Dungeon Craft: Critical Role, Pokemon, and the Future of D&D

[Dammit Victor]

Sooooo... if this review is to be believed, not only did the author of the game decide to specifically focus heavily on pre-adults having sex, but the mechanics of how sex and emotional ties intersect are so regimented that one has to wonder if said author has ever had sex and/or a serious romantic relationship.

Have you ever been to a Prussian Cathouse?

It's a lot like a Parisian Cathouse, but the madam stands behind you the whole time with a clipboard shouting "Eins! Zwei! Eins! Zwei!"

 

[TristramEvans]

It is one pernicious fucking D&Dism that "failure" and "defeat" can only be measured in death.

Personally, I read it more as the "threat of death", not that people are clamouring for frequent TPKs..

Tell you what, I've been playing for almost thirty years now and I'm sick and tired-- but it ain't the Mos Eisely Cantina I'm sick and tired of. I'm sick and tired of the Tolkien Trio and their subrace bullshit

Sure, but for every old grog that's been around the block a few times, there's a new player who has never gotten to roleplay an elf or a dwarf before

This. I'm mostly running Cortex games right now, but literally the first thing I tell players applying to my games is I'm going to hurt you.

lol, someone been reading their Aaron Allstone lately?

You cannot convince these people of that. You can never convince them of that.

 

[Ladybird]

Sure, but for every old grog that's been around the block a few times, there's a new player who has never gotten to roleplay an elf or a dwarf before

Which is the key point, though, isn't it? There's players who have never got to play elves or dwarves before, and are excited by the prospect of playing one, and that's cool. But there's also folk who've never got to play dragon people, or demon people, or cat people, and are excited by them, and that's cool too. Why should one group get priority just because what excites them has been in the game longer?

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

Which is the key point, though, isn't it? There's players who have never got to play elves or dwarves before, and are excited by the prospect of playing one, and that's cool. But there's also folk who've never got to play dragon people, or demon people, or cat people, and are excited by them, and that's cool too. Why should one group get priority just because what excites them has been in the game longer?

In terms of individual groups the priority is probably as simple as "what fits with the game in question". There's this weird way its discussed online which seems to miss out that all of these is resolved entirely amicably at the vast majority of game tables.

 

[TristramEvans]

Which is the key point, though, isn't it? There's players who have never got to play elves or dwarves before, and are excited by the prospect of playing one, and that's cool. But there's also folk who've never got to play dragon people, or demon people, or cat people, and are excited by them, and that's cool too. Why should one group get priority just because what excites them has been in the game longer?

I mean, I've made no argument against that.

I think the issue (and this isn't 5th edition but pretty much all editions) is D&D's presentation as an implied setting. I think if D&D wants to present all these options to players, with descriptions of what these races/cultures are and how they act, then they really should also be presenting a default setting that contains all these elements and explains how they function together. Otherwise, if they want to be a fantasy gaming toolkit instead, they should be upfront about that so players understand the DM is going to be picking and choosing elements to create their own gameworld.

But then, that's just theoretical. I havent experienced the issues brought up in this thread in regards to that sort of thing, mainly because when I sandbox a fantasy game, I look to what my players want to play to design the world around that.

 

[EmperorNorton]

I've honestly never had players who demand to play certain races. That said, I also run games in setting that I'm making up whole cloth for the campaign, or am heavily tweaking an existing setting. So if someone wants to play a Tabaxi I usually just go "sure why not" and find a place for them in the campaign world. Since I rarely have more than 4-5 characters, even if all of them are quote "weird races", it still doesn't overpower the game. (I mean, the last time a character wanted to play a weird race I think we had... aasimar, tabaxi, halfelf, dwarf, halfling, so only one was even noticeably that weird, not much tweaking).

I have though just said no for certain races for story/world reasons, and I've never had a player balk at it. So, maybe it just is my own experiences that make me see it as just "not that big of a deal".

Also, in all seriousness does anyone else go "Oh no, what did I do" when they log in and have like, 20+ notifications. (luckily this time it was just people mostly agreeing with me *wipes brow*)

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

I've honestly never had players who demand to play certain races. That said, I also run games in setting that I'm making up whole cloth for the campaign, or am heavily tweaking an existing setting. So if someone wants to play a Tabaxi I usually just go "sure why not" and find a place for them in the campaign world. Since I rarely have more than 4-5 characters, even if all of them are quote "weird races", it still doesn't overpower the game. (I mean, the last time a character wanted to play a weird race I think we had... aasimar, tabaxi, halfelf, dwarf, halfling, so only one was even noticeably that weird, not much tweaking).

