D&D General What is the purpose of race/heritage?

[Bill Zebub]

Why "ribbon" I wonder.

Also, I hate jargon.

You would rather say “minor ability with limited mechanical impact intended primarily for flavor” every time? I agree that when there’s a perfectly good word for something it’s a bit eyeroll invoking for hipsters to start using another word, but when there isn’t a word…?


Also, my next character is definitely going to be named Jargon.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is how I'd like to see options presented in future editions for it:

Species - Your physical / mental characteristics and traits. Things like flight, elf trance, goliath size, dragonborn breath, etc. This would also have a 'custom species' option for players whose characters don't fit the norm. This would let you work with your DM to make more a suiting character while still being balanced (for example a dragonblooded human who has a fire breath ability).

Culture - The culture you were raised in. This would include some proficiencies, languages, and starting cantrips. So a dwarf raised in dwarf culture would speak dwarvish, have axe proficiency, and be knowledgeable about either stonework, smithing, jeweling, or brewing. A dwarf raised among elves would speak elvish, be more perceptive, and know a cantrip.

Profession - What you did before you were an adventurer. This would give you some tool proficiencies, skills, maybe languages, starting equipment, and an ability.

The combination of these should allow players to really make a character which fits.

Additionally, in all these sections, there should also be an option to help a DM and player work together to make custom options in case the default ones don't suit, and allow players to really go against the tropes.

(I'd also like ability score modifiers on each, but it's clear that's not the direction in which things are going).

This is exactly what Level Up does.

 

[Reynard]

You would rather say “minor ability with limited mechanical impact intended primarily for flavor” every time? I agree that when there’s a perfectly good word for something it’s a bit eyeroll invoking for hipsters to start using another word, but when there isn’t a word…?


Also, my next character is definitely going to be named Jargon.

"Minor" is one fewer letter than "ribbon" and requires no special explanation.

 

[Minigiant]

I guess what I mean is what allows them to remember and map a setting? Is it living in a twisty forest or curvy cavern? If so, wouldn't that directly influence their culture?

Their brain works differently.

It's a genetic mapping thing like how migrating animal have.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

The term ribbon came from this Unearthed Arcana...

https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/UA_Waterborne_v3.pdf

Ribbons

On the R&D team, any ability meant to convey flavor rather than a mechanical advantage is referred to as a ribbon—a thing that’s mostly for show. Thieves’ Cant is a great example of a ribbon ability, and Storm Guide also falls into this category.

We don’t weigh ribbons when balancing one class or option against another. For example, Heart of the Storm carries the power load at 6th level for the storm sorcerer, while Storm Guide is here only to show how these sorcerers can excel as sailors. It isn’t meant to help in combat, but it’s potentially very useful in maneuvering a ship.

 

[Reynard]

The term ribbon came from this Unearthed Arcana...

https://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/dnd/UA_Waterborne_v3.pdf

Ribbons

On the R&D team, any ability meant to convey flavor rather than a mechanical advantage is referred to as a ribbon—a thing that’s mostly for show. Thieves’ Cant is a great example of a ribbon ability, and Storm Guide also falls into this category.

We don’t weigh ribbons when balancing one class or option against another. For example, Heart of the Storm carries the power load at 6th level for the storm sorcerer, while Storm Guide is here only to show how these sorcerers can excel as sailors. It isn’t meant to help in combat, but it’s potentially very useful in maneuvering a ship.

Thank you. That was informative.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

"Minor" is one fewer letter than "ribbon" and requires no special explanation.

Are you suggesting we call those features "minors" rather than "ribbons", simply because of how strong your dislike of jargon is?

Like, Thieves Cant is a minor. Sure. That won't cause any confusion.

 

[Reynard]

Are you suggesting we call those features "minors" rather than "ribbons", simply because of how strong your dislike of jargon is?

Like, Thieves Cant is a minor. Sure. That won't cause any confusion.

I was suggesting "minor feature" or "minor ability" but if it is that dear to you, I can't stop you from trying to make fetch happen.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I see one problem with this where are we getting the cultures from? as without that things kinda fall apart as dwarf culture only works if you make monoculture hyper-stereotype dwarves, I do not see how it could work beyond the theoretical without running into the problems already made.

Don't need to even name them elvish or dwarvish cultures. Can make up completely different names for the cultures. One culture happens to be underground and mining focused, and speaks X language, and are known for drinking and holding grudges. But they're not specified as dwarves.

Another culture can have a different made up name, and have an incredibly ancient culture focused on arcane magic and arts. They speak Y language. But they're never specified as elves.

