Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scott Christian" data-source="post: 8454048" data-attributes="member: 6901101">Sometimes, when one is new to a forum, they read the two sides, but don't get the nuance. It happens all the time. So I have to take exception to this statement. I will try to clarify the two sides:<table style='width: 100%'><tr><td>One side opposes fixed racial ASIs. They do so because they believe it limits choices when building characters. They often claim ASIs don't build distinction in races, and if distinction is needed, it is better done through racial traits: stonecunning, darkvision, lucky, etc. We will call these people teachers.</td><td>One side likes fixed racial ASIs. They do so because they believe it limits choices when building characters for some, and promotes choices for others that want to play "against type," a PHB term. They often claim it adds distinction to the races. They are also for racial traits. We will call these people engineers.</td></tr></table>Then, inevitably (at least from my experience), this bleeds over into the biological/realism/suspension of disbelief/word narrative debate. Here, the two sides tend, not always, but tend to align to the same side of the spectrum as before.<table style='width: 100%'><tr><td>One side says it's fantasy and there is nothing realistic about it, so therefore ASIs should be floating. They also state language needs to be rewritten in the books to show this change, and in turn, remove any language that might be offensive to groups of people. We'll call these people doctors.</td><td>One side says it's fantasy with some sense of realism, so therefore fixed ASIs should represent the racial trait. They also state language originally used was fine, as it clearly implies these racial ASIs. Some take offense that the language should offend anyone, due to the fact that they are fantasy races. We'll call these people lawyers. </td></tr></table>Here is the point to the powergamer discussion. Are the teachers powergaming? Not really. They want a 16. It's not really powergaming, and more of a let's keep everyone on the same setting. And are the engineers just afraid of change? Not really. They want things to be more difficult for some than others, as it reflects in their sense of fantasy realism.Here is the point to the political discussion. Are the doctors just virtue signaling? No. They want their D&D world to be tied to their real world feelings. And are the lawyers being racist? No. They want their D&D world separated from their real world feelings. Was all this caused by the winds of social change? We'll never know.And lastly, if I may. The gaming market, for the past twenty-five years has slowly leaned to "give the players what they want." In turn, the limitations set become either A) easier to implement or B) easier to get. It has happened in video games. I mean the original Everquest was brutal. WoW made it easier. Who won? AD&D death's system was brutal. 5E's death system is almost not even there. Who won? In a sense, easier seems to win in the market. And that could have been the transformation we found in Tasha's? We don't know. But the easy mode of games is definitely an observable trend.</blockquote>

Verification