Campaign setting and races

Yes or No.
Should 5th have an all encompass basic information on all campaign setting thus allowing DM's to choose what setting to play. Book has basic info on greyhawk, Dragonlance, FR, Eberron, Mystara, red sun etc history of the worlds; Points of light "how to create your own campaign setting"
So it lists geography photo some key history abd key city hero villain and then let the DM expand from that.
Later , they can decide to make individual campaign books but this allows DM's to get to choose some options.

2. Yes or No
Should all the playable races in FR, Eberron, Points be listed in PHB with notes on what realm they are specific to but not forced only on.
Thus genasi or warforge say they are located in FR and Eberron realms but if a DM chooses he can add those races in his FR, Eberron, point of light generic campaign setting etc.
As races go, the Elf , dwarf, Halfling, half elf ,human should all be listed in one uniformed way to not overlap possible different aspects in different campaign settings.
Halfling has same stats abilities etc for FR, Eberron, Greyhawk, Dragonlance "Kender" play
For once I actually agree with you. I would prefer some races be restricted to their original settings by default. I think Warforged and Thri-Kreen are cool, they just don't belong in settings based on other genres.
In my games players have always been Exceptional individuals, not Exceptions to the internal logic of the game world.
I think they should stick with the more common/popular races for the first PHB.  After that the sky is the limit as far as I am concerned- I like lots of race options.  I think the campaign settings can then introduce specific races as appropriate along with a paragraph describing how existing races might differ from core presentation.  When it comes down to it, it is really up to the DM and players to decide how races are treated in their campaigns or published campaigns.  It is a creative, malleable game after all.
Chelsea FC - winner of 2012 FA Cup and Champions League Champions of Europe! Three Lions Resident Footie
1. I don't see how they could include even the barest essentials for every D&D campaign setting in one of the core books for 5e without eating up the entire page count. What I would like to see them do is include a box in the DMG that lists all the settings WotC/TSR ever produced with maybe a one line description of each (e.g. Dark Sun - Gritty fantasy on a desert world), then DMs who are interested can go take a look at previously released products on those settings. How to create your own campaign setting is a neccessary part of the dmg, I would be amazed if they didn't include it.

2. Races from specific campign settings should be presented in that campaign setting book. One of the cool things about a campaign setting such as Dark Sun/Eberron is that you get to play Thri-Kreen/Warforged. If DMs want these races in their homebrew campaign setting they can import them easily. It's much easier to rule something in than rule something out.
As to your last part, campaign settings should be free to change the core races' stats and not be bound by them. Again, one of the reasons someone might be interested in playing Dark Sun is that Halfings in Dark Sun are not PHB Halflings.
I think they should stick with the more common/popular races for the first PHB.  After that the sky is the limit as fat as I am concerned- I like lots of race options.  I think the campaign settings can then introduce specific races as appropriate along with a paragraph describing how existing races might differ from core presentation.  When it comes down to it, it is really up to the DM and players to decide how races are treated in their campaigns or published campaigns.  It is a creative, malleable game after all.




Maybe 5e PHB1 SHOULD be limited to the more popular races... now persuade me that halflings, gnomes and half-orcs are more popular than Drow or Warforged Smile


I think they should stick with the more common/popular races for the first PHB.  After that the sky is the limit as fat as I am concerned- I like lots of race options.  I think the campaign settings can then introduce specific races as appropriate along with a paragraph describing how existing races might differ from core presentation.  When it comes down to it, it is really up to the DM and players to decide how races are treated in their campaigns or published campaigns.  It is a creative, malleable game after all.




Maybe 5e PHB1 SHOULD be limited to the more popular races... now persuade me that halflings, gnomes and half-orcs are more popular than Drow or Warforged





Of course they're more popular they're more powerful aren't they?
I think a reasonable compromise between too few and too many is to include all the races that have appeared in a Player's Handbook (1) over the years.  DDN will be the 40th 'anniversary' editon of the game, so why not go all out?  The designers have mentioned doing this (can't remember if it they were talking about classes or races though).

To go beyond that scope and include all races that have appeared in all the many published settings over the years would be too much for a core book though I think.  If it were up to me, I might put out a book on the Worlds of D&D, which does pretty much what e whit is asking in his original post.

