D&D General No More "Humans in Funny Hats": Racial Mechanics Should Determine Racial Cultures

[Steampunkette]

More unique than now. Is objectively true.

Completely unique? No, because Wizards abandoned negative attributes, and the type of variety we saw in prior editions.

It's certainly more unique, to have Orcs get Str, and Halflings get Dex, than both getting 'whatever is best for the class you pick'.

No... it's just -different-.

You cannot get "More" or "Less" Unique. Something either is unique or it isn't. And none of them were unique. They were all templates providing different values for the exact same things in that category, and then -actually- unique separate benefits like Trance or Stonecunning.

You can have them be "More Defined" or something like that... but not Unique.

 

[Faolyn]

I can tell you why I want things defined. Simply put, I'm paying these people for their ideas. Vague, do-what-you-want lore is literally something I can do myself. If they're not going to make a stand on their own story (that I can then take or leave), then just print the mechanics and sell me a cheaper book.

It's not a story. It's a Player's Handbook or Monster Manual.

 

[Scribe]

No... it's just -different-.

You cannot get "More" or "Less" Unique. Something either is unique or it isn't. And none of them were unique. They were all templates providing different values for the exact same things in that category, and then -actually- unique separate benefits like Trance or Stonecunning.

You can have them be "More Defined" or something like that... but not Unique.

By nature of their 2 or 3 special rules, they are already 'unique' call further differentiation what you will I guess.

 

[Vaalingrade]

While I do generally agree, it still does not explain how it breaks my suspension of disbelief by stating that, on average, you can strap as much muscle power and leverage on a gnome and a goliath.

Now that it's broken, maybe purchase a better suspension of disbelief?

Or go without. Those things are the infected appendix of Fantasy gaming.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It's not a story. It's a Player's Handbook or Monster Manual.

Once upon a time, there was an Aardvark, dire.

Spoiler warning: they're going to meet a LOT of Demons, Devils and Dragons.

 

[Scribe]

Scribe is complaining that the Level Up yeti is listed as potentially not always murderous; instead, Level Up wrote:

Literally not what I said, but hilariously on brand for you to pick the least charitable view of anything I've said.

I repeat, it can be anything. Warm and fuzzy large yeti that just wants hugs, hungry yeti, or shy yeti like in Bigfoot.

I dont care, just pick one, and then I'll work on it if I need to.

Reading on further, its just repeated intentional miscommunication of my position, but again, not surprising.

 

[Lyxen]

The problem is that my first paragraph is worthless without also having the second paragraph happen. You need that campaign specific fluff (and occasional crunch) to make each campaign feel distinct. And so far 5E hasn't delivered on that(and 4E definitely didn't). Combined with WotC's currently declared "out of sight, out of mind" approach to canon, and the result is some pretty watered down settings.

I agree, I just wanted to point out that the fault does not like in the core three books, they are more or less as you want them. As for the settings, there are for me at least two factors, one is the fact that it needs to be fairly neutral to sell in general, so strong perspective might rebuke some buyers, and second, as with all these discussions, there is the general trend in society (once more a good thing if we are careful about undesirable secondary effects).

 

[Lyxen]

Now that it's broken, maybe purchase a better suspension of disbelief?

I don't need to break it, and it won't be broken as I won't adopt options that I judge inapropriate in the context of a fantasy game.

Or go without. Those things are the infected appendix of Fantasy gaming.

I'm not doing "fantasy gaming", I'm playing a roleplaying game.

 

[Minigiant]

Personally speaking, my big complaint is that D&D wants to bake its cake once and eat it several times over. If it were up to me, I'd ditch the idea of having an "official" campaign setting represented in the big three books at all. Make the PHB and MM pure classic fantasy, stereotypes on full display. Orcs are evil raiders, elves are stuck up tree huggers, all that crap. The PHB should give new players a clear and simple "this is what you're getting with this race." The MM should allow an inexperienced DM to thumb to an page, get an instant idea of what a particular monster is and how it would fit into an encounter or campaign. Simple, hyper defined, and hitting exactly the notes you'd expect of a classic fantasy setting.

I think the problem with that is that too many fans, "classic fantasy" with an defined core and canon lore with proper nouns... doesn't.... make sense.

You kinda need the background of official settings and their lore to make most fantasy tropes work. It's one of the walls 5e ran into as it pulled in many many new fans who didn't have history with D&D.

What D&D needs to do is sit down an build a new setting from scratch which entwines the new game design ideas and ideals developed over the last 30 years and stop trying to sell repackaged old product.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's not a story. It's a Player's Handbook or Monster Manual.

Lore is a story. Monsters in the MM have origins. Gods and planes of existence are in the DMG. Even an equipment list tells a story, because it tells you what is, by default, available in the world to adventurers. D&D is not a generic game, and if it's not generic, it has a story.