RPG Evolution: The Trouble with Halflings

Gammadoodler said:

You realize, of course, that this means that it is your opinion that the PHB does not accurately capture "humans in Dungeons and Dragons"

You also realize of course, you have now staked your claim as the single arbiter for what it means to be human and halfling across all editions and settings of D&D, D&D designers, DMs, and rulebooks be damned.

So, all anyone has to do to participate in a discussion with you on the topic of racial characteristics is to:

1. Read every published D&D product to date
2. Interpret the fullness of those published texts to form a single simultaneous understanding of "what it means" to be a particular D&D race
   1. This exercise must include a systematic review of all NPC statblocks, whereby participants must:
      1. Independently assess how representative of the race each statblock really is.
      2. Determine the personal philisophical underpinnings "implicit" in NPC statblocks where such motivations may include as much detail as "does not want to be an adventurer"
      3. Apply some kind of formula I assume?
   2. This analysis must apply some amount of weight to PHB content (but not that much, lest it spoil the conclusions)
3. Compare and contrast their synthesized conclusions and idiosyncratic interpretations, materials weighting etc. with yours.

You know, it seems like a really reasonable set of demands..

It certainly make more sense than like, just reading the most current rulebook and taking it for face value..

But, as tempting as it is..I'm afraid I'm going to pass.

Click to expand...

Why do you always do this? Why do you think that because I express a well-researched and well-founded opinion I must be "I AM THE SINGLE ARBITER OF TRUTH ACROSS ALL THINGS!!!!" about it? Like, you realize that instead of trying to make this position sound like it is insane, implying I must somehow require everyone to have read all of DnD and reference some weighted formula, you could just... give examples of why I'm wrong about humans.

I mean, despite your cussing and theatrics, I'm not discounting the Designers of DnD at all, nor am I discounting the rulebooks. I am in fact referencing those materials. So, since I'm referencing those materials, instead of just trying to make the PHB the only possible thing that can define DnD (which would also apply and discount Dark Sun Halflings) you could reference some official world where DnD humans aren't as I describe.

Except... you can't. Can you? See, this is the trick about your whole show here. You have never once actually said I am wrong about humans. You declared that the PHB was accurately described, but you've never provided evidence that the settings 100% follow the PHB and have no humans who are kind, content, small-time villagers who don't want anything to do with adventure. You declare my position ridiculous... but you don't actually refute my position.

And before you once more start in on Dungeon Masters, I again must remind you, Dungeon Masters do not write official DnD content for WoTC. Just because little Timmy made a world where every human grows spikes and breathes fire, doesn't mean that is official DnD content from WoTC.

So, how about it? Instead of writhing around trying to make me seem unreasonable or out-of-touch or trolling or whichever flavor you have today, can you actually disprove what I am saying about humanity in DnD? Do you have a counter-argument, or is it just more attacks attempting to discredit me?

Lanefan said:

The 48-year history of TSR/WotC shows they very much tend to follow play trends and preferences rather than set them.

Many tables dropped xp-for-gp in 1e. Result: 2e took it out. It never came back.
Many tables made spellcasting easier in 1e-2e. Result: 3e made casting easier across the board. It's become even easier since.
Many tables sped up hit point recovery through rest in 1e-2e-3e. Result: 4e made it crazy fast. It's still crazy fast.

I could go on at great length, but you get the point.

Hence, if you want Hobbits fixed - and it seems many here do - my solution is to fix them yourself and encourage everyone else to do the same. Then maybe by 7e that general fix-'em trend will get reflected in their "official" design as WotC once again plays catch-up.

Click to expand...

So... exactly what I am advocating for is what I should do?

Mind-blowing how I can spend so many hours and so much digital ink, and have someone tell me that the best solution is to do exactly what I've been telling people we should do. I honestly wonder what it is about this forum that makes it so impossible for me to communicate with people. I have been online for years, and part of a few online communities, and this is one of the few where I am consistently confronted by people confidently explaining that instead of doing what I am doing, or advocating what I am advocating for, I should do what I am doing, or advocate what I am advocating for.

If it wasn't for those other sites, I've honestly considered trying some sort of therapy just to make sure I'm not delusional when I type. Because I cannot understand how it keeps happening.

