#1
|
||||
|
||||
Thoughts on Monstrous Characters
|
#2
|
||||
|
||||
As DM, I have no issues with players creating all sorts of characters, so long as there are mechanical rules to base the character on, and the player is ready to deal with in-game consequences. If the race has the necessary playable stats, then I'm good with it. Monstrous characters will often find themselves targets of racial violence in my homebrew world, though.
One often-targeted race is the Aarakocra, what with its racial ability to fly. That means flight at 1st level, which many DMs seem to find overpowering. Maybe it is on paper, but once you start piling sense and reason onto it, the illusion starts breaking down, especially in the roleplaying aspect of the game. Concerns like armor design (accommodating those wings require unique designs that not all armorers are capable of making), outlying communities (half-bird + half-man = evil monster out to pluck the children), and bounty hunters (eccentric collector wants the talking bird in a fancy cage). |
#3
|
|||||
|
|||||
I let players make pretty much anything they want, providing they are capable of working inside a cooperative group structure. However, unusual characters have problems as peachyco mentioned. Bias, mockery, logistical problems and many others crop up. Simple things become complicated and complicated ones become exasperatingly difficult. Inkeeps will charge 2 or 3 times normal rates for food and lodging, other merchants won't accommodate their special needs, etc. Especially when they play something that has an evil reputation - like a drow.
__________________
Be a Community Supporter | Build Better Characters | Nominate a Post of the Month
Every time I close the door on reality, it comes in through the windows. |
#4
|
|||||
|
|||||
I never liked monstrous characters. When there's one in the party, role-playing the societal reactions to them that peachyco and roninkelt mentioned tends to monopolize everything. Every time there's a new NPC introduced you have to go through the same song and dance, or you have to start finding ways to make the monstrous race somehow less unusual/noteworthy (thus defeating the purpose). Dealing with the specialized armor, etc becomes tedious too. And while the tolerance/understanding theme that accompanies games with such characters is a worthy one, it wears thin when it's something you have to address Every. Single. Adventure.
Then there's a greater problem - when ALL the players want to be something exotic and unique. I've seen parties of six PCs where 4 of them were either tiefling or aasimir. To me this takes an interesting concept for a type of lifeform and makes it mundane. When you can't swing a dead cat in a campaign world without hitting the product of interplanar breeding then it loses its mystery. And of course the "pass for human" traits are just ways for these characters to have their jacked special abilities and move easily through society too. My position is - if you want your character to be interesting and unique, create an interesting and unique persona and play off the campaign's cultures. I really like the example set by Pathfinder's Golarion setting providing an array of human ethnicities that, along with the mechanical advantages of humans, give the PCs a wide berth for making interesting and unique human characters. Solely my opinion, of course. If YOU like them, you should absolutely allow them in your game and apply with such characters to games where they are allowed. Last edited by ruffdove; Aug 27th, 2016 at 10:08 AM. |
#5
|
|||||
|
|||||
Monstrous PCs are generally a bad idea. Unless you are doing an evil campaign or a "Suicide Squad" type of monster campaign, or an escape scenario. Far too much handwaving is required to make the story work. I agree with ruffdove. You wind up with Drizzt effect for whatever race(s) are being played.
Part of the problem is that the monstrous PCs are so OP at early levels, and few campaigns get to the point that the balancing xp penalty or CR penalty really kicks in so it really appeals to munchkins. |
#6
|
|||||
|
|||||
I've actually played many monstrous races in the past. It isn't easy, but that's probably why I like it.
Right now, I'm in a game where a gnoll Druid who worships Lamashtu and another game where I am a kobold rogue... It took a lot of backstory to get it to the point where it 'made sense', but it's actually pretty fun. I particularly like playing out the cultural differences between the monsterous race and the others in the party, which forces the other guys to think and get really involved. I don't feel that I have been the overwhelming focus of a game (other than I normally do) |
#7
|
|||||
|
|||||
And the Paladin of Pelor? Or the Ranger who has the Gnoll as his favoured enemy? It invites too much party bickering. It is hard enough to keep a party together, adding an additional element where one character should be murdered by the conventions of the society is just asking for trouble.
|
#8
|
|||||
|
|||||
Actually, there IS a ranger with gnolls as a preferred enemy in the group. They are obviously not 'friends' by any means (they actually hate each other), but they do share a common enemy and leader. If you want a link to the game, let me know
After 18 months of this game, it has gotten to where my gnollGrak'Ark has accepted one of the humans (Drusilla) as his hadis/leader -- and by default, the rest of his group as his pack. There are many within his pack he doesn't like, but he would gladly kill for them. The was a long story In how it got to this point, but to simplify it, she succeeded in a battle and that he lost -- and he respects her for her strength. Drusilla likes him because of his abilities -- not only with his terbujte, actuallysword, but also because he can go places others can't. The key here is to talk through the bickering before hand so it doesn't overwhelm things. I personally enjoy overcoming handicaps -- and being a monsterous character in a non-monsterous worlds is a big one. |
#9
|
|||||
|
|||||
Just set a campaign in Chult and let everyone use the Savage Species book freely.
