| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is the opposite of open and tolerant.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Suspicion yes, outright hostility, that might be pushing it. Its funny how people talk about hatred towards the non core, when 2 of the most common races in many settings are near universally hated and feared. Looking like someone blended a gorilla and boar together and painted it green is ok, but being a massively charismatic kitsune bard will make people run for the hills.
Or C) "Oh hey, honoured... Uhhhh... Individuals... My pig got a piglet-shaped offspring with four heads, three tentacles, eight wings, mauve skin plates and an external digestive tract. It seems to be at least vaguely intelligent. Would you bring it on your next adventure?"
|
Suspicion yes, outright hostility, that might be pushing it. Its funny how people talk about hatred towards the non core, when 2 of the most common races in many settings are near universally hated and feared. Looking like someone blended a gorilla and boar together and painted it green is ok, but being a massively charismatic kitsune bard will make people run for the hills.
I cannot like this enough.
Maybe the villagers are xenophobic/greedy/wanting of the valuable materials that are inherently part of the races body. Fur, scales, tusks, horns, beaks, etc. Heck if you actually wove it into your towns background story at least it might make a little sense.
"Oh but hey bluish-green ape-boar orc man, come on in and have a pint of my finest grog! But the highly charismatic, gorgeous, fox-lady and the smooth and alabastar skined Undine can just piss right off! We don't accept your kind here!"
Again, gelatinous, shapeshifting, four brained, transparent, motorcycle riding squids is one thing and even I would raise an eyebrow. A charismatic fox-lady or horned tiefling not so much.
I suppose it will always come down to different strokes though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the reason villages "have to be made up uniformly of xenophobic racist a&@*#!!s" is because they're inhabited by villagers. Living in a (aspiring) post-racist, mass-communication age, you and I are entirely aware that people who live far away dress strangely, use different languages, and have customs that seem odd to us; and we're strongly encouraged to regard those differences as neither threatening nor alarming.
Now imagine you have lived all your life in a village with 75 other people. Aside from a couple of dozen wandering priests and tradesmen, and that time you drove the wagon to another village full of strangers who looked at you funny, these are the only people (or species) you have ever met in your life. Further, within a day's march of your village you know that Things live; evil, pillaging, torturing Things; and while you've seen or have descriptions of a few of the most common Things, you're well aware that there are thousands of others that you know nothing about, except that they don't look like you or any of the other villagers.
Then, one day, a strike force of heavily armed, totally unfamiliar creatures arrives in town, acting (as PCs do) with all the courtesy and grace of a busload of frat boys on Spring Break.
Given these facts, would you say A) "Welcome, winged dog-man! Please enjoy the hospitality of my village! Let me introduce you to my twin sixteen-year-old daughters!" or B) "Somebody with detect evil can deal with these people - I'm hiding in the basement until they go away!"
I grew up in a town of 6,000 surrounded by towns with populations in the hundreds so I don't have to imagine too hard what a village would be like. True we have mass communication today, but even in our own history we had town criers to give the news.
So why do you think that 100% of villagers have no idea about anything outside their town? Ok so a bird-man (Tengu) walks into a village and they haven't seen a picture of one on the internet, they've still probably heard of them, and have maybe even seen an illustration of one somewhere.
And you're not going to tell me that they've never heard of adventurers. We have all sorts of legends of completely mundane people in our own world. Are you telling me that the people of Golarion aren't going to have stories they pass back and forth of famous adventurers? One of the core classes is the Bard!
So based on my experiences growing up in a small town and visiting tiny towns I imagine this is what happens when a heavily armed Tengu walks into town:
1) Curiosity
"Hank, is that one of those, oh what do you call 'em?"
"Tengu is it?"
"Yeah I think that might be a Tengu"
"Huh. Thought they'd be taller."
Or a kid saying "Wow look an adventurer! Do you think he's like Cayden Cailean?"
Or "I've never met one of you bird-men before. Where are you from? What's it like?"
2) Suspicion
"I've heard of you adventuring types, and I don't want to hear of you causing any trouble around here."
3) Relief
"You've got to be an adventurer! Are you here to solve our X problem?"
4) And yes, a bit of ignorance (like anywhere else)
"I hear they eat carrion. I don't want him around here."
But no, villages are full of hateful idiotic lynch mobs, right? Let's just write them all off.
I grew up in a town of 6,000 surrounded by towns with populations in the hundreds so I don't have to imagine too hard what a village would be like. True we have mass communication today, but even in our own history we had town criers to give the news.
6,000 is absolutely massive on this scale. There is no comparison to a village of 50 - 100 people. Furthermore, mass media is of a scale incomparable to anything. On top of this is public education which also wouldn't exist. There is nothing about your experience of growing up in a modern town that size that is comparable.
I have entered a tiny agrarian village before with several well armed people. This was in the country of Belise. The village had no electricity or mass communication. There were around 30 families there. This was not at a time of war, nor were we soldiers in any army. I can assure you that being well-armed outsiders did not engender us to the local population.
In a universe where strangers, and strange creatures, can literally devour people's souls - suspicion and hostility are quite reasonable responses for your basic villagers.
Some of my friends lived in a neighboring town of 149. Farmland as far as they eye could see, neighbors you could not. So yes, I can imagine what a village would be like.
I don't know the circumstances of your Belise visit so I won't comment.
But again, yes they don't have the phone/internet, but information still gets around. And while Golarion takes inspiration from our medieval history, it's also highly idealized. Some of our history's shortcomings are tossed out the window. Are women property and not allowed to be PC's in your games? I'll wager you don't have those restrictions, even though that was reality in the time frame Golarion takes it's inspiration from.
So why are all villagers 100% unrepentant racists?
nothing wrong with allowing extra races
i'd rather the DM work with the player on finding a means of accommodating them, even if it is a little crude in exection
over the lazy way of saying "not allowed."
it would be more welcoming if the DM said
"Half-Nymphs currently don't have a place, so we will help work with you to find one."
than
"my setting doesn't have space for Half-Nymphs"
I understand the points many people have made about campaign verisimilitude, and it is perfectly reasonable to ask players to choose something that will fit into the campaign world.
