D&D 5E (2014) Yes to factionalism. No to racism.

[Maxperson]

I'm just trying to explain why people have a problem with the title. There is a tendency around here to title threads in such a way that it comes off as "Either you agree with my position or you are [insert negative here]." I assume everybody agrees racism is bad. Of course we say no to real world racism so including "No to racism" in the title is needlessly provocative when there are many other ways to phrase the title to get the point across.

Even if I agreed that factions were better I would still disagree with the structure of the thread title.

Right. If the thread title was, "Your momma is ugly" and people came here offended at having their momma called ugly, an explanation about how the title really isn't calling your momma ugly and it's really just about moms in general, isn't going to help. The thread title really needs to be changed.

 

[Oofta]

We should have faction rules added to 5e.

This has not, near as I can recall, been contested. There's some debate as to how detailed those rules should be.

I'm not so sure that factions "should" be added. To me, factions are very world building dependent. I could easily see a section on factions, with examples, in the DMG. Unlike some other RPGs, D&D doesn't really have that core shared campaign setting as standard. About the only shared default assumption is the deities for non-human races.

 

[CleverNickName]

I'm not so sure that factions "should" be added. To me, factions are very world building dependent. I could easily see a section on factions, with examples, in the DMG. Unlike some other RPGs, D&D doesn't really have that core shared campaign setting as standard. About the only shared default assumption is the deities for non-human races.

Agreed. A handful of rules for factions and a couple of examples are all that need to be listed in the DMG. Campaign sourcebooks and guides already list the applicable ones that can be found in Eberron, Forgotten Realms, Wildemount, etc. If there were solid rules to build on, the DM could pick it up from there.

 

[Faolyn]

One of the other RPGs I love is Runequest, where you can play incredibly varied and rich races, where their race/species divine origin, their runic/magic connections, and their history both before time began and since then has had a great influence on their culture, which are varied, rich, vibrant. This is way more interesting to me than "people should only be allowed to play things that look like human in various funny hats because of their different cultures/factions because otherwise some people will be offended".

RuneQuest has a built-in default setting off Glorantha, and (IIRC) no real expectation that the GM will be making their own world for it. D&D, on the other hand, has many settings, some of which are vastly different than "the norm," and expects that many DMs will make their own settings. Having all elves or all orcs act in a particular way is fine if you have a specific world, not so much if they are going to be used in any of potentially thousands of different ways.

 

[Marandahir]

I think it would be helpful if the thread was renamed, if that's even possible, OP Yaarel.

I think everyone can agree that the point of this discussion has been sidetracked at times by poor wording in the topic title, but that EVERYONE in this discussion - yes, even Lyxen and other people who have critical of the OP's language choice - have contributed with really worthwhile discussion points over the course of these 11 pages.

We don't want this thread closed. Let's stay with the topic, which is factions (or culture) vs. lineage as a key character pillar.

I personally agree with Oofta that factions really are something for campaigns settings - they've been excellently used in Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica , for example. But I also think that separating cultural elements like ASI and proficiencies from lineage is sufficient for the Basic Rule and PHB, as we've seen with all new lineages in UA and books from Van Richten's Guide to Ravenloft forward.

 

[BookTenTiger]

I totally agree with the OP. I think one problem D&D currently faces is that it's stuck trying to portray both a generic fantasy world friendly to homebrewed campaigns, while also portraying a very specific fantasy culture in which some races are protagonists and some races are antagonists.

One direction I would love to see D&D move further into is clear roles for humanoid enemies. For example, right now we have stats for a Bandit and an Orc. That creates the assumption that Bandits are not orcs, but also that Orcs, like Bandits, are synonymous with "enemy."

What I would love to see is a generic stat block for Bandits, and then variations for different Factions of Bandits.

For example, there might be some stats (or modifiers) for "Screaming Banshee Bandits," typically orcs, humans, and ogrekin, who specialize in intimidation and charging.

Then there could be stats or modifiers for Night Stalker Bandits, typically made up of goblins, Halflings, and bugbears, who specialize in sneaking, ambushing, and stealing from characters.