To answer the questions then:  1- Should 5th have an all encompass basic information on all campaign setting thus allowing DM's to choose what setting to play.  Yes.  One book that encompasses all published campaigns.  Information on races, classes, geography, and history.  Maybe even some ideas for homebrewing.  As much as can possibly fit into a single book.  I'd make it supplemental though; the core book is gonna be full of all the other races that have appeared over the years.

2- Should all the playable races in FR, Eberron, Points be listed in PHB  with notes on what realm they are specific to but not forced only on.  Yes.  I'd note where the races were introduced (like Warforged in Eberron), and then I'd give some mix 'n' match suggestions.  There was an article in Dragon that suggested alternate origins for races in other settings; I do something like that. 
/\ Art
I think they should stick with the more common/popular races for the first PHB.  After that the sky is the limit as fat as I am concerned- I like lots of race options.  I think the campaign settings can then introduce specific races as appropriate along with a paragraph describing how existing races might differ from core presentation.  When it comes down to it, it is really up to the DM and players to decide how races are treated in their campaigns or published campaigns.  It is a creative, malleable game after all.




Maybe 5e PHB1 SHOULD be limited to the more popular races... now persuade me that halflings, gnomes and half-orcs are more popular than Drow or Warforged





Of course they're more popular they're more powerful aren't they?



Well, since AD&D as a kid, I have mostly played 4e, so: No, Drow and Warforged are not more powerful, in my experience.

And, are you saying people only like races because they are powerful?

I think they should stick with the more common/popular races for the first PHB.  After that the sky is the limit as fat as I am concerned- I like lots of race options.  I think the campaign settings can then introduce specific races as appropriate along with a paragraph describing how existing races might differ from core presentation.  When it comes down to it, it is really up to the DM and players to decide how races are treated in their campaigns or published campaigns.  It is a creative, malleable game after all.




Maybe 5e PHB1 SHOULD be limited to the more popular races... now persuade me that halflings, gnomes and half-orcs are more popular than Drow or Warforged





Of course they're more popular they're more powerful aren't they?



Well, since AD&D as a kid, I have mostly played 4e, so: No, Drow and Warforged are not more powerful, in my experience.

And, are you saying people only like races because they are powerful?



No, not everyone. But it is a fantasy game and who fantasizes about being small and weak? 
Maybe mechanically they've been made to be no more powerful but iconically they're much more powerful fantasy themes so the player would feel more powerful. There is nothing wrong with this, I love both of these races personally. I was just making an observation.

No: One of the main things that make a campaign setting unique is the playable races, I get really annoyed with people who want to play there war forged in the forgotten realms, there is nothing wrong with either setting pick one and play it. I think that putting them all in the players handbook just encourages weird cross overs.  Sure it’s your campaign and you should play it how you like it but I see no reason to encourage people to break campaign flavor all the time, a good campaign setting in which all the players become immersed is worth a little effort at consistency. Gray Hawk should be the default setting.

Then which books contain the less popular but multiple setting aspects?

Where is the info on Minotaur and Gnoll PCs that are in Setting A, Setting B, but not Setting C?
Where is the Feywiild and Fey Dark that exists in Setting A, Setting C, but not Setting B?
Do you put them in the PHB? the MM? the Setting X book? Setting X and Setting Y books?

Things are all fine and dandy for Warforged and other setting specific races and places. But if you lock the PHB to Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling; you mess the ACTUAL cross setting races. 

My game as an area (A whole plane) with just Minotaurs, Human, and Warforged NPCs. Do I have to wait for the Dragonlance and Ebberon books to play the official version of the Warmaze?

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Yes or No. Should 5th have an all encompass basic information on all campaign setting thus allowing DM's to choose what setting to play. Book has basic info on greyhawk, Dragonlance, FR, Eberron, Mystara, red sun etc history of the worlds; Points of light "how to create your own campaign setting" So it lists geography photo some key history abd key city hero villain and then let the DM expand from that. Later , they can decide to make individual campaign books but this allows DM's to get to choose some options.



No.
The general PHB, DMG, MM#1 etc. should not focus on this info at all.  Especially not the PHB.