However, I think it's important to keep in mind that the players also have a right to shape the story and world alongside the DM. The game is meant to be played as a shared storytelling experience and works best when both players and DMs can compromise to ensure everyone has fun. It seems a little harsh to outright forbid a particular race a player may have his or her heart set on playing, and it seems even colder to ban the player from a game over something so trivial.
I usually suggest races (and classes) that will work best in the current story and encourage my players to choose from those, but if someone wants to be something different I okay it if they will do the work to come up with a plausible explanation for the character's presence that makes sense in for the storyline.
The only time I would ever outright nix a class/race combo is if I felt it would disrupt game balance too much and detract from other player's fun, and even then I'd prefer to discuss my concerns and make tweaks to the concept to allow the player to be what he she wishes.
I am very much against the idea that a DM owns the campaign world and a player can't have any input. The DM has a responsibility to make sure the players have fun, and that does mean compromising at times.
Not at all. Having the problem early on is the problem. The entire track of the adventure is derailed because the adventure becomes about their clashes with the local folk rather than about whatever was going to happen.This is a false dilemma, don't you think?
Early on, I'd expect a 'party of freaks' to get a lot of mistrust, but after they've spent time in an area proving to the locals how heroic (or at least civilized) they are, word spreads. And because they're all freaks, people they've never met will recognize them all the more readily, and come asking for help!
But again, yes they don't have the phone/internet, but information still gets around. And while Golarion takes inspiration from our medieval history, it's also highly idealized. Some of our history's shortcomings are tossed out the window. Are women property and not allowed to be PC's in your games? I'll wager you don't have those restrictions, even though that was reality in the time frame Golarion takes it's inspiration from.
I was just about to say that, with all the other modern idealizations and game conceits in D&D, getting hung up on odd PCs getting racist reactions from farmer Joe seems silly. Women's rights, everyone speaking Common, widespread literacy...need I go on?
But I guess there's no accounting for taste, and if you really can't buy into the game world without making non-core* races a burdensome to-do, it's your game and you can do what you like.
*Core vs. non-core is such an arbitrary division, but whatever.
So... does anybody have further opinions on how many playable races make for the 'sweet spot' between providing enough options for players, keeping the setting plausible, and leaving the GM enough wiggle room for odd NPC races?
My favored settings are a homebrew that has a place for pretty much anything a player might want to play -- and I've even been known to homebrew new races upon player request -- and Planescape, which is of course the ultimate kitchen sink setting. :)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with Blue_Drake. Compromise is important and outright banning a character concept is a last resort in my book. If a player really wants a particular race that I hadn't planned on including in my setting, I can add it in.
(1) Including catfolk or kitsune or whatever in a game for a player who wants to play one doesn't mean I have to include the whole ARG. This is like having a rotating list of allowed races for different campaigns except the list always just happens to include what the players want to play. This is the best solution if the race could plausibly fit in the campaign.
(2) Races that can pass for human are minimally disruptive. They don't need to worry about attracting attention - a human sorcerer with the undead or celestial bloodline is about as exotic to a human commoner as a dhampir or aasimar fighter is. Many of the physically human-like ARG races have origins that imply a human culture with a slightly different perspective (you were born among humans but have outsider/undead/hag heritage) so you don't need to worry about distinct cultures for these, either.
(3) If the race doesn't plausibly fit in the campaign, it's possible to include a PC of that race without actually including the race - the PC could have been cursed or magically transformed and is therefore unique. This might involve minor alterations to character concepts and the character might attract attention if they're physically unusual. But you don't get the "zoo" effect unless most of the party can't pass for human/a major race, and if your players all want to play something really bizarre you need to re-think your campaign.
Some believe that a player should subordinate some of their desires for the greater good. While they might feel a particular urge to play a Drow rogue (for example), they can instead play something else if it won't fit well within the campaign world.
Others believe that the campaign follows after character creation - where all the players can make whatever they wish and then the campaign should shape itself to make it work.
Both types of games have their place. A lot depends on how pre-made the world is that the DM will use. And it depends on how the story he has crafted will integrate with different party types.
Some DMs, tend to do a lot of world-building ahead of time; creating histories, nations, and background. Often this will preclude some elements from play to maintain consistency. This is my usual approach as a DM. But not always.
Very good points, but as I explained above I think that as long as a player is open to some compromise there should almost always be room for a particular race in a game.
It's actually quite rare for a role-playing gamer to say, "Well, I have only one character concept in my head and there is no room for compromise; goodbye."
I've found that, too. Two of the three players who wanted to play an "unusual but not impossible to accommodate" character in my next campaign had a backup concept, and the third was willing to accept some prejudice due to his race choice. (Note that I still ended up with only 2/5 core races since some non-core races are no big deal in the setting.) Personally, I usually come to a table with at least two concepts so I can figure out what best fits the setting and party.
*Core vs. non-core is such an arbitrary division, but whatever.
I know. Why not have a setting where hobgoblins are considered more normal than half-orcs? Or where elves are really rare but there are at least a handful of kitsune and tengu in most towns? Or a coastal setting where most of the population are merfolk, grippli, or undines?
So... does anybody have further opinions on how many playable races make for the 'sweet spot' between providing enough options for players, keeping the setting plausible, and leaving the GM enough wiggle room for odd NPC races?
There isn't one. Some campaigns can handle a whole lot of variety (Eberron and Planescape have been mentioned) while in some campaigns you only want one playable race (like Abrisene's all dwarf/goblin games). The number of races in the game and which of these are playable are questions the GM and the players need to settle in the planning stages.
However, I'm fully in favour of Paizo publishing tons and tons of races because it gives me ideas and more confidence in the mechanics used to execute those ideas. My next campaign is going to be so much more interesting thanks to the ARG.
Well, I feel like dealing with xenophobic farmers and being an outcast can lead to interesting roleplaying opportunities. I've never banned a race from my games, but I do make the play deal with being a goblin living in a city or whatever else.
And, as someone else pointed out, adventurers are oddballs. Many are adventurers because they don't fit in with normal society. That feels like the perfect opportunity to have all walks of life, from fire-haired swashbucklers to a Wayang. Normal people don't wander from crypt to cave fighting the deadliest monsters imaginable. Why force a "normalcy quota"?
Personally, I like to have as many options as possible. I don't mind if my players want a party of freaks or whatever. Even if I did dislike it, however, I try not to impose my taste on their characters. We all have different opinions and taste, so I don't see why I not liking something should be enough to forbid it.
