D&D General Race Has No Mechanics. What do you play?

[DEFCON 1]

Are you saying that the ability of a changeling to shift their appearance to hide their identity is not a mechanical effect in your opinion?

I don't consider dice the definer for what is or is not game mechanics.

For me personally... I always tend in these sort of discussions to go with the idea that the numbers and the math and the "rules" for doing things are what we would call "game mechanics". But anything that occurs that is just agreed upon by all the players involved (DM and players) as being True in the fiction are not... especially if there's no written-down "rule" that says this may occur.

Case in point, the changeling-- there is no reason why the table of players can't make the arbitrary decision to decide that this specific PC can change their appearance and always have it work fine. During play, the changeling player can just state who and what their PC's facial features morph into, and everyone agrees that this is allowed and each and every PC and NPC will act and react as though this is true. To me, this would not be a use of "game mechanics", but rather the players just choosing what happens in the story. It's a narrative decision everyone is good with because they all just agree that it is something a "changeling" should be able to do. In my opinion... this would only become "game mechanics" if this species feature included something in its write-up like "Gain advantage on Deception checks to portray another individual" or something like that. Implying that the changeling merely changing their features in the story doesn't "count" as True until they make the Deception check... while also getting the bonus from the species feature.

For some people, that Deception check is 100% necessary in order to confirm that this event happens and is believed by all those that see the changeling. Because for a lot of people, this is where the "game" comes into play. For a roleplaying game to be considered a game (and not just agreed-upon mutual storytelling)... there has to be rules and dice and checks and possibilities for things to not work (via those rules and dice and checks.) Which I understand and don't begrudge... but to me it always seems limiting. To throw up barriers to interesting story merely in the interest of "gameplay".

Like for instance... a class feature that allows a PC to Speak With Animals. Usually this game mechanic says something like you can cast the Speak With Animals spell and can only do it like once per Long Rest or something like that. Which makes total sense if you are trying to make this class feature into a gameplay element... but from a story perspective what is the harm and why wouldn't you just want to let this character be able to talk to animals all the time? So they talk to animals whenever they want! So what? It's a cool feature and something special that this character can do... so why gate it behind a certain number of times or minutes per day, just because we need a "rule" for it so that it becomes a "gameplay element"? Meh. To me... unnecessary. For others... the entire reason why this is to be a "game" in the first place.

 

[jgsugden]

I missed this thread during my 1 year hiatus ... but the underlying question seems to be: If we remove all mechanical differentiation between species/races/heritages, what lore would draw you to a particular species/race/heritage? And would the lack of mechanics be a turn off?

In any setting, the second half of that equation, the lore, is campaign specific. To that end, the question defaults to the generic as the specific is too varied for us to consider collectively. It would be like discussing what to pair with the best flavor of Jelly Belly if everyone disagrees on which flavor is best.

To that end, this is a question of: Absent mechanics, does the lore of species/rate/heritage provide enough meaning to draw you to want to play one over another?

That would depend upon the lore of each setting and DM technically - but I have rarely played in a setting where the built in lore provided to me was not strong enough to warrant a preference - and that was usually the driving force in me selecting the PC I elected to play. While alignment between mechanics and species/race/heritage was not ignored per se, it was more common for me to write the back story of a PC and then work in the mechanics to fit.

For example, I am playing in a War of The Burning Sky campaign (which has strong ties to Enworld for those not in the know). I went into it unspoiled. The DM read the intro, gave us an overview and I decided on a character. The character I selected was a half-orc / half-elf who had grown up in Gate Pass. He was on the path to be a druid as he studied under the tutelage of a friend of his elven father. Then, his father was called back to his Shahalesti home while his Ragesian mother took care of his as he became an adult. A short trip for his father turned into years away without explanation and only minimal written correspondence. Then, his father was reported dead. It shattered his world and let in the darkness. One night, a force reached out to him in his dreams and promised answers ... and vengeance. The end result: A half-elf (mechanically) druid 2 / undead warlock 1 that looked far more orc than elf. I picked the PC to capitalize upon the story hooks given to us - and that included the lore. If it had been a dwarven and gnomish empires heading into war the PC would have been half-gnome - half dwarf.