The various campaign settings are specialized info best presented in their own products.  (With the possible exception of monster entries in later MM volumes.)
If some one wants FR material?  Then they simply buy the FR book(s).

 




Again, I'd say no.  Additional playable races, or setting specific alterations to a race, should appear in the setting material that spawns them.

But since I assume that's a futile wish?  Then the next best thing would be to simply present the race in the basic book & leave out any mention of where it originates from.
Then, in the setting specific products, go & detail the races history &/or changes as they pretain to that setting. 
I feel the PHB and D&D have outgrown campaign setting entirely.  All I want in it are mechanics, races, and classes.  I'd rather all campaign setting materials be presented in the DMG.  The setting is the realm of the DM, is it not?  He is the one declaring what races and classes are for his game, yes?  Help him to that by putting the information he needs to do that in his book, where it belongs.

To answer your questions directly...

#1.  Yes, D&D Next should provide very basic information on most campaign settings (popular and unpopular) in a single book.  The DMG.  That information should be very basic, probably lacking in maps but listing general terrain types, common races and classes, and a few points of interest that have 1-2 paragraphs each.

#2. Yes, yes, and more yes.  D&D has grown beyond Middle Earth and Conan fantasy.  It has grown to the point where the concept of a big tent "core world" has become ridiculous (how do you reconcile Plaescape, Spelljammer, and Eberron cosmologies?).  There is no longer a core race, class, or world.  The PHB should reflect that.  The DMG is the place for declaring appropriate race, class, and core cosmology.

Which would lead me to my own #3...

Putting 2 pages in the DMG about a cosmology that interests the DM encourages the DM to go out and buy the D&D Next books that describe his desired cosmology in more detail.  He doesn't NEED them.  He has what he needs in the DMG.  He wants them.  That's the "hook".
1. I don't see how they could include even the barest essentials for every D&D campaign setting in one of the core books for 5e without eating up the entire page count. What I would like to see them do is include a box in the DMG that lists all the settings WotC/TSR ever produced with maybe a one line description of each (e.g. Dark Sun - Gritty fantasy on a desert world), then DMs who are interested can go take a look at previously released products on those settings. How to create your own campaign setting is a neccessary part of the dmg, I would be amazed if they didn't include it.



I agree putting any real description would take too much space -- people don't seem to realize the list of settings ever  produced is rather long! However, I'd think even a listing in the DMG would be useless: those settings would either out-of-print, or not yet published for 5e at the time the DMG gets out. What's the point in telling people: "You know, there's this setting about PC kings, high priests and merchant princes. It's called Birthright, and you can get it in a box published fifteen years ago"?


2. Races from specific campign settings should be presented in that campaign setting book. One of the cool things about a campaign setting such as Dark Sun/Eberron is that you get to play Thri-Kreen/Warforged. If DMs want these races in their homebrew campaign setting they can import them easily. It's much easier to rule something in than rule something out.
As to your last part, campaign settings should be free to change the core races' stats and not be bound by them. Again, one of the reasons someone might be interested in playing Dark Sun is that Halfings in Dark Sun are not PHB Halflings.



I totally agree with this. There's no reason why one should play a halfling with a pony-tail instead of a kender in Dragonlance, and even less for the other settings. Also, setting-specific races like the Warforged should stay in the campaign setting book for a twofold reason: they help widen the interest for that campaign setting (and the value of the new books), and they are of no use to people who don't use those settings.

So in the end its "no" to both questions.
Also, setting-specific races like the Warforged should stay in the campaign setting book for a twofold reason: they help widen the interest for that campaign setting (and the value of the new books), and they are of no use to people who don't use those settings.

So in the end its "no" to both questions.


The bolded claim is odd. At most I'd say elements specific to one published setting are less valuable to people who only use other published settings. Warforged don't help you if you only play in Dark Sun, for example, and you are wed to the canon. However, a lot of people make their own settings, so I wonder why ideas from a specific campaign setting wouldn't enrich what people are creating. If I can stick gnomes in my homebrew campaign, why not changelings too? I don't really see how a race or class can be "setting specific" unless it really strongly ties into some complicated element of that setting.

truth/humor
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves.

