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

[Faolyn]

A bit late to the thread, so this might have already been addressed, but... people complain about "bland" races, but some of the most unique and alien races are kenku and lizardfolk, and so many people hate what makes them alien because it makes them "hard to play." If kenku could speak and be creative, were as emotional as everyone else, they'd be just another anthro human with funny hats.

 

[Marandahir]

A bit late to the thread, so this might have already been addressed, but... people complain about "bland" races, but some of the most unique and alien races are kenku and lizardfolk, and so many people hate what makes them alien because it makes them "hard to play." If kenku could speak and be creative, were as emotional as everyone else, they'd be just another anthro human with funny hats.

I love the narrative of Kenku. They imply a story akin to how Raven brought light to the world (and was burned for it). A similar story seems to exist in the Indo-European past given the meaning behind a lot of raven and crow words in European languages (association with burning, fire, char, soot, etc - there really seems to be an archetypal Icarian/Promethean idea behind many of the raven/crow stories of the world).

I also recognise that they're EXCEEDINGLY hard to play well, because you have to be ON when you're playing them. Some people just want to knock in the door, say "NOBODY TOSSES A DWARF" and get on with it. That's FINE.

Stereotypes are FINE in the game. The game runs on memetic energy. We need those memes for a laugh and to give our minds a break after a long week at work. If we're working too hard when playing, we might burn out.

But they SHOULD NOT be the be-all and end-all of character lineage & culture in the core assumed rules, lest the rules imply that the only correct way to play a Dwarf is bearded, male, with a double-headed axe and a Scottish accent.

So Kenku belong in the game too, but you're right, their difficulty in getting to work right in a game is a good warning against making the core assumed present lineages too complex that they become a chore to play. There's a reason why (Standard) Human Champion Fighter is so exceedingly popular: it's easy to pick up and play. There's no complex rules about it. Making that Human difficult to play would be contrary to the purposes of the core rules. Same deal with Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling, at the very least.

But WotC CAN and SHOULD open up the dials to let players tweak their lineages by faction or culture. And maybe, just maybe, culture would be a good replacement for the mechanical framework that lineage currently operates in. MAYBE. I'm not convinced, but it's a worthy discussion.

 

[Lyxen]

Yes, changing a race of people into a faction still has the same problem as just making fictional races stereotypes of real world peoples. That proves....?

That factions/cultures are not a solution to the races problem, since there is no "races" problem, just a problem with SOME races, just as there is a problem with SOME cultures.

I don't think you're contemplating the actual issue at hand.

There is no issue (apart from the title of this thread which is totally inappropriate), just a proposal in this thread which, as demonstrated by the above has no value as it does not address the real problem and greatly diminishes the value of the game which already supports really well fantasy races from the rules perspective and fantasy cultures from the background/settings perspective.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You don't have to!

Are you making a world map for a main established setting that WotC or another big TTRPG is publishing? Or (more likely) is it for your home game?

Because really this is about how do we fix the core assumptions of the game, not how do we fix your particular game. I see nothing wrong with your game. Nobody is Harrison-Burgeroning individual D&D tables. They're not coming for your Dwarves or forcing you to include 6 different types of Halflings.

The idea is for WotC and other big name publishers to succinctly provide examples of different factions or cultures that would be useful to use instead of leaning into stereotypes in their core rulebooks.

This is about adding value. Even if we only have Stout and Lightfoot Halflings in the PHB, let us know about different example cultures of Halflings in the book too. Maybe do what the PHB currently does for Humans for all other peoples, and generate up some example nations of Halflings and Elves and Dwarves each that are stark contrast to one another, despite being the same sublineage. Or sure, add a new factional layer that doesn't require you to be a specific lineage but reflects your attitudes towards the world or your background. MAYBE even flesh out the background system into something far meatier than in the current rules. A Soldier Halfling and and Guild Artisan Halfling had very different life experiences before adventuring. Maybe ASIs could even be tied to backgrounds or, heck, thrown into classes like WotC playtested back in D&D Next.

Fair enough. Level Up does a lot of this, and it's a great game.

You only run into that issue if you purposely create offensive faction.

The issue is creating bland restrictive races and trying to copy and paste their bland monocultural butts over and over and over multiple settings and being surprised that people consider them boring after a while.

If they were just bland, they wouldn't be making major changes. People have complained about boring races for years; that's why WotC keeps making more. The issue here is that, for some, they have crossed the line into being offensive.

 

[Marandahir]

That factions/cultures are not a solution to the races problem, since there is no "races" problem, just a problem with SOME races, just as there is a problem with SOME cultures.



There is no issue (apart from the title of this thread which is totally inappropriate), just a proposal in this thread which, as demonstrated by the above has no value as it does not address the real problem and greatly diminishes the value of the game which already supports really well fantasy races from the rules perspective and fantasy cultures from the background/settings perspective.

