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

[Scribe]

I don't understand the concern here.

5e as the nostalgia release, and defaulting to FR? A great idea at the time.

Releasing a new setting now? However many years after release?

Way better idea than a bunch of retcons, errata, canon erasure, shoehorned additions, to make old settings potentially more palatable to 'modern sensibilities'.

Release of a new setting now, would capitalize on all the new players. It would be 'their' setting going forward, just as others have Greyhawk, or Planescape, or whatever.

Then again maybe Wizards missed their chance, and Critical Roll captured that mind share?

 

[Lyxen]

Races being restrictive in class, culture, depiction, and ability score stats was a discussion back when I started with 3rd edition.

It started waaaayyyy back when races and classes existed, so please don't pretend that the very minor optional changes that we are discussing today in reaction to an unprecedented social wave:

1. Were foreseeable when 5e was created.
2. Would have been solved by a new setting.

 

[Vaalingrade]

4e's bonuses only, no favored class species model was a direct result of 3e players not liking that some races were just plain mechanically disadvantaged out of playing certain classes. During 4e, people pointed out that mechanically if there's no penalty, then no +2 was basically the same as a penalty especially with MAD and V shaped classes in play.

The Tasha's Rule is a direct evolution from this feedback.

 

[Faolyn]

Everything is an option.

Unless it's racial ASI, we need to replace that with Tasha's.

You didn't need to buy Tasha's. And you don't need to use it in your game. It's optional.

As far as I can see, the only positive thing is allowing powergamers to tweak their build for even greater power, which is something that some people find positive (in particular the aforementioned powergamers who had, for a few weeks, another playing field to create new builds and discuss about them), but that others find negative as it usually creates characters with a lesser link to the races and cultures of the world, more bland (as the differences are not roleplayed, just used a fuel for technical power).

Really? I've never known a single person who thinks that playing a strong elf is less of an elf, or that a smart orc is less of an orc. I can't imagine anyone thinking this, unless they believe so strongly in racial stereotypes that they would be happier playing a game where race is class.

Also, IMO, if a PC's link to your setting's culture is weakened by changing where they stuck that +2, then that means your cultures were not even remotely well-defined in the first place.

There's dozens of worldbuilding guides online to help you, with Patricia Wrede's list of questions being perhaps one of the most well-known. If you want to have stronger cultures in your setting, cultures that actually mean something to the players, then come up with a short list of things that differentiate that culture from the others. For instance: common expressions, minor rituals, actions or sayings that are seen as rude, major taboos (including forbidden foods), things that are normal to these people do that others see as taboo (such as lizardfolk who eat other sentient beings), typical gestures, ways of showing (dis)respect to different people, creatures, or objects. You probably need about 2-4 unique things on the list per PC race--not many, just enough to be different. Then hand that list to the players.

You can do the same for racial quirks as well. Like the thing in MTF, I believe, about elves changing sex, or how in the Realms, halflings got high off of cheeeeese. Maybe gnomes are the only people with striped hair, so anyone you see with striped hair is a gnome or has gnomish ancestry. Maybe most or all orcs have oddly-shaped birthmarks, which orcish culture then ascribes great meaning to in the way that people who believe in astrology ascribe great meaning to your birthdate. Maybe dwarfs can't get drunk, but the caffeine in a cup of hot chocolate is enough to keep them awake and fully alert for hours.

That's how you get PCs with links to their race and culture. Not through an artificial game mechanic.

Because, before that, you could just create any character you wanted and if you wanted to play someone with a different lineage than others in your tribe/clan/society/culture, you already could without tweaking the game even in the slightest. What you did not get where as good technical benefits from it, which goes back to prove that it's ONLY for power.

You seem to think that the only reason to want a floating ASI is powergaming. So I imagine you believe that people who play fixed ASI halfling rogues or orc barbarians or tiefling warlocks are also powergaming, right? Unless your goal is to promote racial stereotypes rather than presenting actual people and cultures.

 

[Scribe]

You didn't need to buy Tasha's. And you don't need to use it in your game. It's optional.

