How does Dungeons and Dragons talk about Race?

[Waldmarschallin]

This is something that has been nagging me for a while- I posted it originally to my blog last September, now here it is again. Has anyone else pondered this?


Race in Dungeons and Dragons


I thought this would be a good time to address a concern I have about my primary hobby, Dungeons and Dragons. Particularly, the comments in the game source material about race.
Race is used as one of several categorical descriptions for characters. The traditional groups from which players can choose in 3rd edition are human, Elf, Dwarf (fantasy dwarf, not littleperson, although this itself could be somewhat problematic to anyone with a modicum of sensitivity), Halfling/hobbit, Gnome, and Orc (though usually only as villains), with human- orc and human-elf hybrids also being playable in standard format. I believe that

games like D/D and their source material are using “race” where it is actually scientifically accurate to use “species”, and in so doing are buying into several damaging and racist perceptions in our society.
When the game was developed, race was used synonymously with the word “species” in some circles. In the fantasy case, this practice was more likely grandfathered in from the J.R.R. Tolkien source material with no regard to whether or not it was appropriate, and has since been adopted unquestioningly by many other works in the fantasy genre which have missed the “ok for its time” excuse by several decades.

See, each of these character types have inherent advantages and disadvantages, measured in the six core abilities of Strength, Constitution, Dexterity, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma. Many of these are physiological in nature- for example, differences in body type account for dwarves and gnomes being hardier, elves and halflings being nimbler, and orcs being more physically powerful. The three physical abilities seem naturally differentiated enough. The problem arises with the mental abilities- namely, that Dwarves, Orcs and Half-Orcs suffer particular reductions in certain mental abilities, some of which are implied to be inherently determined by race, and that this reinforces every racist lie from involuntary sterilization backers to “the Bell Curve” and its popular attacks on the abilities of Students of Color.

Briefly stated, Dwarves take a penalty to people skills, but this is implied to be culturally determined- their society is frequently shown to be suspicious of outsiders and to value directness (and wealth) over niceties in interpersonal dealings. That’s fine- cultural norms differ, and someone from this background would surely have some difficulties dealing with someone who wasn’t. As Dwarves are a minority, this rule makes some sense. Orcs have the same penalty for similar reasons- they are suggested to live in frequently reworked tribes and kept out of desirable land, meaning that they are often forced to banditry or hardship, and therefore have a hard time dealing with others, especially as they are regarded as monstrous. The problem comes when we look at the reductions they automatically suffer to intelligence and wisdom. Biologically, there is precedent for this difference between species, not races, if you peg it to brain development. All human brains develop at pretty much the same rate and extent, given adequate nutrition, stimulation, safety, and other factors of opportunity. Now, a chimp’s brain does not grow and develop as much as a human’s- they’re born with something like 60% of their relative brain matter to body size compared to our less than half.

There are of course other distinctions, for instance most of these species are genetically compatible with humans – (elf and orc normally, dwarf with severe consequences such as insanity, and Halfling in certain houserules). One of the common descriptors of a species is that its members cannot reproduce viable offspring except with each other, so by this reasoning one may say “race” is the correct term. But this may not be adequate- ducks, for example, seem to breed across species lines to some extent, and this distinction would only apply to humans- orcs cannot mate with elves for example, nor dwarves with hobbits.

Considering that this is an invented genealogy whose member “races” have inherent differences which in real life would only be the result of environmental difference in upbringing, I’m troubled. Species seems a more appropriate taxon given the drastic differences in mental ability between orcs and the rest of the population, to say nothing of “race” frequently being used as the article of distinction for every remotely humanoid creature from lizardfolk to giants.

This is problematic because claiming there are differences in human population that are inherent in the phenotypic presentations we refer to as “race” has been used to justify many oppressive practices, and is just plain bad science. My brain is not better or worse than anyone else’s because of my race, it is better than that of a duck because I am human. I am fine referring to the “human race” for rhetorical purposes, but to use that as a distinguishing trait from other sapients seems to buy into many lies used to back everything from Slavery to the Nuremberg laws. Especially since Dungeons and Dragons is such a white hobby, we need to be especially careful not to linguistically reinforce the racist misconceptions that still persist in many circles just because it sounds cool and old-timey. Accordingly, I ask my players to refer to character “species” rather than “race” unless they’re referring to something very, very specific.

