Although I rather like D&D’s approach of character creation by picking from a couple of options (race, class, background), I have to admit that those arguing for getting rid of racial builds have a point.
I wonder, however, how long it will take for people to realize that classes are as problematic as races. It seems to me that we’re on the verge of realizing that it would be simpler, more elegant and more satisfying to play D&D without races, classes or levels.
I don't think that would happen. The convenience and thematics of bundled abilities and roles for wizards, clerics, fighters, ect is deeply ingrained and works very very well.
Sure, little bits here and there, but something like class alternative features is a fine solution to give multiple options at the appropriate levels.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, I did let real world frustration affect my post. Sorry.
No problem man, it happens.
But this whole discussion is opinion ... there is no "evidence" to be had on either side. We aren't arguing concrete facts, just opinions and preferences. Of course you'll just dismiss anything I say as "not proof" because I disagree with you. Then again, you have no evidence either so there's no point.
I would bring up the fact that there is more to evidence than being able to straight quote a book or show a mathematical proof, but I think I would rather end this discussion with this instead of drag it out more.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This right here. 95% of the fantasy books written. 95% of the fantasy heroes in video games. 95% of the fantasy characters on tv. D&D has had an influence on. Many Hollywood writer rooms have D&D books in them. And I feel certain more than a few authors and video game designers have D&D books on their bookshelves. It has seeped into the culture, and one cannot talk fantasy without talking D&D.
When you remove definable archetypes, you steadily lose identity.
You can change archetypes. You can change races and make the orcs smart and noble and wise. But, you need archetypes. It is the velcro that allows people to adhere their memories to.
Again, this right here.
Yes and no.
Yes, DnD had a massive influence on everything, especially the realms of Fantasy.
But, archetypes change and evolve. They must.
The archetypal "hero" has changed over the last 200 years, and the last twenty years, because Archetypes reflect the stories being told by the culture, and those stories change over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with you. I was just lumping. I kind of picture people with limited time, like parents and beer and pretzel players to be immediate gratification. Again, I do not take umbrage at min/maxers or optimizers or immediate gratification players. I was just trying to show they are different than the long termers. But you are right, those other groups could (and should) have been included.
The first part has been debated. In this very thread there have been statements that the same old combos would get played and that very little would change. I don't know if it will. But I guess the question is how much?
That is a great question. I do not know the answer. But, I would say that this rule might decrease player satisfaction just as easily as it will increase it. I am not trying to argue just to argue. But hear me out:
- Make everyone get a 16. Some people's satisfaction decrease. People we're speaking to on this very board.
- It's optional, but that is a different debate. Because optional at one table does not mean optional at another. I feel as adults, we all know and understand this. I play with very mature people, yet if the DM didn't want this book in use, but two players really did, the DM would fold, even though it will decrease his satisfaction. Like many DM's he does this to be kind and accommodating. (And by the way, it might irk another player at the table as well.)
- In psychology, often more choices equates to less satisfaction. This is true for many, and not just anxiety prone consumers. A restaurant with a great fixed menu can make guests equally happy as something like Cheesecake Factory that has a 12 page menu. (I keep going back to food analogies, ugh!
)
So will most players be happier. In the short term, I suppose. In the long term, I don't know. But that is the question that sits right next to yours.
Your second bullet point is the real sticky point. Because two players want it, two players don't, and both will have hard feelings about the ruling. There is no solution here, this is pure case by case, table by table,
And we simply can't change that.
As for the psych study, I am passingly familiar with it, but it should be acknowledged that this indicates a spectrum, because we also all know that a lack of choices decreases satisfaction. So, is this too many choices, or are we currently at too few?
Time will tell.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@Chaosmancer Easier for.
How about... casual players? They like things easier…. DM. Here take this archetype.
Player's that are new? They like things easier. DM. Here don’t worry about floating stat thingies. Elfs have a +2 to dex.
Beer and pretzel players? They oscillate, but I think they'd enjoy some easier games.. DM. HEY YOU got to do math. B&P (NOT AFTER 2 Beers.)
Players who are single parents? ME....WELL uM. I don’t have an answer to that because that response makes no bloody sense.
On Tuesdays I am DMing for new players. Some new to Adventure League. Some New to D&D and tabletop. Easier is the PHB and just copy the stats changes. Seeing eyes glass over when I start mentioning multiple options. Tasha sounds like it is there for the whiny power gamers who grip about doing one hit point less than best buddy who did a mechanical damage build.
It makes sense if you remember how much work raising a child is. They don't have the time to dedicate to their favorite game any more, so making it easier would be nice.
And, if you want to argue that the current version is easier... then to follow the original logic power gamers and min/maxers must love the game as is and not care about this harder set of rules. After all, the original point was that min/maxers and optimizers love it when the game gets easier.
Also, way to ruin any chance I was going to agree with you by calling me and my friends "whiny power gamers". Since all of us are excited for this book, that would make all of us like that. Which we are far far from.
But hey, why not just keep insulting the other side, it makes you look good after all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am doing neither of these and
No it would not do. High Elves can play against type by going wisdom, charisma or strength based classes. An Half-Orc can play against type by going intelligence, wisdom or charisma based classes. The same is true for any races save the humans (and the Half-elf as this one can get a 16 anywhere).
So a human from a rich noble family who takes a vow or poverty isn't subverting expectations?
A human born in a city of lawless thieves who is a moral paragon has no stereotype they are combating against?
