NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8110564" data-attributes="member: 6801228">"As much of an impact" is not "zero impact" which is what you claimed previously.You keep missing the point that was made. The point isn't about DnD losing one race out of 20 every so often. The point was that the game was designed to include multiple races from the beginning. And because it had that design, it was more successful than if it had been designed and marketed as a "human only" game. That was the point that was being made.I love that movie, but a movie does not the game represent. And in fact, it was a presented as a "bold move" on the part of the DM to make it all-human, it was breaking the norm.And part of that standard was multiple races. I don't get how you can argue that was not the case. DnD was designed with multiple races as part of the core design. They played an equal role in your character as your class did. I mean, I can't imagine a player talking about their character and not mentioning the race. It ends up being a pretty big deal, and never for the +2/+1I can only repeat the point so many times. DnD is what it is, in part, because you can play different races. That is part of the core identity of the game. I don't know why you want to insist it could have had no demi-humans at all, and still been DnD. That is like saying Pepsi would still be one of the biggest brands on the market if it hadn't had sugar in it. Sure, there is zero sugar pepsi now, but Pepsi got where it is based on the original formula.</blockquote>

Verification