D&D 5E Ability Score Increases (I've changed my mind.)

[Geekoid]

Same here.

I was highly resistant to losing the race ability improvements, because I viewed these mechanics as important superhuman flavor, and the resulting mechanically favorable classes as cultural norms within the race.

However, discussions about reallife racism soured my views about D&D imitating fantasy racism, and related ethnocentric problematics. So I mainly jettisoned the abilities from the races for reallife reasons.

But now, I realize, the fluidity of race abilities allows me as a DM worldbuilder to build race flavors with much more nuance and precision. For example, if a race culture is known for both Druids and Wizards, no problem, use Wis score +2 or Int score +2, respectively.

I now think the power gamers who were pushing for any race-class build, were, in their way, right all along.

Race among humans is a be construct perpetuated by idiots. Race in D&D are literally different species. So they are different, like cats and dogs are different.

 

[the Jester]

To put it simply: it is racist to say that ethnic group A of humans is essentially different than ethnic group B (And I still think it remains true even if we get into qualifiers such as 'most' or 'usually'.)* So what does this mean for building fantasy species? Is it problematic to say that elves are essentially different to dwarves, or that humans are essentially different than aarakocra? Because if it is, I literally do not understand how these fantasy species could be depicted at all. And perhaps they shouldn't; that certainly is perfectly possible conclusion.

This gets at the heart of what I feel is often missed in these discussions vis-a-vis racism being depicted through nonhuman races. They're not human. I know, we get the "humans with pointed ears" argument trotted out all the time when people argue that it's impossible to rp a nonhuman... to which I call BS. Sure, your roleplaying will come from a human place, since we're all human, but that doesn't mean you can't pretend to be Something Else. And sometimes you can do a fine job of it. I'm sure we have all read at least one alien viewpoint character who came across as profoundly nonhuman, even though it was written by a human. Likewise, I've seen plenty of actors portray things that weren't human and do it well. So yeah, I find that argument suspect. Personally, I prefer the opposite approach to dealing with the racist elements in the game from what has been taken over the last couple of years: Lean into the inhumanity of nonhumans, not away from it. Don't make other races more human-like; make them more alien. Don't try to wipe out what makes (f'rex) a kobold not-like-a-human; accentuate it. You wouldn't call it racist if I were to say that humans are smarter than bees, or that wasps are foul-tempered and aggressive.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It feels to me like they need to be different in ways that are incommensurable and positive. Dwarven resilience is a positive for dwarves, and lacking it says nothing negative about other races. Ideally, features should admit of variation. These dwarves have resilience, others may not.

But again you run into the issue that, if some dwarves have a trait and others do not, what makes them dwarves? Physical description? Flavor? At that point, we're back to the question of why have fantasy races at all. Mythology is the backbone of fantasy gaming, and fantasy in general. Mythology is based on legends and beliefs of the past, and does not hold up if viewed through a modern lens. This is the problem.

 

[Scribe]

Is it problematic to say that elves are essentially different to dwarves, or that humans are essentially different than aarakocra? Because if it is, I literally do not understand how these fantasy species could be depicted at all. And perhaps they shouldn't; that certainly is perfectly possible conclusion.

This is the logical conclusion to this line of thought, and why I don't accept this shift in game design at all.

If the different humanoid species cannot be biologically distinct and yes better/worse at some things, then I see little point in having different race/lineage/species at all.

 

[le Redoutable]

again, make One Upper Stat, 4 Middle stats, and One lowest stat
for each of the 30 Humanoid Races
that's it !

 

[MGibster]

Congrats, now all races are the same. Well done on making the game bland.

That's a valid criticism. But I've felt like that for the better part of two decades now.

 

[Malmuria]

This is the logical conclusion to this line of thought, and why I don't accept this shift in game design at all.

If the different humanoid species cannot be biologically distinct and yes better/worse at some things, then I see little point in having different race/lineage/species at all.

I don't see this actually happening in 5e game design? For reasons discussed upthread, I don't think racial asi is that flavorful to begin with. Actually, I think the trend to give every race darkvision does more to flatten them out than removing racial asi. Regardless, I don't think 5e players want fewer options, so it's likely that design will move to a pathfinder-lite system where you have racial feats, and maybe the inclusion of tools to help create cultures.

 

[mrpopstar]

I don't see this actually happening in 5e game design? For reasons discussed upthread, I don't think racial asi is that flavorful to begin with. Actually, I think the trend to give every race darkvision does more to flatten them out than removing racial asi. Regardless, I don't think 5e players want fewer options, so it's likely that design will move to a pathfinder-lite system where you have racial feats, and maybe the inclusion of tools to help create cultures.

Agreed! I'd strip half-elves and half-orcs of darkvision without a second thought.

 

[abirdcall]

This gets at the heart of what I feel is often missed in these discussions vis-a-vis racism being depicted through nonhuman races. They're not human. I know, we get the "humans with pointed ears" argument trotted out all the time when people argue that it's impossible to rp a nonhuman... to which I call BS. Sure, your roleplaying will come from a human place, since we're all human, but that doesn't mean you can't pretend to be Something Else. And sometimes you can do a fine job of it. I'm sure we have all read at least one alien viewpoint character who came across as profoundly nonhuman, even though it was written by a human. Likewise, I've seen plenty of actors portray things that weren't human and do it well. So yeah, I find that argument suspect. Personally, I prefer the opposite approach to dealing with the racist elements in the game from what has been taken over the last couple of years: Lean into the inhumanity of nonhumans, not away from it. Don't make other races more human-like; make them more alien. Don't try to wipe out what makes (f'rex) a kobold not-like-a-human; accentuate it. You wouldn't call it racist if I were to say that humans are smarter than bees, or that wasps are foul-tempered and aggressive.

With the exception of a race like half-elf if I'm going to play another race I want to have a weird and alien character concept.

I'm also not a fan of playing Elves as pointy eared humans. They reach adulthood at 100 years. They literally never sleep. They have fae ancestry. They're really weird and alien and I would imagine they would view and conceptualize things far different than humans.

I'm not going to tell someone they're playing wrong when they pick Wood Elf because they want to play a Ranger and then the only characterization they have is that they are woodsy. I just think it's a lost opportunity.

I'd rather most PCs were human and the other races when they were present made things weird.

 

[Charlaquin]

Ultimately I feel the discussion seems to elide the question of what is the purpose of having these fantasy species in the first place; why we have them,

That’s easy. Because they’re cool.

what are we trying to tell with them?

Human stories. As all stories are.