In this way, characters would be facing factions made up of enemies, instead of facing enemies based primarily on race.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

And then, again, where are the monocultures, even in 1e ? Yes, the PH is fairly generic but so is the one in 5e, but let's take for example Greyhawk, as I've pointed out, it's the same as Eberron, there are multiple and very varied elven cultures, for example, from Celene to Ulek including some very reclusive cultures like the Grugach and the Valley Elves, and at the same time you find elves in large numbers in a lot of countries around the map, for example in Geoff, Keoland, etc.

As for their creation, a lot of the demi-human races were created as derivative of Tolkien, simplified for use in the game, that's all. It was not even a question of culture...

I agree re: Greyhawk. It did indeed immediately start to move away from monocultures, at least with certain races.

Part of the issue is the constant return to monocultures every edition, most spectacularly to my eye with 3E. It's approach that to me, has never made sense. It's not something every RPG does, and I think in 1st it maybe made sense as a first step, but every edition after, starting with monocultural depictions has made less and less sense.

2E had the most branching out from monocultures (imho), and it had from the very start (c.f. Taladas), so it was particularly shocking to see 3E "reel back in" the races (and classes, but that's another discussion), and then it never really reached the same levels of varied cultures for races, and whilst 3.XE added tons and tons of races, virtually all were presented as fairly narrow monocultures. Even ones that it made no sense for.

I think going forward it makes sense to not make the same mistake yet again, and return to monocultures hardcore. Whether than entails detailed faction rules or something else is open to debate, but I don't really want to see the same sort of "Elves be like this, Dwarves be like that!" cultural stereotyping this time. It doesn't really have much to do with real-world racism re: the core races, for me, note (that only comes in as you spread out to humanoids), it has more to do with starting from a place that makes sense to work from, rather than reverting to something that you then have to spend half the edition (or more) moving away from.

Re: Tolkien-derivative races, indeed, but again, we saw people take them pretty far from that pretty early on, so it was curious that they kept reverting (except Halflings/Gnomes, who were in flux through 3E-5E to a greater or lesser extent - still monocultural or the like for the most part, but what that culture was varied a bit more).

To me, factions are very world building dependent.

And the detailed races of previous and current editions aren't? I think you can genericise factions pretty easily, and it might actually be nice to have some be setting-specific and advice for creating your own for your own setting and so on.

D&D doesn't really have that core shared campaign setting as standard.

Yet 3E, 4E, and 5E have all acted as if it does to a large extent. I mean, how you feel about that is up to you, but it's certainly not novel.

 

[Lyxen]

RuneQuest has a built-in default setting off Glorantha, and (IIRC) no real expectation that the GM will be making their own world for it. D&D, on the other hand, has many settings, some of which are vastly different than "the norm," and expects that many DMs will make their own settings. Having all elves or all orcs act in a particular way is fine if you have a specific world, not so much if they are going to be used in any of potentially thousands of different ways.

Only I think you have missed the fact that, although Trolls for example have very strong racial stats, they ALSO have strong cultural stats, and in particular depending on the type of culture (for example primitive, nomad, barbarian, civilised, etc.). But the nice things is that these cultural stats are NOT the same for example between a barbarian troll and an barbarian agimori, because even though the culture is somewhat similar, it also has been very much shaped by the racial abilities, and in particular the fact that trolls are linked to the darkness rune and agimori to the fire ones, which has resulted in very different body types and abilities, but also intellectual differences or differences in how they can wield power and magic.

Then, as for D&D, as you point out, it's more a generic game, it is therefore reasonable to have only racial stats in the basic game, as it's assumed that the DM will either reuse cultures from settings or create his own.

 

[Scribe]

I'm not so sure that factions "should" be added. To me, factions are very world building dependent. I could easily see a section on factions, with examples, in the DMG. Unlike some other RPGs, D&D doesn't really have that core shared campaign setting as standard. About the only shared default assumption is the deities for non-human races.

Possibly doable with archetypes?

 

[CleverNickName]

Someone (preferably with game design experience) should start a new thread and take a stab at writing some 5E Faction rules.