IMHO, options should only be removed/nerfed for balance reason. Fluff? Taste? That varies from person to person, and there is no correct answer, so I don't forbid things I don't like just because I don't like them.
I don't like elves or Cavaliers, but if my player wants to play an elf cavalier, so be it. It's his character, not mine.
Wow. That's pretty personal and offensive.Sometimes I really wish there were more people who would DM like I do instead of those who would DM like you do.
No offense, but I just don't like the way you run things. You're free to DM as you see fit, however. Different strokes for different folks.
I gotta ask, how is that offensive? Icyshadow didn't call you a bad GM or anything like that, he simply said he doesn't like your GMing style.
It's not even a personal remark, just someone stating a difference of opinion.
To me the biggest issue is ecological niches.
Sophont is pretty much a single ecological niche. Without barriers to transit a species like humanity will arise and spread and wipe out all other sophonts or prevent them from arising in the first place. With magical ecology you can probably support a second underdark race and an aquatic race, though the aquatic race isn't really useful.
Or you can have nothing like humans, but then you have nothing that travels any significant distance and nobody interacts.
All of the monsters that have strangely to have life histories to screw over players, or Dinosaurs and Megafauna overlapping, or the fact that you even have a fantasy world where everything evolved exactly like Earth is a much bigger issue than having multiple sapient species.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I find it odd that some wonder where we get the idea of common folk having issues with many of the 'alternate' races.
Here's just a few snippets from the rule books.
Dhampir:
Humans view them with a combination of fear and pity, though such feelings often devolve into hatred and violence. Other humanoid races, such as dwarves, elves, and halflings, simply shun them.Drow:
[are Drow.]Fetchling:
Dwarves find fetchlings duplicitous and creepyGoblin:
Their pernicious nature makes interacting with civilized races almost impossibleHobgoblin:
hobgoblin communities count no other races as their friends, and few as allies. Elves and dwarves earn special enmityKobold:
They consider both dwarves and elves to be deadly rivals. Kobolds fear the brute power of half-orcs and resent humans for the dominant status that race enjoys.Ifrit:
Those who grow up in a city are almost always imprisoned or driven off before they reach adulthood...and their predilection toward pyromania doesn't endear them to the local authoritiesRatfolk:
other humanoids find their rodent features distastefulTengu:
Few races easily tolerate tengusTieflings:
Tieflings face a significant amount of prejudice from most other races, who view them as fiend-spawn, seeds of evil, monsters, and lingering curses placed upon the world.
It's simple enough for a DM to create a world that defies these conventions. But this is the base material from the source book.
When I'm running a game for strangers, the base world is our common starting point.
It's simple enough for a DM to create a world that defies these conventions. But this is the base material from the source book.
When I'm running a game for strangers, the base world is our common starting point.
And yet its players who often want to defy those common starting points, which only really makes them common for GMs wishing to design their worlds.
When the convention is common for approximately one-fifth of the player base (that being the portion that designs and runs games) is it really all that common?
I realize that is a strawman's advocate, but it is certainly something to keep in mind before we call anything, "common." A better phrase would probably to just use the word, "core," as in, "Its core to expect that humans and fetchlings don't get a along, but in my setting I have a group of humans who were stranded on the Plane of Shadow and they look to the fetchlings as sources of advice and wisdom in order to survive in this hospitable place." In short, "core" should be metagame lingo and "common" should be in-world lingo.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does anyone ever see someone play a Kitsune with any class combo other than a sorcerer, oracle, bard or rogue? I'd doubt it happens often. And if it is exceptionally rare to play that race and some other class than the four I mentioned, then I have to argue if the player is really interested in playing the race or are they interested in the ability score modifiers the race provides? You just are not going to convince me it's about the flavor of the race unless they only pick to race to enhance their class choice -- especially in a point buy character creation model.
I would say that all the other race options present the same situation. There are plenty of other ways to optimize the game. If the game made all races have a +2 ability modifier of your choice, period, I bet you'd see a lot less desire to play the expanded races.
|
From a gaming perspective (PF as a better alternative to video games), more options is always better. You give the players more power over his character's abilities, "look", and possible builds. If you give your players a bunch of options they aren't interested in, it's no sweat, because they can simply not choose those options, and they aren't adversely affected.?
D&D settings have always had a bewildering plethora of humanoid races. Back in 1st edition, 'demihuman' dwarves, elves, gnomes and halflings stood alongside humans, and shared their niche with 'humanoid' orcs, goblins, hobgoblins, gnolls, bugbears, etc. Every time a new humanoid race like urds or ogrillons or tasloi or goblyns came around the corner, I kind of groaned, wondering if we really needed them, even if *some* of them were pretty awesome.
These days, there's a ton more options, from 'planetouched' to setting-specific stuff like killoren or dragonborn or warforged or litorans or blinklings or monkey goblins or whatnot, many of them totally fascinating races.
I'd just go with the setting, for the most part, and if a PC wants to play a certain race that's not common to the setting, like an android, I try to accommodate and discuss with them whether or not they want to be 'the only android in the area' for RP reasons, or don't care about that sort of thing and would rather be one of a group of local androids, just like Sandpoint, for whatever reason, has it's own local group of Tien, from the completely other side of the planet, or Thornkeep has a small population of goblins.
If there seems to be a bit more racial 'clutter' than I want in the area, I can always weed out another local race that nobody is interested in playing, so, poof, the local dwarven family goes away, and a small group (probably not accurate to call them 'family') of android craftsman have taken their place in the 'local ecosystem.'
If, a year down the road, somebody wants to bring in a dwarf, and not be the 'only dwarf in Sandpoint,' I can always reintroduce them a couple doors down the street, or have a few dwarven settlers roll into town to 'dwarf up the place' a little bit.
Like any stew, adding too many ingredients willy-nilly can turn the gumbo into overly spiced mud, unless the theme is *intentionally* headed for cantina territory (as it would be in Spelljammer, or Kaer Maga, where rubbing shoulders with beholder bartenders and illithid slavers, or troll augurs and naga apothecaries is to be expected!).
Even then, some pretty classic fantasy has gone into 'cantina' territory. One famous party had a dozen dwarfs, a halfling and some sort of half-celestial demigod thing, while the next had only a single dwarf, but also an elf, four hobbits, the aforementioned demigod, and a couple of humans.
