Whatever happened to the classic races?

[kyrt-ryder]

Silentman73 wrote:

3) The min/maxing ("optimizing" seems to be the latest preferred term...) players who are looking for every conceivable numerical advantage. These players pore over every rulebook for the game, and are often the first to ask the GM if third-party books designed with the d20 System in mind are usable. They're looking for a "perfect" combination of racial traits, class abilities, 20-level feat and skill planning matrices, backgrounds, campaign traits, and magic items to become the numerically superior character. They often don't care as much about story-based rationale for why something might not make sense; they want to play a "cool" character, and to them, "cool" means "Rarely fails, or succeeds spectacularly when it succeeds".

I must say that number 3 describes the absolute farthest and most extreme example of that style, by and far the vast majority of optimizers are either casual gamers or dedicated roleplayers who happen to enjoy making effective characters that are good at their jobs.

Keep in mind of course the difference between Practical Optimization- which is optimization of characters for play, and Theoretical Optimization- which is pushing the rules as far as they can go as a thought exercise.

[Zhayne]

That's BS, Headfirst, and you know it. The races are balanced purely mechanically, and not every game setting is full of racist bastards. If you don't want a player picking an odd race, just say no, don't go all passive-agressive jackass about it.

[thejeff]

Ssalarn wrote:

J-Gal wrote:

I think the main disconnect here is that when I play Pathfinder/D&D, I typically play in a Greyhawk/Forgotten Realms-esque setting. ****

Ummm... Forgotten Realms is the birthplace of weird or unusual player races. Literally half of the 3.5 Forgotten Realms line was pages upon pages of weird new races to play. Every expansion they dropped had pages of new race descriptions with pictures, stat blocks, backgrounds, etc.

Forgotten Realms was the 3.5 home of: genasii, assimar, tiefling, drow PCs, gnoll PCs, hagspawn PCs, underdark fairy PCs (gloaming), no fewer than 5 reptilian PC races, loxodon, thri-kreen, so many variants of the core races it isn't even funny, blind morlock PCs, four-armed spider-men PCs, and the list goes on. I'm 90% certain that Ed Greenwood created a couple new races just so that Elminster could have a few extra particularly disturbing bedmates.
Saying "I normally play in a Forgotten Realms-esque setting" and "I don't like abnormal races" is like saying "I hate super powers and comics so I only play Mutants and Masterminds".

It depends on which bits you look at and how you squint. Golarion is described as a humanocentric campaign setting and it is. The Inner Sea region is dominated by humans and has well-developed places and roles for the core races. It really is designed around the core races.

They've added many others in various sourcebooks, but you could play in the setting using official materials for years with little need for any of the other PC races. Some of them have a place and defined role as monsters, but mostly you could remove all the alternate races from the setting entirely and change it very little. Which you could not do with the core races.

I suspect the same was true of FR. All this stuff was added, but if you weren't keeping up with all the source material, it would barely register. Not to mention that FR existed long before 3.5.

[Ilja]

Silentman73:
I think you forgot one (though small) group:
Those that want a specific setting that just happens not be LotResque (in the broadest sense of the word because I don't think pathfinder is very much like LotR regardless).

Right now I don't have a group to play with, but I am working on sort of a campaign. If I find a group that wants to run it, everyone will be one of three races.
All races are "monkey people". The nation and culture is directly taken from the (fantastic) game Dominions.
It's not so much for "somethng different" or being the oddball - it's because a setting that takes place in a deep jungle land, based in both the Bandar Log, the Vanara of Ramayana, and with a strict religious and caste system kinda based in hinduism, seems like something very interesting. It is different, but it's not interesting because it's different - it's interesting because it provides great opportunities for roleplay, both social and adventurous.

[J-Gal]

kyrt-ryder wrote:

I must say that number 3 describes the absolute farthest and most extreme example of that style, by and far the vast majority of optimizers are either casual gamers or dedicated roleplayers who happen to enjoy making effective characters that are good at their jobs.

Keep in mind of course the difference between Practical Optimization- which is optimization of characters for play, and Theoretical Optimization- which is pushing the rules as far as they can go as a thought exercise.

