D&D 5E Yes to factionalism. No to racism.

[Jfdlsjfd]

Unfortunately, I think that fails to satisfy the most important reason for 5e's popularity: you don't need to buy ANYTHING to play. The free download of the 5e Basic Rules is all you need to roll up a character and play.

D&D is a generalist game, not a specialist game. So it needs to have SOME core assumptions that settings can then deviate from. The question we have on our hands is how to design the core assumptions so that the game has the broadest appeal and is easiest to pick up and play.

Then they should go with a default setting for others to deviate from, because in the present form, it's the GM that must design the setting around the assumptions contained into the base books. Various testimonies here have shown that some players seem that a race that is in the PHB should be allowed and would confront GM who would forbid some of them, same with classes.

Exactly. We need SOME sort of baseline. The question at hand is how much of that baseline belongs in lineage and how much belongs in culture and if those overlap by default or otherwise.

This is a classic case of the lumper/splitter dilemma. There are benefits to both approaches, and threading the needle is really hard to do without alienating someone or making the game too complex to roll up a character and play with minimal effort.

I can see cultures treated the same by players demanding them to be included in the game. "I want to be an elf" being replaced by "I want to be from the Aerenal faction!" "There is no Aerenal in my game" "You're a railroading GM!" Striving to be generic is a worthy goal to sell books but I don't see that as the solution to the question we asked (how do we build a game that satisfies both of us at the same time?)

 

[akr71]

Born with? No.

But at least for my generation, if you went to school, you had a stick in your hands throughout your years in Gym.

Nah, I brought mine on the bus & we'd play road hockey on the school yard at recess & lunch.

 

[Scribe]

Nah, I brought mine on the bus & we'd play road hockey on the school yard at recess & lunch.

We didn't get a chance during recess or lunch, too many wounded

 

[akr71]

I think you're selling yourself short. You have Tim Horton's as well.

EDIT: ninja'd by Snarf

Ugh, have you tasted their 'coffee'? Instant rot-gut.

 

[Maxperson]

It's incredibly simple, the discussion is race-based (racism) vs faction-based (factionalism).

Race based =/= racism. It never has. Racism has a very specific, very negative meaning. You can even go out and try it. Go out and accuse 100 people of racism and see how many don't take it as a negative accusation. How many do you think respond with, "Did you mean negative racism or some other sort of racism?"

 

[John R Davis]

That doesn't amount to a very significant difference, sorry, and "historic tendency to be less organised"? Bollocks to that. Orcs, in general, are more organised than Bandits. They can't drag things off meaningfully better. Darkvision merely impacts the time they're likely to be able to attack - that's the only real difference, too. The tactical difference will be more like 10% (mayb 20% if you include time of day) than 66%.

The difference between Orc Bandits and Human Bandits is far, far smaller than the difference between those two and Elven Bandits, let alone between those three and Dragonborn Bandits.

Never mentioned anything but Orcs?
BLM all over again

 

[CleverNickName]

Don't feed the trolls, folks. Just report and move on.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Race based =/= racism. It never has. Racism has a very specific, very negative meaning. You can even go out and try it. Go out and accuse 100 people of racism and see how many don't take it as a negative accusation. How many do you think respond with, "Did you mean negative racism or some other sort of racism?"

I love how you think this is a rational argument, rather than a demonstration of people's inadequacies and reactionary nature.

And you're putting it to literally the first person in the thread who even mentioned the racism/racialism distinction. Racism is an acceptable word for what is being described. In context, the meaning is obvious and inarguable.

 

[Lyxen]

I love how you think this is a rational argument, rather than a demonstration of people's inadequacies and reactionary nature.

Please, do continue being insulting. Racism has never been an acceptable word, ever, and it's even less the case in this day and age. I am pretty sure the OP knew what he was doing, and you perpetuating it in that condescending tone is just as despicable.

 

[Maxperson]

I love how you think this is a rational argument, rather than a demonstration of people's inadequacies and reactionary nature.

The title of this thread, regardless of the intent of the OP, is inflammatory. It very much implies that if you aren't saying yes to factions, you are a racist. Perhaps @Yaarel could change the title to a less inflammatory one like, "Yes to faction. No to race," which doesn't carry the extreme negative meaning that racism does.

And you're putting it to literally the first person in the thread who even mentioned the racism/racialism distinction. Racism is an acceptable word for what is being described. In context, the meaning is obvious and inarguable.

Racism is never an acceptable word for anything that isn't racism. Trying to use it in a different manner doesn't work.