Quote from: Bren on October 03, 2020, 12:26:01 PM

Quote from: Ravenswing on October 03, 2020, 11:58:14 AMI bet those people intent on playing whacky races in D&D wouldn't be nearly so keen if they were told that they'd have a permanent increase of 10% in the XP needed to level, no matter the class.)

...
I'd give them the pain up front at character creation. Penalize them on build points or on stats, spells, skills, or whatever. Why if you have multiple players who want to play an unusual character we could even do it as an Amber-style auction where they bid how many build points they are willing to deduct so they can be really unusual.

I find that this leads to creating even more of a gap between true power-gamers and others (like newbies or immersive role-players).

I've often seen issues in games where the power-gaming players have optimized PCs that heavily overshadow the other PCs, whose players can feel like they're mostly along for the ride. Charging extra points for being unusual is yet another sink for non-power-gamers to lose out compared to power-gamers. If this hasn't been a problem, then great - but I've seen it in a number of games.

I'd prefer to just talk to the players and simply disallow options that are too weird and/or discuss what sort of party they should be.

Quote from: jhkim on October 03, 2020, 02:39:01 PM

Quote from: Bren on October 03, 2020, 12:26:01 PM

Quote from: Ravenswing on October 03, 2020, 11:58:14 AMI bet those people intent on playing whacky races in D&D wouldn't be nearly so keen if they were told that they'd have a permanent increase of 10% in the XP needed to level, no matter the class.)

...
I'd give them the pain up front at character creation. Penalize them on build points or on stats, spells, skills, or whatever. Why if you have multiple players who want to play an unusual character we could even do it as an Amber-style auction where they bid how many build points they are willing to deduct so they can be really unusual.

I find that this leads to creating even more of a gap between true power-gamers and others (like newbies or immersive role-players).

I've often seen issues in games where the power-gaming players have optimized PCs that heavily overshadow the other PCs, whose players can feel like they're mostly along for the ride. Charging extra points for being unusual is yet another sink for non-power-gamers to lose out compared to power-gamers. If this hasn't been a problem, then great - but I've seen it in a number of games.

I'd prefer to just talk to the players and simply disallow options that are too weird and/or discuss what sort of party they should be.

Gonna agree with jhkim here.

For the last dozen years or so none of the "whacky" races have any sort of mechanical advantage over the more "normal" ones.* Hell, the most broken thing in 5e is basic human with a point-buy since the odd stats are always cheaper and a universal +1 to all stats for humans means you can squeeze another +3 or so in bonuses over the other racial options (the 5e variant human is broken in a different way, getting a feat which can be better than any racial feature at first level and another proficient skill and still getting +1 to two scores).

The only thing punishing them for those choices does is reveal you to be a passive-aggressive douche who doesn't have the balls to just say "no" and instead desire them to have such an un-fun experience relative to the other players they'll quit without you actually having to tell them "no."

If you have to passive-aggressively punish your players because you can't say no to them, you probably shouldn't be DM-ing in the first place.

*Sidebar: Anyone outside of D&D fantasy circles would think we were insane defining dwarves, elves, gnomes, halflings, half-elves and half-orcs as "normal." Anything not expressly human is "whacky" to the average consumer of pop culture (except maybe dwarves, but then they're thinking the Tyrion Lannister type, not the D&D variety). Hell, urban fantasy would consider all of those "whacky" while vampires, dhampyrs, ghosts, werewolves and half-demons would be "normal").

Quote from: jhkim on October 03, 2020, 02:39:01 PMCharging extra points for being unusual is yet another sink for non-power-gamers to lose out compared to power-gamers.

Only if the "non-powergamers" are hellbent on playing really whacky things.  They don't have to play WWI grenadiers, half-demons or hellraces in order to engage in immersive RP.  Indeed, I'd argue the reverse: play (say) a tiefling in a campaign where the DM's told you they're vanishingly rare, and your RP is likely to be dominated not by your preferences, character traits, repartee or quirks, but by your race.

Greetings!

To my mind, Tieflings--or the otherwise mythical half-human/half demon or demon-blooded character isn't a problem, necessarily. In fact, it seems to me that such character types can be evocative and intriguing, to some extent. More usefully, however, are such characters as NPC's--and particularly as evil characters, henchmen, warlords and other terrible villains.

The enormous problem arises from one part how WOTC have presented Tieflings in the Player's Handbook, and also more pointedly throughout the various adventures and supplements; the other part is how so many D&D players play such characters. It's like a bad reincarnation of the whole "Kender Syndrome" from years ago. It's always, always the terrible, special snowflake people playing such characters in such a tiresome, annoying, and oftentimes obnoxious manner that Tieflings have become so roundly hated and loathed. I have seen a good many and more of such players playing Tiefling characters--and one or two good players. It's become a truism--anyone that wants to play a Tiefling character is more than likely going to be insufferably obnoxious, melodramatic, a total attention whore and drama queen--for the DM in particular, but also to many other players at the table.

