Legends and Lore - The Genius of D&D

[Gundark]

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.

This.

 

[Reynard]

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.

I would like to see, perhaps as an "advanced" module, a method for different versions of the same traditional D&D races, as inspired by the the literature. Take, for example, the differences between the Elves and Dwarves of "Three Hearts and Three Lions" and those of "The Hobbit" (and then again between those of "The Hobbit" and those of "Lord of the Rings," but that's another discussion entirely). They share some superficial similarities, but they are also very different creatures -- culturally, metaphysically and mechanically (i.e. how one would model their capabilities in the rules). it is not enough to say "Elf" or even "High Elf" -- we need to know if we are talking about the Fair Folk or The First Born, if you get my meaning.

In addition, we need a module that talks explicitly about the exclusion of non-humans entirely. That sort of world is much more common in the sword and sorcery that inspired the game in the first place and needs to be considered as viable and integral an option as the typical "Tolkienesque" racial landscape and the more varied modern landscape.

 

[billd91]

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 think that, even if what Monte is saying is obvious to you, there's still value in explicitly coming out and stating it. As I've said before in a similar thread, Monte's articles are a "back to basics" approach to D&D - exploring the axioms and assumptions inherent in the game and explicitly stating them rather than assuming they are known and shared by everyone involved. Assuming the topics brought up continue to be used throughout the design process, we won't have many surprises when 5e hits the street. We'll be well versed in the game's underlying philosophy.

IME, ability scores matter a lot more than a character's race. I'm inclined to think it should be the other way around (that is, I prefer Monte's order), but I don't think it has been.

I think putting race ahead of stats is appropriate in Monte's article. Class and race help determine a character's perspective in how he fits into the world at a basic level - is he a fighter? He is oriented toward fighting. Is he an elf? He comes with an elven cultural background that will affect how he sees his role in the world. That may be fluff more than crunch, but I believe it's still important to have in the right conceptual position.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

Part of being human in D&D at the moment is humanity not only being the universal race, we humans are culturally/genetically the universal race. We do whatever we feel like, can do them in which combination and order we feel, and there is a lower amount if pressure to pursue any path for the entire race.

The other races are not so lucky. They have all sorts of cultural and mindset baggage that forces 90% of the race to act a certain way. Ninety percent of dwarves live in Lincoln that revere martial warriors, love stone, and applaud toughness. 85% of all elves come from XYZland, which is a huge forest and contains more than a few aloof wizard. But humans, if they are biologically able to do it there are 100 humans trying to do it.

 

[LurkAway]

Part of being human in D&D at the moment is humanity not only being the universal race, we humans are culturally/genetically the universal race.
<snip>
The other races are not so lucky. They have all sorts of cultural and mindset baggage that forces 90% of the race to act a certain way.

I have a few quibbles with this. I get the fantasy logic, but I think D&D only pays lip service to this concept.

1) I'd imagine that dwarven clerics of Moradin and elven clerics of the Seldarine are no less suited to their priestly roles than human clerics. I'm not sure that non-human inflexiblity can/should be generalized to class selection.

2) PCs are not average folk (that logic is used to explain all sorts of things from hit points to gender equality). So just to be consistent, just because 90% of non-humans act in a certain way doesn't necessarily mean that 90% of non-human PCs act that way.

3) It is rare for me to see non-human PCs being roleplayed as narrow-minded and inflexible compared to their human peers. You see that contrast in novels like Dragonlance, but it seems rare in average gameplay.

 

[KidSnide]

I wasn't sure if it was right when I first saw it, but -- on reflection -- I agree that Race > Ability Scores.

Where I think Monte's ranking is missing is the "concept" or "twist" part of the character. Sure, in D&D "I'm a fighter" is probably the first question, but then you have to ask "what kind of fighter?". In many cases, the answer to that question is race. But for some characters the answer isn't "dwarf" or "human", but is "noble" or "mercenary" or "just a big strong farmboy with his father's sword". In 2e, this was modeled by kits. In 4e, it was modeled by themes (and, to a lesser extent, backgrounds). In 3e, you had to piece it together yourself with skill and feat selections.

Either way, I would put the kid/background/theme concept on the same level of race.

As to ability scores, I'm not sure whether or not they are really more important than skills/feat/power selection.

Of course, it's worth noting that "class" is at this level of importance, only for a broad sense of class. There are plenty of characters where the choice between melee-cleric and paladin is about picking from the right set of rules rather than the exact concept. Similarly, there are characters were bard and wizard/rogue are equally good choices.

-KS

 

[tgayoso]

Sorry, I couldn't disagree more. I would rather Ability penalties come back. I like the rules to suit the fluff. If all races are on equal footing why have them. I also like the idea certain races suit certain roles/classes/abilities that help define their culture. By all means change this to suit your game, but there should be basic mechanics to typify race. You should be able to 'play against type', but it should also feel that way. If the lack of mechanics means all are equal then this is not the case.

I only agree to the extent mechanics (meaning in-game bonuses, particularly combat bonuses) typifying race are modular add-ons, so folks can EASILY opt-out. If they are hard-wired into the mechanics, then most folks are forced to play Class X = Race Y or suffer the combat penalties. The fluff is there to typify NPCs and possibly add to player backgrounds, but unlike NPC's, the PC's are supposed to be extraordinary by definition. So regardless of what race the PCs are, players should be entitled to make them the exceptions to the rule. The bottom line is, it's easier for a DM to add an extra bonus to a PC as a house rule, than it is to take away a hard-wired game mechanic bonus from a particular race.

 

[TerraDave]

Its another "eh" column. One of many.

But I am sure one of these weeks we will see some real specifics!





Though I am not holding my breath.

 

[TwinBahamut]

I think Mr. Cook has got the right ordering, though unlike some people here I'd argue that ability scores are too high, rather than too low. The fact that he has them at number three just reinforces the idea that the new edition will make detailed customization more optional.

Anyways, I like the idea of making race more important of a choice than it has been in most older editions. It needs to be more important than ability scores, at the very least, if you want it to mean anything more than a mere choice for what kinds of funny ears your characters have on their heads. Many earlier editions really did reduce racial choices to being different variants of extremely humanlike, which limits the game. Instead of playable lycanthropes we got shifters. Instead of playable angels and devils we got tieflings and devas. Instead of playable dragons we got dragonborn. If you want decent racial choices to even be options in the game, the choice of race needs to matter a lot more than it has in the past.

 

[Croesus]

IME, ability scores matter a lot more than a character's race. I'm inclined to think it should be the other way around (that is, I prefer Monte's order), but I don't think it has been.

Depends on the edition. In 3.x, ability scores make a huge difference in characters. However, if one looks at OD&D, and even 1E AD&D, ability scores have some effect, but not huge.

Likewise, in 3.x, race was just some modifiers, a stray feat/skill bonus/natural ability, plus a favored class. In OD&D and AD&D, race gave a character a significant option denied to humans (multiclassing), while placing equally significant limitations on class and level.

I may be reading too much into a single column, but I wonder if he's suggesting that 5E will be closer to OD&D/AD&D than 3.x, at least in this respect.