D&D General How do you like your ASIs?

[Lyxen]

Give them a relevant magical power then, as has been suggested by others.

Still not answering the question, then ? Honestly, at this stage, it suggests an extremely biased view about Tasha that prevents you from answer honestly so, again: "don't you think that being a goliath compared to a halfling, just purely physical differences of size and strength, could not drastically change the culture(s) that you develop as a species?"

Loss? I offered no decision on whether I would enjoy it now or not. Griffin Mountain was, and perhaps still is, one of the two best designed modules for any game system. (The other is Masks of Nyarlathotep, for CoC, also Chaosium.) From memory, the Balazarings are respectfully treated (and nicely contrasted with the Lunar Empire!) With trolls, the matriarchy stepped away from lazy traditions of the fantasy genre.

Oh, yes, that is indeed that it's important in a game, right, of course. That is certainly what made a great module for you at the time, thinking how politically correct it would be 40 years later with different standards...

What made these peoples interesting wasn't 'genetic' assumptions about player character ability scores.

Alors, first, for me, Griffin Mountain is really not the most interesting campaign of even RQ2, certainly not compared to Pavis/Big Rubble or Borderlands. But even then, the differences with the dragonewts and Uz are certainly a lot about the stats, technically, and when you go visit a giant, sure, stats are not important...

What made it great, though, for me at least, were all these cultures, Uz, Broos, all the types of Balazarings, Lunars, dwarves, dragonewts, were firmly based on everything that they actually were, stats, magics and personalities.

 

[clearstream]

It would be easier to take this argument seriously if it was consistently applied. I am wiling to consider that it might indeed be problematic to depict fantasy species having different capabilities. But then it is problematic regardless of how exactly you mechanically represent it, or indeed even if it was mere fluff. It applies to ASIs and traits equally, it even applies to the lore.

I agree that crunch and fluff both matter, but don't think 'regardless' is right. How we mechanically represent or narratively describe differences counts. Questions like: is this representation connected with harmful stereotypes in the real world? is the representation derogatory, or supportive of themes of superiority (which are derogatory by implication)? does it feed into universal assumptions that might not be true of individuals or even whole sub-societies, and might not be necessarily true in any case?

Representing ones desire to have specific type of game a mechanic as social issue comes across as disingenuous, and frankly insulting to those who actually care about social issues.

I care about social issues, and I do not find it insulting to represent a -2 to orc Int as a social issue, even though it is (or was) a game mechanic. Similarly, I do not find it insulting to represent as a social issue any fluff that orcs and half-orcs are a sub-human species innately compelled to violence. We can improve some things, without improving everything. That is typically the only path to effective improvement.

Still, I partly take your point. Flat negatives on ability scores seem the worst case to me, but one has to be thoughtful in the design of other racial traits. Hence I am favouring the thought of gifts.

 

[clearstream]

So if we accept that having even one point difference in your main ability modifier is an unacceptable balance issue, I have to ask why even let players assign ability scores let alone randomise them? If everyone always has to have the same score in their main stat, why not then just make those bonuses part of the class?

It is evident that any variance is unacceptable to a significant portion of player base, and if we accept that as the stance the game should be build around, then I have to conclude that the whole concept of ability scores is fundamentally nonviable.

Sydney or the bush, eh? If my Porsche can't have puce-leather upholstery, then damn it burn the thing to the ground. Gods, the whole is written in language so let's make a start by getting rid of words. Numbers, too, those are clearly central to all faults.

Heh.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I agree that crunch and fluff both matter, but don't think 'regardless' is right. How we mechanically represent or narratively describe differences counts. Questions like: is this representation connected with harmful stereotypes in the real world? is the representation derogatory, or supportive of themes of superiority (which are derogatory by implication)? does it feed into universal assumptions that might not be true of individuals or even whole sub-societies, and might not be necessarily true in any case?


