D&D 5E Jeremy Crawford Discusses Details on Custom Origins

[Cadence]

If you mean the elf, dwarf, and halfling, then yes. But not so much the half-elf or half-orc.

It had the non-demi-god races required to play the Fellowship. There were only a handful of Half-Elves in all of Tolkien, even given a few more years to get out the Silmarillion, and no Half-Orc heroes.

Notice that it played up the struggles, and not the races. There's a reason why that book didn't allow you to play as an elf, halfling, etc. Instead, the one-to-one rules allowed for you to play as a wizard, hero, or super-hero. The wizards also were presented as being akin to artillery, which is far from how Gandalf acted during the mass combat scenes in Tolkien's work. So the name-drop doesn't have much follow-through, besides a few monsters.

Wasn't the basic idea of Chainmail set up to be about armies and not so much individuals in the sense of a PC. For the "one-to-one" rules, is that the "man-to-man" section described before the supplement? It doesn't mention hero or super-hero, does it?

In the fantasy section a hero is described as having the fighting ability of four figures, but also as being part of a unit. The super-heroes are described as being the same but about twice as powerful. Elves are allowed to use magical weapons (in addition to hero-types and certain magic users). The ability to use magic swords explicitly allows elves to combat fantastic figures, including having how well they do against Hero-types, Super Heroes, and Wizards listed in the table.

[As an aside going back to Tolkien as an influence in general, in Chainmail the Orcs are listed as being one of Orcs of the red eye, Orcs of Mordor, Orcs of the Mountains, Orcs of the White Hand, and Isengarders; the Dragon detailed is explicitly said to be typified by the one in the Hobbit, the Wraiths are parenthetically Nazgul, there are Ents and Balrogs. Other literary references include the The True Trolls being from Andersen's 3H&3L and that Elric is a Hero-type with Wizardry. The Law/Chaos goes to both of those.

You should check out the recent "Secrets of Blackmoor" documentary for a more in-depth analysis of what Arneson's game was really like. While Boggs' timeline is impeccable (I contribute to his Patreon), it's important to note other salient points of Arneson's game. For one thing, it was originally a Napoleonic fantasy game, set on Earth, before being ported over to Blackmoor. The players originally played themselves (though it's iffy if that was before or after the switch-over from Earth to Blackmoor), and it was several years before demihuman PCs were introduced (i.e. they were an afterthought).

The fantasy game started in early 1971 according to the timeline. If they began playing themselves (porting from a Napoleonic game) then it would be hard for them to have started as demi-humans. Some were by 1972. That's not several years after it became fantasy.

If we're playing Gamma World 1e and then shift over to AD&D 1e (using the adjustments in the DMG) and start playing using those rules "with the same characters", is it the same game in a game rules sense or the same campaign in a looser one?

Again, they weren't there when Arneson started his Blackmoor game. But insofar as published works go, they were there from the beginning. So really, the whole "D&D would have failed if it hadn't had them" is a fairly pointless bit of speculation to begin with. That said, other games had those races and more (T&T) and were more accessible than D&D, and still didn't do as well.

Maybe because D&D was first and had the important races? We know it succeeded with those core races. There is, of course, no evidence it would have without them. It feels like the competition would have been harder if the other offerings had something popular D&D lacked. (Or were the reasons it was called out by Chainmail and by Arneson completely unrelated to popularity?)

I believe you'd lose that argument. Being present doesn't mean that they were notable or otherwise significant. As noted, they were a late addition to Arneson's game, and weren't options in Chainmail. D&D allowed them, but only in very limited ways (restricting their class options and available levels, which would last for several editions).

It feels like your statement on Arneson's game and Chainmail are both incomplete and/or misleading (as discussed above).

And, based on your earlier arguments (post #176) the level limits apparently aren't even that big of a restriction or limitation. And I'm betting that in many games they were commonly played in spite of the limitations (and would have been moreso without them). My first characters were a B/X Dwarf and Halfling. My longest lived early 1e character was an Elf. (That probably stacks up against 4 or 5 humans made in that time period).

As said above, capturing the LotR is explicitly called out in the Chainmail supplement and in the motivation for Blackmoor. Even more, Tolkienian names, if not idea, seem central to the Fantasy Supplement (with Elric & 3L3H a distant second). The three races are central enough that they appear in Chainmail (one of them inspite of not being useful in combat), Blackmoor, and Greyhawk, and the original published rules. And in 1e, and B/X, 2e, 3e, 4e PhB1, and 5e. That all feels like at least some evidence that they are pretty central to what the game aims to be as a default in the eyes of its makers.

