D&D General Flipping Race And Background Altogether

[Crimson Longinus]

I think that you'd be on the "the gods created races as they saw fit, so they can be whatever the GM wants" side. What you object is halfing as being superstrong when the lore doesn't align. You wouldn't object to 3 ft gnomes created by the God of Deceiving Appearances to have a STR bonus and inborn proficiency with the warhammer.

I don't really have problem with a super strong small species or a surprisingly weak largeish species, but it strains credulity if all small species just happen to be super strong in a way that makes them equal to humans and all largeish species just happen to be weirdly weak so that they're not stronger than humans. Also, I think a small and weak species and small but surprisingly strong species are very different concepts. It think a big part of appeal of halflings to many is that they're kind of weak underdogs that need to deal with a world full of creatures larger and stronger than them. I don't think super halflings really fulfil the same niche.

I have always hated the concept of evil species and other blatantly offensive depictions D&D has, but I still really dislike this homogenisation that's happening. If I play a fantasy game I actually want fantasy species to be different from each other. They're not just human ethnicities, they're aliens. If I play a Star Wars game I want Wookiees to be stronger than Ewoks. That this homogenisation now includes height and weight is bordering parody.

Also, the opinion that ability scores don't really measure anything concrete was already featured in this thread. So why have them then? As long as ability scores exist, I want them to actually correlate to the fictional reality at least somewhat. If they don't, we have no need for them; the purpose of the rules is to act as mechanical representation of the game world; disassociated mechanics serve no purpose to me.

 

[billd91]

The short answer to your question is Reality is great, until it limits Options
I personally do not subscribe to that motto.

Well, options are great... until they undermine your sense of verisimilitude or even plausibility within the RPG genre you're playing. I don't think that's any less valid any approach.
For some of us, it's weird that a halfling can be as strong as a goliath for the same inputs in character creation. You'd think that a goliath, being so much bigger, would have an advantage in maxing out the game's strength options.

 

[Scribe]

Depends on what you're essentializing or what you consider essentializing. If essentializing portrays a character based on inherent traits, does that include size? Is saying that halflings are small essentializing? Is it essentializing to say that a pegasus has wings? Or that a medusa has snakey hair? They are inherent qualities. But is describing them really "essentializing"? Or if it is, is it doing so in a bad way?

Or is it really only problematic when we talk about their behavior or values as exhibiting some kind of inherent trait?

Its problematic when we say 'X is stronger than Y' despite that being a literal fact of existence across different species, which Halfings, and Golaiths are.

Different races (being distinct species in a Fantasy world and having ZERO RELATION TO REALITY), have different attributes. This is a simple concept, but some refuse to accept it.

If a player wants a Small character who has Strength 8, that is fine. If a player wants a Small character who has Strength 20, that is fine.

Let the player choose.

No.

For some of us, it's weird that a halfling can be as strong as a goliath for the same inputs in character creation. You'd think that a goliath, being so much bigger, would have an advantage in maxing out the game's strength options.

Exactly.

 

[Mordhau]

It just so happens that I've thought race in D&D has been largely unimportant for many years now. In my experience, whether you bring a Dragonborn, Halfling, Human, Elf, or Goliath to my game it's not going to make any significant difference in the campaign nor have I seen player race make a difference in campaigns I've participated in as a player. If someone came to a game I was running with a Halfling character with a 20 Strength I'd just shrug my shoulders and we'd all have a good time. Ultimately, it doesn't really matter. If WotC wants to go in a direction where character race matters any less, eh, what of it? It's not really going to change the game in a significant manner.

This does make me wonder why we have it though.

If it doesn't matter, why does it matter?

It just seems a lot of work sometimes to include playable races in a setting and make them interesting beyond the basic...Mountains- dwarves live here, forest = elves with an elven queen. If it doesn't affect the play why have them?

Yet, there seems to be a huge feeling that these non-human races are sacred cows that are absolutely core to the D&D experience.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This does make me wonder why we have it though.

If it doesn't matter, why does it matter?

It just seems a lot of work sometimes to include playable races in a setting and make them interesting beyond the basic...Mountains- dwarves live here, forest = elves with an elven queen. If it doesn't affect the play why have them?

Yet, there seems to be a huge feeling that these non-human races are sacred cows that are absolutely core to the D&D experience.

Well, as much as I hate the term, it's not called an "elf game" for nothing.

 

[Lyxen]

This does make me wonder why we have it though.

Because, apart from a few "race-haters", lots of players like the idea of non-human races to play with, even if it's not technically powerful or influential, because it's a standard trope of fantasy and people like characters from movies/shows/books.

It just seems a lot of work sometimes to include playable races in a setting and make them interesting beyond the basic...Mountains- dwarves live here, forest = elves with an elven queen. If it doesn't affect the play why have them?

Yet, there seems to be a huge feeling that these non-human races are sacred cows that are absolutely core to the D&D experience.

And if there is a huge feeling that they are core to the experience, they are not sacred cows.

In any case, I still fail to see how an experience without them would be richer and more varied because of it. They are just an additional possibility, and furthermore one that you can play to extremely varied degree. If you want to play only humans, the game already offers this.

But I suspect that there is a lot of hypocrisy at the core of it, because from what I read on the forums, people are extremely happy with Tasha because they can enjoy the technical benefits of some races (mountain dwarf, tortle, etc.) without feeling that they are gimping the perfect scores of their build.

So whether for technical reasons or for roleplaying ones, they are really part of the core.