log in or register to remove this ad

 

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

dave2008

Legend
Snarf's Superior Solution: Swerve hard into differentiation both in crunch AND lore. Get rid of 'default' races in the PHB. All races should be campaign- or setting-specific. Get rid of ASIs for races completely (as that seems to be the alpha and the omega of complaints) and differentiate all races by abilities and/or gated racial feats. Races should have a rich tapestry of culture and fluff to pull upon (or to play against, as need be, but will still help place them in the world).
I basically agree with this solution, but I do not think we will see something like this from WotC. Tying races to a setting really allows you to lean into their differences in mechanics and fluff. And ASI were never an interesting racial differentiator (though I still think they can be useful).

However, what do you, playing the role of WotC here, give to people who don't us a published setting? My group never plays in published settings, so where do we get our fantasy races from?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

dave2008

Legend
It helps me create fun dilemmas for the story and characters when I can think "okay, what would this race do in this circumstance",...
I find this a bit problematic as you seem to be (here and in your OP) treating races as mono-cultural. How would you answer this for humans? Well you can't in a lot of situations as humans react to things differently, sometimes very differently. IMO, fantasy races should be the same. A world with one "dwarf," culture in not nearly as engaging as one with dozens (or hundreds) of dwarf cultures. Additionally, like RL humans, those different cultures have very little (if anything) to do with their inherent "mechanics" to each other or to humans.
 

AcererakTriple6

Autistic DM (he/him)
Can we get past this? Please? The topic is subjective. Of course it's their opinion. We shouldn't have to preface every opinion with the words "in my opinion." Sniping at people for using declarative language accomplishes nothing.
It was stated as a fact. Sniping at them for doing that makes it less likely for them to do that in the future, and makes it so others are less likely to take it as a fact.

Sure, that's not my main criticism of their post, but it's worth saying. Whenever I have said "X should be like Y", people reply saying "but, that's just like your opinion, man" almost any time. It works both ways.
 

AcererakTriple6

Autistic DM (he/him)
By virtue of the fact that many people want to play non-humans that aren’t alien in mindset, we can pretty well determine that it is objectively true that not all races should be alien in mindset.

It is also true that some non-humans should have significantly alien mindsets, by virtue of a significant amount of the player base wanting that.
All player races (besides human) are partially alien. Some moreso than others (Warforged, Kalashtar, Yuan-Ti, and Lizardfolk, for example), but any non-human race should have a different psychology from humans, IMO, even if that difference is slight. Even races that are more human than others (Reborn that used to be humans, Half-Elves, Half-Orcs, Halflings, Planetouched Humans, Dragonmarked Humans, etc) should have a psychology that differentiates them from humans, because both their biological and cultural pressures would cause them to have different mindsets (like how the Dragonmarked Human Races in Eberron all have different cultures, while still being largely human).

Sure, it can be as simple as "I'm scared of tall people [Goliaths, Orcs, Ogres, Giants, etc] because I'm a 3 foot tall halfling", but that's still an alien mindset from the average human.

If your non-human races are played exactly as humans (in roleplay, not mechanics), they might as well just be humans.
 
Last edited:

AcererakTriple6

Autistic DM (he/him)
I find this a bit problematic as you seem to be (here and in your OP) treating races as mono-cultural. How would you answer this for humans? Well you can't in a lot of situations as humans react to things differently, sometimes very differently. IMO, fantasy races should be the same. A world with one "dwarf," culture in not nearly as engaging as one with dozens (or hundreds) of dwarf cultures. Additionally, like RL humans, those different cultures have very little (if anything) to do with their inherent "mechanics" to each other or to humans.
I'm perfectly fine with having multiple cultures for different groups of the same race. I have no problem with that. I gave plenty of different possible cultures for Halflings (based off of their mechanics and personalities) in the various halfling threads, and would love it if multiple of them existed in the same world. That makes for some fun interactions between the various racial cultures, like how Tairnadal and Aereni Elves in Eberron are both elves, but have very different cultures, but share common elements (worshipping ancestors).

If you thought that I was treating the races as mono-cultural in the OP and the quoted post, I apologize for the misunderstanding. That was not my intention, and I absolutely love having a variety of different cultures for the same race in my worlds/campaigns. I just think that they should be influenced by their racial mechanics, even if they're influenced in different ways by subrace mechanics or by their place in the world.
 

