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

[Crimson Longinus]

It's completely the opposite of pointless. It has a very big point. It gives those who like racial bonuses(a whole lot of us) our racial bonuses and still gives you guys the flexibility you want. It's win-win, which is important. And a fantastic compromise.

Nope. If everyone has floating +2 they can put anywhere, it is pointless. Elves are actually any more dexterous, as anyone can put their floating +2 to dex to match them, nor are goliaths any stronger than halflings, who again can put their +2 to strength to match them.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Would you just stop with the dumb min-maxer argument?

It's not getting any less obnoxious and untrue with repetition.

How is it not true? You just yourself literally said not being able to max the main stat limits choices for those who feel the need to do so. So optimisation is the motivation. Without such a motivation no character choices are limited.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Optimization is not the same as wanting halfway competence in a post-bounded accuracy world.

 

[Maxperson]

Nope. If everyone has floating +2 they can put anywhere, it is pointless. Elves are actually any more dexterous, as anyone can put their floating +2 to dex to match them, nor are goliaths any stronger than halflings, who again can put their +2 to strength to match them.

You don't get to declare it pointless for everyone. You can tell me that you don't see the point, but it does in fact have a point, whether you can see it or not. I can see the point.

 

[Scribe]

Now, of the remaining time, how much of a typical session (and I mean on average, over say, 10 sessions) do you think is reasonable to delve into the psycho-socio differences between the different party members? D&D is built around encounters, be they combat or otherwise, with OUTSIDE triggers. Not conflicts within the party.

As much time as the players want to devote to it?

Could be a whole session as far as I care, I don't demand people in my groups stick to a schedule.

Now if you have players being intentionally disruptive during an encounter, that's something different, but that's a player behavior issue.

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

Scribe, you clearly play a different game than I. The idea of an entire session where players talk about their feelings towards one another is the antithesis of any D&D game I have ever played. I play D&D as a fantasy game, but one that does have some hard core real world connections, particularly in physics and biology (I only allow PHB species in any game I run, and walk away from any Pokemon game). I don't need to have group therapy sessions where we explore each other's chars motivations.

And as for disruptive players, I would posit that two chars with polar opposite value systems are indeed going to be in direct conflict, that WILL disrupt encounters. I don't even have to go into the concept of different species. Look at the description of a Grave Cleric in XGTE. There is absolutely zero middle ground with that char and say a Necromancer Wizard or an Undead Warlock. Or between Grave Cleric and any number of the new species that are grounded in being Undead, or Undead-adjacent.

The Grave Cleric WILL go to any lengths to destroy those chars/species. It is written into the very description. So if you want to talk about RP'ing those chars, and discussing their motivations to reach some common group....nope, not happening, if the players are TRULY going to commit to the RP aspect of their chars.

 

[Scribe]

Scribe, you clearly play a different game than I.

I suppose so. I would say a session at a camp, in a tavern, on the trail, where people really explore their characters, and how they relate to each other is great.

I mean in my youth, I did a lot of manual labor. You have a lot of time (while digging, or loading, or carrying) to shoot the breeze.

If you haven't had opportunity to have discussions like that, I would be surprised.

Now are their class concepts which are clearly opposite? Sure, you picked a good one, but that's a bit of a goal post shift don't you think?

Bringing this back again to the topic.

If I'm in a party with a Lizard person, who looks at me as potential food, who doesn't share the same emotional World view, why can't that be discussed at the table?

I'm pretty sure Tas never plucked Flints axe out of his hand mid swing because he just HAD to steal it.

The game is not a straight jacket. It simply isn't.

Your class, your race, your alignment, your stats! 5e is SO forgiving and loose, you are not required to play within some straight jacket framework.

 

[Vince_Snetterton]

Scribe, I was in a session last night, where the DM had to reset expectations, essentially a 2nd session 0. Three of the 6 players joined the campaign (some 6 sessions old now), after the first session. One of these players thinks it "playing his char" to use Cutting Words on MY char after we had been ambushed by Orcs. This same player believes it is "fun" for his char to get drunk and play bagpipes while we explore a dungeon of unknown size and danger level.

The first half of the session was an out of game discussion about the motivations of the various chars and the DM gently suggesting that PvP is not a good thing. I stated flat out at the table that I hate it and never allow it my table, but "his table, his rules" applies. The rest of the session was pure RP. I rolled twice for Perception. It was excruciatingly awful.

And this is among chars that are of the same mindset, and at least share/recognize each other's value system. To suggest that some Lizard, who's culture and biological evolution, over countless generations has made it what it is, will stop considering you as food, over a campfire conversation, suspends all belief. There is D&D fantasy, and then there is something else that you are describing.

The closing scene at the end of Guardians of the Galaxy is another good analogy, when the Law guy is explaining to Drax how removing someones' spine is a bad thing, or how Rocket can't steal something because he wants it more. Both those chars continue to do those things, even though it was clearly explained to them.

You are suggesting this kind of behaviour can be RP'ed away. I am stating that if players truly RP'ed said chars, such behaviour CANNOT be modified in a couple RP chats. If it is, then the players are simply not playing their chars. The entire concept of players RP'ing a pantheon of different species, with wildly divergent cultures and biological drives, is impossible from the outset. Either players are NOT truly RP'ing their alien race chars, at which point it just Humans with Funny Hats, or if the players DO succesfully RP their chars, there will be massive intra-party conflict. Both ways, the entire concept fails.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

The rest of the session was pure RP. I rolled twice for Perception. It was excruciatingly awful.

It certainly is truly terrible to have to roleplay in a roleplaying game.

And this is among chars that are of the same mindset, and at least share/recognize each other's value system. To suggest that some Lizard, who's culture and biological evolution, over countless generations has made it what it is, will stop considering you as food, over a campfire conversation, suspends all belief. There is D&D fantasy, and then there is something else that you are describing.

Humans eat animals. Yet we don't consider our pets to be food. Even if those pets were animals that are commonly eaten, such as rabbits.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Humans eat animals. Yet we don't consider our pets to be food. Even if those pets were animals that are commonly eaten, such as rabbits.

Indeed. Humans eat wolves. Wolves eat humans. Until the wolves called themselves dogs and turned the humans into pets.