D&D General How elder scroll does species

I am trying to see if the way that the elder scrolls games does their species is a better or worse model then the current or previous editions of dungeons and dragons.

Like giving humans special abilities based on region makes as much sense as doing sub species for dwarves and elves. Skyrim in particular really is a Norn showcase.

However, there are overtones of well racism in the design.

Which model works better and why?
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Yeah varying human abilities by race would not go over well these days. It works for DnD species, but even then there are people who aren't ok with it.

And I love Elder Scrolls lore. But there is no chance in hell that level of racism would work in DnD.
 

Yeah varying human abilities by race would not go over well these days. It works for DnD species, but even then there are people who aren't ok with it.

And I love Elder Scrolls lore. But there is no chance in hell that level of racism would work in DnD.
I don't even think it works that well in The Elder Scrolls. There are arguably five species (human, elf, orc, khajit and argonian) but they stretched them into ten via subrace bs. I wonder how that will be handled in TES 6 if/when it happens.
 

In addition to any implications, there's also the fact that TES takes place in a single, well-defined setting. DnD is meant to work in many different settings including innumerable homebrew settings. Defining specific cultures well enough to have clear mechanical impacts limits settings much more that "there are elves and dwarves" does - or at least adding such pre-defined elements at this point would clash with a lot of existing settings.

I do think a well-written third-party supplement could pull it off but WOTC won't and shouldn't touch that with a 100-foot pole.
 

I don't even think it works that well in The Elder Scrolls. There are arguably five species (human, elf, orc, khajit and argonian) but they stretched them into ten via subrace bs. I wonder how that will be handled in TES 6 if/when it happens.
I always kinda headcanon elves being seperate species being related to be far older and having longer to diverge from each other (also irl humans are all rather genetically... snug to each other).

Of course that headcanon doesn't work when all the species got created by divine means a few years ago.

I do like how Avatar has different subspecies which are clearly different in what they can do.
 

I don't even think it works that well in The Elder Scrolls. There are arguably five species (human, elf, orc, khajit and argonian) but they stretched them into ten via subrace bs. I wonder how that will be handled in TES 6 if/when it happens.
Elder Scrolls orcs are just elves. Also khajiit and elves have a complicated relationship where they're possibly related, what with historically bosmer being able to have many forms (the ooze and all), and the Ohmes and Ohmes-raht having obvious elf-ish features

There's also the sea elves, the snow elves, the Dwemer, the Ayelids (referred to as wild elves at times) and the Left Handed Elves (who are. Probably dead) on the mer side, and a few random humans on that side, though only the kothringi probably had something different going on, and they got wiped out by disease centuries ago. And that's before we even get to what's going on with the Akaviri and what 'eaten' means in that context
 
Last edited:

+/- to ability scores is probably the worst way to go for a cultural/sub-species these days, it would spark too much argument. If anything, probably bonus skills/subskills or knacks would be better, but even then you have to be careful.

Giving a tribe of nomads Survival & Nature, for example, would probably work. Mostly, I'd rate them as backgrounds these days.
 

While in principle I think it would make a lot of sense for different human cultures (which in a traditional historic or fantasy world would heavily align with different human ethnicities) to have different plausibly culturally based strengths (such as a list of skills to choose a free proficiency from, knowing a cantrip, etc.), aside from a whole pile of racism issues most folk don't want to touch with a ten foot pole there's to me the even more damning factor which is that D&D is designed to be used with WotC's campaign worlds or with your own. If different cultures have a game impact then world building requires either accommodating the official ones in one's setting (possibly repurposed with new names, etc.) or creating new ones with all the balance and design implications of that. I think this is a major reason why when D&D does differentiate several subcultures or subspecies for their non-humans they are often fairly abstract things without a lot of clear meaning which could be imported into most worlds without trouble (Shield Dwarf vs. Mountain Dwarf, Lightfoot Halfling vs. Stout Halfling).

Elder Scrolls approach seems viable enough when designing species/culture/ethnicity/race for one specific setting. Firstly it is far less racially problematic for all Nords, for example, to have a resistance to cold damage and a few extra ranks of two-handed weapon proficiency in a setting where the worldbuilder can dictate that basically all Nords were raised within their culture and in the cold climes of Skyrim, than it is to make those propensities of a group in a more cosmopolitan setting where a substantial number of Nords would have been raised outside their culture and homeland. But secondly the races don't have to be particularly friendly to being easily repurposed to another, completely different setting. They just have to work for Tamriel.

The Cosemere RPG that came out last year, and which is basically a heavily modified 5e, leaned heavily into ethnic differentiation between humans, and that is a key aspect of the setting as I understand it (I played through the Starter Set but have read none of the books). I don't recal what exaxtly characters got from their ethnic background, but clearly the concept is still alive and well in D&D adjacent gaming for setting specific rules sets. But its more trouble than its worth for more setting agnostic games, and these tend to shy away from it.

As much as I am not a Daggerheart fan (it's fine, I just have to deal with too many people who are over the moon for a game I consider to be a lot of big swings with hit and miss results), I would suggest that its "communities" approach where players chose what type of community they originated from, while to my taste poorly executed in that game (no small rural agricultural community in a quasi medieval fantasy game? Seriously?), is probably the best sort of approach to capture cultural differences within a species in a setting agnostic way.
 

Culture is a better model to vary humans as it avoids bioessentialism veering into racism. Humans with a Agrarian culture or a Seafaring culture might hail from anywhere, even if Humans with a Desert Nomad culture have a much more obvious analogue.

Of course once you get down to specific setting if you want to call your Seafaring culture Barbary Corsairs and your Desert Nomads Scythians that's entirely a setting call
 

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Remove ads

Top