Legends and Lore - The Genius of D&D

[Kaodi]

I wonder if perhaps this elevation of race was influenced by the fact that race used to be class in the old days. You bring that edition of D&D back into the fold by elevating race to a level where it is very important mechanically. I would not be surprised if, as such, they started at 4Es racial powers for inspiration and worked from there.

I also like how if you add a " K " for " Kill things and take their stuff, " you basically get " D&D CRACK " . Controversy will be ours once again!

 

[Henry]

Um... okay.

I'm not sure what to make of that column. It seems he's either saying something that's entirely obvious, or he's over-thinking things.

I'd say it's not as cut and dried, listening to people debate the merits of class/level vs. "skill-improvement" systems such as GURPS, Shadowrun, and Savage Worlds.

However, I'd say still that even though class/level based systems offer a little more abstraction, it's important for introducing new players to the game. Some people dislike the fact that "I'm better simultaneously at translating Ancient Greek AND taking more sword thrusts" in a level based game, but from a new player standpoint it's easier for them to understand that "higher level = more power" than "more gun skill, plus parry skill, plus these three tactics feats = more power" in an a la carte system like the three above.

 

[LurkAway]

Controversy will be ours once again!

I'm sorry, I just couldn't resist: here's some controversy as requested.

If Race is of #2 importance, then here is my revised list of character traits in order of importance:
1) class
2) race
3) gender
4) ability scores
5) customizable options

Disclaimer: I'm not actually advocating a return to -2 Str penalty for female PCs, but the point is this: If sexual dimorphism is not relevant to PC heroes, then why are racial traits so damn important to PC heroes? At least be consistent and rule that non-human PCs may transcend the averageness of their race, which consequently makes race less important than individual heroic traits. Alternatively, give me very compelling fluff why D&D races are so distinctive that they're not just humans in funny suits.

 

[Henry]

I wonder if perhaps this elevation of race was influenced by the fact that race used to be class in the old days.

Well, to be clear, only Basic D&D circa 1980 or so was the first time race=class.

Race, Class and type in the evolution of D&D | Fantasy Heartbreaker, by Russell Bailey

It's just that demi-humans got the short end of the stick in the old days to keep everyone from choosing one.

I'd guess that race is getting more play in conversation these days because there's a percentage of people who want race to MEAN something other than some spiffy additional abilities and a stat juggle, after which the majority of them get played like humans with funny ears. Problem is, you can't stop people from playing like a human with funny ears if that's what they want.

I did like some of the ideas floated in 4E though -- a Dwarf really IS a son of a ***** who JUST WON'T GO DOWN. An elf has an uncanny accuracy, that's not represented by a simple "+X bonus with bows." These ideas first gained traction in Star Wars Saga, and do work well in my opinion.

 

[Izumi]

As usual, Monte is right. He's got them in the correct order, and those who disagree, I feel, are probably the ones who enjoy the rules bloat and min-maxing. If the game plays fine without them, than they must be less important. You can play D&D without ability scores, feats, and skills..but without class and race..you have no role to play.

 

[Minigiant]

Regarding racial culture, I am not a politically correct person by any stretch of the imagination, but I would reference labels like 'stereotype' and, well, 'racist' to put a contrast to 'iconic' racial traits.

For example, I'm OK with racial rules that "stereotype" dwarves as being masters at stonework, but what if an orphaned dwarf grows up on a human farm and never saw an underground tunnel in his entire life, or if a mountain dwarf neglected his stonework errands for weapon mastery training?

Also, I think a racial bonus to diplomacy for half-elves is too forced and contrived ("Gee, that Tanis Half-Elven is such a likeable guy, so I bet that ALL half-elves are born diplomats"). OTOH, I don't have a problem with elves being slender because I figure its part of their genetic morphology, and not a stereotype of elven eating habits. (If it was the latter, I might just create an elf who grew fat on human food)

So I don't have a problem with making races feel distinct, but if the story of the character transcends the racial stereotype, I'd like the rules to transcend the stereotype without penalty.

And if the racial rules are more flexible in that way, I'm not sure how much they deserve to be listed as of 2nd importance. But I don't know if it's even all that useful to be listing these things in order of importance in the 1st place.

There are probably one or two fat tough elves out there. M cousin's recently deceased (mwahaha) dwarf hated stone and was more like a halfling in background. But he was still tough. And he died because his toughness fueled overconfidence and his slowness got him caught by the wolves chasing the party. The casters had no more speed increasing spells left. Yes, he never got hit with a successful trip attempts but half the attack targeted him since he was always in the back with the paladin during the chase scene.

Culture was probably not the best word. There shouldn't be too much "cultural" baggage, but "genetic" baggage should be heavy. I like my dwarves slow and stable, my halfling nimble and tricky, and my humans doing whatever they want to do.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

My preferred order:

1. "Rough concept/archetype" - class, race, and culture (pulled out as a separate mechanical item from race), and then level. Who you are and what you do, roughly.

2. Major Twists and Extensions to the concept/archetype - 4E themes, 3E prestige classes, multiclassing. This refines the above into something approaching a real "character" mechanically.

3. Fiddly customization (feats, domains, etc.) and flavor text - Polish the character. Individual elements will be much more important to a given player or group, but that is impossible to truly account for in the rules.

Ability scores (and I guess level too, if you want to be particular about it) aren't even in this hierarchy, but orthogonal to it. That is, if part of your concept is "being one of the strongest guys around" then you need a good Str score separate from any class or race choices. Or maybe you don't care, except for what you need for class. Either way, your values for the other 5 ability scores are likely to be determined throughout the entire list--need some Dex because of a twist, and then prefer Wis over Int because of flavor or some particular customization option.

Another way to look at that reasoning, of course, is that ability scores and levels are first in the list--not because each part of it matters that much, but because something in the package is going to underlay whatever later choices you make. And if doing that, might as well pull class up with it, which gives a list a lot like Monte's in most ways:

1. Class, level, ability scores - fundamentals.
2. Race/Culture - finish rough concept.
3. Themes/Multiclassing - refine rough concept
4. Fiddly Stuff - polish

 

[avin]

About racial mechanics, I can understand ability score differences among races, compared to a normal "10" human. Or things like darkvision.

What never made sense to me was prefered classes for races. See, as humans, we have jobs so diverse such as teacher, scientist, football player, driver, prostitute, preacher, etc.

So why every elf should be inclined to be a Wizard and a dwarf should be a Fighter? We're not even talking about the same elven cultures, countries or even worlds.

 

[Nebulous]

Didn't Arcana Evolved have racial levels, that could replace class levels? I wouldn't mind seeing that, racial abilities that are so damn COOL they balance with class abilities.

 

[DEFCON 1]

About racial mechanics, I can understand ability score differences among races, compared to a normal "10" human. Or things like darkvision.

What never made sense to me was prefered classes for races. See, as humans, we have jobs so diverse such as teacher, scientist, football player, driver, prostitute, preacher, etc.

So why every elf should be inclined to be a Wizard and a dwarf should be a Fighter? We're not even talking about the same elven cultures, countries or even worlds.

It's to make being another race mechanically different than being human.

Humans are the "universal" race. That's why they didn't get racial abilities but got extra skills and feats. That's why they didn't get bonuses to specific ability scores, but one score of your choice. They were the "open-ended" race. That is their schtick when it comes to mechanics.

But if you made EVERY race's mechanics that way... then there's no point to having different races at all except for fluff. You might as well just remove all mechanical benefits you gain from race at that point since its all the same. It becomes additional character power for no real purpose.