The other side seems to consist of Gary not liking that Tolkien was such a big part of fantasy and some what-ifs.

 

[Scott Christian]

Two questions:

For those stating the DM doesn't have to allow it, I do have a question:

In any other thread about a DM's power, do you take the side that the DM is the final arbiter of gameplay?

I don't ask to incite. I ask because most threads I have read insist that the DM and players are equal. This seems to go against that logic. (I have not kept track of who says what, I am asking from a broader perspective.)

And the other question is in the same vein. What about the tables that are split, meaning the DM does not have that power. Is there a chance it could split the table, making fun for some and a break in immersion for others? (I don't think this would happen to very many tables here, as most of us are older. But, I can see it happening in younger tables.)

 

[Helldritch]

1) I am the final arbiter of situations and events.
2) I can be out veto by the players on what rules and complements we use at the table. I can not change a rule or remove a complement mid campaign unless players vote to agree.

That said. I am the DM. Even though I prefer a democratic game, it is still me that do all the work for the campaigns. My players respect that and I doubt that they would impose a style that I do not want on me. If push comes to shove, I can always stop DMing and pass the torch to somebody else. It is a question of mutual respect at the tables (I have two groups).

I am pretty vocal that many things in Tasha are not to my liking. But the players want the book anyways for the subclasses. They have been pretty clear about that. They decided to buy it for me as they know that I will not buy it my self. So I will have the book, whether I want it or not. A strange case that I am living...

 

[Chaosmancer]

Can you please quote where I used the phrase "zero impact"?

You never used that exact phrase, but I do believe it was you who said that it would be nearly impossible to distinguish a dwarf fighter from a human fighter. Which would be so small of an impact to be like zero, if you want me to be more pedantic about the numbers.

I mean if the impact is so small as to not be noticeable at the table, how else am I supposed to interpret that?

By the way, I still disagree with that. I feel like race has a much bigger impact than that. It isn't more important than class, but I feel like it is certainly noticeable.

It's not, which explains why you keep misunderstanding the point that's under discussion. The point isn't that the game was designed to have multiple races from the beginning. It's that the inclusion of Tolkien-style demihuman races was an altogether modest part of the game, which would have had very little overall impact if they hadn't been included. (Heck, it wouldn't even have left D&D being a single-race game; gnomes, anyone?).

That's the point that's under discussion (even if there have been quite a few tangents).

I guess I'm getting confused as to your actual point then.

Are you trying to say that if the game had not included Tolkien-Style specifically it wouldn't have mattered much? I can agree with that. Tolkien barely has an impact on some of the races, and even the closest parrallels clearly have some big differences from Tolkien's source material.

But, if you are trying to say that if the game had not included any demi-humans it would not have mattered, I have to disagree with you. That would have made for a massive change to DnD as a product, to have been only about humans.

So, if your point is "no demihumans and it would have been fine" I disagree, that is too deeply tied into the game to have been taken out with no impact. If it is "no Tolkien-style demihumans specifically, but they were replaced with something else" then I can agree with you, that was a far more modest impact.

There was no presentation of it being a "bold move" (that I recall). Rather, it was Cass (the player in question) trying to assert that the Core Rules could not be abridged, and the DM overruling him. Likewise, I'd say that movie represented the game very well indeed. Far more so than virtually any other RPG-based film (with the possible exception of "Zero Charisma," but in a different way).

Sure, it did DnD well in some respects. But it is not the same as playing DnD. I don't think that is a very controversial position to take, right? In the end, it works because it was a movie, not because it showed exactly how DnD works.

And, going back to what I thought your position was (ie no demihumans at all) the very fact that whether or not someone could play something other than human being a point of conflict between a DM and a Player (even one like Cass) shows that the ability to play something other than human is an expected norm of the culture.

A minor part, to be certain, but as noted it didn't play much of a role in helping D&D make it's mark. Direct your attention again to Tunnels & Trolls, which had more races than D&D and didn't do as well.

It's likewise false to claim that they played an "equal role in your character as your class did." Your class played a far greater role (notwithstanding B/X and BECMI).

