The Sacred Cow Slaughterhouse: Ideas you think D&D's better without

[Systole]

No, it was horrible, because it destroyed the humanocentric world [...]

You know, it never even occurred to me that anyone would consider that a negative outcome. I'm not trying to belittle your viewpoint or anything; it's just that every once in a while I get blindsided by a viewpoint I never even considered. I guess I learned something today.

That said, I remain happy to see it go.

 

[Derren]

Dungeon crawls.
Levels.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

In 13th Age, I feel like the writers have taken that to its logical conclusion. In PF, for example, halflings have a size penalty and a negative Strength modifier. That means that if you want to make, for example, a halfling barbarian, you are going to run with a gimped character that is never going to be as good as a human or even an elf barbarian. So you're sometimes left with this choice of: play a gimped PC, or play a PC that isn't really your first choice. In 13th Age, you do not have to make that choice, because your halfling barbarian will be every bit as badass as a human barbarian. Your dwarf sorcerer will be every bit as good as a dark elf sorcerer. That's why I think 13th Age is the best thing since 3rd edition.

I have two problems with this approach. First, it tosses verisimilitude out the window. That guy the size of my five year old son is as strong as full size man? Unless you posit he has magic muscles, that's pretty ridiculous. I actually think the gap should be a lot bigger than it is.

Second, homogenizing the races makes race choice meaningless. I like each race to have advantages and disadvantages.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

You know, it never even occurred to me that anyone would consider that a negative outcome. I'm not trying to belittle your viewpoint or anything; it's just that every once in a while I get blindsided by a viewpoint I never even considered. I guess I learned something today.

That said, I remain happy to see it go.

That's ... kind of surprising, as a humanocentric world was an explicit goal of the authors. IIRC they even spelled it out in the core rulebooks. I think their logic was sound, too. Whatever else they are, elves, dwarves, and so on are not human, with a fundamentally alien mindset. Roleplaying a character in an alien society where the players have to remember all the ins and outs of the culture is a lot harder than roleplaying a character with an alien mindset in a human world, where we at least have an understanding of the rules that we don't have to think about all the time. The alternative, making nonhumans to be basically humans but in funny costumes is pretty unsatisfying.

 

[Systole]

I have two problems with this approach. First, it tosses verisimilitude out the window. That guy the size of my five year old son is as strong as full size man? Unless you posit he has magic muscles, that's pretty ridiculous. I actually think the gap should be a lot bigger than it is.

Second, homogenizing the races makes race choice meaningless. I like each race to have advantages and disadvantages.

Why not? Storm giants clearly have magic muscles, because they can move under their own power. And a magic skeletal system, otherwise they would collapse under their own weight. If you accept that, then you've already tossed verisimilitude out the window, and I don't see how accepting badass halflings is worse or even different. Heck, I'd even say that extra-strong halflings are more scientifically sound than storm giants, given that the muscle-to-power ratio is much higher in most other primates than it is in humans.

By incorporating strong mechanical advantages and disadvantages into a system, a player's ability to roleplay within that system becomes limited. It detracts from gameplay, rather than adding to it. In other words, in a system where halflings have a Strength penalty (like Pathfinder), you can still play a game without halfling barbarians, but I can't play a halfling barbarian unless I want to accept a gimped character. In a system where halflings don't have a strength penalty (like 13th Age), you are still free to play a game without halfling barbarians. But in this case, I can play a completely different game that's chock-full of raging, three-foot-high Viking berserkers if that's what I want. To me, that makes the second system superior, because it imposes fewer constraints on the player's freedom of choice.

 

[Hussar]

Dungeon crawls.
Levels.

Hrm, somehow I think removing dungeons from Dungeons and Dragons might be a bit of a bridge too far for a LOT of gamers.

 

[billd91]

By incorporating strong mechanical advantages and disadvantages into a system, a player's ability to roleplay within that system becomes limited. It detracts from gameplay, rather than adding to it. In other words, in a system where halflings have a Strength penalty (like Pathfinder), you can still play a game without halfling barbarians, but I can't play a halfling barbarian unless I want to accept a gimped character. In a system where halflings don't have a strength penalty (like 13th Age), you are still free to play a game without halfling barbarians. But in this case, I can play a completely different game that's chock-full of raging, three-foot-high Viking berserkers if that's what I want. To me, that makes the second system superior, because it imposes fewer constraints on the player's freedom of choice.

I wouldn't say it constrains the freedom of the player to choose. Rather, it imposes consequences for the choices the player makes. It's your choice to not play, as you put it, a "gimped" character. However, I've had a player take a bit of barbarian as a halfling and he did quite well. He focused more on ranged attacks than Viking-style melee weapons but he was quite proficient at dealing out a lot of damage. As I said, the mechanics of the situation suggest different avenues of focus, not really a gimping of the character at all. And for me, having the mechanics reinforce the imagined differences between a halfling and a human helps build the culture the character's coming from which, in turn, serves to aid role playing a character from that culture.

So, yeah, racial differences encouraging different focus in character development? I endorse that sacred cow.

 

[Hussar]

Bill91, am I understanding this right? A ranged halfling barbarian is not a gimped character? Really?

Unless Pathfinder really changed barbarians, I'm not seeing how ranged halfling and barbarian go together at all.