A human from a demon cult worshipping a goddess (or vice versa) is not playing against type?
It is also good to know that my human can never play against type, in any way, shape or form. Saves me effort from being creative. Heck, sounds like I don't need to be creative with any race. Want to be a unique Tiefling? Play a fighter, don't need to do anything else, you are playing against type and have made an interesting character all ready
(this sarcasm brought to you by facepalming, the thing I've been doing a lot this thread)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe, just maybe, size matters. And wait for it, they are NOT born of dragons like Dragonborn, rather they are reptilian and worship dragons.
Not born of dragons?
Volos entry is called "Kobolds: Little Dragons"
And their entry talks about how they believe they were created by Tiamat and that they are proud to be the blood-kin of dragons.
In fact, we also know that the wings of an Urd (a winged kobold) are seen as a gift from Tiamat (the Queen of Evil
Dragons) and that their patron god Kurtulumak is seen as a servant of Tiamat. Who is traditionally served by, wait for it,
Dragons.
But, sure, size is probably the real reason you did that. Big things strong, small things dexterous. Don't need to get complicated I suppose.
They get a +1 to dex to represent that.
Which your proposed rule takes away, ruling it unimportant?
The entire point was that by narrowing down races into a single stat mod, you are doing exactly what people have been accusing Tasha's of doing. What you yourself seemed unhappy with. Removing Nuance.
You have declared that it is more important that Bugbears are strong rather than being dexterous. But, I can and did make a consistent argument that it can be more important that they are dexterous. So, why is your rule to take away these precious identifiers of racial "identity" different than Tashas? Because you made six categories of sameness instead of one?
Context matters. The context of those posts were stat modifiers, not the entire race.
The context was that removing the stat modifiers would make the entire race homogenous with every other race, indistinguishable from human.
Other than that, I don't even know what you are trying to say by saying that they are about only the modifiers and not the entire race, when they said the "race" will be humans in rubber masks. Do you think they only meant the mechanical ability scores would be humans in rubber masks?
Incorrect, and also another Strawman of our position. We are arguing that the race determines the stat bonus. Big = strong is fine as a RACIAL bonus. Nobody is claiming only one race can have a bonus in any particular stat.
But they were arguing that getting rid of the racial modifiers made everyone homogenous. So, if multiple races can have the same ability scores with no problem... which one's can't?
Because if everyone being able to choose to have any score they prefer is bad, but some of the races having the same scores is okay... what are the acceptable groups? Who is similar enough that they are allowed to share racial bonuses? How can we tell when discussions of why these bonuses exist go nowhere except in tautological circles?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is an against culture. Not type. This is DM fiat with no mechanical support. Where as a the halfling barb has mechanical support to play against type. So nope. You're point do not stand up to close scrutiny. It is almost a strawman.
We could even argue that two knights of Solamnia can play against type because of three orders... yet, no mechanics would support that either. Playing against type requires mechanical incentive (or restriction whatever you want to call it). Otherwise, it is just a fun RP.
"Playing against type" is not restricted to playing against mechanical archetype. That is a gross warping of that term.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potentially you are. Some people might feel strongly about the niches of the races and would feel annoyed if another race can just match their niche. Like if one person in your group chose to play an half-orc to be the big green strong guy they might feel miffed that their niche is violated if you make halfling that is just as strong as them.
Are they equally miffed if I play a strong human? I can get a +2 strength as a level 1 human.
What if I play a strong Goliath, are they miffed I'm taking their niche?
Strong Dwarf?
Strong Firbolg?
Strong Earth Genasi?
Or is their niche threatened because someone smaller than them is equally strong? Do they feel that to be strong they need to tower over everyone else? Would they feel threatened if I played a medium strength elf who was taller than them?
What exactly is their complaint with a second strong man?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've been in very few games where culture was so narrowly defined that playing against type would have any significant impact or even be noticed. To me, that also falls more into a background lore area which can also be cool and a lot of fun.
But I've never seen anyone bat an eye if someone is play X when they come from culture Y. Maybe a wizard from a region known for barbarians and vice versa.
It's different than showing up to an AL game with my mountain dwarf wizard or half-orc monk. I've just never seen playing against type be based totally on culture, although of course different campaigns may well put more emphasis on things like that than I've seen.
Yea, my tables do have this a few times. Not as often as I'd like, but we've often had a few characters who are playing against culture or expectations.
Like my Barbarian who was a knight (and a good knight too)
There is more to playing against type than playing against numbers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And I did see some of these where going against culture was really game changing. Both for the player, and the whole group. It is not as clear cut as a dwarven wizard where the racial ASI is mechanicaly enforcing type, but it can be done. It does, however, require outstanding RP that is not commonly achieved by young or inexperienced players. It takes more than one campaign for the average player to pull something like that off.
So now it matters how good at roleplaying you are to be allowed to play against type without needing to have it involve math?
You realize how elitist that sounds right? Telling someone they aren't good enough to play the character they are envisioning?
I guess I should cool off a little, because thinking about it, there are some concepts I would trust more in the hands of an established player. I wouldn't feel comfortable letting a new player be "the romantic partner of a god who was banished to the mortal planes" or other concepts that seem to be trying to get a mechanical advantage.
But I would never consider playing against type to be something only "skilled" RPer's could do properly. A city slicker elf is against type after all, and that isn't really that hard for someone to pull off.
:
