Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
5E species with further choices and differences
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DammitVictor" data-source="post: 9799447" data-attributes="member: 6750908"><p>Fair enough! It's fuzzy because subraces blur the line between learned and innate traits-- mechanically and narratively-- but if the game had separate cultures/backgrounds for nonhuman PCs (including the 'raised by aliens' that everyone keeps bringing up) that would be <em>fantastic. </em>The PHBRs in AD&D even had something like that with the 'sundered dwarf' subrace.</p><p></p><p>But nobody's doing that. The difference between a Hill Dwarf and Mountain Dwarf in 5e is whether your character needs Medium Armor Proficiency or already has it (or Unarmored Defense) and needs more HP instead.</p><p></p><p>I think most of us would agree that's neither cultural nor biological-- a purely mechanical abstraction-- and I'm not willing to speculate about how many people would agree that's a tremendous missed opportunity.</p><p></p><p>I'm not familiar enough with A5E to say they handled <em>this specific issue</em> better-- but it certainly handles <em>this kind</em> of issue better with other heritages.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I could agree with this, but the lines between "learned", "acquired", and "innate" traits are blurrier in <strong><em>real-life humans</em></strong> than you're accounting for, much less beings that are (by definition) <em> nonhuman</em> in a world with universally acknowledged non-biological non-material developmental pressures.</p><p></p><p>There's a kind of diversity in accepting (<em>promoting!</em>) that things don't always fit into their tidy little boxes. But there is also a vital, necessary kind of diversity in acknowledging and celebrating that <em>different things are different</em>, not merely statistical distributions across all-inclusive natural spectrums of variation.</p><p></p><p>The human species in itself is not as uniform as you are trying to impose upon near-human (and not-so-near human) fantasy races.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I do not want to speak to real-life issues of cultural identity and nature/nurture that I don't have the expertise or experience to speak on. I'm a different kind of minority and a different kind of statisical outlier.</p><p></p><p>I will say that <strong><em>real-life humans</em></strong> that wrestle with these issues are a small (but valid!) minority of the <strong><em> billions</em></strong> of humans that define the norms they fall between. In a dwarf-centric campaign, your dwarf might be one of the dozen or so dwarves that exist in the entire universe; even I would concede that there's a more compelling place for an outlier dwarf in such a campaign than in most games, where your dwarf is the only dwarf and the dwarven norms they're defying are a dead unicorn.</p><p></p><p>You jest, but the answer to your question is 'yes'. It's <em>too limiting</em> and far from the ideal solution, but race-as-class is one of the <em>myriad ways</em> that Moldvay/Cook and Mentzer and Allston were better than Advanced D&D and <em>every edition</em> (except Fourth!) has made it worse since.</p><p></p><p>Fourth Edition did an <em> amazing</em> job making the different player races substantially different, narratively and mechanically. The only other times these rules have been used to good effect have been in D&D offshoots-- notably PF1 and A5E and certain OSR games.</p><p></p><p>Racial archetypes, paragon classes, and scaling racial options are all part of what I'd like to see. Class restrictions were a decent idea, poorly implemented, but every fantasy ancestry should have a different slice of the game's myriad character options available to them.</p><p></p><p>I'm not particular about <strong><em>which slices</em></strong> should be available to <strong><em>which ancestries</em></strong>-- the important thing is that different things are different, and are allowed to maintain their own (different) reasons for being so.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This is a very postmodern and materialist take on culture-- and 'nature'-- that I don't think fits well in a fantasy setting. And, again, imposes more psychological/spiritual uniformity across magical 'fantasy races' than exists within the supposedly materialist and determinist traits of our singular human species.</p><p></p><p>The one defining trait of all nonhuman fantasy ancestries is that they're <em>not human</em>. Forcing them into human homes and human schools shouldn't give them human personalities any more than it gives them long legs and poor night vision.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DammitVictor, post: 9799447, member: 6750908"] Fair enough! It's fuzzy because subraces blur the line between learned and innate traits-- mechanically and narratively-- but if the game had separate cultures/backgrounds for nonhuman PCs (including the 'raised by aliens' that everyone keeps bringing up) that would be [I]fantastic. [/I]The PHBRs in AD&D even had something like that with the 'sundered dwarf' subrace. But nobody's doing that. The difference between a Hill Dwarf and Mountain Dwarf in 5e is whether your character needs Medium Armor Proficiency or already has it (or Unarmored Defense) and needs more HP instead. I think most of us would agree that's neither cultural nor biological-- a purely mechanical abstraction-- and I'm not willing to speculate about how many people would agree that's a tremendous missed opportunity. I'm not familiar enough with A5E to say they handled [I]this specific issue[/I] better-- but it certainly handles [I]this kind[/I] of issue better with other heritages. I could agree with this, but the lines between "learned", "acquired", and "innate" traits are blurrier in [B][I]real-life humans[/I][/B] than you're accounting for, much less beings that are (by definition) [I] nonhuman[/I] in a world with universally acknowledged non-biological non-material developmental pressures. There's a kind of diversity in accepting ([I]promoting![/I]) that things don't always fit into their tidy little boxes. But there is also a vital, necessary kind of diversity in acknowledging and celebrating that [I]different things are different[/I], not merely statistical distributions across all-inclusive natural spectrums of variation. The human species in itself is not as uniform as you are trying to impose upon near-human (and not-so-near human) fantasy races. I do not want to speak to real-life issues of cultural identity and nature/nurture that I don't have the expertise or experience to speak on. I'm a different kind of minority and a different kind of statisical outlier. I will say that [b][i]real-life humans[/i][/b][i][/i] that wrestle with these issues are a small (but valid!) minority of the [B][I] billions[/I][/B] of humans that define the norms they fall between. In a dwarf-centric campaign, your dwarf might be one of the dozen or so dwarves that exist in the entire universe; even I would concede that there's a more compelling place for an outlier dwarf in such a campaign than in most games, where your dwarf is the only dwarf and the dwarven norms they're defying are a dead unicorn. You jest, but the answer to your question is 'yes'. It's [I]too limiting[/I] and far from the ideal solution, but race-as-class is one of the [I]myriad ways[/I] that Moldvay/Cook and Mentzer and Allston were better than Advanced D&D and [I]every edition[/I] (except Fourth!) has made it worse since. Fourth Edition did an [I] amazing[/I] job making the different player races substantially different, narratively and mechanically. The only other times these rules have been used to good effect have been in D&D offshoots-- notably PF1 and A5E and certain OSR games. Racial archetypes, paragon classes, and scaling racial options are all part of what I'd like to see. Class restrictions were a decent idea, poorly implemented, but every fantasy ancestry should have a different slice of the game's myriad character options available to them. I'm not particular about [B][I]which slices[/I][/B] should be available to [B][I]which ancestries[/I][/B]-- the important thing is that different things are different, and are allowed to maintain their own (different) reasons for being so. This is a very postmodern and materialist take on culture-- and 'nature'-- that I don't think fits well in a fantasy setting. And, again, imposes more psychological/spiritual uniformity across magical 'fantasy races' than exists within the supposedly materialist and determinist traits of our singular human species. The one defining trait of all nonhuman fantasy ancestries is that they're [I]not human[/I]. Forcing them into human homes and human schools shouldn't give them human personalities any more than it gives them long legs and poor night vision. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
5E species with further choices and differences
Top