D&D (2024) What new jargon do you want to replace "Race"?

What new jargon do you want to replace "Race"?

  • Species

    Votes: 60 33.5%
  • Type

    Votes: 10 5.6%
  • Form

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • Lifeform

    Votes: 2 1.1%
  • Biology

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Taxonomy

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Taxon

    Votes: 2 1.1%
  • Genus

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Geneology

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Family

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Parentage

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • Ancestry

    Votes: 100 55.9%
  • Bloodline

    Votes: 13 7.3%
  • Line

    Votes: 1 0.6%
  • Lineage

    Votes: 49 27.4%
  • Pedigree

    Votes: 1 0.6%
  • Folk

    Votes: 34 19.0%
  • Kindred

    Votes: 18 10.1%
  • Kind

    Votes: 16 8.9%
  • Kin

    Votes: 36 20.1%
  • Kinfolk

    Votes: 9 5.0%
  • Filiation

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Extraction

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Descent

    Votes: 5 2.8%
  • Origin

    Votes: 36 20.1%
  • Heredity

    Votes: 3 1.7%
  • Heritage

    Votes: 48 26.8%
  • People

    Votes: 11 6.1%
  • Nature

    Votes: 1 0.6%
  • Birth

    Votes: 0 0.0%

That is fair if that is what you want, but it absolutely isn't what I want from D&D. When I play D&D I want elves, dwarves, gnomes, and halflings. I'll take other options like half orcs, half elves, and whatever else. But I want a nice range of races/species to choose from, and I like to have the classic fantasy races to at least be part of that mix.

And again there are lots of games that approach this very differently and do it well (like I said I mostly don't play D&D I usually play more grounded fantasy games). I just don't think D&D needs to change what it does well to chase this, when there are games that do it so much better.
Different Settings have different nice ranges of species to choose from.

There is no reason to entangle the Players Handbook with only one of these settings. Especially, the other core book, the DMs Guide, encourages DMs to create their own new Setting. The Players Hsndbook does best to stay setting-neutral to avoid getting in the way of the creativity of the DM.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Different Settings have different nice ranges of species to choose from.

There is no reason to entangle the Players Handbook with only one of these settings. Especially, the other core book, the DMs Guide, encourages DMs to create their own new Setting. The Players Hsndbook does best to stay setting-neutral to avoid getting in the way of the creativity of the DM.

Again, your preference is fair if that is what you want. I just wouldn't mistake one's preference for an ought. While I can appreciate what you want out of the players handbook, like I said, I much prefer having some core races, knowing that those races will undoubtedly change in specific settings or that I might rework them a bit for my own campaigns. This is one of the reasons I like simple, somewhat generic race entries in the PHB.

While I do think PHBs should be setting neutral. It is still important for D&D to have some amount of flavor in its core books. It need not mention specific places, but I don't want it to be so neutral it doesn't pop for me. Again they can sometimes have some vague details or even a few specifics knowing these things will change from campaign to campaign. But there is a kind of default D&D I think that the PHB tends to help provide to GMs and Players.

You don't want to interfere with GM creativity but you also do want to spark it.
 


@Yaarel

If one wanted to do British faerie knights or Norse alfar as beings in D&D (in the Monster Manual) that could also be used as a PC options, how would you want them described?
Heh, this is a pertinent question. Because, as you seem to remember, some of my settings do have mythologically accurate Faerie Knights and Alfar.

It is a challenge to translate them accurately within the context of D&D rules and gaming balance.

To describe them, I start with the reallife folkbeliefs (from an academic, often archeological perspective).

Mostly, the Alfar come from Icelandic texts as well as Norwegian and Swedish contexts, such as place names, and earlier strata within later folkbeliefs.

Mostly, the Fairie come from the records of the reallife Scottish witch trials, where witches describe their encounters with various Elves. Anything that is clearly foreign, such as Christian theology can be safely ignored. Meanwhile, Shakespeare plays happen to describe the English folkbeliefs in Fairy in considerable detail when piecing together all of the comments made in passing. Works like the Merry Wives of Windsor, The Tempest, Midsummer Nights Dream, are especially useful, but also stray comments in other plays that arent really about Fairies. For example, children disguise themselves as Fairies, thereby terrifying the onlookers. We can see from this, the Fairies actually look like humansize youth, are luminous, and Humans value their fateful blessings but are terrified of their fateful curses. Moreover, the more powerful they are, the younger they appear (and likewise the more innocent but less ethically mature). So where the Fairy Queen Titania is described as a toddler, we can see she typically appears as if a human two-year-old. And so on. Generally, the English culture argued that their Nonchristian nature beings arent evil demons, just immature children. There is lots of information about Fairies when one looks for it.

