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

[Vaalingrade]

The one you're thinking about that had nothing but humans... was never very good no matter how popular it was.

 

[Divine2021]

wa

wait what were the proposed new options again?

WE literally keep forbidding them from doing anything intersecting for once because 'tradition'. Like how we're forbidding them from removing species that no longer have a reason to exist in favor of ones people might want to play.

No no no, Thing was in the game for more than one edition, Thing must remain Forever. That is not interesting.

Weird, as I play as half-elves in every game I play because I’m mixed race and I like feeling represented in the games I play. The idea that nobody plays them is just you presenting your own bias as truth, and it is incredibly offensive to me.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'm mixed race to three generations and the assertion of half elf design that I should be sad about that is offensive to me. Also that it's not generational and every half-x is a unique entity that is weird and ready to be exoticized.

It's almost like we're not a monolith.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

given how much species are just treated as rubber mask humans i feel it's a stretch that people couldn't be able to find one of these species that fits their definition for and reads as 'relatable human substitute'

Even if the author goes out of their way to cover nonhuman experiences and cultural influences arising from physiological differences, being sapient omnivorous bipeds who form complex social structures of mutual support, with a lifespan of 8+ decades, a puberty that marks the transition between childhood and adulthood, a height range between about 4'6" and 7'6", and (apart from darkvision) grossly similar sensory acuity, there will almost guaranteed be many, many ways that any two species can in fact pretty well relate to one another.

I've ranted many times about the fascinating differences between humans and dragonborn and how those things would influence their cultural patterns and social/infrastructural development, but ultimately, despite being one of the most "alien" 5.0 PHB races, dragonborn would still be mostly relatable to humans.

If you're right, why are so many genre stories set up the way I say?

Because the needs and conventions of genre fiction are not 1:1 identical with those of tabletop roleplaying game design. Indeed, in numerous ways, the two don't align at all. Consider the Gandalf type character, what OSP's Red refers to as a "safety net." He's a mentor (not a playable character in most TTRPGs), one of the most powerful magic users to ever walk the Earth (way out of line with the power level of anyone else in the party, including the quite powerful Stock Hero Protagonist character, not to mention the utterly mundane actual protagonist), and secretly an ancient, wise angel temporarily embodied into a durable but mortal shell that he can survive the loss of (again, nothing compares in the "party".)

But that's because his role as the "safety net" requires him to be powerful and wise and dependable. That makes his (temporary) loss both actually painful and VERY much a raising of the stakes, since now the bad guys are dramatically more threatening and the party has lost the guy who called the shots and guided the group. Everyone scatters and has to take a level in bad-donkey in order to make up for Gandalf's absence, such that when he returns, while he's still head and shoulders above everyone else, the gap no longer feels quite so vast (even though Gandalf the White is actually much more powerful than Gandalf the Grey.)

The only TTRPG convention that the above even remotely resembles is the DMPC, and such things are widely revised for good reason.

So, before you act like this is some unbelievable break of symmetry....there are already plenty of asymmetries here. This is just another one of them. When coupled with the above, that TTRPG species really aren't that alien even when you intentionally (but not egregiously) play up the differences, you get the simple fact that it isn't necessary to have a human in the party in order for the PCs to still feel relatable and grounded. Hell, one of the most relatable and grounded NPCs in my DW game is a literal gold dragon, and the players (much to my relief) think he's great, basically the draconic grandpa they never knew they had.

 

[pemerton]

Because the needs and conventions of genre fiction are not 1:1 identical with those of tabletop roleplaying game design. Indeed, in numerous ways, the two don't align at all. Consider the Gandalf type character, what OSP's Red refers to as a "safety net." He's a mentor (not a playable character in most TTRPGs), one of the most powerful magic users to ever walk the Earth (way out of line with the power level of anyone else in the party, including the quite powerful Stock Hero Protagonist character, not to mention the utterly mundane actual protagonist), and secretly an ancient, wise angel temporarily embodied into a durable but mortal shell that he can survive the loss of (again, nothing compares in the "party".)

But that's because his role as the "safety net" requires him to be powerful and wise and dependable. That makes his (temporary) loss both actually painful and VERY much a raising of the stakes, since now the bad guys are dramatically more threatening and the party has lost the guy who called the shots and guided the group. Everyone scatters and has to take a level in bad-donkey in order to make up for Gandalf's absence, such that when he returns, while he's still head and shoulders above everyone else, the gap no longer feels quite so vast (even though Gandalf the White is actually much more powerful than Gandalf the Grey.)

The only TTRPG convention that the above even remotely resembles is the DMPC, and such things are widely revised for good reason.

I think "revised" should be "reviled"?

Anyway, I'm one of the minority who thinks that Gandalf is a playable character, provided that the game design supports it. When I prepared and GMed a LotR/MERP game, using a fantasy version of MHRP as the system, Gandalf was one of the PCs. In play, he turned out to be a little bit OP, because the player took an overly-Saramun-esque approach to the character! This could be addressed (i) by revisions resulting from play-testing, and/or (ii) by looking more carefully at his Milestones.

