D&D 5E Wow! No more subraces. The Players Handbook races reformat to the new race format going forward.

[Chaosmancer]

Then take that crap to your discussion with him. Nothing I said involves any sort of biological superiority. You can't tell me if +2 dex(elf) is superior to +2 con(dwarf) or +2 str(goliath). None of the races is superior to any others in any argument of mine. Don't accuse me of that again.

So, I start a discussion with someone. You butt in with your own opinions about why I am wrong. Then you get offended when I continue the discussion as though you accepted the premise of the discussion you engaged in. A premise, by the way, that you continued to agree with, because you believe these factors are biological, correct? It is elven biology that leads to +2 Dex, correct?

Now, you want to know which of those three are "superior"? All three. If I accept your numbers without question, the Elf has Superior Dexterirty, the Dwarf has Superior Constitution, and the Goliath has Superior Strength. "Superior" only means "better than". I wasn't talking about stupid "racial superiority" where a race is better in all ways than another. I know you don't believe that, because shocker, no race gets a +3 to all stats.

However, you do believe that biologically, each of those races is better than others with those specific attributes. They are superior. Better than. That's what the +2 is when compared to +0.


So, I'm sorry you took offense from your interpretation of what I said, but I wasn't accusing you of something you don't believe. I just shortened the words to save space. And I would hope if you end up continuing this conversation, you will go back and read the post you angrily skipped, because you chose to be offended.

 

[Umbran]

Then take that crap ...

Mod Note:
This reads rather like you are on the edge of saying something you'll regret. Please cool it down so that you don't do that. Thanks.

 

[Umbran]

... because you chose to be offended.

Mod Note:
So, that language, and the logic usually behind it, is problematic. People, generally speaking, do not choose to be offended - humans are not from the planet Vulcan, and do not control our emotional reactions to things. He chose how to speak about it, but not how he felt. His responsibility lies with the choice, not the emotion.

Intentionally or not, you are using a falsehood to place responsibility for offense on the offended. It is as if you were in a crowded bar, flailed your arms around excitedly when your favored sports team scored a goal, smacked someone in the face, and then blamed them for choosing to have their face there.

The offense may not have been intentional on your part, but your defense should not be to place responsibility on the offended person.

 

[Maxperson]

So, I start a discussion with someone. You butt in with your own opinions about why I am wrong. Then you get offended when I continue the discussion as though you accepted the premise of the discussion you engaged in. A premise, by the way, that you continued to agree with, because you believe these factors are biological, correct? It is elven biology that leads to +2 Dex, correct?

I've told you this repeatedly. When I post something to you, respond to what I say, not what everyone else is saying. My choosing what to respond to is just that. A response to that thing. I am not agree, disagreeing, or incorporating anything else into my argument. Someone else's discussion about superiority is just between you and them.

Now, you want to know which of those three are "superior"? All three. If I accept your numbers without question, the Elf has Superior Dexterirty, the Dwarf has Superior Constitution, and the Goliath has Superior Strength. "Superior" only means "better than". I wasn't talking about stupid "racial superiority" where a race is better in all ways than another. I know you don't believe that, because shocker, no race gets a +3 to all stats.

Perhaps you should Google Biological Superiority, which is what you accused me of arguing for. You need to understand it before you go off and accuse someone else of it. Because what you describe here is not Biological Superiority. It's equity. Each race may be better at something different, but that balances out and they have biological equity.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I've told you this repeatedly. When I post something to you, respond to what I say, not what everyone else is saying. My choosing what to respond to is just that. A response to that thing. I am not agree, disagreeing, or incorporating anything else into my argument. Someone else's discussion about superiority is just between you and them.

And I don't feel like taking the time to go over every aspect of the previous discussion to determine what about the other sides position you did or did not agree with before you started telling me I'm wrong. If you want to come in and tell me I'm wrong and someone else is right, then you are implicitly agreeing with the things they said. If you don't want that, then maybe start specifying when you do or do not agree with something.

Perhaps you should Google Biological Superiority, which is what you accused me of arguing for. You need to understand it before you go off and accuse someone else of it. Because what you describe here is not Biological Superiority. It's equity. Each race may be better at something different, but that balances out and they have biological equity.