I have though just said no for certain races for story/world reasons, and I've never had a player balk at it. So, maybe it just is my own experiences that make me see it as just "not that big of a deal".

Also, in all seriousness does anyone else go "Oh no, what did I do" when they log in and have like, 20+ notifications. (luckily this time it was just people mostly agreeing with me *wipes brow*)

I've had the aforementioned animated suit of armour, a half ogre and a birdman in the same campaign. But it was Advanced Fighting Fantasy and that kind of kitchen sink approach is absolutely found in the setting anyway.

 

[Ladybird]

I think the issue (and this isn't 5th edition but pretty much all editions) is D&D's presentation as an implied setting. I think if D&D wants to present all these options to players, with descriptions of what these races/cultures are and how they act, then they really should also be presenting a default setting that contains all these elements and explains how they function together. Otherwise, if they want to be a fantasy gaming toolkit instead, they should be upfront about that so players understand the DM is going to be picking and choosing elements to create their own gameworld.

Yeah. Due to it's market position, D&D is in a weird place of trying to be both, a generic toolkit and a set of semi-curated experiences, which is what leads to these sorts of debates.

 

[EmperorNorton]

Also I have to say that I LOVED that Tabaxi. Her name was "Circling Bird" (her actual name was much harder to pronounce, but it meant Circling Bird, most characters just called her Bird). She had travelled from a far away land to see the world and was just excited about seeing EVERYTHING. Basically an adventurer tourist. She would regularly misunderstand customs and not understand a lot of the context of what was going on in specific situations, but she was so earnest and friendly that she just made friends everywhere she went.

The other players did have to stress she not touch anything a lot though.

 

[Dammit Victor]

Personally, I read it more as the "threat of death", not that people are clamouring for frequent TPKs..

Sure. But I mean... that's the only threat they recognize, and that's a problem. It's both a problem for the discourse on this topic, and a problem for their own games where a bloody retreat or an honorable surrender, and having to live with the consequences of failure, aren't recognized as valid outcomes of a combat scenario, aren't recognized as desirable failures in an ongoing game.

The only "consequence" they respect, character death, is literally the least meaningful consequence in the game-- even if you're not resurrected, it takes less time to pick up your 4d6 and fill in a blank character sheet and be reintroduced to your newest, dearest friends than it does to rendezvous with the rest of your party after a rout, take stock of your losses, and readjust your plans.

Sure, but for every old grog that's been around the block a few times, there's a new player who has never gotten to roleplay an elf or a dwarf before

Difference is, I'm not trying to run people out of my games, or out of the whole goddamned hobby (in some cases), when people want to play something I don't like. I allow new (or old) players to run elves and dwarves when I'm running a setting that has elves and dwarves in it. In the kinds of D&D I'm already not unwilling to run, the things I don't like about elves and dwarves are either already absent or... mostly easily removed.

Is Professor Dungeonmaster saying that? Of course he isn't. But is he saying a lot of things that I usually hear right before that stuff? Yes.

edit: Also, in addition to the Tolkien Trio, please validate my contempt for half-races, the entire concept of half-races, and how the selection of available half-races concerns itself with neither fantastic nor biological logic. I would prefer that different fantasy peoples not be able to inter-reproduce at all, but if we're going to establish that humans have that as a racial trait, like outsiders and dragons, they should be able to canonically do so with more than just elves and orcs. Especially since orcs no longer have the Tolkien background of being elves to justify it.

lol, someone been reading their Aaron Allstone lately?

The guy who writes Star Wars novels?

 

[Armchair Gamer]

The guy who writes Star Wars novels?

Wrote, alas; he passed away a few years back. But he got his start in RPGs and wrote numerous groundbreaking supplements and GMing guides, including Strike Force for Champions, Ninja Hero 4E, Lands of Mystery for Justice Inc., and numerous D&D and AD&D supplements such as the Complete Fighter's Handbook, Complete Priest's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Design Kit, GAZ1 The Grand Duchy of Karameikos, the Hollow World box, and compiled/wrote the Rules Cyclopedia.