But in 'Forgotten Realms' lore, that's what they'd be. In a different setting, they could be keyed to completely different species.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Ribbons' kind of evolved to mean tertiary abilities that are so situational that they might not come up at all. Like Countersong.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I was suggesting "minor feature" or "minor ability" but if it is that dear to you, I can't stop you from trying to make fetch happen.

"Fetch", as it were, has already happened.

And what I was trying to point out was that your claim that "minor" is shorter to write and needs no explanation is not true. In order to be shorter, you create the requirement of explanation, and in order to need no explanation, you create the requirement for two words and twice the characters.

Whereas ribbon is very easily understood, pops up often in every online venue in which I see discussions of dnd, and is quicker to write than "minor feature", and once explained is much clearer than "minor feature", which could easily refer to features that are weighed in balance considerations, but that are small and not defining.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Ribbons' kind of evolved to mean tertiary abilities that are so situational that they might not come up at all. Like Countersong.

Countersong isn't a good example, because it clearly is meant to be significant. It is just one of many features that undervalues the Action, and overvalues Advantage.

 

[Reynard]

"Fetch", as it were, has already happened.

And what I was trying to point out was that your claim that "minor" is shorter to write and needs no explanation is not true. In order to be shorter, you create the requirement of explanation, and in order to need no explanation, you create the requirement for two words and twice the characters.

Whereas ribbon is very easily understood, pops up often in every online venue in which I see discussions of dnd, and is quicker to write than "minor feature", and once explained is much clearer than "minor feature", which could easily refer to features that are weighed in balance considerations, but that are small and not defining.

I wasn't being terribly serious. I don't care what people call things, but I do think that random jargon invention just confuses issues that are otherwise pretty straight forward. I mean, you aren't actually suggesting that "ribbon" is intuitively easier to grasp than "minor ability" are you?

 

[TwoSix]

I wasn't being terribly serious. I don't care what people call things, but I do think that random jargon invention just confuses issues that are otherwise pretty straight forward. I mean, you aren't actually suggesting that "ribbon" is intuitively easier to grasp than "minor ability" are you?

Sure, but ribbon is a term of use introduced by the game designers in a published article. That's a pretty strong weight in favor of a term's adoption.

I'd also argue that "ribbon" delivers the metaphor of being decorative and bearing little weight more potently than "minor ability" does. It's a specific evocative phrasing, which is the main reason it's picked up so much traction in the last seven years.

 

[TwoSix]

Countersong isn't a good example, because it clearly is meant to be significant. It is just one of many features that undervalues the Action, and overvalues Advantage.

I think Countersong wasn't intended by the designers to be a ribbon, but is generally considered a de facto ribbon because of its lack of potency, as you indicated.

 

[Reynard]

Sure, but ribbon is a term of use introduced by the game designers in a published article. That's a pretty strong weight in favor of a term's adoption.

I'd also argue that "ribbon" delivers the metaphor of being decorative and bearing little weight more potently than "minor ability" does. It's a specific evocative phrasing, which is the main reason it's picked up so much traction in the last seven years.

Do they use it in the actual game materials? I can't say that I have noticed it until relatively recently.

 

[Reynard]

I think Countersong wasn't intended by the designers to be a ribbon, but is generally considered a de facto ribbon because of its lack of potency, as you indicated.

Aaaaand the term is already useless because different people are using it in different ways. The same thing happens pretty quickly to most jargon because there are too many people applying it how they think it should be applied versus how it is actually intended to be applied. Look at "simulation." No one can decide what it means, except insofar as everyone else using it wrong.

 

[payn]

Aaaaand the term is already useless because different people are using it in different ways. The same thing happens pretty quickly to most jargon because there are too many people applying it how they think it should be applied versus how it is actually intended to be applied. Look at "simulation." No one can decide what it means, except insofar as everyone else using it wrong.

Useless to you maybe. All I need to do is read the context in which it is used to understand what they mean.

 

[Reynard]

Useless to you maybe. All I need to do is read the context in which it is used to understand what they mean.

Sure. But if you have context, you don't need jargon.

I'm not railing against "ribbon" or anything. I just think it is kind of silly term that doesn't really imply what people who already know what it means think it implies. For example, I was trying to figure out how it related to UI ribbons. Jargon is usually for the benefit of people "in the know" and is therefore intentionally a little exclusionary. RPGs -- who are still trying to shed their gatekeeping history -- needs less of it, not more, IMO.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I wasn't being terribly serious. I don't care what people call things, but I do think that random jargon invention just confuses issues that are otherwise pretty straight forward. I mean, you aren't actually suggesting that "ribbon" is intuitively easier to grasp than "minor ability" are you?

Yes. I am.

Minor ability has much more ambiguity. Ribbon was immediately obvious the first time I heard it. Nearly every venue of D&D chatter online uses it exactly because it is evocative and intuitive.