I didn't say Biological Superioirty. I said "biological superiority". Take note of the quotation marks. I put them there because I wasn't talking about the capitalized philosophy. I was speaking about exactly what I said I was speaking about. The idea that someone is better than someone else at one of the six attributes we are defining people by, because of their biology.

And yes, the quotes make a diffference. Note how I can talk about Biology or "biology" and you know that one of those is different than the other, and not meaning the same thing.

Now, I assume we are just going to drop this discussion and ignore my points I made in that post?

 

[Maxperson]

And I don't feel like taking the time to go over every aspect of the previous discussion to determine what about the other sides position you did or did not agree with

As I've told you repeatedly, including the post you just quoted, don't bother with that. Just look at ONLY WHAT I WRITE IN RESPONSE TO YOU. If there's anything else other than that, ask me if I agree with it or what my position is.

I didn't say Biological Superioirty. I said "biological superiority". Take note of the quotation marks. I put them there because I wasn't talking about the capitalized philosophy. I was speaking about exactly what I said I was speaking about. The idea that someone is better than someone else at one of the six attributes we are defining people by, because of their biology.

And yes, the quotes make a diffference. Note how I can talk about Biology or "biology" and you know that one of those is different than the other, and not meaning the same thing.

No, the quotes really don't make a difference. You can't say, "But I said "racism", not Racism, and Racism is different, because capital letters." and have it mean much of anything.

 

[Umbran]

Mod Note:
Folks,

It looks past time for the two of you to step away from each other - one of you is basing their argument on pedantic capitalization, the other is shouting.

Can you manage to disengage, or do you need someone to enforce it for you?

 

[Scott Christian]

I'm quite curious about this statement. 5e gives almost all of the table control to the DM. Even the small bit players had in 3e re: crafting their own items thus allowing them to shape that portion of the game? gone.

And let's not forget the 5e extremely DM centric mantra - "Rulings not rules..." - which certainly has not changed.

Even the bit about static stat assignment - the DM control's BOTH the races introduced AND the books used. It is ultimately the DMs choice if this is even a thing (I suppose in a few years once the core books adopt the fluid racial stats that will be altered - but even there the DM can declare the old way governs, and if not, outlaw certain combinations - whatever deemed appropriate).

So I'm genuinely curious where the change in direction is?

That is a very fair question Mort.

The best way I can say it is, it is not about what is written. Because you are correct, the words of the PHB and DMG are DM centric. But, even though the language may be, the spirit and culture of the tables I have seen are shifting away from that. Yet, as I stated, it could be my shifting perception as well. I admit that I am not sure it was ever in the DM's hand.
That said, with the internet (character creation, looking up builds, etc.), the growth of the game, the lack of players actually reading the rule books, the focus on TV personalities and how they play, and the overall access to everything, the plethora of organized play (where some even pay for their DM), there is no doubt that the game has shifted. And I am not saying for the worse. But there is a shift. So the rule book can say one thing, but it doesn't mean much if the culture decides it should be played a different way.
Hopefully, that explains it.

 

[Campbell]

Most of the popular streams are put together by groups of creative professionals who are natural collaborators. I think that has helped to set an expectation for DMs to be more collaborative and willing to work with players. I don't think that means a return to the player entitlement of 3e that's based on a strict reading of the rules. Quite the opposite actually. It's more an expectation that the game belongs to everyone equally and we all should work together.

Although I think the streams have a strong impact here I think it's also not the whole story. We were probably always going to move in this direction because millennials and especially Gen Z players just have a very different view of what authority structures should look like. The sort of cultural clash we are starting to see is pretty similar to what's been going on in professional spaces over the last 5 years or so.

 

[Minigiant]

One thing that isn't said or connected often is that since 5e is heavily DM focused, it really pushes DM creativity. It may be anecdotal but the way I see many D&D discussion, when DMs aren't running official settings or purchased settings they are breaking racial tropes and stereotypes left and right.

And with that, homebrew settings can't be garanteed to be running races like how the PHB and DMG present them.