 

[AsenRG]

lol, it sort of occupies the same space as "Maid", in that it's a game that simulatenously clearly is a Western adaption of tropes from anime that are distinctly culturally foreign to Western standards, and also seems to imply a particular fetish on the part of the author.

Implying? I have to call BS, Maid ain't implying anything about the author's fetishes!

He spells out what his fetish is in the "virtual interview with the author"!


Now, whether humans, having an equally amazing mind, can use his game to have fun in a different way, is another matter. We found the game quite funny, to be honest, because I went full-on with the random tables and the players were just laughing about the changes about half the time.

Bliss Stage, however, is one of those games I can't see myself running or playing, since mecha games are my current go-to example of "I don't see why anyone finds that fun".

 

[TristramEvans]

Sure. But I mean... that's the only threat they recognize, and that's a problem. It's both a problem for the discourse on this topic, and a problem for their own games

I dunno, seems like we're dipping into "badwrongfun" territory now

Difference is, I'm not trying to run people out of my games, or out of the whole goddamned hobby (in some cases), when people want to play something I don't like.

I mean, I don't know who these people are doing that, but I assume to appropriate response is just to laugh at them.

edit: Also, in addition to the Tolkien Trio, please validate my contempt for half-races, the entire concept of half-races, and how the selection of available half-races concerns itself with neither fantastic nor biological logic.

Um, no, I'm not going to validate that, I don't have any particular issue with half-races, but you do you.

The guy who writes Star Wars novels?

Um...maybe? I dunno what he's up to these days.

I'm referring to Aaron Allstone's Strike Force, the single greatest book on GMing superheroes in RPGs written so far (since Phaserip hasn't been published yet). I'd say it really is required reading for any superhero GM, regardless of what system they are using.

 

[TristramEvans]

Wrote, alas; he passed away a few years back.

I did not know that. That makes me sad.

 

[EmperorNorton]

Um...maybe? I dunno what he's up to these days.

He and Michael Stackpole wrote probably the best bit of Legends Canon novels with the X-Wing series of books (Stackpole wrote the first 4, then Allston wrote the next 3, then Stackpole wrote one more, and Allston wrote two more).

 

[TristramEvans]

Michael Stackpole wrote some damn good Battletech novels.

 

[Fenris-77]

Like 50 Shades of Grey Camo?

 

[TristramEvans]

Like 50 Shades of Grey Camo?

Spoiler

 

[Armchair Gamer]

He and Michael Stackpole wrote probably the best bit of Legends Canon novels with the X-Wing series of books (Stackpole wrote the first 4, then Allston wrote the next 3, then Stackpole wrote one more, and Allston wrote two more).

I'd call them second-best, myself; Tim Zahn still reigns supreme in my book. But the three of them worked very closely together--I know Zahn and Stackpole are friends, and Stackpole brought in Allston, much to Allston's surprise (he didn't know he'd been tapped until he received a notice he was late on his outline!).

 

[Endless Flight]

Michael Stackpole also wrote the excellent Batman Sourcebooks for Mayfair in 1986 and 1989.

 

[Tulpa Girl]

Aaron Allston also wrote Doc Sidhe and Sidhe-Devil, which are a pair of pretty fun neo-pulp novels.

 

[Tommy Brownell]

In terms of individual groups the priority is probably as simple as "what fits with the game in question". There's this weird way its discussed online which seems to miss out that all of these is resolved entirely amicably at the vast majority of game tables.

In my experience, every discussion at the game table goes remarkably more amicably than virtually any similar discussion online. In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.

 

[CRKrueger]

Michael Stackpole wrote some damn good Battletech novels.

And damn good Shadowrun fiction.

Edit: Not to mention The Pulling Report

 

[arjunstc]

Sure, but for every old grog that's been around the block a few times, there's a new player who has never gotten to roleplay an elf or a dwarf before

I just realised that I have been in the hobby for 35 years and I have never ever played as anything other than a vanilla human and now I am sad.

 

[tenbones]

I just realised that I have been in the hobby for 35 years and I have never ever played as anything other than a vanilla human and now I am sad.

On the plus side - humans are my favorite race to play. I tend to play humans in any new setting/system before I try any of the non-humans. I now a lot of people refuse to play humans if given another alternative.

