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

[Scribe]

One of these players thinks it "playing his char" to use Cutting Words on MY char after we had been ambushed by Orcs. This same player believes it is "fun" for his char to get drunk and play bagpipes while we explore a dungeon of unknown size and danger level.

This is simply a disruptive player, and a DM who has IMO lost control over the table.

I wouldn't play in that game, nor with that player. In fact, I'd probably kill him prior to bowing out of the group LOL.

I disagree on the inability to reason with a Lizard person. If we can coexist with dogs, I certainly believe a working understanding with another sapient being I can talk to, is within the realm of possibility.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This is simply a disruptive player, and a DM who has IMO lost control over the table.

I wouldn't play in that game, nor with that player. In fact, I'd probably kill him prior to bowing out of the group LOL.

That seems excessive and probably illegal.

I disagree on the inability to reason with a Lizard person. If we can coexist with dogs, I certainly believe a working understanding with another sapient being I can talk to, is within the realm of possibility.

Yep.

 

[Scribe]

That seems excessive and probably illegal.

I meant the character...of course.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Nope. If everyone has floating +2 they can put anywhere, it is pointless. Elves are actually any more dexterous, as anyone can put their floating +2 to dex to match them, nor are goliaths any stronger than halflings, who again can put their +2 to strength to match them.

I thought we put this branch of discussion on hold in this thread?

 

[Maxperson]

Nope. If everyone has floating +2 they can put anywhere, it is pointless. Elves are actually any more dexterous, as anyone can put their floating +2 to dex to match them, nor are goliaths any stronger than halflings, who again can put their +2 to strength to match them.

So thinking further on this, the bolded is completely untrue. If elves get +2 to dex, then entire race is dexterous(racial bonus). That some dwarves might opt to put +2 into dex does not make dwarves(the race) dexterous. Same with goliaths and halflings. You have failed with that example to show racial bonuses to be pointless or to show how some individual halflings opting to get +2 strength makes the entire race of halfings as strong as the race of goliaths.

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

I dunno...I kind of like the first and correct grammatical interpretation. And as for the Wolves / humans argument, how many generations of Wolves and Humans had to interact until we got to dogs as pets? Plus, humans BRED the more passive versions to get to what we have to today. Run into a wolf pack in the middle of winter while you are on snowshoes and try in interact with them.

I can see the DM having to Handwave a situation where various species are "at peace" after who knows how many generations. But once again, we are then back to a situation where all the chars share the same value system, and it back to Humans with Funny Hats.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So thinking further on this, the bolded is completely untrue. If elves get +2 to dex, then entire race is dexterous(racial bonus). That some dwarves might opt to put +2 into dex does not make dwarves(the race) dexterous. Same with goliaths and halflings. You have failed with that example to show racial bonuses to be pointless or to show how some individual halflings opting to get +2 strength makes the entire race of halfings as strong as the race of goliaths.

That's no more than fluff. Every time it actually mattered, i.e. player made a character who actually needed that stat, they would be the same.

I thought we put this branch of discussion on hold in this thread?

We did? Well, I didn't bring it back, but perhaps I shouldn't have responded then...

 

[JiffyPopTart]

This is often expressed but unnecessarily reductionist view. Sure, most of us are humans in real life, and thus have to sue our human brains to navigate this. But the idea that non-humans must be utterly incomprehensibly alien to properly not be "humans with funny hats" is taking it too far. Ultimately most intelligent creatures are social humanoids, often hominids. They are different, but not incomprehensibly so.

Here is the thing....in this thread I'm being a sort of devil's advocate by taking an extreme view of how different characters have to act. I am not bothered in the slightest by one player having a warforged with entirely human outlook and another players lizardfolk having a need to feed on their kills.

I think 5e would be much improved by having more mechanical differences than it does. No matter how many you make, though, SOMEONE will still say they are humans in funny hats.

 

[Maxperson]

That's no more than fluff. Every time it actually mattered, i.e. player made a character who actually needed that stat, they would be the same.

Racial bonuses are not fluff. That's the point.

 

[Scribe]

Run into a wolf pack in the middle of winter while you are on snowshoes and try in interact with them.

Wolves don't know Common. In fact that common exists at all actually shows the very high potential of being able to reason with another sapient species.

I can see the DM having to Handwave a situation where various species are "at peace" after who knows how many generations. But once again, we are then back to a situation where all the chars share the same value system, and it back to Humans with Funny Hats.

I disagree. Lizard people are about as exotic a species as I entertain in my own world as a PC option. You can have a race that operates on different behavior, and not have it overturn the basic flow of the game.

That's not a value system call.

Many people have many different values. I'd argue a strength of an RPG, is to have a place to explore differences, without it being 'real'.

Except for my Paladin. He's an avatar, disagree with him and I'm personally wounded.