Chaosmancer said:

There are a lot of different angles to unpack here, and I think this is a good discussion.

For me, that first sentence I quoted feels fundamentally wrong. Because if it isn't the job of the PHB to make races interesting, then the only other published, official material that could do so are the setting books. However, you are not required to have the setting books to play DnD. Which means that we then look at one of two scenarios

1) It is the job of the GM to make races interesting
2) Races are not required to be interesting.

#1 is problematic to me. It falls into the Oberoni Fallacy and basically says that the role of the GM is to rewrite the weakest parts of the rules. Which is not the job of the GM, because why else would a GM spend money on the books? Now, maybe if none of the races were interesting, there would be some weight to the argument, but some of them are interesting, and this means that you have a unbalanced set of options.

#2 just reads wrong to me. Of course the races should be interesting, why else even have them existing?


I also think you fundamentally nail a problem, but misidentify the source of the problem. Now, maybe I am not seeing which side of the fence you land on, because you go back and forth a little bit on this. But you (jokingly) point out that the PHB "fails" because they included very interesting races, that then the DMs will remove from the game. And that is a problem because players want to play the interesting races.

Fundamentally though, that is not something to lay at the feet of WoTC, but at the DM's feet. If they are changing the baseline and the players are not happy about the changes to the baseline, then they have a self-created problem. You end up saying that you understand why DMs wouldn't want "a party full of exotic weirdos", but I think this gets back into what I discussed before. Fantasy is weirder these days. Dragonmen and Devilkin are not "exoctic weirdos" for a lot of us, but expected baselines. So, from the perspective of many players and GMs, the party that consists of these individuals isn't full of "exoctic weirdos" but just a normal party.


But I think the biggest thing where we seem to agree is that you state: "I think it's also the DM's job to make players excited for the roleplaying opportunities of playing any race in their custom setting (just as it's the job of the setting designer to do so for premade settings)."

If a DM is changing the baselines, then it is their job to make people excited for those changes. But it is also the job of the designer to do so for premade settings. And as much as there seems to be an idea that the PHB lacks any setting information at all... it doesn't. The PHB is the setting material for the GM that does not buy a setting book, so it is the job of the PHB's designers to make players excited for the roleplaying opportunities of ALL the races in that setting, and you seem to acknowledge that the Halfling certainly seems less interesting than quite a few of the other options, which is why people discuss changes.

Click to expand...

Most of the time, the PHB includes those races that are common archetypes of fantasy, easily recognizable to new players. If I drag a person off the street into a D&D game, who has never played or has any experience of it, it's likely going to be very easy for them to grasp what an Elf is, or a Dwarf, or even a Halfling.

Dragon-men, Devilfolk, and much stranger things, like living robots and edgy pirates of the Astral Sea? Probably not so much. Even the other branches of the elven family did not get into the PHB until 5e.

The game started with Humans, Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings. 1e gave us Half-Elves, Half-Orcs and Gnomes, 2e took away the Half-Orcs, and 3e brought them back. Then 4e decided to remove Gnomes, but give us Eladrin, Dragonborn, and Tieflings. You could argue that Eladrin were just a new take on Elves, but Dragonborn and Tieflings were a surprise to people new to 4e. It's not like they were a new idea; AD&D had several dragon humanoid races, like Half-Dragons (in Dragon magazine), the Draconians of Krynn, and the Dray of Athas. Tieflings had been created for the Planescape setting.

But why here, why now? It was a sea change, and not one welcomed by all D&D fans. Official WotC sanctioned gaming allowed people to play any race, in any setting. Thanks to Living Forgotten Realms, suddenly Warforged, Psionic Crystal-Men, and Hamadryads were now rubbing elbows with Dwarves and Elves.

Campaigns where the "classic" races all had a place and role were suddenly being forced to accept all these strange newcomers, and the lore needed to be changed to adjust for that fact. Sometimes, this was an easy fix; it's not hard to imagine using reskinned Warforged as sentient constructs. Sometimes it was heavy handed, like dropping an entire nation of Dragonborn onto the map from another dimension.

People who wanted to continue to play in older settings, either official, or ones of their own design, often had little use for these interlopers. But players wanted to play them, because they were new and interesting. Precisely why we got new races in the PHB, really. WotC broadcast their intent loud and clear, "Come play the new D&D, it's more exciting and lets you play whatever you want!".

