Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 9811666" data-attributes="member: 85870">Rightly so! That was really my point. A player who chooses "elf" as a heritage in a Tolkienesque world, without using that character choice to dramatically inform the character's personality traits and worldviews, is doing the exact same thing as the person choosing the turtle. Which of course begs the question, why have races/heritages at all if they're just window dressing and a stat bonus, with zero dynamic representation from the player with regards to the setting lore? Which was [USER=7044197]@RenleyRenfield[/USER] 's contention just up thread. His point mirrors mine---I'm to the point now where I can barely tolerate races/heritages AT ALL---even the Tolkienesque ones. They're all equally lazy without A) player-backed consideration of what a choice of race/heritage means to their portrayal, and B) a setting that makes the lore behind that race/heritage meaningful in a way that directly impacts play. Since my players can't be bothered to creatively construct and portray unique character traits based on race/heritage, and 99.9% of campaign settings don't provide the proper context/background/cultural relevance to make heritage differentiation matter, then let's just get rid of the construct entirely. Doesn't matter if it's the Tolkienesque "defaults" or Daggerheart's "frog people" / "turtle people" / "mushroom people". The construct doesn't serve the purpose. If it's varying stat bonuses the players want, then just let them mod the stat bonuses as a human character.</blockquote>

Verification