But the comparison to Tunnels and Trolls misses the point. Look back at the original claim. Game with only one race option vs game with multiple race options (let us say 6)

Tunnels and Trolls vs DnD was more game with 6 options vs game with 12 options. And yes, more is not always better. I have a friend who was desigining a game a while back, last I saw character creation he had almost 20 race options for the core rules. Far too many.

But, his game could not possibly work (as an mythic japan setting standing in an opposition to the LoTFR style) with only humans. And maybe Tunnels and Trolls more races hit too many, or maybe the increase from 6 to 8 ( mere 33% increase) was not big enough to make a difference between the two. I mean, 1 to 6 is a 600% increase, that is a far larger leap.

Sure, people mention all sorts of details about their character. That doesn't mean that they're salient features in terms of what they can do in the game. Would your 20th-level human wizard (3E and later, obviously) play significantly differently if he was a 20th-level elf wizard? Or would be significantly different if he was a 20th-level human fighter?

Yes. Just as a basic first thought, the elf has access to longbows and longswords, giving him far better martial ability if he runs out of spell to use.

And yes, obviously it is a bigger difference to be a fighter instead. But being an elf matters, the game has revolved around you making two choices for your character. Race and Class. I have no idea why you want to deny that Race is a factor, and say that all that matters is the class.

D&D is what it is in modest part due to the elves, dwarves, halflings, etc., sure. But the Tolkien-esque demihumans simply aren't a particularly notable part of making the game what it is. Far from being "core identity," the game plays exactly the same without them, which wouldn't be true if you suddenly didn't have, say, clerics (particularly if there's no other source of healing magic available). Tolkien-style demihumans aren't the sugar in Pepsi; those are the classes. Rather, the demihumans are the red-and-blue logo design. You can do away with that and still have Pepsi be Pepsi.

Okay, again, is your whole problem the idea that the races had to come from Tolkien? I can agree that they didn't need to come from Tolkien. And yes, you can take out elves and it is less impactful than taking out clerics (who didn't exist in the early days, while elves did).

But I don't think you could get rid of race entirely with no impact. The game is thought about, played, marketed, and designed with the idea that you can choose a class and a race. And that race has a mechanical impact that is important to making the game DnD.

Could it have been any number of other races instead of Tolkien-style races? Sure. It could have been. But a DnD without multiple different races just does not feel like DnD to me.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two questions:

For those stating the DM doesn't have to allow it, I do have a question:

In any other thread about a DM's power, do you take the side that the DM is the final arbiter of gameplay?

I don't ask to incite. I ask because most threads I have read insist that the DM and players are equal. This seems to go against that logic. (I have not kept track of who says what, I am asking from a broader perspective.)

And the other question is in the same vein. What about the tables that are split, meaning the DM does not have that power. Is there a chance it could split the table, making fun for some and a break in immersion for others? (I don't think this would happen to very many tables here, as most of us are older. But, I can see it happening in younger tables.)

I don't think it goes against the logic of the DM and players being equal at all.

If I, as a player, came to the DM and told them that a current scene we were going through made me uncomfortable and was ruining my enjoyment of the game, I would expect them to take it seriously and hopefully work to address the problem.

If a DM came to us as players, and told us that these rules for changing racial ability modifiers made them uncomfortable, and ruined the fun of running the game for them, then I would try and treat that with the same respect.

The issue I tend to have is that the people claiming they will "never allow something at their table" seem to be more concerned with aspects that I don't feel would actually ruin running the game for them. A lot of times it is more of a "I don't like it and I think it is stupid" and less of an impact on their ability to run the game.

Especially in this case when the effect is so far in the background of the game. I don't tend to bat an eye at a certain race being good at certain things. I've seen halflings with 12 or 14 strength attempting and succeeding feat of strength. It happens. It would be more strange to me to see a wizard do it, but even then, it is simply odd, not bad. We did have a guy who rolled an amazing stat array and had a wizard whose lowest stat was his 14 charisma, it happens.

Are you really going to be that distraught as a DM if the Dwarf wizard tells you his save DC is 15 instead of 14? Or that he has a +7 to hit, instead of a +6? I often don't give much thought to my players actually modifiers, so I struggle to see how as a DM this would bother me.

Meanwhile, as a player, I have seen the impact and I can see the good. And the player is far more immersed in his sheet and studying it every single session, making it a more obvious impact to them

 

[Alzrius]

It had the non-demi-god races required to play the Fellowship. There were only a handful of Half-Elves in all of Tolkien, even given a few more years to get out the Silmarillion, and no Half-Orc heroes.