As to where I stand? Personally, I don't mind new races. But they need not to overshadow the old. I noticed a lot of attention was put into integrating the newcomers, and as a result, not much was being said about the old guard that hadn't been said a thousand times before.

This has done a disservice to these races, I think. The PHB should be home to races that fit into almost any classic setting. Adding newcomers, that will instantly attract notice for being more colorful and exotic, and not just "humans but with pointy ears", when they might not fit another's idea of fantasy is going to lead to some strife. I mean, I've seen it, maybe others haven't.

"Who wants to play D&D?"

"Ooh, me! Totally me! I have this awesome idea for a guy who is Half-Aasimar and Half-Tiefling."

"Aasimars and Tieflings have no place in my game."

"But, but, I mean, Tieflings are in the PHB, why not?"

"Vague and non-negotiable reasons, that's why. You can play an Elf."

"A drow elf?"

"No!"

Now, sure, these conversations could happen even with the the classic races. There's always going to be a DM who says "No Elves!" or "Humans only!". In my own campaigns, while I have a soft spot for the classic races, and always give them a place, I know damn well my players are going to want to play whatever strange races I add. I always have mixed feelings about that, because I realize I didn't do anything new to make the standard races interesting.

Even the time the campaign was set on a large island, and the main culture was a Halfling kingdom, nobody really wanted to play a Halfling. Though they did get very tired of fighting Halfling opponents, lol (this being in the 4e "Second Chance" era).

I do think it's integral that if you want a race to be played, you have to make it interesting. A place needs to be made for them in the setting, and people need to have reasons to choose them over something with intriguing lore and cool abilities; all races need to be equal.

And if this isn't the DM's job, then whose is it?

James Gasik said:

There's no way that Halflings can ever be as popular as Tieflings, because Tieflings are exotic, nearly have tragic backstories built-in, and have flashy special abilities; Halflings are many things, but flashy is not one of them. And to change that, would fundamentally change what Halflings are, to the point that some people would reject them outright.

Click to expand...

I think it could be done, actually. The halfling shouldn’t be flashy like fireball is flashy, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be flashy and cool.

Why couldn’t a race be good at throwing things, and thus use thrown weapons at a d6 damage die, and slings at d8?

Or find a way to make that Lightfoots stealth stand out more by being straight up invisibility PB/LR when you become hidden?

Or look at kender, and their taunt.

I think if we comb all editions halflings for ideas, and look to hobbits and what makes them interesting during an adventure scene, there is plenty to work with.

doctorbadwolf said:

I think it could be done, actually. The halfling shouldn’t be flashy like fireball is flashy, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be flashy and cool.

Why couldn’t a race be good at throwing things, and thus use thrown weapons at a d6 damage die, and slings at d8?

Or find a way to make that Lightfoots stealth stand out more by being straight up invisibility PB/LR when you become hidden?

Or look at kender, and their taunt.

I think if we comb all editions halflings for ideas, and look to hobbits and what makes them interesting during an adventure scene, there is plenty to work with.

Click to expand...

Maybe, but I put mechanics like that on the "neat, but not super amazing" pile, like Bugbears having extra reach, or Goliaths being able to lift more. I'm not sure what mechanics people really think are flashy, I mean, I liked Orcs being able to bonus action move towards trouble, and apparently that wasn't seen as good as "big crits and not dying at this time".

Flight, free spells, teleportation, or doing things that are normally locked to a class, like bonus action stealth, these seem pretty popular, but again, I'm not the one to ask; I once played a Goblin simply because they were (at the time) the smallest available race, lol (I had the idea to play a Cleric who could be carried in the Fighter's backpack).

You could give Halflings a little more pizazz I suppose, like being able to literally become invisible if you take your eyes off of them, but given that the PHB is sort of the introduction to the game, maybe it's not the place for inventive abilities. Plus, you do have to be careful when bucking tradition; like it or not, D&D has a particular way of doing things, and if you start to deviate, you get cries of dismay from the fans. It's a Catch-22, really.

Throw out sacred cows and innovate? "It's not D&D!"

Keep things the same way? "The PHB races are boring!"

