D&D 5E Yes to factionalism. No to racism.

[Scribe]

I feel there are more lawyers to culture personally. I am part of a global culture, a nation culture, a regional culture, a local culture, and even a work culture. How that translates to an RPG, IDK, but I feel there is some room for flexibility in expression.

Backgrounds, or various options within a Culture bucket, sure?

 

[Maxperson]

So I would definitely say- No to racism, and no to factions. Because I will always remember the words of my fifth grade teacher when she saw my math test- "You better marry upwards Snarf, because you're dumber than 4/3 of a box of rocks times 1/2 ... and you don't understand that."

4/3 of a box of rocks x 1/2 = stump. Duh!

 

[Maxperson]

What might be true in one setting, might not be true in an other setting. Each setting can feel very different, and can describe its own factions along with their corresponding backgrounds.

So do you expect them to create different factions for each race in each setting? Because that seems like a lot of wasted space(on their part) and money(on our part).

 

[Minigiant]

So do you expect them to create different factions for each race in each setting? Because that seems like a lot of wasted space(on their part) and money(on our part).

They are the ones selling multiple settings. Either:

1) don't describe the factions that can be different in each settings
2) list different possible factions in a possible setting and tag the races to the one that matches
or
3) create different factions for each setting

 

[Hussar]

My question is simple: What if the faction of Lolth drow are the only drow around? I mean, if someone can get behind a faction of drow being evil...

Can you be more specific?

Do you mean that in a given campaign, the DM is only using Drow a small number of times and they all come from the same group? Fair enough. No problems.

Or, do you mean you are world building, where you have Drow states comprising of thousands, if not tens of thousands of individuals spread across multiple communities? In which case, the single faction idea gets a whole lot less interesting.

 

[Shiroiken]

The concept of breaking things down into cultural factions would be ideal... except for the fact that it can't work in a generic fantasy RPG. The existing racial descriptions are already the "default" cultural faction, but that's now considered unacceptable... despite the fact that the DM has always had the ability to make whatever changes they want to culture and lore to their own campaign. Unless they want to break down multiple cultural factions for each race/sub-race (making a sub-subrace?), the exact same situation will exist, just with different people's preference on what the default cultural faction is. This isn't "better," just different.

 

[Minigiant]

The concept of breaking things down into cultural factions would be ideal... except for the fact that it can't work in a generic fantasy RPG. The existing racial descriptions are already the "default" cultural faction, but that's now considered unacceptable... despite the fact that the DM has always had the ability to make whatever changes they want to culture and lore to their own campaign. Unless they want to break down multiple cultural factions for each race/sub-race (making a sub-subrace?), the exact same situation will exist, just with different people's preference on what the default cultural faction is. This isn't "better," just different.

Why is their a default cultural faction? Why does crating new factions create sub-subraces?

One thing that I never got about "generic fantasy" is

There are 10-100 human nations.
Number of elf nations: 3
Dwarf nations? 2.
Halfling groups? One. maybe Two. Never more than Three.
Orc factions? Eh?
Gnome factions? 2.
Dragonborn/folk/man kingdoms? What's that?


There's this weird thing about "generic fantasy derived from D&D" where humaniods don't act like full on humaniods nor full on monsters/aliens. So you have humaniods roleplaying as monstrous humaniods and not braking into tons of cultural factions and nations like fully in control humaniods would.

 

[Maxperson]

Why is their a default cultural faction? Why does crating new factions create sub-subraces?

One thing that I never got about "generic fantasy" is

There are 10-100 human nations.

Sure.

Number of elf nations: 3

Sea Elves
Winged Elves
Dark Elves
Moon Elves
Sun Elves
Star Elves
Sun Elves
Wild Elves
Wood Elves
Eberron Elves
Dark Sun Elves
Shadow Elves
Painted Elves
Rockseer Elves

Just a few more than 3.

Dwarf nations? 2.

Hill Dwarves
Mountain Dwarves
Deep Dwarves
Duergar
Arctic Dwarves
Urdunnir
Wild Dwarves
Cerillian Dwarves
Athasian Dwarves
Gully Dwarves
Sundered Dwarves
Wild Dwarves
Korobokuru
Eusdrian Dwarves
Kogolor Dwarves
Rot Dwarves
Midgard Dwarves

I'm not going to continue with the other races. You get the point. There are a lot of variants for each of the races if they want to use them.