If I get 20 reads this week I’ll post some descriptions of political messages I’ve worked into D/D over the years. Stay tuned if you want this, ignore us this week if you don’t- not really. Please read us. And comment. We are lonely. Pageviews for the Internet God! Comments for the Sitethrone.

Solidarität, Genossinnen und Genossen. Now roll for initiative.

[Tengu_temp]

I think you're overthinking this. Halflings and orcs don't exist in real life. It's obvious that DND "races" are not the same thing as real life races. "Species" is probably a more accurate term, but I don't think there's anything problematic about "race", as long as nobody tries to draw parallels between DND races and real life races - and such people are most likely racist already.

[Waldmarschallin]

I think you're overthinking this. Halflings and orcs don't exist in real life. It's obvious that DND "races" are not the same thing as real life races. "Species" is probably a more accurate term, but I don't think there's anything problematic about "race", as long as nobody tries to draw parallels between DND races and real life races - and such people are most likely racist already.

Then why do we use the same word? In my experience we can create somewhat exclusive communities and not do effective outreach to get everyone who would enjoy playing actually doing so- if we create barriers to associating around games to ANYONE we're reducing the number of people who can engage with our shared passions.

[Eldan]

Species is clearly not the right term for the various humanoids either. If they can interbreed to make fertile offspring, they aren't different species. So they are pretty clearly subspecies, at best. Interestingly, there seem to be some ring species going on, like in the human-elf-orc complex.

Also, dwarf: dvergr, dweorg, twerc and various other old Germanic varieties all pretty much only mean the mythological creature. Don't see what's insensitive there.

And to be a bit facetious: How is your brain better than a duck's? I'd say it's better than yours at being duckish.

[GloatingSwine]

The real answer is that they didn't think about it very hard, and that there really isn't a word for the thing they are describing anyway, because some of the aspects of a fantasy race are similar to the way we think of race among humans and some are more similar to species, and there's quite a lot of crossover.

[Eldan]

As for the usage of the word: "race" has a lot of definitions. "A group of people distinguished by common heritage"? Seems appropriate for D&D races. "A large group of people distinguished on the basis of physical characteristics"? That fits just as well. "In science, informal term for "subspecies""? Yup.
On the other hand, "breed of domesticated animal"? Clearly not. Neither are they "One of the commonly recognized subdivisions of the human species (controversial)".

So, word seems apt.

[Fawkes]

Essentially, the word 'race' has two different meanings. We often use it to differentiate between cultural and geographical groups, but in can also refer to an entire population, as in 'the human race'. The second definition is the one that's used in D&D. Elves, dwarves, halflings, orcs, etc. are basically all fictional subspecies of the species homo sapiens (or in D&D terms, 'humanoid'). The differences between the differnet humanoid races are akin to differences between different breeds of dog - all the same species, but with many possible physical differences.

[Tengu_temp]

Then why do we use the same word? In my experience we can create somewhat exclusive communities and not do effective outreach to get everyone who would enjoy playing actually doing so- if we create barriers to associating around games to ANYONE we're reducing the number of people who can engage with our shared passions.

I never encountered any people of color thinking that DND is excluding them because it uses the term "race" to refer to non-human species. I think you're trying to create an issue where there is none.

If you want to find real problems with RPGs and racial issues, I'd point out how 99% of humans in DND are white. And in most RPGs. And in fantasy in general.

[Alent]

As for the usage of the word: "race" has a lot of definitions. "A group of people distinguished by common heritage"? Seems appropriate for D&D races. "A large group of people distinguished on the basis of physical characteristics"? That fits just as well. "In science, informal term for "subspecies""? Yup.
On the other hand, "breed of domesticated animal"? Clearly not. Neither are they "One of the commonly recognized subdivisions of the human species (controversial)".

So, word seems apt.

I agree with this. I see Race as just about the only appropriate word, especially since "species" actually carries a bigger peril than race in this context due to the stereotyping at play with races like the Orcs.

That said, nothing within the system is actually inclusive or exclusive by itself- Inclusive/exclusive behaviors are not institutionalized in the game system, but your specific community.

[dps]

Then why do we use the same word?

Others have answered this in more detail, but I call on you to consider the wisdom of Led Zeppelin: "Sometimes words have two meanings". :smallbiggrin:

[Pokonic]

There's a Pratchett quote for everything: "Black and white lived in perfect harmony and ganged up on green."