As to the third part of the question: Do I want mechanics to differentiate species/race/heritage? Yes, I definitely do. I want PCs to feel different. I want there to be baseline mechanics for each major element of their nurture and nature that created them. I want their origin/background to give meaning to what they decided to be, just as a want their biological nature to have an impact. HOWEVER, I also want these to be flexible and adjustable. This is always the case. It has been the case since the beginning. If you want to drop out dwarven mechanics and instill elven mechanics because the dwarven PC grew up amongst elves, not dwarves ... great! Take the baseline, then make the adjustment.

Honestly, the best system for creating a PC I have seen was a homebrew built for D&D. It had the player select a mechanic, then write story, then select a mechanics, then write lore, then select a mechanics, then write lore, then select a class.

Mechanics: Nature (genetic makeup - no cultural elements)
Lore: Early story
Mechanics: Early life (how did they benefit from nurture/environment decisions in their early life - student? scoundrel?)
Lore: Teen years
Mechanics: Late teen situation (what was their life like as they grew into a teen - acolyte? thug? student?)
Lore: Young adult (what is their recent past after becoming an adult)
Mechanics: Select a class.

You have 4 phases of mechanical construction and three phases of lore writing that identify who the PC is. It worked well, although we often were crafting new mechanical options for early life and late teen life.

 

[CreamCloud0]

in my opinion, if there is ever an action that a character can make, or gains dis/advantage on, or gets some other modifier, special circumstance or inherent pass that another character doesn't get purely because of what species they are, then those are species mechanics, it doesn't matter if it's codified in text or not or if there are specific numbers attached, those are species mechanics, and if you've truly removed all species mechanics then playing any species besides human is going to at some point ring hollow IMO, because it's basically impossible to not run into some situation where your species is relevant in some shape or fashion and your character won't be able to perform in the fashion the narrative tells you they should be able to perform.

 

[DEFCON 1]

As to the third part of the question: Do I want mechanics to differentiate species/race/heritage? Yes, I definitely do. I want PCs to feel different. I want there to be baseline mechanics for each major element of their nurture and nature that created them. I want their origin/background to give meaning to what they decided to be, just as a want their biological nature to have an impact.

You bring up a very good point and which extends my own feelings out from it... which is that I would be more inclined to be okay with game mechanics for denoting different species (for example) if those mechanics actually always worked and were unique to that species and made them functionally different to the other ones. Which is not something that D&D usually does.

Usually D&D mechanics give a species a mechanic that is no different and completely obtainable fifty-five different ways to Sunday, and just oftentimes makes the PC merely slightly more likely to be able to do/know something... which means it in no way actually denotes anything special about that species. An Elf gains the Perception skill. Great. A skill that almost every other PC in the party is going to have. So what makes this "elf" different than any of the other species in the group? It doesn't. Everyone can Perceive equally. This is an elven mechanic that you could remove from the game and not change a bloody thing.

So instead... an elven perception mechanic should say something like "You can see with complete clarity and focus out to 1 mile." THAT'S something meaningful for this species. Something that no other species has the power to do, and something that always works-- not just a slight bonus to a check of some sort. And in fact the elf does have something like that in their Trance feature, where they only "sleep" for 4 hours a night and still maintain a sense of semi-consciousness. This always works, is not gated behind any sort of check, and makes the species completely different than any of the others in game.

If all the species write-ups had these sorts of "mechanics"... I'd be less likely to poo-poo them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

For me personally... I always tend in these sort of discussions to go with the idea that the numbers and the math and the "rules" for doing things are what we would call "game mechanics". But anything that occurs that is just agreed upon by all the players involved (DM and players) as being True in the fiction are not... especially if there's no written-down "rule" that says this may occur.

