Racial Tendencies not Racial Stereotypes

[Sunseeker]

Does it matter? If you want Charisma to be your best stat, put more points into it and leave intelligence low. You are usually free to assign your scores as you want to.

That's all fine and dandy, but when your race says +2con, -2cha; because you're a fat smelly dwarf, it's rather annoying. Why can't my dwarf be toned and clean? Why am I getting penalties to my ability to game for a rather stupid stereotype? Even if I put an 18 in cha, I'm only going to get a 16 because Wizards decided that ALL dwarves must be fat and smelly and therefore unlikable.

Even if we say that Dwarves usually are fat and smelly, that's still a "usually", there's no reason I MUST take a -2 to my cha or a +2 to my con, just that's what the race usually gets. Maybe I can just opt out of taking bonuses or penalties, that's a good option. Maybe those bonuses are floating, I can get +2 str/con or -2wis/cha or maybe I can just get +2/-2any.

Unless there's a very specific synergy with some other racial qualities, there's no reason that every game needed to be saddled with what Wizards thinks dwarves SHOULD be.

 

[Kannik]

I guess the best way to do that would be to just ignore race as a mechanical concept, and leave it to player fluff. You have your stats; describe your character how you want. Call it an elf or a dwarf or a halfling or whatever.

We'll be doing something similar to that in an upcoming campaign. The DM has given us the choice of what he calls your RP race as well as your mechanics race. Essentially you can pick any race mechanics wise (say, a minotaur) and then choose one of the world-limited RP races (which also depends on where your characters started from). Thus you could have a halfling RP race using the thri-kreen mechanics. As a player it is up to you to let the GM know how you will be justifying (a bit strong of a word, but I can't think of a better one right now) the mechanics, especially odd racial powers (for the Halfling/thri-kreen she is adept at making quick strokes with his dagger at multiple opponents, for example), and that can allow for an even more personalized character and RP.

I’m looking forward to seeing how it works out.

peace,

Kannik

 

[Mercule]

That's all fine and dandy, but when your race says +2con, -2cha; because you're a fat smelly dwarf, it's rather annoying. Why can't my dwarf be toned and clean? Why am I getting penalties to my ability to game for a rather stupid stereotype? Even if I put an 18 in cha, I'm only going to get a 16 because Wizards decided that ALL dwarves must be fat and smelly and therefore unlikable.

The standard dwarf is fat and smelly. If your dwarves aren't, then it's a different race. Also, a dwarf with a 16 charisma isn't fat and smelly in any absolute sense -- he's still more fun to be around than 98% and change of humans. If that was intelligence, he'd be a genius.

Non-humans are different than humans. They are better in some regards and worse in others. If that statement isn't true for your world, then just stat everything as a human and skin them differently. For me, races shouldn't exist that aren't statistically different from humans. Those are ethnicities or nationalities.

 

[Sunseeker]

The standard dwarf is fat and smelly. If your dwarves aren't, then it's a different race. Also, a dwarf with a 16 charisma isn't fat and smelly in any absolute sense -- he's still more fun to be around than 98% and change of humans. If that was intelligence, he'd be a genius.

No, the stereotypical dwarf is an annoying Irish parody and is why they are extinct in every campaign I run(because people who play them insist on sounding like the worst Gimli impersonators ever).

But the point is, take for example any cha-based class, such as paladin or bard. Dwarves are good at both of these things within the D&D lore...yet because of a -2 cha, they're still worse than even an elf.

Suggesting that it's an entirely different race because my character isn't a fat, smelly drunk is almost borderline racism.

Non-humans are different than humans. They are better in some regards and worse in others. If that statement isn't true for your world, then just stat everything as a human and skin them differently. For me, races shouldn't exist that aren't statistically different from humans. Those are ethnicities or nationalities.

Yeah but humans can be ANYTHING. I mean the whole point of being a human is because you're highly versatile. So other races should be the opposite of versatile...so other races should NOT be versatile? That doesn't seem to make much sense. In a world where humans can be anything, dwarves can only be drunks. That's really a poor argument.

 

[MoxieFu]

What is it with some people that they feel like they have to have a big, steaming pile-o-rules to tell them how to ROLEPLAY?

Why do we have to have rules for all kinds of exceptions and corner-cases that can possibly occur? At some point the rules should just get out of the way and let the players get on with it. I just think that the rules should serve the game, and not the other way around.

 

[Mercule]

No, the stereotypical dwarf is an annoying Irish parody and is why they are extinct in every campaign I run(because people who play them insist on sounding like the worst Gimli impersonators ever).

But the point is, take for example any cha-based class, such as paladin or bard. Dwarves are good at both of these things within the D&D lore...yet because of a -2 cha, they're still worse than even an elf.

Apparently, you haven't been playing since 1e, when the dwarf was barred from both those classes. Again, if you want your dwarves to be good at those things, have at it. Even in 1e, I had a completely custom racial level maximum/availability chart. It worked quite nicely.

Suggesting that it's an entirely different race because my character isn't a fat, smelly drunk is almost borderline racism.

Seriously? I honestly don't know how to respond, but I will say that I'm not sure this discussion will be productive or entertaining for much longer.

 

[Mercule]

What is it with some people that they feel like they have to have a big, steaming pile-o-rules to tell them how to ROLEPLAY?

Why do we have to have rules for all kinds of exceptions and corner-cases that can possibly occur? At some point the rules should just get out of the way and let the players get on with it. I just think that the rules should serve the game, and not the other way around.

Agreed. My biggest request for 5e is that GM fiat not be made to feel like a dirty concept.

 

[Grazzt]

What is it with some people that they feel like they have to have a big, steaming pile-o-rules to tell them how to ROLEPLAY?

Why do we have to have rules for all kinds of exceptions and corner-cases that can possibly occur? At some point the rules should just get out of the way and let the players get on with it. I just think that the rules should serve the game, and not the other way around.

Very well said

 

[Sunseeker]

Apparently, you haven't been playing since 1e, when the dwarf was barred from both those classes. Again, if you want your dwarves to be good at those things, have at it. Even in 1e, I had a completely custom racial level maximum/availability chart. It worked quite nicely.

No, I haven't, considering I was only born in 86. And I have no desire to return to 1e.

 

[DEFCON 1]

That's all fine and dandy, but when your race says +2con, -2cha; because you're a fat smelly dwarf, it's rather annoying. Why can't my dwarf be toned and clean? Why am I getting penalties to my ability to game for a rather stupid stereotype? Even if I put an 18 in cha, I'm only going to get a 16 because Wizards decided that ALL dwarves must be fat and smelly and therefore unlikable.

Your dwarf certainly CAN be toned and clean. That's why you can buy up to a 16. The only difference is that even the most toned and clean dwarf is still less charismatic than the most charismatic human, or charismatic elf. Your 16 CHA dwarf is still more charismatic than pretty much 95% of all other representatives of all other races. But part of being a dwarf is that your VERY BEST is still not equivalent than another race's VERY BEST. And why should they be? Why should the pinnacle of any race be just as good as the pinnacle of any other race in every single ability? Why should the pinnacle of the halflings be just as strong as the pinnacle of half-orcs? Does that make any real sense?

Sure... from a min-maxing standpoint you'd want your chosen race to be able to be maxed out just like another race... but that has little to do with the race itself, and more from how the game plays. But sometimes, if you want to play against type... you have to accept that doing so means you can't be the very best. That's what playing 'against type' means.