[cobaltstarfire]

The problem arises with the mental abilities- namely, that Dwarves, Orcs and Half-Orcs suffer particular reductions in certain mental abilities, some of which are implied to be inherently determined by race.....


This is no longer true as of...4e?

5th edition also does not have negative racial modifiers.

I think it's pretty obvious that "race" in D&D is talking about different kinds, species, or sub-species, not ethnicity.

In 5e species, race, and people are all used interchangeably.

3.5 implies that racial modifiers can be as much about culture as they are about physiology.

I find it more bothersome to equate races in D&D to real world groups of people.

[Eldan]

Yeah, but if you have no negatives, just positives, all it does is change the average a bit upwards. If everyone either has 0 or +2, 0 is the new penalty.

[Eldan]

I never encountered any people of color thinking that DND is excluding them because it uses the term "race" to refer to non-human species. I think you're trying to create an issue where there is none.

If you want to find real problems with RPGs and racial issues, I'd point out how 99% of humans in DND are white. And in most RPGs. And in fantasy in general.

Are they? Among the iconic characters in the 3.5 PHB, there are four humans. Jozan the Cleric is pretty white. Ember the Monk, I'd say, looks black to me. Alhandra the Paladin is a bit ambiguous. Could be tanned white, could be a more middle Eastern or Latin American skin tone. Hennet... he's... sort of brown-ish? Sort of undefineable? Definitely weirdly drawn.

[GolemsVoice]

I wouldn't let the ramblings of real-world racists ruin your D&D game for you. Also, as you yourself said, D&D "races" ARE actually different, with their brains working differently, something that absolutely isn't the case for real-world races. In the end, as others said, race is about as appropriate as species, or even moreso. If your players are the type to distinguish people by "race" they already ARE racists, and the problem lies with them, not with D&D.

By the way, you might want to be careful about bringing in too much politics to this board, Genossin. Board rules being as they are.

[Dire Moose]

The idea that "different species = can't interbreed" is one of the biggest misconceptions in science. Sure, biology teachers will tell their students this as a sort of shorthand, but when you look at what actually gets reported from the field, there are plenty of species that do interbreed and in most cases, their hybrid offspring are fertile as well. The concept of "ring species" has already been mentioned on here with regard to elves-humans-orcs, for one. Even some different genera can produce fertile hybrids: Cattle and buffalo can produce fertile "beefalo" or "cattalo" (Bos taurus x Bison bison) and there has been a "wholphin" that was the offspring of a false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) and a bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), which also managed to have a calf with a dolphin.

So treating fantasy races as representing different species really isn't unreasonable in my opinion.

[Kd7sov]

Are they? Among the iconic characters in the 3.5 PHB, there are four humans. Jozan the Cleric is pretty white. Ember the Monk, I'd say, looks black to me. Alhandra the Paladin is a bit ambiguous. Could be tanned white, could be a more middle Eastern or Latin American skin tone. Hennet... he's... sort of brown-ish? Sort of undefineable? Definitely weirdly drawn.

Sample characters are one thing; what shows up in play is, often, quite another.

Though this may show the biases of observers and/or artists more than of players; I don't think I've ever indicated the skin color or equivalent ethnicity of any of my characters.

[Eldan]

The idea that "different species = can't interbreed" is one of the biggest misconceptions in science. Sure, biology teachers will tell their students this as a sort of shorthand, but when you look at what actually gets reported from the field, there are plenty of species that do interbreed and in most cases, their hybrid offspring are fertile as well. The concept of "ring species" has already been mentioned on here with regard to elves-humans-orcs, for one. Even some different genera can produce fertile hybrids: Cattle and buffalo can produce fertile "beefalo" or "cattalo" (Bos taurus x Bison bison) and there has been a "wholphin" that was the offspring of a false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) and a bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), which also managed to have a calf with a dolphin.

So treating fantasy races as representing different species really isn't unreasonable in my opinion.

If you want to go that far: we habe no good definition of seither species, subspecies or genus and it almost comes down To opinion

[Tengu_temp]

Are they? Among the iconic characters in the 3.5 PHB, there are four humans. Jozan the Cleric is pretty white. Ember the Monk, I'd say, looks black to me. Alhandra the Paladin is a bit ambiguous. Could be tanned white, could be a more middle Eastern or Latin American skin tone. Hennet... he's... sort of brown-ish? Sort of undefineable? Definitely weirdly drawn.