"non-demi-god"? I hate to break it to you, but Gandalf was a 5th-level magic-user.

Wasn't the basic idea of Chainmail set up to be about armies and not so much individuals in the sense of a PC. For the "one-to-one" rules, is that the "man-to-man" section described before the supplement? It doesn't mention hero or super-hero, does it?

You have the basic idea right, though I'm not sure why you're bringing that up here. In my copy (3rd Edition, 8th+ printing), there are the medieval warfare rules, followed by the brief man-to-man rules (I misrembered the name), followed by the fantasy supplement. However, in the fantasy supplement's description of heroes and super-heroes, it talks about using them as individuals, which it doesn't do for elves, dwarves, or halflings.

In the fantasy section a hero is described as having the fighting ability of four figures, but also as being part of a unit.

It's likewise described in terms of individual ability. Specifically:

"They are the last figure in a unit that will be killed by regular missile fire of [sic] melee, but they may be attacked individually by enemy troops of like type (such as other Hero-types) or creatures shown on the Fantasy Combat Table. Heroes (and Anti-Heroes) may act independent of their command in order to combat some other fantastic character."

The super-heroes are described as being the same but about twice as powerful.

Which includes the notes on independent action.

Elves are allowed to use magical weapons (in addition to hero-types and certain magic users). The ability to use magic swords explicitly allows elves to combat fantastic figures, including having how well they do against Hero-types, Super Heroes, and Wizards listed in the table.

As units, not as individuals. That's not an unimportant distinction to make.

[As an aside going back to Tolkien as an influence in general, in Chainmail the Orcs are listed as being one of Orcs of the red eye, Orcs of Mordor, Orcs of the Mountains, Orcs of the White Hand, and Isengarders; the Dragon detailed is explicitly said to be typified by the one in the Hobbit, the Wraiths are parenthetically Nazgul, there are Ents and Balrogs. Other literary references include the The True Trolls being from Andersen's 3H&3L and that Elric is a Hero-type with Wizardry. The Law/Chaos goes to both of those.

Those distinctions don't show up in my copy of Chainmail, and aren't mentioned in the distinctions made between printings over on the Acaeum, which does make note of changes between "hobbits" and "halflings" between printings.

The fantasy game started in early 1971 according to the timeline. If they began playing themselves (porting from a Napoleonic game) then it would be hard for them to have started as demi-humans. Some were by 1972. That's not several years after it became fantasy.

Presuming that you're referring to this timeline, it's worth noting that even if we overlook the large disclaimer that it's reconstructed from the memory of one person decades later, it also doesn't say when fantasy races as PCs were introduced. So we can't use it to say for certain that Tolkien-esque demihumans were actually an early part of the game, which if I recall correctly was your assertion.

If we're playing Gamma World 1e and then shift over to AD&D 1e (using the adjustments in the DMG) and start playing using those rules "with the same characters", is it the same game in a game rules sense or the same campaign in a looser one?

I'm not sure I follow what you're suggesting here. Likewise, the answer to that question would likely be taken to be different today from several decades ago, where differences between genres in general and games in particular (e.g. "edition wars") would be very different from how they were perceived then. There's a reason why no one cared very much when the AD&D Monster Manual came out a year before the Player's Handbook. Today that wouldn't be feasible.

Maybe because D&D was first and had the important races? We know it succeeded with those core races. There is, of course, no evidence it would have without them.

There's also no evidence to say that it succeeded because of them. Remember, T&T had those races and more, and it didn't do as well as D&D.

It feels like the competition would have been harder if the other offerings had something popular D&D lacked. (Or were the reasons it was called out by Chainmail and by Arneson completely unrelated to popularity?)

The issue of Gygax and Arneson dueling over the importance of Chainmail to D&D's formation has nothing to do with the presence/absence of particular fantasy races, so popular or not we can dispense with the idea of that being a salient point of comparison.

I'll mention again that early games did have things that D&D lacked - T&T let you play as a fairy - and didn't overtake it.

It feels like your statement on Arneson's game and Chainmail are both incomplete and/or misleading (as discussed above).

It's neither. On the contrary, it's far more misleading to suggest that purported later additions (please note again that you've apparently referenced a timeline that says nothing about fantasy races in Blackmoor as support) were somehow integral despite not being part of the game at the beginning.