 

iserith: The game doesn't profess to be "just like our world." What it is just like is the world of Dungeons & Dragons. Any semblance to reality is purely coincidental.

 

Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?

 

TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon. A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.

Also, setting-specific races like the Warforged should stay in the campaign setting book for a twofold reason: they help widen the interest for that campaign setting (and the value of the new books), and they are of no use to people who don't use those settings.

So in the end its "no" to both questions.


The bolded claim is odd.


It definitely is odd.  In addition to the points you made, emwasick, I have never known any DM to leave a setting exactly as it is.  Every DM I have ever known (the good and the bad) have customized the settings they play in by dabbling in the races/classes/etc. of other setting.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

#BoobsNotBlood

My answers would be No and No.

My first reason is that, if you make the core PHB and DMG so all inclusive, then they are going to cost far too much.

Secondly, the campaign world specifics should be presented in their own publications, including races, because the specifics are what make them unique; and thus worth investing in separately.
Yes and No.  The Core Books need to be setting-neutral, with no default.  Hell, don't even name the gods.



  • If you are running a campaign, you have every right to tell players they can't run a race you don't like or don't want in your campaign.

  • If you are playing, and some other guy picks a race you don't like or don't believe should be in the campaign, then shut up or leave.  Nobody wants a whining complainy-pants at the table, and you can be replaced by another player if need be

No.  Core books should not have a campaign setting, but they should publish one at launch because not everyone wants to play homebrew worlds.

And playable races is a great way to get people to buy campaign settings even if they don't intend to run a campaign in that setting.  Warforged in Eberron, for example. 
Also, setting-specific races like the Warforged should stay in the campaign setting book for a twofold reason: they help widen the interest for that campaign setting (and the value of the new books), and they are of no use to people who don't use those settings.

So in the end its "no" to both questions.


The bolded claim is odd. At most I'd say elements specific to one published setting are less valuable to people who only use other published settings. Warforged don't help you if you only play in Dark Sun, for example, and you are wed to the canon. However, a lot of people make their own settings, so I wonder why ideas from a specific campaign setting wouldn't enrich what people are creating. If I can stick gnomes in my homebrew campaign, why not changelings too? I don't really see how a race or class can be "setting specific" unless it really strongly ties into some complicated element of that setting.



Of course ideas from specific campaign settings can be used outside them: by buying that campaign setting, which will improve WotC's business -- and that is why they need to stay in the setting books, to help sell them. Selling fluff-only books doesn't seem to work (and indeed, all 4e setting player's books have at least one new race and class or other similar mechanical element).
 
On the other end of the spectrum, there's no reason why one should have to use ideas from other settings -- I, for one, do not want Warforged (or any other mechanical element of Eberron, for that matter) in any campaign setting I use, so Warforged are of no use to me. While most DMs might tinker with the settings, very few (none in my experience) will use all races from every campaign setting.

Of course ideas from specific campaign settings can be used outside them: by buying that campaign setting, which will improve WotC's business -- and that is why they need to stay in the setting books, to help sell them. Selling fluff-only books doesn't seem to work (and indeed, all 4e setting player's books have at least one new race and class or other similar mechanical element).
 
On the other end of the spectrum, there's no reason why one should have to use ideas from other settings -- I, for one, do not want Warforged (or any other mechanical element of Eberron, for that matter) in any campaign setting I use, so Warforged are of no use to me. While most DMs might tinker with the settings, very few (none in my experience) will use all races from every campaign setting.


Now I'm really confused! You seem to be advocating for WotC to sell us as little as possible in each book. If there are say, 10 classes per year, I'd like to see 9 in the Player's Handbook and 1 in the year's setting book. What advantage is there for us if more stuff is in setting books? Sure, WotC could theoretically sell more books if they go back to the fluff/crunch split we saw in stuff like "Races of _____" back in the day, but that model left a really bad taste in my mouth, since there was way too much "this is what time elves eat ice cream on Sunday" material.

As to your second point, yeah, I hope we're not even talking about obligatory inclusion of anything.

truth/humor
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves.

 

iserith: The game doesn't profess to be "just like our world." What it is just like is the world of Dungeons & Dragons. Any semblance to reality is purely coincidental.

 

Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?

 

TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon. A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.

