Druid of the Invisible Hand
Thanks for dismissing the concerns and preferences of a growing number of D&D fans, myself included. But yeah, you're right, we're wrong . . . maybe even badwrongfun. I probably actually agree with some of your points as I skimmed your posts, but your aggressive opener just shut down my interest in reading further.
Yeah, you're right. I'm going to go back and revise this to be less confrontational. EDIT: I'd be interested in hearing your take, now that I'm not trying to tell you how much I'm not.
With customization rules similar to those in Tasha's, you could devise a more complicated background if you want . . . grandpa was an elf, dad an orc, mom a dwarf, but I was raised by halflings, halflings living in a human city . . .
And the fact you consider this a feature, and not an active detriment to the tone of any half-serious campaign, is why I'm so adamant that trying to separate "race" and "culture" (in general) and the custom lineage rules in Tasha (in specific) are bad ideas that are constantly being compounded by the effort to divorce every axis of character identity from every other axis of character identity.
In HARP, a game I love and spent several years (fruitlessly) developign for, every race came with three free racial talents and characters could trade up to two of them away (for other racial talents) to represent mixed heritage. And sure, those rules could have enabled players to play half-elves and half-gryths (I think? Been awhile.), but in practice they were mostly used the exact same way people are discussing using Tasha: to pick whatever racial talents were most useful to their character build, with little to no regard for what those mechanical elements were supposed to represent.
Personally, I think separating race and class and introducing the half-elf and half-orc races were among the worst design decisions that went into AD&D.