 

[Systole]

I wouldn't say it constrains the freedom of the player to choose. Rather, it imposes consequences for the choices the player makes. It's your choice to not play, as you put it, a "gimped" character. However, I've had a player take a bit of barbarian as a halfling and he did quite well. He focused more on ranged attacks than Viking-style melee weapons but he was quite proficient at dealing out a lot of damage. As I said, the mechanics of the situation suggest different avenues of focus, not really a gimping of the character at all. And for me, having the mechanics reinforce the imagined differences between a halfling and a human helps build the culture the character's coming from which, in turn, serves to aid role playing a character from that culture.

So, yeah, racial differences encouraging different focus in character development? I endorse that sacred cow.

To be frank, whether or not you can have a decent halfling hurler barbarian is beside the point. I proposed a traditional axe-wielding barbarian halfling as an example. I could have said dwarf sorcerer or gnome magus or tiefling summoner. I was trying to demonstrate that a player could have some character concept that he or she thought was really cool but wouldn't be able to play it effectively because of the ruleset. Whether or not a different character concept is functional isn't the point. The point is that the original cool character concept didn't work because of the ruleset.

And my larger point is this: Aren't we savvy enough and mature enough and confident enough as gamers to have conversations about character concepts just between player and GM, without the hard-coded rules of the system getting in the way? I mean, we're here, having a discussion on a forum dedicated to RPGs. Obviously we know what we want in a game, right?

So let's posit two scenarios. If a system supports halfling barbarians, but the GM doesn't want them, a conversation could go like this:

Player: Hey, Bob ... I was wondering if I could play a halfling barbarian in this campaign?
GM: Well, I'd rather you didn't. It doesn't really fit with this Tolkeinesque world I'm thinking about.
Player: Okay, well I guess I'll hang on to that idea for some other campaign. How about an elf ranger with a longbow?
GM: Now we're talking.​

But now imagine that the GM thinks it's a cool idea but the system doesn't support them...

Player: Hey, Bob ... I was wondering if I could play a halfling barbarian in this campaign?
GM: That would be awesome! Except ... let me see ... size penalty ... slow movement ... strength penalty ... Hmmm, your character's going to be kind of ineffective.
Player: Okay, well I guess I'll hang on to that idea for some other campaign.
GM: It's the system actually. A halfling barbarian is just never really going to work that well.
Player: <sigh> I suppose could make him a hurler halfling. That's sort of like what I wanted. Kind of.
GM: Maybe a dwarf barbarian? They're ... y'know ... pretty decent.
Player: Yeah ... that sounds ... good. I guess.​

In other words, I think it's fine if someone doesn't want axe-wielding halfling barbarians or [insert some character concept] in their game, but why can't I have them in mine?

 

[Imaro]

To be frank, whether or not you can have a decent halfling hurler barbarian is beside the point. I proposed a traditional axe-wielding barbarian halfling as an example. I could have said dwarf sorcerer or gnome magus or tiefling summoner. I was trying to demonstrate that a player could have some character concept that he or she thought was really cool but wouldn't be able to play it effectively because of the ruleset. Whether or not a different character concept is functional isn't the point. The point is that the original cool character concept didn't work because of the ruleset.

And my larger point is this: Aren't we savvy enough and mature enough and confident enough as gamers to have conversations about character concepts just between player and GM, without the hard-coded rules of the system getting in the way? I mean, we're here, having a discussion on a forum dedicated to RPGs. Obviously we know what we want in a game, right?

So let's posit two scenarios. If a system supports halfling barbarians, but the GM doesn't want them, a conversation could go like this:

Player: Hey, Bob ... I was wondering if I could play a halfling barbarian in this campaign?
GM: Well, I'd rather you didn't. It doesn't really fit with this Tolkeinesque world I'm thinking about.
Player: Okay, well I guess I'll hang on to that idea for some other campaign. How about an elf ranger with a longbow?
GM: Now we're talking.​

But now imagine that the GM thinks it's a cool idea but the system doesn't support them...

Player: Hey, Bob ... I was wondering if I could play a halfling barbarian in this campaign?
GM: That would be awesome! Except ... let me see ... size penalty ... slow movement ... strength penalty ... Hmmm, your character's going to be kind of ineffective.
Player: Okay, well I guess I'll hang on to that idea for some other campaign.
GM: It's the system actually. A halfling barbarian is just never really going to work that well.
Player: <sigh> I suppose could make him a hurler halfling. That's sort of like what I wanted. Kind of.
GM: Maybe a dwarf barbarian? They're ... y'know ... pretty decent.
Player: Yeah ... that sounds ... good. I guess.​

In other words, I think it's fine if someone doesn't want axe-wielding halfling barbarians or [insert some character concept] in their game, but why can't I have them in mine?

You do realize that for this type of openness you are better served by a point-buy system, where you can construct your own races, occupations, etc... right? I mean where does this logic stop... should classes limit a "cool" concept? Should the number of skill points you get limit a "cool" concept? I mean can't the DM and players decide how many skill points they want? Can't they decide whether certain class abilities are appropriate or not?

EDIT: They can and it's called houseruling... which you can do for any game.

At the end of the day you need a baseline for what differentiates races, I mean in 13th Age is it fair that a half-orc is better at hitting people than a halfling? What if I want a halfling who is better at hitting people than dodging? Why is that hardocded into the game? I mean don't get me wrong, I like 13th Age alot, even posted an play report about it... but I don't think it's approach is "objectively" better or superior to choosing to nudge (because in the end nothing actually prevents you from playing a halfling barbarian except your own concerns surrounding optimization) the races towards their iconic niches in fantasy.