And, based on your earlier arguments (post #176) the level limits apparently aren't even that big of a restriction or limitation. And I'm betting that in many games they were commonly played in spite of the limitations (and would have been moreso without them). My first characters were a B/X Dwarf and Halfling. My longest lived early 1e character was an Elf. (That probably stacks up against 4 or 5 humans made in that time period).

First, it's important to note that citing a particular post doesn't lend your point any more credence unless it actually establishes something, which isn't the case here. Rather, you're trying to insert a disconnect where there isn't any with regards to level limits. In terms of level limits establishing the overall inconsequence of fantas races compared to humans, they do (nor are they the only thing that does). That doesn't mean you couldn't keep playing such a character.

As said above, capturing the LotR is explicitly called out in the Chainmail supplement and in the motivation for Blackmoor. Even more, Tolkienian names, if not idea, seem central to the Fantasy Supplement (with Elric & 3L3H a distant second). The three races are central enough that they appear in Chainmail (one of them inspite of not being useful in combat), Blackmoor, and Greyhawk, and the original published rules. And in 1e, and B/X, 2e, 3e, 4e PhB1, and 5e. That all feels like at least some evidence that they are pretty central to what the game aims to be as a default in the eyes of its makers.

You're misinterpreting what's there. The issue of a call-out doesn't establishing particular notability, which is why the particular aspects that you're focusing on (i.e. elves, dwarves, and halflings) aren't singled out for man-to-man play the way heroes and super-heroes are. Having them as units doesn't make them any more "central" than it does for sprites or chimerea [sic] or elementals, all of which are also listed. To suggest that barely a half-dozen or so creatures out of a larger list makes them "central" to the game strikes me as disingenuous. (And of course, this is presuming that we continue with the underlying assumption that the elves and dwarves are from Tolkien at all. Notice that Gary can attribute the halflings to Tolkien, so there's no real reason for him to be less than honest regarding the other two races.)

The other side seems to consist of Gary not liking that Tolkien was such a big part of fantasy and some what-ifs.

On the contrary, the "other side" looks at the totality of the game and finds that there simply isn't very much Tolkien influence there, which you've helped highlight here.

 

[Oofta]

I'm not a Tolkien Scholar, but I think if you have to get to the point of "but which elves were better in which ways" and "or did it all come from their personal and close relationship to their gods to get all that" I think we've moved beyond "Tolkien elves were dexterous and that was it"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Elves should get a +2 to Dex, because Elves are more dexterous as shown by their +2 to Dex.

Circular logic doesn't seem like a great place to go, especially since, if we want to base this back into Tolkien inspiring Gygax I would point out that Hobbits (which are halflings) were not particularly dexterous. They weren't running over snow and ice and performing the feats Legolas did.

And with this change, Elves can still be more dexterous than the baseline. But they can also be more graceful and beautiful, or stronger, or wiser or any of the other traits that Tolkien gave his elves. If I want to emulate Galadriel, I'm not exactly looking for her parkour abilities and her being an excellent shot with a bow.

Edit: I see that you thinkthis is linear, because you start with your assumption assumed. That elves are in fact more dexterous. While this is generally true, it is not always true. I have read literature where elves are literal plant people, or in fact no more skilled than humans, just longer lived.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Okay, if you want to gimp your character to be weaker for story reasons.... you still can. You can still play that Dwarven Bard with +2 Strength and +2 Con and even put your lowest stat in charisma.

The difference is that it is your choice now, not a restriction placed upon you by the system.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I feel like you entirely missed the point.

The point isn't that an all-human team sucks. The point is that you can tell the difference between a human fighter and a dwarf fighter. They aren't the same character at all. Similiar? Of course, they are both fighters, but they are also very different. And if they aren't that it is a problem.

And, like Cadence said. If DnD had not come out with the ability for people to play other races, and a different game did, then DnD would have to adapt or die. Most Fantasy and Sci-Fi TTRPGS allow for the players to be one of multiple "races" because that offers more freedom to explore the most common tropes of those genres.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I always have to chuckle when people quote this, because wow is there no good way for it to be taken.

For example, it is rather easy to look at that quote, and the idea that making everyone have super powers and tech that would allow them to compete with mortal gods born with power unattainable, and say that equality is evil.

After all, if everyone is equal, then no one is special and if no one is special that is bad.