Scars Unseen

Explorer
Sure, that's not my main criticism of their post, but it's worth saying. Whenever I have said "X should be like Y", people reply saying "but, that's just like your opinion, man" almost any time. It works both ways.
It really wasn't worth saying. If people are doing that to you, it's bad when they do it too. Like I said, it's all opinions here. The way they worded it doesn't make it less of an opinion, and there's no reason to reword it to suit your personal tastes. Just address the actual meat of the comment instead of insisting they post like you want them to.
 

AcererakTriple6

Autistic DM (he/him)
It really wasn't worth saying. If people are doing that to you, it's bad when they do it too. Like I said, it's all opinions here. The way they worded it doesn't make it less of an opinion, and there's no reason to reword it to suit your personal tastes. Just address the actual meat of the comment instead of insisting they post like you want them to.
This is a moot point. @doctorbadwolf doubled down on their objective-ness stance already.
 

Scars Unseen

Explorer
This is a moot point. @doctorbadwolf doubled down on their objective-ness stance already.
That's a separate issue, and unfortunately it's one that runs headlong into the whole prescriptive vs. descriptive language argument. People have been using "objective" in situations that can't be objective for so long it's in that same area of "literally" being used to describe the figurative. It's a debate that could be had, but it's one I've found doesn't really go anywhere, and one that we'll likely lose out on with time.

But I'm going to make a wager. I'm going to bet by the quoted post above that you know the difference. And if you know the difference, you likely can figure out that the meat of their post would not change if they worded it in a way that was more explicitly written in subjective language. And if the meat of their post wouldn't change, then what exactly are you accomplishing? You know that the content of their post is opinion, and you're certainly capable of engaging the content of the post on its own merits, as you've already demonstrated. I can pretty much guarantee that you aren't going to change how people post, so why not just reply to what they post and leave it at that?
 

dave2008

Legend
I'm perfectly fine with having multiple cultures for different groups of the same race. I have no problem with that. I gave plenty of different possible cultures for Halflings (based off of their mechanics and personalities) in the various halfling threads, and would love it if multiple of them existed in the same world. That makes for some fun interactions between the various racial cultures, like how Tairnadal and Aereni Elves in Eberron are both elves, but have very different cultures, but share common elements (worshipping ancestors).

If you thought that I was treating the races as mono-cultural in the OP and the quoted post, I apologize for the misunderstanding. That was not my intention, and I absolutely love having a variety of different cultures for the same race in my worlds/campaigns. I just think that they should be influenced by their racial mechanics, even if they're influenced in different ways by subrace mechanics or by their place in the world.
OK, but can you see what you did, or are you to close to the situation?
 


doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
All player races (besides human) are partially alien. Some moreso than others (Warforged, Kalashtar, Yuan-Ti, and Lizardfolk, for example), but any non-human race should have a different psychology from humans, IMO, even if that difference is slight. Even races that are more human than others (Reborn that used to be humans, Half-Elves, Half-Orcs, Halflings, Planetouched Humans, Dragonmarked Humans, etc) should have a psychology that differentiates them from humans, because both their biological and cultural pressures would cause them to have different mindsets (like how the Dragonmarked Human Races in Eberron all have different cultures, while still being largely human).

Sure, it can be as simple as "I'm scared of tall people [Goliaths, Orcs, Ogres, Giants, etc] because I'm a 3 foot tall halfling", but that's still an alien mindset from the average human.

If your non-human races are played exactly as humans (in roleplay, not mechanics), they might as well just be humans.
No.

Your preference is not superior to that of others.
 


AcererakTriple6

Autistic DM (he/him)
No.

Your preference is not superior to that of others.
You know these kind of replies aren't constructive, right?

If you disagree and are going to bother to reply, you might as well do more than say "No, u wrong, and here's a statement about your stance that you never said".

I never said that my preference is superior. (I mean, you quite literally did say that your stance was superior in this post. But I never did such a thing. Maybe you should consider taking your own advice.) I've gone out of my way to point out that my stance is my opinion. Not only that, I have also given examples to support my viewpoint (differing scales of alien-ness for different races that I listed, explanations for why non-human races logically should have different mindsets, even if it's just a little bit alien, and even examples of humans that have different mindsets than normal humans due to mechanical differences).

I know that you don't like and disagree with my opinion and reasoning. I'm fine with that. I'm not saying yours is the "wrong way" or "inferior", but I'm still allowed to explain my reasoning. And you're free to respond with rebuttals and posts disagreeing with me. I actually encouraged that in the OP. However, these rude and condescending posts are neither constructive nor welcome in this thread. Stop painting me as an evil "badwrongfun" gatekeeper, please. I didn't do or say anything to provoke that kind of response.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
You know these kind of replies aren't constructive, right?