I think races in campaign setting books are fine.  Most of the time though what is essential to a race should be simple and easily extracted for use elsewhere without having to buy the book.  Campaign settings are fluff.  

I'd keep classes out of campaign settings.   Backgrounds are good though.  I think themes would be a no.

 
Also, setting-specific races like the Warforged should stay in the campaign setting book for a twofold reason: they help widen the interest for that campaign setting (and the value of the new books), and they are of no use to people who don't use those settings.

So in the end its "no" to both questions.


The bolded claim is odd. At most I'd say elements specific to one published setting are less valuable to people who only use other published settings. Warforged don't help you if you only play in Dark Sun, for example, and you are wed to the canon. However, a lot of people make their own settings, so I wonder why ideas from a specific campaign setting wouldn't enrich what people are creating. If I can stick gnomes in my homebrew campaign, why not changelings too? I don't really see how a race or class can be "setting specific" unless it really strongly ties into some complicated element of that setting.



Of course ideas from specific campaign settings can be used outside them: by buying that campaign setting, which will improve WotC's business -- and that is why they need to stay in the setting books, to help sell them. Selling fluff-only books doesn't seem to work (and indeed, all 4e setting player's books have at least one new race and class or other similar mechanical element).
 
On the other end of the spectrum, there's no reason why one should have to use ideas from other settings -- I, for one, do not want Warforged (or any other mechanical element of Eberron, for that matter) in any campaign setting I use, so Warforged are of no use to me. While most DMs might tinker with the settings, very few (none in my experience) will use all races from every campaign setting.



I have two worlds, and the one we're playing in right now has a kitchen sink when it comes to races; the more the better.

"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
If a race is introduced in a specific setting and is closely identified with that world, then as far as published settings go, I say that race should remain unique to that world.  So, Warforged are an Eberron race, not a Realms one.  Homebrew settings are a monster all their own of course --it's all good ;).

How many races are actually that closely identiefied with a setting though?  What about Kalashtar and Changeling?  Genasi are introduced for a specific setting (Planescape) but they're prolly more closely identified with the Realms right now.  Tieflings are another race from Planescape, re-imagined as a 4e core race.  Deva have been entirely re-imagined from Aasimar (another Planescape race).  Kender are a race introduced in Dragonlance but for all intents and purposes, they're interchangeable with halflings (in my mind at least).

D&D races evolve from world to world, edition to edition, and from game to game.  Which race appeared where, first?  It can get confusing, fast.  Let the Player's Handbook focus on races from previous core books over the years.  Let each published setting deal with races that make appeares there.  It would be much less confusing I think.  There's more space to do it properly; there are fewer races and they are (usually) closely identified with the world anyway.
/\ Art
Also, setting-specific races like the Warforged should stay in the campaign setting book for a twofold reason: they help widen the interest for that campaign setting (and the value of the new books), and they are of no use to people who don't use those settings.

So in the end its "no" to both questions.


The bolded claim is odd. At most I'd say elements specific to one published setting are less valuable to people who only use other published settings. Warforged don't help you if you only play in Dark Sun, for example, and you are wed to the canon. However, a lot of people make their own settings, so I wonder why ideas from a specific campaign setting wouldn't enrich what people are creating. If I can stick gnomes in my homebrew campaign, why not changelings too? I don't really see how a race or class can be "setting specific" unless it really strongly ties into some complicated element of that setting.



Exactly. Put the most popular races, regardless of which setting they first appeared in, in the Players Handbook. If a DM wants to not include Halflings or Warforged in their own campaign, that is, as always, their prerogative.

Or, once again, WOTC can alienate fans who don't want to wait years for their favorite race (or class, for that matter) to appear.

Remember, also, that DMs are free to ignore 'canon' if they want.  If they want Warforged in their Dark Sun game, then there are Warforged in his Dark Sun game.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Then which books contain the less popular but multiple setting aspects?

Where is the info on Minotaur and Gnoll PCs that are in Setting A, Setting B, but not Setting C?
Where is the Feywiild and Fey Dark that exists in Setting A, Setting C, but not Setting B?
Do you put them in the PHB? the MM? the Setting X book? Setting X and Setting Y books?

