D&D 5E Are humanoid mono-cultures being replaced with the Rule of Three?

[Mercurius]

*species is honestly the better term here, but maybe sounds too scientific for fantasy.

True, although then we get into the whole issue of cross-breeding. I'm not a biologist, but evidently lions and tigers are closer (sub-species of cat) than human and gorilla.

Anyhow, race, folk, people, kindred, etc, all have a more fantasy sound to them. "Heritage" is just woefully inaccurate.

 

[ph0rk]

Anyhow, race, folk, people, kindred, etc, all have a more fantasy sound to them. "Heritage" is just woefully inaccurate.

It’s a complication of the period (that is, right now). The sooner the game gets stripped of the word the better, for some markets.

 

[Mercurius]

If they were "real people" they would cut and run when it became apparent they were getting slaughtered by the PCs. "Real people" don't fight to the death, especially when all they want is food.

So it is up to every DM to decide how it all works, and how much realism they want to bring into their fantasy. I usually have my monsters--at least the vaguely intelligent ones--run when it becomes certain they are going to lose. But one could imagine a culture in which such a thing is cowardice, and fighting to the death is more glorious than living to see another day.

The point being, if we're going to clamor for diversity in fantasy, let's allow for it in a real way: there are no set rules as to how "real people" act, because real people run the gamut and have a wide range of possible culture, ideology, etc.

 

[Reynard]

So it is up to every DM to decide how it all works, and how much realism they want to bring into their fantasy. I usually have my monsters--at least the vaguely intelligent ones--run when it becomes certain they are going to lose. But one could imagine a culture in which such a thing is cowardice, and fighting to the death is more glorious than living to see another day.

The point being, if we're going to clamor for diversity in fantasy, let's allow for it in a real way: there are no set rules as to how "real people" act, because real people run the gamut and have a wide range of possible culture, ideology, etc.

I mean, sure, but if you are going to try and hit me with "See, they were just regular joe's driven to banditry by hunger!" then I would expect that to come through during the actual encounter. Otherwise, it is a gotcha with particularly bad taste.

 

[Mercurius]

It’s a complication of the period (that is, right now). The sooner the game gets stripped of the word the better, for some markets.

I remember someone saying wise words, that in times of crisis you don't want to over-react and make changes that don't keep the long-term in mind (they worded much better than that, but hopefully you get the drift).

Of course this isn't a huge "crisis," more of a micro one. But that is kind of the point. WotC shouldn't overreact to the outcry-du-jour. Some adjustment may be wise, if only from a PR/sales perspective, but overreacting could be detrimental to the game in the long-term.

 

[Cadence]

If they were "real people" they would cut and run when it became apparent they were getting slaughtered by the PCs. "Real people" don't fight to the death, especially when all they want is food.

In the real world, aren't there lots of cases where the "innocents" or "hungry" don't have the ability to successfully run (except in a way that leads to starving to death or risking other danger) and are slaughtered by evil folks. Or are sought out by evil folks.

 

[ph0rk]

I remember someone saying wise words, that in times of crisis you don't want to over-react and make changes that don't keep the long-term in mind (they worded much better than that, but hopefully you get the drift).

Of course this isn't a huge "crisis," more of a micro one. But that is kind of the point. WotC shouldn't overreact to the outcry-du-jour. Some adjustment may be wise, if only from a PR/sales perspective, but overreacting could be detrimental to the game in the long-term.

Sure, but the ”crisis” is largely of their own making. Had they bothered to ask around, they would have been told that people saw orcs and Drow as racially coded in 2013, and they could have built these fixes into the core of 5e instead of patching them on in year 7.

 

[Mercurius]

I mean, sure, but if you are going to try and hit me with "See, they were just regular joe's driven to banditry by hunger!" then I would expect that to come through during the actual encounter. Otherwise, it is a gotcha with particularly bad taste.

Well, I disagree. Or, at least, I don't see it as in bad taste, because it wouldn't be intended as a "gotcha," more as "things can be complex."

I mean, do the PCs not defend themselves if attacked on the off chance that the attacker is just trying to feed their children? Of course not. But more to the point, a creature attacking you could have many reasons. D&D assumes "evil" or "conquest" or somesuch, but what if the DM wanted to add a bit of complexity? How is that a "gotcha"? If anything, it could add an interesting layer where the players have to think twice about their actions and not make the usual assumptions.

Not saying that this is how a game "should" be played, but that such a game isn't necessarily about "gotcha-ing" players. It is a different approach, and one that adds a certain level of complexity that could be interesting.

 

[ph0rk]

Not saying that this is how a game "should" be played, but that such a game isn't necessarily about "gotcha-ing" players. It is a different approach, and one that adds a certain level of complexity that could be interesting.

I'd much rather play in a world where NPCs have motivations for what they do than a world where they are essentially always randomly spawned to kill me like in an Elder Scrolls game.


You can't as easily think of or take a nonviolent path in the latter case - and I think that should be an option, even if I'll never take it. In a way, that being an option means me not taking it has more meaning.

 

[Mercurius]

Sure, but the ”crisis” is largely of their own making. Had they bothered to ask around, they would have been told that people saw orcs and Drow as racially coded in 2013, and they could have built these fixes into the core of 5e instead of patching them on in year 7.

I would only add, "some people" saw it that way, and "some of those" saw it as a problem. Seeing racial coding is often conflated with it actually existing (especially with regards to fantasy stuff), another variation of "how I see the world is how it is" (rather than, more accurately, how I am).

My point being, it isn't only that it is a crisis of their own making, but that the crisis may not be as large as the apparent "patching" implies. And that the degree of patching codifies the problem at a certain level.

I personally think that the only thing that needed fixing about drow is the whole cursing = dark skin thing (not the dark skin itself, but that it was the result of a curse). Get rid of that and, well, you have a fantasy race dominated by an evil religion that happens to be obsidian skinned and matriarchal. Kind of cool and interesting, really. It doesn't mean that all dark-skinned (or matriarchal) races are evil. In fact, it doesn't even mean the race is evil, just the dominant culture.