So, I sponsor the D&D Club at my school, and I just went through all the campaigns from the last year or so and here are the numbers of each race that teenagers chose:

Human: 20

Halfling : 7

Dragonborne: 6
Elf: 6
Goliath: 6

Half-Elf: 5

Aasimar: 4
Dwarf: 4
Tiefling: 4

Genasi: 3
Goblin: 3
Half-Orc: 3

Tabaxi: 2

Aarakocra: 1
Fairy: 1
Gnome: 1
Kobold: 1
Lizardfolk: 1
Tortle: 1

In this sample, Halflings, and indeed all the "traditional" D&D races, are very well represented.

James Gasik said:

Maybe, but I put mechanics like that on the "neat, but not super amazing" pile, like Bugbears having extra reach, or Goliaths being able to lift more. I'm not sure what mechanics people really think are flashy, I mean, I liked Orcs being able to bonus action move towards trouble, and apparently that wasn't seen as good as "big crits and not dying at this time".

Flight, free spells, teleportation, or doing things that are normally locked to a class, like bonus action stealth, these seem pretty popular, but again, I'm not the one to ask; I once played a Goblin simply because they were (at the time) the smallest available race, lol (I had the idea to play a Cleric who could be carried in the Fighter's backpack).

You could give Halflings a little more pizazz I suppose, like being able to literally become invisible if you take your eyes off of them, but given that the PHB is sort of the introduction to the game, maybe it's not the place for inventive abilities. Plus, you do have to be careful when bucking tradition; like it or not, D&D has a particular way of doing things, and if you start to deviate, you get cries of dismay from the fans. It's a Catch-22, really.

Throw out sacred cows and innovate? "It's not D&D!"

Keep things the same way? "The PHB races are boring!"

Click to expand...

I don’t think that Halflinngs disappearing is an innovation or break from tradition, though. Nor would bonus action stealth.

I do think that halflings just aren’t going to get spells or flight or teleportation, but stuff like higher damage with thrown weapons is very similar to natural weapons, and people seem to like those.

I'm going to break this up, because a lot of your ideas don't flow together in terms of the topic at hand. .

James Gasik said:

Most of the time, the PHB includes those races that are common archetypes of fantasy, easily recognizable to new players. If I drag a person off the street into a D&D game, who has never played or has any experience of it, it's likely going to be very easy for them to grasp what an Elf is, or a Dwarf, or even a Halfling.

Dragon-men, Devilfolk, and much stranger things, like living robots and edgy pirates of the Astral Sea? Probably not so much. Even the other branches of the elven family did not get into the PHB until 5e.

Click to expand...

So, I don't really disagree here. The PHB includes races that are common archetypes. But. well, "Dragon Man" or "Devil Blood" is a concept most people are going to grok quickly. Living Robots is even easier, because they hit the trifecta of Fantasy, Sci-Fi and modern concern.

I think it would be equally hard to describe to a random street person what a dwarf is compared to a Devilkin, ie Tiefling. The concept is super simple, and most people get the idea of horned evil spirits. Most people get Dragons, and so a dragon man makes sense. They are slightly more unusual in terms of how commonly they might be seen, but they aren't exactly the weirdest things

James Gasik said:

The game started with Humans, Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings. 1e gave us Half-Elves, Half-Orcs and Gnomes, 2e took away the Half-Orcs, and 3e brought them back. Then 4e decided to remove Gnomes, but give us Eladrin, Dragonborn, and Tieflings. You could argue that Eladrin were just a new take on Elves, but Dragonborn and Tieflings were a surprise to people new to 4e. It's not like they were a new idea; AD&D had several dragon humanoid races, like Half-Dragons (in Dragon magazine), the Draconians of Krynn, and the Dray of Athas. Tieflings had been created for the Planescape setting.

Click to expand...

I do want to focus here. Yes, the game started with Humans, Elves, Dwarves and Halflings. And you accurately describe the PHB. However, I think you are REALLY underselling how early the concepts we are talking about with "dragon-men" and "devilkin" being a thing.

Cambions are the children of Devils and Humans, and could be seen as the proto-type before Tieflings, who were the descendants of Devils (and other outsiders) and humans. They are mostly different from Cambions solely in power. And cambions trace back to 1983. Even if we only accept playable Tielfings, like you say they were a key feature of Planescape in 1994. Similar story with Dragonborn. The Half-Dragon concept comes as early as 1994 again it looks like, with additional things like Dragon-kin as well.