 

[Dammit Victor]

Wrote, alas; he passed away a few years back. But he got his start in RPGs and wrote numerous groundbreaking supplements and GMing guides, including Strike Force for Champions, Ninja Hero 4E, Lands of Mystery for Justice Inc., and numerous D&D and AD&D supplements such as the Complete Fighter's Handbook, Complete Priest's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Design Kit, GAZ1 The Grand Duchy of Karameikos, the Hollow World box, and compiled/wrote the Rules Cyclopedia.

Shit. He did a lot of good work that I never noticed. RIP.

I dunno, seems like we're dipping into "badwrongfun" territory now

Maybe. I think there's a difference between saying "what you want is bad", and saying "what you're doing is wrong for what you want".

Just seems like they could have a lot more of the kind of fun they're trying to have if they recognized more nuanced failstates.

I mean, I don't know who these people are doing that, but I assume to appropriate response is just to laugh at them.

Well, I'm not going to try to tell you that anything I've ever done about it has been more effective. They may be pathetic, but they're not harmless, especially in groups, and their stupid, vicious fuckery is virulently contagious when better role models are not available.

Refer to my earlier post, where dozens of people encouraged a grown-ass man to "punish" his wife for playing an unusual race-- after he'd said he had no problem with it-- and imagine that the other 3-4 people who answered his question like functional adults had already abanoned that cesspool. I mean, thank the gods for the internet, but physical groups like that might be the only physical groups available to some people for years.

 

[TristramEvans]

Well, I'm not going to try to tell you that anything I've ever done about it has been more effective. They may be pathetic, but they're not harmless, especially in groups, and their stupid, vicious fuckery is virulently contagious when better role models are not available.

Refer to my earlier post, where dozens of people encouraged a grown-ass man to "punish" his wife for playing an unusual race-- after he'd said he had no problem with it-- and imagine that the other 3-4 people who answered his question like functional adults had already abanoned that cesspool. I mean, thank the gods for the internet, but physical groups like that might be the only physical groups available to some people for years.

At this point it seems like we're talking about people who are dysfunctional in a way that RPGs are pretty much incidental to - I certainly don't want to imagine the state of a marriage where a husand will "punish" his wife over anything to do with a game.

I've come across a few roleplaying groups full of pretty awful people in my time, for one reason or another, but I've never continued to play with them for any reason - no gaming is better than bad gaming, natch. But I don't think that it's anything to do with RPGs or RPG preferences, that makes it seem as if RPGs can "fix" people with behavioural/social issues, and I firmly believe that's not the case.

 

[Tommy Brownell]

At this point it seems like we're talking about people who are dysfunctional in a way that RPGs are pretty much incidental to - I certainly don't want to imagine the state of a marriage where a husand will "punish" his wife over anything to do with a game.

I've come across a few roleplaying groups full of pretty awful people in my time, for one reason or another, but I've never continued to play with them for any reason - no gaming is better than bad gaming, natch. But I don't think that it's anything to do with RPGs or RPG preferences, that makes it seem as if RPGs can "fix" people with behavioural/social issues, and I firmly believe that's not the case.

Minor, anecdotal story: one of my best friends used to be a complete doormat for people and refused to speak up in games until I ran some one on one adventures for him and forced him to make his own decisions. This had the net effect of making him speak up more at group gatherings in general as well.

But I wouldn’t advocate for it as much deeper of a tool than that.

 

[Shipyard Locked]

I just realised that I have been in the hobby for 35 years and I have never ever played as anything other than a vanilla human and now I am sad.

It's ok, the vast majority of people play so-called fantasy races as just humans in funny makeup anyway. Right now I can't remember ever seeing a convincingly 'alien' elf or dwarf as a player character.

Ironically, given the meta-hate it receives, I find tiefling one of the easier races for average players to do something interesting with. I guess it comes more naturally, like how protagonists in authentic myths and legends are more often half-human/half-X while things like elves are mysterious temporary allies at best, unfathomable antagonists at worst.

 

[arjunstc]

I think the issue (and this isn't 5th edition but pretty much all editions) is D&D's presentation as an implied setting. I think if D&D wants to present all these options to players, with descriptions of what these races/cultures are and how they act, then they really should also be presenting a default setting that contains all these elements and explains how they function together. Otherwise, if they want to be a fantasy gaming toolkit instead, they should be upfront about that so players understand the DM is going to be picking and choosing elements to create their own gameworld.

