, which, as a Trek fan, I dig, because I can draw on the analogy.
Couple other interesting "snowflake" characters I can recall:
*I had four playable Gnoll races in one campaign. I adapted that old supplement of generic Native American types and turned them into Gnoll tribes. One player decided his Gnoll was born of two half-breeds covering all the races (and thus, "Rok-Tan of the Four Bloods" was born).
*Had a dude run an a Minotaur scholar named Rosebud. Great PC. On the same tack, introduced a half orc "librarian" NPC who promptly got killed protecting a very stupid PC who sprung a nasty trap that unleashed a buttload of summoned insects. We all mourned for Ignidias Maximillian.
I can get behind wanting to be unique. My only problem is if the scenario won't support it. You say something like, "all halflings are considered little demons," and immediately someone wants to be one, thus complicating much of the mundane interaction/travel, etc. aspects of the game.
My only hard restriction is that in a game like D&D they aren't crazy overpowered compared to the other characters based on racial bonuses. That generally means they start off with comparable bonuses at creation. for example, an Ogre would get +2 or +3 to their strength at most and a Werewolf's resistance to non-silvered weapons most likely wouldn't work until they shifted to avoid stacking with armor and class AC bonuses.
im pretty open with what i will allow however my games always start at level 1 if you want to play something with a level adjustment you need to either take levels in a monster class or if there is no monster class of that creature use the rituals in savage species to change your race later in the game. i tend to make those rituals fairly easy to access but the ritual of gills not so much.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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."
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
Quote from: flyingcircus;822627I 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).
That's a perfectly acceptable preference, but I'll just recount about the sorts of non-humanoid characters that I've had for comparison.
I had a fantasy campaign that was set in the world of the Temeraire novels where there was a mix of human and dragon PCs. That worked pretty well, I thought, using FATE. The genre in that case was built around a lot of outdoor travel and social interaction that mostly included dragons. In fantasy, the only other non-humanoid race characters I recall were rhy-animals in Blue Rose - I'd had two wolf characters. In other genres, I've been fine with things like Dralasites in Star Frontiers, Hivers in Traveller, and mutated animals in Gamma World.
There are some legitimate concerns about dragons or horses simply not being able to fit in places where humans go. Probably for this reason, the only rhy-animal that I had in Blue Rose were two rhy-wolves.
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.
This.
The line should be drawn with the individual Player, when it comes right down to it. Some Players can handle exotic or overpowered races without breaking the setting, some Players can't even handle normal humans. It all depends on the person.
I have no problem with players playing whatever.
Where I have a problem is when a player is using it to be some kind of uber-special and totally unique snowflake which I've found to be detrimental to games.
Which is my experience is the vast majority of the time. So when I hear "I want to play X!" when X isn't a standard option it sends up a red flag. I won't dismiss it out of hand but I will be giving it a more critical eye.
So it's all about the attitude of the player I guess.
Quote from: Piestrio;822748So when I hear "I want to play X!" when X isn't a standard option it sends up a red flag. I won't dismiss it out of hand but I will be giving it a more critical eye.
So it's all about the attitude of the player I guess.
I find it good to ask how that person playing X is going to make the game better for anyone else besides the person playing X.
Will that person playing X make playing the game more fun, exciting, engaging, or cool for the other players?
Will that person playing X make running the game more fun, exciting, engaging, cool, or easier for me as the GM?
If that person playing X isn't going to make the game better for any of the rest of us, then I am going to look very critically at any potential downsides to the rest of us since there is no potential upside for the rest of us.
i suppose 1 major exception is i would not allow kender
i dont use dragonlance anyway but if i ever do there right out as player characters
For me, it definitely goes on a campaign-by-campaign basis, but I'm usually fairly strict about allowable player races. However, in theory, I don't think there necessarily needs to be any kind of hard barrier as to what could be used.
(shrugs) GURPS is flexible like that: there are far fewer unplayable races than there are races with prohibitive point costs.
My setting has a number of sentient races (with scholars positing that many of them were brought there). Looking over my records, players have had avian characters, Horseclans-esque prairiecats, deodanths, insectoid races (the spaceship might have broken up in the atmosphere, but the lifepod made it down). My wife played a sentient housecat for a while a few years back -- no powers at all beyond a normal cat other than human speech.