Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 9191430" data-attributes="member: 29398">Always-Enemy works fine for the Indiana Jones franchise (Nazis), the Star Wars franchise (stormtroopers* and the Empire), and Lord of the Rings (Orcs); and if the concept is good enough for franchises like these it's more than good enough for D&D.* - and that's in spite of the later SW movies having a stormtrooper turn good, as he's the exception that proves the rule.Which is why I gave the alternate "Always-Enemy" idea.  I'm very much a fan of alignment trends within species, but not of hard-coded lines.  Thus, while Elves trend Chaotic as a societal average, that neither means nor implies that every Elf you meet will be Chaotic but it does mean that a Lawful Elf might or might not be a bit of an outcast within their society.I'd rather put it there once and leave it than have to redefine it when it comes up every five years.  One of my current primary characters is (by random roll made when people's sketching ability became relevant in play for the first time) fairly good at sketching what she sees.  I've been playing her on and off for 15 years now, and that ability has come up maybe 4 times in total.  But it's still there on her sheet for future reference: "Sketching: 8/10".That ability to choose has, IMO, been extended way too far over the editions.  Great for powergamers and optimizers, but I'd rather design against those people than for them.In theory, yes.  In practice, nothing is fun all the time and to even consider broaching any sort of expectation otherwise is foolish.  I mean, people play hockey because it's fun - until they take a puck in the face and suddenly for a while it ain't so much fun at all.The other thing I try to fight against is players getting too attached to their characters.  There's nothing worse as a DM than having to put up with a round of table angst and drama just because I killed off a character who was engaged in a dangerous profession (adventuring!) and got unlucky.Ah.  Got it.I've always seen Humans as being the bland baseline species; mostly because I'm so used to seeing them in reality.Which is fine when it's a strength unique to that one species; but when there's a weakness unique to one species, what then?Sorry, but I'm in the "too bad, so sad" camp on this one.  If your ability (or lack thereof) comes up then so be it, and if it doesn't then so be that too.That said, I'm coming at this from a perspective of designing for campaigns that run longer (or much longer) than just a single WotC-style adventure path; and thus assuming the characters will have time and opportunity to travel to different places, climates, etc., either by their own choice or because their adventuing takes them there.If the knowledge isn't there to learn then it doesn't matter how capable one is of learning it.  The ancient Greeks didn't know how to make a cell phone or get to the moon; it took another 2000+ years of incremental discoveries, and while we today might be the same average intelligence as those old-time Greeks, there's no denying we all have greater breadth and depth of knowledge than they did.And as the game stat "Intelligence" is in part a measure of one's breadth and depth of existing knowledge (in addition to one's capability to learn new things) then yes, there's no reason why one species or group or culture can't trend lower or higher Int than another.There's a wide range of intellgence levels in the real world - sure Humans are largely all the same but other species of ape are generally less intelligent than we are, by pretty much any measure there is.  Why can't Goblins average roughly the same intelligence as the smartest of chimpanzees?  Flip side: why can't Elves average considerably higher than Humans?My suggestion is to take a middle ground: to have the bonus/penalty but not necessarily to the extent that true realism would demand.  Hobbit strength goes from an extreme low of 3 (below which a two-legged creature can't stand up unaided) to an extreme high of 15; with the middle fo their bell-curce thus being 9That's the point!  Playing against type is supposed to be a challenge.  If it wasn't, then it wouldn't be playing against type, would it?Some classes require skills and abilities that suit some species better than others.  Hobbits are small and generally quick and dextrous; all good things if one wants to be a rogue or thief.  Doesn't mean they'll all become such, but they're suited for it.  Dwarves are generally strong and stout; useful things if one wants to be a warrior even though not every Dwarf becomes one.  And so on.Where Humans win out is their versatility: theyre kinda good at most things but not the best at anything.Then it shouldn't be strength 6.  It should be the same strength score as that sedentary Human.Indeed.  They're still exactly as strong (in an arm-wrestle or in what they can carry) as a strength-6 Elf or Human, though.Yes, it's a game.  And a large part of that game revolves around luck - it's all a bit of a gamble.  Were that not the case, the game wouldn't use dice.That most people don't use dice to determine stats is a flaw, not a feature.  Let's fix that flaw. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />It has to appeal to enough people to keep it viable.  "Everyone" is an impossible goal, as 5e - which takes this very tack - shows in practice.Side note: great conversation!  I'm enjoying this back-and forth.  Thanks. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification