D&D 5E The word ‘Race’

[Cristian Andreu]

Which is part of why I'd prefer the mechanics divorced from biology. I don't want to truck in Granddad Lovecraft's Thanksgiving Rants, but I like the idea of belonging to a fantasy culture or inhuman heroic group. I think there are ways to get at fantasy culture or fantasy species that don't rely so much on defining what you are, at a biological level, and I'd prefer something like expanded backgrounds or better affiliation rules to designate that over "race."

Like, being a dwarf or a Cimmerian might define some of the things you learned early on in life, some of your friends and allies, maybe what you can initially do, but it's an additive thing that doesn't define what you are (like with ability scores). I mean sure, maybe my Cimmerian warlock isn't getting a lot of mileage out of that Athletics proficiency, but you just don't get to be 13 in Cimmeria without getting in a few brawls, and this is something that gives you an edge when you're compared to a pampered Hyperborean warlock. That, and all your barbarian friends, and your ability to use a sword without getting winded. That makes you "tough," but it's what you know and what you can do, not what you ARE, physically.

But it does make sense that there would be biological differences between the races of a typical D&D world. If nothing else, the physiology alone should account for some baseline characteristics. Even if there are no genes in a fantasy world and it is all just magic, being intrinsically more resilient to certain substances or having a noticeably different muscular development would result in marked differences.

I mean, there is a huge difference in the capacity to exert explosive force between a human and a gorilla, even if we choose the more extreme corner cases of very strong men and very weak gorillas; having a race of intelligent gorillas with a +X to STR would be very reasonable.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But it does make sense that there would be biological differences between the races of a typical D&D world.

Not so much with how D&D has typically presented the races. Dwarves are a different "race," but as of 5e, the only thing that might be called definitively "biological" about being a dwarf is that your CON might be 1 point higher than a human if you both max out CON. But why couldn't a "hardy group of humans" get that max?

If you've got a world where your dwarves are made of rocks and drink liquid metal and whatnot, that's kind of a different story, and it might require some more rules to model.

If nothing else, the physiology alone should account for some baseline characteristics.

How granular do you want your fantasy? Do your fireballs displace air? Does your STR score model the distinction between explosive force and long-term structure and hand-eye coordination?

In practice, a lot of these differences don't matter at the level of mechanics in our game of dragon men and magical elves. Certainly I'm not quibbling over the explosive force differential between two roughly-similarly-shaped apes when there's undead walkin' around who can huck a spear without any muscles.

Besides, an intelligent gorilla is already much less human than an elf or a dwarf or a gnome or a half-orc or a half-elf as D&D has usually presented those races

There's nothin' wrong with "Strong" as a character archetype, or even "Strong" being something folks usually pin on a given fantasy race, but whether or not your character is "Strong" should be a player choice, not something made by the fantasy group to which they belong. Maxing out your Strength should be the same for every character, so that when the Gorilla-Person meets the Mighty Barbarian they can get in an arm-wrestling contest and you won't know who's gonna win!

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

Barbarian is a more pejorative term than race in D&D terms.

Race: Physiognomical and/or cultural classification of differing cultures and bloodlines existing in a fantasy world into easily-recognised categories for the purpose of in-game mechanical benefits/disadvantages. "I'm an Elf". "He's a Human". "They are kobolds".

Elf: "You're stealthy, good with a bow, magically-inclined and have Darkvision. Cool."

Dwarf: "You're strong, healthy, proficient in armour and good underground. Cool."

Human: "You're not especially good at any one thing, but can learn some pretty cool tricks (if the DM allows it). A generalist. Cool."

but...

Barbarian: "You're a backward, bad-tempered hillbilly.Put a shirt on, Dave, for gods sake, you big meat shield".

One can be an Elf Barbarian. The defining and memorable parts of the character are generally Class based, rather than the mechanics of race.

But if you think about it, "class" being the defining characteristic in itself opens up a whole other can of linguistic socio-political baggage from the real world that has no bearing on the game. Too far down this rabbit hole you come to a cave marked "herstory".

It's a label, a tool for efficient shorthand to enable a game of make believe to be played. If you personally prefer a different label (species, people, whatever) that's fine, but I do think there is some overthinking and starting at shadows.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Barbarian is a more pejorative term than race in D&D terms.

I think that'd really only be the case if people were making real-world distinctions using "barbarism."

That's not so much the case anymore, as far as I know.

If the class was called "Savage" or "Immigrant" or "Redneck" or something I might be more on board.

 

[Uchawi]

The bias comes from our real world perspective, and then introducing fantasy concepts to further distinguish what is different. In that sense, we are all from the human race, but if aliens visited the planet, they may be from a different race. As stated species may be more accurate, but then there are a lot of things that can be misconstrued from the game when considering the real world. Like hacking things to bits to further a cause or resolve a conflict. I am not saying the discussion is null and void, or that your feeling don't matter, but at some point we must separate the game terms from real life. In the end just let the table know why you may react negatively to certain behaviors or words so they may be more conscious of your feelings.

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

Well, IRL the term "barbarian" is generally a pretty insulting way to refer to one from a culture less technologically-advanced, "civilised" in manner, or even as morally enlightened as one sees ones own culture to be. "Redneck" is just another, newer, word for the same thing.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

It's a game that uses simple terms to convey settings and cultures. That's it. The more you read into it the more you see what you want to see.

 

[Remathilis]

Is this the point where someone points out entire races and species are categorized as "good" and "evil"? Some are even color-coded so you can know if they're good or evil on sight?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

There's nothin' wrong with "Strong" as a character archetype, or even "Strong" being something folks usually pin on a given fantasy race, but whether or not your character is "Strong" should be a player choice, not something made by the fantasy group to which they belong. Maxing out your Strength should be the same for every character, so that when the Gorilla-Person meets the Mighty Barbarian they can get in an arm-wrestling contest and you won't know who's gonna win!

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. As it stands, you describe the rules in the book for 5E - all races have the same maximum Strength, and the difference between individuals (whether you start with an 8 or a 15, before modifiers) is much greater than any racial bonus (which only scales between +0 and +2).

 

[Uller]

I prefer fantasy and sci-fi (including my fantasy RPGs) to reflect the human condition as it is, not as I (or worse, others) might wish it to be.

Human beings are a wonderful awful collection of groups that do wonderful and awful things for and to each other. That is what makes telling stories about them interesting.