log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D General How To Reconcile the Settings


log in or register to remove this ad

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
Just to echo @Coroc, in my campaign orcs are evil. Period. They aren't humans with a skin condition and bad dental work. My personal preference is to have race matter, other races are more than just humans in a rubber mask.

Comparing orcs to humans is like comparing a house cat to a tiger. No matter how well you treat the tiger, it will always be a tiger.

As far as orcs not being scary, individually they are not. In a horde they can be kind of terrifying. Kind of like mice...
gg4GpF.gif
 

Comparing orcs to humans is like comparing a house cat to a tiger. No matter how well you treat the tiger, it will always be a tiger.
Housecats are vicious invasive predators where I live. Only reason they don't go after humans is they aren't big enough. Of course, then you go the whole Australia Big Cat things...

My personal preference is to have race matter, other races are more than just humans in a rubber mask.
I've always been one of anything's actions are just what they are. You can have orcs who are still savage, but not necessarily hostile if they don't need to be. Likewise you can have elves who are evil villains and the orcs absolutely in the right for wanting to topple their spires.

We're in a post Warcraft 3 world, even if you don't want to go full Elder Scrolls and have orcs just being weird elves because everything in Elder Scrolls is either humans or elves. (Except the lizard-men birthed from the alien trees who managed to survive the last cycle of existence and hop into this one)
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
Housecats are vicious invasive predators where I live. Only reason they don't go after humans is they aren't big enough. Of course, then you go the whole Australia Big Cat things...


I've always been one of anything's actions are just what they are. You can have orcs who are still savage, but not necessarily hostile if they don't need to be. Likewise you can have elves who are evil villains and the orcs absolutely in the right for wanting to topple their spires.

We're in a post Warcraft 3 world, even if you don't want to go full Elder Scrolls and have orcs just being weird elves because everything in Elder Scrolls is either humans or elves. (Except the lizard-men birthed from the alien trees who managed to survive the last cycle of existence and hop into this one)

So? I'm not playing WOW. If orcs are just misunderstood savages in your campaign, go for it. In my world they aren't human. If I want moral dilemmas or options for an enemy that you may be able to negotiate with there are still plenty of options.

An analogy in Sci-Fi would be the xenomorphs from the Alien movies. Raise a face hugger with loving tenderness and it will still eat you.
 

jasper

Rotten DM
Housecats are vicious invasive predators where I live. Only reason they don't go after humans is they aren't big enough. Of course, then you go the whole Australia Big Cat things...


I've always been one of anything's actions are just what they are. You can have orcs who are still savage, but not necessarily hostile if they don't need to be. Likewise you can have elves who are evil villains and the orcs absolutely in the right for wanting to topple their spires.

We're in a post Warcraft 3 world, even if you don't want to go full Elder Scrolls and have orcs just being weird elves because everything in Elder Scrolls is either humans or elves. (Except the lizard-men birthed from the alien trees who managed to survive the last cycle of existence and hop into this one)
oh ow oh Mr. Kotter Mr. Kotter Um Mecheon What about us gamers who never played WOW and only know about from the cool commercials.
Back in 1E I ran a hard black and white campaign. So if a race was CE you could get your sword on without any ethical problems. Some gamers like being able to slay mooks and enjoying the cure disease scroll and pie they looted from the orc's body.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
oh ow oh Mr. Kotter Mr. Kotter Um Mecheon What about us gamers who never played WOW and only know about from the cool commercials.
Back in 1E I ran a hard black and white campaign. So if a race was CE you could get your sword on without any ethical problems. Some gamers like being able to slay mooks and enjoying the cure disease scroll and pie they looted from the orc's body.

For what it's worth, I don't play a hack-and-slash game. But yes, if a monster is labeled CE in the MM, it's CE in the game. D&D is not reality, orcs are a race created specifically for a purpose. Raiding and killing is fundamental to their nature.

None of which means I don't run a campaign with as much intrigue and depth as my group wants. It just means that monsters are monsters. Sometimes the most terrible monsters happen to be human.
 


Urriak Uruk

Debate fuels my Fire
Orcs were low level mooks. They were never terrifying. They're especially never going to be 'terrifying' now that we're in the age where Warcraft exists and orcs have moved so far past "They are the evil people we can freely attack" to "They are another culture we got problems with but they're people" that its so far in the distance no one can see it.

I meant terrifying to villagers the general human populace. The idea that a roving band of orcs could be devastating to a farm community. Not terrifying to PCs.

And I literally just said it would be nice to revert to the OG interpretation of orcs (well not strictly evil, but that humans view them as evil).
 