Now, to lay this out as a timeline, remember, the first edition of DnD was published in 1974.

So, yes, Dwarves and elves and Halflings all appeared by 1974, but by 1983 about 10 years later, we have the children of mortals and devils. Then about 10 years after that, we get tieflings, half-dragons, dragonkin, Draconians. A lot of these concepts.

So, from the beginning of the game, until the first time these ideas hit the official content is about 20 years.

Then, in 4e, we get them in the PHB. And that is in 2008. Which was again, about 10 years afterwards. Maybe 20 if you want to count from Cambions instead of Tielfings. So it was fast to a degree, but... not really? Especially for Tielfings this was a really steady move. The concept existed 10 years after the game starts, gets playable ten years after that, gets in the PHB ten years after that.

But here is the thing I've never understood about this argument. If we decided to count from the very first time a race became playable until now, we would have something like this

Core Four, Gnomes, half-orcs, ect -> 1974 - 2022 -> 48 years
Tiefling and Dragon man-> 1994 - 2022 -> 28 years

Is three decades really still so "new" and "unusual"? Like, sure, they have only been in the PHB for 14 years, but... it has been 14 years. This is like saying that Youtube is new and unusual (2005) or Reddit (2005) or the iPhone (2007)

Like, sure, they are "newer" to the PHB than the ones that have been around for 5 decades, but it allows feels weird to state that they are the new and exotic option when for people who started playing DnD in their teen years when these concepts first appeared, they are in their 40's now. We are looking down the barrel of these races being in the PHB for half of DnD's editions here soon.

James Gasik said:

But why here, why now? It was a sea change, and not one welcomed by all D&D fans. Official WotC sanctioned gaming allowed people to play any race, in any setting. Thanks to Living Forgotten Realms, suddenly Warforged, Psionic Crystal-Men, and Hamadryads were now rubbing elbows with Dwarves and Elves.

Campaigns where the "classic" races all had a place and role were suddenly being forced to accept all these strange newcomers, and the lore needed to be changed to adjust for that fact. Sometimes, this was an easy fix; it's not hard to imagine using reskinned Warforged as sentient constructs. Sometimes it was heavy handed, like dropping an entire nation of Dragonborn onto the map from another dimension.

People who wanted to continue to play in older settings, either official, or ones of their own design, often had little use for these interlopers. But players wanted to play them, because they were new and interesting. Precisely why we got new races in the PHB, really. WotC broadcast their intent loud and clear, "Come play the new D&D, it's more exciting and lets you play whatever you want!".

Click to expand...

Which brings me to this. Yes, a decade and a half ago this happened. And?

I don't want to sound dismissive, I honestly don't, for the people who lived through this it was a big deal. But it has been 14 years since 4th edition. We have had entire media empires rise and fall in that time. Is this really still a concern for people? Are people still just learning about Dragonborn being put in the Forgotten Realms over a decade ago? If you haven't adjusted yet, then that seems more likely that you never wanted to adjust than anything else.

But this does lead us into points I agree with.

James Gasik said:

As to where I stand? Personally, I don't mind new races. But they need not to overshadow the old. I noticed a lot of attention was put into integrating the newcomers, and as a result, not much was being said about the old guard that hadn't been said a thousand times before.

This has done a disservice to these races, I think.

Click to expand...

I agree that this has been a disservice to those older races. They haven't been updated much while the "newcomers" have been getting a lot of glow-ups and work to fit them in.

But... doesn't this just mean that we should look into giving more attention to those old guard, and finding new things to say about them? New concepts to work into them? We've identified a potential problem. The new races got a lot of attention while the old races didn't. Great, but if that is the problem, how is ignoring the old races and continuing to not change them a solution? That seems like it would just make the problem worse

Really, if I accept everything you say above this as 100% true and we identify this as the problem, then the solution would seem to be to give them the attention and changes they've been lacking. If you have been gardening and you let your old south garden fall to weeds and lack upkeep because you've been focusing on your north garden, and you don't like that people have been complimenting your north garden more than your south, you don't leave the south garden to continue falling to weeds and refuse to upkeep it while you cover the north garden with a tarp and refuse to let people see it.