It can also scratch the itch to occasionally have a game, one-shot or short campaign, in which *everyone* plays something odd. Spelljammer or Planescape were good settings for that sort of thing, but it could happen in the City of Brass or Kaer Maga or even in Absalom or Katapesh or Numeria or Alkenstar or Nex, where a party including gillmen or gnolls or similar 'unusual' races wouldn't seem crazy inappropriate.
If everybody wants to play 'the odd guy,' start the game in Tymon, with the characters having been recruited (or captured!) to fight in the arena, some having already earned their freedom (or proven to be utterly unsuitable for arena-fighting, and terrible disappointments to their recruiters...). Suddenly there's an in-story reason for oddball humanoids from all over the Inner Sea to be gathered in a land that otherwise has little or nothing to do with their respective races.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't have any problem with making the game world properly react to any character.
If you want to play an Orc or Drow, chances are Elves won't like you. I will even tell you about that beforehand, so you don't act surprised when that comes up.
I simply have no problems allowing players to make an Orc or Drow character.
Just like a Barbarian carrying a blood-stained axe and using his enemies' skulls as ornament will cause quite a commotion in most civilized settlements, but I'd still not force the Barbarian player to clean his axe and leave his enemies' skulls behind.
It's his choice to play such a character, and he knows the consequences.
@Riggler
It depends on your table. I'm fortunate (or unlucky enough depending on your point of view) to GM for a table that focuses on role-playing more than stat min-maxing.
I understand where you're coming from though, and I agree and share your feelings that many players don't pick a race based on flavor. To some extent that's unavoidable though, and it makes sense that the Kitsune, or any other race, would on the whole favor professions they excel at.
I don't agree that a +2 ability modifier of your choice to all races would decrease the expanded races though. In fact, I think if all the races were equal I think you'd see even more diversity. While the min-maxing does drive some players to seek out a race that matches their class choice well, at the same time it limits them to races with the right bonuses. With the current setup you probably don't see many kobold martials, a -4 hit to Str is strong deterrent.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does anyone ever see someone play a Kitsune with any class combo other than a sorcerer, oracle, bard or rogue? I'd doubt it happens often. And if it is exceptionally rare to play that race and some other class than the four I mentioned, then I have to argue if the player is really interested in playing the race or are they interested in the ability score modifiers the race provides? You just are not going to convince me it's about the flavor of the race unless they only pick to race to enhance their class choice -- especially in a point buy character creation model.
I play a multiclass Kitsune Samurai (Sword Saint) 2 / Fighter (Lore Warden) 5 / Thug 1. Started at 3rd level, currently at 8th level. The character is completely built around tanking opponents by applying massive debuffs to the enemy. I trip, I demoralize, and in a couple more levels my rogue level will be high enough that I get brutal beatdown and sicken my foes. Shaken applies a –2 penalty attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks, sickened applies a –2 penalty on all attack rolls, weapon damage rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks, and being tripped applies a –4 penalty on melee attack rolls, prevents my opponent from using most ranged weapons, and gives them a –4 penalty to AC against melee attacks.
My party is only melee attackers. (Magus, myself, rogue, and healer)
Ultimately, a surprising number of foes suffer a –4 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, and ability checks, a –2 penalty on damage rolls, and a –4 penalty to their AC when I'm done debuffing them. And it works considering that my demoralize ability is completely dependent on my Charisma. I don't need a monstrous Strength to hit my opponents at the end of the day because I've done so much to soften them up that I can afford a lower Strength score.
Next level, as a matter of fact, I get Vicious Stomp and Improved Unarmed Strike (my next level is in Rogue, so I'm picking up the Improved Unarmed Strike Ninja Trick alongside my 9th level feat). By the time I reach 11th level, my opening round looks something like this:
Turn 1: Run up to opponent and trip them using unarmed strike. When successful, provides two attacks of opportunity thanks to Greater Trip and Vicious Stomp; the first one uses Enforcer to deal nonlethal damage to demoralize my opponent for at least 2 rounds, the second one triggers Shatter Defense and renders my opponent flat-footed against my attacks until the end of my next turn.
Turn 2: If opponent tried to stand up during its turn, it just got sneak attacked in the face (its flat-footed) and is now sickened. If it did not try and stand up, it is either getting Challenged and Iaijutsu Striked in the face (which would also allow me to sicken it) or it is getting a full attack action to the face, all of the attacks triggering sneak attacks and continuing the Shatter Defenses debuff. Because I belong to the Order of the Cockatrice, I get an effective +6 to hit the foe if they are tripped (+2 because of my Order ability and –4 to its AC for being prone) in addition to the fact that it is now flat-footed and even easier for me to strike. Continue until either I or my magus ally, who has an easier time of hitting too, destroys opponent.
Does anyone ever see someone play a Kitsune with any class combo other than a sorcerer, oracle, bard or rogue? I'd doubt it happens often.
So there you go, a little system mastery allows you to see the forest through the trees. ;)
|
|
I know. Why not have a setting where hobgoblins are considered more normal than half-orcs? Or where elves are really rare but there are at least a handful of kitsune and tengu in most towns? Or a coastal setting where most of the population are merfolk, grippli, or undines?
If you want my honest opinion and answer; because the core are "easy." Many more subspecies, tropes, and archetypes have been already identified and fleshed out over the many years these "common" races have been played and expanded upon. It is much easier for MOST people to write and come up with a fleshed out dwarven musket-shooting mountaineer than a underwater coral-obsessed spell-casting undine. Those that have the ability to do so with ANY race and class are truly gifted and should use that gift to the fullest and I think they are hurting themselves if they decide to stay restricted to the "core." However, that is their prerogative and theirs alone. I, you, and we cannot change that.
Does anyone ever see someone play a Kitsune with any class combo other than a sorcerer, oracle, bard or rogue? I'd doubt it happens often. And if it is exceptionally rare to play that race and some other class than the four I mentioned, then I have to argue if the player is really interested in playing the race or are they interested in the ability score modifiers the race provides? You just are not going to convince me it's about the flavor of the race unless they only pick to race to enhance their class choice -- especially in a point buy character creation model.
I would say that all the other race options present the same situation. There are plenty of other ways to optimize the game. If the game made all races have a +2 ability modifier of your choice, period, I bet you'd see a lot less desire to play the expanded races.