Not anymore. You know this, I know this. What are the racial ASI for Harengon? Fairy? Chromatic/Gem/Metallic Dragonborn? 'Tasha's' is now codified and standard, in both Witchlight, and Fizbans, and I would bet money on it being defaulted in 5.5 or whatever we want to call it.

Its Tasha's. The system under which 5e released, is no longer in effect, and come 5.5, that will apply to every race, unless (like Alignment) Wizards hears enough outcry that they back out of this change, but I doubt it.

Why even pretend its anything but a replacement? I'm not, it is what it is and we have known so since the Spooky UA.

That said, for any previous instance where I have made your views, preferences, or likes, feel lesser in past conversations, I apologize. I will try and better frame my own opinions and express them without commenting on the alternatives going forward.

 

[Lyxen]

You didn't need to buy Tasha's. And you don't need to use it in your game. It's optional.

Indeed it is.

Really? I've never known a single person who thinks that playing a strong elf is less of an elf, or that a smart orc is less of an orc.

And the only type of person that I've met who think that an orc needs a +2 to int to be smart and played as such is a powergamer. Especially since the game does not even set a racial limit to int and there are ASI in the game. Even without Tasha, your orc can be as smart as any elf or gnome.

I can't imagine anyone thinking this, unless they believe so strongly in racial stereotypes that they would be happier playing a game where race is class.

Playing D&D and denying that there are racial stereotypes is honestly really silly. When some species can read your mind (and eat it), when others can fly and others can't, when some have magical powers and others not, when some are naturally stronger and others naturally more clever. Stereotypes are there whether you like it or not. Stereotypes are a good thing in a fantasy game. Stereotypes are only bad when used for real people in the real world, which is basically stupid as there are no human races anyway, only ethnicities. But the bad use of "racial" stereotypes in the real world is what needs to be fought, not the same thing at all.

Also, IMO, if a PC's link to your setting's culture is weakened by changing where they stuck that +2, then that means your cultures were not even remotely well-defined in the first place.

And exactly the reverse, if you can't play (like someone in our groups did) an orc as a bard and creating a really fine character without the +2, it just means that you are just grasping for power.

There's dozens of worldbuilding guides online to help you, with Patricia Wrede's list of questions being perhaps one of the most well-known. If you want to have stronger cultures in your setting, cultures that actually mean something to the players, then come up with a short list of things that differentiate that culture from the others. For instance: common expressions, minor rituals, actions or sayings that are seen as rude, major taboos (including forbidden foods), things that are normal to these people do that others see as taboo (such as lizardfolk who eat other sentient beings), typical gestures, ways of showing (dis)respect to different people, creatures, or objects. You probably need about 2-4 unique things on the list per PC race--not many, just enough to be different. Then hand that list to the players.

Fine, where is the fantasy in this ? Where does the specific fantastical abilities and differences in species and race come in ? You are basically making the game much blander than it needs to be. As in the case in all good books of the genre, it starts with the basic capabilities of the Race/Species, because this is also what influences culture and the way the species developed. Simplest example is the Aarakocra, they can fly, so it has shaped their society and culture. And it should be the same with other races/species, including for races that are inherently stronger or more clever (or weaker or stupider).

You can do the same for racial quirks as well. Like the thing in MTF, I believe, about elves changing sex, or how in the Realms, halflings got high off of cheeeeese. Maybe gnomes are the only people with striped hair, so anyone you see with striped hair is a gnome or has gnomish ancestry. Maybe most or all orcs have oddly-shaped birthmarks, which orcish culture then ascribes great meaning to in the way that people who believe in astrology ascribe great meaning to your birthdate. Maybe dwarfs can't get drunk, but the caffeine in a cup of hot chocolate is enough to keep them awake and fully alert for hours.

That's how you get PCs with links to their race and culture. Not through an artificial game mechanic.

And after all that, I wonder why you still defend Tasha's, since mechanics do not matter...

You seem to think that the only reason to want a floating ASI is powergaming.

Yes, it is, and it's confirmed by your rant above. Please explain how floating ASIs fit in with that nice talk...