Case in point, the changeling-- there is no reason why the table of players can't make the arbitrary decision to decide that this specific PC can change their appearance and always have it work fine. During play, the changeling player can just state who and what their PC's facial features morph into, and everyone agrees that this is allowed and each and every PC and NPC will act and react as though this is true. To me, this would not be a use of "game mechanics", but rather the players just choosing what happens in the story. It's a narrative decision everyone is good with because they all just agree that it is something a "changeling" should be able to do. In my opinion... this would only become "game mechanics" if this species feature included something in its write-up like "Gain advantage on Deception checks to portray another individual" or something like that. Implying that the changeling merely changing their features in the story doesn't "count" as True until they make the Deception check... while also getting the bonus from the species feature.

For some people, that Deception check is 100% necessary in order to confirm that this event happens and is believed by all those that see the changeling. Because for a lot of people, this is where the "game" comes into play. For a roleplaying game to be considered a game (and not just agreed-upon mutual storytelling)... there has to be rules and dice and checks and possibilities for things to not work (via those rules and dice and checks.) Which I understand and don't begrudge... but to me it always seems limiting. To throw up barriers to interesting story merely in the interest of "gameplay".

Like for instance... a class feature that allows a PC to Speak With Animals. Usually this game mechanic says something like you can cast the Speak With Animals spell and can only do it like once per Long Rest or something like that. Which makes total sense if you are trying to make this class feature into a gameplay element... but from a story perspective what is the harm and why wouldn't you just want to let this character be able to talk to animals all the time? So they talk to animals whenever they want! So what? It's a cool feature and something special that this character can do... so why gate it behind a certain number of times or minutes per day, just because we need a "rule" for it so that it becomes a "gameplay element"? Meh. To me... unnecessary. For others... the entire reason why this is to be a "game" in the first place.

To be fair, games have rules. That's a big part of what makes them games. Saying the rules are unnecessary in a game, as a concept, makes no sense to me.

 

[DEFCON 1]

To be fair, games have rules. That's a big part of what makes them games. Saying the rules are unnecessary in a game, as a concept, makes no sense to me.

Sure. But "If all players and DM agree on some point in the fiction, then that fiction is True" can be a Rule too. Meaning that this is still a game.

But if a person wants/needs/believes they also need dice rolling and math and other allowances to do things beyond "if everyone agrees, then it's True"... that's fine. Everyone needs their games to give them different things.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure. But "If all players and DM agree on some point in the fiction, then that fiction is True" can be a Rule too. Meaning that this is still a game.

But if a person wants/needs/believes they also need dice rolling and math and other allowances to do things beyond "if everyone agrees, then it's True"... that's fine. Everyone needs their games to give them different things.

If your only rule is, "If everyone agrees to a point of fiction, it is true", to me that isn't a game. That's a storytelling exercise.

 

[jgsugden]

You bring up a very good point and which extends my own feelings out from it... which is that I would be more inclined to be okay with game mechanics for denoting different species (for example) if those mechanics actually always worked and were unique to that species and made them functionally different to the other ones. Which is not something that D&D usually does.

Usually D&D mechanics give a species a mechanic that is no different and completely obtainable fifty-five different ways to Sunday...

Agreed to an extent, but disagreed to an extent as well. Individual mechanics should not be seen as individual, but instead seen in terms of how they contribute to a whole "mechanical picture" that defines the biology of the species/race/heritage.

Darkvision is a key example. So many races have darkvision. It isn't special. It is essentially more significant when a species/race/heritage doesn't have it rather than the norm of them having it. However, the reason each that has it does have it is part of the definition of the overall picture. Thus, I don't mind that the basic rules give it out like candy.