I'm a little confused. You see this with almost ANY class played by Pathfinder members. As an example I almost always see Elves as either spellcasters or druids/rangers depending on the type of elf (wood elf for example) and use the Dexterity bonus and/or Intelligence bonus to further help their cause.
If your gripe is with the simple majority playing as a class that receives the most benefit from the race they choose well....that only makes sense. Almost no one wants to have a severe handicap when playing the game unless they want the additional challenge. And it has been discussed in these forums (and countless other tabletop ones) as something that perhaps would boon the community better if it didn't exist. For example giving all races a +2 to the stat of their choice as some has discussed before.
Or maybe I missed something else in your argument that you can expand upon. Otherwise it looks like you are just complaining for players doing something that is just common sense.
EDIT: Alexander posted a great example of his Kistune above.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
ok my 2 cents.
1) After playing for years, I find the whole "Elf archer, human fighter, human/elf mage, dward fighter, and halfing rogue" party woefully boring. You can only do so many variations before things get repetitive. It actually gets fun when you throw in a Tiefling (the GM had some interesting interactions with the Tiefling when near certain churches dedicated to good dieties.) or a Dhampir. Honestly I am extremely partial to the "demi-human" races like the Undine, the Aasimar, and the like.
2) Honestly I feel like alot of people against the whole "party or non-humans" seem to immediately go to the most exagerrated extreme possible. I mean if a party consisted of a Awakend bear, a War-forged, a Giant, and a Half-Dragon-Half-Celestial Vampiric Pixie then yes I would raise an eyebrow. But a party of an Undine, a Kitsune, an Elf, a Tiefling, and a gnome is not that bad. Especially if you consider that the Undine, the tiefling, and the Kitsune (with its SLA) all look mostly human anyway. But then again, what do I know right?
I would say that all the other race options present the same situation. There are plenty of other ways to optimize the game. If the game made all races have a +2 ability modifier of your choice, period, I bet you'd see a lot less desire to play the expanded races.
I actually DM a D&D clone that does just this, and player choices are mixed. Some go for the Tolkien classics, others go for the weirdos, even without the stat bonuses. I don't keep running tallies of how many PCs are core vs. non-core races, but the ratio isn't weighted enough either way that I can agree with you.
As I said earlier in the thread, most players develop a favorite race or two over the course of their gaming career -- some of them settle on the classics, while others settle on an odd race despite the number of DMs who feel the need to ban non-core stuff.
APPENDED In fact, consider this a friendly challenge to any DM willing to experiment with his/her comfort zone: Run a single adventure or one-shot with all races allowed and no ability mods, preferably with players you suspect only want to play race X for the +2s. I'd be interested to know how your players react to the house rule. We both might be surprised!
EDIT: Alexander posted a great example of his Kistune above.
Gosh, its almost like someone screams "Kitsune!" and I'm already there with a camera and forum post! ;-)
As I said earlier in the thread, most players develop a favorite race or two over the course of their gaming career -- some of them settle on the classics, while others settle on an odd race despite the number of DMs who feel the need to ban non-core stuff.
And its usually a race that meshes well with the player's general style. For example, I like being the faceman and I also like being the party trickster (not necessarily rogue, party trickster) so a race with a Charisma bonus and Change Shape is appealing to me, even if it suffers a Strength penalty.
In Warhammer Fantasy Battle, you don't see humans stop taking up the sword just because the Chaos Warriors to the north are physically stronger then they are. They do it anyway and play to their strengths, in their case teamwork and tactics. In the kitsune's case, you emphasize their natural Dexterity or you use psychology and dirty tricks to hamper an opponent. Even the strongest opponent has trouble swinging a sword when knocked prone and clenching their jewels after you gave them a swift kick.
But a party of an Undine, a Kitsune, an Elf, a Tiefling, and a gnome is not that bad. Especially if you consider that the Undine, the tiefling, and the Kitsune (with its SLA) all look mostly human anyway. But then again, what do I know right?
I agree with everything you have said. However, as the self-titular Mikaze of the Kitsune, I regret to inform you that Change Shape is a supernatural ability and not subjected to lesser game mechanics like "minutes per day" and "attacks of opportunity." ;-P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know. Why not have a setting where hobgoblins are considered more normal than half-orcs? Or where elves are really rare but there are at least a handful of kitsune and tengu in most towns? Or a coastal setting where most of the population are merfolk, grippli, or undines?If you want my honest opinion and answer; because the core are "easy." Many more subspecies, tropes, and archetypes have been already identified and fleshed out over the many years these "common" races have been played and expanded upon. It is much easier for MOST people to write and come up with a fleshed out dwarven musket-shooting mountaineer than a underwater coral-obsessed spell-casting undine. Those that have the ability to do so with ANY race and class are truly gifted and should use that gift to the fullest and I think they are hurting themselves if they decide to stay restricted to the "core." However, that is their prerogative and theirs alone. I, you, and we cannot change that.
"Easy" has little to do with it. A large portion of games are run in public venues where you know little to nothing about the players or the game until you are all sitting at the table. In cases like these the only thing you all have in common is the core rules and default setting.
Anything and everything is possible when a group of friends gets together and decides together what the world will be like. This luxury is often not available for public games.
So you take the base world, as written in the books, along with the assumptions that go with that. This is a courtesy by the DM, so that the players don't show up with characters that make no sense in the setting ("Sorry, all elves are extinct in my game world. Your character is out."). With a core-based game everyone can be sure to create a character that will work right from the start.
The other side of this coin is player courtesy. Showing up with a snowflake character like a Drow or Dhampir carries the potential for disruption of the story and of the other characters. So it can be seen as a lack of courtesy for a player to put their character concept above the needs of the DM and all the other players at the table.
"Easy" has little to do with it. A large portion of games are run in public venues where you know little to nothing about the players or the game until you are all sitting at the table. In cases like these the only thing you all have in common is the core rules and default setting.
Anything and everything is possible when a group of friends gets together and decides together what the world will be like. This luxury is often not available for public games.
So you take the base world, as written in the books, along with the assumptions that go with that. This is a courtesy by the DM, so that the players don't show up with characters that make no sense in the setting ("Sorry, all elves are extinct in my game world. Your character is out."). With a core-based game everyone can be sure to create a character that will work right from the start.
