D&D General No More "Humans in Funny Hats": Racial Mechanics Should Determine Racial Cultures

[Scribe]

But as I said, having only one option isn’t good for all the people who don’t like it but can’t rewrite it for whatever reason.

Anyone can rewrite stuff. Or write additional stuff. If you have 'well they are this, or they could be this' and you dont like/want either option then what?

You ignore/write stuff.

From what I’m reading, it sounds like you’re OK with other people having to rewrite stuff as long as you yourself don’t have to put out that sort of effort. Is that the case?

Not at all. I have my own view on things that I iterate on all the time.

The difference is, you can have 'well it could be this, or that, or maybe this' or you can have something definitive. I'll take difinitive any time, because at least then you have something to ignore/change/add to.

Some undefined nebulous fluff, is pointless. Its not 'providing options' its refusing to say anything about X, that can then be either reviewed or extrapolated upon, just for the sake of being as inoffensive and safe and 'bleh' as possible.

Fizban's is great for example, because it TELLS YOU what these various Dragon types are like, what they value, where they set up, and how they function.

You can then tweak it, ditch it, or use it.

"Maybe the yeti are hungry, or they may just be mean, or maybe there are 2 kinds." doesnt do that.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

You do know France was invaded by Nazis in WW2 who begun a repression of French resistance?
The french decision to adopt a defensive strategy and its subsequent failure when the French Republic surrended - giving up their entire army as effective prisoners of war - has become a stereotype of the effete nature of the French.
It may not be quite as prominent as it use to be, but it is modern era.

It was suppressed after the "liberation", but many in France welcomed the Nazis. There where a lot of French people oppressing other French people who disagreed with their politics (especially if those French people where Jewish, black, Roma, gay etc).

 

[Scars Unseen]

On the subject of nebulous vs definitive:

I've said earlier in the thread that generalizations are acceptable as narrative short hand in fiction, and I stand by that. That doesn't necessarily mean that I prefer concise prescriptive societies over ones with more nuance. In fact, if I had to choose, I'd say I prefer the latter for any kind of serious campaign that isn't just a kick-down-the-doors dungeon crawl at heart.

But here's the thing. I don't think that you can have it both ways and have a good product. Explicit nuance or conciseness, choose one. If WotC wants to go with rich worldbuilding with complex breakdowns of individual societies, they need to go back to thick campaign setting books that focus primarily on that world building instead of the crunch heavy books with hints of it. Otherwise, instead of nuanced, the resulting world will be mushy and sparse of detail.

Of course, there is also the option of implied nuance. I personally think it's perfectly acceptable to give a short form description of a society like the drow that paints them as evil, matriarchal worshipers of a demon goddess, and then allow the reader to come to the understanding that the evil isn't a biological imperative through detailing drow followers of Elistraee and other groups and individuals who have broken away or otherwise chosen a different lifestyle. I'd still prefer the long format that gives me more to work with, but if we're getting short format anyway, I'd prefer writing that gives a strong impression over a weak one.

 

[Morrus]

What about the Nazis?!?

Which is exactly the same thing that happened to the native americans (with the significant exception that the france thing happened in living memory), and yet I'm sure people would take less kindly to poking fun at the native americans than they would at poking fun at the french

Take the politics elsewhere please. This is not the forum for it. If you find yourself using the word “nazis” you’re definitely several miles past the line.

 

[Scott Christian]

It all boils down to how well the setting is designed. That's it. Nothing else.

If the DM has a vibrant world with clear, defined, and consistent cultural motifs, themes and behaviors - then your problem is solved.

If the DM wants to run a cantina setting where players get to choose, which is most D&D tables, then they are humans in funny hats.

The last factor is that of limitations. If you, as DM created a world with two races, each distinct and at war with one another, there would never be a talk about humans in funny hats. Never. But, the more options you add, the greater risk you run of humans in funny hats.

In my humble opinion, you will never lose the two sides. It is a balancing act on the DM's part. It is up to the table to decide which they prefer.

 

[HammerMan]

I wonder, however, if the newer generation of players will allow racial mods to ever creep back in. Or will we hit the Singularity - where every PC race and class are so similar, everyone plays a martial that can cast spells and has darkvision.

the solution to stop this was already found in 4e (okay not the darkvision part). Make the difference between a Martial leader (buffer/healer/support what ever you call it) and a Divine leader and an Arcane leader be fluff plus specialization. Give ALL Marital characters a pool of abilities (but don't call them powers that word is bad) then give Arcane and divine and shadow and psionic and primal.... then give all leaders/defenders/strikers/controlers the same type of abilities (almost typed powers) but in line with there power source. make them all close to even, but different... then do the same with race.

Every race should have 2-3 features, at least 1 passive always on (Halfing luck, Dwarf resist poison, ect) at least 1 active (dwarven second wind, elven accuracy ect) and redo the 3e (yes even though I dislike it, they had some good ideas) different types of vision, give dark vision, low light vision, and maybe even bring back infravision. Then give every race 1-2 ribbon abilities that make the race feel like they are different (i would have listed elven trance, but I like the astral elf version that is more like a powe...er ability that can give a floating skill).

 

[DEFCON 1]

The last factor is that of limitations. If you, as DM created a world with two races, each distinct and at war from one another, there would never be a talk about humans in funny hats. Never. But, the more options you add, the greater risk you run of humans in funny hats.

