A bit of an exaggeration, but in my most recent livestream, I talked about a number of things, including the biggest issue with how 5e players are missing out on one of the biggest feature of that game's design.
[video=youtube_share;hJMZbJkDjKw]https://youtu.be/hJMZbJkDjKw[/youtube]
RPG Pundit: You are all individuals.
Millennials (in unison): We are all individuals
Zoomer: I'm not!
A bit surprised to not hear about the scandal that early Central Casting was involved in, as it classified homosexuality under mental illness(!). Imagine that in 2019.
Also, look at this section in "Heroes NOW!" below... a nice documentation of how the times have been a-changing:
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/36/6e/bd/366ebd8f740211525405f8f461154453.jpg)
The things that any RPG designer does in their private life is, of course, none of my business (unless they use their RPG proceeds to finance illegal activities) but generally the Central Casting method of background generation was quite fun to work with.
Interesting video.
Can't really call older players "bearded grognards" as every Millennial guy I see now has a beard so one my be confused by the term. Maybe if they sport a less-coiffed Ginsberg beard and "Frodo Lives" t-shirt they get a pass.
Being a Gen X myself, we tried to fit in by not fitting in. Brooding about our upbringing and nihilism about our future was the order of the day. I remember trying to ingratiate myself with a pretty Goth girl. Once I let slip I had a happy, nurturing childhood that was the end of that opportunity. Heh.
I do find it funny imagining a typical colourful troop of Tielfing, Drow and Dragonborn 5E players strolling into a semi-realistic Medieval village setting. They would probably be burned at the stake for Witchcraft.
I disagree with the central premise. In 5e, the DM isn't even given enough authority to reject a player's bizarre otherkin character into their campaign, you can't expect that same DM to unilaterally change major rules. If a rules change require complete consensus from all the players, then the rules won't get changed.
You can dismiss that part of the players handbook, but it sets the tone of who is actually in charge.
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1100791A bit surprised to not hear about the scandal that early Central Casting was involved in, as it classified homosexuality under mental illness(!).
As I recall, there was a bit of an uproar when Central Casting originally came out. It wasn't on the shelves very long either IIRC.
Quote from: hedgehobbit;1100794I disagree with the central premise. In 5e, the DM isn't even given enough authority to reject a player's bizarre otherkin character into their campaign, you can't expect that same DM to unilaterally change major rules. If a rules change require complete consensus from all the players, then the rules won't get changed.
You can dismiss that part of the players handbook, but it sets the tone of who is actually in charge.
No idea where you get that from. My reading of the PHB, a GM can reject 'uncommon races' like Half-Elves, Half-Orcs, Gnomes, Dragonborn & Tieflings. The common races Dwarves Elves Halflings and Humans are the default.
@OP - well I'm happy to tweak it and to ignore Crawford's inane witterings, you helped make pretty much the perfect edition for me, so thanks Pundit! :D
Has Jaquays done any good work since declaring himself a woman? I did like his old stuff, he certainly did good work as Paul.
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1100791A bit surprised to not hear about the scandal that early Central Casting was involved in, as it classified homosexuality under mental illness(!). Imagine that in 2019.
Also, look at this section in "Heroes NOW!" below... a nice documentation of how the times have been a-changing:
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/36/6e/bd/366ebd8f740211525405f8f461154453.jpg)
The things that any RPG designer does in their private life is, of course, none of my business (unless they use their RPG proceeds to finance illegal activities) but generally the Central Casting method of background generation was quite fun to work with.
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/dc7afa08218d800ec8e8ac5057460309/tenor.gif)
Quote from: S'mon;1100797No idea where you get that from. My reading of the PHB, a GM can reject 'uncommon races' like Half-Elves, Half-Orcs, Gnomes, Dragonborn & Tieflings. The common races Dwarves Elves Halflings and Humans are the default.
Which is, frankly, just as silly. "You can't reject elves, dwarves or halflings" only makes sense if those races are actually the common ones for the setting.
