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

[JiffyPopTart]

Correct. Orcs + Str, Elves + Dex. Different.

And equally true at the same time

Orc+STR, Orc+INT. Different

Your logic applies to both sides of the discussion of what method makes characters the most "different".

You view a half-orc wizard as not a fundamentally different character than a human wizard (if both have a 17 INT at 1st level) but at the same time see it as reinforcing your campaign bedrock if you limited that same half-orc to a 15 INT while at the same time pointing out nobody NEEDS a 16 because one bonus point isn't a major penalty to a characters gameplay.

Either that small difference is significant (both to your campaign AND a player wanting a smart half-orc) or it isn't significant (in which case it's not contributing to the feel of your world and people should be happy to play a 15INT half-orc).

You can't have it both ways.

 

[Scribe]

Feel free to start a new thread out of respect for @AcererakTriple6 request.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I kept trying to shift the discussion back to the original discussion.

Anyway

I like the idea of gobliniods, goblins ,hogoblins,and bugbears, having an alien sense of ownership.

Given that the Folk of the Feywild UA solidified that 5e Goblinoids are descended from Fey, I would be really interested in them having a twisted sense of the 3 Fundamental Rules of the Feywild, maybe even tying a specific rule to a specific type of goblinoid. For example, the Rule of Reciprocity could be tied to Hobgoblins, the Rule of Gifts with Goblins, and the Rule of Hospitality with Bugbears, or something like that. A "goblinoid" version of the Rule of Reciprocity could be a Rule of Retribution, where any insult is seen the same as an injury, so insulting a Hobgoblin would allow them to kill you, by the rules of their culture. The Rule of Gifts could become the Rule of Taking, where it allows you to steal something so long as you replace it with something that you see as equal in value. The Rule of Hospitality could become the Rule of Hostility, where you're automatically assumed as an enemy until you appease the goblinoids.

So, following this idea, here's how these rules would influence Goblinoid culture:

• Goblins would be like Kender, taking anything that they want, but instead of just stealing, they would have to give you something in return. If any of you have read the Wax and Wayne series by Brandon Sanderson, Wayne is a perfect example of this.
• Hobgoblins would demand respect from everyone, and be very strict on following a set of social rules. In a society where saying the wrong thing can end up with you losing an eye, ear, or other body part, they would be very careful with their words, especially around their superiors.
• Bugbears would immediately be hostile to any outsiders (possibly excluding other goblinoids), unless appeased, similar to how one would calm a wild animal by offering food or aid. They'd also have a "Might Makes Right"-style of culture, where violence would be seen as a completely acceptable (if not admired) form of gaining power in that society. If anyone here has read the 5 Kingdoms series by Brandon Mull (which I doubt anyone here has), think of how Champions work in Elloweer.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Or...

New Player: I want to play a big hairy super strong guy who isn't that bright.

DM: Great. So what you want to do is put your highest number in STR and your lowest number in INT. How do you feel about how nimble they are?

Stats are assigned

DM: Awesome , that is great for a barbarian like you want to play....so what do you want your barbarian to look like?

Player: I want to be the little kid barbarian from that old DnD cartoon.

GM: Super! Do you want to be an actual human kid who is crazy strong or maybe a halfling or gnome who is short but an adult?

Player: Gnome sounds cool, let's go with that.

And equally true at the same time

Orc+STR, Orc+INT. Different

Your logic applies to both sides of the discussion of what method makes characters the most "different".

You view a half-orc wizard as not a fundamentally different character than a human wizard (if both have a 17 INT at 1st level) but at the same time see it as reinforcing your campaign bedrock if you limited that same half-orc to a 15 INT while at the same time pointing out nobody NEEDS a 16 because one bonus point isn't a major penalty to a characters gameplay.

Either that small difference is significant (both to your campaign AND a player wanting a smart half-orc) or it isn't significant (in which case it's not contributing to the feel of your world and people should be happy to play a 15INT half-orc).

You can't have it both ways.

@Scribe is right, and I was going to get to this just after I finished my other post. @Sabathius42, please see the post below, which is my request of getting this thread back on topic. Feel free to make your own thread to continue this tangent if you wish (although I doubt the moderation team would like it if that were to happen), but please take this discussion out of this thread if you wish to continue it.