I have a player (keep in mind he's a 2nd year engineering student), who's sole pleasure from D&D is optimizing his character and seeing the fruits of his labor every Saturday. He plays Starcraft every night and Warhammer 40K every week. Needless to say, I am very familiar with the group 3 mindset.

[kyrt-ryder]

Honestly the races aren't all that balanced at all. Humans, Dwarves, and Elves are by and far the best baseline races (unless you allow the player to custom select racial traits from the expanded lists for Aasimar and Tieflings.)

[kyrt-ryder]

J-Gal wrote:

kyrt-ryder wrote:

I must say that number 3 describes the absolute farthest and most extreme example of that style, by and far the vast majority of optimizers are either casual gamers or dedicated roleplayers who happen to enjoy making effective characters that are good at their jobs.

Keep in mind of course the difference between Practical Optimization- which is optimization of characters for play, and Theoretical Optimization- which is pushing the rules as far as they can go as a thought exercise.

I have a player (keep in mind he's a 2nd year engineering student), who's sole pleasure from D&D is optimizing his character and seeing the fruits of his labor every Saturday. He plays Starcraft every night and Warhammer 40K every week. Needless to say, I am very familiar with the group 3 mindset.

Sure, they exist. I never claimed they didn't, only that as described it's at the far end. Most people are some blend of 1 or 2 with 3.

[thejeff]

Silentman73 wrote:

1) The ones who are "Tolkien faithful". They want the "classic" D&D races of elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes, and humans. They're fine with half-elves, and often don't draw much difference between orcs and half-orcs (which means they're often fine with someone playing orcs). You'll often find these players falling into stereotypes like "Elves don't like dwarves, most races are upset about humans' fast expansion, everyone loves halflings, and gnomes make things that work, but with comically catastrophic side effects."

Damn these Tolkien faithful and all their weird races! Conan faithful is the only real way to play!! Humans only. Anything else is a monster to be killed.

[Zhayne]

thejeff wrote:

Golarion is described as a humanocentric campaign setting and it is.

This one reason why I'd never run a game in Golarion, and I'm glad my GMs who do use it change so it's not a big deal.

My gameworlds are very cosmopolitan, and not particularly 'monster-infested'; most enemies are NPCs, not cosmic horrors or whathaveyou. Humans are the most common race, but still only comprise about 25% of the population, and the races mix freely. There's no 'elfland' or 'dwarfland'.

Frankly, I don't think there's a wrong reason to pick your character options. Cool mechanic? Fine. Cool background? Fine? Stats fit the class you want? Fine. Just think it looks cool? Fine. Want to do something 'wacky' like a halfling barbarian? Fine. If you're gonna have fun with it, it's all good.

This is a game, not a lifestyle. It's not worth it to get all worked up over it. Take a chillaxative and just enjoy the ride.

[Michael Sayre]

It's not really a "weird direction" they've suddenly taken. Forgotten Realms has showcased unusual PCs since its inception. Back in 1989 you had Drizzt Do'Urden, the first drow good guy (interestingly, the book was supposed to be about Wulfgar with Drizzt as a sidekick in the original pitch), the Azure Bonds series featured a Saurian paladin, and later a triceratops-man wizard. Genasii have been littered throughout the various stories. Richard Lee Byers Year of Rogue Dragons, originally written in 2004 had a half-golem fighter as one of the primary characters (and an advanced vampiric drake...). The Fallen Fortress, written in 1993, had a firbolg as one of the main characters. Twilight Giants in '94 had giant "PCs"...

Forgotten Realms came out in 1987. Since 1989 it has been premiering weird, unusual, and just generally pretty cool PC races. So "unusual" PC/protagonist races are a thing that's been around for a really long time. Even back in 1978 GG was rolling out supplements with all kinds of crazy player races. If anything, it's the "normalizing" of protagonist/PC races into the 7 "human" variants that is kind of the abnormality.

**EDIT** I forgot yuan-ti. Yuan-ti have been a protagonist/PC race for quite some time as well, and had a pretty good series of novels exploring their part of the Realms back in 2004.

[Headfirst]

Zhayne wrote:

That's BS, Headfirst, and you know it. The races are balanced purely mechanically, and not every game setting is full of racist bastards. If you don't want a player picking an odd race, just say no, don't go all passive-agressive jackass about it.