I care about social issues, and I do not find it insulting to represent a -2 to orc Int as a social issue, even though it is (or was) a game mechanic. Similarly, I do not find it insulting to represent as a social issue any fluff that orcs and half-orcs are a sub-human species innately compelled to violence. We can improve some things, without improving everything. That is typically the only path to effective improvement.

Still, I partly take your point. Flat negatives on ability scores seem the worst case to me, but one has to be thoughtful in the design of other racial traits. Hence I am favouring the thought of gifts.

I am of course not saying that mechanical representation couldn't be problematic. Of course it can. You can portray an offensive stereotype via mechanics like you could with fiction. But if you're going to portray a difference between species (e.g. goliaths are stronger than halflings), then offensiveness of it has nothing to do with the exact form of mechanical representation it takes (powerful build vs +2 str) or indeed if it was just mere fluff.

 

[Lyxen]

That's rather underselling it.

+1 on Dex is equivalent for many characters as having the Defense fighting style for free, gaining +1 on initiative, +1 on every attack chance and +1 on every damage roll, and +1 on highly relevant skills and tools such as stealth and thieves' tools. Seeing as the latter are often opposed by passive thresholds, the flat add is more beneficial than appears on surface.

And of course, which stat did you choose ? Dex, the god-stat, where you can mix in all the bonuses of that humongous stat that you will find in none of the others... sigh

For a glamour bard, at 5th level +1 charisma is another 8 temp-HP and opportunity-attack free reaction move they can grant to an ally.

Oh my gosh, this is such a wide example of something so game breaking, how could I not see this before... sigh.

These examples are considering only the placement of say +2, but all races have a second boost, and that also matters. So our high-elf bladesinger can gain all the benefits I described of +1 on Dex with all the benefits I described of +1 on Int. A drow bladesinger gets half of that. A dwarf bladesinger, none of it. Seeing as bladesingers have extra attack, the +1 from Dex on attack and damage applies twice a turn and using green-flame blade they can add their +1 from Int to the damage dealt by one of those attacks.

And after that, it's not powergaming... sigh THe only thing that I respect there is you guys's ability to dig your own grave.

Is the character unplayable because of that ? Is he even not fun or less fun to play because of that ? No, ask anyone who is not a powergamer.

First, there is not going to be another character of the same archetype in the party, so who are you going to compare that to ? Second, with characters of other archetypes, if they are not powergamers, you will not see the difference, the powers will be different anyway, and will shine at different times and for different reasons. The +1 will be totally invisible.

Finally, rolling is still the standard way of generating stats, and if you do it honestly, there is going to be WAAAAAYYYYY more differences that that one +1 in one stat.

To characterise it as '+1 on some rolls' feels like rhetoric. From other posts I think you understand the game mechanics better than that.

And you know what is about reducing everything in a character to the single main stat ? Yep, you guessed right, powergaming, and in one of its pure form, influencing the game so that it revolves around that stat. So no, out of all the rolls made by characters around tables that don't focus on powergaming, there will be lots of rolls done on other stats, and even if it's on that stat, a +1 means nothing compared to the swinginess of a single d20. It's all about "I'm skilled, I'm optimised, I'm better - or at least not worse off - than the other players."

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Sydney or the bush, eh? If my Porsche can't have puce-leather upholstery, then damn it burn the thing to the ground. Gods, the whole is written in language so let's make a start by getting rid of words. Numbers, too, those are clearly central to all faults.

Heh.

Am I wrong though? It really starts to seem that this is just scrambling to awkwardly patch a thing that fundamentally serves no purpose any more.

 

[clearstream]

Still not answering the question, then ? Honestly, at this stage, it suggests an extremely biased view about Tasha that prevents you from answer honestly so, again: "don't you think that being a goliath compared to a halfling, just purely physical differences of size and strength, could not drastically change the culture(s) that you develop as a species?"

I don't think that size and strength alone would, no. We can't make much progress on this seeing as we lack evidence to the contrary.