What if the common races of the DMs world are humans, tieflings and dragonborn while elves are reclusive fey folk, the dwarves are wicked subterranean monsters who steal and eat children and the halfings went extinct as a side-effect of the multiplanar Kendercide that rolled through a millennia a go?
In other words, the idea that "these races MUST be common in every setting" is just as silly as "the DM can ban these races because they must be rare in every setting."
Frankly, I am utterly OVER "all settings must be Tolkein rip offs." If you want Tolkein, play in his actual setting. I'd rather have a world where everything BUT the Tolkein demi-humans was available these days because the bog standard demi-humans have been so watered down that they're just slightly variant humans (dwarves aren't even SMALL anymore... they're actually as heavy or heavier than humans).
At least a dragonborn, tiefling or warforged is still sufficiently alien to register as non-human.
Well all the language in 5e is much wishy-washier than "Thou Shalt", but the PHB basically says the Common races appear in most settings while Uncommon ones like Dragonborn and Half-Orcs may well not appear. But there is no indication the GM is actually forbidden from running (eg) a Humans-only or Dragonborn-only game.
Overall, the main theme I take from 5e compared to especially 3e is that the GM is in charge, and players should consult the GM for what the rules are. 3e sometimes seemed actually hostile to the GM. 4e was a lot better but still had an "Everything is Core!" mantra that could cause issues, like the player I saw demand Eberron stuff in a non-Eberron 4e game.
Quote from: S'mon;1100809Overall, the main theme I take from 5e compared to especially 3e is that the GM is in charge, and players should consult the GM for what the rules are. 3e sometimes seemed actually hostile to the GM. 4e was a lot better but still had an "Everything is Core!" mantra that could cause issues, like the player I saw demand Eberron stuff in a non-Eberron 4e game.
That's the way it appears to me, as well. Further, we DO have a choice about who we game with. Players who want all options can certainly find a table with someone who allows that. Conversely, GMs can locate players who don't mind limitations when it comes to race/class. People aren't the issue. Or shouldn't be, at least.
The introduction to the 5th edition Player's Handbook is fairly clear:
QuoteBecause there is so much diversity among the worlds of D&D, you should check with your DM about any house rules that will affect your play of the game. Ultimately, the Dungeon Master is the authority on the campaign and its setting, even if the setting is a published world.
I've played in a 3rd edition game that was limited to human only player characters. The world still had orcs and so on, but you weren't allowed to play as them. And it didn't seem any less D&D for it.
Quote from: S'mon;1100809Well all the language in 5e is much wishy-washier than "Thou Shalt", but the PHB basically says the Common races appear in most settings while Uncommon ones like Dragonborn and Half-Orcs may well not appear. But there is no indication the GM is actually forbidden from running (eg) a Humans-only or Dragonborn-only game.
Overall, the main theme I take from 5e compared to especially 3e is that the GM is in charge, and players should consult the GM for what the rules are. 3e sometimes seemed actually hostile to the GM. 4e was a lot better but still had an "Everything is Core!" mantra that could cause issues, like the player I saw demand Eberron stuff in a non-Eberron 4e game.
Not disagreeing, but ease of reference, here's what the books actually have to say...
Quote from: 5e Player's Handbook, p.11Every character belongs to a race, one of the many intelligent humanoid species in the D&D world. The most common player character races are dwarves, elves, halflings, and humans. Some races also have subraces, such as mountain dwarf or wood elf. Chapter 2 provides more information about these races, as well as the less widespread races of dragonborn, gnomes, half-elves, half-orcs, and tieflings.
and
Quote from: 5e Player's Handbook, p.17And the people themselves - people of varying size, shape, and color, dressed in a dazzling spectrum of styles and hues - represent many different races, from diminutive halflings and stout dwarves to majestically beautiful elves, mingling among a variety of human ethnicities.