The origins of the folkbeliefs are animistic nature beings. Understanding animism helps. These beings are literal features of nature.

In the Norse traditions, the Alfar are various patterns of sunlight. These military formations of sunlight comprise numerous persons. The light is a person. The light behaves the way it does because it "likes" to and "chooses" to behave that way.

In the British traditions, the Fairy are fertile soil. To see notable areas of lush vegetation, such as a cluster of trees, is itself evidence that Fairies live there. The Scottish and English traditions tend to blend Celtic folkbeliefs about Sidhe (Scot. Sith) with other folkbeliefs of Anglians and Saxons. There is some Nordic influences too. But Britain evolves its own unique folkbeliefs. There are regional distinctions. In the south, in England, the Fairies normally manifest out of the soil to appear as if small human children. But in the north, in Scotland, the Elves (aka the Sith) appear as if human adults. In all cases, the British apparitions are immaterial spirits manifesting from the soil. Some of the Scottish witches compare the Elves to a "shadow" that has a form but without any substance.

And so.



To translate these reallife ethnic heritages into D&D gaming rules is a sensitive ethical challenge. On the one hand, it is cool to preserve these traditions in interesting ways that the world today can enjoy. At the same time, caution is necessary to avoid misrepresentation or insult.



The Norse folkbeliefs translate well into D&D. Unlike other cultures that have all-powerful "gods", the different kinds of Norse nature beings are all moreorless equally powerful as each other. In the Eddas and over a hundred Sagas, there are examples of individuals, a powerful Human individual, a powerful Dvergar individual, a powerful Æsir individual, and so on, each able to defeat the other in that story. Heh, in one story, a Human punches out Óðinn and throws him overboard. For D&D, this seems identical to the concept of Character Level. The Norsesque species have features that moreorless balance with each other. A Human is just as powerful as an Æsir. But. Óðinn isnt a more powerful species − he is simply a higher level character. So the next challenge is to compare which D&D classes compare well to which Norse folkbeliefs. Generally speaking, the 5e Bard is awesome for almost every example of Norse spell effect. Of course, there are no musical instruments, the Nordic lands lacked them. The Norse mages do magic by means of thoughts (Hugar), often using speech and sometimes using novel runic inscriptions as a technique to focus thoughts. I am comfortable with translating Norse Hugar into D&D "Psionics", as the method of spellcasting. Despite the Psionic "Spellcasting Focus", the features of the Bard class work uncannily well. It turns out, basing the Bard on mythologically Celtic folkbeliefs ended up helping out Nordic folkbeliefs as well. Much of it is variations of shamanic animism. Heh, Norse mages are typically psionic Bards.

In addition to Bard, an other surprisingly useful D&D class is Paladin: the abjuration magic coheres well with Norse warrior magic. The Norse males can and did do magic, but it was a social taboo for a male to be cowardly, so it was dishonorable to use magic to harm enemies from a distance. But to use magic to heal and empower oneself and ones allies, in order to face an enemy courageously in battle, face-to-face. Hence the Paladin is awesome. Because I personally like mages, I would also use the Cleric class as a fullcaster, but flavor it exactly like the Paladin class, to represent warrior magic.

Note, the Norse nature beings are literally features of nature. The sunlight is alive, conscious, and sapient. One can communicate (telepathically) with sunlight, and viceversa. On rare occasions, the sunlight projects outofbody sotospeak to manifest in a Human form. Sometimes this form more like a ghostly apparition. But occasionally it is a full-on form of flesh-and-blood. (There is a detailed story about a mountain who becomes a human.) Note, not every sunlight mind is able to materialize in this way. If a mind does this, it is because the mind knows how to do the magic to be able to do this. Almost by definition, an Alfar who can manifest out from the sunlight must be a mage. The Alfar can also teach a Human how to do this, translating back and forth between sunlight and flesh. Viceversa, a Human can teach an Alfar some of the magic that the Human knows how to do. Even the Æsir are learning and teaching the same kinds of magic that Human mages are doing. There is no difference. Indeed, the first Human mages were taught by Jǫtnar how to magic. It is typical for Norse mages to go into a magical trance, to travel outofbody to visit with outofbody nature beings, for these beings to train them to do magic.

In D&D, the Druid class can be useful − not really for the Norse Humans − but the druidic elemental magic helps to actualize the weather magic, and similar, that the sky beings can do. Meanwhile, the Sámi mages do weather magic, and animal shapeshifting is also prominent, so the Druid with some tweaks can help toward these Nordic folkbeliefs.