Things are all fine and dandy for Warforged and other setting specific races and places. But if you lock the PHB to Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling; you mess the ACTUAL cross setting races. 

My game as an area (A whole plane) with just Minotaurs, Human, and Warforged NPCs. Do I have to wait for the Dragonlance and Ebberon books to play the official version of the Warmaze?



well if they want to apease players of older editions i woulden't mind seeing a conversion book.
this would be a book with races and themes and moduals for campaign settings that still need to be re published.
so with this book and your edition X campaign setting you could play any of your old favorite worlds.

this might also be a good idea from a marketing point.
as with introductions of new editions i noticed that people who play published campaign settings are more reluctant to try a new system as soon as it comes out, as their world isen't out in the new system yet.
Or, once again, WOTC can alienate fans who don't want to wait years for their favorite race (or class, for that matter) to appear.




Thats a good point.  A slow release schedule could make or break how fast you pick up DnD Next.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
Remember, also, that DMs are free to ignore 'canon' if they want.  If they want Warforged in their Dark Sun game, then there are Warforged in his Dark Sun game.



I'm of the opinion that if a player can come up with a good enough character concept and reason to justify a race being in a world that doesn't normally have that race, I'll allow it. 

Dark Sun used to have metal and a wizard from a race of long ago mighty have created a "warforged" servant and then died.  Thousands of years later an accident of some sort woke it up and it emerged into a new and different world. 

That said, if a player came to me with that concept, I would allow it, but warn the player that the world at large would likely want to kill his character for the metal he's made of, so it might not be a good idea to play a warforged in Dark Sun.  If he still wanted to play it, so be it.  The player knew the risks.
Well I think it is safe to assume that the PHB will not have more then a handful of races in it.It has always been that way and i see no reason why they would change that now.Besides like people have said,you really can not put too much into the core books.Well at least of one specific subject.Otherwise you end up with a 60 or 80 dollar book.


Now regardless of what races I like or dislike it should just be 6-8 races give or take 1 or 2.The other races will just have to be put in other books or supplements.Now they can have a small mention of the other races within the PHB but putting in enough info to play the bulk of the popular races is not realistic.

My hope is that the new PHB will be back to the basics.Human,elf,half elf,hafling,half orc,dwarf and gnome.That is 7 races right there which is plenty to start with.Then maybe some extra background info on everbody added in as well.Then they can adress the rest in other books.


Now this is just my opinion but I think some players just like to play some of those other races because they look so drasticaly different.It makes them feel special the at they are kindred to demons/angels/dragons,dark elfs etc etc.Some I know feel the other races are too plain and that they want something ultra fantastic.Now there is nothing wrong with that of course they can like what they want to like.I just feel that you can make perfectly good use out of the so called original races.Give them a interesting background,personality,quirks etc.Make your character ultra fantastic without having to be a race that is out of this world.          
Remember, also, that DMs are free to ignore 'canon' if they want.  If they want Warforged in their Dark Sun game, then there are Warforged in his Dark Sun game.



I'm of the opinion that if a player can come up with a good enough character concept and reason to justify a race being in a world that doesn't normally have that race, I'll allow it. 

Dark Sun used to have metal and a wizard from a race of long ago mighty have created a "warforged" servant and then died.  Thousands of years later an accident of some sort woke it up and it emerged into a new and different world. 

That said, if a player came to me with that concept, I would allow it, but warn the player that the world at large would likely want to kill his character for the metal he's made of, so it might not be a good idea to play a warforged in Dark Sun.  If he still wanted to play it, so be it.  The player knew the risks.



And perhaps they'd like to spend some of that starting money on a heavy cloak and fake skin for their face, too.  Just make sure that stuff never comes off.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- ) Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right.
fun quotes
58419928 wrote:
You have to do the work first, and show you can do the work, before someone is going to pay you for it.
69216168 wrote:
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?[/quote]
I think they should stick with the more common/popular races for the first PHB.  After that the sky is the limit as fat as I am concerned- I like lots of race options.  I think the campaign settings can then introduce specific races as appropriate along with a paragraph describing how existing races might differ from core presentation.  When it comes down to it, it is really up to the DM and players to decide how races are treated in their campaigns or published campaigns.  It is a creative, malleable game after all.




