Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tovec" data-source="post: 6235539" data-attributes="member: 95493">With all these threads (most of them started by [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION]) I'm starting to lose track of what the specific arguments are now.I have long understood what KM has been saying about the default effect but from what I'm reading it doesn't seem like this necessarily applies here. That is I don't think it applies to the various subraces of dwarves (or other races) because there is an easy option NOT to show a single unified version of them. I think Wyatt is wrong in this regard, that mountain dwarves are NOT the same as gold dwarves (or whatever variation they were), but I think my problem is I don't see what that has to do with what we are actually discussing here OR what it has to do with cosmology in general.I think the problem is less about having multiple options and more about which one is presented as default. If something is default people are going to use it as such and give it unfair weighting when it may not deserve it. A default presumes a certain amount of normality in something that may not be normal. It is automatically 5/6 of the reason why I personally HATE using the gensai, aasimar/tieflings, and warforged in my games. I enjoy some aasimars but they should be exceedingly rare, rarest of the races my players are allowed to use - even though they are a fairly common race of Faerun (from what I have read).Again, I think you are missing the mark here a little. For my mind, I don't see what the problem is with having different races (subraces; different fluff, stats, and what not) in a SETTING book. I do see what problem it can lead to if you have gold, shield, mountain, hill, grey, wild, sun, moon, cucumber dwarves all in the PHB/MM/Core book. That would be chaos if every race did that. In that way, I think the default is hugely important if you say that hill dwarves are the standard/default or if shield dwarves are. I think that has long been the case, but again it is a case for the core material and not for the setting material. There is no reason why in the setting there is any reason a gold dwarf should ever be considered a mountain dwarf; racial stat blocks aren't just their physical bits they are physical, mental, social, cultural all rolled into one. There are other ways around this, certainly, but they don't seem to be heading in that direction yet. So, I think in general it would be best to clearly mark off whatever setting the proposed creature is from and go from there - so you can add in other bits, not be contradictory, and still allow people to pick while being consistent. Maybe the mountain dwarves are traditional greyhawk dwarves, indicate that they are. Then later if you want to have gold dwarves DO NOT mention they are mountain dwarves in disguise, but instead give gold dwarf stats and explain they are from faerun. Same should go for kender, or cannibalistic halflings, warforged, and even more monstrous monsters should follow this outline - I think it is the best way to let people have a default without giving it special preference.So what if the differences are cultural only? Outside of the athasian dwarf and the greyhawkian dwarf meeting on mount celestia what difference would that make? I think KM's point is that all dwarves, athasian, greyhawkian, mine, yours; are different. I personally hate the free search of secret doors that elves get in 3.5 so I've long removed it, if my elves were meeting your elves in a neutral setting/game then there is no reason why my elves should gain secret doors, or yours lose them, or for us to even question whether secret doors is cultural or not. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't but that doesn't matter in the slightest. I would HATE to see "stock default dwarf/elf, add 3 items from column B and two from column C" because that would be suck. (Yes be suck.) So, the differences aren't just cultural. There is no reason to have non-cultural race, reflavour for setting. You should have setting race, change to other setting race if in that setting.I don't think KM is saying that he can't. I think he is saying there is a strong bias against doing so, that changing races or anything (monsters, cosmology, anything) has players asking why the default isn't adhered to. The default effect is a strong one, it counts and reinforces and punishes those who don't follow it. It is a deterrent to making things up. I've said before how I'll NOT use things rather than change them, more often than not, and the reason for this is the default effect. I'd rather say, "No, that specific thing doesn't exist in my setting," because players will accept that not everything can exist in a given setting. If I instead change lots of fiddly little details that they won't remember then it becomes a much larger issue. For example, if you took the 3.5 races (as written) and then altered the dwarven mindset (not the rules or anything) to that of burning wheel, that is a huge change. Suddenly they are cutthroat and willing to betray the party just for some gold trinkets. If the player is into that, that's cool. If they aren't then they won't understand why everyone in the game world treats them with such paranoia. It is a little change, but it has huge effect to change from the default. Whereas, in this case, if I dislike gold dwarves I could just not use them, or if I prefer grey dwarves (from faerun, IIRC) yet I'm playing in athas then I can also use them. The issue is still to make sure that all players don't expect burning wheel, or athasian dwarves, in my modified game. They probably still will, if I'm running a clear (athas is dark sun right?) dark sun game but that is something I'll have to keep consistent.Anyway I've rambled long enough and even kind of I've lost the point I'm trying to make. I just wanted to say that I'm confused over what we are discussing at this juncture - what everybody is trying to propose that is bad in everyone else's opinions.</blockquote>

Verification