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

[Tonguez]

The DMG says that races are made for certain classes (i.e., aasimar are supposed to be good clerics and paladins). To me, stereotypes like "orcs are supposed to be brutish warriors" and "halflings are supposed to be criminals" and "tieflings are supposed to be cultists" because of how their ASIs were assigned is pretty noxious.

This brings up an interest thought in as much as there are some races - Humans, Elfs, Changelings for whom any class fits - an elf can be a warrior, a spellcaster or a theif and its not unusual, but then there are other races which seem predisposed to particular classes Orc=Barbarian, Aasimar = Cleric/Paladin, even Dwarf = Fighter.
Which makes me ask, given floating ASIs are things like Aasimar just bad design? Do we need an angel race when a standard human can be given a charisma boost, a sprakle glow and a couple of lineage cantrips?

 

[Lyxen]

I could go on and on about a lot of people, but yes, it is a goal people want. I don't know about transplanting it from one set to another though.

It's certainly what I want. About the transplanting, I think this is actually where it gets really interesting. Because races/species don't develop in isolation, and they don't develop independently of their environment. Which is why a race that has strong traits and powers could develop very differently in various settings, and create very different cultures, because the environment is different and the adversaries/partners that they met are different.

D&D is capable of this, look at the halfling and elves of Athas, for example, and they did not even that strong racial traits. Runequest (as usual), is a master of this, the Uz (trolls) have completely different cultures in various regions despite being the same race with the same (strong) characteristics, because in some regions they face arid plains and Chaos, whereas they face Aldryami (elves) in jungles in another region.

 

[Bolares]

It's certainly what I want. About the transplanting, I think this is actually where it gets really interesting. Because races/species don't develop in isolation, and they don't develop independently of their environment. Which is why a race that has strong traits and powers could develop very differently in various settings, and create very different cultures, because the environment is different and the adversaries/partners that they met are different.

D&D is capable of this, look at the halfling and elves of Athas, for example, and they did not even that strong racial traits. Runequest (as usual), is a master of this, the Uz (trolls) have completely different cultures in various regions despite being the same race with the same (strong) characteristics, because in some regions they face arid plains and Chaos, whereas they face Aldryami (elves) in jungles in another region.

Yeah, you can look at a racial feature and figure out how different worlds and designers would interpret that, and how different cultures would be affected by those features. Even more so because the cultures are not affected only by the people in that culture, but also by the cultures around them. In eberron Giant culture and Dragon culture affected the elves as much as their long lifespan.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

Possibly a stupid question here, but is one of the core factors that complicates this issue the fact that many traditional fantasy settings are both sort of small in scope, and also tend to feature single-race (or close to it) nations?

In our world the obvious red flag for being racist is when someone assigns stereotypes (even "positive" ones) to an ethnicity, because any reasonable person knows that it's nonsense to fixate on that sort of genetic heritage. But also people of different ethnicities live in all sorts of places now, and the more people you meet, the more universal you realize our collective experiences are, despite relatively small (at this point) cultural differences.

But a lot of fantasy settings, whether actual, well-defined ones, or sort of vaguely implied ones (like based on reading the facial feats and descriptions in the PHB) are set in a more primitive framework, and, to me, are also more about the populations of a single continent or area, rather than an entire planet. Even if they do cover more total area, nations and regions often get simplified, which is part of the charm of fantasy. It's vivid. It's direct. There are no smartphones.

The combination of those two--a setting that's inherently ancient or old-fashioned but also not terribly large or complex--makes for situations that can understandably clash with modern sensibilities. Orcs get defined by that one nation or tribe over yonder. Mountain dwarves are given a nationalistic fervor, which is easy, because they've got the one nation they're permanently obsessed with. In the interest of narrative simplicity or maybe just tropes we often don't see what happens when the racial makeup of many nations becomes fully mixed, or when those monolithic non-human cultures become truly fractured and diverse. Sure, we have stuff like high elves up there and drow down there, but (usually) not a Spire-like mix of the two. I'm not saying that all fantasy RPG settings are like this, but I do think the default is inherently isolationist and ethno-nationalist. They're recreating some heightened version of "the past." But other (I think much rarer) settings might go for a more post-globalization or cosmopolitan or maybe just more modern feel, with more of a melting pot approach to fantasy races and their cultural and national identities.