The other side of this coin is player courtesy. Showing up with a snowflake character like a Drow or Dhampir carries the potential for...
By "public venues," I assume you're mostly referring to Pathfinder Society. In PFS, being a non-core race is actually somewhat difficult, as you have to receive a boon for attending specific events. (This may or may not be changing based on recent suggestions from the developers.) This means that you probably have some experience under your belt in the game if you're playing one of these races, but I would tend to agree that experience doesn't always equate to enough experience to play an excellent core character, let along a featured or uncommon character.
But if we're talking about PFS, we're not really talking about a "base world." We're talking about Golarion, and one must remember that the flavor in the Core Rulebook line is designed to support Golarion's vision of a race first and foremost. "Base" implies that the Golarion setting is the default that all players must play in. It isn't. It is the 1PP setting and therefore the core assumption, but you should always talk to your GM about how a race acts in the setting he or she is running their game in. Example: You write a Golarion halfling, only to find that your GM is playing Dark Sun, where halflings are cannibals.
Because of this, I don't think the, "Core expectations" line applies at all. "Setting expectation" is a better way to phrase this concept, because I've personally played more games in my homebrew and in Forgotten Realms than Golarion, so my setting expectation is different from yours. Which is why this conversation needs to focus on what the GM intends the setting to look like and not the flavor provided in a book.
By "public venues," I assume you're mostly referring to Pathfinder Society. In PFS, being a non-core race is actually somewhat difficult, as you have to receive a boon for attending specific events. (This may or may not be changing based on recent suggestions from the developers.) This means that you probably have some experience under your belt in the game if you're playing one of these races, but I would tend to agree that experience doesn't always equate to enough experience to play an excellent core character, let along a featured or uncommon character.
But if we're talking about PFS, we're not really talking about a "base world." We're talking about Golarion, and one must remember that the flavor in the Core Rulebook line is designed to support Golarion's vision of a race first and foremost. "Base" implies that the Golarion setting is the default that all players must play in. It isn't. It is the 1PP setting and therefore the core assumption, but you should always talk to your GM about how a...
Nope. Not talking about PFS. I'm talking about public pick-up games at FLGS, convetions, etc. Games where all you have are the core books. No assumed world, not even Golarion. Just a table and a notice/schedule for players to sign up and show up to the table for Pathfinder(tm).
Does anyone ever see someone play a Kitsune with any class combo other than a sorcerer, oracle, bard or rogue? I'd doubt it happens often. And if it is exceptionally rare to play that race and some other class than the four I mentioned, then I have to argue if the player is really interested in playing the race or are they interested in the ability score modifiers the race provides? You just are not going to convince me it's about the flavor of the race unless they only pick to race to enhance their class choice -- especially in a point buy character creation model.
I would say that all the other race options present the same situation. There are plenty of other ways to optimize the game. If the game made all races have a +2 ability modifier of your choice, period, I bet you'd see a lot less desire to play the expanded races.
I'm a little confused. You see this with almost ANY class played by Pathfinder members. As an example I almost always see Elves as either spellcasters or druids/rangers depending on the type of elf (wood elf for example) and use the Dexterity bonus and/or Intelligence bonus to further help their cause.
If your gripe is with the simple majority playing as a class that receives the most benefit from the race they choose well....that only makes sense. Almost no one wants to have a severe handicap when playing the game unless they want the additional challenge. And it has been discussed in these forums (and countless other tabletop ones) as something that perhaps would boon the community better if it didn't exist. For example giving all races a +2 to the stat of their choice as some has discussed before.
Or maybe I missed something else in your argument that you can expand upon. Otherwise it looks like you are just complaining for players doing something that is just common sense.
Sorry for the confusion. Seems pretty much a small group of us talking in this thread. Early on the discussion was about quality of race options vs. quantity. A lot of posters argued that flavor of races was the reason for quantity being preferred. And seemingly a lot of posts seemed to favor I wanna/like to/prefer to play because of all the different strange races I get to play -- suggesting it is flavor as the reason.
I was trying to say that I think for the vast majority of players who insist on playing more exotic races the reason is moreso than not the abilities of those races and how to optimize a class to those races than it is the flavor that those races may represent.
In brief, optimizing is the foundation for the desire for a quantity of races over quality of races. Because when you have enough races, you can certainly find one that boosts whatever class concept you had. So it's not the racial heritage or how it might fit into the world that most players gravitate for in race selection, it is optimization.
Just gonna throw this out there, but I usually don't even bother putting human npcs in my games anymore. My players never use them, and frankly half the time they just seem to be society gap fillers. Heck the only reason my current game is human populated is because it is a Circus Freaks escape campaign and they provide a lazy contrast.
Nope. Not talking about PFS. I'm talking about public pick-up games at FLGS, convetions, etc. Games where all you have are the core books. No assumed world, not even Golarion. Just a table and a notice/schedule for players to sign up and show up to the table for Pathfinder(tm).By "public venues," I assume you're mostly referring to Pathfinder Society. In PFS, being a non-core race is actually somewhat difficult, as you have to receive a boon for attending specific events. (This may or may not be changing based on recent suggestions from the developers.) This means that you probably have some experience under your belt in the game if you're playing one of these races, but I would tend to agree that experience doesn't always equate to enough experience to play an excellent core character, let along a featured or uncommon character.
But if we're talking about PFS, we're not really talking about a "base world." We're talking about Golarion, and one must remember that the flavor in the Core Rulebook line is designed to support Golarion's vision of a race first and foremost. "Base" implies that the Golarion setting is the default that all players must play in. It isn't. It is the 1PP setting and therefore the core assumption, but you should always talk to your GM about how a...