From a D&D perspective, all of this is caster classes and class levels. High level casters learn how to cast higher level spells. This is true for Humans, Dvergar, Alfar, Jǫtnar, Æsir, Vanir, and Corpses. It is all levels in caster classes.

In the Scottish folkbeliefs, the Elves are immaterial spirits. The D&D 5e concept of the Fey plane works out well. The Scottish Elves are fertile soil, literally. When they project outofbody, they do so as immaterial spirits. D&D represents this well enough. The Fey Plane is an immaterial spiritworld. But the spirits moving thru the Fey Plane appear as virtual bodies whose form behaves as if a material body, or close enough to one anyway. So the Scottish Elves are moreorless like Humans when projecting out-of-soil, except they are Fey, not Material. The Elves rarely materialize into the flesh-and-blood of the Material Plane, and Humans rarely spiritualize into the immateriality of the Fey Plane, but there are stories about this kind of translation happening. For the Scottish witches and Fairie Knights, I am leaning toward the Warlock class, and Fey subclass themes, except healing magic is central. So spells like Cure Wounds and such are necessary for this kind of Warlock to have. Also notably, the Warlocks comprise a community who visit each other across the Fey-Material veil.

Anyway, in the case of Norse, Sámi, Scottish, and English folkbeliefs, it is easy to talk about Nonhuman species who are Humanoid and comparable to the Human species, and who have a strictly Human culture. For example, the Nordic nature beings speak Nordic languages and participate in local Nordic cultures and customs. Scottish nature beings speak Scots and Gaelic, and participate in Scottish cultures and customs. These are Human cultures.
 
Last edited:

While I do think PHBs should be setting neutral. It is still important for D&D to have some amount of flavor in its core books. It need not mention specific places, but I don't want it to be so neutral it doesn't pop for me. Again they can sometimes have some vague details or even a few specifics knowing these things will change from campaign to campaign. But there is a kind of default D&D I think that the PHB tends to help provide to GMs and Players.

You don't want to interfere with GM creativity but you also do want to spark it.
As far as I can tell, the Players Handbook does well to be Human-only, along with a minimalist Medievalesque flavor where magic is real.

The DMs Guide can inspire more details to spark imagination.

The Forgotten Realms Guide will detail deeper and wider flavors. In addition to Nonhuman options, it can add new spells and items, that are pertinent to the unique cultures that populate this particular Setting.

Also, wisdom from 4e. Start local and small, in a specific region. Or better yet, offer a selection of specific regions around the planet! Then gradually expand outward from there.

If there is a reallife objection to some aspect of the Setting, it is easier to fix a single town, rather than fix everything that exists in Forgotten Realms.
 


As far as I can tell, the Players Handbook does well to be Human-only, along with a minimalist Medievalesque flavor where magic is real.

The DMs Guide can inspire more details to spark imagination.

The Forgotten Realms Guide will detail deeper and wider flavors. In addition to Nonhuman options, it can add new spells and items, that are pertinent to the unique cultures that populate this particular Setting.

Again if that is what you want from D&D, I can't tell you you are wrong. It is your preference so that is fair. This just isn't what I look for in the PHB.

Also, wisdom from 4e. Start local and small, in a specific region. Or better yet, offer a selection of specific regions around the planet! Then gradually expand outward from there.

Here I think I agree in part. Start local and small can be good. And I often do that. But I also think there is value with starting broad prior to beginning small. I think the macro and the micro are both important to world building. But for published material, I want a complete setting, at least in the broad strokes.
 

How to kill off interest, in one book. lol
Again if that is what you want from D&D, I can't tell you you are wrong. It is your preference so that is fair. This just isn't what I look for in the PHB.
To be fair, there are many fun fantasy stories about Humans doing magic − without referencing other species.

Meanwhile, the Setting Guides become the go-to places for more flavorful options, and have the design space to go into far more flavor than the core rules can.

But an important benefit is to separate D&D core from bad decisions that occasionally happen in a Setting.



Even today, right now, when the designers are actively trying to avoid racism, the Spelljammer setting turns out in hindsight to be appalling. The racist slave origins of the Hadozee and its adventure forcing players to commit racist genocide. WTF! We laugh at NuTSR. But this is WotC doing this.

Could you imagine if the core rules flavor of the Players Handbook was pushing this racist yuck?

Keeping the Players Handbook setting-neutral and far away from the dangers of Setting flavors is helpful in the long run.
 

To be fair, there are many fun fantasy stories about Humans doing magic − without referencing other species.
No doubt, but I dont think D&D is going to ever go that path at this point. There are dozens of <insert character option name here> now, I cannot even possibly name them all off the top of my head.

We wont be going back to just Humans, heck, D&D hasnt been about 'just humans' since forever.
 

Remove ads

Top