Unpopular opinions go here

[Hussar]

There are a lot of things that are essential about a race like Vulcans that doesn't have to do with a stat bonus. That said those kinds of bonuses are important reminders that this isn't just a human with funny ears, there are genuine physiological differences.

So, you're saying that the defining characteristic of Spock is that he's stronger than a normal human? That's what people think of when they think of Vulcans? That's what separates Vulcans from humans? That if Vulcans were the same strength as humans, they'd be just humans with funny ears?

 

[darjr]

Have I posted in this thread?

 

[Bedrockgames]

So, you're saying that the defining characteristic of Spock is that he's stronger than a normal human? That's what people think of when they think of Vulcans? That's what separates Vulcans from humans? That if Vulcans were the same strength as humans, they'd be just humans with funny ears?

No, in fact I very clearly stated it wasn't essential. Read my post again. My point was simply that attribute differences like that serve as important reminders that these are not human beings. Something can be important, or helpful in establishing key details, without being the thing that defines them. The point is if you don't have any actual mechanical differences to express that these are a different species, then effectively they are just humans with funny ears (and maybe an interesting culture, but they are otherwise humans)

 

[Hussar]

No, in fact I very clearly stated it wasn't essential. Read my post again. My point was simply that attribute differences like that serve as important reminders that these are not human beings. Something can be important, or helpful in establishing key details, without being the thing that defines them. The point is if you don't have any actual mechanical differences to express that these are a different species, then effectively they are just humans with funny ears (and maybe an interesting culture, but they are otherwise humans)

But, we're talking at cross purposes here.

I'm specifically talking about the inherent stat bonuses because that's what was brought up at the beginning of this. Now, most of the otehr stuff - darkvision, skill bonuses, proficiency bonuses, are also pretty inconsequential as well. Having a +2 to some skill is hardly character defining.

But, let's stick to the actual topic. Inherent bonuses do not define races. They just don't. No one ever looks at Galadriel and says, "wow, I can tell that's an elf because that character has a +1 to initiative."

Forcing all races to have the same inherent bonuses is just forcing everyone to play a specific way. I find it frankly baffling that people actually resist giving players more options.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But, we're talking at cross purposes here.

I'm specifically talking about the inherent stat bonuses because that's what was brought up at the beginning of this. Now, most of the otehr stuff - darkvision, skill bonuses, proficiency bonuses, are also pretty inconsequential as well. Having a +2 to some skill is hardly character defining.

But, let's stick to the actual topic. Inherent bonuses do not define races. They just don't. No one ever looks at Galadriel and says, "wow, I can tell that's an elf because that character has a +1 to initiative."

Forcing all races to have the same inherent bonuses is just forcing everyone to play a specific way. I find it frankly baffling that people actually resist giving players more options.

Again, things can be important end not be the thing that defines them. With Galadriel, I am not the biggest Tolkien fan so people will have to forgive me if I get anything wrong, but their longevity seemed to be a hugely important physical difference between elves and characters of other races. And I am sure there are more differences people could point to that go beyond culture. The point is, if you are going to have races in the setting, and they are clearly not meant to be human, it makes sense that they should have mechanical differences. Those don't have to be stat bonuses or infra vision, like I said. I like those things, but there are plenty of ways to do this so that the physical differences have some kind of expression in the game that matters. There is also the other side of making your choice of race matter. If it is just culture, then it really isn't that different than picking a human.

And with the +1 to initiative, like I said that isn't something that is intended to automatically indicate its X race or Y race, but it is a reminder that these characters are not human.

Now you don't have to like this. Clearly you want something else. But these are reasons why a lot of people want races to function this way in D&D. And like I said, seeing the direction they are going, while the OGL thing had already soured me on picking up 6E when it comes out (and whatever they want to call it, it clearly is 6th edition), this is just further reason for me to stick with older editions.

 

[billd91]

Forcing all races to have the same inherent bonuses is just forcing everyone to play a specific way. I find it frankly baffling that people actually resist giving players more options.

Isn’t this true of any of the rules? “Forcing all long swords to do the same damage is just forcing everyone to play a specific way.”
“I’m baffled that people want to limit giving players options on how much damage a firebolt can do.”

 

[Scribe]

Now, as far as WotC is concerned, they've basically punted here and left it to the group. Groups that want interesting, unique races? They can have that - they just have to do the work. Those that don't really care? They're served too. IOW, making races interesting is the job of the table, not the rulebooks.