Nope I did not say that all orcs have to be like that but what I wrote is the standard orc not from a mechanical point of view but from his typical behavior at least in my standard campaigns , sorry D&D is a bit about stereotypes, that is part of the game, and nothing I feel bad about.
And other people are free to portray their orcs as pacifistic dope-loving hippies in their campaigns if they have fun with that, and they still are of course real roleplayers and it does not devalue their campaign or playstyle in any way.

See D&D has been diverse and multicultural way before this got such a high value in society.
Already in 2e (Back in 87 or 89? i cannot remember) they decided that there be no differences anymore in stats or whatever for male or female characters. I think 1e still had this that males could have higher strength.

Still there were stereotypes and there still are and that's it it is just a game not reality.
I know a lot of dms who still add in rules for differing stats between males and females depending on the way sexual dimorphism presents in the given race.

I do it myself. Different distribution curves, mods, and even extra featured abilities if relevant. Its too bad they dont publish things like this anymore. But there are still people keeping it alive.
 


Arnwolf666

Adventurer
I don’t see many women having Schwarzenegger level strength. However I would not stop a female player from having a 20 strength. Strangely I see more female characters going with 20 dex. Now I see many female characters playing a fighter or barbarian male with a 20 strength. I was more high strength female characters pre-5E. I see less now that a good dex based fighter is possible. So I even think many female players might think it is absurd and will go with a lower strength if they can still have a powerful character. I still love Betty playing goroth the male barbarian with a 20 strength. She’s more vicious than most men lol.My flgs must be strange. I see more guys playing female characters than females. And we have 80 people playing most nights.
 


Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
In the real world the strongest woman is not going to be as strong as the strongest man. But D&D is a fantasy game, not reality. Strength can also be interpreted as more than just muscle mass. I don't make any restrictions.

But if we're talking about strength, I have a lot of issues with how it's implemented. Like how in D&D a person can be stronger than the average grizzly bear. I'm sorry, but no. There is just no way a person can be that strong.

It's a game. It's not always realistic.
 

I know a lot of dms who still add in rules for differing stats between males and females depending on the way sexual dimorphism presents in the given race.

I do it myself. Different distribution curves, mods, and even extra featured abilities if relevant. Its too bad they dont publish things like this anymore. But there are still people keeping it alive.
This, however, I can't just leave at that.

When you get into the weeds of this simulationist stuff, I can't help but scratch my head and wonder "is this actually fun?" I struggle to find what's gratifying about this level of number crunching. Is it number crunching for its own sake? Or is it for immersion? Fluff-mechanics agreement? Seems like extraneous bookkeeping to me.

Also, the reason why they (or at least, the big companies targetting mass markets) don't publish things like this anymore is it's just begging for sexist jerks to come out of the woodwork and start throwing their gender essentialist bullcrap around, and when the rest of the table yells at them for killing the vibe, they just point to the rulebook, and they take a deep breath and they get real high, and they scream from the top of their lungs, "IT'S GODDAMN RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAW!"

Jokes about 4 Non Blondes and He-Man aside, Wizards of the Coast, Paizo, and other big tabletop companies have realized that a significant portion of their current core market consists of women, LGBTQ+ people, and ethnic minorities, all demographics whose members can profess to have in the past experienced disproportionate amounts of hate, abuse, and general insensitivity, intentional or not, thrown at them from other members of the scene, experiences that may have turned them away from the hobby for a time. Adding the gender adjusted stat caps back in, which got dropped by the time the second edition of AD&D was released, perhaps even earlier (1e was a mess in terms of internal editions) would just give the wangrods yet another bludgeon to swing around and turn people away.

Truth be told, at the individual table level, most jackasses like that would have been given the boot assuming the DM had their head on their shoulders straight. Unfortunately, that doesn't always happen, especially when the prime offender is the DM themselves. And at some point, it becomes a systemic problem that must be curtailed by adjusting the game itself, rather than hoping that each and every table lives up to a certain ethical standard without intervention from the game designers' part.

(Also, anecdote: a good portion of the tables I've sat down at featured female barbarians. Don't know why, and I know there's no real statistical correlation between those isolated events, but it happens.)

You're proud of keeping the torch alive? Why? What purpose does the burning of this flame serve?
 

This, however, I can't just leave at that.

When you get into the weeds of this simulationist stuff, I can't help but scratch my head and wonder "is this actually fun?" I struggle to find what's gratifying about this level of number crunching. Is it number crunching for its own sake? Or is it for immersion? Fluff-mechanics agreement? Seems like extraneous bookkeeping to me.

Also, the reason why they (or at least, the big companies targetting mass markets) don't publish things like this anymore is it's just begging for sexist jerks to come out of the woodwork and start throwing their gender essentialist bullcrap around, and when the rest of the table yells at them for killing the vibe, they just point to the rulebook, and they take a deep breath and they get real high, and they scream from the top of their lungs, "IT'S GODDAMN RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAW!"

