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

[Not a Decepticon]

I'm saying reading and comprehension are two different skills.

How about you state your thesis statement clearly and take into ccount ehat I pointed out? If you consider me stupid, then take it upo yourself to clarify.

Edit: Also, I did check back and not only did you indeed move a goalpost third time, your initial statement is even worse

 

[AnotherGuy]

How about you state your thesis statement clearly and take into ccount ehat I pointed out? If you consider me stupid, then take it upo yourself to clarify.

I do not consider you stupid, we all sometimes misunderstand a position from time to time.

I responded to Ezekiel's claim that a party need not have A human to feel grounded or relatable.
The indefinite article which is bolded is very important for the crux of my argument.
This is also within their post discussing dragonborn, so we are not discussing the vanilla races. For purposes of this discussion, vanilla would be elves, dwarves, halflings and perhaps gnomes.

My reply was that RPGers have been primarily influenced by novels and published settings (Mystara, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Birthright, Darksun...etc) and from those we take our queue such that it would seem odd to not to have the party composition be made from predominant races from those settings.
Spelljammer is the exception and Planescape (although I forgot to initially mention it) - Ofcourse Homebrew settings allow for the weird and wonderful.

The reply I got was the Fellowship.
Here I feel goalposts were shifted.
So now
It is no longer you don't need A human within a party to feel relatable and grounded.
It is no longer you don't need TWO humans within a party to feel relatable and grounded.
It is no longer you don't need THREE humans within a party to feel relatable and grounded.
It is no longer you don't need THREE humans and the remaining vanilla races within a party to feel relatable and grounded.

Exactly what is the discussion now?
I'm not interested in having a discussion where a third of the D&D party is human, and the remaining two thirds are made up of vanilla races, and my position is to challenge that and say it is not relatable or grounded.

How is that in any way related to my initial observation?

 

[Vaalingrade]

A species that can make people out of stars and clouds does not need help relating to a green dude with tusks.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So, Redwall should never have succeeded, right? I mean, the cast is made up mostly of (anthropomorphic) mice, badgers, moles, otters, and rabbits. There's literally not a single human. So it's not possible for people to relate to them, right?

Because--per your own words here--that's the claim you were trying to rebut. That it isn't required for any of the characters to be human in order for people to relate to them.

I've never heard of Redwall. With what demographic did it succeed?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I genuinely don't see one.

I Absolutely do. One has some cultural grounding to hang on to, and the other doesn't.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Ypu begun with saying it is ridiculous for a council composed of humans, elves anddwarves to send adventurers who are Kobolds or Tortles or, I assume you men Rakasta instead of Rakshasa. It was then pointed out to you half of Fellowship of the Ring was made of Hobbits, despite them having no seat in Council of Elrond. You moved the goalpost, switching you argument to "in LotR Fellowship was made if STANDARD races". When called out, you switched again to "fantasy in general was influenced by races in LotR". Wice you abbandonned your previous position for a new one.


Also, ffs, in Wondeful Wizard of Oz the party consists of human, a metal man, a lion and a scarecrow, why arent't these the default consudering how influential to fantasy the Oz series is?

The human in that group was pretty important.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I do not consider you stupid, we all sometimes misunderstand a position from time to time.

I responded to Ezekiel's claim that a party need not have A human to feel grounded or relatable.
The indefinite article which is bolded is very important for the crux of my argument.
This is also within their post discussing dragonborn, so we are not discussing the vanilla races. For purposes of this discussion, vanilla would be elves, dwarves, halflings and perhaps gnomes.

would it have changed your position if their statement were to be interpreted as not referring to a singular? asserting closer to 'a setting does not need a human analogue to feel grounded or relatable', given it was my post which was what they were initially responding to was following the train of thought about removing humans/elves/dwarves/halflings/orcs for other more DnD-original species instead and people still being able to find a touchstone for relatability in other species despite the lack of a direct human analogue,

My reply was that RPGers have been primarily influenced by novels and published settings (Mystara, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, Greyhawk, Birthright, Darksun...etc) and from those we take our queue such that it would seem odd to not to have the party composition be made from predominant races from those settings.
Spelljammer is the exception and Planescape (although I forgot to initially mention it) - Ofcourse Homebrew settings allow for the weird and wonderful.

The reply I got was the Fellowship.
Here I feel goalposts were shifted.
So now
It is no longer you don't need A human within a party to feel relatable and grounded.
It is no longer you don't need TWO humans within a party to feel relatable and grounded.
It is no longer you don't need THREE humans within a party to feel relatable and grounded.
It is no longer you don't need THREE humans and the remaining vanilla races within a party to feel relatable and grounded.

see this is where i think the discussion went off the rails, the fellowship mention, as i understand it, was not about relatableness or grounding, but in response to your assertion that a party should be primarily composed of the major predominant species of a setting, in which hobbits do not serve that role in middle earth at the time of it's writing, they are a reclusive and somewhat overlooked people

Exactly what is the discussion now?
I'm not interested in having a discussion where a third of the D&D party is human, and the remaining two thirds are made up of vanilla races, and my position is to challenge that and say it is not relatable or grounded.

is that your position? or are you saying here that it isn't?

 

[CreamCloud0]

The human in that group was pretty important.

but was it important that she was human? or just from elsewhere?

 

[Micah Sweet]

but was it important that she was human? or just from elsewhere?

Given how weird Oz is? I think it was important she was human, yes.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Given how weird Oz is? I think it was important she was human, yes.

dorothy couldn't of been a little dragonborn girl who lived on her aunt and uncle's farm with her salamander toto and gone through the exact same journey? why not?