So I imagine you believe that people who play fixed ASI halfling rogues or orc barbarians or tiefling warlocks are also powergaming, right? Unless your goal is to promote racial stereotypes rather than presenting actual people and cultures.

Well, in our groups, we know who the powergamers are, and yes, they would never play anything else than these combinations, but fortunately they are not the majority, and seeing all the other including me playing a halfling sorceress or warlock and having mighty fun with them without floating ASIs is also slowly convincing them that it's not mandatory.

My problem with the floating ASIs is that they make optimised characters stronger than what they were before, therefore widening the gap between powergamer and casual. There was already a small gap, but there is no call for widening that gap, and actually no reason to if I follow your argument above.

All the more, by the way since floating ASIs only concern PCs anyway, so it has absolutely ZERO effect on culture. Orcs in general stay as they were, more stupid than humans as they have a general species int of 7. So it's not even doing anything for that...

 

[Faolyn]

And the only type of person that I've met who think that an orc needs a +2 to int to be smart and played as such is a powergamer. Especially since the game does not even set a racial limit to int and there are ASI in the game. Even without Tasha, your orc can be as smart as any elf or gnome.

So you're defining "powergamer" as "anyone who chooses something other than fixed ASIs."

Playing D&D and denying that there are racial stereotypes is honestly really silly. When some species can read your mind (and eat it), when others can fly and others can't, when some have magical powers and others not, when some are naturally stronger and others naturally more clever. Stereotypes are there whether you like it or not. Stereotypes are a good thing in a fantasy game. Stereotypes are only bad when used for real people in the real world, which is basically stupid as ther are no human races anyway, only ethnicities. But the bad use of "racial" stereotypes in the real world is what needs to be fought, not the same thing at all.

So, because you think that stereotypes are good, anyone who chooses to go against them is a powergamer.

And exactly the reverse, if you can't play (like someone in our groups did) an orc as a bard and creating a really fine character without the +2, it just means that you are just grasping for power.

Or it means you want to be effective in your chosen class. "Being effective" and "being a powergamer" are not the same thing at all.

Fine, where is the fantasy in this ? Where does the specific fantastical abilities and differences in species and race come in ? You are basically making the game much blander than it needs to be. As in the case in all good books of the genre, it starts with the basic capabilities of the Race/Species, because this is also what influences culture and the way the species developed. Simplest example is the Aarakocra, they can fly, so it has shaped their society and culture. And it should be the same with other races/species, including for races that are inherently stronger or more clever (or weaker or stupider).

So, coming up with unique cultural aspects for different races, or coming up with unique, non-mechanical, biological quirks for different races is somehow bland, but a +2 bonus to a stat, and basing their cultural differences around that bonus or on a mechanical trait, isn't bland--despite making the races all one-note.

How on earth does this make sense to you? Because right now, it sounds like you don't care about the race's culture or biology beyond what you can put on your character sheet--either that, or you don't want to bother thinking up any actual culture or biological quirks.

And after all that, I wonder why you still defend Tasha's, since mechanics do not matter...

One: I never said mechanics don't matter. I said that coming up with non-mechanical cultural and racial traits was more important than a +2 in making a race unique (especially since every stat has around half a dozen races that get a +2 in it).

Two: I haven't defended Tasha's. I said it was optional. I haven't even made any characters with it yet. My tiefling rogue, firbolg warlock, and kalashtar fighter were all built pre-Tasha's and haven't died yet, so no need for new characters.

Yes, it is, and it's confirmed by your rant above. Please explain how floating ASIs fit in with that nice talk...

Nice to know you think talking about making cultures interesting is a "rant."

This may be shocking to you, but if you have a race that's actually fleshed out and interesting, and players who are interested in playing that race, then it literally doesn't matter where put the bonus. Because that bonus has nothing to do with the race; it's just a mechanical benefit.

Well, in our groups, we know who the powergamers are, and yes, they would never play anything else than these combinations, but fortunately they are not the majority, and seeing all the other including me playing a halfling sorceress or warlock and having mighty fun with them without floating ASIs is also slowly convincing them that it's not mandatory.