Random extras are almost always white, though. And while this "white is default" trend got weaker in later DND books, it's still very common in other fantasy.

[cobaltstarfire]

Yeah, but if you have no negatives, just positives, all it does is change the average a bit upwards. If everyone either has 0 or +2, 0 is the new penalty.

Lack of a positive is not the same as a penalty.

[Eldan]

It is, effectively. If everyone has +2 intelligence, other than a half-orc, than that half-orc has the lowest intelligence.

[The Glyphstone]

Are they? Among the iconic characters in the 3.5 PHB, there are four humans. Jozan the Cleric is pretty white. Ember the Monk, I'd say, looks black to me. Alhandra the Paladin is a bit ambiguous. Could be tanned white, could be a more middle Eastern or Latin American skin tone. Hennet... he's... sort of brown-ish? Sort of undefineable? Definitely weirdly drawn.

The color of Hennet's skin is the least of his artwork problems, really.

[Eldan]

Oh, absolutely. He looks he's halfway through cosplaying as a Cenobite without the money to buy a proper costume and the artwork in general is just not very good.

[themaque]

I think using various different "races" is an interesting way to look at racial differences in our own world. The aforementioned Terry Pratchett does it quite often to great affect.

It is worth looking into WHY we have our racial stereotypes, and where they came from. But even if their origins could be called into question, there is no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'm not sure people are "confused" or "turned off" by such distinctions. Then again, I wouldn't know if they where as they wouldn't be playing with me now would I?


Side Note:
I found it amusing how Shadowrun handled this discussion. A near-future science fiction with fantasy elements.

Yeah Sure, that guy across from you might be a darker skin tone, but that guy has HORNS!

[brionl]

It is, effectively. If everyone has +2 intelligence, other than a half-orc, than that half-orc has the lowest intelligence.

"Everyone" doesn't have +2 to Intelligence. Each race has +1 to two stats, or +2 to one stat, and no bonuses to the other stats. Except Humans get a +1 to everything. Because otherwise all the other races are much cooler than stupid humans.

[Starwulf]

I never encountered any people of color thinking that DND is excluding them because it uses the term "race" to refer to non-human species. I think you're trying to create an issue where there is none.

If you want to find real problems with RPGs and racial issues, I'd point out how 99% of humans in DND are white. And in most RPGs. And in fantasy in general.

Maybe in D&D itself, but the books that it has spawned often have just as many races of different skin tones as it does of "white" races. Especially for stuff like Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk from the majority of the books I've read. Hell, FR even has an entire continent of people based on the Aztecs(Or was it the Mayans? I always get those two mixed up inside my head) called The Matzca trilogy.

I honestly have not read many of the sourcebooks or magazines that D&D has released over the years to actually comment on those, but the various book series definitely have and mention races of other colors very, very frequently. As far as other Fantasy Novels, I'd have to go back and reread most of my non-D&D stuff, but I know at least a few series certainly don't abide by this trope, most noticeably the Rhapsody series, one of the main characters is a darker color. Then there is the Acacia series which has people with white skin tone almost as a minority in some parts of the story.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Random extras are almost always white, though. And while this "white is default" trend got weaker in later DND books, it's still very common in other fantasy.

Random extras are always white in predominantly white countries. Most fantasy worlds have ethnic groups tied to locations and nations just like in the real world.

Foreign merchants aren't exactly rare in fantasy stories either. There's no reason to expect ethnic diversity outside of border zones and large cities. Monster manuals tend to be hodge podges of stuff from world mythology and folklore. There's more problems with horrible stereotyping of minorities than erasure of them (there are plenty of worlds where arabs come in two types, merchants and djinn).

Most novels don't describe crowd scenes in enough detail for anyone to be able to blame the author for not including minorities.

[Crow]

Sweet Odin, you are over-thinking this, OP. I'm pretty sure you can find something unjust in just about anything if you go into it looking for things like this.

I think you'd get better mileage having a discussion about the expected violence that pervades every RPG of note.