So, if we agree to this point, why is there such a disconnect?

James Gasik said:

The PHB should be home to races that fit into almost any classic setting. Adding newcomers, that will instantly attract notice for being more colorful and exotic, and not just "humans but with pointy ears", when they might not fit another's idea of fantasy is going to lead to some strife. I mean, I've seen it, maybe others haven't.

"Who wants to play D&D?"

"Ooh, me! Totally me! I have this awesome idea for a guy who is Half-Aasimar and Half-Tiefling."

"Aasimars and Tieflings have no place in my game."

"But, but, I mean, Tieflings are in the PHB, why not?"

"Vague and non-negotiable reasons, that's why. You can play an Elf."

"A drow elf?"

"No!"

Now, sure, these conversations could happen even with the the classic races. There's always going to be a DM who says "No Elves!" or "Humans only!". In my own campaigns, while I have a soft spot for the classic races, and always give them a place, I know damn well my players are going to want to play whatever strange races I add. I always have mixed feelings about that, because I realize I didn't do anything new to make the standard races interesting.

Click to expand...

How is this WoTC's responsibility to fix? They published a race. The player wants to use that race. The DM refuses because.... they don't like it? You seem to be presenting this as some sort of inherent problem, especially with the phrasing "Now, sure, these conversations could happen even with the the classic races." but there is absolutely nothing about Dragonborn or Tielflings that make them inherently more likely to be banned.

There are a lot of DMs who ban them, but that almost feels more like them resisting changing and adapting for the last 14 years. It isn't Apple's responsibility to offer non-smart phones because there are people who don't like smart phones. WoTC has offered these races, they have been popular for decades, if a specific DM doesn't like them and bans them, then that is on that DM to resolve.

And, you seem to acknowledge that as the issue here to a degree, " In my own campaigns, while I have a soft spot for the classic races, and always give them a place, I know damn well my players are going to want to play whatever strange races I add. I always have mixed feelings about that, because I realize I didn't do anything new to make the standard races interesting."

You always put elves, dwarves and halflings into your games. But you have mixed feelings about players picking the newer and exciting options, because you didn't do anything to make the standard options exciting. You've identified the problem. Again. The standard races are less exciting, and you haven't made them more exciting. So... why isn't the solution to make them more exciting? That seems to be obvious, right? That is the issue, so that is what should be fixed.

James Gasik said:

I do think it's integral that if you want a race to be played, you have to make it interesting. A place needs to be made for them in the setting, and people need to have reasons to choose them over something with intriguing lore and cool abilities; all races need to be equal.

And if this isn't the DM's job, then whose is it?

Click to expand...

But here is where we come to a cross roads. And one that, I think, should be really obvious.

It is a DM's job to fix this for homebrew campaign worlds.
It is WoTC's job to fix this for official settings.

Again, if the DM is going in and changing things, then they have "voided the warranty" so to speak, and they are responsible for fixing everything that they changed. It would be silly to design a sword dragon that could be wielded by a Titan and then complain to WoTC when it is unbalanced. They didn't make it, so they don't need to be responsible for it. If you change things so that all Dragons are demonic in nature, but then that causes problems for your world-building, that isn't WoTC's problem, because you altered their initial design.

However, if the initial design is flawed? If the initial design has problems? THEN that is WoTC's responsibility. They made that. They are in charge of that. So if something straight out of the PHB isn't as interesting as the entry two pages later, then WoTC needs to solve that problem. Because things should be made as good as possible, as interesting as possible, and as coherent as possible in the product we buy. We shouldn't be required to change it ourselves.

Chaosmancer said:

So... exactly what I am advocating for is what I should do?

Mind-blowing how I can spend so many hours and so much digital ink, and have someone tell me that the best solution is to do exactly what I've been telling people we should do. I honestly wonder what it is about this forum that makes it so impossible for me to communicate with people. I have been online for years, and part of a few online communities, and this is one of the few where I am consistently confronted by people confidently explaining that instead of doing what I am doing, or advocating what I am advocating for, I should do what I am doing, or advocate what I am advocating for.

