D&D 5E The word ‘Race’

[Remathilis]

* I think that, since different fantasy races are used as a stand in for different racial groups in real life / real world history, its actually more offensive to remove the term, as if its okay to think of the other races as less-than-human, and thus okay to slaughter. Part of the whole thing with fantasy is that most everything is a metaphor for something in reality, and we're talking about the human condition in some way. So, trying to distance yourself from that metaphor is a way to distance yourself from the actual bad things you do as a character in the game.

This reminds me of an old web article called Power Kill RPG. I'll let you read the article (its long but worth it).

 

[Cristian Andreu]

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?

I'm assuming that whenever there is a bonus to an ability score, it is because the -physiological/intellectual/magical/mystical/etc- characteristics of the race differ enough that it goes beyond what a "hardy group of humans" could get by normal means (there's always magical/mystical/etc means to attain crazy stuff, of course). There are limits that humans cannot go beyond under normal circumstances; no matter how much we train, our bodies are simply not mechanically capable of ever matching the strength of a 1,000-pound gorilla without some kind of augmentation. There might be a way to train in such a way to overcome that strength difference through other means (some ape-reducing martial art, I don't know), but merely by their passive nature, it would be very reasonable for a sapient gorilla PC to have a higher potential STR than a regular human PC.

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.

It doesn't have to go to such extremes; I'm speaking about characteristics that are salient enough as to warrant differences that are already expressed by the rules (or, more precisely to avoid going off a tangent, I'm trying to argue in favour of the existence of said mechanical differences). In the sapient gorilla vs human case it can be a noticeable difference in musculature that justifies a STR bonus/higher threshold; in the case of dwarfs vs humans it could be a very different immune system or preternatural resistance that explains their higher CON.

Difference settings might have entire different reasons, or have no mechanical differences between the classical races if it fits with its internal logic. The point is that two different kinds of races, even two different kinds of similar humanoids like dwarfs and humans, can be substantially divergent as to warrant mechanical differences within the D&D rule system, enough that just training and trying hard enough won't make up for them.

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 agree with the principle, but it should depend on the circumstances of the game. Being able to choose whether to play a "Strong" character should certainly be within the prerogative of the player (to which degree depends on the type of game, of course), but that shouldn't be at the expense of the setting's internal consistency. And in D&D at least, where a degree of simulationism is always at hand, the player should in some capacity have to conform to the limits imposed by the nature of the races in a particular setting (which brings me to the arguments I make in the previous part of the post). That doesn't mean sticking to the same trope (subverting them is half the fun, after all), but it does mean that if there is a race of Half-Giants with a +4 STR, with a reasonable explanation as to why such difference exists, a player shouldn't expect to achieve the same level of brute force with a Gnome without some manner of additional explanation (such as augmentations or preternatural powers. An explanation of "he's really, really heroic" would work too, assuming it fits the internal consistency of the game, like in, say, the Adventures of the Baron of Münchhausen).

 

[Mephista]

This reminds me of an old web article called Power Kill RPG. I'll let you read the article (its long but worth it).

An amusing read, if completely bought into the murder-hobo stereotype. There -are- other kinds of games out there.

 

[Uller]

So if your PCs encounter a halfling commoner that appears to be (and is) just a run of the mill halfling and challenge him to an arm wrestling contest, what do you use for his strength?

I'd use a 6. If the differences that make the races are not significant and characters of different races are just essentially differently size and shaped humans with funny names and no real mechanical difference (or for that matter, no real cultural difference) then I see little point in describing an NPC as "a halfing commoner" because that distinction is now meaningless...I'd instead describe him as a commoner, but very short, kind of stocky....oh wait...commoner is probably classists. I guess I'd describe him as a person, very short, kind of stocky, probably makes his living as a craftsman or farmer, with somewhat dirty clothes, ragged from toil, rusty skin from long hours in the sun and rough hands from difficult labors (and no shoes)...or I could call him a halfling commoner and my players would get the point.

To me, the PC creation rules are for extraordinary individuals. If you want to play a gnome that can arm wrestle an ogre and win more often than not, you can. But that doesn't mean the range, mean and median strength score or athletics bonus for gnomes is at all similar to ogres or humans or dwarves or orcs.