If you disagree and are going to bother to reply, you might as well do more than say "No, u wrong, and here's a statement about your stance that you never said".

I never said that my preference is superior. (I mean, you quite literally did say that your stance was superior in this post. But I never did such a thing. Maybe you should consider taking your own advice.) I've gone out of my way to point out that my stance is my opinion. Not only that, I have also given examples to support my viewpoint (differing scales of alien-ness for different races that I listed, explanations for why non-human races logically should have different mindsets, even if it's just a little bit alien, and even examples of humans that have different mindsets than normal humans due to mechanical differences).

I know that you don't like and disagree with my opinion and reasoning. I'm fine with that. I'm not saying yours is the "wrong way" or "inferior", but I'm still allowed to explain my reasoning. And you're free to respond with rebuttals and posts disagreeing with me. I actually encouraged that in the OP. However, these rude and condescending posts are neither constructive nor welcome in this thread. Stop painting me as an evil "badwrongfun" gatekeeper, please. I didn't do or say anything to provoke that kind of response.
You don’t seem to grok what is actually in contention, here.

I have never advocated for non-humans generally being like humans in mindset. I have, instead, said that it is not true that every single non-human should have an alien mindset.

You, on the other hand, have stated quite clearly that you believe that every single race, without exception, needs to match your preference. That is a statement that your preference is superior.

Let my try a different way.

I am saying, “both preferences should be supported by the game.” You’ve responded by saying that only your preference (ie, all races that aren’t humans need to be alien) should be how the game works, without exception.

My position allows for all general preferences to find a place in the game materials. Yours does not. Your also requires changing several races in ways that will make them less appealing to the people who already like them.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
By virtue of the fact that many people want to play non-humans that aren’t alien in mindset, we can pretty well determine that it is objectively true that not all races should be alien in mindset.

It is also true that some non-humans should have significantly alien mindsets, by virtue of a significant amount of the player base wanting that.
Just gonna quote what I actually said, so that it’s harder for you to lie about my statements, @AcererakTriple6 .

We can clearly see, above, that I have not put either preference (ie, “human-like races” vs “alien races”) above the other, and have rather stated that we can know objectively that the player base wants both types of races, and thus we can objectively say that it’s better, barring any ethical or logistical reasons to say otherwise, that it is better to support both.

My first paragraph in the quoted post is not controversial. It is literally objectively true, as a matter of fact, that many players prefer many of the non-human folk of D&D have mindsets very similar to humans. Denying them that because you prefer alien-minded non-humans, is a denial of he validity of their preference.
 

AcererakTriple6

Autistic DM (he/him)
No, I “doubled down” on telling you that your position is not universally or objectively correct. The situation is literally the precise opposite of what you are claiming it is.
You really want to do this? Okay, here we go.

I started by saying:
Why can't halflings, gnomes, and other races/lineages that traditionally/stereotypically are just "short and quirky" be more different from humans? Why can't there be just a bit more non-human flavor added onto these races (or just leaned into more than before)??? If Halflings are "the best farmers to ever farm, and nearly magically-so" and "the happiest people to ever be a people since the Scandinavians, and possibly law-required to be happy", that gives them a bit more flavor that separates them culturally from humans, and in unique and interesting ways.
(Basically, why can't halflings have more racially-determined cultures? Here are some examples of how this could work.)
You replied by saying this:
Not all races should be alien in mindset from humans.
An objectively stated claim, in a short post with no evidence, examples, or reasoning to support it.
I then criticized and rebutted this post here:
You forgot to say that that is your opinion, and should not have been stated/taken as an absolute fact.

I disagree. They're just matters of differing tastes. I agree that they should be close enough to humans for us to properly understand and roleplay them, but I do think that there should be some amount of an alien-mindset to playing a non-human race.
I started out by pointing out how your subjective opinion was mistakenly posted in a means that made it appear as if it was an objective fact, and then continued to explain how these are differing and subjective tastes, that the "alien mindsets" should largely be close enough to humans for us human players to understand them, empathize with them, and properly play them, even though I do think that all non-human races should have some modicum of alien-ness in their psychology/culture (mainly because I find it interesting, it helps me separate them from each other in concept, and find ways to fit them into different campaigns and settings).

