Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6291459" data-attributes="member: 2067">The default effect is a real thing -- the difference between opt-in and opt-out is significant in the real world. The only novel thing I'm saying is that it also applies to D&D: what the game makes you opt out of and what the game allows you to opt into has a significant effect on how individual tables play, and also on what kinds of material gets published. Because it applies to D&D, I think D&D's writers should take it into account. It's fair to dispute the way they should take that into account, or to argue that D&D is exempt from the default effect for some reason, 'cuz that's just you and me on a message board, but if you want to say that there's no real difference between opt-in and opt-out, you're going up against a bit of observable human behavior, and I don't think you can as easily dismiss it as you can my own unique claims. What's stopping them?In this world, the dwarves are materialistic and prone to Gold Fever. The elves have cults of their ancestors that they worship via arts of war or necromancy. The halflings are curious, sociable wanderers. Tieflings are the castoff and outcast people with tainted blood that liquid evil runs through. There's no contradiction there. Those could all be on the same world, interacting with each other.So you think it's impossible to write the core books such that the distinction is clear? I've got more confidence in the writing, organization, and design skills of the D&D team and in the intelligence of the audience than that. For instance, simply calling them "Dwarf, Klar" in the title of their entry would imply that there's "Dwarf, (whatever)" out there as well. It's also possible to mention other dwarves without presenting their mechanics up front, and to be specific when talking about them. There's a difference between "popular" and "default." If you only have one kind of each thing in the books, it will probably be the most popular, because it will have that preferred status, but it need not be the default, because it need not also be presumed default (meaning, designed to be opt-out). Which just means if they wanted to go this route, they should probably choose some of the most popular or iconic specific versions to present first (Like the drow of FR, psionicists like those on Dark Sun, tielfings like those in Planescape). "Generic" doesn't exist. It's all actually specific. It's just a matter of if it recognizes that or not. For example, "Jackalweres are created by Grazz'zt and work with Lamia" isn't generic. It's specific. The game can either recognize that specificity and embrace it, or it can pretend like when you have a Jackalwere that doesn't do that, you're doing some weird homebrew thing. "Dwarves live underground" isn't generic. It's specific. It doesn't apply to all D&D dwarves. Neidar live in houses on the surface, for instance. The game can either recognize that only specific dwarves live underground and embrace that by describing one particular kind of dwarf that lives underground, or it can pretend that when you have dwarves that don't live underground, you're playing some aberrant off-brand version of dwarf. You can gain a lot of rich flavor if you embrace the specific. In the racial layout you put above, you've got rules and history and cultures and towns ready to slide right into your homebrew game linked to those specific races. There's deathless and halfling wagons and dragonmarked houses and crafting clans and evil outsiders breeding with mortals...you grab all that along with your specific races. Plunk it right down in your home D&D game! And for the publisher/writer/designer, there's no worry about not meeting the needs of people who, say, really want elves to be magical forest hippies, because that's not the intent with the elves you put in this book. It's not a bad execution, it's just perhaps what the magical forest hippie elf fan is looking for. Which means that you can publish a book with that kind of elf and meet that need, without having to imply that using this other kind of elf is some kind of DM homebrew manuever. Which is just to say that there's a lot of value in recognizing and owning that specificity. It's not just about avoiding getting "tied down." It's also about unlocking the variety that is inherent in D&D thanks in part to its 40 year history and millions of players, and letting it be true to itself.</blockquote>

Verification