For my part, I'm uncomfortable with unattached psychopaths invading people's homes, murdering them and taking their stuff. But I understand that D&D is a game that mirrors various aspects of the human condition and uses violence and skill in battle as a metaphor for problems and the power to overcome them. In our world a powerful person likely has never killed anyone (even in ancient times). He or she is a charismatic leader or controls resources such as mineral wealth or financial institutions or holds a prominent office, title or bloodlines. In D&D a powerful person is a 15th level wizard that can launch fireball spells out his bung hole. Race is a metaphor for groups of people and not necessarily racial ones. Dwarves might represent industrialists or urban workers, Elves - wealthy educated or aristocratic elitists, halflings - salt of the earth types, etc. YMMV of course...it's your metaphor. But if it's not a metaphor, likely your races will be unrecognizable to your players. They'll just be funny looking people with funny names and rendered pointless. Can you play D&D without races? Of course. A lot of the 1e DMG appendix N authors didn't include non-human races in their work and it's difficult to argue they don't fit the genre.

This whole conversation reminds me of the song "Trees" by Rush. Maybe the Maples have a legitimate gripe. But maybe the Oaks can't help being happy with the way they're made...

 

[FickleGM]

I just received the latest Fate World of Adventure, Masters of Umdaar, and it calls out its choice in terminology of using Bioform in place of Race.

In other news, I am a terrible human being who prefers to use RPGs for glorious, non-metaphorical, cathartic fun!

 

[Uller]

I just received the latest Fate World of Adventure, Masters of Umdaar, and it calls out its choice in terminology of using Bioform in place of Race.

But that is exclusionary towards warforged...you bioformist!

 

[Remathilis]

An amusing read, if completely bought into the murder-hobo stereotype. There -are- other kinds of games out there.

I know there is; Doctor Who: Adventures in Time & Space comes as close to a non-violent RPG that I can think of. However, I think the notion that RPGs give us genre trappings to justify certain behavior we would otherwise never condone is important when discussing issues of social justice in an RPG. I mean, if an adventure has you go into a drow temple and stop the priestess from summoning a demon, couldn't we claim that is really anti-social behavior (assault, murder, theft) against a members of a different race (drow), gender (priestesses) and religion (of Lolth)?

 

[GreenTengu]

I'm assuming that whenever there is a bonus to an ability score, it is because the -physiological/intellectual/magical/mystical/etc- characteristics of the race differ enough that it goes beyond what a "hardy group of humans" could get by normal means (there's always magical/mystical/etc means to attain crazy stuff, of course). There are limits that humans cannot go beyond under normal circumstances; no matter how much we train, our bodies are simply not mechanically capable of ever matching the strength of a 1,000-pound gorilla without some kind of augmentation. There might be a way to train in such a way to overcome that strength difference through other means (some ape-reducing martial art, I don't know), but merely by their passive nature, it would be very reasonable for a sapient gorilla PC to have a higher potential STR than a regular human PC.

The attribute adjustments fall way short of conveying any such thing like that. Even without the maximum attributes being set at 20, it is perfectly conceivable to start play with a human character who is most Dextrous than an Elf or Stronger than an Orc or with a greater Constitution than a Dwarf.

The attribute adjustments seem more just expressing that the average member of the race is naturally as good as a decently trained human without having to put in any extra training. In fact, the attribute adjustment doesn't even have to be particularly large. If a race gets a +2 in an attribute, then you are virtually guaranteed that everyone who plays that race is going to use that attribute as one of their top 3 choices, and almost certain highest or second highest-- almost no one is going to put an 8 in the attribute that they get a +2 bonus to. Even that +1 virtually ensures that a gamer making a member of that race is going to take advantage of it. This means that the absolute minimum score you are likely to see in an average member of that race is likely to be 13 in the +2 score and 11 in the +1.

But humans can have scores above 11 and 13, so a human can surpass those races even in their specialties.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So if your PCs encounter a halfling commoner that appears to be (and is) just a run of the mill halfling and challenge him to an arm wrestling contest, what do you use for his strength?

I would use 10 for a halfling commoner, 11 for a human commoner, and 12 for a half-orc commoner. And for the purpose of this example, I would take "commoner" to mean someone with a marginally physical job, like a shopkeep or bartender. Reduce those numbers by 2 if you're talking to a scribe, or increase them by 4 if it's a farmer or blacksmith.

The rules may be more detailed for adventurer-type characters, but they still reflect the reality of the game world, and within that reality there is no distinction between a PC and an NPC.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*