If that seems like a fair assessment, then I think the choice is incredibly easy.

1) Use the flexibility offered (as an option) in Tasha to decide whether your setting is the kind that features the single orc nation whose culture has, for whatever reason, ordered itself around warriors and violence, and have both racial feats and the original ASIs that reflect that. If, as the DM, you want to say those are the only kinds of half-orcs or orcs you can play--because there are no splinter nations or parallel developments, or at least those are outside the scope of your campaign--then you're all done. That sort of limitation isn't any different, to me, than saying, No tortles, because they stupid and they don't exist here. You have to make tons of those kinds of decisions as a DM or GM when starting a game, and players buy in or don't.

2) If you're running a game where fantasy races are more distributed and/or diverse, you can either do floating ASIs that players are in full control of, which you can collaboratively explain (this orc wizard is from a clan or sect or tradition whose mystics screened for magical talent, and maybe even nudged evolutionary development in that direction), or you could establish two or three ASI variations yourself, to reflect different orc cultures or ways that orcs have integrated into multi-racial cultures.

In other words you can lean into fantasy RPG settings' heritage of broad strokes, or you can incorporate whatever additional level of setting complexity, and attendant rules and mechanical variations, that you want.

I truly, honestly don't see why those options wouldn't work for everyone.

And if you have the sorts of players who would balk at the notion that you're pinning them down to a given type of orc and set of ASIs, or that you're somehow surrendering to wokeness by going in the other direction and offering distinct, specific options or saying you'll collaborate to do something you both find valid and interesting, then your gaming challenges are probably bigger than to-Tasha or not-to-Tasha.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This brings up an interest thought in as much as there are some races - Humans, Elfs, Changelings for whom any class fits - an elf can be a warrior, a spellcaster or a theif and its not unusual, but then there are other races which seem predisposed to particular classes Orc=Barbarian, Aasimar = Cleric/Paladin, even Dwarf = Fighter.
Which makes me ask, given floating ASIs are things like Aasimar just bad design? Do we need an angel race when a standard human can be given a charisma boost, a sprakle glow and a couple of lineage cantrips?

I was considering adding genasi in my world a while ago… as feats. I thing you could easily fit the elemental things into a feat and then you can just give that to your human as your starting feat. You could do the same with aasimar.

If all characters got one feat from the get go, then you could have ‘origin feats’ that you can choose at character creation to represent all sort of unique qualities your character might have.

 

[Minigiant]

This brings up an interest thought in as much as there are some races - Humans, Elfs, Changelings for whom any class fits - an elf can be a warrior, a spellcaster or a theif and its not unusual, but then there are other races which seem predisposed to particular classes Orc=Barbarian, Aasimar = Cleric/Paladin, even Dwarf = Fighter.
Which makes me ask, given floating ASIs are things like Aasimar just bad design? Do we need an angel race when a standard human can be given a charisma boost, a sprakle glow and a couple of lineage cantrips?

That's kinda the point.

There really isn't a reason to have sparkly humans. Especially if humans get a feat.

If you are gonna to do Assimar, you would need to go full celestial on their race.

Because what if they are Aasimar destined from a death god or a war god's celestials. Aasimar are just as valid to have different cultures and foci as any other race.

 

[Starfox]

Another snipe after just browsing the thread.

The way I assign abilities to races/species/cultures is usually the reverse of what is being discussed here. I BEGIN with the culture and then introduce racial traits that fit the image I have in my mind.

Say Fey Elves. They live in fairy, have a mix of noble privilege and a frivolous nature. They use lots of magic as a part of their lifestyle. They are immortal - but so is everyone in my version of fairy. So, what do they need to be good at this? Well, it all reeks of Charisma, and sorcerers/warlocks fit the theme well. Add detailed abilities to taste.

