D&D 5E Halflings are the 7th most popular 5e race

[CreamCloud0]

The only hit point that matters is the last one in D&D.

and that's the fundamental root of the issue.

 

[Lanefan]

Because the line is perilously thin. Especially because you're using penalties rather than incentives. Because gamers today don't have as much time or energy to play as they did before.

In your cohort, maybe. In mine it's the opposite; people are slowly reaching retirement age, at which point time becomes far more available.

The character funnel, for example, removes a significant amount of the "challenge" from old-school-style play because that challenge is actively un-fun when you have nowhere near as much time as you did before. When spending six months having characters die left and right can mean you never get anywhere.

Because it's hella fun, even more so when the players help by killing each others' characters now and then!

Hardwired challenge, especially when it's really significant challenge, is effectively a wall for a large portion of players. Making that hardwired challenge be present literally before play begins means inserting those walls that early. Walls like that drive people away from the game.

Tough.

So? 99.999% of humans cannot ever achieve those heights. What does it matter that the 99.99th percentile is better, when the 90th percentile of one is going to be hardly much different from the 90th percentile of the other?

That's just it, though: the difference doesn't just apply to the very top but goes all the way down through the percentiles.

99.999999% Dwarf = 800 lb lift. 90% Dwarf = 500 lb lift. 50% Dwarf = 175 lb lift.
99.999999% Human = 500 lb lift. 90% Human = 350 lb lift. 50% Human = 120 lb lift.
99.999999% Elf = 400 lb lift. 90% Elf = 275 lb lift. 50% Elf = 100 lb lift.

Nah. I used the example I used very intentionally. Remember that the Mars Climate Orbiter crashed specifically because of a failure to translate American customary units to metric, and there have been many (many, many, many) other instances of similar problems in aviation, aerospace, military, etc. D-Day was on June 6 not because that day was especially good, but because the Allied commanders wanted to make sure that you couldn't have confusion between the European forces (which listed dates as DD/MM) and American forces (which listed dates as MM/DD.)

Er...D-Day was on June 6 largely because adverse weather conditions prevented it from being earlier. They were ready to rock on June 4 but had to wait; and if June 6 had also been a bust then tide patterns would have pushed them back to at least June 19.

Haughty, "our-way-is-best" approaches to science and technology are literally as old as recorded history (and probably much older.) Couple that with the explicit jealousy with which wizards guard their secrets, and fundamental underlying differences in expression (believe me, shifting to dozenal is MUCH more of a difficulty than mere unit conversion.)

I've done similar things with base-6 numbers in my game, as that's what the ancient Hobgoblins used and their quasi-tech items now and then surface.

A ban isn't a fix though. It's an admission that there's a problem that can't be fixed.

Potato, potahto - it ends up getting fixed, and that's what matters.

Well...sure? I didn't say it was easy. Often the better solution to something is harder. E.g. the old saw "fast, good, cheap: pick two." In this case, it's more "simple, easy, good: pick two." The simple, easy solution is a ban--but that's clearly not great. The simple, good solution won't be easy to come by, it's gonna take effort on your part. And easy good solutions, they're gonna be either complex or fly the way an F-117 does: not at all unless continuously corrected.

I'd like to think I'm long past the point of root-level redesign and am henceforth simply tweaking around the edges.

 

[Lanefan]

The only hit point that matters is the last one in D&D.

Indeed, and that's been a design problem for some of us since Day 1.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In your cohort, maybe. In mine it's the opposite; people are slowly reaching retirement age, at which point time becomes far more available.

Perhaps we should not be targeting our designs at teenagers and retirees to the exclusion of the rest of the population.

Because it's hella fun, even more so when the players help by killing each others' characters now and then!

That sounds like exactly the antithesis of fun, at least to me.

Tough.

Not really. What you advocate for won't predominate specifically for the reasons I've described.

That's just it, though: the difference doesn't just apply to the very top but goes all the way down through the percentiles.

That is not how population statistics work.

It just isn't. Real people, with real variations, are far too difficult to predict. The overlapping of the bell curves will be so broad that quite common people will occur on either side of ANY race's central tendency. That's literally the problem here! What you are talking about is simply not how statistics or biology work!