No. Just plain no. If you believe this, you don't know what you're talking about, and are likely trying to start a flame war. This thread is not meant for that. Read the OP for what the true topic of this thread actually is, as it's gotten on a tangent that has resulted in warnings from a moderator.

Can we all either let this thread die down for now, or return to the topic, please? This goes for everybody, including myself. @Faolyn, @Lyxen, @Scribe, @Minigiant, and so on. Either return to the topic of racial mechanics influencing the cultures of those races, or I'll ask moderation to intervene (even closing the thread if necessary).

Understood?

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

Given that the Folk of the Feywild UA solidified that 5e Goblinoids are descended from Fey, I would be really interested in them having a twisted sense of the 3 Fundamental Rules of the Feywild, maybe even tying a specific rule to a specific type of goblinoid. For example, the Rule of Reciprocity could be tied to Hobgoblins, the Rule of Gifts with Goblins, and the Rule of Hospitality with Bugbears, or something like that. A "goblinoid" version of the Rule of Reciprocity could be a Rule of Retribution, where any insult is seen the same as an injury, so insulting a Hobgoblin would allow them to kill you, by the rules of their culture. The Rule of Gifts could become the Rule of Taking, where it allows you to steal something so long as you replace it with something that you see as equal in value. The Rule of Hospitality could become the Rule of Hostility, where you're automatically assumed as an enemy until you appease the goblinoids.

So, following this idea, here's how these rules would influence Goblinoid culture:

• Goblins would be like Kender, taking anything that they want, but instead of just stealing, they would have to give you something in return. If any of you have read the Wax and Wayne series by Brandon Sanderson, Wayne is a perfect example of this.
• Hobgoblins would demand respect from everyone, and be very strict on following a set of social rules. In a society where saying the wrong thing can end up with you losing an eye, ear, or other body part, they would be very careful with their words, especially around their superiors.
• Bugbears would immediately be hostile to any outsiders (possibly excluding other goblinoids), unless appeased, similar to how one would calm a wild animal by offering food or aid. They'd also have a "Might Makes Right"-style of culture, where violence would be seen as a completely acceptable (if not admired) form of gaining power in that society. If anyone here has read the 5 Kingdoms series by Brandon Mull (which I doubt anyone here has), think of how Champions work in Elloweer.

And all those traits lead to unplayable chars. Inevitably, Goblins as you describe will steal from party members, Hobgoblins will attack PC's and NPC's alike if they feel slighted, and your Bugbear trait....well, you just described an unplayable sociopath. So why even have such species available as playable chars?

The game is not about one player thinking a particular species is "cool" to play, the rest of the group be damned. It is about working together as a group toward a common goal, or goals. I played tonight. One player, who stated that this was his first in-person D&D group, says his Bard is going to get drunk (DM applies various penalties to his char when drunk) and play the Bagpipes as we venture into dungeons of unknown size and danger levels. He thinks his char is "cool", and the rest of the party will enjoy his antics, no matter how much risk the party is exposed to.

Wanna bet how much party members will enjoy the "antics" of a Goblin, Hobgoblin, or Bugbear that you have described?

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

And all those traits lead to unplayable chars. Inevitably, Goblins as you describe will steal from party members, Hobgoblins will attack PC's and NPC's alike if they feel slighted, and your Bugbear trait....well, you just described an unplayable sociopath. So why even have such species available as playable chars?

The game is not about one player thinking a particular species is "cool" to play, the rest of the group be damned. It is about working together as a group toward a common goal, or goals. I played tonight. One player, who stated that this was his first in-person D&D group, says his Bard is going to get drunk (DM applies various penalties to his char when drunk) and play the Bagpipes as we venture into dungeons of unknown size and danger levels. He thinks his char is "cool", and the rest of the party will enjoy his antics, no matter how much risk the party is exposed to.

Wanna bet how much party members will enjoy the "antics" of a Goblin, Hobgoblin, or Bugbear that you have described?

It was an idea for how the overall culture would work, not for the PCs to follow. I didn't say that's how it has to be, or that players would have to follow it.

The idea is based off of the rules of their home realm, and is open to suggestions. Merely crapping on it and saying "this sucks, players will ruin your campaign" is not helpful.