The key thing is that, in LotR, Gandalf does not make all the important decisions, and does not achieve all the important victories. So there is no reason that, properly implemented in a RPG, Gandalf as a character should be any different.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Sadly, and IMO, the race/specie differences cultural and otherwise are not utilised enough by DMs (including myself). Therefore the 1/2-elf/orc fails to materialise for the purposes of interesting storylines even more so.

We don't even need half-races to explore these stories - you could have a 1/2 moon-1/2 sun elf of Toril, a mixed Traladaran and Thyatian from Karameikos...etc

 

[cranberry]

Half elves and orcs should remain in the game as an option. If you're offended by them, simply don't include the optional species in your campaign.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Half elves and orcs should remain in the game as an option. If your offended by them, simply don't include the optional species in your campaign.

Boot 'em to the DMG. They did that with other races before (eladrin, IIRC?), so it's not even like this idea lacks precedent.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I think "revised" should be "reviled"?

Anyway, I'm one of the minority who thinks that Gandalf is a playable character, provided that the game design supports it. When I prepared and GMed a LotR/MERP game, using a fantasy version of MHRP as the system, Gandalf was one of the PCs. In play, he turned out to be a little bit OP, because the player took an overly-Saramun-esque approach to the character! This could be addressed (i) by revisions resulting from play-testing, and/or (ii) by looking more carefully at his Milestones.

The key thing is that, in LotR, Gandalf does not make all the important decisions, and does not achieve all the important victories. So there is no reason that, properly implemented in a RPG, Gandalf as a character should be any different.

This is fair, and I could see a Gandalf-inspired character being made workable in something PbtA. Supers games are already known for being much more prepared for wildly divergent power levels, because they have to express both Batman and Superman as teammates and allies who rely on each other.

But I think the overall point still stands that the way Gandalf is used in the narrative is not really the kind of thing one does with a player character, or at least not so if one is in the general neighborhood of D&D-like design. That, as said, "the needs and conventions of genre fiction are not 1:1 identical with those of tabletop roleplaying game design. Indeed, in numerous ways, the two don't align at all." I think it's pretty telling that even with your experience and preparation for it, the end result was still a little too far because the player was able to push the envelope. That is, while it's not an utterly insoluble design problem, it is still a design problem, whereas Gandalf is actually very much a way to solve a lot of problems from an authorial, Doylist perspective.

Also yes you're correct about "reviled," autocorrect betrayed me and I didn't catch it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Even if the author goes out of their way to cover nonhuman experiences and cultural influences arising from physiological differences, being sapient omnivorous bipeds who form complex social structures of mutual support, with a lifespan of 8+ decades, a puberty that marks the transition between childhood and adulthood, a height range between about 4'6" and 7'6", and (apart from darkvision) grossly similar sensory acuity, there will almost guaranteed be many, many ways that any two species can in fact pretty well relate to one another.

I've ranted many times about the fascinating differences between humans and dragonborn and how those things would influence their cultural patterns and social/infrastructural development, but ultimately, despite being one of the most "alien" 5.0 PHB races, dragonborn would still be mostly relatable to humans.


Because the needs and conventions of genre fiction are not 1:1 identical with those of tabletop roleplaying game design. Indeed, in numerous ways, the two don't align at all. Consider the Gandalf type character, what OSP's Red refers to as a "safety net." He's a mentor (not a playable character in most TTRPGs), one of the most powerful magic users to ever walk the Earth (way out of line with the power level of anyone else in the party, including the quite powerful Stock Hero Protagonist character, not to mention the utterly mundane actual protagonist), and secretly an ancient, wise angel temporarily embodied into a durable but mortal shell that he can survive the loss of (again, nothing compares in the "party".)

But that's because his role as the "safety net" requires him to be powerful and wise and dependable. That makes his (temporary) loss both actually painful and VERY much a raising of the stakes, since now the bad guys are dramatically more threatening and the party has lost the guy who called the shots and guided the group. Everyone scatters and has to take a level in bad-donkey in order to make up for Gandalf's absence, such that when he returns, while he's still head and shoulders above everyone else, the gap no longer feels quite so vast (even though Gandalf the White is actually much more powerful than Gandalf the Grey.)

The only TTRPG convention that the above even remotely resembles is the DMPC, and such things are widely revised for good reason.

So, before you act like this is some unbelievable break of symmetry....there are already plenty of asymmetries here. This is just another one of them. When coupled with the above, that TTRPG species really aren't that alien even when you intentionally (but not egregiously) play up the differences, you get the simple fact that it isn't necessary to have a human in the party in order for the PCs to still feel relatable and grounded. Hell, one of the most relatable and grounded NPCs in my DW game is a literal gold dragon, and the players (much to my relief) think he's great, basically the draconic grandpa they never knew they had.

I understand what you're saying, but being comfortable with the Mos Eisley Cantina theory of party composition is not a universally held opinion, and acting like it is isn't helpful.