D&D General Two underlying truths: D&D heritage and inclusivity

[Lanefan]

Generally, 2e shields provided a +1 to AC. The body shield (tower shield in more modern parlance) gave +1 AC against melee attacks, and +2 AC against missile attacks (if originating from the front or sides of the shield user).

OK, must have been 3e that caught up to us then.

The reason we gave shields 2 AC bonus was to distinguish them from bucklers, which only gave 1. And this change was made in our crew before I even started playing, never mind DMing.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I have a question I can't seem to answer, or an answer I don't understand. So please bare with me (please and thank you).

If all these ancestries have lived together long enough to build a cohesive bonded culture where no one ancestry has a unique culture or socio-economic class or job pattern or skill pattern, how does that work in a timeline? I mean, assuming we're going off real-world dynamics (which we are, because if we aren't then the fantasy world not mirroring real world would be a valid argument), then why are the races not homogenized? There is no way it would be as heterogenous as it is, with dozens of races running around. Unless of course, they chose to be separate, which would lead to certain groups being lower or higher than the other.

Now, if we go from the standpoint that pockets of races live with only one another (elves in the forest, etc.), then wouldn't some of their behavior be dictated by societal rules? Isn't it possible that in one society there are more law abiding citizens than in another? Isn't it possible, due to geography, resource scarcity, corrupt people in power, that one society might be more warlike than another? Isn't it possible that all the way down to how they raise their children might be worlds apart? If a child grows up without having been taught how to empathize, then there is a a greater chance they don't harbor the same feelings as one that does.

If we view the D&D world as somewhat realistic and taken from history, then I'd suggest watching the Primary Source videos from Voices of the Past. They do a great job with teaching an understanding about historical context from readings of first hand accounts and journals. They sometimes note the stereotypes of the time, but more the differences as a whole. And many of these differences are the way groups act.

history primary source videos - Search Videos

www.bing.com

Sorry, I am just having a hard time making sense of a timeline where everyone is different, yet groups have never pooled or formed, despite being different phenotypes. If it is all based on individuals, then all the races would have melded to one provided they can procreate, which many can because we have half-orcs and half-elves.

And please, no one take this as a stance on "he's against change" or "he doesn't recognize real world plight" or anything else as ridiculous. It is a question regarding the timeline of creating different ancestries, yet not creating cultures that dictate behavior or eventually blending.

That all has no real relevance. I think you may not be understanding what I'm recommending/fighting for. The base races in the PHB and races in the other books will have no information on lore. Absolutely none. Any descriptive text coming before the racial feature information are merely descriptions of their physical appearance, and descriptions that are openly shown to be possible characters and cultures of those races.

I don't want to get rid of race individuality in D&D, but I do want to get rid of it from the core rules. The core rules are for rules, and not lore. Campaign setting books will define what the races are in their world, like they already do, but it is explicitly the base rules to have the races be identified by setting, and not core rules.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That all has no real relevance. I think you may not be understanding what I'm recommending/fighting for. The base races in the PHB and races in the other books will have no information on lore. Absolutely none. Any descriptive text coming before the racial feature information are merely descriptions of their physical appearance, and descriptions that are openly shown to be possible characters and cultures of those races.

I don't want to get rid of race individuality in D&D, but I do want to get rid of it from the core rules. The core rules are for rules, and not lore. Campaign setting books will define what the races are in their world, like they already do, but it is explicitly the base rules to have the races be identified by setting, and not core rules.

I sincerely doubt that the PH you're describing would pass muster from a business perspective. You effectively wouldn't be able to play without a setting book. Making your own setting, especially for a new player, would be incredibly difficult without somewhere to start from.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Interesting, but I do share the concerns of @Remathilis that this would erode the appeal of the core rules. It would have the effect of primarily defining character races by their game rules (and physical traits), and provide much less for players whose primary interest is lore and role-playing. Those players might be happy once they got to the setting books, of course, but if they're not hooked by the core rules, will they bother?

Okay, I understand the concern, but if done right, they're not going to have to buy any more books to get that lore. The DMG for 5.5e/6e can have simple definitions of the races from the most prominent settings. Would doing this help? Or maybe, it contains some lore, but it openly states that the settings are what determine the races, and offers variant examples of how the races act in different worlds (the 5e PHB already kind of does this, discussing draconians from Dragonlance in the Dragonborn section).

I also remember the first time I paged through the 4e Monster Manual - it was the final nail that turned me off of 4e. I think Wizards should try to avoid other players having a similar response to a 5.5e or 6e.

I've never read the 4e Monster Manual, so I'm not familiar with exactly how it was executed. Also, the Monster Manual can still contain the general information on the monsters, it'll just be the PHB race section with this "lack of lore".

To be clear, I'm all for adjusting character race/people/folk descriptions to be more inclusive, and introducing more cultural variations in the core rules; I'm just wary of the side effects of cutting fantasy cultural details back.

I agree it should be done cautiously, and I'm just here to argue my position on this, and brainstorm ideas for how to do it correctly. I'm open to suggestions, if you have any.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I sincerely doubt that the PH you're describing would pass muster from a business perspective. You effectively wouldn't be able to play without a setting book. Making your own setting, especially for a new player, would be incredibly difficult without somewhere to start from.

The DMG could contain the basic information, and all you need for whatever the core setting of 5.5e/6e will be, just to help with new players.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The DMG could contain the basic information, and all you need for whatever the core setting of 5.5e/6e will be, just to help with new players.

I assume then, that a new player would need to work with their GM (or at least their copy of the DMG) in order to determine what race to play? Just want to make sure I understand your take.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

I assume then, that a new player would need to work with their GM (or at least their copy of the DMG) in order to determine what race to play? Just want to make sure I understand your take.

Doesn't this already happen?

 

[Hussar]

True, though didn't 2e give 2 points of AC for a shield? We always did in 1e and I seem to remember this being one of the ways 2e caught up to us.

Also, I've never had two-weapon fighting as a proficiency of its own, in part to avoid this sort of thing.

Well, sure, if you change the rules of the game, then it does make comparing editions somewhat tricky.

 

[Hussar]

The language mirrors it, and that's exactly why my side wants the Orc's descriptive language changed.

Just wanted to quote this again, because, for the umpteenth time, THIS IS ALL WE WANT.

We don't want to rewrite anyone's game. We don't want to rewrite the entire orc description. We don't want any major, earth shattering change. We want to take the language, that even the most ardent critic admits does share similarities to, and excise that language from the game.

Just that. Only that.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

Just wanted to quote this again, because, for the umpteenth time, THIS IS ALL WE WANT.

We don't want to rewrite anyone's game. We don't want to rewrite the entire orc description. We don't want any major, earth shattering change. We want to take the language, that even the most ardent critic admits does share similarities to, and excise that language from the game.

Just that. Only that.

Exactly.