If it wasn't for those other sites, I've honestly considered trying some sort of therapy just to make sure I'm not delusional when I type. Because I cannot understand how it keeps happening.

Click to expand...

I can understand it, when trying to square the above with the below:

Chaosmancer said:

But here is where we come to a cross roads. And one that, I think, should be really obvious.

It is a DM's job to fix this for homebrew campaign worlds.
It is WoTC's job to fix this for official settings.

Again, if the DM is going in and changing things, then they have "voided the warranty" so to speak, and they are responsible for fixing everything that they changed. It would be silly to design a sword dragon that could be wielded by a Titan and then complain to WoTC when it is unbalanced. They didn't make it, so they don't need to be responsible for it. If you change things so that all Dragons are demonic in nature, but then that causes problems for your world-building, that isn't WoTC's problem, because you altered their initial design.

However, if the initial design is flawed? If the initial design has problems? THEN that is WoTC's responsibility. They made that. They are in charge of that.

Click to expand...

Why don't these two quotes square with each other?

Simple. Because even if the flawed design is WotC's doing, they're not going to fix it until we all fix it ourselves individually first, and in the process quite literally show them both a) what needs doing and b) how it's done. Therefore, advocating for them to proactively fix it - which you seem to be doing in the second quoted piece just above - is just an exercise in shouting at the wind.

As for "voiding the warranty", as a charter member of the Kitbashers Union(TM) it should go without saying that I have no problem with this whatsoever.

Chaosmancer said:

I'm going to break this up, because a lot of your ideas don't flow together in terms of the topic at hand. .



So, I don't really disagree here. The PHB includes races that are common archetypes. But. well, "Dragon Man" or "Devil Blood" is a concept most people are going to grok quickly. Living Robots is even easier, because they hit the trifecta of Fantasy, Sci-Fi and modern concern.

I think it would be equally hard to describe to a random street person what a dwarf is compared to a Devilkin, ie Tiefling. The concept is super simple, and most people get the idea of horned evil spirits. Most people get Dragons, and so a dragon man makes sense. They are slightly more unusual in terms of how commonly they might be seen, but they aren't exactly the weirdest things



I do want to focus here. Yes, the game started with Humans, Elves, Dwarves and Halflings. And you accurately describe the PHB. However, I think you are REALLY underselling how early the concepts we are talking about with "dragon-men" and "devilkin" being a thing.

Cambions are the children of Devils and Humans, and could be seen as the proto-type before Tieflings, who were the descendants of Devils (and other outsiders) and humans. They are mostly different from Cambions solely in power. And cambions trace back to 1983. Even if we only accept playable Tielfings, like you say they were a key feature of Planescape in 1994. Similar story with Dragonborn. The Half-Dragon concept comes as early as 1994 again it looks like, with additional things like Dragon-kin as well.

Now, to lay this out as a timeline, remember, the first edition of DnD was published in 1974.

So, yes, Dwarves and elves and Halflings all appeared by 1974, but by 1983 about 10 years later, we have the children of mortals and devils. Then about 10 years after that, we get tieflings, half-dragons, dragonkin, Draconians. A lot of these concepts.

So, from the beginning of the game, until the first time these ideas hit the official content is about 20 years.

Then, in 4e, we get them in the PHB. And that is in 2008. Which was again, about 10 years afterwards. Maybe 20 if you want to count from Cambions instead of Tielfings. So it was fast to a degree, but... not really? Especially for Tielfings this was a really steady move. The concept existed 10 years after the game starts, gets playable ten years after that, gets in the PHB ten years after that.

But here is the thing I've never understood about this argument. If we decided to count from the very first time a race became playable until now, we would have something like this

Core Four, Gnomes, half-orcs, ect -> 1974 - 2022 -> 48 years
Tiefling and Dragon man-> 1994 - 2022 -> 28 years

Is three decades really still so "new" and "unusual"? Like, sure, they have only been in the PHB for 14 years, but... it has been 14 years. This is like saying that Youtube is new and unusual (2005) or Reddit (2005) or the iPhone (2007)

Like, sure, they are "newer" to the PHB than the ones that have been around for 5 decades, but it allows feels weird to state that they are the new and exotic option when for people who started playing DnD in their teen years when these concepts first appeared, they are in their 40's now. We are looking down the barrel of these races being in the PHB for half of DnD's editions here soon.