Balanced mechanically? The race points associated with each one would seem to disagree with you. How is an fetchling (RP 17) mechanically balanced with a human (RP 10)?

Also, how is a human peasant, whose only knowledge of the outside world comes from hyperbolic bards and boasting adventurers, supposed to react to "outsiders from the plane of shadow?"

"Hello, my name is Xylar Demonblood. I'm from the extradimensional plane of eternal shadows and darkness. May I enter your quaint little fishing village?"

Not every _place_ in every game world is full of xenophobic (a term I prefer to "racist") bastards, but good portions of it will be. Remember, even in a high fantasy world of airships and living gods, most people are farmers, fisherman, or plain old city folk.

If you actually read the flavor text on some of those rare races (and not just the sweet, sweet stat bonuses they give you), you'll quickly discover that most of them are distrusted, feared, or outright hated by commonfolk. This is part of the balance. Sure, you can play a drow rogue and enjoy all the awesome benefits you have over a regular old human rogue, but guess what? When the party goes up the Ancient Tree to talk to the elf king, you're going to be watching the horses until they come back.

[TriOmegaZero]

Headfirst wrote:

Balanced mechanically? The race points associated with each one would seem to disagree with you. How is an fetchling (RP 17) mechanically balanced with a human (RP 10)?

Because race points are horribly imbalanced as is.

[Zhayne]

Headfirst wrote:

Also, how is a human peasant, whose only knowledge of the outside world comes from hyperbolic bards and boasting adventurers, supposed to react to "outsiders from the plane of shadow?"

Because that is not always the case in every game world. Setting makes all the difference. Not all of us run generic settings.

Quote:

If you actually read the flavor text

Which is NOT rules text, and is freely mutable in my own game world, thankyouverymuch. This is why flavor text is useless as a balancing mechanic. I might decide humans are the rare feared outsiders and the strix are the 'dominant species'.

[Michael Sayre]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Headfirst wrote:

Balanced mechanically? The race points associated with each one would seem to disagree with you. How is an fetchling (RP 17) mechanically balanced with a human (RP 10)?

Because race points are horribly imbalanced as is.

Word yo. The Race Points system is incredibly flawed and inaccurate, and does not give an accurate idea at all of the balance between the various races.

Remember, duergar, who can enlarge themselves, turn invisible, see 120 feet in the dark, are immune to paralysis, phantasms, and poison, and gain a dwarf's Stability, have a lower RP than any of the core races. Seriously.
Gripplis, who get bonuses to Dex and Wis, two special movement modes, racial Camouflage, and darkvision, are only 6 RP, nearly half that of a gnome.

[Zhayne]

Be that as it may, the point is that the mechanics are rules, the flavor text is not. Claiming that a race is universally, nay omniversally despised, just because, remains nonsense.

[thejeff]

Ilja wrote:

Silentman73:

I think you forgot one (though small) group:
Those that want a specific setting that just happens not be LotResque (in the broadest sense of the word because I don't think pathfinder is very much like LotR regardless).

Right now I don't have a group to play with, but I am working on sort of a campaign. If I find a group that wants to run it, everyone will be one of three races.
All races are "monkey people". The nation and culture is directly taken from the (fantastic) game Dominions.
It's not so much for "somethng different" or being the oddball - it's because a setting that takes place in a deep jungle land, based in both the Bandar Log, the Vanara of Ramayana, and with a strict religious and caste system kinda based in hinduism, seems like something very interesting. It is different, but it's not interesting because it's different - it's interesting because it provides great opportunities for roleplay, both social and adventurous.

See, I'd play that. Though it's not where I would have gone with a Dominions based game.

But I'd be far less happy with a Vanara in a more faux-European setting. Or a dwarf in Patala.

[David knott 242]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Headfirst wrote:

Balanced mechanically? The race points associated with each one would seem to disagree with you. How is an fetchling (RP 17) mechanically balanced with a human (RP 10)?

Because race points are horribly imbalanced as is.

And 5 of the points that the fetchling gets are for spell-like abilities that don't kick in until 9th level, by which time the race point difference is considered insignificant for XP purposes.