I've never looked at it that way. It was recently pointed out to me on another thread that it is also not implied that all the monsters in the Monsters Manual exist in all the game worlds, which I had assumed was the case. Now I never include all of the monsters (and PC races) in my game worlds, but picked and chose which ones seemed reasonable for them, but I had assumed - based mainly on reading the dozens of official and third-party modules - that all the monsters in the MMs must exist in the official game settings, because why else would they be included in the official MMs, right?

By the same token, it must seem self-evident to the new player that all the player races listed in the PHB and other official WOTC products should automatically be available options in any DM's game?

I never read the PHB, MM, and DMG cover to cover, but reading just the stuff to allow me to play and run games, I don't recall reading anything that states that "not all these races/monsters may exist in your game world, and your DM will let you know which do"... although I guess I assumed that was in there somewhere?

 

[arjunstc]

On the plus side - humans are my favorite race to play. I tend to play humans in any new setting/system before I try any of the non-humans. I now a lot of people refuse to play humans if given another alternative.

I am an old man, and these days I prefer to play a character closer to my real age, just an average guy trying to stay afloat and pay the alimonies, or a cog in the wheel trying to rise up the ranks - seems plenty there to work with in terms of character arc and development without having to adopt a whole non-human way of looking at the world.

On a side note, when I pitched a "any species you want except plant-, insect-, or bird-based aliens" Space Opera campaign, most of my players chose to play humans.

 

[arjunstc]

Ironically, given the meta-hate it receives, I find tiefling one of the easier races for average players to do something interesting with.

I guess hating on the tiefling warlock, horny bard, and kleptomaniac rogue are just inside jokes. And Drizzt. Damn Drizzt and all the copycats he inspired.

 

[Baulderstone]

Ironically, given the meta-hate it receives, I find tiefling one of the easier races for average players to do something interesting with. I guess it comes more naturally, like how protagonists in authentic myths and legends are more often half-human/half-X while things like elves are mysterious temporary allies at best, unfathomable antagonists at worst.

I wonder if it comes down to the name, which just doesn't evoke the right feeling for me. It's one of those weird names from the time when D&D was trying to have demons while pretending it didn't have demons. It sounds more like some kind of pixie-hybrid than demonic to me. I wonder if they would get the same backlash if they were called Demon-Blooded or Devil Spawn.

 

[TristramEvans]

The only thing I dislike about 5th edition Tieflings is that in Planescape, when they were introduced, they were an incredibly diverse species - the only thing they had in common is there was "something demonic" in their genes. That could mean bat wings, it could mean cloven hooves and goat legs, it could mean goat horns or tiny horns or a forked tongue or even just an unmistakable scent of Brimstone.

But Tieflings in 5th seem to be completely standardized in form, which seems kinda boring to me.

 

[arjunstc]

But Tieflings in 5th seem to be completely standardized in form, which seems kinda boring to me.

But you get to choose what colour your skin is!

 

[robertsconley]

I wonder if it comes down to the name, which just doesn't evoke the right feeling for me. It's one of those weird names from the time when D&D was trying to have demons while pretending it didn't have demons. It sounds more like some kind of pixie-hybrid than demonic to me. I wonder if they would get the same backlash if they were called Demon-Blooded or Devil Spawn.

My players seem to like Viridians (full demons but weak) and Half-Viridians (a mortal race, mostly human or goblin, with viridian ancestors).
Viridian from the Latin for green.

Although players who play Viridians wind up regretting it once they realize the sheer hate that most of the inhabitants of the Majestic Wilderlands have for the race. In the years I had them as a playable races, two different players picked up on the corruption their magic causes.

Basically the way I referee, there is a lot of way to narrate the flavor of the results of a player doing something. The problem with demons in terms of my setting is that they gained their abilities by corrupting creation. Think of it using something radioactive without proper shielding. It works whatever it is but the unshielded radiation over time effects you, other, and the environment in a negative way.

So demonic corruption still allows the player to adventure as a Viridian. If they use a fireball as a magic-user it works as normal. But if they use a fireball using their Viridian abilities then I will describe how damage the surrounding area in unexpected ways. When I do it right the effect over time is unsettling for the players although mechanically it much different than a normal spellcaster.

