Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Chaosmancer" data-source="post: 8694180" data-attributes="member: 6801228">Clearly. Because when I say "I'm not attacking halflings as a concept" you clearly read and understood that, which is why you accused me of attacking halflings as a concept.Because I try and be polite and not ignore people's arguments. Which is a mistake, obviously, but I do try.Well, I'd be DMing because I'm the DM. If I wasn't the DM, I wouldn't be DMing. Kind of simple like that. But, let's talk about this, because you bring up an interesting point. Do I RP things about character's backgrounds? Yes. If a character has a background as a sailor, I try and find a way to weave that in. If their backstory includes a loving family, I try to make reference to that, and encourage them to engage with that story. If they are a noble, their bloodline will likely come up. If they had a teacher of the arcane arts, they will likely encounter them.Now, here's the part that might blow your mind. Halfling characters pick backgrounds too. They also might have an arcane master, or a mercenary past, or were part of a secret society. So those hooks will come up, and will add to the story. But, do you know what isn't a hook that typically plays into their background? "I'm just lucky" Unless a player is leaning HARD into the silliness of extreme luck... it never actually is part of their backstory or their class or the story they are trying to tell with their character. The only reason they care about it, is because they wanted to reroll 1's. Now, you will probably ask me "then what's the problem?!" But, you see, it was players like that who didn't want to lean into the halfling luck that led me to realizing that if the DM doesn't lean into it... it doesn't appear in the story. For the trait that makes halflings unique among the other races... it never comes up, unless the DM pushes it to come up. Unlike all of the other racial traits, it is entirely passive, entirely in the background, and the DM has to force it to matter outside of the rare time they re-roll a 1. Which, to me, signals that... it isn't a good narrative trait. It puts the burden for the player's concept entirely in the hands of the DM, and so any player that does want those moments of luck, is going to have to entreat their DM to include them, which is not like any other trait in the game.So fluff is an illusion? There is no narrative structures at all in DnD?Weird... so where did the idea that goblins are servants of Magbuliyet come from? Because, that's not a mechanic, and me and my players certainly didn't create it, did I just forget creating that? Or creating the idea that hobgoblins work in tight military units? Or that hags enjoy spreading misery and ugliness? Dang, how much stuff did I just forget that I made?Really? Then how did your post here "For the narration to continue with the PCs, the players have to be willing to show that their human characters are shaking with fear but willing to go ahead anyway while their halfling characters are just strolling in, unaffected." make any sense? Is the human character under a condition or just afraid? You didn't mention, you just said they have to be willing to show they are shaking with fear. So, if you didn't mean they were shaking with fear because they were afraid, then what did you mean?So, being aloof is role-playing decision. Being afraid is a role-playing decision. Being Brave is a mechanical trait that has nothing to do with role-play. ... And you can't seem to graps why I see that as a problem. Oh wait, let me guess, "anyone can choose to be brave, halflings just have a mechanical trait". Yeah, one that ties in with their, according to the post that started this off, unique role as the race that is brave. So, bravery is a role-playing trait that anyone can have... and a mechanical thing that differentiates halflings as unique amongst the races, and I can't possibly have been in a multi-page debate with Maxperson over calling characters "not brave" because they don't have that trait.So, again, I need to alter my role-playing to support the halfing, because if I role-played my character the way I wanted to, the halfling wouldn't feel special. I need to be a "team player" in that regard. Tell me, what other race in the game determines how the people who don't pick it are supposed to role-play their characters.Again, you show that you haven't actually paid attention to what I am saying. Because you immediately get it wrong with the first point. I don't want halflings to be brave. Adventurers are brave. It is a role-playing trait. If halflings need to keep some sort of mechanic against the frightened condition, there are better ways to do it. But this narrative of "the halfling is the brave race" hurts the game. It is either ignored in the narrative, or other players need to bend to the halflings story and ignore their own. And, I'm sorry, I didn't play a human knight because I was interested in the story of a halfling warlock. If I wanted to worry about RPing a halfling warlock, I'd have played one. And resisting supernatural mind-altering effects isn't overcoming your fears. Or maybe I decided that my Knight has no fears to begin with. Am I not allowed to do that?Right, if I actually cared about the narrative, I'd give the halfling special treatment, regardless of how that made the other players feel. I mean, it isn't required that I even do it, I could totally ignore the halflings luck and not engage with it. Or I can tell the player that they can come up with their own things that happen. I mean, you know my groups, so you know how that will go.  Looking past the name... it is re-roll against a disadvantage on attacks. It carries no more weight than the poison resistance that does the exact same thing. It is when we start caring about roleplaying that this starts becoming an issue. Now, I'm glad you've never run into any problems with this. But since dueling anecdotes doesn't get us anywhere, perhaps you shouldn't brush off my concerns as nonsense because I "clearly don't understand" when it took multiple days to even get you to engage in the conversation I've been trying to have.Do you think naming something after a personality trait, then claiming it is defining for an entire race of people, might be the problem? I mean, call me crazy, but if you made a new race and gave them a mechanical trait that allowed them to take the help action as a bonus action and called it "Loving" then maybe people might think that it... has something to do with being loving? Especially as the race is billed as a race full of loving people. And that being loving is defining for their entire race. And that other players might look at that and go... "well... my character is loving" and wonder why this personality trait is being treated as a mechanical thing that is now attributed to this single race. I mean, you'll note. No elf in the game has an "aloof" or "whimsical" trait. No Dwarf has "grumpy" or "stubborn" as a trait. Might be a reason for that.So, now it can't be a problem because DMs should talk to their players and set expectations for it before the game. It is amazing the lengths people will go to to ignore something.</blockquote>

Verification