I mean, that was Syndrome's "dark future" everyone has the tech to be equal to a man born with the ability to bench press trains. Everyone has the ability to defend themselves against a woman who can turn invisible or a man who can cut stone with his eyes.




Likely because it doesn't make sense from our perspective.

I've never seen a Dwarven Wizard. It is unexpected for me. Seeing more of them will be interesting.

But I have seen an Elven Rogue. Quite a bit. In fact, nearly all the time. High Elf rogue with Booming Blade. Yawn, boring, next please.

More Dwarven Wizards and potentially fewer Elven Rogues (because people may want to try Tiefling Rogues, or Gnomish Rogues) sounds like a win-win-win for me.

All of those "play against types" that you want to keep being able to play? I'd like to actually see them played. I'd like to finally see a Dwarven Wizard, but as things stand, no one at my tables wants to play one. If they become so common as to be boring... well, it least they are different than what is currently so common as to be boring.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And honestly, I think this is where I differ from the detractors of Tasha's the most.

I have never seen a Gnome fighter, A Dwarven Wizard, An Elven Paladin, or a Half-Orc warlock. I think those sound like fun concepts though. Those are characters I would be interested in seeing.

And no, I'm not going to see them as is. It has been nearly 6 years, no one at my tables is going to go for playing a character with a 15 as their highest stat. We've tried that a few times, it was always an issue. Every single time, it caused the player to have less fun.

Designing around challenges might be fun for people who like the mechanical puzzle of DnD, but that isn't a concern for me. I solved enough of those puzzles a long time ago in this edition. They don't interest me. Especially since, the clear answer is not to play against presumed type.The mechanical puzzle tells me that those characters are less optimal, and therefore should not be chosen.

Tasha's gives those characters a chance to make it to the table. And maybe the future of DnD is now a grey wasteland where everyone is the same, and it is so boring to see your 8th Dwarven Wizard with yadda yadda yadda. And none of us will have fun anymore, because there is no challenge to design around.

But, not only do I think that is not the case, I think I can prove it is not the case by pointing to another game that has existed for quite a few decades. Pokemon is not a hard game. In fact, beating pokemon as it is designed is trivially easy. When fans wanted more of a challenge, they came up with the Nuzlocke rules, which increased the difficulty of the game.

So, in that grey wasteland of the future where everyone is bored because challenge no longer exists? I imagine we would invent our own challenge. Maybe by doing something radical, like not use the optional rules and have static Racial ASI's again.

Just a thought.

You really don't get it, do you? Part of it is that it's just one more step towards race having little or no impact more than a Halloween mask, it's chipping away at archetypes that make D&D what it is.

More importantly it's not about and never has been about playing a "gimped" character. It's about playing an unexpected or unusual combination. Sometimes I want to celebrate people who overcome perceived shortcomings and expectations. Not because that dwarven wizard was as good as the high elf wizard because he had exactly the same advantages, but because while he had (minor) deficit in one area he made up for it in others.

In a future where everybody uses Tasha's, a dwarven wizard will no longer an unexpected or unusual combination, there will be no built-in prejudice against the build that I can prove to be false.

I want to acknowledge that while not everyone is the same it doesn't mean that they can't be special in a different way. My dwarven wizard wasn't quite as intelligent at lower levels, but he was a lot more durable and had a better AC.

There have always been ways to play a wizard that was optimized by the numbers, if Tasha's is used, there will no longer be a way to show that you can overcome built in expectations and prejudices. That just because you are not "as good" in one sense that you can't be just as successful by emphasizing different strengths.

 

[Remathilis]

Waddya mean dwarves can be other classes but fighting-man?
Waddya mean dwarves can be fighters higher than 9th level?
Waddya mean dwarves can have less than a 12 Con and higher than a 17 dex?
Waddya mean dwarves can now be clerics?
Waddya mean dwarves can now be wizards, paladins or bards?
Waddya mean dwarves no longer have innate resistance to using magical items?
Waddya mean dwarves no longer have innate bonuses to fighting orcs and giants?
Waddya mean dwarves no longer have a penalty to Charisma?
Waddya mean dwarves can put their stat bump in something other than Con?
...