Which is why in front of my various rulesbook, I stress that I ignore balance in favor of how the setting works, but if you are going to do this then you have to roleplay the consequences to the setting or it will just become an exercise in frustration and monty haul.

 

[Ladybird]

The only thing I dislike about 5th edition Tieflings is that in Planescape, when they were introduced, they were an incredibly diverse species - the only thing they had in common is there was "something demonic" in their genes. That could mean bat wings, it could mean cloven hooves and goat legs, it could mean goat horns or tiny horns or a forked tongue or even just an unmistakable scent of Brimstone.

But Tieflings in 5th seem to be completely standardized in form, which seems kinda boring to me.

Personally I like to roll on the random tables anyway, because they're fun and I'd love to have them back, but I agree.

 

[Shipyard Locked]

I've never looked at it that way. It was recently pointed out to me on another thread that it is also not implied that all the monsters in the Monsters Manual exist in all the game worlds.

No, but fundamental mechanics of the game quietly assume you have a huge variety of monsters in your world, so you can suddenly be tripped up by that unless you have intimate knowledge of many subsystems.

My favorite example is the 5e ranger class feature that gives you benefits specifically against large opponents. If your campaign world doesn't feature large monsters on a regular basis, that ranger player is going to be disappointed.

[EDIT: Another good example is the druid class feature that assumes elementals are a thing in your world and opponents will have magic weapons to deal with that. Don't get me started on all the summon spells that impose creature types on your world if you want them to work properly.]

Sure, it's not that big of a deal, but there are assumptions like this buried all over the core books.

I wonder if they would get the same backlash if they were called Demon-Blooded or Devil Spawn.

I'll bet you money they still would. Probably more in fact. It just comes down to the fact that there are a lot of campaign tones and themes devil spawn don't fit with. There are some they fit perfectly with, as my current Ravenloft campaign will forever stand as evidence to.

But you get to choose what colour your skin is!

I do not judge tieflings by the color of their skin but by the content of their character sheet.

 

[Dammit Victor]

But Tieflings in 5th seem to be completely standardized in form, which seems kinda boring to me.

Don't want to turn this into my usual soapbox about the designers at WotC ruining D&D, but tieflings have steadily been getting worse since 3.0. First, for no goddamned reason, they changed the AD&D tiefling's Charisma adjustment from +1 to -2-- mostly just an irritating lore change, except that it also made them ill-suited to the 3.X classes they were supposed to be well-suited to: Sorcerer, Bard, Hexblade and Warlock. (They also did this asinine bullshit with the Githzerai, reversing their INT/WIS adjustments and changing their +1 DEX to +6.)

In 4th, they realized that the Charisma penalty completely contradicted the established Tiefling stereotypes... and while I agree tieflings should be +CHA, I don't like them reversing themselves all the time. But... they also threw out the entirety of tieflings' origins, gave them a homeland and a culture and established they were all descended from the same specific group of devils. This is also where all of the random cosmetic variances disappeared.

As far as I know, they haven't made tieflings actually even worse between 4e and 5e. Cross fingers, knock wood.

But this is an ongoing problem with Wizards of the Coast, three for three editions of D&D since they bought TSR; they don't give a shit about continuity, about people's pre-existing games, even about the consistency of themes and aesthetics in their own work. It's all just bio-organic nutrient fuel to fatten up the Multiverse of homogeneous extruded fantasy product.

Of course. I'd be remiss in pointing out all the ways that Wizards have done the tiefling race dirty without mentioning that it was TSR who gave tieflings the cruelest cut of all-- inventing the aasimar a couple years later, defining the tiefling as Lower Planer by opposition instead of the generic term for all planetouched, and necessitating the various genasi and the Lawful/Chaotic planetouched that absolutely noone ever used.

Really diminished the concept of the tiefling, and inflicted the wounds that WotC has been grinding their boot into ever since.

edit: I didn't say I wouldn't turn this rant into how WotC ruined D&D, all I said was that I didn't want to.

 

[A Fiery Flying Roll]

I do wonder whether one of the reasons that newbies shy away from playing humans is that, in the core books at least, it feels like there isn't much to differentiate them from one another.

You don't get the same complaints about people not wanting to play humans in Reign or Legend of the Five Rings.