Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 5929484" data-attributes="member: 92511">To the above, re: humans, I say NO...of course not. Humans, which we all are (apologies to those who aren't), are the baseline. They need no &quot;modifications.&quot; The game is (or should be) built from the &quot;human on up [or down].&quot; The races get modifications because...they ARE NOT HUMAN! They are weaker at some things...better at other things...that are not the &quot;norm&quot; of the human experience.Why is this so tough to understand? Not meaning you, chitz, but I see this over and over, across the forums. D&amp;D is presumed, and obviously individual tables vary, to be human-o-centric. That's the baseline. Humans don't get or need &quot;special ability&quot; anything. They are the flat &quot;here's where we're starting from and going from there&quot; race. Basic and AD&amp;D (even up through 2e, I think), came at this from a &quot;they get all of these special extra abilities but don't have the range of classes or levels that a human can.&quot; That made things simple. It was a fair tradeoff. imho. We don't have that anymore, and haven't for a couple of editions from what I understand, so &quot;being human&quot; equates to many people as &quot;I get less.&quot;It's not the GAME'S fault...it's the PLAYER'S...it's the approach/perspective of the players that &quot;being a human thief or a human wizard or the human fighter&quot; is somehow &quot;less/worse/not as good as&quot; being the halfling thief or the elf wizard or the dwarf fighter.Humans don't need &quot;extra special somethings&quot; to make humans desirable. It is the players that need to wrap their heads around a human-centric world.That is all. &lt;long drum solo ending with throwing the sticks out to the crowd&gt; THANK YOU! G'NIGHT CLEVELAND!--SD</blockquote>

[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 5929484, member: 92511"] To the above, re: humans, I say NO...of course not. Humans, which we all are (apologies to those who aren't), are the baseline. They need no "modifications." The game is (or should be) built from the "human on up [or down]." The races get modifications because...they ARE NOT HUMAN! They are weaker at some things...better at other things...that are not the "norm" of the human experience. Why is this so tough to understand? Not meaning you, chitz, but I see this over and over, across the forums. D&D is presumed, and obviously individual tables vary, to be human-o-centric. That's the baseline. Humans don't get or need "special ability" anything. They are the flat "here's where we're starting from and going from there" race. Basic and AD&D (even up through 2e, I think), came at this from a "they get all of these special extra abilities but don't have the range of classes or levels that a human can." That made things simple. It was a fair tradeoff. imho. We don't have that anymore, and haven't for a couple of editions from what I understand, so "being human" equates to many people as "I get less." It's not the GAME'S fault...it's the PLAYER'S...it's the approach/perspective of the players that "being a human thief or a human wizard or the human fighter" is somehow "less/worse/not as good as" being the [I]halfling[/I] thief or the[I] elf[/I] wizard or the [I]dwarf[/I] fighter. Humans don't need "extra special somethings" to make humans desirable. It is the players that need to wrap their heads around a human-centric world. That is all. <long drum solo ending with throwing the sticks out to the crowd> THANK YOU! G'NIGHT CLEVELAND! --SD [/QUOTE]

Verification