[Archonic Energy]

If I get 20 reads this week I’ll post some descriptions of political messages I’ve worked into D/D over the years. Stay tuned if you want this, ignore us this week if you don’t- not really. Please read us. And comment. We are lonely. Pageviews for the Internet God! Comments for the Sitethrone.
Welcome to the forums.
Also, all I am allowed to say is you should probably re-read the forum rules on inappropriate topics before posting that.

[warty goblin]

Lack of a positive is not the same as a penalty.


It is, effectively. If everyone has +2 intelligence, other than a half-orc, than that half-orc has the lowest intelligence.

In terms of the distribution of ability scores, there's no meaningful difference between everybody except one race getting +2, and nobody getting a bonus, with one race getting a -2 penalty. All we're doing in either case is just sliding the score distribution up or down.

However the pseudo-standardized ability modifiers used by D&D* means that these two cases are not exactly equivalent. For simplicity let's assume everybody rolls 3d6 in order for their stats**. Your probability of getting any particular modifier is then simply the probability of rolling the two numbers that give you that bonus. The important thing to note here is that probability is a nonlinear operator - which it has to be since it's restricted to [0, 1] - and so the probabilities of getting particular attribute bonuses are not the same in our two scenarios. Which in turn means that penalty is not the same as the lack of a bonus.

Concrete example: let's suppose our half-orc has -2 INT, and wants a modifier of at least +0. We therefore need a roll of at least 12, which will happen about 37.5% of the time. A dwarf character who has no bonus needs at least a 10, which has probability of about 62.5%. Now in the alternative universe where the half-orc doesn't have a penalty and everybody else gets a bonus, the half-orc has probability 62.5% of getting at least a +0, while every other race now only needs an eight, which will happen about 84% of the time. Pretty clearly the universe is relatively kinder to half-orcs in the 'everybody else gets a bonus' universe


*These are a very crude standardization of the approximate bell curve created by rolling 3d6, which means that *very approximately* your ability bonus/penalty is a measure of how many standard deviations you are from the mean. The mean approximation is actually pretty good, 3d6 has a mean of 10.5, so setting 10 - 11 as +0 is right on the money. The standard deviation of 3d6 is very nearly three however, not two, so if we're really using an integer approximation to standardization, you really should need an ability score of 14 to get a +1 bonus.

**The same logic applies to 4d6b3 in order or other weird ways of rolling, they just change the numbers. I'm doing 3d6 because the probabilities are easier to work out. This sort of probabilistic analysis obviously does not work for point-buy, but point buy is a stupid system to use with ability score standardization anyway.


Rather less probabilistically, is this a thing people are getting upset about now? Because while it is true that 'those people are stupid' has been and continues to be a justification for vile behavior, so is 'those people are weaker than us' and 'those people worship the wrong god' and 'those people killed a couple of our people' and so on. All of which are also things that D&D models, and in the case of the last two, tends to celebrate.

Mostly because D&D is, pretty deeply, a game about being a tribal hero, which means killing dangerous wildlife and stomping on the tribes your tribe doesn't like very much. This is perfectly fine, people are tribal, and stomping on orcs via rolling a d20 is a very harmless way to express this.

[Ravian]

Yeah I've never seen a huge problem with D&D races. The word was used when something like species could have been more appropriate yeah, but they are functionally intelligent species. True it does get a little problematic to hand out mental penalties to some of them, which is why I typically prefer straight racial bonuses. That way, as long as intellect bonuses are rare enough, it doesn't set a new standard for intelligence. Some species are just a little more cerebral focused. Might not even be genetic but rather a cultural thing.

Obviously there are more problematic issues. For example Elder Scrolls races did include human variants and so oblivion had the nasty problem of assigning an intelligence penalty to the dark-skinned Redguard humans. (Luckily Skyrim removed this and just gave stat buffs and a unique power.

[brionl]

In terms of the distribution of ability scores, there's no meaningful difference between everybody except one race getting +2, and nobody getting a bonus, with one race getting a -2 penalty. All we're doing in either case is just sliding the score distribution up or down.


Except that there's never been a version of D&D where "everyone" gets a bonus to stat scores. Versions before 3ed had specific races getting minuses to specific stats, which was equivalent. Since 3ed though, everybody has 0 mod to every stat, and specific races have bonuses to specific stats. In the 5ed Player's Handbook, High Elves have a +1 to Int. So, they are smarter than everybody else, and Half-Orcs are just as stupid as all the other races. Except Humans, get a +1 to every stat, and Half-Elves get a +1 to two stats of their choice so they can be smart if they want.