Scattered among the members of these more common races are the true exotics: a hulking dragonborn here, pushing his way through the crowd, and a sly tiefling there, lurking in the shadows with mischief in her eyes. A group of gnomes laughs as one of them activates a clever wooden toy that moves of its own accord. Half-elves and half-orcs live and work alongside humans, without fully belonging to the races of either of their parents. And there, well out of the sunlight, is a lone drow -a fugitive from the subterranean expanse of the Underdark, trying to make his way in a world that fears his kind.
CHOOSING A RACE
Humans are the most common people in the worlds of D&D, but they live and work alongside dwarves, elves, halflings, and countless other fantastic species. Your character belongs to one of these peoples.
Not every intelligent race of the multiverse is appropriate for a player-controlled adventurer. Dwarves, elves, halflings, and humans are the most common races to produce the sort of adventurers who make up typical parties. Dragonborn, gnomes, half-elves, half-orcs, and tieflings are less common as adventurers. Drow, a subrace of elves, are also uncommon.
That's pretty much it as far as the PHB is concerned with race and, near as I've been able to search, the DMG doesn't bring up restricting the races at all.
As such, my general read is that the intention of the rules is "all these races should be allowed" (i.e. uncommon is not the same as rare; uncommon in medicine is between 1-in-100 and 1-in-1000 people) with a reminder that if you're not playing a human, dwarf, elf or halfling you're probably going to stand out.
DM's can ban them (their house, their rules), but they could also ban elves or warlocks or clerics for a particular campaign too. The presumption in the book though is they're allowed unless the DM says they're not vs. only allowed if the DM says so (which I know is a subtle distinction, but "you can buy this anywhere its actually sold" has a very different feel than "you're forbidden to buy this without a permit").
Likewise, its a pretty easy see the intention of the passages is "these races are going to be presumed to be common and these uncommon in all our published material" vs. "these races must always be common and these uncommon or its NOT D&D."
Its mainly when you get people trying to enforce an extreme read of this stuff that you end up with problems "i.e. You MUST allow me to use these races even if they aren't native to your world" and "The core rules say you can't play that (vs. "I don't want those in this particular campaign")."
The Central Casting books are excellent GM resources. I highly recommend them.
The "deviant sexuality" section is page or two, easily ignored in an otherwise top notch book line.
I prefer to run humanocentric OD&D, but people love their elves and dwarves.
As a GM, I set the chargen rules for the campaign. If that causes some players to not play, that's cool. I ran a 4e campaign that only used the PHB2 and PHB3 because I'd played enough with the PHB1. Not that I "hated" the PHB1, just that I wanted to experiment with a setting built from the other books. The result was awesome and we had a great time.
I'd totally run that campaign again.
I've been playing around with converting my Gamma Mars campaign to the GW rules for 4e. If I do it, there will certain chargen parameters and houserules and everybody will be cool with it, or not play. And that's great!
In general, the "I only play XYZ" players are not worth keeping around.
Quote from: mightybrain;1100817The introduction to the 5th edition Player's Handbook is fairly clear:
I've played in a 3rd edition game that was limited to human only player characters. The world still had orcs and so on, but you weren't allowed to play as them. And it didn't seem any less D&D for it.
BX D&D had no half orcs, half elves or gnomes. Gnomes were though a monster race. But far as could ever tell half elves and half orcs just didnt exist in BX D&D.
Dont recall what BECMI allowed initially, but later it tossed open the gates and had a fun little series of books introducing various new PC races.
Keep in mind though that in O and to a lesser degree AD&D players could play any monster race if they wanted and the DM allowed. One of the original OD&D players played a Balrog at one point for fun, and another became a vampire. Probably lots more I have not heard of.
As noted in other threads. AD&D Conan has no demihuman races. Its just humans as PCs.
If the DM is clear up front in the first one or two paragraphs of his campaign sales pitch, which races and classes are on the table for PCs; I am totally OK with that. However; I am a big fan of the Core 4, or the Core 4 + 1 (whatever). I will play a Core 4 PC; or else a Sorcerer, or Bard.