I've seen the vast majority of Tiefling characters as being assassins, necromancers, witches, bastard ruffian fighters, or trashy, scummy rogues. It's like Tieflings are the neon sign for everyone that seeks to play the most selfish, obnoxious, and immoral mercenary possible. In my groups, I just have told most inquiring about playing Tieflings--unless I am confident they are an exceptional player--that Tieflings must endure an exceptionally hazardous and rough life--full of racism, bigotry, and constant suspicion and persecution--and that there's a good chance that such a character's adventuring life will meet a violent and brutal end by being hanged out by the front gates to the town, or burned alive in the town's square.

There's always plenty of adventuring companions and fellow mercenaries that join an adventuring group that are also quite likely to view the Tiefling character--and plot the Tiefling's tragic demise while they are out in the wilderness traveling, or exploring some dungeon somewhere.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Before the current situation (where we haven't been gaming), when doing open player calls, I'd lose about half of would-be players to stuff like this. BUT IME, it's just not worth it. When we were playing Pathfinder (1E), every single person looking to play something wacky just brought on a host of personal baggage. What we did do at one point was allow everyone to take the leadership(?- don't remember now) feat for a follower that could be wacky during a kingmaker campaign. And then if they wanted to play wacky, they took a multi-level hit and max-out based on the main character. (And in that campaign, a Tiefling would've likely just been burned to the stake as there was the demon invasion stuff going on relatively nearby.)

YMMV, but unless things are just completely hard up and/or the wacky players are higher quality, nip that in the bud.

EDIT: Notorious there, they're, their, error...

If you're looking for players, then you're looking for collaborators.  As the GM you do the vast majority of the work so you get to set the 'creative vision' (for want of a better less pretentious sounding term) at least initially. (Uless it's a railroad the PCs should determine a lot of this through play.)

In gaming, but in particular with D&D, you have players who often have their own idea of what they want the game to be.  That's fine, if they find a GM who can accommodate that, but due to a dearth of GMs you get players who look around for a game, any game, and then expect to be able to do what they want and have the GM (and the other players) deal with it.  Sometimes, this is perhaps genuine naiviety - relatively new players who have spent a lot of time online but don't really understand how role-playing games function in practice.  Sometimes it's genuine power games and they want to set the tone and agenda of the game without doing any of the work of being the GM.  Often it's a combination of the two.

There's no point giving these players detailed information about what options are available or what's specific about your game.  They don't care.  They're not choosing you're game because they like the premise your offering, they're choosing it because it's what's availabe.

In any case you don't want these players.

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 02, 2020, 08:31:51 PM
I'd rather see a world where humans, tieflings and dragonborn are the main species and, if you MUST do elves and dwarves... at least do something unique with them (and I feel halflings should just be avoided entirely because they are so distinct to Tolkien that including them feels about as creative as doing a sci-fi setting with X-Wings).

I've bounced around the idea of running a campaign in the world with primarily humans, and having the aasimar, tieflings, and maybe the other planetouched be the stars of the setting. In the setting, they go through childhood as humans, but go planetouched at puberty (X-men style), where it's possible if any of your ancestors even 10-20 generations back was a fiend/angel/whatever.

No difference mechanically for the PCs, but in the fluff all of the planetouched are much more powerful than their human families, but also generally take after their outsider ancestor. So while most humans are level 1-3ish, the planetouched would hit level 6-8 without really trying.

So, tieflings would be (understandably) shunned, and potentially killed at a young age. They might also have cults spring up around them, or potentially become masters of disguise and renowned assassins. Aasimar are the superstar/superheroes, running around as badasses and righting wrongs, though possibly in a rather heavy-handed inhuman manner. I haven't planned it out enough to decide if the other planetouched would be around, or maybe just much less common.

It seems like it might be a fun campaign if I got player buy-in, but I haven't had the chance to run it.

Why would someone who is obviously part fiend Not have difficulties and drama in life; fair or not?

Unless your setting is home to fiends; in which case, they should fit right in.

Quote from: jhkim on October 03, 2020, 02:39:01 PMI find that this leads to creating even more of a gap between true power-gamers and others (like newbies or immersive role-players).

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 03, 2020, 03:02:35 PMGonna agree with jhkim here.

1. I wouldn't say I was exactly joking, but I wasn't being particularly serious.

2. What Ravenswing said.

QuoteFor the last dozen years or so none of the "whacky" races have any sort of mechanical advantage over the more "normal" ones.

That's completely the opposite of my experience in 5E.

QuoteThe only thing punishing them for those choices does is reveal you to be a passive-aggressive douche who doesn't have the balls to just say "no" and instead desire them to have such an un-fun experience relative to the other players they'll quit without you actually having to tell them "no."

If you have to passive-aggressively punish your players because you can't say no to them, you probably shouldn't be DM-ing in the first place.

Overreact much?

Quote from: Chris24601 on October 03, 2020, 03:02:35 PM
The only thing punishing them for those choices does is reveal you to be a passive-aggressive douche who doesn't have the balls to just say "no" and instead desire them to have such an un-fun experience relative to the other players they'll quit without you actually having to tell them "no."

