D&D General Race Has No Mechanics. What do you play?

[KYRON45]

There seems to be quite a bit of equivocation and “because I said so” in this conversation.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I'm not going to get into the justifications for why "species is better" because it's not. Also most people who confidently throw out a middle school definition of species have no idea of the debate and difficulties current in academic biology, especially with all of the data that genetics is adding to the discussion, in defining what a species actually is. They're literally not prepared to have a meaningful discussion about it. Especially if they're going in hot and dogmatic about what is a pretty superficial and out of date understanding of the problem.

But to your other point, it sounds like you need more interesting backgrounds.

I’m not trying to preach about how anything is the superior terminology, just pointing out that it’s the same rules widget under a new name as a consequence of changes from outside the game influencing the language used.

And as mentioned by another poster, Background is another rules widget which is a separate thing from character backstory, of which town guard and acolyte are options to pick the same way you pick between being a warlock or a paladin or a dwarf or a halfling when creating your character.

 

[Micah Sweet]

@Corinnguard I think racial mechanics are the least important subset of mechanics in the game, even if some players seem to demand their presence. If you eliminated them, you might want to buff up classes and backgrounds just to make sure PCs are on the same starting competence level, but even then I don't think the game would suffer much if you did not do that.

Racial mechanics are just as important as any other mechanics that help define your character. They all represent something about you and your PC's existence in the setting.

 

[Micah Sweet]

How different? Norse people are generally different than southeast Asian people. Should they have mechanical differences?

Nice try.

Seriously though, in the Level Up system they would likely be associated with different Cultures (which are a character creation metric there, and most likely each would be associated with more than one), so yeah, there would be some mechanical differences in that regard.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Background is just one facet of who your character is. It's the job they had before they decided to become an adventurer. Race and class are two other facets of who your character is.

And in Level Up Culture is the way you grew up.

 

[el-remmen]

Dwarf, Gnome, or Human - like I usually play (or maybe lizardfolk, if I am feeling frisky). I have never chosen a race/species/lineage/people (whatever you want to call it - in my games we call it "Peoples") based on mechanical benefit, so this maybe this question is not for me.

 

[Reynard]

Nice try.

Seriously though, in the Level Up system they would likely be associated with different Cultures (which are a character creation metric there, and most likely each would be associated with more than one), so yeah, there would be some mechanical differences in that regard.

I was being intentionally hyperbolic, of course. But my point was that the point where we decide to draw mechanical distinctions between "types" is entirely arbitrary, and as such easily eliminated. This is doubly true for ability score modifiers, since every type has its outliers (but if you must, adjusting the dice pool without moving the outer bounds makes more sense).

As to inherent and especially magical abilities, I totally understand why that is desirable for people. I am just saying it isn't strictly necessary and you can still have more than just "humans in funny hats" by focusing on things that don't affect game mechanics. What if elves saw in entirely different colors than humans -- not in a way that is better or worse than human sight, just very different. or what if gnomes smelled color and heard taste and tasted touch?

 

[el-remmen]

I have never chosen a race/species/lineage/people (whatever you want to call it - in my games we call it "Peoples") based on mechanical benefit. . .

Oh wait, I lied.

The first character I ever made was a B/X Elf because I wanted to be able to both use a sword and sling spells.

 

[Reynard]

In Dragonbane, by way of example, a characters "kin" affects exactly two things: it adjusts their base movement slightly, and they gain a heroic ability which is essentially a feat. It would not hurt anything at all to eliminate the differences in movement rates. Nor would moving those heroic abilities into the general pool and giving everyone an additional starting choice.

It is entirely possible to do D&D style fantasy with race existing and mattering in the world, without it having any particular mechanical effect.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I was being intentionally hyperbolic, of course. But my point was that the point where we decide to draw mechanical distinctions between "types" is entirely arbitrary, and as such easily eliminated. This is doubly true for ability score modifiers, since every type has its outliers (but if you must, adjusting the dice pool without moving the outer bounds makes more sense).

As to inherent and especially magical abilities, I totally understand why that is desirable for people. I am just saying it isn't strictly necessary and you can still have more than just "humans in funny hats" by focusing on things that don't affect game mechanics. What if elves saw in entirely different colors than humans -- not in a way that is better or worse than human sight, just very different. or what if gnomes smelled color and heard taste and tasted touch?

Fair enough. For my part, I see no reason to play a nonhuman if things about them I think should matter mechanically in a role-playing game don't.