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

[Umbran]

So All Elves know Elvish? That's because it's intrinsically a part of them.

That seems simplistic and drastic. All dwarves know dwarvish, and all gnomes know gnomish... so now language is intrinsically part of every D&D race?

There needs to be room for both interpretations

In a game that has a very long history with homebrewing, "there needs to be room for" should get some scrutiny. Some will say that it must be explicit in the mechanics, others will say, "If nothing falls apart if I swap the weapon for a tool, that's enough room."

 

[Lyxen]

I'd ask you to consider the context of this thread being on species-wide ability and capability assignment and really reconsider what you're saying here trying to invoke the 'real world'.

I'm not actually sure what you are saying here, my point is that, in the real world, being born genetically weak or strong has an impact on what you can do. And this was obviously at the level of the individual, since we are all the same race technically, there are no differences between humans. So assuming a fantasy world where there are strong differences between various species, it is bound to have a huge impact, just like differences in species of animals and insects have a large impact on what they do, and this is transmitted at the collective level (see ants - various types actually - v.s termites vs. wasps for example).

 

[Marandahir]

That seems simplistic and drastic. All dwarves know dwarvish, and all gnomes know gnomish... so now language is intrinsically part of every D&D race?

In a game that has a very long history with homebrewing, "there needs to be room for" should get some scrutiny. Some will say that it must be explicit in the mechanics, others will say, "If nothing falls apart if I swap the weapon for a tool, that's enough room."

I don't disagree, I was quoting specifically Keith Baker's interpretation of Elves and Elvish (and not necessarily the roles of Dwarvish and Gnomish for those peoples). I personally think the Tasha's approach is the right level of explicitness. But I also know they are going to reset the core rules in 2.5 years, and that means that that approach will likely get mainlined into all lineages in the PHB. I think it would help if the game gave suggested builds with each sublineage, much like they do with each class currently.

"To quickly build up a Wood Elf character, first, put your highest score into Dexterity, followed by Wisdom. Then, choose Elvish and Longbow proficiency as your proficiencies. Then choose the Outlander Background. Finally, choose the Ranger class." Something like that.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Stop inserting modern biology, and it becomes easier.

In older D&D cosmologies, for example, humans had souls, and elves had spirits - spirits would typically reincarnate eventually, souls would not. If you carry the spirit of an elf that's been around several times, having some ingrained skill memories doesn't sound so preposterous as it being "genetic memory" does.

Yes. Especially if you consider races to be created for a specific purpose, it makes sense to have it instinctively able to perform that function. Same as animals are born with the knowledge of how to mate because their "design goal" is to propagate their genetic material. If Corellon wanted elves to fight with a longsword, he would make them innately good with it (maybe with born-in muscle reflex or specific physical advantage relevant to longsword-fighting?) A common trope is having gods addicted to worship, they'd be smart to make sure their worshipping race instinctively know how to perform the rites correctly or, at least, has an insatiatable thirst for religious knowledge (inborn proficiency). Same with language. The KB explanation is great, and Adam and Eve apparently had no difficulty understanding themselves despite not having been to school: it makes sense that Adamic was instinctive knowledge until the Babel event. I don't see any problem with natural knowledge being present in people. It would certainly affect culture, though.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't think anyone was not leaving the options open, just separating what you're physically born as from what your culture molds you into.


Like how elves are currently born with a genetic memory of longsword proficiency. Ya know, normal stuff people are born with.

"Papa. He's gonna say his first word"
"Ma- Ma- Master Gradoyoshi's 10th Longsword Fencing Technique: Swooping Crane Strike!"

 

[Marandahir]

Yes. Especially if you consider races to be created for a specific purpose, it makes sense to have it instinctively able to perform that function. Same as animals are born with the knowledge of how to mate because their "design goal" is to propagate their genetic material. If Corellon wanted elves to fight with a longsword, he would make them innately good with it (maybe with born-in muscle reflex or specific physical advantage relevant to longsword-fighting?) A common trope is having gods addicted to worship, they'd be smart to make sure their worshipping race instinctively know how to perform the rites correctly or, at least, has an insatiatable thirst for religious knowledge (inborn proficiency). Same with language. The KB explanation is great, and Adam and Eve apparently had no difficulty understanding themselves despite not having been to school: it makes sense that Adamic was instinctive knowledge until the Babel event. I don't see any problem with natural knowledge being present in people. It would certainly affect culture, though.

Which is great for your game. I personally have VERY LITTLE INTEREST in such a world. So the question is, how do we build a game that satisfies both of our gaming needs?

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Which is great for your game. I personally have VERY LITTLE INTEREST in such a world. So the question is, how do we build a game that satisfies both of our gaming needs?

TBH? We can't. It is obvious that the world that interest us are different and would belong to different settings, obeying different rules. One answer would be to move character creations rules to setting books and not the basic rules. An Eberron halfling is different from a Dark Sun halfling: they are certainly created differently (and another setting might have no halfling at all). A useful section in the DMG would be how to weigh those consideration into the character creation rules.

 

[Oofta]

The point is many people don't even roleplay the BASE races well.

Then if they manage that they barely add more factions or surfaces.

We rarely get to 12.

People can always, and have always, made adjustments for their home campaigns. I'm talking about published materials. I think there should be some baseline, some starting point. Telling people "these are googas" with a picture and little else to distinguish them from every other race gives DMs nothing to work with. If you try to come up with a unique culture for every possible option in the published books (even just the core books), good luck with coming up with anything remotely unique that is not going to offend someone somewhere.

 

[Oofta]

Canadian culture is a puzzle, with our vast territory, and comparably small population on top of our immigration based history.

But we have Hockey, and a general appreciation for nature as a starting point.

I think you're selling yourself short. You have Tim Horton's as well.

EDIT: ninja'd by Snarf

 

[Marandahir]

TBH? We can't. It is obvious that the world that interest us are different and would belong to different settings, obeying different rules. One answer would be to move character creations rules to setting books and not the basic rules. An Eberron halfling is different from a Dark Sun halfling: they are certainly created differently (and another setting might have no halfling at all). A useful section in the DMG would be how to weigh those consideration into the character creation rules.

Unfortunately, I think that fails to satisfy the most important reason for 5e's popularity: you don't need to buy ANYTHING to play. The free download of the 5e Basic Rules is all you need to roll up a character and play.

D&D is a generalist game, not a specialist game. So it needs to have SOME core assumptions that settings can then deviate from. The question we have on our hands is how to design the core assumptions so that the game has the broadest appeal and is easiest to pick up and play.

People can always, and have always, made adjustments for their home campaigns. I'm talking about published materials. I think there should be some baseline, some starting point. Telling people "these are googas" with a picture and little else to distinguish them from every other race gives DMs nothing to work with. If you try to come up with a unique culture for every possible option in the published books (even just the core books), good luck with coming up with anything remotely unique that is not going to offend someone somewhere.

Exactly. We need SOME sort of baseline. The question at hand is how much of that baseline belongs in lineage and how much belongs in culture and if those overlap by default or otherwise.

This is a classic case of the lumper/splitter dilemma. There are benefits to both approaches, and threading the needle is really hard to do without alienating someone or making the game too complex to roll up a character and play with minimal effort.