@Scars Unseen then criticized me for criticizing your post's phrasing here:
Can we get past this? Please? The topic is subjective. Of course it's their opinion. We shouldn't have to preface every opinion with the words "in my opinion." Sniping at people for using declarative language accomplishes nothing.
I replied by saying this:
It was stated as a fact. Sniping at them for doing that makes it less likely for them to do that in the future, and makes it so others are less likely to take it as a fact.

Sure, that's not my main criticism of their post, but it's worth saying. Whenever I have said "X should be like Y", people reply saying "but, that's just like your opinion, man" almost any time. It works both ways.
(Basically, I get criticized when posting opinions as if they were facts, as do others, and that I had more to my post than just this minor gripe.)
However, I posted that before reading this post of yours:
By virtue of the fact that many people want to play non-humans that aren’t alien in mindset, we can pretty well determine that it is objectively true that not all races should be alien in mindset.

It is also true that some non-humans should have significantly alien mindsets, by virtue of a significant amount of the player base wanting that.
See the emboldened text. After I noticed this doubling down on the "my subjective opinion is objectively true" stance from @doctorbadwolf, I posted:
This is a moot point. @doctorbadwolf doubled down on their objective-ness stance already.
Explaining that you, @doctorbadwolf, had doubled down on your wording being objectively true, and so my initial criticism was indeed warranted in the first place. However, you just said:
No, I “doubled down” on telling you that your position is not universally or objectively correct. The situation is literally the precise opposite of what you are claiming it is.
Which seems to claim that I am the one that made an objective/universal claim about my own subjective opinion/position, when in fact the literal opposite is literally exactly what spurred this infuriating debate of semantics in the first place.

Is that clear? Was I thorough enough for you? Can you see how the objectively-stated sentence of "Not all humans should be alien in mindset from humans" and the doubling down through "it is objectively true that not all races should be alien in mindset" is you doubling down on the opinion-as-objective-fact position, and not me? Did you accidentally read your posts as being from my account, because otherwise you seem to be arguing in bad faith. In which case, I will happily disengage and tell you to cease to respond to me again in the future. At least, until you can remember to read what you wrote before accusing me of stating an opinion as objective fact.

Is that it? If so, have a good day. Hopefully our next encounter will be more pleasant.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
That's a separate issue, and unfortunately it's one that runs headlong into the whole prescriptive vs. descriptive language argument. People have been using "objective" in situations that can't be objective for so long it's in that same area of "literally" being used to describe the figurative. It's a debate that could be had, but it's one I've found doesn't really go anywhere, and one that we'll likely lose out on with time.

But I'm going to make a wager. I'm going to bet by the quoted post above that you know the difference. And if you know the difference, you likely can figure out that the meat of their post would not change if they worded it in a way that was more explicitly written in subjective language. And if the meat of their post wouldn't change, then what exactly are you accomplishing? You know that the content of their post is opinion, and you're certainly capable of engaging the content of the post on its own merits, as you've already demonstrated. I can pretty much guarantee that you aren't going to change how people post, so why not just reply to what they post and leave it at that?
Also, the only thing I stated was objective, was the unarguable fact that the player base has no consensus on a preference for what percentage of races should have an alien mindset. Which…is actually objectively true.

What I didn’t say, or imply, or allude to, is anything like what they’re claiming I said.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
You really want to do this? Okay, here we go.

I started by saying:

(Basically, why can't halflings have more racially-determined cultures? Here are some examples of how this could work.)
You replied by saying this:

An objectively stated claim, in a short post with no evidence, examples, or reasoning to support it.
I then criticized and rebutted this post here:

I started out by pointing out how your subjective opinion was mistakenly posted in a means that made it appear as if it was an objective fact, and then continued to explain how these are differing and subjective tastes, that the "alien mindsets" should largely be close enough to humans for us human players to understand them, empathize with them, and properly play them, even though I do think that all non-human races should have some modicum of alien-ness in their psychology/culture (mainly because I find it interesting, it helps me separate them from each other in concept, and find ways to fit them into different campaigns and settings).