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Waddya mean dwarves can be other classes but fighting-man?
Waddya mean dwarves can be fighters higher than 9th level?
Waddya mean dwarves can have less than a 12 Con and higher than a 17 dex?
Waddya mean dwarves can now be clerics?
Waddya mean dwarves can now be wizards, paladins or bards?
Waddya mean dwarves no longer have innate resistance to using magical items?
Waddya mean dwarves no longer have innate bonuses to fighting orcs and giants?
Waddya mean dwarves can put their stat bump in something other than Con?
...

But the common thing around which change happens is ‘dwarf.’

if there is no dwarf, there is no point in asking ‘whaddya mean?’ Because nothing is surprising at some point.

If it’s not a weird combo, it’s just this skin and this class, ‘oh well.’ You can pair any class and any skin without repercussions.

but it’s true, the game changes and part of the reason it is exciting is because of some basis in shared lore.

edited for autocorrected nonsense!

 

[Oofta]

Buy the common thing around which change happens is ‘dwarf.’

if there is no dwarf, there is no point in asking ‘whaddya mean?’ Because nothing is surprising at some point.

If it’s not a weird combo, it’s just this skin and this class, ‘oh well.’ You can pair any class and any skin without repercussions.

but it’s true, the game changes and part of the reason it is exciting is because of some basis in shared lore.

See also: the thread on strength based clerics.

 

[Alzrius]

You never used that exact phrase, but I do believe it was you who said that it would be nearly impossible to distinguish a dwarf fighter from a human fighter. Which would be so small of an impact to be like zero, if you want me to be more pedantic about the numbers.

Again, I'm not sure about the "nearly impossible" part (though at least this time you didn't use quotation marks), since I recall that I expressed the sentiment that the difference between two different classes of the same level was much larger than that of two characters of different races but the same class and level.

I mean if the impact is so small as to not be noticeable at the table, how else am I supposed to interpret that?

How about noticing that I didn't say "so small not to be noticeable" nor imply it. Rather, the difference is comparative in nature. Compare a 20th-level human wizard to a 20th-level elven wizard to a 20th-level human fighter (obviously in 3E or later); do the two humans really seem more alike than the two wizards?

By the way, I still disagree with that. I feel like race has a much bigger impact than that. It isn't more important than class, but I feel like it is certainly noticeable.

Again, I don't recall expressing the sentiment that the difference was completely undetectable (and if I did, I hope this makes it clear that it was hyperbole).

I guess I'm getting confused as to your actual point then.

Are you trying to say that if the game had not included Tolkien-Style specifically it wouldn't have mattered much? I can agree with that. Tolkien barely has an impact on some of the races, and even the closest parrallels clearly have some big differences from Tolkien's source material.

It's important to reiterate that "Tolkien-style demihumans" includes, as we have them now, elves, dwarves, halflings, half-elves, and half-orcs. (As I noted in a previous post, this is overlooking what Gary said before wherein he admitted that the halflings were Tolkien's, but rebutted that claim with regards to elves and dwarves.) The gnome, for one, was never from there.

But, if you are trying to say that if the game had not included any demi-humans it would not have mattered, I have to disagree with you. That would have made for a massive change to DnD as a product, to have been only about humans.

We're getting into issues of "how much" that can't really be measured. That said, I don't think that having only humans as playable races would have mattered very much (which is an extension of the discussion regarding Tolkien's influence; that is, a tangent). D&D's influence was such that it was basically able to largely define the niche it set for itself, even as it drew on a byzantine array of sources. To that end, I think that it's ability to set a standard is being underestimated; had it not featured demihumans as PC races, I'm of the opinion that it would still have occupied a place of prominence in the space it created.

So, if your point is "no demihumans and it would have been fine" I disagree, that is too deeply tied into the game to have been taken out with no impact. If it is "no Tolkien-style demihumans specifically, but they were replaced with something else" then I can agree with you, that was a far more modest impact.

As noted, the issue of "no demihumans whatsoever" is largely a tangent (again, note the poor, oft-overlooked gnome). That said, I don't see them being "tied" deeply to the game, simply because "the game" was what D&D said it was back in the beginning. While plenty of proto-RPGs were being bandied about in the Twin Cities area at the time, D&D swept over the gaming scene like a wildfire when it came out. I think that had less to do with available races than it did with simply offering a cohesive framework of play. Not having the option to play as a halfling doesn't strike me as impacting that much at all.

Sure, it did DnD well in some respects. But it is not the same as playing DnD. I don't think that is a very controversial position to take, right? In the end, it works because it was a movie, not because it showed exactly how DnD works.