my reason for not playing PFS
there is not a single race in the core rulebook that pleases my eccentric and akward tastes
while i will, cave in and play a human, elf, half elf or half orc as a last resort
i desire to play the truly fantastical races, the grandiose stuff outside of the tolkein core
my preferred (even if suboptimal) race selection includes
Fetchling
Suli
Aasimaar
Tiefling
Oread
Undine
Ifrit
Sylph
Samsaran
Changeling
Dhampir
Kobolds
Lizardfolk
Nagaji
Tengu
Catfolk
Kitsune
Nymphs (if allowed to make a conversion of some kind)
Half-Nymphs (if allowed to make a conversion of some kind)
Vampires (if allowed to make a conversion of some kind)
Succubi (if allowed to make conversions)
Cambion/Alu Demons (if allowed to make conversions)
Yuki Onna (if allowed to convert)
Nekomimi (if allowed to convert)
Plushies (if D&DWiki is allowed)
Modified Plushes (If D&D Wiki is allowed with subtype modifications)
Hybrids involving any combination of the above
Some Monstrous conversion of some kind
Races i cannot stand
Humans*
Half-Elves*
Half-Orcs*
Dwarves
Halflings
Gnomes
Elves*
Svirfneblin
Duergar
Drow*
Orcs
Goblins
Hobgoblins
Asterisk (*) denotes a race i will reluctantly play as a last resort. note i will almost never touch a Gnome, Halfling, or Dwarf. the only exception, is if the Gnome, Halfling, or Dwarf is a DMPC that impresses me and i have no choice until we get to a place where i can bring in a more desirable PC.
Xenh's Halfling NPC, Champion Jinx, was the first halfling to impress me.
|
|
In brief, optimizing is the foundation for the desire for a quantity of races over quality of races. Because when you have enough races, you can certainly find one that boosts whatever class concept you had. So it's not the racial heritage or how it might fit into the world that most players gravitate for in race selection, it is optimization.
Yes, you can find one that boosts your class concept. In fact, with more options you can usually find several that boost your class concept, which means that you are free to pick one with flavour you like rather than feeling like you have to play the one race that gives you the right plusses. Players can be motivated by both at the same time and more options means it's easier to have both mechanics and flavour.
Do people usually like to play characters that are mechanically above-average rather than below-average? Yes they do. And, as a whole, they will do that as long as one race has a mechanical edge over another for a particular class. More options just means that you'll see more kitsune, dhampir, aasimar, and catfolk bards in addition to halflings, and a few tiefling or samsaran wizards with the elven ones. And you'll see some characters of these races that are pleasantly surprising in their creativity, like Alexander's Kitsune.
Me, I'm using the Suli to make a barbarian with 20 Str and +8 Diplomacy by level 2 - comfortable with peaceful or aggressive negotiations - whose spiritual beliefs center around the elements. Mechanically solid, but no stronger than a human (or Oni-spawn tiefling, or Oread) and has more unique flavour - and fits into the world better (I made my final race choice after consulting with the GM and he suggested Suli over human).
@Democratus - public pick-up games are obviously very different from home games. If people need to be able to sit down and play, you either need to agree beforehand on a specific well-understood setting like Golarion or Eberron, or you need to use a generic fantasy setting. (You can't really have "no assumed world" because that's a complete blank. The CRB still assumes that the setting has a set of typical fantasy race stereotypes, a medieval tech level, wizards with spellbooks, etc. It also introduces the Golarion pantheon so you don't need to make your own deities for your generic fantasy.) However, as you noted earlier a home game does not have the same constraints. Some of the posts on this thread have spoken more generally about the reactions that certain unusual races should encounter, which could be taken to mean that the CRB prejudices should be expected in home games as well. I'm of the opinion that the "default setting" doesn't have to be the inevitable setting for home games and that because a home game can stray from the default it's preferable to make compromises that will enable players to make characters of unusual races if they wish.
There's also the fact that not all the featured races are described as having poor relations with other races - Aasimar, Oreads, Undines, and Catfolk don't have any particular enemies. Suli are less described but seem inoffensive (especially with Cha and Diplomacy bonuses). And Dwarves "generally distrust and shun half-orcs. They find elves, gnomes, and halflings to be too frail, flighty, or “pretty” to be worthy of proper respect" so their disliking Fetchlings doesn't say much about that race. Half-orcs among the core races are typically described as persecuted, so no big difference between playing a half-orc and a tiefling or dhampir.
|
|
I my reason for not playing PFS.
There is not a single race in the core rulebook that pleases my eccentric and akward tasteswhile i will, cave in and play a human, elf, half elf or half orc as a last resort
Followed by other stuff that makes this point in detail.
Note: Tieflings and Assimars are now allowed in PFS.
If we were both players in a game and we had a GM who liked a limited number of races or in it PFS, I would suggest that your interest in a lot of races is more out of a desire to create a unique character.
I look at the characters I've made for PFS, and I've noticed that by making the race important aspect of who they are, sometimes in ways that clash with their stereotypes (to a point) I make unique characters, without a million different racial options.
A human Paladin 'Samurai' from Tian Xia descended from 'the being which you barb-- uh--westerners refer to as Sarenrae'. This character was made before the APG came out. If made now might be an Assimar, but I made the character as human and they worked well.
An Oracle who has had their perspective 'altered' by her encounter with the divine. Think of all the Doctor Who Compaions who have grown and changed you get the idea behind this character.
Half elf summoner, grew up on a human ranch and her alieness set her apart from friends and playmates.Her first friend and confidant was her eidolon. She is much less bitter because of this friendship.
Half Orc Alchemist, oldest brother to with two younger sisters he is trying to marry off (he is the product of a rare loving family, as in both parents were under philters of love, so he believes drugs are important to marital bliss) to his fellow characters and NPCs. He is obsessed with creating a 'respectable place for his family in human society and runs an 'orcish barbaque' resturant in Absalon when not adventuring.
Dwarven 'nerd' sorcerer, physically weak, and uncharismatic, but a product of Dwarven culture and trying to be all the things he is supposed to be but is not.
Basically, race can be an important part of who the character is and that is very cool. Being an exotic 'snowflake' race can also be a crutch in lieu of characterization. So when I see someone insisting on such a race, if they can 'role play' very well.
Take Care,
Kerney
We're pretty sure my half-orc, the tiefling, aasimar, and fetchling do not have the same mother. Well, we're sure the half-orc doesn't, I haven't asked the native outsiders yet. Would be pretty hilarious.
A lot depends on your campaign world.
If you are using Paizo's Golarion, the core races are the main ones that are considered acceptable in most of the inner sea region. There is room for a lot of the non-core "half-blood" races since they are a mix of human and X, thus they can exist anywhere there are humans, though even there they will often be viewed with some disdain. But other than that, races outside core don't really have a large presence.
Obviously races that live in the darklands are a separate group, as are races that live underwater. Each of these regions will have a different "core" set of races.