Maybe 5e PHB1 SHOULD be limited to the more popular races... now persuade me that halflings, gnomes and half-orcs are more popular than Drow or Warforged


      Now the popularity of a lot of races depends on how broken they are under the particular rules set.  However Warforged are way less popular than the others.  And the main not to have both gnomes and halflings would be that both are small, just as half-orc and drow are evil.
     We can't expect we can select the 10 most wanted choices, but we can expect that we will get the top 5 easily enough, and that the other 5 will be in the top 15 or so.  There does not have to be any really popular race that is missed, nor a really unpopular race selected. 
      But the real problem is that we can't do justice to 100 races if we do them all at once.  We just will not know the system that well, and will not be paying enough attention to each race.  Much better that we do 10 or so a year even if that will mean half of the races will never be covered.  Perhaps after a year or two, we can do a volume of nothing but races.  It's been done before.   But doing them all now is just asking for the job to be done badly.
Remember, also, that DMs are free to ignore 'canon' if they want.  If they want Warforged in their Dark Sun game, then there are Warforged in his Dark Sun game.



I'm of the opinion that if a player can come up with a good enough character concept and reason to justify a race being in a world that doesn't normally have that race, I'll allow it.


I got into D&D with AD&D 2e because of a friend, and good DM, that got me into the game.  After he moved away, I had a few really bad DMs and got out of the game.  Before I came back with 3e, I was playing Palladium's games.  Now a lot people crap on them for their design flaws, and they certainly have some to gripe about, but there is one thing I took from their games that holds true in D&D: In a game where wizards can open portals to other dimensions, the walls between settings aren't so fixed as we like to pretend they are.  Just as magic portals can explain a veritech in Rifts earth, so can it also explain a single pc/creature of a non-standard race or class in any D&D setting.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

#BoobsNotBlood

I'm going to be coming up with a new campaign world sometime in the next year, for an open-table game. I'll allow anything at all. But anybody playing anything that isn't human will be pretty much unique. Not hated or reviled, necessarily. Just strange. Objects of curiosity. There won't be multiple sentient species butting up against each other. It's something I've always wanted to try.

Mostly because I believe that the idea that human beings in a pre-information age society would tolerate another sentient species in their living space for even a moment is far more difficult to swallow than 'magic'.

I'm going to be coming up with a new campaign world sometime in the next year, for an open-table game. I'll allow anything at all. But anybody playing anything that isn't human will be pretty much unique. Not hated or reviled, necessarily. Just strange. Objects of curiosity. There won't be multiple sentient species butting up against each other. It's something I've always wanted to try.

Mostly because I believe that the idea that human beings in a pre-information age society would tolerate another sentient species in their living space for even a moment is far more difficult to swallow than 'magic'.


     That there would be trouble between races is a given, but our actual experience shows that tolerance [& friendship for that matter] can exist at times.  We both deny humanity to those in the next village and bestow it on household pets.  [A story from Africa is that chimps and gorillas are in fact at least as intelligent as humans, probably more so since they have realized that if they act intelligent, they will have to pay taxes.]  Note too that most of our stories put the elves in the woods, the dwarves in the mountains ... which tends to reduce the clash between races.   So the tolerance between races is quite reasonable in amounts consistent with our game. 
I think the DMG should have some very basic information on campaign settings. I think an appropriate amount would be about 10 pages worth. I would break that down to three campaign settings at 3 pages each (2 text pages + 1 world map page) and 1 page with all other campaign settings ever published with one-line descriptions and where to find more information about them. It would be enough so that DMs who don't want to or can't afford to buy into a setting would get to choose from three different settings and mostly build it into their own within the rough framework given. And the final page would help players who, say, want to run an Aztec campaign, letting them know to look for a product called Maztica for inspiration (with the caveat that rule crunch is out of date).
> Mostly because I believe that the idea that human beings in a pre-information
> age society would tolerate another sentient species in their living space for
> even a moment is far more difficult to swallow than 'magic'.