I don't personally want Barbarians, because they just seem to be a Fighter variant. I like Sorcerers, but they cheapen Wizards; imho. Bards seem interesting. Druid is probably the class I struggle most to embrace. Hell, I find the Monk easier to accept than Druids; because of wild shape....
Quote from: Razor 007;1100840I don't personally want Barbarians, because they just seem to be a Fighter variant.
OK, so why not just think of them that way while using the mechanics given?
Quote from: HappyDaze;1100841OK, so why not just think of them that way while using the mechanics given?
D12 hit die, and Rage.
Quote from: Razor 007;1100842D12 hit die, and Rage.
As opposed to Action Surge, Second Wind, Heavy Armor proficiency, and a Fighting Style? It's a variant approach to being a weapon-user in a world where 75% (or more) of PC classes use some kind of magic, so that barbarian and fighter have a lot more in common with each other than they do with almost anything else.
In games with many classes and many races, I like tailoring options for the campaign setting. If my setting is a Stone Age fantasy, the chargen options will be different than a Steampunk fantasy. I did a short savage ice age fantasy campaign for 4e where the PCs were human, half elf or half orc and the classes were barbarian, druid, ranger and sorcerer. The half-races represented cursed bloodlines where the half-breeds were both honored and outcast.
That campaign wouldn't have worked if the players controlled the chargen choices.
Quote from: Chris24601;1100819Thats pretty much it as far as the PHB is concerned with race and, near as I've been able to search, the DMG doesn't bring up restricting the races at all.
Right from the DMG, first chapter:
"As you start to develop your campaign, you'll need to fill in the players on the basics. For easy distribution, compile essential information into a campaign handout. Such a handout typically includes the following material: Any restrictions or new options for character creation, such as new or
prohibited races."
Quote from: Spinachcat;1100828In general, the "I only play XYZ" players are not worth keeping around.
Yes. I'm fine with players that always play an elf when an elf is available. Everyone has their preferences. But if they can't come up with a good character in whatever campaign we've planned (and whatever restrictions that implies), then they probably won't play a good character even with having their own choices.
I think the schizophrenic language in 5E about what is "included" is a legacy of 3E/4E, organized play, and the reactions against all of those. They are trying to have it both ways with wishy-washy language instead of just saying something like: "Look, organized play needs some defaults. Some groups have no idea what is going on, and need a place to start. The books we publish are going to assume those same defaults. However, the GM can run anything they want, with or without consultation with the players. If you've got a GM you like, try a game with some restrictions and see how it goes."
It's not rocket science.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1100854Yes. I'm fine with players that always play an elf when an elf is available. Everyone has their preferences. But if they can't come up with a good character in whatever campaign we've planned (and whatever restrictions that implies), then they probably won't play a good character even with having their own choices.
I think the schizophrenic language in 5E about what is "included" is a legacy of 3E/4E, organized play, and the reactions against all of those. They are trying to have it both ways with wishy-washy language instead of just saying something like: "Look, organized play needs some defaults. Some groups have no idea what is going on, and need a place to start. The books we publish are going to assume those same defaults. However, the GM can run anything they want, with or without consultation with the players. If you've got a GM you like, try a game with some restrictions and see how it goes."
It's not rocket science.
Mearls literally said that. Almost word for word.
And as I pointed out, restricting races is part of the core game. It's just, mysteriously, everyone in this thread missed it. Almost like they never looked :)
Quote from: Mistwell;1100852Right from the DMG, first chapter:
"As you start to develop your campaign, you'll need to fill in the players on the basics. For easy distribution, compile essential information into a campaign handout. Such a handout typically includes the following material: Any restrictions or new options for character creation, such as new or prohibited races."
SJWs will probably just prohibit straight white males...
P: I was thinking of playing a dragonborn
GM: Hetero?
P: Sure
GM: what color dragon?
P: u I dunno.... white?
GM: DeNIED!
Quote from: shivaa95;1100863Why do they ristrict races ? what's the point ?
Because you need to play Humans the way that Tolkien intended.