Never did I ever in my post suggest that the players should be allowed to ruin the fun of others at no consequences. If you want to rant about how players will abuse lore to be spotlight hogs and ruin the fun of others, find (or make) another thread about it. That's not the topic of this thread.

And, again, have you read the Original Post in this thread? I'm not asking you to read all 38 pages of this thread, just the very first post. Because, to me, through your posting in this thread, it seems that you haven't actually read the OP. Please do so.

(Also, my players are mature and understanding people, and I can guarantee you that if I included the cultures that I just brainstormed up for goblinoids in my campaign and they played a goblinoid, they wouldn't abuse or over-use the ideas I provided. Please don't assume anything about anyone else's players, because my players definitely impact what I post and how. Your experiences are not a universal representation for how all D&D players act.)

 

[JiffyPopTart]

In regards to the OP question....

Can anything we create come from a place of not being a human with a funny hat?

So much of fantasy (and sci-fi) is taking a human trait and exploring it to a possibly extreme limit. At the end of the day however, it is still a human trait.

Even traits we assign to animals, which we explore through anthropomorphic animal choices, are really just us applied by using human assigned animal traits remapped back onto humanlike animals.

Ultimately I really dislike the "funny hat" phrase as I think it's an arbitrary and condescending take on a fundamental basis of storytelling, which is examining ourselves through the lens we can create by imagining ourselves as different.

I think the standard non-humans from fantasy CAN be looked at and expanded on in interesting ways, but that's really just making a more fancy hat as opposed to a whole new viewpoint.

Real World Example: I was playing a lizardfolk sorcerer. I explored the idea that lizardfolk might be totally socially blind to flirting and courtship by playing him Draxlike in his failure to pick up on or react to romantic or sexual situations. But, at the end of the day I'm basing my choices on "what would Ambly do?" by simply overlaying my human observations of stereotypical lizard behaviour on an anthropomorphic lizard.

My succinct summary of all this is to answer your OP by saying it's impossible to create something other than a human in a funny hat because we are human, but I think it would would improve the game to try to make the hats look less similar...and also drop the funny hat phrase.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

In regards to the OP question....

Can anything we create come from a place of not being a human with a funny hat?

So much of fantasy (and sci-fi) is taking a human trait and exploring it to a possibly extreme limit. At the end of the day however, it is still a human trait.

Even traits we assign to animals, which we explore through anthropomorphic animal choices, are really just us applied by using human assigned animal traits remapped back onto humanlike animals.

Good question. I'm not sure that I, or anyone else here, can answer it. However, there are ways of acting that simply are not human traits, and although it would be difficult to put yourself in that mindset to try and understand how a different species would act, I don't think it's entirely impossible to emulate it.

Ultimately I really dislike the "funny hat" phrase as I think it's an arbitrary and condescending take on a fundamental basis of storytelling, which is examining ourselves through the lens we can create by imagining ourselves as different.

I dislike it, too. I hate how it's used to discredit other people's character/creature concepts, and often used as a sort of "badwrongfun" buzzword. The OP, however, was about a specific way of avoiding the complaint of humans in funny hats, which is making racial cultures based on racial mechanics. Something can't be a "human in a silly hat" if it acts completely alien to how humans do.

I think the standard non-humans from fantasy CAN be looked at and expanded on in interesting ways, but that's really just making a more fancy hat as opposed to a whole new viewpoint.

I disagree. IMO, a "fancy hat" being put on a race would be them having a vibrant, in-depth, and interesting culture that is completely detached from their racial mechanics. For example, I think that the Goblinoid culture of the Dhakaani in Eberron is a "fancy hat" by this definition. It's a cool and interesting backstory and culture for the race, but it's not necessarily tied to their racial mechanics or core identity in the world, so it's a "fancy hat" without being a racially-determined culture, like the ones discussed in the OP. It's still a hat. Different races can wear the same basic premise of the Dhakaani Goblinoids. However, the OP is discussing cultures that cannot be worn as hats, ones that are specific to their races because they're determined by their races. Like how an Elven culture would be influenced by them not needing to sleep, or how an Aarakocra's culture would be influenced by them being able to fly. If the culture can't be transplanted from one race to another, it's not a "hat" or "fancy hat", it's something different entirely.