 

[Faolyn]

This brings up an interest thought in as much as there are some races - Humans, Elfs, Changelings for whom any class fits - an elf can be a warrior, a spellcaster or a theif and its not unusual, but then there are other races which seem predisposed to particular classes Orc=Barbarian, Aasimar = Cleric/Paladin, even Dwarf = Fighter.
Which makes me ask, given floating ASIs are things like Aasimar just bad design? Do we need an angel race when a standard human can be given a charisma boost, a sprakle glow and a couple of lineage cantrips?

The DMG aasimar are designed poorly, or at least blandly. The VGM aasimar have additional traits that make them more angelic: the ability to manifest wings or shed divine light. Each race should have more traits that emphasize the race's uniqueness.

 

[Scribe]

The DMG aasimar are designed poorly, or at least blandly. The VGM aasimar have additional traits that make them more angelic: the ability to manifest wings or shed divine light. Each race should have more traits that emphasize the race's uniqueness.

Fallen Aasimar + Paladin of Conquest is a match made in heaven (or the Hells).

 

[Faolyn]

No, I define "powergamer" as someone who insists on using an optin of the game purely because it creates a more powerful character.

And you've spoken to each "powergamer" to know that they're only using an option to create a more powerful character? And not just because the options work well together?

You have a very skewed idea of what a powergamer is, if you think that a mere +2 makes a person one.

What ? Powergamers using floating ASIs are not going against stereotypes, they are creating new ones with their builds.

That's not what stereotype means.

You don't create a stereotype by putting a +2 in a different stat. You create a stereotype by having years worth of games, literature, and other media say that this race acts in this way.

Really going against stereotype would be making an atypical character without using floating ASIs, just because it looks cool like our Orc Bard or Halfling Warlock.

Nope. (But hey, nice to know that all of my characters would gain your approval.)

As it has been proven that you don't need Floating ASIs to be effective, going beyond this is powergaming, especially since it's done purely for the bonus without any explanation other than "I'm different".

Well, Scribe claimed that +3 wasn't better than +2, which isn't any sort of proof that I'm aware of. Is this New Math?

But what's wrong with being different? And how do you know that there wasn't any explanation? And more importantly, why do you think someone who has learned how to perform a particular task--hefting weapons, understanding magic, schmoozing with people--wouldn't be good at it? Especially in a game like D&D, where--unless you're playing a character with expertise in something or who has a niche archetype trait--it's basically impossible for a person with a lower stat to learn/practice to be better at something than someone who is naturally gifted with a high stat.

If it makes the race significantly stronger and it's then part of its culture then yes, it's much better than just a quirk like a funny hat. My point it not that I want only the racial ASI, but it's certainly another string to my bow in making races distinctive. If it was up to me, I would keep both positive and negative racial ASIs, because it increases the range of the differences.

No, it just makes them bland and one-note. Orcs are strong! What else? Uh... orcs are good at combat! Anything else?

Dull.

Once more, Runequest as extremely variable stats per race/species, which do not cause a problem because they are not only logical but also decorrelated from the earth ethnicities. Uzko (Dark Trolls) are called that not because their skin is dark but because they are linked to the Darkness Rune. They therefore have the special Dark Sense, superior sense of smell, but are infected with the Trollkin Curse. And their strength is rolled with 3d6+6 vs. 3d6 for humans...

And all races in GURPS start with all stats in 10 and you have to spend points to buy the individual traits or a racial template (the template for trolls in GURPS Dungeon Fantasy cost 20 points). In Cypher System, you have the option of taking your race as a descriptor (in lieu of a different descriptor), but you don't have to, especially if you wanted a descriptor like Charming or Foolish to be more important than Elf. In Fate, you would just put your race as part of your High Concept and maybe buy a stunt to go with it, to represent a racial ability. Unless the GM decides to go with racial Skills, in which case you'd buy "Elf" or "Troll" as a skill. Although I haven't played Dungeon World, it seems like race is just something you tick off on your playbook and doesn't matter all that much beyond maybe one or two abilities.