I've done similar things with base-6 numbers in my game, as that's what the ancient Hobgoblins used and their quasi-tech items now and then surface.

Well, I should think that would demonstrate just how difficult it is to translate from one base system to another. The abstract theorems remain the same (nobody's disputing anything with a TLA), but the process of translation is a nightmare.

Or, if you prefer, think of it like computer code and circuit design. In theory, ternary computing offers several advantages over binary computing. Thing is? We've been specializing in making really tiny binary transistors for ages. Even as early as the 80s, we were highly specialized in binary computing. It doesn't matter that balanced ternary provides measurable advantages (subtraction becomes much simpler, for instance), because we would need to re-develop all the hardware. And then we would need new instructions that actually use that hardware, and new operating systems and programming languages to take advantage of that stuff (or at least new compilers to translate existing high-level languages down to the new ternary machine code.)

Now imagine if the Soviet Union, which had actually experimented with ternary computing, had managed to develop a successful domestic industry of ternary computing. You would have two industries that were technologically incompatible. Programs written for one could not be used with the other, even if you wanted to. Now add in a healthy dose of medievalism, where knowledge is hoarded and guild trade secrets are protected zealously, even violently. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

Sure, maybe some dwarf could go off and learn elf-style magic, with its highfalutin number system and impractical design. It would take at least as long as it did to learn superior, robust dwarf magic, what with all the false friends and subtly divergent structures. By the time you're finished, you'll have a solid decade of being a crotchety old prune before you go on to grace Durin's hall! You certainly won't be getting much work done, other than maybe translating a few widely-known spells from one system to the other.

Or you could show a little dwarven pride and learn the true form of magic, and then actually use it for something worthwhile.*

*This statement was paid for by the Venerable Order of Durin's Dweomerkeepers and does not reflect the opinions or positions of the author.

Point being: if you're already comfortable banning it outright, saying "it just works a little differently because dwarves just approach magic in a different way" isn't any harder nor any more "they just don't do that." I mean, every gnome had to be an illusionist if they went wizard, right? How is "every dwarf has to be an X" (where X gets a distinct spell list) any different?

Potato, potahto - it ends up getting fixed, and that's what matters.

But it isn't fixed. You've just put up a sign saying "out of order" because trying to operate the machine would be dangerous. Like...the problem literally is not fixed.

I'd like to think I'm long past the point of root-level redesign and am henceforth simply tweaking around the edges.

Alright. Suit yourself.

 

[Lanefan]

Perhaps we should not be targeting our designs at teenagers and retirees to the exclusion of the rest of the population.

I see it as targeting to those willing to give it the time it requires to work as intended.

That sounds like exactly the antithesis of fun, at least to me.

Different strokes, I suppose.

That is not how population statistics work.

It just isn't. Real people, with real variations, are far too difficult to predict. The overlapping of the bell curves will be so broad that quite common people will occur on either side of ANY race's central tendency. That's literally the problem here! What you are talking about is simply not how statistics or biology work!

If you overlap two bell curves and see that the low end, the peak, and the high end of one of those curves is consistently and noticeably offset in the same direction in relation to the other curve, then the variation at any point should be - and is - pretty easy to both extrapolate and predict.

Take the difference between rolling 3d6 and 4d6.

3d6 - range 3-18, peak 10.5
4d6 - range 4-24, peak 14
Offset: low end 1, peak 3.5, high end 6.

Overlaying those two bell curves will show that while there's a lot of overlap, there's also a consistent means of extrapolating and predicting the variance - e.g. what's the delta of the odds of '7' occuring in one vs the other.

Well, I should think that would demonstrate just how difficult it is to translate from one base system to another. The abstract theorems remain the same (nobody's disputing anything with a TLA), but the process of translation is a nightmare.

Or, if you prefer, think of it like computer code and circuit design. In theory, ternary computing offers several advantages over binary computing. Thing is? We've been specializing in making really tiny binary transistors for ages. Even as early as the 80s, we were highly specialized in binary computing. It doesn't matter that balanced ternary provides measurable advantages (subtraction becomes much simpler, for instance), because we would need to re-develop all the hardware. And then we would need new instructions that actually use that hardware, and new operating systems and programming languages to take advantage of that stuff (or at least new compilers to translate existing high-level languages down to the new ternary machine code.)

