@Sean - not sure if you’d be up for it, but this dice box setup has some nice bits in it: map and NPC/monster image cards that you could use as a handout.
I’m doing some quick pass-through of the DnD Beyond documentation around the adventure and one of the things I’m thinking I’m gonna have to do is replace a few NPCs with other races - I’m not a fan of Dragonborn (nor is much of my group), and Teiflings aren’t high on my list either.
I also enjoy that there is us of “TEKELI-LI” in the adventure - I nice homage to Mountains of Madness
Aint nobody got anytime for “Dragon Babies” or Fistlings!
Those are my favorites!! Why you always lomiting my fun @Fafhrd
Simple fix. PHB only for character gen and NO uncommon races. That they’re identified as such implies they may not be an option. Consult your DM. It’s one of the most irritating things about 5E, the assumption that you can use any book for character gen, that all races (including the options in Volo’s) are available in all games, that feats and multiclassing are for the choosing (and I like the feats).
I don’t think that is only a 5e problem, my friend. Players have been pushing their agenda on GMs for far too long!!!
(Mostly tongue in cheek)
Mostly because I hate fun in all it’s forms.
I’ve run into that same issue with nearly every game I’ve ever played that has splat books - I know some players get cranky with me for saying " no" to certain features but I just don’t want to mess with it all. and, frankly, it doesn’t all fit/work.
I look at table of players: “Humans only.”
Player One: “But, I made a Cat Person!”
I stare stone eyed: “Get, out.”
@Fafhrd that would require me to play in-person. THat is not going to happen until there’s a proven vaccine. Which means the rest of my gaming will be virtual until I die.
@NOLAbert yeah, I struggle with laying down the hammer and giving the players some latitude to play a PC ‘they really want to play’.
@Sean - maybe I’ll scan the images for you so you can have them available in an image format.
I’ve had some success with “cold” session 1s where I don’t explain the system, level, or game too much and tell everyone to wait on character ideas until we get to the table. Then we can hash out what resources they can make characters from and write it all out in a “campaign framework” document that gets shared with everyone.
If I don’t keep it “cold” I get players who say they won’t pre-build a character who show up with a pre-built character…smh
That method is what I used for my latest campaign I kicked off last Saturday with my home group - the only thing I told them was the system we’d use and that was in “modern times.” Granted, this crew and I have a very high level of trust so they were all eager to see what I had in store and to explore it all with no pre-set notions.
I’m looking forward to details on that game, Brett.
I’m the same way. Generally, I think players should play the characters they want. But then it can get dumb… maybe broken.
Currently I’m having difficulty with the 0e Monk ability Speak with Animals. It’s so crazy! Especially when we have a Druid in the party that can’t Speak with Animals without casting a spell.
I hate summoners and speak with animals.
hmm…lets see. They’re trying to talk to a bird. What’s the INT of a bird? WHat would the bird know and how would it communicate? Ok. “Chirp, food, food, food. Wait. What’s that. Hi. Scared. Must fly! Bye.”
It says communicate with animal, not friend animal. Not sure about you, but there’s not too many birds that are close enough, or stay near enough, to me to carry on some “so tell us about the BBEG and where they live and what’s their hobby, and can you show us?” BS.
Why? Seems arbitrary.
I mean, you do you and it’s your game; but is there a reason beyond aesthetics? I don’t think either Dborn or Tiefs are broken mechanically.
I find I don’t really like games I play in where every PC is some uncommon race. Feels too farcical. Sort of like ppl naming there character Bob in a fantasy setting. I don’t like the fantasy-everything atmosphere. Same with games I run. The worlds I run are human-centric. Feels pretty unusual to have every PC some non-human race. But maybe it’s the nature of 5E and I need to play other games instead. Would also need to say goodbye to my table group (we’re not playing ftf right now, but I expect to again in the future), since they prefer 5E.
I’m not going to throw shade on anyone for liking a particular option. I’ve seen people play bearfolk that have had serious, emotional moments. I’ve seen “very serious humans” that are played in the most annoying way possible. That said, I do think that some stories don’t work with some options. Sometimes its a personal preference, sometimes it is a logical storytelling conceit.
For example, I’m reading Empire of the Ghouls right now. The player’s guide introduces all kinds of underworld ancestries, but for how the campaign starts, those ancestries don’t make a lot of sense, and undermine some of the mystery of the adventure later on if they know how things work in the underworld.
GMs are players too, and they need to enjoy the game, but I do think being open about your reasons for not wanting something included should at least be open to discussion.