So I don't know what your purpose here is, other than to say that games that aren't D&D do things differently than D&D does. At least when I talk about Level Up, it's based on D&D and is supposed to be 100% compatible with D&D.

Because you want to start from cultural quirks instead of acknowledging that the real beginning is species/racial characteristics especially in a fantasy world where these characteristics can be extremely diversified and strong, and that these should be what shapes the culture.

No, I'm just willing to acknowledge that (a) sentient beings are more than just their species' raw characteristics and (b) PCs are individuals, not entire species.

And I'm not saying that you are a powergamer, but you are defending Tasha's (even if you have not applied it yet) Floating ASIs, which for me are a powergamer's option. Just have a look at the famous guides which create builds, they show the power drift and how the interest has shifted from some class/race combinations to others, "better" ones.

I'm sure there are plenty of people who use "the famous guides," although I don't even know what those guides are. I'm assuming they're Youtube things. I pick a race and a class based on what I want to play. So does just about everyone else at my table. Getting to move a +2 around just ensures that the dice roll a bit better.

Oh, and my table is incredibly story-oriented. That doesn't mean the dice aren't important.

Since you claim that the interest has shifted because of Tasha's, then list some of the most common builds you've found on these famous guides that show how the power is drifting.

And I'm still waiting to see an example of a character created with that in mind. Although it's not exactly true, on another forum, someone showed me an old half-orc "warlord" (Fighter based in 5e, so STR-based) who had put his floating ASI in charisma rather than strength. But still the player was unable to explain to me why he needed a 16 charisma in the game. His character would have been totally fine with a 14 or 15, it would still have conveyed everything that he wanted to convey in terms of role. Still, it looked like a great character.

Maybe the player was dumbfounded as to why anyone would require him to justify putting a 16 in Charisma, because who the heck does that? I mean, seriously: you have a person who was playing a half-orc fighter who didn't want his highest stat to be Strength but actually in one of his mental stats, and you are still being dismissive because he couldn't "explain" it to you? Wow.

(FYI: the 4e warlord was a Charisma-based class.)

I am not badwrongfunning anyone here,

Just about everything you've written here is badwrongfunning. You are incredibly dismissive of other playstyles; you drip with contempt for "powergamers," when you're not even using the term correctly (this OOTS is much closer to what most people think about when they think of powergaming). You assume that anyone who is "powergaming" can't be playing a story-oriented game. You required someone justify where they put their +2. All of this is so gatekeepy.

Then there are some forums that you have not been watching (not here).

And you haven't been reading some other forums then, either.

Ah but PCs are exceptional, don't you know ? But this is why I would like to reinstate the negative racial ASIs, although I know that this would not happen. It would make the world more consistent.

And I guess you don't understand why this is problematic.

My conclusion there had nothing to do with that, it was just to show how well WotC are navigating the situation and the constraints imposed on them. But my point is that there should be racial ASIs, strong ones, negative ones, and that they should impact the culture. Do you disagree that they should impact it ?

I disagree. First off, culture should be at least somewhat setting-based. The core books should be as generic as possible. Secondly, there is too much negative baggage with the nearly 50-years of lore that D&D has: such as orcs as thugs and barbarians, or elves and dwarfs who are both good and bigoted towards others at the same time. By insisting that ASI or even traits inform culture, you continue to promote this stereotypes which at best are boring (because stereotype) and at worst are problematic (because of real-world implications, such as bigoted and good go hand-in-hand). Thirdly, there are, as I wrote in another post, something like 10 or 11 D&D playable races that give you +2 Strength. Any non-ASI traits or culture that you give those races to differentiate them from each other would also serve as bases for their culture even if they didn't have any ASI. And fourth, ASIs reward some race/class combos and punish others.