Quote from: shivaa95;1100863Why do they ristrict races ? what's the point ?
To tailor your campaign to a particular setting.
FOR ME, I like everything goes / kitchen sink for settings like Planescape and Spelljammer, but my Ravenloft is humans only with limited class choices. When I build a setting / campaign from scratch, I restrict chargen to emphasize what's new and different about this campaign. AKA, if the campaign is about Dwarves vs. Elves, the PCs aren't going to be a mixed race group. If arcane magic is actually a virus spreading evil in this world, then the PCs aren't going to be wizards, bards or sorcerers. As my players enjoy my tailored settings, I don't have an issue with how I limit chargen. I don't know if that's an issue out in the wider hobby, especially as I doubt the Twitter garbage actually play much.
However, the goal of Organized Play is to sell more books, thus an expanding kitchen sink works for their goal.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1100869To tailor your campaign to a particular setting.
See, I don't find particular enjoyment as a DM in creating some hard and fast setting independent of the players like that. Generally, I find out what the players are interested in playing and then build a world around that. I generally find I end up with more creative settings if I have some restraints (i.e. the world must include those races and classes) than players end up with more interesting characters because of outside restrictions placed on them.
In other words, I actually enjoy it more when I have to write a world around my player's initial PC choices vs. imposing my choices on the players.
Note that "initial" is key here. Once the game starts they're just members of that world, but they had an indirect role in its creation.
Sometimes this ends up with a fairly bog standard world. In others there were big differences. In one the only three species were humans who live in barbarian tribes in the forests, the sea is dominated by maritime mercantile elves and the dragonborn rule the mountain peaks with each race having access to only one type of magic (primal for humans, divine for elves and arcane for dragonborn). In another setting the only races were half-elves, half-dwarves and half-orcs as species (their full blooded ancestors, including humans, having wiped themselves out) and where bardic colleges and warlock pacts were the only sources of magic.
Those all came about because the patterns in the players choices suggested an interesting setting to me. I doubt I'd have ever conceived of them on my own.
Quote from: Chris24601;1100881See, I don't find particular enjoyment as a DM in creating some hard and fast setting independent of the players like that. Generally, I find out what the players are interested in playing and then build a world around that. I generally find I end up with more creative settings if I have some restraints (i.e. the world must include those races and classes) than players end up with more interesting characters because of outside restrictions placed on them.
In other words, I actually enjoy it more when I have to write a world around my player's initial PC choices vs. imposing my choices on the players.
Note that "initial" is key here. Once the game starts they're just members of that world, but they had an indirect role in its creation.
Sometimes this ends up with a fairly bog standard world. In others there were big differences. In one the only three species were humans who live in barbarian tribes in the forests, the sea is dominated by maritime mercantile elves and the dragonborn rule the mountain peaks with each race having access to only one type of magic (primal for humans, divine for elves and arcane for dragonborn). In another setting the only races were half-elves, half-dwarves and half-orcs as species (their full blooded ancestors, including humans, having wiped themselves out) and where bardic colleges and warlock pacts were the only sources of magic.
Those all came about because the patterns in the players choices suggested an interesting setting to me. I doubt I'd have ever conceived of them on my own.
I take it there's not a lot of mid campaign PC replacement or new players in your games?
How can I play a halfling-muskateers-only campaign if I can't restrict the races?
The same reason when Aarakocra and Tritons wanna team up with Drizz't-clones for flying undersea underdark adventures (like CoC "At the Mountains of Madness"!), but mean ol' GMs refuse to respect da playahs authoritah! :mad:
:rolleyes:
Nothing wrong with letting players have a say in improvising what premise to run next. But at some point that's design by committee. Because some people are more focused on being twee-special annoying and or mining the salt thru the lulz.
At some point someone is doing the majority of work to prep, better to let them have final say. ;)
I like having player engagement on the setting, but I want it before they create their characters. Otherwise, the players don't get to benefit from the exchange of ideas while discussing the setting. So for us it is:
1. Come to some consensus on the nature of the campaign, which will include ideas about the setting.
2. I go off and develop the skeleton of the setting, and list all the restrictions and expectations. We talk about it. If anything is missing or needs to be excluded, now is the last chance.