Real World Example: I was playing a lizardfolk sorcerer. I explored the idea that lizardfolk might be totally socially blind to flirting and courtship by playing him Draxlike in his failure to pick up on or react to romantic or sexual situations. But, at the end of the day I'm basing my choices on "what would Ambly do?" by simply overlaying my human observations of stereotypical lizard behaviour on an anthropomorphic lizard.

I mean, that is avoiding the "humans in funny hats" issue. Sure, you're still roleplaying them, but not getting flirtation or similar aspects of human societies is a unique trait that helps differentiate the cultural leanings of a Lizardfolk from Humans and other D&D races. This is kind of proving my point instead of refuting it.

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

In regards to the OP question....

Can anything we create come from a place of not being a human with a funny hat?

So much of fantasy (and sci-fi) is taking a human trait and exploring it to a possibly extreme limit. At the end of the day however, it is still a human trait.

Even traits we assign to animals, which we explore through anthropomorphic animal choices, are really just us applied by using human assigned animal traits remapped back onto humanlike animals.

Ultimately I really dislike the "funny hat" phrase as I think it's an arbitrary and condescending take on a fundamental basis of storytelling, which is examining ourselves through the lens we can create by imagining ourselves as different.

I think the standard non-humans from fantasy CAN be looked at and expanded on in interesting ways, but that's really just making a more fancy hat as opposed to a whole new viewpoint.

Real World Example: I was playing a lizardfolk sorcerer. I explored the idea that lizardfolk might be totally socially blind to flirting and courtship by playing him Draxlike in his failure to pick up on or react to romantic or sexual situations. But, at the end of the day I'm basing my choices on "what would Ambly do?" by simply overlaying my human observations of stereotypical lizard behaviour on an anthropomorphic lizard.

My succinct summary of all this is to answer your OP by saying it's impossible to create something other than a human in a funny hat because we are human, but I think it would would improve the game to try to make the hats look less similar...and also drop the funny hat phrase.

What's more, the entire concept of having various types of species playing in a group, and them not sharing a common culture, well, it is impossible to play.

Imagine having, I dunno, a Kender type creature in a group. Said creature has no concept of personal property. Then have in that same group a creature who's entire culture is based on a rigid adherence to laws, and considers theft abhorrent, and said culture applies swift hard justice.

If those chars are truly RP'ed, one of those chars either is killed by the other char, or leaves the party in some manner.

The entire concept of the chars in a group not sharing, or at the very least, understanding a common set of cultural values, and then playing around within the periphery of that set of values whatever they might be, is ludicrous. The real world for all intents and purposes has one sentient species, with hundreds of cultural groups within that species. A sane person only has to look at the news to read of the lethal clashes that occur on a daily basis when one culture crashes into another.

And that is within one species. To suggest that the idea of RP'ing other species, which would have even more divergent cultures, and mash them together into a coherent group is simply wrong. As you said, we all play humans in the game, that happen to look different and have different abilities.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

What's more, the entire concept of having various types of species playing in a group, and them not sharing a common culture, well, it is impossible to play.

Imagine having, I dunno, a Kender type creature in a group. Said creature has no concept of personal property. Then have in that same group a creature who's entire culture is based on a rigid adherence to laws, and considers theft abhorrent, and said culture applies swift hard justice.

If those chars are truly RP'ed, one of those chars either is killed by the other char, or leaves the party in some manner.

The entire concept of the chars in a group not sharing, or at the very least, understanding a common set of cultural values, and then playing around within the periphery of that set of values whatever they might be, is ludicrous. The real world for all intents and purposes has one sentient species, with hundreds of cultural groups within that species. A sane person only has to look at the news to read of the lethal clashes that occur on a daily basis when one culture crashes into another.

And that is within one species. To suggest that the idea of RP'ing other species, which would have even more divergent cultures, and mash them together into a coherent group is simply wrong. As you said, we all play humans in the game, that happen to look different and have different abilities.

Couldn't disagree more. Such interplay, and yes even conflict, is what creates interesting roleplay. Different people with different beliefs working together and coming to understand each other is common and effective narrative.