Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
No More "Humans in Funny Hats": Racial Mechanics Should Determine Racial Cultures
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Scars Unseen" data-source="post: 8444129" data-attributes="member: 10196"><p>I'm not sure what's not to get. A toolkit is versatile, sure, but it's also work by default. Worse than that, it's about as flavorful as instant ramen with half a spice packet. The DMs (and possibly players depending on how much authorial control the DM is asserting over the setting they're running) have to add all the spice themselves, and when you're preparing dozens of dishes or more, that adds up.</p><p></p><p>Super defined races(and monsters) may not always be what you want, but they're always <em>something</em>, and you're just as free to edit to suit your tastes as you are with a toolkit, but if you just need something to spark the imagination, defined is going to do that far better than not, even if it sparks your imagination in how you <em>don't</em> like the definition.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It's <em>very</em> logical unless you just don't want there to be differences between races at all. Even a slower than average adult cheetah will be faster than a hippo after all. And taking away ability score bonuses and other features won't make them <em>less</em> boring. If anything, I'd want to go the other direction and add more defining features given the considerably greater number of playable races that WotC has introduced. But the point of racial ASI isn't to make - in this particular example - all halflings dexterous. It's to make halflings, on average, more dexterous than other races that don't have the same ASI. It's perfectly possible to have a clumsy halfling, a halfling that never skips leg day or a halfling mastermind. But the +2 Dex means that there are fewer clumsy halflings than dwarves, and fewer halfling Schwarzeneggers than orcs. </p><p></p><p>If a player wants their character to be one of the exceptions, they'll need to spend the points(or choose the appropriate array, or hope for a good roll, or whatever) to get there. Or their gaming group can decide they don't like the assigned ASI and just allow it to be put wherever. That's still a choice a group can make regardless of what's written. But taking away the defined ASI in text is limiting the options for those who prefer defined races.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The reason is as simple as can be: because it supports the base premise of wanting greater definition to distinguish each race from each other. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p><em>Then</em> I'd take each published campaign setting, and put out an "Ecologies and Societies" book that largely forgoes the mechanical crunch except to point out variants or where they differ for that specific setting, instead focusing more on behavior, regions settled, societal roles, etc. Where the MM might paint orcs in a way befitting a black and white antagonistic role, the E&S would instead go into detail about different tribes (if they're even organized as tribes in a particular setting), the customs they might have, the relationships they have with their neighbors, etc. Going into that kind of setting specific detail isn't really possible in the baseline books without making those books worthless for all other settings, and making the baseline books generic without publishing anything else is just as bad, forcing DMs and players alike to obtain books from older editions(which newer players and DMs obviously won't do) just to get a good feel for what makes them different in each setting.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Scars Unseen, post: 8444129, member: 10196"] I'm not sure what's not to get. A toolkit is versatile, sure, but it's also work by default. Worse than that, it's about as flavorful as instant ramen with half a spice packet. The DMs (and possibly players depending on how much authorial control the DM is asserting over the setting they're running) have to add all the spice themselves, and when you're preparing dozens of dishes or more, that adds up. Super defined races(and monsters) may not always be what you want, but they're always [I]something[/I], and you're just as free to edit to suit your tastes as you are with a toolkit, but if you just need something to spark the imagination, defined is going to do that far better than not, even if it sparks your imagination in how you [I]don't[/I] like the definition. It's [I]very[/I] logical unless you just don't want there to be differences between races at all. Even a slower than average adult cheetah will be faster than a hippo after all. And taking away ability score bonuses and other features won't make them [I]less[/I] boring. If anything, I'd want to go the other direction and add more defining features given the considerably greater number of playable races that WotC has introduced. But the point of racial ASI isn't to make - in this particular example - all halflings dexterous. It's to make halflings, on average, more dexterous than other races that don't have the same ASI. It's perfectly possible to have a clumsy halfling, a halfling that never skips leg day or a halfling mastermind. But the +2 Dex means that there are fewer clumsy halflings than dwarves, and fewer halfling Schwarzeneggers than orcs. If a player wants their character to be one of the exceptions, they'll need to spend the points(or choose the appropriate array, or hope for a good roll, or whatever) to get there. Or their gaming group can decide they don't like the assigned ASI and just allow it to be put wherever. That's still a choice a group can make regardless of what's written. But taking away the defined ASI in text is limiting the options for those who prefer defined races. The reason is as simple as can be: because it supports the base premise of wanting greater definition to distinguish each race from each other. 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]Then[/I] I'd take each published campaign setting, and put out an "Ecologies and Societies" book that largely forgoes the mechanical crunch except to point out variants or where they differ for that specific setting, instead focusing more on behavior, regions settled, societal roles, etc. Where the MM might paint orcs in a way befitting a black and white antagonistic role, the E&S would instead go into detail about different tribes (if they're even organized as tribes in a particular setting), the customs they might have, the relationships they have with their neighbors, etc. Going into that kind of setting specific detail isn't really possible in the baseline books without making those books worthless for all other settings, and making the baseline books generic without publishing anything else is just as bad, forcing DMs and players alike to obtain books from older editions(which newer players and DMs obviously won't do) just to get a good feel for what makes them different in each setting. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
No More "Humans in Funny Hats": Racial Mechanics Should Determine Racial Cultures
Top