Quote from: Azzy;721160I can see this. Perhaps if someone really likes dwarves and the GM in question decided to kill All The Dwarves in their campaign, maybe they think they're not going to have fun. That's not extremism, IMO, that's bowing out of something that you don't think will be fun for you *personally.* Now might it end up being that way in the end? Sure, you never know unless you try-but I also think that just like a GM isn't forced to use every race, a player isn't forced to play in every game. Sometimes a player's tastes don't fit with a certain campaign, even for seemingly simple reasons. (For me, it's a case by case basis. If I REALLY had an urge to play something, then if someone told me I couldn't when I had that urge, I'd likely find a different game. if I was in one of my 'Whatevs' moods IRT something I'd want to play, then I'd likely not mind the GM banning a race or whatnot.)

I generally am not too bad with cutting races. I 'soft-cut' Dragonborn once from a 4e campaign-the leader of the particular land they were in was a frothing racist against anything dragon or draconian. 'Soft-Cut' is when I say 'Look, it would be very much better off if you didn't play this race. I'm not going to say outright no, but know if you play this you WILL be persecuted, like, all the time, if people find out what you are. If that's a challenge you like, go ahead-but just so you know.'

As for my own tastes-they're all over. For awhile back as a teen I actually loved playing humans in games. Mostly I would play a human-D&D, Shadowrun 2e, etc. I started moving toward non-humans a bit later on. One of my favorite D&D characters is a huge, young centaur(Monstrous Manual: Has the one trait which makes him 'a lot bigger than average.' I just carried this over in editions.) He'd probably run into trouble in a campaign that was all dungeon crawling, but works perfectly fine in others. I like Tieflings a lot(though I prefer 3e's 'Random Appearances' tieflings), I do like elves(though prefer elf races who are less D&D style short elves and I like the more Tolkien style elves).

From experience as a GM for players and other game designers. Most players are flexible as long as you give them options. Some just see a mono-race setting as being too limited. I dont. But I can see where they are coming from.

Conversely I've seen people freak out over RPGs with no humans and start obsessing over how the game can be retooled to be human only. The road travels both directions.

The setting can be a big factor in enjoyment or lack thereof. And personal tastes.

Quote from: Imp;721421Gonna make an Aztec setting with elves and dwarves just out of spite now.

Isnt that how Dark Sun got started?:eek:

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;721442Speaking of which:

5 Fantasy Characters That Need To Be Rebooted

I usually liked Cracked articles, but I found that one to be filled with underwhelming ideas and not a great grasp of the subject.

Quote from: TristramEvans;721456I usually liked Cracked articles, but I found that one to be filled with underwhelming ideas and not a great grasp of the subject.

The author makes a point though. These literary tropes were interesting when Tolkien used them; became stale by the time Terry Brooks used them; and have since gone from trite to cringe-worthy with the advent of D&D-derived novels. I expect a degree of tolkien-esque fantasy in RPG's (except for Talislanta - still no elves!) but if I'm shopping for a new novel to read, elves and dwarves and hobbits go straight to the reject pile on principle.

For the record I'm also sick of vampires and zombies in books and movies.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;721464The author makes a point though. These literary tropes were interesting when Tolkien used them; became stale by the time Terry Brooks used them; and have since gone from trite to cringe-worthy with the advent of D&D-derived novels. I expect a degree of tolkien-esque fantasy in RPG's (except for Talislanta - still no elves!) but if I'm shopping for a new novel to read, elves and dwarves and hobbits go straight to the reject pile on principle.

For the record I'm also sick of vampires and zombies in books and movies.

well, only the point that theyre part of a generation for which these ideas are old. The reason the same stories and characters survive generations of popularity is because theres always a new audience for whom these things arent old.

Also what becomes stale or cliche in media isnt the same in RPGs. The experience of gaming something is quite different than passivel reading/watching it.

Quote from: TristramEvans;721466well, only the point that theyre part of a generation for which these ideas are old. The reason the same stories and characters survive generations of popularity is because theres always a new audience for whom these things arent old.

Yeah - someone is going to resuscitate this stuff eventually - but for now my reaction is: *ugh* this again???

Quote from: TristramEvans;721466Also what becomes stale or cliche in media isnt the same in RPGs. The experience of gaming something is quite different than passivel reading/watching it.