Jokes about 4 Non Blondes and He-Man aside, Wizards of the Coast, Paizo, and other big tabletop companies have realized that a significant portion of their current core market consists of women, LGBTQ+ people, and ethnic minorities, all demographics whose members can profess to have in the past experienced disproportionate amounts of hate, abuse, and general insensitivity, intentional or not, thrown at them from other members of the scene, experiences that may have turned them away from the hobby for a time. Adding the gender adjusted stat caps back in, which got dropped by the time the second edition of AD&D was released, perhaps even earlier (1e was a mess in terms of internal editions) would just give the wangrods yet another bludgeon to swing around and turn people away.

Truth be told, at the individual table level, most jackasses like that would have been given the boot assuming the DM had their head on their shoulders straight. Unfortunately, that doesn't always happen, especially when the prime offender is the DM themselves. And at some point, it becomes a systemic problem that must be curtailed by adjusting the game itself, rather than hoping that each and every table lives up to a certain ethical standard without intervention from the game designers' part.

(Also, anecdote: a good portion of the tables I've sat down at featured female barbarians. Don't know why, and I know there's no real statistical correlation between those isolated events, but it happens.)

You're proud of keeping the torch alive? Why? What purpose does the burning of this flame serve?
To answer your question, yes, its very fun.

Proud? No. Its too minor a thing to be proud of. Its one tiny little aspect of things. Does it contribute to how good over all the game is though? Yes. But its a minor part among many. The purpose it serves is verisimilitude.

You are at times very rude and overly presumptive btw. ;)

But i dont block people. Ever. So you're good.
 

In the real world the strongest woman is not going to be as strong as the strongest man. But D&D is a fantasy game, not reality. Strength can also be interpreted as more than just muscle mass. I don't make any restrictions.

But if we're talking about strength, I have a lot of issues with how it's implemented. Like how in D&D a person can be stronger than the average grizzly bear. I'm sorry, but no. There is just no way a person can be that strong.

It's a game. It's not always realistic.
i agree. I do have a farily reasonable explanation for this though. Its not earth, or even our universe, and the physical laws are similar enough but a bit different. So too is biology. Similar enough, but a bit different. Ergo, things like, say, humans, can, with great struggle, push past normal anatomical upper limits. But its both rare and difficult. The nature of the planar cosmos' and magic' influence on physical laws and on the biological limits of adaptation are nidged just enough to cause the ceiling to be more fuzzy.

BUT THIS APPLIES to animals other than humans too. You might just possibly find a grizzly bear who has pushed way past those very same normal limits. And then you are bear food if you take this mundane enemy lightly.

To maintain verisimilitude i adjust the distribution to make sense.
 

In the real world the strongest woman is not going to be as strong as the strongest man. But D&D is a fantasy game, not reality. Strength can also be interpreted as more than just muscle mass. I don't make any restrictions.

But if we're talking about strength, I have a lot of issues with how it's implemented. Like how in D&D a person can be stronger than the average grizzly bear. I'm sorry, but no. There is just no way a person can be that strong.

It's a game. It's not always realistic.
also actually in the real world the strongest woman will over all be a vastly inferior athlete to just typical highschool male gym rat meat heads. This is as far as strength goes. The difference is really that large. World's fastest woman on the other hand will fair a little better. A little. So depending on what sport she has trained to be amazing at they can be closer or further. But always far behind. In some cases world class will even fail against average middle school boys. On a regular basis this happens in soccer. World class female soccer teams will actually end up losing to middle school boys. It could even be said that the women in this matchup have slightly greater technical knowledge but they still lose. Horribly.

If anyone doubts me, sometime just look up women's world weight lifting records (Since its easier tgan looking for most other sport records) and then look up highschool boys world weight lifting records for various weight lifting activities. Be sure to double check every female entry to make sure they arent trans. We're talking about anatomy here. The difference will astound you.

My preference is to keep male and female members of a race or species at the same midline for stats and simply adjust curves unless a particular race is known for exceptionally vast differences between the two (more than humans) at which point i add a mod because it is part of preserving the identity of that race. An example would be spiders. Females have a massive stat advantage. Same goes for some species of troll for instance. And so on including various humanoid races.
 
Last edited:


Aside from the well known half fiends of the setting, I've always held the opinion that Planetouched should just spring up in areas where there's been big ol' magic related to a thing used. So anywhere Iuz's forces have torn through, people will just occasionally have Tieflings as kids rather than humans.

I'm quite the opposite. I'm of the opinion that, like Iuz himself, any outsider hybrid should be the result of some very deliberate interactions.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top