Alors, first, for me, Griffin Mountain is really not the most interesting campaign of even RQ2, certainly not compared to Pavis/Big Rubble or Borderlands. But even then, the differences with the dragonewts and Uz are certainly a lot about the stats, technically, and when you go visit a giant, sure, stats are not important...

I ran all three over the course of a few years, and Griffon Mountain played better, for us.

What made it great, though, for me at least, were all these cultures, Uz, Broos, all the types of Balazarings, Lunars, dwarves, dragonewts, were firmly based on everything that they actually were, stats, magics and personalities.

Perhaps the only feature we disagree on then, is the necessity of 'stats' in that list.

Maybe at issue is wanting things to be all this or all that - all marble or all wood. I don't see the game like that.

 

[Lyxen]

Still, I partly take your point. Flat negatives on ability scores seem the worst case to me, but one has to be thoughtful in the design of other racial traits. Hence I am favouring the thought of gifts.

Yeah right, because it is absolutely forbidden to give a PC Orc a -2 to Int, but it's totally acceptable to say that the species has 7 Int ? Or it's not acceptable because they are orcs, but totally acceptable for xvarts (because they are blue and no-one knows who they are anyway) ?

I'm sorry, but all of this is only about people deciding to be offended, sometimes not even for themselves. but on behalf of other people who could not care less, and for reasons that have nothing to do with reality. The most incredible example I've seen was of someone of mixed parentage, who decided to be offended at AD&D because half-orcs had -2 to charisma and who thought that he was being punished for wanting to be a social character, totally forgetting that, in the book, half-elves are listed ahead of half-orcs, are also of mixed parentage and extremely social. It's total cherry-picking, with no rhyme or reason, just seeking reasons to be offended. Just leave the game alone, especially 5e, it's not inherently offensive to anyone. Now, if some bad people are using the game to offend, it's because they are bad and want to offend, don't blame the game...

 

[clearstream]

And of course, which stat did you choose ? Dex, the god-stat, where you can mix in all the bonuses of that humongous stat that you will find in none of the others... sigh

So you will at least agree that - when it comes to Dex - the mechanical impact is more than you originally characterised it?

Oh my gosh, this is such a wide example of something so game breaking, how could I not see this before... sigh.

So when you think about balance, you are only thinking about game breaking? Is that right?

And after that, it's not powergaming... sigh THe only thing that I respect there is you guys's ability to dig your own grave.

Is the character unplayable because of that ? Is he even not fun or less fun to play because of that ? No, ask anyone who is not a powergamer.

The opportunities for leverage over the narrative - for emerging narrative from play - change. Remember that I am seeking for this to happen and be regulated by game mechanics. Hence I want to play a game. If your preferences do not lie with game qua game, then we won't reach agreement or even necessarily mutual understanding.

 

[Lyxen]

I don't think that size and strength alone would, no. We can't make much progress on this seeing as we lack evidence to the contrary.

This is why I focussed it on physical stats, because, on the contrary, we have very clear examples for human history of adaptation of certain ethnicities to certain environments, sometimes with extremely spectacular effect, and therefore on their culture (and the impact on other cultures, for example how Massai displaced other ethnic groups), for example in Africa.

I ran all three over the course of a few years, and Griffon Mountain played better, for us.

Good, most RQ fans preferred the Prax settings, but it's clearly a matter of taste.

Perhaps the only feature we disagree on then, is the necessity of 'stats' in that list.

Does it work as well without large powerful Uz and very weak trollkin ? Without the physical might of the dragonewts ? I'm 100% convinced that if you were not trying to sell Tasha's, your perspective would be different, since it's obvious both in real life and in the games' cultures.

Maybe at issue is wanting things to be all this or all that - all marble or all wood. I don't see the game like that.

And yet you do, you don't want it "all marble" or "all wood", but because you want it with "no marble", it ends up the same as "all wood".