While I agree with you that there are problems with both approaches, and this doesn't address the real problem, I'd argue that the problem is much bigger than just "some lineages and cultures in the game are problematic and lean into discriminatory stereotypes." That's the biggest problem here, but the mechanical underpinnings of how we cut the pie on lineages is the baseline issue. Hence why Yaarel approached it by cutting the pie differently. I disagree with the cut made, but not that the pie needs to be cut.

 

[Lyxen]

I agree that it wasn't the intent, but it was manifestly the effect.

Not to me, it was not, since I was not looking for culture in a technical rulebook like the PH, I knew that the cultures where still there in the settings/backgrounds.

And that's the problem for me. I don't think we're seeing some conscious, considered decision to draw back like a snail into it's shell re monocultures. I think it's just "what WotC has done", repeatedly, and without considering. There are number of elements retained through editions like that - not intentional sacred cows, just things they keep doing.

And, from my perspective, and in this particular case, not a problem, since the solution has always been elsewhere anyway.

And the solution is not to revert to tedious monocultures, imho, but to offer more choice, and to offer choices that aren't race-tied even if they're race-associated. Like you want to be an Elf from the big city, you pick the Big City faction or whatever. You want to be an Elf from the Elvendark Forest, you pick the Elvendark Forest faction. You want to be a gnome raised by the elves of the Elvendark Forest, you do likewise. Sure 90% of the population of the Elvendark Forest is elves, but you're choosing to have an unusual PC. The player who hates unusual PCs can pick his Human Fighter with the Big City background or whatever. You don't need that many factions as generic/default either. Maybe you have a Riverboat faction, and 75% of Riverboat folk are hobbits, but obviously other people could be part of that. Or there's the Ravaging Horde faction, and maybe most of the people in that are Orcs, or maybe in a different setting they're Elves, or whatever.

But that requires a rulebook which is supposed to be mostly setting-agnostic to stop being so. D&D has always worked well - and 5e is even more successful by far - with this open approach.

 

[Lyxen]

A bit late to the thread, so this might have already been addressed, but... people complain about "bland" races, but some of the most unique and alien races are kenku and lizardfolk, and so many people hate what makes them alien because it makes them "hard to play." If kenku could speak and be creative, were as emotional as everyone else, they'd be just another anthro human with funny hats.

I have always loved kenkus, but I was not a fan of the lizardfolk until one of our best roleplayers started incarnating one in my current Avernus campaign, and he is an absolute joy, totally alien to the others...

 

[Lyxen]

While I agree with you that there are problems with both approaches, and this doesn't address the real problem, I'd argue that the problem is much bigger than just "some lineages and cultures in the game are problematic and lean into discriminatory stereotypes." That's the biggest problem here, but the mechanical underpinnings of how we cut the pie on lineages is the baseline issue. Hence why Yaarel approached it by cutting the pie differently. I disagree with the cut made, but not that the pie needs to be cut.

But then, if I'm not mistaking you, it's a completely different problem, one that has to do with the crunchiness of the system in terms of lineages and the possibilities here. There are some systems where balance is less of an issue which leave tons of options open, because combos are not so much of a problem, but the crunchiness approach which left tons of options was tried with 3e and failed due to the combos explosions.

But then maybe I'm completely misunderstanding what the real issue is for you.

 

[Minigiant]

they were just bland, they wouldn't be making major changes. People have complained about boring races for years; that's why WotC keeps making more. The issue here is that, for some, they have crossed the line into being offensive.

The issue is the blandness allowed the offensive parts to shine in the sea of grey.

The lack of depth and little thought into some races as beings choosing or born into a sensible culture causes whatever parts you do describe to be scrutinized more and highlights any inconsistencirs of their culture.

I think you would have a lower chance of this with factions as more thought would be needed to describe a faction with the purpose of understanding it.

 

[Marandahir]

Fair enough. Level Up does a lot of this, and it's a great game.

If they were just bland, they wouldn't be making major changes. People have complained about boring races for years; that's why WotC keeps making more. The issue here is that, for some, they have crossed the line into being offensive.

1. And WotC should learn from their "competitors," for sure.

2. Agreed, though I think the problem is more than a just "some lineages are offensive." That's the most direct and offensive issue that needed course correcting. They've already been able to course correct on that with errata and new books that detail those lineages differently. But the reason those lineages are problematic is a root underpinning problem with the genre of fiction and the gameplay that D&D props up and stands on, and thus WotC needs to figure out how to both be a leader in the industry in terms of anti-racism (which requires big structural change to the game) while also appealing to the masses by not complexifying the game and maintaining a sense of WHAT IT IS versus losing its identity by trying to be different and unique.

I adore 4e to death and would take it any day over 3.5e but they seriously burned long-term fans by changing things those fans didn't want changed. WotC seems to be doing their changes now based on big data surveys and playtests, as opposed to bulldozing through what a few designers wanted, so I THINK their changes will continue to improve the game. But it's definitely a needle that needs to be threaded carefully.