As I'm working on my own content I can only ask myself 'what would I pay Wizards for.'

Not a question I would think they would want to hear but hey.

 

[Hussar]

Isn’t this true of any of the rules? “Forcing all long swords to do the same damage is just forcing everyone to play a specific way.”
“I’m baffled that people want to limit giving players options on how much damage a firebolt can do.”

Perfect example. When D&D first came out, all weapons did the same damage - d6. Then, lo and behold, they gave weapons different damage ranges to show that they were, in fact, different. And, that range is a HECK of a lot more than 1 point. A dagger doesn't do just 1 point of damage less than a longsword, it does, at max, half the damage. But, as a bonus, you can throw the dagger and not the longsword, adding to it's unique nature vs a longsword.

So, right there, is a perfect example of using mechanics to define uniqueness.

But a +1 to Initiative and AC is going to define what it means to be an elf? Really? And, not having that +1 to Initiative and AC but, instead, having 1 more HP/level is going to make my elf completely unrecognizable as an elf?

Really?

 

[Maxperson]

In game design there is. Its a difference that matters for quite a lot, actually, as a games design should be placing the bulk of the complexity within the Rules.

Content shouldn't be adding additional complexity that isn't a part of the Rules, and where it inevitably must should be kept minimal and worthwhile.

Something like a Class having a unique core mechanic of its own, for example, makes sense in this regard. If a Warrior has their Mighty Deed, its a worthwhile complexity thats being added within the Content of the game, and it isn't egregious that its there.

Whereas while something like the 5e Druid requiring a wholly separate book from the PHB to play violates that criteria; while one can debate the worthwhileness of Generic vs Specific Statblocks from a complexity standpoint, one can't really argue that much of the classes required material is in a book thats not meant for Players is a good thing.

But beyond that, making the distinction is also just a good design philosophy, especially in translating an entire Game, Rules and Content together, into something teachable.

Rules can be taught and internalized, and then built upon by Content, keeping the learning curve nice and smooth.

Additional Rules introduced by Content, if kept efficient (ie, minimal and worthwhile), won't violate that learning curve. The Mighty Deed in DCC for example is a pretty simple Rule. As part of your roll, roll a die of such and such size. If you roll at least a 3, you gain the use of a Mighty Deed, which might be improvised or might correlate to some result on a Deed table.

Ezpz.

Whereas in the Druid, one not only has to learn the already pretty complex Full Caster framework, but also has to become accomodated with the Monster Manual and learn the ins and outs of the various beasts available to them, which in turn must be located and cross checked with the Druid rules to ensure they can be used.

So there's a reason why the beasts are included in the PHB in Appendix D. The familiars are also included so that the arcane casters don't need to use the MM.

FATAL is where the "roll for anal circumference" meme comes from. Its not so much that you couldn't, mind, but that you wouldn't want to. Because you'd quickly realize you don't want to play the game at all upon touching the book. (And god help us if you do want to play for any reason other than sheer academic masochism)

Which is a completely different issue!

I've heard nothing good about FATAL.

But at that point you are genuinely not playing DND.

Admittedly, I haven't thought much on the idea of not using the core mechanic, but still using everything else in the Game, but with how much relies on the Core mechanic, Im not certain how well that would work out, if at all.

Either way, you'd ultimately still be replacing the Core mechanic, not just dropping it outright and using nothing in its place.

But even if you did, at that point you're basically doing some sort of weird FKR-DND frankenstein monster. And even then, you're still technically replacing the resolution mechanic with common sense.

It's not for you or me to say someone else isn't playing D&D, though. Most of us house rule/home brew the game. With 5e we have to because it was deliberately written vaguely in a lot of areas and with holes in other areas so that DMs would have to issue rulings. At least I hope it was deliberate.

At what point is D&D house ruled to the point where it is no longer D&D? There's no line you can point to, so it's purely opinion whether that line has been crossed or not, and the only opinions that really matter to the table playing the game are those of the people who are at that table. Not yours or mine.

 

[billd91]

But a +1 to Initiative and AC is going to define what it means to be an elf? Really? And, not having that +1 to Initiative and AC but, instead, having 1 more HP/level is going to make my elf completely unrecognizable as an elf?

It‘s not about being completely unrecognizable. It never was. But then, being different from the baseline in that particular way (bonus to Dex) helped define the set of characteristics that makes elves elves in D&D. And removing it loses some of that distinction, including the trade-offs in choosing one ancestry over another.