Watching a movie isn't the same as playing the game, sure. But that particular movie captures the idea of the game (in humorous terms, largely by playing up areas of dysfunction between the players), at least in terms of how actual sessions go. In that regard, it's certainly more appreciated as being represented of the pastime that it depicts than many fully in-character films...such as Dungeons & Dragons (2000).

And, going back to what I thought your position was (ie no demihumans at all) the very fact that whether or not someone could play something other than human being a point of conflict between a DM and a Player (even one like Cass) shows that the ability to play something other than human is an expected norm of the culture.

I feel the need to point out again that we're slipping between the main debate (the degree of influence Tolkien had) and a tangent (does D&D need non-human playable races to be D&D?). Likewise, we're also bouncing back and forth between examining the game when it emerged versus the contemporary depiction. That's worth keeping in mind.

As for "an expected norm of the culture," that scene wasn't about the culture. It was about Cass being a stickler for what's in the "Core Rules," as he'd previously argued about playing a monk in an Occidental setting, and before that the feasibility of cutting a divine spellcaster off from their god. It set up the conflict between a "rules lawyer" and the story-oriented DM.

But the comparison to Tunnels and Trolls misses the point. Look back at the original claim. Game with only one race option vs game with multiple race options (let us say 6)

Again, that's a response to a related, but not identical, tangent. It shoots down the idea that more races as a whole are some sort of selling point, since a game that came out hot on the metaphorical heels of D&D had more in that area (along with other selling points, such as ease of access with regards to understanding the rules) and yet didn't do as well.

Tunnels and Trolls vs DnD was more game with 6 options vs game with 12 options. And yes, more is not always better. I have a friend who was desigining a game a while back, last I saw character creation he had almost 20 race options for the core rules. Far too many.

But, his game could not possibly work (as an mythic japan setting standing in an opposition to the LoTFR style) with only humans. And maybe Tunnels and Trolls more races hit too many, or maybe the increase from 6 to 8 ( mere 33% increase) was not big enough to make a difference between the two. I mean, 1 to 6 is a 600% increase, that is a far larger leap.

That's sort of what I was implying though. A generic thrust of "D&D couldn't have worked with just one races" is a position that can be blunted in terms of its underlying argument (that more is better) by pointing to T&T. That shifts the focus back to it needing those particular demihuman races, which implies Tolkien, circling the discussion back around to that.

Yes. Just as a basic first thought, the elf has access to longbows and longswords, giving him far better martial ability if he runs out of spell to use.

How significant is that "better" martial ability? There's no particular increase of their to-hit bonus, and any enchantments could just as easily be applied to a dagger or crossbow (for a human wizard). The best you can get is increasing the damage die from a dagger (d4) to a longbow (d8), which increases the average damage from 2.5 to 4.5. Not much at all at 20th level!

And yes, obviously it is a bigger difference to be a fighter instead. But being an elf matters, the game has revolved around you making two choices for your character. Race and Class. I have no idea why you want to deny that Race is a factor, and say that all that matters is the class.

I haven't suggested that it's not a factor, just that it's not very much of one compared to other aspects of your character, such as class. The two choices aren't equivalent in their overall weight (for lack of a better term).

Okay, again, is your whole problem the idea that the races had to come from Tolkien? I can agree that they didn't need to come from Tolkien. And yes, you can take out elves and it is less impactful than taking out clerics (who didn't exist in the early days, while elves did).

But I don't think you could get rid of race entirely with no impact. The game is thought about, played, marketed, and designed with the idea that you can choose a class and a race. And that race has a mechanical impact that is important to making the game DnD.

Could it have been any number of other races instead of Tolkien-style races? Sure. It could have been. But a DnD without multiple different races just does not feel like DnD to me.

Phrasing it as a "problem" strikes me as a rather unfair way of putting it. My overall point is that the people saying "there is no D&D without Tolkien" are wrong, self-evidently so. His works are a single, modest part of a much larger tapestry of influences on what made D&D the way it was when it came out, and that if there hadn't been any there then it wouldn't have made much of a difference. His footprint simply seems larger because, for one reason, the demihuman races are mostly his, and the player-facing nature of those options come across as being a large part of the game. They're not, and notwithstanding the race-as-class aspects of B/X and BECMI, choice of race overall isn't the major factor that a lot of people seem to think it is.