Bullshit.  That's like saying you're "punishing" players who want a magic sword by charging them more than for a regular one.  There are mechanical advantages to playing a tiefling; we already see that the purported RP drawbacks are seldom (if ever) an issue.  If you want a more powerful option, you ought to be prepared to pay for it.  If you're not, then don't.  I wouldn't make anyone play one even if they *were* part of my game setting, which of course they are not.

And bullshit twice.  If your "fun experience" is dependent on you playing (say) a tiefling, and you pout and stamp your feet if you're deterred from/not allowed to play one,  then I don't want your immaturity around.  I game with grownups, and it's been a bit over 15 years since I had to turf anyone for being a petulant baby.  I plan on keeping it that way.

The only major problem that I have encountered with having tieflings in my campaigns is that I must then account for in the background history that there was a large enough influx of demons/devils to justify that the tieflings now exist. That can radically change a homebrew setting history having an infernal invasion in its past.

I prefer an old school approach so would not allow all these new-fangled races. Demons are evil and must be obliterated from the face of the earth.

I don't think that in 5th edition D&D that tieflings have a mechanical advantage. They seem fairly balanced, maybe humans are better because they are more versatile.

Though I personally disagree with role playing penalties for mechanical disadvantages. The problem is that role playing disadvantages can easily go from crippling to insignificant depending on circumstances or DM whim and if it's crippling, then the entire party ends up suffering from that disadvantage as well. If there is a particular village that hates tiefling (which should be almost all) and the party has one, then if the party can merely avoid the village they will do so and there will be no issue. If they have to enter the village, then the entire party suffers from that hostility and fight to protect the tiefling.

Sometimes a role playing disadvantage can even become a benefit. If the tiefling suffers from prejudice in the village and has to win over the villagers, then the tiefling gets the role playing limelight which is what we want when we role play.

In any case, with advantages and disadvantages of all kinds, the DM needs to make sure that all of the players get an adequate share of the role playing and roll playing limlight. The DM needs to give the rogue who sucks at combat the occasional chance to sneak around, pick some locks, and so on. That tiefling who needs to stay hidden still needs to be given some chances to interact with certain NPC's who are willing to talk to it.

In the case of half races, they aren't really races in the organizational sense. We wont generally see a town of half elves, or a tiefling neighborhood. There are rare individuals and as a race, may not have a standard place in the world aside from being an oddity or outcast. Assuming the standard fantasy setting where elves and humans get along fine, a half-elf likely wont be subjected to that much bigotry. A half orc likely will be disliked. It seems reasonable that a tiefling should be seen as a monster, it's a demon. If somebody plays a tiefling, that needs to be resolved. Making tiefling look passably human is a good solution to that and matches with many myths of people who demonic ancestry. Merlin was part demon and didn't have horns or fangs, at least that anybody saw.

In a setting that my husband and I came up with, we have cambion (we don't call them tieflings) families who have demonic ancestry and essentially act as political entities, becoming more like races in the standard sense. 

As the DM, you get the awesome responsibility of fostering a fun game for your players.  It's certainly important that you enjoy the game, but when you approach it as the opportunity to create something fun to share with your friends, it's often easy to see that letting the player 'be weird' isn't such a problem.

In a world where dragons are real and pose an existential threat, it's not crazy that actions speak louder than words.  In a world where your alignment can be magically discerned, it's not crazy that someone who looks fiendish might be trusted - perhaps even more than someone that looks angelic but doesn't ping right on the alignment detection access. 

If your player is interested in a Tiefling, there's a good chance that they're onboard with being mistrusted, but that doesn't mean that they're necessarily onboard with being lynched or being cut out of all the other role-playing opportunities.  The Tiefling player is a lot like the perennial 'ninja' player - they aren't completely focused on the social aspects of the RPG but don't necessarily want to be unfairly punished for that choice. 

5th edition made Tiefling a core race.  If you're playing 5th edition and you're not allowing core options, I think you really need to be up front about it.  From a player's perspective, I'd be equally concerned if you say 'no tieflings' as if you said 'no wizards'.  In my mind, mostly it sounds like 'I'm not a very competent DM and I can't handle things outside of a very narrow framework, so I need you to stay completely in my comfort zone'.  Having fun with your players and creating challenges for your players is what you're planning to do as the DM.  You should appreciate that your player is giving you a hook that you can use to enhance everyone's enjoyment of the game, rather than another player rolling up to the table with an orphan that has no existing social relationships and no surviving family that can be exploited by the DM. 

And no, Tieflings don't have mechanical advantages in 5th edition.  Even in cases where a character might appear to be 'superior' (like a Dwarf in 3.0), it's clear that players don't play them exclusively - player ideas about the character and their mental struggles/physical appearance often trump what could be a purely mechanical decision. 

Quote from: Razor 007 on October 04, 2020, 12:26:05 AM
Why would someone who is obviously part fiend Not have difficulties and drama in life; fair or not?

Unless your setting is home to fiends; in which case, they should fit right in.

Especially in the setting, where a Tiefling in Sigil wouldn't raise an eyebrow, but a Tiefling in Greyhawk city might not make it through the day.

I made a Githyanki for my brother's campaign, with the full knowledge that my characters race could cause tension in some circumstances. I don't need WOTC to smooth over my RP decisions.