Because of real-world history? They had the luxury of behaving the way they did due to being the strongest and the only sentient species around. The typical fantasy setting with all of its unnatural dangers (many of which are far more scary and powerful than those pointy-eared or bearded guys) pretty much demands that 'you all hang together or you'll all hang separately'.
Yes or No. Should 5th have an all encompass basic information on all campaign setting thus allowing DM's to choose what setting to play. Book has basic info on greyhawk, Dragonlance, FR, Eberron, Mystara, red sun etc history of the worlds; Points of light "how to create your own campaign setting"

 

No.  I don't think this would be a good idea, I feel a single standard game setting and a "how to create your own setting" section are all the "core" books should encompass. Adding, even the smallest bit, of detail about other established setting is pointless as these small sections could hardly provide enough info to construct a viable campaign and they they simply would take up to much space (and increase the printing costs) if they were included.  I say leave the specific setting worlds to their own books.

2. Yes or No Should all the playable races in FR, Eberron, Points be listed in PHB with notes on what realm they are specific to but not forced only on. Thus genasi or warforge say they are located in FR and Eberron realms but if a DM chooses he can add those races in his FR, Eberron, point of light generic campaign setting etc. 



Once again no, leave the races that are specific to a particular setting, in that setting. One of the things that  helps to define a setting's uniqueness are it's races. After all is printed and done if a DM wants to they can still import them into their own core setting or homebrew setting, but non-core races shouldn't even be listed as an option in the PHB. Just my 2cp.
"We are men of action, lies do not become us" ~ D.P.R.
There is no historical precedent for humans living with another sentient species. The only remote corrolary is the Neanderthals. And they didn't last long.

Species competition is not 'race' competition. African, Asian, American, European strains of **** sapiens? Consider - the antipathies between these strains of the species are virulent, and have resulted in horrific atrocities. Imagine how much worse they would be if the differences between strains were real, rather than culturally manufactured.
There is no historical precedent for humans living with another sentient species. The only remote corrolary is the Neanderthals. And they didn't last long.

Species competition is not 'race' competition. African, Asian, American, European strains of **** sapiens? Consider - the antipathies between these strains of the species are virulent, and have resulted in horrific atrocities. Imagine how much worse they would be if the differences between strains were real, rather than culturally manufactured.



I dont know if it would be worse.

Made up reasons to hate another race/country/sports team are just as real as real reasons to hate them.

"those damn ****, coming here and taking our **** and ****"  Just insert your own nouns.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
There is no historical precedent for humans living with another sentient species. The only remote corrolary is the Neanderthals. And they didn't last long.


In all fairness, you have to look at how uncivilized both parties were in that equation.  Remember that the D&D world is far more socially advanced than even our real medieval period was.  And one also needs to take religion into account (worship of the gods in D&D is not restricted by the different D&D races, in that there is no prohibition preventing elves and humans from worshipping the same god/gods); how would the neanderthals and **** sapiens have gotten along if they had shared a common religion?

Another factor is that many D&D races are little more than Star Trek aliens (humanoids with minor physical differences from humans).  An elf is just a pointy-eared human.  Now that's not strictly true, but people do tend make judgements based on appearance (which is why the ugly races tend to be dehumanized while elves and dwarves get real cultural differentiation).

Now let's put those two together.  Imagine humans living side-by-side with a race that looks just like humans with pointy-ears, and then imagine that they worship the same gods (gods who make their presence solidly felt through divine magic and the intervention of their divine minions, and thus are not disputed as the gods of the world in question).  That's a very different picture from the humans and neanderthals mentioned above.

Species competition is not 'race' competition. African, Asian, American, European strains of **** sapiens? Consider - the antipathies between these strains of the species are virulent, and have resulted in horrific atrocities. Imagine how much worse they would be if the differences between strains were real, rather than culturally manufactured.


You know, that's an interesting notion.  Let's look at it.  The chimpanzee genome has a 96-98% similarity to the human genome.  Now that's astounding.  Even more astounding is that the chimp is visibly clearly not human.  How close to 100% do you have to get to achieve a nearly identical outward appearance (like elves or dwarves)?  And that doesn't even begin to account for the half-elf and half-orc phenomena.  How close do two different species have to be to actually reproduce?

Another factor to consider is the lack of genetic knowledge in D&D worlds.  Without genetic knowledge, the differences among mostly human-looking species is basically reduced to race.

There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

#BoobsNotBlood

Sign In to post comments