3. I put some work into getting the campaign off the ground. Out of this comes the final player options.
4. Players develop characters. I get the first adventures ready.
5. We play.
Up until step 4, we are finishing the prior campaign.
I've found that players are sometimes more willing to enforce restrictions even than I am. Though I do get a larger "vote" than any one players, since I'm doing most of the work. If I really don't want something (tielfing, ugh!), then the players are willing to work around that.
Quote from: S'mon;1100892I take it there's not a lot of mid campaign PC replacement or new players in your games?
Not a lot of mid-campaign replacements, some, but not a lot (I tend to run systems with more durable starting PCs so death generally comes from a series of bad choices rather than singular instances of bad luck... PCs deaths are usually the result of players ignoring obvious warning signs for various reasons; misreading their increased durability to random death as a sign I'll fudge things to keep them alive no matter what they do being fairly common with new players coming from more lethal editions, my regular players know better).
Generally though, placing certain restrictions is just less of an issue for people stepping into an established campaign vs. starting a new one. Sorta like how if you arrive late to a show you go out of your way to as non-disruptive as possible when taking your seats.
Honestly, the biggest restriction for replacement PCs/new players in my games generally isn't even class/race based; it's "think of a reason your PC would be X" where X is something that will put them in proximity to the PCs in both geography and motivation. Because I HATE "you meet in a bar" as a way to get PCs together (one of my only "restrictions" on PC creation for new campaigns is "figure out how you all know each other and what your common goals are because 'you meet in a bar and just suddenly decide to risk life and limb together' is stupid.").
One time X was "be in the city of Blackspire in search of fame and/or fortune" because the PCs left off on a ship headed there to recruit fresh hirelings for their next delve so him responding to their recruitment drive would make sense.
Another time it was "be in the dungeon of a Biomancer Lord." That one was fun because the player decided, instead of a prisoner in need of rescue, they were one of the Biomancer's guards who was serving out of fear and would see the PCs as his opportunity to escape. So he was introduced at the start of the first combat they got into by turning on his brutal captain and fighting alongside the PCs. I even gave him a map of the parts of the dungeon he was actually familiar with for that one.
Quote from: Mistwell;1100893How can I play a halfling-muskateers-only campaign if I can't restrict the races?
Nothing says you can't (except decency and the laws of gods and men). I'm just pointing out my own approach to running campaigns.
In my case, I like my players to be able to make something that truly interests them (because that way they're predisposed to being maximally engaged) and then use that as a starting point for cutting down the kitchen sink enough to be interesting without being overwhelming ("when everything is special, nothing is #Syndromewasright). If everyone is playing something very different then the result is still pretty kitchen sink-like, but other times there will be enough commonalities between PCs that you can start lopping off races and classes to interesting effect (the bards and warlocks came from a game where the only two spellcasting PCs picked those classes and for races we had three half-elves; including the bard and the warlock; a half-orc and a dwarf. I asked if the dwarf player wouldn't mind being a half-dwarf; same stats as a dwarf; and the world where all the purebred races were extinct was born).
My enjoyment of GMing is when everyone at the table is having a good time, not them marveling at my pre-built campaign world. But that's just my approach and people GM for different reasons and for some of those reasons throwing in restrictions makes sense to them.
Quote from: Chris24601;1100806Frankly, I am utterly OVER "all settings must be Tolkein rip offs." If you want Tolkein, play in his actual setting.
Couldn't disagree more. I have played in Middle-Earth, it's not an amazing setting for fantasy gaming. (Neither is Westeros, imho.) For example, I don't like the lack of various competing human kingdoms with more developed areas or that it seems to be influenced more by an earlier period of the middle ages, etc. You can like a lot of what Tolkien has done but not (important) specifics of his implementation.