My tabletop group did such a thing over 10 years ago. We still talk about all the fun we had. Example: My big, bad barbarian with the +7 STR mod wanted to knock down a wall rather than just open a door or crush through a window in order to get to our foe. DM asks for a Strength check. DC was only a 10. I rolled a 2. 2 rounds in a row. Oops. |
#10
|
|||||
|
|||||
As with all things YMMV. But if I'd have been playing that ranger, Grak'Ark would be sleeping in a pine box, or I'd have asked the GM to let me change characters, or quit the game entirely.
Quote:
|
#11
|
|||||
|
|||||
In matters of taste, there is no point in arguing.
I don't like monstrous characters, but those who do should, by all means, enjoy playing/DMing them. |
#12
|
|||||
|
|||||
Hm...I have thoughts. A lot of the appeal to roleplaying in a fantasy realm is the power fantasy, right? The imagination of yourself as something more than you feel that you are. Often that translates as straight power, often as fame or notoriety, often as control over one's life or self, rebellion against convention. Monstrous races are appealing, I suspect, because they inherently scratch all of these itches - they tend to be more mechanically powerful, they are noticed everywhere, and any kind of sensible backstory practically requires them to rebel against whatever role society had made for them. At surface level, they're almost the power fantasy - like, the *meta* power fantasy, taking rare and unique to a weird new level in a world where magic has become common so who cares about wizards, right? I mean, common to players at least - and that's a big question, too. How often do we consider the everyday frequency of magics and monsters? I've played in plenty of games that constantly contradict themselves because nobody knows what kind of world this is - having some commoner freak out at a little prestidigitation, then direct you to the local hedge mage a moment later. Personally, I tend to think of most basic dnd worlds as more Discworld than not. Where the average person might not have interacted much with magic, but they know it when they see it and they are not impressed by the flash of it. Especially when it scorches their shop. And you can absolutely go about monsters the same way. The kind of casual racism we use to make us feel better about killing a sentient creature which we know for a fact has language and culture - this is so absurd to me that it breaks my suspension of disbelief. Killing a gnoll because it's a gnoll shows a sociopathic lack of empathy, interest, or imagination. Killing a gnoll because they're trying to kill you - that shows a troubled history in a complicated world. Old wars, tribe mentality, the absurd belief that an entire race can be Good or Evil? That isn't a world I'd like to be roleplaying in, that's a world I'd like to roleplay growing out of. And I expect that's what's happening now, only kind of awkwardly, to the whole of roleplaying games - the worlds we crafted decades ago are growing up with us, and we know now that the stories we tell cannot be so simple as 'Bad Thing, Kill It.' That's both dangerous and uninteresting. So dnd maybe gets a little more cosmopolitan, over the years...is that such a bad thing? You don't have to 'address' the idea of tolerance with every npc or every new town - although, yeah, you have to be aware of how races treat one another....like you already had to, in a world of a thousand sentient races - either way, you're telling the story, simply choose to tell it a different way! The paladin doesn't have to be Lawful Stupid, social conventions are not social mandates, and vague reputations do not have to dictate the actions of a people so far removed from them. The simple things, the day-to-days? Those can either be addressed when they're fun or ignored when they're not! It's not a crime to play a game where nobody wants to track rations or roll merchants' stock. ... Wow, that went on a little longer than anticipated. I guess, just...obviously the races of the world depend on the world, but you're the one who gets to define that, you know? Don't let easy social conventions get in the way of a good story. ...Also, I tend to play humans, preferably unconnected and underpowered, cause I find them a lot more interesting to play in these worlds. But hey, to each their own.
__________________
“The last thing he ever said to me was, 'Just always be waiting for me, and then some night you will hear me crowing.” |
#13
|
|||||
|
|||||
I love them. I almost never play a Human if I can help it. The trick is having a setting that supports more the more bizarre/rare races and species, and a DM who's liberal enough to let it happen. If the DM says "You can play a Centaur, but no one will talk to you, you can't go anywhere, and everyone will try to kill you," it tends to dissuade one.
|
#14
|
|||||
|
|||||
I consider the above a challenge... I mean, what can I do to make a viable character that is able to overcome that kind of racism?
My thoughts on character development is at you need t have flaws to overcome. Nobody roots for Arnold Swartzenegger to beat up a wimpy kid -- but if a wimp beats him, it is a cool story. |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
My group thinks along the same lines as Squeak.
But even then, I don't think any sensible DM would go with "You can play a Centaur, but no one will talk to you, you can't go anywhere, and everyone will try to kill you". That's tantamount to just banning the race altogether. I always try to fit a creature race into the world with as much sense and logic as possible. A Centaur in my game world, for example, would...
Don't get me wrong: I only make these assumptions because I use a D&D-esque world like Forgotten Realms. If you're playing in the world of My Little Pony, I suspect Centaurs are all the rave. ^_^ |
Thread Tools | |
|
|