 

[Lyxen]

I must be a terrible person...

I like these updates.

I don't. The part about the size is absurd and totally stupid, for example.

For some others, these updates created a perception of the lore becoming more homogeneous and bland.

Not only the lore, but the characters as well, PCs and NPCs both. Once more, this is a fantasy world, and species/races are NOT equal. Will you insist that a Goblin is the same as Mind Flayer ? That he needs to have equal stats because otherwise it's unfair and racist ? Yes, you do, and that is indeed the way to utter blandness in what I can not even, in all honesty, call a fantasy world.

One of the other RPGs I love is Runequest, where you can play incredibly varied and rich races, where their race/species divine origin, their runic/magic connections, and their history both before time began and since then has had a great influence on their culture, which are varied, rich, vibrant. This is way more interesting to me than "people should only be allowed to play things that look like human in various funny hats because of their different cultures/factions because otherwise some people will be offended".

In Runequest, some races are way stronger, way more intelligent, way larger and/or robust, and others are weaker, more stupid and/or smaller. But these characteristics have shaped their culture and their outlook in very specific ways, and make them way more interesting, in particular when put in play. The Agimori are taller, stronger, resistant to fire, and extremely powerful individuals, and the Morokanth (who are weaker "tapir-men") eat "herd men", a trait that seems disgusting but that has its origin in the god time when they were more clever than some and earned that right, and this is rightly respected and feared even by the Agimori. These are not only humans in funny hats, there are cosmological, mythological, mythical, historical reasons for the differences in their species/races, which in turn have led to both similarities (they are both nomadic tribes of the vast plains of Prax) and irreconciliable differences in their cultures, leading to sometimes alliances and sometimes feuds. So when the PCs are asked to arbitrate as to whether the Morokanth should be allowed to eat two thieving Agimori, they have to take all that into account, as well as the current political and influence implications of their choices. This is what I want for my fantasy species/races, way more interesting than if it was a 7 foot tall halfling and a 3 feet tall goliath arguing about political correctness.

As you seem to have no problem calling people who disagree with you partisans of racism, I have no problem telling you that even moderately mature gamers know how to make a difference between the fantasy species and races that they play and their every day life, and that it is way healthier not to mix fantasy and reality. I have been playing D&D for probably longer than you have been alive with all ethnicities and mixes, on most continents, with all genders and ages, using strong racial/species stereotypes for our characters. And I find your continuous campaigning and slandering of proponents of alternate, richer and more mature views extremely insulting. Please take your crusade elsewhere, or tone down your vocabulary and accusations. Or even better, realise that a fantasy world can be way richer and more interesting because of all the differences in races/species as well as culture.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Will you insist that a Goblin is the same as Mind Flayer ? That he needs to have equal stats because otherwise it's unfair and racist ? Yes, you do, and that is indeed the way to utter blandness in what I can not even, in all honesty, call a fantasy world.

Who are you talking to here?

Yourself? Are you accusing yourself of racism? Because that's kind of um, an aggressive move?

If you're walking to WotC, or players in general, you're talking utter nonsense. Literally no-one thinks it's "racist" (your bizarre word choice) for a Goblin and Mind Flayer (the latter not even a PC race in 5E, nor in any edition AFAIK) to not have the same stats. Literally no-one thinks that. Then you say "Yes, you do". No, no-one does. Don't make things up. Unless you're saying you, Lyxen, want them to have the same stats, in which case, wow, that's weird.

If you're accusing @Yaarel, that's both very rude and obviously a lie on your part, because nothing he's said supports what you're saying. But it's unclear from your bizarre statement what you mean.

And I find your continuous campaigning and slandering of proponents of alternate, richer and more mature views extremely insulting. Please take your crusade elsewhere, or tone down your vocabulary and accusations.

Let's be clear, if this is directed against @Yaarel, and I'm not missing something like there being a hidden poster involved, this isn't opinion, this is just a straight-up lie. There's nothing in his post which supports that. It's like he said "I like almond milk!" and you've accused him of trying to murder a diary farmer.