Quote from: Opaopajr;1100908Nothing wrong with letting players have a say in improvising what premise to run next. But at some point that's design by committee.
That's exactly what I was thinking. If a GM is bad at creating a setting, yeah, then helping him out might be a good idea... but otherwise I believe in the gifted individual coming up with some creative and entertaining fiction.
Should Tolkien or Martin have done more market research before doing their own world-building?
Quote from: Mistwell;1100852Right from the DMG, first chapter:
"As you start to develop your campaign, you'll need to fill in the players on the basics. For easy distribution, compile essential information into a campaign handout. Such a handout typically includes the following material: Any restrictions or new options for character creation, such as new or prohibited races."
It's surprising how often arguments on this forum revolve around what should or shouldn't be in 5e, without first knowing what actually is in it.
Quote from: mightybrain;1100975It's surprising how often arguments on this forum revolve around what should or shouldn't be in 5e, without first knowing what actually is in it.
That's because what they say in one part of the book is sometimes contradicted (or at least muted) by what they say in another part of the book, online, etc. It's not nearly as bad in 5E as it was in 4E, but it is still there. Though granted, a part of that is because of the Hasbro ownership, not anything inherent in the 5E writers themselves. Also, a part of it is writing by committee instead of a single vision.
As I said, they are wishy-washy. I disagree with Mistwell that what they say as a whole is as clear as my shorter version. It's easy enough for a GM with even half a spine to deal with what is there, though.
I've done collaborative world building over the decades. It's a mixed bag. I've seen it work great, work okay and crap out. Much depends on the players and how cool they are with what the GM does with their suggestion.
Should every GM do collaborative world building? Only you know your players.
As I run Open Tables or semi-Open Tables or mini-campaigns, it works best FOR ME to take command of the A-Z of the game and let players decide if they want to play or not. Hell, I even provide the PCs for most of my open table games and all my convention games!
"the only bad thing about D&D 5e is its players"?
oh come on now. that is true for most games.
do GMs count among players?
Quote from: remial;1101017do GMs count among players?
In 2019, of course, since we're talking about negatives, they are first on the list. If we're talking about something empowering, then of course not.
Brothers and sisters are natural enemies. Like jocks and roleplayers. Or wargamers and roleplayers. Or stock car racers and roleplayers. Or roleplayers and other roleplayers!
Damn roleplayers! They ruined role-playing!
Quote from: Manic Modron;1101077Damn roleplayers! They ruined role-playing!
Truer words have never been uttered.
Quote from: S'mon;1100798@OP - well I'm happy to tweak it and to ignore Crawford's inane witterings, you helped make pretty much the perfect edition for me, so thanks Pundit! :D
You're welcome!
Quote from: shivaa95;1100863Why do they ristrict races ? what's the point ?
Because certain races are setting appropriate. Example: I'm currently DM'ing a Ravnica campaign for 5e. This game features a LOT ----LOTS----- of non-human races as central to the style of the setting. Common races on Ravnica tend to be Human, Goblin, Elves, Loxodon (elephant-people), Minotaurs, Tieflings, Angels/Aasimar, Vampires, Viashino (lizard-folk like), and there's a new one called Simic-Hybrid. You know what aren't featured races (and in my game, simply not allowed)? Dwarves, Halflings, Half-Orcs, and Dragonborn from the Player's Handbook. They're just not present in any capacity what-so-ever on the Plane of Ravnica. And I really don't want to get into the habit of allowing everything and simply saying "Oh, a Planeswalker let you cross over" every time because, hell Plainswalkers aren't exactly common taxis in Ravnica or other planes for that matter.
So it really depends, for me anyways, what the setting is all about. The Forgotten Realms, aka *
Kitchen Sink* setting, yeah I'd allow everything and hell I'd allow homebrew ones mostly too and Eberron options like Warforged and Shifters (since at least one of them are Canon anyways). Eberron, I'd probably be more selective and the same goes for Greyhawk too.
https://imgur.com/a/iy41v7R
I can't even.