[LazarX]

Adjule wrote:

LazarX wrote:

Mikaze wrote:

It's why so many of us roll our eyes when people tell us we're wrong for liking Pathfinder gnomes because anime, or we're wrong for liking Blizzard-style orcs over Tolkien-style orcs, or that we only like "exotic" races because we must be powergaming or seeking attention, never mind the actual myriad number of reasons any of us have the preferences we do.

I think most of us just don't take kindly to others telling us why we like things and why we're wrong for liking them.

For all the people who claim to have this happen to them? I've actually yet to see that actually come out in all the years I've been playing and running Pathfinder tables. The only time I actually see irritation when it becomes very clear that a player is making their choices for the purpose of becoming an attention hogging special snowflake, and shows frustration when that tactic doesn't work.

What will irritate me far more than any racial choice? People who insist on playing deaf mute characters. They're simply barred from my games... period.

You know, not everyone who plays a kitsune or ratfolk or tiefling chooses those races "for the purpose of becoming an attention hogging special snowflake", as Mikaze pointed out. Choosing a non-core race does not mean the player is attempting to be a "special snowflake".

And if you read my text, you'll note that that's exactly what I DID NOT say.

[Mikaze]

Ilja wrote:

Apotheosis wrote:

Mikaze wrote:

It's why so many of us roll our eyes when people tell us we're wrong for liking Pathfinder gnomes because anime

Wait what? Really?

Anime is the absolute last thing I think of when I think of Pathfinder gnomes. In fact, they seemed so different to me that I couldn't match them up with anything (which is probably half the reason I like them so much!).

That just strikes me as overly judgmental, and this is from someone who admits to having had to learn to lighten up on race choices a few years back.

Basically, as soon as something isn't gritty Tolkien, there's a bunch of people who scream "ANIME!!!!!" and another bunch that screams "VIDEO GAMEY!!!!!!".

You need to learn just to phase out when they start.

"You're turning the game into WoW!" is another popular one. Gnomes got hit by that one too. Pathfinder elves did too because of their magnificent non-Vulcan ears.

(personally I think the game really could use some WoW on the orc front but that's another thread ;) )

[Vinja89]

One thing i always found funny is, you say there is no place for gunslingers and firearms in your campaign, nobody panics. You say there is no room for catfolk in your campaign everybody looses their minds and you get called out for stymieing player creativity, and a good DM would make room! Just a humorous observation i have made.

Personally i say the more the merrier! whatever makes the player happy, within reason of course.

[Sad TOZ]

Mikaze wrote:

"You're turning the game into WoW!" is another popular one. Gnomes got hit by that one too. Pathfinder elves did too because of their magnificent non-Vulcan ears.

I miss Shalelu's original art.

[Mikaze]

thejeff wrote:

Cancelled out by those who scream "Tolkien purist" every time their latest odd character design isn't immediately praised.

Others reserve "TOlkien purist" for those who get up in others' grill for enjoying other races and for "daring" to do anything outside Tolkienesque stereotypes with the core races.

I've seen people get huffy and denounce the "legitimacy" of others' fun on these very boards for wanting a different culture for dwarves living in the desert for just one example among many. Sometimes even folded into the lovely old "That's not really fantasy!" arguments.

[Mikaze - sad]

Sad TOZ wrote:

Mikaze wrote:

"You're turning the game into WoW!" is another popular one. Gnomes got hit by that one too. Pathfinder elves did too because of their magnificent non-Vulcan ears.

I miss Shalelu's original art.

I miss her lovely green hair.

[J-Gal]

Vinja89 wrote:

One thing i always found funny is, you say there is no place for gunslingers and firearms in your campaign, nobody panics. You say there is no room for catfolk in your campaign everybody looses their minds and you get called out for stymieing player creativity, and a good DM would make room! Just a humorous observation i have made.

Personally i say the more the merrier! whatever makes the player happy, within reason of course.

Thank you, this is exactly what I'm talking about. Hell, it seems like my players would be happier with me telling them "There is no magic in this setting." than "There are only humans in this setting".

[TOZ]

If there's no magic why the hell am I playing?

[Barong]

I am still puzzled why the OP omits half-orcs from his list of classic races. They've been a part of D&D since the beginning(they were removed in 2nd edition, but then brought back).

[captain yesterday]

we once had a chicken when i was young, we named him Mr. Macho.
he loved to chase us around and peck at our ankles.
then he got eaten by a fox, and that was that.