[warty goblin]

Except that there's never been a version of D&D where "everyone" gets a bonus to stat scores. Versions before 3ed had specific races getting minuses to specific stats, which was equivalent. Since 3ed though, everybody has 0 mod to every stat, and specific races have bonuses to specific stats. In the 5ed Player's Handbook, High Elves have a +1 to Int. So, they are smarter than everybody else, and Half-Orcs are just as stupid as all the other races. Except Humans, get a +1 to every stat, and Half-Elves get a +1 to two stats of their choice so they can be smart if they want.

Firstly, your D&D history is wrong. 3.5 definitely had stat penalties for particular races. Secondly, as I showed, not having a penalty is - in terms of ability modifiers - not equivalent to the 'everybody gets bonuses' situation because of the specific normalization function D&D uses. Thirdly, I am aware that the 'everybody gets bonuses' situation is hypothetical, I was working through an example to clarify the question of whether not having a penalty is distinct from everybody else having a bonus.

[Eldan]

Except that there's never been a version of D&D where "everyone" gets a bonus to stat scores. Versions before 3ed had specific races getting minuses to specific stats, which was equivalent. Since 3ed though, everybody has 0 mod to every stat, and specific races have bonuses to specific stats. In the 5ed Player's Handbook, High Elves have a +1 to Int. So, they are smarter than everybody else, and Half-Orcs are just as stupid as all the other races. Except Humans, get a +1 to every stat, and Half-Elves get a +1 to two stats of their choice so they can be smart if they want.

That's what I mean, though. Under that system, half-orcs are still less intelligent than humans or elves. I really don't see what the big change is, other than that the average stat is now 1 point higher.

[Sith_Happens]

That's what I mean, though. Under that system, half-orcs are still less intelligent than humans or elves. I really don't see what the big change is, other than that the average stat is now 1 point higher.

In one scenario the average orc has a 50% of passing a DC 10 Intelligence-based check when not under stress, in the other scenario they have a 100% chance. That's a pretty big difference.

[Arzanyos]

Also, A penalty to Int makes half-orcs dumber than all the other races. Elves and humans having a bonus to Int makes half-orcs dumber than them... But still as smart as dwarves and halflings and dragonborn.

[SuperPanda]

This post is in two parts: Part 1 - response to stats conversation. Part 2 - response to "race"

The way I've always understood "racial" stat bonus and penalties from DnD 3.0, 3.5 and Pathfinder was that a race with +2 Constitution had a racial average of 12 Constitution versus the "human" average of 10. PC heroes of that race could get wildly lucky have have a 20 in that stat without any sort of magical augmentation - though this being DnD it wouldn't be far beyond level 1 where magical augmentation would take over - and "average" members of the race would barely ever have beyond a natural 14 (12 for humans).

In that situation the "average" human would have somewhere from 8-12 in every stat while "other" races would get 10-14 in good and 6-10 in bad stats.

Since the "average" individual is likely to be a commoner in any pseudo medieval setting most of the time the stat differences wouldn't make that big of a difference.

Strength: I don't recall any medium sized race getting a strength penalty, but if there was one it would likely be off-set with a mental advantage (Cha, Wis, Int). This would likely be a bigger problem than Intelligence and Wisdom for a normal person since it reduces the loads they can carry or move about. With small size races this shouldn't come into play as much in their own societies though because all of the things they interact with are reduced in size (and therefore weight) as well. I'd expect heavy use of domesticated animals in societies with an a strength penalty and an increase in mechanized solutions to physical limits.

While a penalty in Strength could be a major set back for an average person, a bonus doesn't really suggest much of a benefit. If anything it is likely to indicate less advanced domestication of animals and machinery since the return from those investments is lessened. There is less need to give a Ox plenty of good food when a couple of the lads down the street are perfectly capable of pulling the plow.

Dexterity: On a day to day basis Dexterity isn't nearly as useful as it is for an Adventurer. I can see racial bonus and penalties shaping social trends like the sorts of armor and weapons that society makes, but to the average working half-ling or dwarf it really wouldn't make much difference at all. Dwarfs would be more liklely to think up safety rails for their cliff-side roads than elves would in their tree-houses, but that's about it.