If you are playing in the Dragon Empires then you have a different set of races which ought to be considered "core" for that region.
In order for another race to be viable they have to have a region where it is possible to find other members of there species, if only because without this they will not be able to have children.
I would recommend the Dray Prescot series of novels for an example of how a large variety of races can exist in a world. The world of Kregen was largely populated by humans but a wide variety of non-human races (collectively called "diffs") existed. Many of the non-human races offered their services as mercenaries and traveled widely. As a result people around there world were used to seeing non-humans around, though this did not necessarily mean that they would socialize together. This led to a more cosmopolitan outlook by many people, though racism did exist.
Peet
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The other thing I find funny, the purists who think playing the "freak races" is some how a sub par thing to the "core" races. How is an elf any more justifiable than a Kitsune or Orc? Just because something is core does not mean it is it is inherently "better" for group dynamics. You can't begin to count how many times I have seen GMs get annoyed because the party is made up of 3 elfs, 1 half-orc, and a human and get all up in arms because "everyone wants to play an elf." (Got really bad after LotR movies came out and made being an elven archer the coolest thing in the world). No race is inherently better or worse for the party make up.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No oddball races in my gameworld, thanks. It's not just a matter of telling the players they're not available as characters; they just straight up don't exist. This includes all of the anthropomorphic races, the elemental & planetouched races, and absolutely none of the real freaks such as wayangs, nagagi, gripplis and the like.
I'm still fully fleshing my gameworld out, so will likely come up with a custom version of aasimar/tiefling type races. I do have a few custom races of my own, such as the firlyth (dark elves) and Anselemish orcs. Will probably come up with more, but they're going to be variations of existing races most likely.
If you want to limit how many of a specific race are represented in a party I think that's reasonable as a GM. You actually want a certain amount of variety.
If you are running modules they are usually written with the assumption a party of mixed composition but where humans are probably the largest number. Sometimes you need to tweak things a bit if that's not the case.
But frankly I find playing humans to be boring. I would much rather play a fantasy race, the more interesting the better. I am quite partial to reptilian races generally and I wish more of them were supported in Pathfinder.
Peet
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Within my homegrown, I've looked at the ecology. How many races can come to full sentience on one planet? On Earth, we've had one known for sure, and a handful more suspected of being sentient or near-sentient. Which means, for me, that a multiplicity of races has to have reason to exist.
In ancient times, there were two races that came into sentience. The Zo'ah't (stolent blatantly from WFRP), who came to sentience during the ancient great-lizard dinosaur times, but who developed in a balance of nature and intellect. In doing so, they became the first (and still essentially form the core of) druids, raising stone circles and 'godswoods', sustaining the balance of the natural world without needing to dominate it over millions of years. They nurtured other proto-sapients, resulting in ...
The kolshi (blatant clones of the Irda from Dragonlance), who were NOT sagely content with living in nature. They developed 'technical magic', aka wizardry and its variants, and set about over tens of thousands of years to developing power. The kolshi are the ones who created, in one way or another, the other sentient races. Dragons were created as both transportation and an exploration of the possibilities of magogenetic tampering. Elves and dwarves (which, it could be argued, are of the same type, 'alfar') were created and developed to assist with kolshi agriculture/animal husbandry on the one hand, and mining/manufacturing on the other; as a reversal from standard, while elves and dwarves may have enmity, they are both relatively new races, and have never had a 'high civilization', much less ones fallen on hard times; the 'great ancient fallen civilization' was always that of the kolshi. Humans and their 'littlefolk' companion race, the precursor to both halflings and gnomes, were created, developed, nurtured, but otherwise left alone as a 'wild group' experiment.
Eventually, the kolshi strove to exert complete control over the magical sphere; the zo'ah't refused to surrender their need to help balance the natural world, and a massive conflict erupted, ending in some literally earth-rending changes.
In the ensuing 14,000 (or so) years, the kolshi have become what might best be described as 'apprentice druids', learning to keep the natural balance and determining how (or if) to redress the damage done. Rogue kolshi groups have devolved into barbarism, becoming the greenskin 'races' (which for my purposes are a single racial group, but which has stages, the best of each being selected to 'evolve' into the next stage up the ladder - goblin, orc, and hobgoblin being playable races), the giant races, and the zoohumans (Dragonlance-style minotaurs, Eberron-style shifters, wemic variant 'urmahlullu', gnolls, and other 'animal-head' or 'animal-influenced humanoids' - only the first three are PC races, and even then not at game start, though they may know -of- them). Cross-breeding between 'pure' kolshi and other races has resulted in Eberron-style changelings (PC race, different origin but effectively the same result).
More recently (in the past 5,000 years or so), the great empire (which rises and falls every few thousand years) on the primary game-setting continent has developed sentient constructs - allowing for Eberron warforged as a PC race 'later on'.
So: Humans, halflings, gnomes, elves, dwarves, orcs, goblins, half-elves, half-orcs, hobgoblins, changelings at game start. Minotaurs, shifters, warforged, and urmhahlullu later on; possibly other species from the other continents, such as Vanara (from the Indian-sub-continent-analogue), Tengu and Kitsune (China/Japan), Ratfolk and Catfolk, but the player would have to be very, very convincing as to why that character made it over to where the PCs are.
Similarly, I looked at building and inhabiting the rest of the world as an exercise in ecology. How much food does an X need a day or week? Are they an apex predator, and how would this affect the wolf/deer balance, and the existence and life of humanoid villagers? How present and powerful is magic, and how does it affect daily life? For the former, relatively rare; the reasons for bulettes not living everywhere, for example, is that there is a particular thing (magical 'tone', trace mineral mix, whatever) in a particular range that keeps them there, or simply that there are not that many Xs (or Ys, or Zs) out there. (And dragons are not color-coded for your convenience.)
Nor is magic super-present; it is less 'double your harvest or your money back' and more 'you have a 5% better chance of a good harvest this year', blessings don't have huge 'oomph' behind it, and spells up to level 3 are less a matter of magic and more a matter of knowledge, psychology, and science. As the PCs developed, however, this 'low-ebb' of magic would slowly rise as they 'pushed it higher'.
Anyhow. A hundred sentient races for PCs isn't necessary, really. Nor must there be a trap-laden dungeon in every ruined castle ...
