Remathilis
Legend
Ah, I see we've reached the "argue semantics and tone policing" portion of the thread.
You don't need to apologize, I was just asking if you understand why what you wrote comes off as framing races as monocultures.I don't know what this means. I apologized if there was a misunderstanding and clarified what I meant and my position on the matter (multi-cultural races). What more do you want?
Yes, I can understand that. Which is why I clarified in the previous postYou don't need to apologize, I was just asking if you understand why what you wrote comes off as framing races as monocultures.
You clarified what your intent was, but did not seem to understand how what you wrote didn't serve that intent. I was just curious if you understood that or not. Not big deal, I was just curious.Yes, I can understand that. Which is why I clarified in the previous post
How would you answer this for humans?okay, what would this race do in this circumstance",...
How would you answer this for humans?
That is my point. You can't answer for "humans" you have to answer it for cultures. So why are you asking that question for other races? As you have just noted, the race isn't really that important, the culture is.
It depends on the culture, the situation, and if you are a specific type of human (Dragonmarked, for example). City humans (Waterdhavian humans) would approach a situation differently from a Barbarian Tribe of humans, and they would approach it differently from a Pastoral Settlement of humans. It's hardest with humans, because humans are extremely diverse and don't have racial features that could help with this. Basically, any type of culture in the real world can exist in a fantasy world, and there are a ton of different human cultures and they all react in different ways.
Ah, I see we've reached the "argue semantics and tone policing" portion of the thread.
Have you read the OP? The whole point is making the race and its features matter more to their cultures. That . . . kind of is the answer, and humans are an exception to this rule. I don't see a problem here.That is my point. You can't answer for "humans" you have to answer it for cultures. So why are you asking that question for other races? As you have just noted, the race isn't really that important, the culture is.
It is not a problem, I just disagree that humans and fantasy races should be treated differently. If you want mechanics to determine cultures then mechanics should determine all cultures IMO. So each race should have multiple cultures, or really culture should be separated from the race and applied on top of the race. Actually, I think that is how LevelUp is doing it.Have you read the OP? The whole point is making the race and its features matter more to their cultures. That . . . kind of is the answer, and humans are an exception to this rule. I don't see a problem here.
Maybe, but I think there really is a disagreement at the core of this that genuinely matters.Maybe we're talking past each other.
If mostly human is fine, then we are already there. Halflings aren't prone to greed, or hubris, but are prone to complacency and a certain smugness about their way of life. Cool. We can explore how being small impacts their material culture, how curiosity and very little fear means they don't tend to have cultural/social norms centered on fear of outsiders or on fear of embarrassment, etc. We can talk about what effect being a little more lucky, in the sense that the worst possible outcome happens to them meaningfully less often, impacts social norms around taking risks. We can and should discuss and write about the sort of cultural heroes that might arise in halfling societies.I prefer my preference (literally in the definition), and support it. I prefer that all races have some amount of non-alien psychology to them. I think that it is good to have those, just like I don't think that it would be good to make two different races that were exactly identical in mechanics, except for a language or skill change, or something minor like that. I'm perfectly fine with most races having mostly human psychologies, but mostly human doesn't mean completely human.
It very much is. If your position was, "make the races that are clearly not human or biologically very different from human feel less human", I'd be all for it. If it was simply, "Lets brew up some cultural touchstones shared by many cultures made up of a given race that are based on their mechanics." I'd likewise be all for that. Hell, I'm all for dropping the thing we will never agree on and just focusing on those two endeavors, if you'd like.That's what I want. Yes, it is a universal statement, because it applies to literally every race that isn't a human (and even human sub-types, like Dragonmarked races), because all races that aren't human have different mechanics, history, and features that can and (IMO) should influence how they act.
I don't think that's a contentious topic.
The universality is the entirety of the objection. If no compromise is possible on that, there is no path forward. I would like to understand why you have a problem with there being races in the game that don't match your preferences, though?Again, yes, it's universal, but I've actually given reasoning and examples for why it makes sense, why it wouldn't be hard to implement for most races, and why I think it's a good thing for the game.
It's fine, I think we probably would be best to just drop the whole "universal vs not universal" argument. It's not like either of us will ever be the boss of dnd.Does this explain my position in a better, non-hostile manner? Sorry if we got off on the wrong foot. We don't have to agree with each other, but at the least we should be respectful of each other's opinions and selves.
If you really wanna know PM me, I don't think rehashing it will help us avoid umbran's further disapproval.I can see how it came across as condescending. To be honest, I could have held back a bit more of it than I did. However, I don't know what the "among other distasteful behaviors" means. Care to clarify?
This is the crux of what I am astonished by. Having plenty of races with default lore that matches your preference isn't good enough, it has to be all of them. Why?That doesn't do it for me. If some races are made alien in mindset, and the rest are just humans, that's not a compromise I can get behind.
Okay, so, we can do that without removing human-like halflings and dwarves from the game, or making large swathes of the player base homebrew in order to play the way they prefer. They're publishing new settings again, and they listen to feedback on social media. We can advocate for this approach in new settings.There are some races that I'm already interested in, but would far prefer and would probably play if they were more in-depth on how their racial mechanics influence their cultures. I already like Lizardfolk, Tortles, Owlfolk, and quite a few other races that don't have this tool applied to them. I just would way rather play them/use them in my games if their racial mechanics impacted them in a similar way to described above.
I never thought otherwise.My absolute is on the approach; how racial cultures should be designed from the get-go. Not on how they should/have to be played at different tables, or incorporated in different worlds.