GX.Sigma said:
Why do you need different mechanics to say the same thing? Why are minor gameplay distinctions "valuable" (I would love to hear examples from previous editions)? How would different mechanics make it less generic? It is a dwarf in a D&D game, after all.
The reason is because they're not *actually* the same thing. Their stories are different stories. And if you want to tell different stories in D&D, that's something I think the game should support.
[sblock=discussion of generic rules vs. specific rules]
There's a continuum of abstraction, right? At one end of the spectrum you've got something very broad and flexible -- lets posit some rule like this:
CHARACTER RACE
Dwarf, elf, halfling, wookie, ewok, jedi, genetic mutant, hawkman, sentient robot, cheese golem...In this game, you can create any kind of character your DM allows! All you need to do is pick one of the six ability scores to gain a +2 bonus to, and pick two first-level spells as things your race can do as daily abilities. If you want to make a charming fey-related high elf, for instance, you can choose Charisma to gain a +2 bonus, and pick Enchantment spells like Charm Person and Sleep, and you'll have a charismatic, magical creature in no time! Meanwhile, if you want to be a dwarf, you might choose +2 Con, and gain spells like Magic Weapon and Magic Stone.
That's what I would call a "generic" rule. It's broad and flexible and makes no real assumptions about the specific story you'll be telling with that rule. That is both a strength of the rule (it's SUPER flexible!), but also a weakness (it doesn't give anyone who wants to "just sit down and play" anything to go with, and it doesn't tell you anything about the kinds of races might exist in a particular game).
An equivalent, specific, flavorful rule would be something like this:
CHARACTER RACE
In this world, there are many creatures, but only three with any adventurers to speak of: Elf, Dwarf, and Human. Pick one as your character race. As an Elf, you get +2 Dex, and the "Enchanting Fey" quality which gives you the ability to cast Charm Person and Sleep. As a Dwarf, you gain +2 Con, and the "Hardy Stoneworker" quality, which gives you advantage on CON saves and lets you make masterwork items out of stone. As a Human, you gain +2 Cha, and the "Seize Destiny" quality, which gives you a bonus on saving throws and a bonus point of Inspiration.
This is a specific rule that implies a specific world where, for instance, gnomes and halflings and robots and genetic mutants and jedi aren't acceptable PC's, and all elves are enchanting, and all humans have a thing for destiny. It's richly flavorful, but very specific -- if you want to be a "nature elf," or a barbarian dwarf, this rule won't support you. This is true even though it might be just as easy to modify as the rule above. It gives a newbie a clear sense of the world (if they see a halfling adventurer, it's going to be a thing of note!), and of their place in it (they know other dwarves become adventurers on occasion). The abilities aren't necessarily easily interchangable -- is CON more valuable in the game than CHA to make up for the dwarf's lackluster racial abilities? If a DM changes this, what's going to happen?
So this is the trade-off. At one end, very broad and generic and flexible. At the other, very specific and unique and particular.
[/sblock]
So, I'm a big fan of rules that support the story you're telling -- specific rules that are evocative of a specific context for your specific character.
Wyatt's article proposes that the Neidar and the Klar from Dragonlance and the gold dwarves of FR should all just be "hill dwarves," leaving the difference between them to "culture." As long as culture is just flavor text, fluff, and description without any real impact on the mechanics or the gameplay, then the experience of playing a Neidar and a Klar and a gold dwarf would be basically the same. Maybe you'd swap out a few proper nouns, but basically, you'd be the same kind of character.
But the differences are real.
[sblock=dwarf differences]
I don't know much about DL, and I'm not the world's biggest FR fan, but I know this:
- The Neidar are dwarven wanderers, ousted from their mountain homes and forced to live above ground. They are accepting of other folks. They farm, raise crops, and are good woodworkers.
- The Klar are wild dwarves haunted by divine madness, who farm acid-spewing, tunneling, luminous worms. They are undisciplined, but fierce.
- Gold dwarves are traders, warriors, and hunters of aberrations in the depths. They're arrogant, materialistic, raise lizards, and aren't afraid of arcane magic.
Those are all very different stories. If the rules are to support the stories that we're telling with these different kinds of dwarves, we need to have at least slightly different rules to support these stories. For ex:
- Neidar could have a CHA bonus due to their open nature, and might favor druids as well as fighters and clerics, getting a bonus to wood-crafts in addition to stone and metal. They might get a bonus when fighting with other dwarves thanks to the fractious history of the race. They probably would not see in the dark, since they're primarily above-ground.
- Klar would also not see in the dark, thanks to their worm-lamps. Their madness might give them a WIS penalty, their skill with the worms might give them a bonus to handling animals or vermin. Their madness might make them well-suited to the Barbarian class, and they may have an acid theme to their attacks or resistances, thanks to their familiarity with their worms. Certainly, they should know how to take down an earth elemental!
- Gold dwarves might get bonuses to fighting Aberrations. They might also get a CHA bonus (thanks to their confident arrogance and skill at trading), or an INT bonus (again, trading, and also their comfort with arcane magic). They can handle animals decently, and they should be able to appraise the value of MANY kinds of crafts, not just stone and metal -- they're fans of the finer things in life. Perhaps they have higher wealth than other PC's, better contacts.
[/sblock]
These differences are "cultural," but they're important to the stories. If the rules are to support the stories, those differences are important to the rules, too. It's not just good enough to give all these kinds of characters the same exact mechanics and swap out a few proper nouns, not if you want to encourage people to feel like these differences are real to the characters and actually matter.
Where 5e's modularity comes in handy for this is that you can encapsulate those qualities in a given rules fob (subrace, or, maybe, "culture"), and swap that out for an equivalent fob (hill dwarf for mountain dwarf, or Neidar for Gold Dwarf).
In previous e's culture was largely synonymous with character race/subrace. Heck, I'm not sure if you take away "culture" that there's a lot of difference between a hill dwarf and a mountain dwarf. Or a dwarf and a gnome and a halfling. Or a dwarf and a particularly stout human. Or a dwarf and an elf. Or a dwarf and a sentient robot or genetic mutant or jedi. At a high enough level, it's all just a set of modifiers for your class and maybe a special power or two. What matters is what distinction you want to draw in the rules, and I like a distinction that's drawn at the level of the story, which means that my wealthy, materialistic gold dwarf and my worm-farming Klar probably should be using different mechanics to represent that.