@Scars Unseen then criticized me for criticizing your post's phrasing here:

I replied by saying this:

(Basically, I get criticized when posting opinions as if they were facts, as do others, and that I had more to my post than just this minor gripe.)
However, I posted that before reading this post of yours:

See the emboldened text. After I noticed this doubling down on the "my subjective opinion is objectively true" stance from @doctorbadwolf, I posted:

Explaining that you, @doctorbadwolf, had doubled down on your wording being objectively true, and so my initial criticism was indeed warranted in the first place. However, you just said:

Which seems to claim that I am the one that made an objective/universal claim about my own subjective opinion/position, when in fact the literal opposite is literally exactly what spurred this infuriating debate of semantics in the first place.
Except it isn’t, you read a statement that your preference shouldn’t become the exclusive take of the game as somehow a statement that only one preference should reign supreme. 🙄
Is that clear? Was I thorough enough for you?
What’s clear is a pattern of condescension, among other distasteful behaviors.
Can you see how the objectively-stated sentence of "Not all humans should be alien in mindset from humans" and the doubling down through "it is objectively true that not all races should be alien in mindset" is you doubling down on the opinion-as-objective-fact position, and not me?
This is directly opposite the case. You are arguing an absolute, that all races must be alien in mindset. I am arguing that because we know factually that players are generally split on how alien races should be, we also know that the player base in general will be best served by not making every single race alien. I then said, explicitly, that it is also objectively the case that some races should be alien, to serve the preferences of players that want such races.
Did you accidentally read your posts as being from my account, because otherwise you seem to be arguing in bad faith.



Again, I absolutely never claimed that any specific preference is better or worse. The only thing that is objective here, is what I claimed is objective, which is that the player base has a gamut of preference on the subject of alien mindsets in PC races, and thus there should be races that cater to a preference other than your own.

That is literally what my first statement, that you tilted at a strawman of, means. That the game should not exclusively cater to your preference, but should instead serve both.

Your intentional sniping in order to try and modify my behavior is wildly inappropriate, and in this case quite misguided. My first statement was stated no more “objectively” than what it was in reply to.
 

AcererakTriple6

Autistic DM (he/him)
You don’t seem to grok what is actually in contention, here.
Maybe we're talking past each other.
I have never advocated for non-humans generally being like humans in mindset. I have, instead, said that it is not true that every single non-human should have an alien mindset.
I know that. I've read that. I disagree, and haven't been capable of replying to it due to this thread being bogged down by asinine semantic debates and the like.
You, on the other hand, have stated quite clearly that you believe that every single race, without exception, needs to match your preference. That is a statement that your preference is superior.
No, it's not. It really, truly isn't.

I prefer my preference (literally in the definition), and support it. I prefer that all races have some amount of non-alien psychology to them. I think that it is good to have those, just like I don't think that it would be good to make two different races that were exactly identical in mechanics, except for a language or skill change, or something minor like that. I'm perfectly fine with most races having mostly human psychologies, but mostly human doesn't mean completely human.

Halflings should have mostly human psychologies and cultures, as I stated way back earlier in this thread. However, I did give some examples of how to make them not completely human, in order to differentiate them, make them more interesting (in my opinion, of course), and encourage creative thinking in both players and DMs when roleplaying them and thinking about their part of the D&D world/campaign. The same applies to the planetouched races, too. Tieflings, Genasi, Aasimar, and Hexbloods should be mostly human in psychology. However, there are aspects of their races (both mechanically and thematically) that will impact how individuals and cultures that are members of those races will act differently from humans. Tieflings might live in warmer climates with less lighting around their settlements (due to resistance to fire damage and darkvision, which also applies to Fire Genasi), Water Genasi might live underwater (or at least on coastlines, probably as divers and fishers), Air Genasi might live at higher altitudes (due to needing less oxygen and the ability to better transverse cliffsides through their innate Levitate), and Earth Genasi might be more likely to not pave roads (due to ignoring earthen difficult terrain).

Those are still mostly human psychologies and cultures, but slightly differentiated in both mindset and culture by their heritages and racial features.

That's what I want. Yes, it is a universal statement, because it applies to literally every race that isn't a human (and even human sub-types, like Dragonmarked races), because all races that aren't human have different mechanics, history, and features that can and (IMO) should influence how they act.

I don't think that's a contentious topic. I believe that most people will agree that having the ability to levitate once a day and hold your breath indefinitely will probably impact how a group of people act as individuals and a culture. I believe most people would agree that if you are less sensitive to hot temperatures, you'd be more likely to live in typically inhospitable climates, and thus have quite different cultures from people who live in other parts of the world. That's not contentious. That's just common sense and, IMO, is a good thing for the game. It gives players more to think about when roleplaying a character of that race (a Fire Genasi or Tiefling would probably hate Icewind Dale, for example, because it's so cold and they're better acclimated for warmer temperatures, while Goliaths would love it there).

Again, yes, it's universal, but I've actually given reasoning and examples for why it makes sense, why it wouldn't be hard to implement for most races, and why I think it's a good thing for the game.

