Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Jeremy Crawford Discusses Details on Custom Origins
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 8111284" data-attributes="member: 8461"><p>It wasn't even an exaggeration on my part. Insofar as I recall, I haven't expressed a sentiment of "PC race makes no difference whatsoever with regard to character." My point (in the scope of the larger discussion about Tolkien's influence) is that it's a comparatively minor overall part of the character compared to several other aspects.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I disagree strongly. It could just as easily have been "our pretend wizard game" or something similar. A related sentiment for describing D&D that I've heard is "you play Conan, I play Gandalf, and we team up to fight Dracula." And yes, I know what that says about Tolkien's perceived influence, though I think it works just as well if you substitute Merlin in there instead (as one <a href="https://www.tlbgames.com/collections/the-red-book-line/products/merlynd-the-magician" target="_blank">early player did</a>, though his character got a slight rename later on).</p><p></p><p>I think that a close examination of the game's history suggests that to be unlikely. Even leaving aside my repeated references to Tunnels and Trolls (which came out one year after D&D, with easier-to-understand rules and more PC races), there have been numerous other games that have attempted to do "D&D but better," typically by filling some perceived niche. To date, they've never succeeded in dethroning it. The closest that they've come is when D&D tripped over itself, not because of any issue of races, but because of core game-play elements changing (e.g. Vancian spellcasting being removed) that split the fan-base.</p><p></p><p>In that case, it wasn't so much that something which had never been there wasn't added, but that something which was already there - and had become definitional - was removed. But since D&D set that standard to begin with, that wouldn't have been the case if Jack Vance's system of magic hadn't been used in the first place. If D&D can make such an idiosyncratic type of magic into a standard, then it's ability to define what fantasy tabletop RPGs were like is a lot more notable than I think a lot of people give it credit for. Ergo, I'm confident that it would have done just fine without Tolkien-esque PC races (especially since we've seen Middle-Earth-based RPGs come and go).</p><p></p><p></p><p>Thank you.</p><p></p><p>I agree.</p><p></p><p>First, that's more commonly called a "false dilemma," which I don't believe applies to what I said, and secondly, the entire speculation of what might or might not have happened if X had been different isn't provable, so it's all going to come down to insistence. The question is which insistence is more plausible, and for that we have to look at history and try and make guesses that don't assume too much. And even then, it's still speculation.</p><p></p><p>With regard to "needing" more than one race, I find that to be an unconvincing argument because except for enabling a closer imitation of Tolkien, the game works just fine without them. In fact, there aren't really any game-play roles (i.e. niches) that require non-human races to play. We can look at the fighter, the wizard, the cleric, and even the thief and see how they all contribute to a party dynamic, but that doesn't change no matter what race they are. If D&D had been all humans from the beginning, you could still have been Gray Mouser, Conan, Merlin, or Van Helsing.</p><p></p><p>I'll be honest: the increased range for the longbow strikes me as being a very small benefit. Likewise, suggesting that the longsword is magical doesn't really work, because that leaves open a counter-scenario where the human wizard's dagger is magical also. It's why these sorts of things tend to require "all else being equal" qualifiers. Remember that we predicated this on a 3E or later stance, so it's not like particular magic items of a given weapon type will be hard to find.</p><p></p><p>Right, and races <em>do</em> serve a worthwhile purpose in terms of what they bring to D&D; I'm not suggesting otherwise. I just don't think that, had that not been the case from the outset, the game would have suffered overly for it. Even a brief glance at popular fantasy fiction with human protagonists shows us that there's a <em>lot</em> that you can hang a backstory off of. Social class. Circumstances of birth. Ancestry. Being a prophesied hero. "Right place, right time." Former occupation. Race adds an option, but if that option were closed off there's still a lot to work with.</p><p></p><p>I agree completely.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Alzrius, post: 8111284, member: 8461"] It wasn't even an exaggeration on my part. Insofar as I recall, I haven't expressed a sentiment of "PC race makes no difference whatsoever with regard to character." My point (in the scope of the larger discussion about Tolkien's influence) is that it's a comparatively minor overall part of the character compared to several other aspects. I disagree strongly. It could just as easily have been "our pretend wizard game" or something similar. A related sentiment for describing D&D that I've heard is "you play Conan, I play Gandalf, and we team up to fight Dracula." And yes, I know what that says about Tolkien's perceived influence, though I think it works just as well if you substitute Merlin in there instead (as one [URL='https://www.tlbgames.com/collections/the-red-book-line/products/merlynd-the-magician']early player did[/URL], though his character got a slight rename later on). I think that a close examination of the game's history suggests that to be unlikely. Even leaving aside my repeated references to Tunnels and Trolls (which came out one year after D&D, with easier-to-understand rules and more PC races), there have been numerous other games that have attempted to do "D&D but better," typically by filling some perceived niche. To date, they've never succeeded in dethroning it. The closest that they've come is when D&D tripped over itself, not because of any issue of races, but because of core game-play elements changing (e.g. Vancian spellcasting being removed) that split the fan-base. In that case, it wasn't so much that something which had never been there wasn't added, but that something which was already there - and had become definitional - was removed. But since D&D set that standard to begin with, that wouldn't have been the case if Jack Vance's system of magic hadn't been used in the first place. If D&D can make such an idiosyncratic type of magic into a standard, then it's ability to define what fantasy tabletop RPGs were like is a lot more notable than I think a lot of people give it credit for. Ergo, I'm confident that it would have done just fine without Tolkien-esque PC races (especially since we've seen Middle-Earth-based RPGs come and go). Thank you. I agree. First, that's more commonly called a "false dilemma," which I don't believe applies to what I said, and secondly, the entire speculation of what might or might not have happened if X had been different isn't provable, so it's all going to come down to insistence. The question is which insistence is more plausible, and for that we have to look at history and try and make guesses that don't assume too much. And even then, it's still speculation. With regard to "needing" more than one race, I find that to be an unconvincing argument because except for enabling a closer imitation of Tolkien, the game works just fine without them. In fact, there aren't really any game-play roles (i.e. niches) that require non-human races to play. We can look at the fighter, the wizard, the cleric, and even the thief and see how they all contribute to a party dynamic, but that doesn't change no matter what race they are. If D&D had been all humans from the beginning, you could still have been Gray Mouser, Conan, Merlin, or Van Helsing. I'll be honest: the increased range for the longbow strikes me as being a very small benefit. Likewise, suggesting that the longsword is magical doesn't really work, because that leaves open a counter-scenario where the human wizard's dagger is magical also. It's why these sorts of things tend to require "all else being equal" qualifiers. Remember that we predicated this on a 3E or later stance, so it's not like particular magic items of a given weapon type will be hard to find. Right, and races [I]do[/I] serve a worthwhile purpose in terms of what they bring to D&D; I'm not suggesting otherwise. I just don't think that, had that not been the case from the outset, the game would have suffered overly for it. Even a brief glance at popular fantasy fiction with human protagonists shows us that there's a [I]lot[/I] that you can hang a backstory off of. Social class. Circumstances of birth. Ancestry. Being a prophesied hero. "Right place, right time." Former occupation. Race adds an option, but if that option were closed off there's still a lot to work with. I agree completely. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Jeremy Crawford Discusses Details on Custom Origins
Top