So, if someone just wants to play a tiefling warlock because they have a cool idea for a tiefling who's a warlock, you would consider them to be powergamers who couldn't possibly have fun without that bonus. And you actively attempt to discredit other people's playstyles because you disagree with it. You sound charming.

My problem with the floating ASIs is that they make optimised characters stronger than what they were before, therefore widening the gap between powergamer and casual. There was already a small gap, but there is no call for widening that gap, and actually no reason to if I follow your argument above.

An elf fighter who chooses to put +2 in Strength is the same, from a dice-rolling perspective, as an orc fighter who was forced to put +2 in Strength, who is also the same, from a dice-rolling perspective, as an orc fighter who chooses to +2 in Strength.

Please tell me where the optimization is. Because I haven't seen an uptick in mountain dwarf wizards, which may literally be the only example of optimization due to a floating ASI I've ever seen.

All the more, by the way since floating ASIs only concern PCs anyway, so it has absolutely ZERO effect on culture. Orcs in general stay as they were, more stupid than humans as they have a general species int of 7. So it's not even doing anything for that...

Which is even more of a reason why fixed ASIs are dumb. The average orc PC has an Int of 10.

This, however, strongly suggests that you aren't understanding what I wrote because I have never talked about floating ASIs affecting culture.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So you're defining "powergamer" as "anyone who chooses something other than fixed ASIs."


So, because you think that stereotypes are good, anyone who chooses to go against them is a powergamer.


Or it means you want to be effective in your chosen class. "Being effective" and "being a powergamer" are not the same thing at all.


So, coming up with unique cultural aspects for different races, or coming up with unique, non-mechanical, biological quirks for different races is somehow bland, but a +2 bonus to a stat, and basing their cultural differences around that bonus or on a mechanical trait, isn't bland--despite making the races all one-note.

How on earth does this make sense to you? Because right now, it sounds like you don't care about the race's culture or biology beyond what you can put on your character sheet--either that, or you don't want to bother thinking up any actual culture or biological quirks.


One: I never said mechanics don't matter. I said that coming up with non-mechanical cultural and racial traits was more important than a +2 in making a race unique (especially since every stat has around half a dozen races that get a +2 in it).

Two: I haven't defended Tasha's. I said it was optional. I haven't even made any characters with it yet. My tiefling rogue, firbolg warlock, and kalashtar fighter were all built pre-Tasha's and haven't died yet, so no need for new characters.


Nice to know you think talking about making cultures interesting is a "rant."

This may be shocking to you, but if you have a race that's actually fleshed out and interesting, and players who are interested in playing that race, then it literally doesn't matter where put the bonus. Because that bonus has nothing to do with the race; it's just a mechanical benefit.


So, if someone just wants to play a tiefling warlock because they have a cool idea for a tiefling who's a warlock, you would consider them to be powergamers who couldn't possibly have fun without that bonus. And you actively attempt to discredit other people's playstyles because you disagree with it. You sound charming.


An elf fighter who chooses to put +2 in Strength is the same, from a dice-rolling perspective, as an orc fighter who was forced to put +2 in Strength, who is also the same, from a dice-rolling perspective, as an orc fighter who chooses to +2 in Strength.

Please tell me where the optimization is. Because I haven't seen an uptick in mountain dwarf wizards, which may literally be the only example of optimization due to a floating ASI I've ever seen.


Which is even more of a reason why fixed ASIs are dumb. The average orc PC has an Int of 10.

This, however, strongly suggests that you aren't understanding what I wrote because I have never talked about floating ASIs affecting culture.

Actually, Scribe has done the math and demonstrably proven that a 16 or 17 in your prime stat isn't required to be effective...

 

[Faolyn]

Actually, Scribe has done the math and demonstrably proven that a 16 or 17 in your prime stat isn't required to be effective...

OK...? So you can still put floating ASIs in whatever stats you want.

 

[Vaalingrade]

So you're defining "powergamer" as "anyone who chooses something other than fixed ASIs."

Back in my day, people who made the ROLEplayer vs ROLLplayer argument would never claim they needed a +2 to represent a strong species.

Kids these days...