Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 6525595" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Yeah I feel like that is just forcing differences for differences sake--if an opportunity arises and would be actually interesting, then players (ideally) should be naturally inclined to taking it. If there isn't an opportunity or it isn't interesting, making it happen strikes me as unwise, forcing people to do things they aren't actually wanting to do.And, again, those 5% (or 20% or whatever percent) differences strike me as almost purely cultural, and therefore applicable to all players regardless of whether their characters are human or non-human. Further, those things will be almost always more fully answered by considering the cultural stuff I mentioned (linguistic quirks, divergence of philosophy or values, aesthetics) than physiology, which is actually fairly near uniform for most D&D races as previously mentioned.To reiterate: I disagree with "Non-humans should be clearly distinguishable from humans." But the differences aren't (meaningfully) more than "Culture X should be clearly distinguishable from culture Y," which should apply just as much to humans as to non-humans. Two characters of different culture, regardless of race, should be distinguishably different. And two characters of the same culture, but different races, should be less easily-distinguished than two characters of the same race but different cultures.</blockquote>