Does this help? I didn't mean to put anyone off by explaining it like this. I honestly thought that it was self-explanatory. Maybe just ask next time. I'll probably be more likely to respond in a not aggressive manner.
Let my try a different way.

I am saying, “both preferences should be supported by the game.” You’ve responded by saying that only your preference (ie, all races that aren’t humans need to be alien) should be how the game works, without exception.
That's not how I read your post. You may have intended that, but it's not how I read it. (Which is why I generally make long and thorough posts, to try to make sure no one misunderstands me or takes it in the wrong way.)

Like I've said earlier in this thread, I absolutely support both styles of play. I just would prefer if the base was more thought-out and worked more to seem interesting (to me, at least), while the secondary/variant option would be more human-like races. IMO, it's a good thing for players to see how different races are different from one another. In my experience, it gets them thinking and encourages more interesting and better character ideas.
My position allows for all general preferences to find a place in the game materials. Yours does not. Your also requires changing several races in ways that will make them less appealing to the people who already like them.
Not really. It wouldn't involve changing the races that don't have much in-depth lore and culture in the official game (which is most of them, especially the newer ones that aren't tied to specific campaign settings). It would "support" both styles of play, by the people who don't want more in-depth, racial lore for them just ignoring it if they don't like it. It's not that hard. It is, however, harder to have the base be non-in-depth, non-racially specific lore/cultures, and then having to craft that off of nothing. Ignoring is easier than creating.

Does this explain my position in a better, non-hostile manner? Sorry if we got off on the wrong foot. We don't have to agree with each other, but at the least we should be respectful of each other's opinions and selves.
 

AcererakTriple6

Autistic DM (he/him)
Except it isn’t, you read a statement that your preference shouldn’t become the exclusive take of the game as somehow a statement that only one preference should reign supreme. 🙄
Maybe that's how you intended it, but that's not how I read it. If it was a bit longer, and actually explained/supported that claim, I probably would have taken it better. And, if you had quoted the OP, maybe that would have been a bit clearer that you were disagreeing with the whole premise of the thread, not just that specific post.
What’s clear is a pattern of condescension, among other distasteful behaviors.
I can see how it came across as condescending. To be honest, I could have held back a bit more of it than I did. However, I don't know what the "among other distasteful behaviors" means. Care to clarify?

I'm sorry if it came across as condescending. I'm just low on energy and worn out by this frustrating misconstruction. However, my post was honest. That's how I understand your posting. If that's not what you intended, maybe it would help to clarify. I do hope that you could see how I reached my conclusion on your post, though.
This is directly opposite the case. You are arguing an absolute, that all races must be alien in mindset. I am arguing that because we know factually that players are generally split on how alien races should be, we also know that the player base in general will be best served by not making every single race alien. I then said, explicitly, that it is also objectively the case that some races should be alien, to serve the preferences of players that want such races.


Again, I absolutely never claimed that any specific preference is better or worse. The only thing that is objective here, is what I claimed is objective, which is that the player base has a gamut of preference on the subject of alien mindsets in PC races, and thus there should be races that cater to a preference other than your own.

That is literally what my first statement, that you tilted at a strawman of, means. That the game should not exclusively cater to your preference, but should instead serve both.

Your intentional sniping in order to try and modify my behavior is wildly inappropriate, and in this case quite misguided. My first statement was stated no more “objectively” than what it was in reply to.
That doesn't do it for me. If some races are made alien in mindset, and the rest are just humans, that's not a compromise I can get behind. There are some races that I'm already interested in, but would far prefer and would probably play if they were more in-depth on how their racial mechanics influence their cultures. I already like Lizardfolk, Tortles, Owlfolk, and quite a few other races that don't have this tool applied to them. I just would way rather play them/use them in my games if their racial mechanics impacted them in a similar way to described above.

My absolute is on the approach; how racial cultures should be designed from the get-go. Not on how they should/have to be played at different tables, or incorporated in different worlds.

Is that clear? Is it clear how I'm not trying to "badwrongfun" anyone, or force them to play my way or use lore that I find interesting? Is it clear how I'm not saying that my preference is the One True Way, like you thought I was saying? Are we done with this miscommunication? Because I don't appreciate being painted as a "Fun Supremacist" that wants it "my way or no way" anymore than you enjoy being misunderstood the way that I misunderstood your posts. I apologize if I misconstrued or misunderstood your posts, but you did so with my posts, too. We were just talking past each other.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top