Cards on the table - I don't like the singular "special vision" approach of D&D as my preference, though. It is ok, but I like to do more. I hold true to roots from older editions and my games feature: Darkvision, Low Light Vision, Infravision, Ultravision (very limited use), Tremorsense, Sonar, Blindsight (which has mechanical differences from sonar - silence doesn't kill it for example), Devil Sight, True Sight, and a half dozen others that are campaign specific (one example - an ability to see soul auras). Each vision type is different and has significant mechanical impacts which can be tricky for a DM to manage. For example, Infravision works at any range and inherently has problems dealing with well lit areas. Some creatures can switch between normal and infravision, but it creates widely different mechanics for beings with those characteristics. Orcs and half-orcs can select between having only infravision, only darkvision, infravision that can switch to normal vision, infravision that can switch to darkvision, or only normal vision. You can't have all three. My 'wild' orcs tend to have only infravision and be night hunting tribes. My underdark ones have only darkvision. Most PCs choose to switch between normal and one of the other two options. If the PCs anticipate a monster having Infravision and utilizing it, they may find a light spell can blind their enemies and give them a huge advantage in combat.

These mechanical differences give my monsters very different feels. Goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears, orcs, kobolds, gnolls, etc... are all very different. Different tribes add different cultures on top of the mechanics - giving impact to both nature and nurture - but there is a definite identity element coming from the nature of each being based upon the abilities given, or evolved, within them.

 

[DEFCON 1]

If your only rule is, "If everyone agrees to a point of fiction, it is true", to me that isn't a game. That's a storytelling exercise.

Yep. For some people storytelling exercise does not equal game... for others it does. And both work for the people who are on both sides.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Agreed to an extent, but disagreed to an extent as well. Individual mechanics should not be seen as individual, but instead seen in terms of how they contribute to a whole "mechanical picture" that defines the biology of the species/race/heritage.

Darkvision is a key example. So many races have darkvision. It isn't special. It is essentially more significant when a species/race/heritage doesn't have it rather than the norm of them having it. However, the reason each that has it does have it is part of the definition of the overall picture. Thus, I don't mind that the basic rules give it out like candy.

Cards on the table - I don't like the singular "special vision" approach of D&D as my preference, though. It is ok, but I like to do more. I hold true to roots from older editions and my games feature: Darkvision, Low Light Vision, Infravision, Ultravision (very limited use), Tremorsense, Sonar, Blindsight (which has mechanical differences from sonar - silence doesn't kill it for example), Devil Sight, True Sight, and a half dozen others that are campaign specific (one example - an ability to see soul auras). Each vision type is different and has significant mechanical impacts which can be tricky for a DM to manage. For example, Infravision works at any range and inherently has problems dealing with well lit areas. Some creatures can switch between normal and infravision, but it creates widely different mechanics for beings with those characteristics. Orcs and half-orcs can select between having only infravision, only darkvision, infravision that can switch to normal vision, infravision that can switch to darkvision, or only normal vision. You can't have all three. My 'wild' orcs tend to have only infravision and be night hunting tribes. My underdark ones have only darkvision. Most PCs choose to switch between normal and one of the other two options. If the PCs anticipate a monster having Infravision and utilizing it, they may find a light spell can blind their enemies and give them a huge advantage in combat.

These mechanical differences give my monsters very different feels. Goblins, hobgoblins, bugbears, orcs, kobolds, gnolls, etc... are all very different. Different tribes add different cultures on top of the mechanics - giving impact to both nature and nurture - but there is a definite identity element coming from the nature of each being based upon the abilities given, or evolved, within them.

Don't disagree at all. Something like the different types of vision are definitely ways to distinguish different species from each other... for my own personal feelings though in this specific instance it ends up coming down to just how different the different types work, and whether the results we gain from those different types is worth the additional hassle in having to run and rule them all separately. So is there a meaningful difference between Infravision and Ultravision in terms of what they reveal? If not, then having them does not really gain much to our story.

Like being able to see long distances or being able to see through walls or being able to feel vibrations through the ground or being able to see in complete darkness are all different enough and give us different results from different locations that I'd be down with it. But if the difference was merely "this ability lets me notice something out to 10 feet, while this ability lets me notice out to 30', with this other ability out to 60'"... those are the kind of nitpicky differences that I myself wouldn't bother with. Basically no different than not worrying about the throw distances of torches and lanterns and such. Some folks take those things seriously... I just don't usually. Too granular for no appreciable gain in my feelings.