Heh heh... oh no, I think even with the two races as you mention it would all still come down to "humans in funny hats", because the people trying to play these races are all actual humans wearing funny hats. And this is why the arguments about racial features and such being "necessary" to distinguish races always ring hollow to me-- because those racial features are just game mechanics that affect the board game rules, but they do not in any way actually impact how the actual human players act or roleplay their characters. The human beings at the table are going to try to act and roleplay as these bizarre alien species for whom they have no cultural or physiological reference... but what is actually going to end up happening is a human being talking funny with a couple of human quirks that have been cranked up or cranked down compared to what we'd consider "normal" for us humans. That's pretty much all we are going to get, and to think otherwise is to give the D&D player base way too much credit in their acting abilities. It doesn't really matter how involved or in-depth a DM writes their races for their setting-- they still have to be performed and represented by us schmucks sitting down around the table. And Daniel Day-Lewis and Cate Blanchett we are not! LOL!

So at the end of the day, I believe the real question about all of this is actually "How many unique game features do you want races to have?" And for that, everybody is going to have their own particular desires. For a long time it was determined by TSR and WotC that they felt it to be "about 4 or so"... merely 4 simple unique things that make an elf and elf and a tiefling a tiefling. Which, let's be perfectly honest, is so simplistic it's almost insulting. And now WotC is dropping that number even further and making some game features more adjustable and universal-- features that multiple different races could have (like bonuses to specific ability scores).

And thus the argument comes down to this-- some people think that since 4 features is the only things these races have to separate them currently, losing even more really washes and blands a race out. Whereas the rest of us think that 4 features is so low to begin with in trying distinguish one complete racial group from another that those 4 things barely even count as distinguishing features. The races are already so washed out and bland that going from 4 to 3 or 2 is virtually meaningless. So why get all bent out of shape about it?

I mean look... if the game still had for instance "races as classes" and you had 20 entire levels of unique racial/class features that made a dwarf a dwarf and a halfling a halfling... and then WotC said "We're going to entirely remove these complete 20-level race/classes from the game because of the potential harm their existence might cause for some people"... I'd at least understand why the people who loved those things would be upset. But to say "My elf can't be an elf anymore because my four unique elf features are now down to three"? Sorry... but I just can't go with you on feeling like that's something to really be upset about.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So at the end of the day, I believe the real question about all of this is actually "How many unique game features do you want races to have?" And for that, everybody is going to have their own particular desires. For a long time it was determined by TSR and WotC that they felt it to be "about 4 or so"... merely 4 simple unique things that make an elf and elf and a tiefling a tiefling. Which, let's be perfectly honest, is so simplistic it's almost insulting. And now WotC is dropping that number even further and making some game features more adjustable and universal-- features that multiple different races could have (like bonuses to specific ability scores). And thus the argument comes down to this... some people think since 4 features is the only things these races have, losing even more really washes and blands a race out. Whereas the rest of us think that 4 features is so low to begin with in trying distinguish one complete racial group from another that those 4 things barely even count as distinguishing features. The races are already so washed out and bland that going from 4 to 3 or 2 is virtually meaningless. So why get all bent out of shape about it?

I mean look... if the game still had for instance "races as classes" and you had 20 entire levels of unique racial/class features that made a dwarf a dwarf and a halfling a halfling... and then WotC said "We're going to remove these entire 20-level race/classes from the game because of the potential harm their existence might cause for some people"... I'd at least understand why the people who loved those things would be upset. But to say "My elf can't be an elf anymore because my four unique elf features are now down to three"? Sorry... but I just can't go with you on feeling like that's something to really be upset about.

A lot of people feel that race mechanics were already too sparse, so it is pretty understandable if they aren't super pleased with getting rid half of the little we had.

 

[Scott Christian]

Heh heh... oh no, I think even with the two races as you mention it would all still come down to "humans in funny hats", because the people trying to play these races are all actual humans wearing funny hats. And this is why the arguments about racial features and such being "necessary" to distinguish races always ring hollow to me-- because those racial features are just game mechanics that affect the board game rules, but they do not in any way actually impact how the actual human players act or roleplay their characters. The human beings at the table are going to try to act and roleplay as these bizarre alien species for whom they have no cultural or physiological reference... but what is actually going to end up happening is a human being talking funny with a couple of human quirks that have been cranked up or cranked down compared to what we'd consider "normal" for us humans. That's pretty much all we are going to get, and to think otherwise is to give the D&D player base way too much credit in their acting abilities. It doesn't really matter how involved or in-depth a DM writes their races for their setting-- they still have to be performed and represented by us schmucks sitting down around the table. And Daniel Day-Lewis and Cate Blanchett we are not! LOL!

Hi Defcon. I know, that is how you feel. There is a small part of me that agrees with you.

But, in the end, it is a game of make believe. And just like an actor on the set of Star Trek doesn't know how to actually think like a Klingon, it doesn't stop them from taking on the character. Same thing with any make believe setting. The people playing orcs on the LotR set can't really imagine what it's like to be an Uruk-Hai, but they can pretend. And in the end, that is all we can do. But I hear you and respect your view.

As for my original statement, I truly believe it holds true for most players.

 

[HammerMan]

But, in the end, it is a game of make believe. And just like an actor on the set of Star Trek doesn't know how to actually think like a Klingon, it doesn't stop them from taking on the character.

great example... Klingons (Next Gen onwards) are honorable warriors and still a bit savage... but have cloaks for sneak attacks, and lie and betray each other, but have a feudal house system. At the end of the day Klingons are the text book example of humans with funny hats (or humans with funny fore head makeup as it is called in scifi circles) becuase they are not really alien. They act like a sub set of humans... the same with the romulans, the bajorins...ect.

Part of this is on purpose, they are meant to mimic (or scapgoat/satire) parts of human conditions. That is because the show is very much a human show about humans. lots of writers use those races to make social and political commentary (that I wont bring up) BECUSE those races are humans in funny hats.