Which brings me to this. Yes, a decade and a half ago this happened. And?

I don't want to sound dismissive, I honestly don't, for the people who lived through this it was a big deal. But it has been 14 years since 4th edition. We have had entire media empires rise and fall in that time. Is this really still a concern for people? Are people still just learning about Dragonborn being put in the Forgotten Realms over a decade ago? If you haven't adjusted yet, then that seems more likely that you never wanted to adjust than anything else.

But this does lead us into points I agree with.



I agree that this has been a disservice to those older races. They haven't been updated much while the "newcomers" have been getting a lot of glow-ups and work to fit them in.

But... doesn't this just mean that we should look into giving more attention to those old guard, and finding new things to say about them? New concepts to work into them? We've identified a potential problem. The new races got a lot of attention while the old races didn't. Great, but if that is the problem, how is ignoring the old races and continuing to not change them a solution? That seems like it would just make the problem worse

Really, if I accept everything you say above this as 100% true and we identify this as the problem, then the solution would seem to be to give them the attention and changes they've been lacking. If you have been gardening and you let your old south garden fall to weeds and lack upkeep because you've been focusing on your north garden, and you don't like that people have been complimenting your north garden more than your south, you don't leave the south garden to continue falling to weeds and refuse to upkeep it while you cover the north garden with a tarp and refuse to let people see it.

So, if we agree to this point, why is there such a disconnect?



How is this WoTC's responsibility to fix? They published a race. The player wants to use that race. The DM refuses because.... they don't like it? You seem to be presenting this as some sort of inherent problem, especially with the phrasing "Now, sure, these conversations could happen even with the the classic races." but there is absolutely nothing about Dragonborn or Tielflings that make them inherently more likely to be banned.

There are a lot of DMs who ban them, but that almost feels more like them resisting changing and adapting for the last 14 years. It isn't Apple's responsibility to offer non-smart phones because there are people who don't like smart phones. WoTC has offered these races, they have been popular for decades, if a specific DM doesn't like them and bans them, then that is on that DM to resolve.

And, you seem to acknowledge that as the issue here to a degree, " In my own campaigns, while I have a soft spot for the classic races, and always give them a place, I know damn well my players are going to want to play whatever strange races I add. I always have mixed feelings about that, because I realize I didn't do anything new to make the standard races interesting."

You always put elves, dwarves and halflings into your games. But you have mixed feelings about players picking the newer and exciting options, because you didn't do anything to make the standard options exciting. You've identified the problem. Again. The standard races are less exciting, and you haven't made them more exciting. So... why isn't the solution to make them more exciting? That seems to be obvious, right? That is the issue, so that is what should be fixed.



But here is where we come to a cross roads. And one that, I think, should be really obvious.

It is a DM's job to fix this for homebrew campaign worlds.
It is WoTC's job to fix this for official settings.

Again, if the DM is going in and changing things, then they have "voided the warranty" so to speak, and they are responsible for fixing everything that they changed. It would be silly to design a sword dragon that could be wielded by a Titan and then complain to WoTC when it is unbalanced. They didn't make it, so they don't need to be responsible for it. If you change things so that all Dragons are demonic in nature, but then that causes problems for your world-building, that isn't WoTC's problem, because you altered their initial design.

However, if the initial design is flawed? If the initial design has problems? THEN that is WoTC's responsibility. They made that. They are in charge of that. So if something straight out of the PHB isn't as interesting as the entry two pages later, then WoTC needs to solve that problem. Because things should be made as good as possible, as interesting as possible, and as coherent as possible in the product we buy. We shouldn't be required to change it ourselves.

Click to expand...

As to making races interesting, I really try. I mean, in previous campaign world I made, I had "Common" Halflings, who lived in a dreary, cold part of the region and had thrived there where the other races basically had failed to do so, but they had run afoul of Will o' Wisps, who, being magical, intelligent, and really hard to fight, had forced the Halflings to basically become their servants (possessing useful things like hands). In retrospect, maybe using the word "Common" was the problem (I wanted to differentiate them from a Halfling subrace I'd made). Or maybe it was that said subrace was cooler, since I definitely got someone wanting to play one.

(Game mechanics are for Pathfinder 1e)