Now imagine if the Soviet Union, which had actually experimented with ternary computing, had managed to develop a successful domestic industry of ternary computing. You would have two industries that were technologically incompatible. Programs written for one could not be used with the other, even if you wanted to. Now add in a healthy dose of medievalism, where knowledge is hoarded and guild trade secrets are protected zealously, even violently. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.

Indeed, and I get it; though in a fiction where long-range communication, teleporting, etc. exist I tend to assume the emergence of at least some quasi-worldwide standards in such things.

Sure, maybe some dwarf could go off and learn elf-style magic, with its highfalutin number system and impractical design. It would take at least as long as it did to learn superior, robust dwarf magic, what with all the false friends and subtly divergent structures. By the time you're finished, you'll have a solid decade of being a crotchety old prune before you go on to grace Durin's hall! You certainly won't be getting much work done, other than maybe translating a few widely-known spells from one system to the other.

Or you could show a little dwarven pride and learn the true form of magic, and then actually use it for something worthwhile.*

*This statement was paid for by the Venerable Order of Durin's Dweomerkeepers and does not reflect the opinions or positions of the author.

This sounds exactly like something my DM would write.

Point being: if you're already comfortable banning it outright, saying "it just works a little differently because dwarves just approach magic in a different way" isn't any harder nor any more "they just don't do that." I mean, every gnome had to be an illusionist if they went wizard, right? How is "every dwarf has to be an X" (where X gets a distinct spell list) any different?

Illusionist and MU are different classes in my game, as per original 1e. I can't recall if Gnomes could be MUs in 1e (if they could they were harshly restricted) but they made great Illusionists. (in my game they can be either, without level restriction)

To do what you suggest for Dwarves I'd have to design an entirely new class just for them.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Perhaps we should not be targeting our designs at teenagers and retirees to the exclusion of the rest of the population.

Seems to me that targeting a game at people who have time to play games (and access to money to spend on them) is a sensible business decision.

People aged 20-50 are too busy working and too strapped for cash to spend much money on games (unless they are for their kids).

 

[Hussar]

Seems to me that targeting a game at people who have time to play games (and access to money to spend on them) is a sensible business decision.

People aged 20-50 are too busy working and too strapped for cash to spend much money on games (unless they are for their kids).

And yet, time and again, the largest proportion of gamers is that 18-25 crowd. Heck, going by WotC's own stats, something like only 10% or 15% of gamers are over 40. Why on earth would you market your game to 10% of the consumer base?

Why is it that people just absolutely refuse to believe that the overwhelming majority of gamers are young? It's utterly baffling to me. This has been true for decades now. WotC showed it back in the 90's, then in the Oughts, then again recently. How many times do they have to tell us that gamers are generally pretty young - as in the under 30 crowd? Why do people seem to absolutely refuse to believe them?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Why is it that people just absolutely refuse to believe that the overwhelming majority of gamers are young?

They are. But post-college age it drops off rapidly. The majority are young, but very few are middle aged. People with career and family don't have time for gaming. There is a second, smaller bump for 50-60s.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Seems to me that targeting a game at people who have time to play games (and access to money to spend on them) is a sensible business decision.

People aged 20-50 are too busy working and too strapped for cash to spend much money on games (unless they are for their kids).

People age 12-19 are too busy with school and too strapped for cash because, y'know, it's almost impossible to get a job, especially one that actually pays enough to cover rent. And, from personal experience (to be clear: of a family member, I'm not over 50), 51+ ain't a rosy picture either. Pretty much the opposite, actually.

 

[Hussar]

People age 12-19 are too busy with school and too strapped for cash because, y'know, it's almost impossible to get a job, especially one that actually pays enough to cover rent. And, from personal experience (to be clear: of a family member, I'm not over 50), 51+ ain't a rosy picture either. Pretty much the opposite, actually.

Considering that gaming is probably one of the cheapest hobbies out there, I really doubt it's money that's holding people back.

A hundred bucks and you've got entertainment for five people for a year. Core three and an adventure path module. That's all it takes.

Where does this notion come from that gaming needs a bunch of money?