D&D (2024) Should 2014 Half Elves and Half Orcs be added to the 2025 SRD?

[Micah Sweet]

No, only the four/five stupid game mechanics have been. The actual half-elf and half-orc concepts are still in the game.

Narrative concepts not backed by mechanics are simply not enough for everyone. That's group improv, not an RPG with rules.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And the other side of the argument is that it isn't game mechanics that decide what something is or isn't... but what they are identified as.

You say that a character that is identified as a half-elf in the game's campaign world and story isn't actually a half-elf if their mechanical representation is that of a human or an elf. If the mechanics are of a human then they ARE a human, regardless of what they are called in-game.

Which is your opinion of course. And you are free to have it. But it doesn't mean that is the only way to look at it, nor that your way is the correct one. There is something to be said about accepting what a character identifies as, regardless of what their equipment might suggest they "should be".

So if rules do not represent fiction, why are we having any rules at all?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not using any metaphor in order to "have to be right." I'm simply pointing out that it is lipstick on a pig, which it is, and pointing that it's not a half-elf(which is explicitly half-elven and half-human) if it's fully human or fully elven and just looks different.

It's not a matter of right or wrong, but rather a matter of what is or isn't. If folks want to discuss different implementations of half-elf mechanics, because they don't think it has been represented well up to this point, that's a different discussion. While I am happy with how it has been done up to this point, I'm open to the idea that it could be better with other mechanics. I don't know what those mechanics could be, but that's what the discussion would be for.

I know what those mechanics could be...

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think number 1 is doable, which would move half-elf to half-fey, but I don't think number 2 can be done well. Any system that is generic enough to be applicable to every combination of every race, isn't going to be able to create unique racial abilities based on any particular combination.

A generic system will basically just be rules on creating the current half-elf by looking at both parents and taking some of the abilities that each parent has.

The only way that I can see number 2 being done(and it really isn't being done), is for rules on racial creation being in the DMG and telling the DMs to have at it themselves whenever they want say a half-halfling/half-triton. That's not a system or pre-made custom lineage, though. It's what we have already been able to do since 1e(or before).

Again, #2 has been done (IMO quite well). Just not by WotC.

 

[Micah Sweet]

And the other side of the argument is that it isn't game mechanics that decide what something is or isn't... but what they are identified as.

You say that a character that is identified as a half-elf in the game's campaign world and story isn't actually a half-elf if their mechanical representation is that of a human or an elf. If the mechanics are of a human then they ARE a human, regardless of what they are called in-game.

Which is your opinion of course. And you are free to have it. But it doesn't mean that is the only way to look at it, nor that your way is the correct one. There is something to be said about accepting what a character identifies as, regardless of what their equipment might suggest they "should be".

That is the way it worked from 1975 until about a month ago in D&D and many, many other games though. Race/species/heritage/whatever have unique mechanics or mechanics combinations that distinguish them from each other via the rules of the game. That half is just as valid and important as the lore half.

 

[DEFCON 1]

So if rules do not represent fiction, why are we having any rules at all?

So it has to be an all-or-nothing?

Fine. Then why does the game not have a rule for every single thing a PC is or can do?

See...? Going to the extreme result in an effort to make a point is ridiculous. I can go there just like you can.

There are some fiction that are represented by rules. But not all fiction is represented by rules. And the fiction that isn't represented by rules can instead just be declared as part of the fiction. Who and what those pieces of the fiction are can be whatever the designers wish it to be, as well as whatever an individual player decides they need (and are free to add or subtract from their game.)

It is not required that a species have rules to be considered a species within the fiction and within the game. It certainly can (and oftentimes might be)... but doesn't have to be. A person can play a Gold Dwarf or a Shield Dwarf still in D&D if they decide they want to, even though there are no longer rules to distinguish the two species. The player just identifies their character as such.

The designers/publishers of this game will include those rules they feel they want to include. If anyone needs more rules than that... they are free to make up or find new rules wherever they want and insert them into their game.

 

[DEFCON 1]

That is the way it worked from 1975 until about a month ago in D&D and many, many other games though.

So what? This one doesn't for certain things. Different game, different choices.

Just because something used to be in the game doesn't mean it always has to be going forward. Especially considering a person is allowed to add it back in themselves if they really want it bad enough.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Narrative concepts not backed by mechanics are simply not enough for everyone. That's group improv, not an RPG with rules.

And that's why you can choose to add them back in. As you well know. So I don't know what the argument is

 

[Micah Sweet]

So what? This one doesn't for certain things. Different game, different choices.

Just because something used to be in the game doesn't mean it always has to be going forward. Especially considering a person is allowed to add it back in if they really want it bad enough.

Well first of all, they kept telling us it wasn't a different game.

Secondly, there are folks that really feel a mistake was made here and are irritated about it. I know that doesn't describe you, but at least IME most people who play D&D want mechanics for species to matter in the game, with rules, that we all decided to play. What you're describing, where species rules don't exist and we all just declare things like that in the narrative, is just not D&D to some people. Not even 4e did that.

 

[TwoSix]

Yep. I hate reskinning, too. If I'm going to play a witch with a katana, I want mechanics for a witch and za katana, not a reskinned wizard and longsword.

Reskinning is just one of those unbridgeable aesthetic divides in the playerbase.

I love reskinning in general, as do quite a few of my players, but I’ve known tons of gamers who either just don’t get it or actively feel like it’s roleplaying incorrectly.