NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TwoSix" data-source="post: 9286564" data-attributes="member: 205">I don't think anyone is arguing that an aggregate population can't demonstrate strengths and weaknesses (at least I don't think anyone is arguing that).The difference in opinion comes with whether or not you feel those distinctions needed to be embedded in the character creation rules to be meaningful within the fiction.For me personally, I have no problem saying "Dwarves are tougher than most humanoids, are martially inclined, and excellent at all sorts of crafts involving earth and stone."  And as a DM, I can represent that by the stats I give my dwarven NPCs (most will have between 14-16 Con), and giving those NPCS a diversity of martial abilities, as well as some excellent craftspeople.But, I don't think the toughest dwarf is obviously tougher than the toughest human, or that the frailest dwarf is still more robust than the frailest human.  I just think dwarven Con scores aren't a classic bell curve, instead, they have a bias towards scores in the 12-16 range.  Giving a "+X" bonus is a poor model for their actual narrative in the setting (as I envision it.)So for me, modeling a population within the setting is a function of how I build NPCs, not the character creation rules.  I don't need the rules providing me a template as to what dwarves (or elves, or gnomes) act like.  Just provide me the narrative, and have the character creation rules make a light nod to that narrative,  mostly letting the racial features be a selection from a menu of options.</blockquote>

Verification