Well yeah - that's why I accept tolkien fantasy in RPG's but reject it in other media.

Quote from: Omega;721452From experience as a GM for players and other game designers. Most players are flexible as long as you give them options. Some just see a mono-race setting as being too limited. I dont. But I can see where they are coming from.

Conversely I've seen people freak out over RPGs with no humans and start obsessing over how the game can be retooled to be human only. The road travels both directions.

The setting can be a big factor in enjoyment or lack thereof. And personal tastes.

I'm all for options. I personally don't need like, 'Elf' or 'Dwarf'. I'm actually even cool with a human-centric world if the humans are all different somehow, though I do still prefer getting something a little more exotic as an option(even though even now I still play human once in awhile.)

And I have seen people freak out about 'not enough humans' as well. I remember seeing people who weren't happy with Shadowrun 3e archetypes because too many of them were metahuman. Mind you, I don't think these people are wrong with their tastes or anything, it's just another example on how people can end up with their game specifics.

I'm definitely a fan of 'spelling things out at the start' (for an unknown group), and 'working things out'(with a known group.) What I mean by the latter is that usually when we play, we get together and talk over some stuff on what we'll like to play. The GM gives ideas, and our group shoots back. This way we end up with a game that at least has everyone on the same page for.

In my historical ACKS game, there were only humans (unsurprisingly) but we still got plenty of mileage from the myriad ethnicities and nations around. The PCs were in a Greek settlement on the edge of Gallia, but they were themselves a Macedonian, a Latin, a Kelt and an Alexandrian Jew. They encountered Kelts, Ligurians, Carthaginians, lots of different Greeks and it was cool.

Quote from: Xavier Onassiss;721440I agree, bad gaming is worse than no gaming, but writing off a game because of a single basic GM decision like this is quite simply premature.

I agree.  I wouldn't dismiss the game based on that only (though if I have a choice of two games I'll choose the one that sounds more fun).  What I would do is take it as a warning sign - because in general, I've seen these types of declarations more from bad GMs than good ones.  The best ones work with the player to make a concept fit, or at least make sure the player understands the problem.  If a character truly doesn't fit (a fantasy dwarf in an Aliens inspired sci-fi game, for instance) that's one thing.  If a character doesn't fit the 'tone', that's something else.  And if 'Bill played a gnome and he was so annoying I don't allow them anymore' that's something else.  I'd want to know the reason, and I'd want to know why the DM won't meet me halfway.

If random villagers everywhere lynch Tieflings, they exist in the setting and if I'm okay with the potential lynching I should probably be allowed to run with it.  Combining disguise with a motivation of showing my race is misunderstood and unfairly discriminated against has a lot of potential for heroic play with lots of intrigue.  If a GM throws all of that out, I'd hope they have a good reason.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;721442Speaking of which:

5 Fantasy Characters That Need To Be Rebooted

And #1: Humans.

WRT old school D&D with its old "only humans have unlimited levels" thing: a palpable hit.

As for me I'll take classic elf and dwarf clichés over the trend I saw in 3e and 4e setting material, where non-human PC races were treated more or less socially as humans with slightly different appearance and ability sets.

Quote from: Elfdart;721444Fuck 'em!

 

No seriously, fuck 'em.

Wins the thread.  :worship:

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;721571As for me I'll take classic elf and dwarf clichés over the trend I saw in 3e and 4e setting material, where non-human PC races were treated more or less socially as humans with slightly different appearance and ability sets.

Agreed!

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;721571And #1: Humans.

WRT old school D&D with its old "only humans have unlimited levels" thing: a palpable hit.

As for me I'll take classic elf and dwarf clichés over the trend I saw in 3e and 4e setting material, where non-human PC races were treated more or less socially as humans with slightly different appearance and ability sets.

I would actually be interested in playing a setting that had only exotic races, and no humans, elves, dwarves, halflings.

Quote from: Gizmoduck5000;721579I would actually be interested in playing a setting that had only exotic races, and no humans, elves, dwarves, halflings.

Talislanta is your friend.

Quote from: Imp;721421Gonna make an Aztec setting with elves and dwarves just out of spite now.

The Maztica Trilogy