Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Wandering Monsters: Worlds of D&D
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6235483" data-attributes="member: 2067"><p>The Default Effect is <strong>huge</strong>. To dismiss it by saying "you can always change anything you want!" means you don't appreciate how actually huge it is. This isn't about a rejection of authority, this is about D&D being a game for each of us to build and create with as we see fit, or about D&D being one particular game that has a specific flavor of multiverse/dwarf/goblin/etc. A Default Dwarf puts it firmly into the later camp, even if the Fun Police ain't around. And that's not what D&D is to me. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm coming at this from this perspective:</p><p></p><p><strong>There is never any such thing as "generic"</strong>. All lemonade is local. </p><p></p><p>Athasian dwarves are specific to Athas, and have a specific relationship to their world. FR dwarves aren't the same, and they have their own specific context and setting. Dragonlance dwarves are different yet again from each one of the above, with their own nuances that separate them out. Greyhawk dwarves are different yet again. Planescape dwarves? Different again. </p><p></p><p>They share superficial similarities, sure (perhaps a great place for solid, adaptable, broad, elegant rules!). They're not mutually exclusive (I could play a Greyhawk dwarf in Planescape!). They're not the same thing. If I play a dwarf in Dark Sun I've got a specific play experience I'm trucking towards that is a different play experience than if I play a dwarf from Greyhawk. If I'm in a game with both a Greyhawk mountain dwarf and an FR shield dwarf and a Planescape dwarf from Mount Celestia, I expect those three dwarves to be distinct, to have their play experience be unique, because they are unique creatures with unique skills and abilities to bring to the table. </p><p></p><p>That context should shine through in D&D the rules for playing these creatures being different. </p><p></p><p>It's not just biology, it's a combination of biology, society, environment, genre....<em>context</em>. Lose that context and you wind up with watered-down dwarves that don't deliver a unique setting experience. You lose what makes Greyhawk dwarves interesting and distinct from FR dwarves.</p><p></p><p>That context is also important in D&D being a game of imagination and creativity: it keys you into the fact that the dwarves that are in your game are also unique to their specific context. There's no canon they must adhere to. There's no mechanics they must absolutely have. They are yours to shape as you see fit for your world.</p><p></p><p>Or you can just grab a dwarf or three that brings with it the context you want, and plunk that down in your own game. </p><p></p><p>None of that mandates sprawling blocks of repeated stats and figures, it just means that you need to be specific and local when talking about your dwarf. </p><p></p><p>And that's just <em>dwarves</em>, arguably the fantasy race with one of the most consistent portrayals across multiple different companies and iterations! If you don't look closely, a shield dwarf and a WoW dwarf are pretty much the same thing. But when we're playing D&D, we are making whatever game options we choose work for our own local area, in the same way that WoW dwarves work for WoW and not for other worlds/universes/etc. D&D dwarves (and cosmologies and whatever) need to work for <em>each of our individual tables</em>. That means that the millions of minor variations that make your game distinct from mine are actually really vital to making our experiences uniquely suited for our tables. </p><p></p><p>I'm willing to believe there's stuff I'm overlooking. My mind isn't set in stone. Wyatt mentioned there were "some problems" with a 3e-style model of the planes that allowed for different cosmologies and different multiverses. I'm willing to listen to what he thinks those are (and I'd hope that he'd be willing to hear other ways of solving those problems!). He thinks it's for some reason really important to homogenize the differences between D&D creatures? Okay, why? I'm not an easy sell on this, but I'm sure they're thinking about this more than I am. Tell me how this is going to be better for my game.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 6235483, member: 2067"] The Default Effect is [B]huge[/B]. To dismiss it by saying "you can always change anything you want!" means you don't appreciate how actually huge it is. This isn't about a rejection of authority, this is about D&D being a game for each of us to build and create with as we see fit, or about D&D being one particular game that has a specific flavor of multiverse/dwarf/goblin/etc. A Default Dwarf puts it firmly into the later camp, even if the Fun Police ain't around. And that's not what D&D is to me. I'm coming at this from this perspective: [B]There is never any such thing as "generic"[/B]. All lemonade is local. Athasian dwarves are specific to Athas, and have a specific relationship to their world. FR dwarves aren't the same, and they have their own specific context and setting. Dragonlance dwarves are different yet again from each one of the above, with their own nuances that separate them out. Greyhawk dwarves are different yet again. Planescape dwarves? Different again. They share superficial similarities, sure (perhaps a great place for solid, adaptable, broad, elegant rules!). They're not mutually exclusive (I could play a Greyhawk dwarf in Planescape!). They're not the same thing. If I play a dwarf in Dark Sun I've got a specific play experience I'm trucking towards that is a different play experience than if I play a dwarf from Greyhawk. If I'm in a game with both a Greyhawk mountain dwarf and an FR shield dwarf and a Planescape dwarf from Mount Celestia, I expect those three dwarves to be distinct, to have their play experience be unique, because they are unique creatures with unique skills and abilities to bring to the table. That context should shine through in D&D the rules for playing these creatures being different. It's not just biology, it's a combination of biology, society, environment, genre....[I]context[/I]. Lose that context and you wind up with watered-down dwarves that don't deliver a unique setting experience. You lose what makes Greyhawk dwarves interesting and distinct from FR dwarves. That context is also important in D&D being a game of imagination and creativity: it keys you into the fact that the dwarves that are in your game are also unique to their specific context. There's no canon they must adhere to. There's no mechanics they must absolutely have. They are yours to shape as you see fit for your world. Or you can just grab a dwarf or three that brings with it the context you want, and plunk that down in your own game. None of that mandates sprawling blocks of repeated stats and figures, it just means that you need to be specific and local when talking about your dwarf. And that's just [I]dwarves[/I], arguably the fantasy race with one of the most consistent portrayals across multiple different companies and iterations! If you don't look closely, a shield dwarf and a WoW dwarf are pretty much the same thing. But when we're playing D&D, we are making whatever game options we choose work for our own local area, in the same way that WoW dwarves work for WoW and not for other worlds/universes/etc. D&D dwarves (and cosmologies and whatever) need to work for [I]each of our individual tables[/I]. That means that the millions of minor variations that make your game distinct from mine are actually really vital to making our experiences uniquely suited for our tables. I'm willing to believe there's stuff I'm overlooking. My mind isn't set in stone. Wyatt mentioned there were "some problems" with a 3e-style model of the planes that allowed for different cosmologies and different multiverses. I'm willing to listen to what he thinks those are (and I'd hope that he'd be willing to hear other ways of solving those problems!). He thinks it's for some reason really important to homogenize the differences between D&D creatures? Okay, why? I'm not an easy sell on this, but I'm sure they're thinking about this more than I am. Tell me how this is going to be better for my game. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Wandering Monsters: Worlds of D&D
Top