Constitution: For the average commoner this is a biggie. Disease is going to be common just about everywhere, not to mention issues in sanitation that could be just as deadly. Most DnD settings tend to be less than peaceful as well, meaning there is a high likely hood of a farmer getting shot at by someone (hopefully not the PC). 1 hp could be the difference between surviving the hero's prologue and being a footnote, it would also have a large impact of survival rates of young. Constitution has no effect on natural life-spans of those who do survive though, so very long lived races with low constitutions could avoid the penalties by just having lots of kids and hoping enough survive to continue the species (that might be why there are so many different types of elf).

Intelligence: Most non-human races start bi-lingual regardless of their Int score, so even the thick ones are going to be better off than the average human on that count. Skill wise humans come out ahead on the equation. instead. Literacy should be pretty rare in commoners of every race for a pseudo-medieval setting. For the average peasant skills are going to be pretty limited. This makes Human peasants "smarter" than just about everyone else while also being unable to talk to them - meanwhile everyone else has to learn human language. The other races have a distinct upper hand in multi-cultural regions as they're able to converse on the side without the human knowing what's going on. The +1 Int check won't overcome the -1 int penalties of the half-orcs who are discussing in orcish how to con the dumb human if they human can't understand them.

Societies with a higher than average intelligence might have better access to good quality tools on the farm and about the villiage and perhaps better protections for their farmers. Other than that it likely won't affect the commoners much apart from there being many people wanting to do skilled labor leading to a shortage of manual labor to be compensated by early forms of industry (or possibly slave labor).

Wisdom: Wisdom is to the mental stats what Constitution is for the physicals. For the average peasants increased survival checks, heal checks, and perception checks are worth their weight in gold (a price that same peasant could never afford). Chances are they'll run into thieves, or cult leaders, or shady merchants and that sense motive bonus might just save their life.

Charisma: Sort of like Dexterity - its fantastic to have but for an average commoner its really only going to affect how easy it was for them to go a courtin' or something similar. The racial difference will really only show up in multi-cultural environments as having a debate between two people with CHA 18 and a debate between two people with CHA 10 isn't that different. If the most charming dwarf in the city has a CHA 10 and a visiting gnome bard comes to down with a CHA 12.


Part 2 - DnD does a lot of questionable stuff as others have said - mostly being about the acceptability of violence as an answer to whatever problem is presenting itself at the moment. I can't say the handling of "race" (which really means species) is the problem. Having "races" stated with an alignment is a problem (and even then what's being described is usually more of a culture than a "race" which only makes it slightly better since alignment is then one of the ways DnD empowers the use of violence to solve basic problems).

I have more problems with the idea that "X is objectively good, Y is objectively bad and it is okay to kill those who disagree" than I have problems with "Population A is skinny, flexible, and good at painting while population B is Beefy, good at lifting stuff, and likes axes... especially when the system itself makes the second one generalizations that are easy to subvert without use of DM fiat or fudging things but the first one is pretty much rules as written.

[Sith_Happens]

most of the time the stat differences wouldn't make that big of a difference.

On the other hand, I already pointed out a particular one of the few times that makes a huge difference.

[SuperPanda]

I understood your comments to be about stat bonuses and penalties going into new editions (in particular DnD Next / 5ed) while mine were contained to DnD 3.0, 3.5, and Pathfinder.

Under the systems I'd been talking about the conditions you referenced weren't applicable just like my analysis would be applicable in the system you were referencing.

Take your example and apply it to Constitution - Every time the penalized group gets sick they have a 50% chance of severe (possibly life ending) complications while the group with the bonus never gets sick (from DC 10 diseases). That is beyond huge - it basically means the group with the Con bonus should be out competing everyone on the basis that so many of them survive to reproduce. The groups with higher constitution win evolution (the other stats really wouldn't matter much at that point).

[russdm]

I have more problems with the idea that "X is objectively good, Y is objectively bad and it is okay to kill those who disagree" than I have problems with "Population A is skinny, flexible, and good at painting while population B is Beefy, good at lifting stuff, and likes axes... especially when the system itself makes the second one generalizations that are easy to subvert without use of DM fiat or fudging things but the first one is pretty much rules as written.

The bolded part might be what ends up encouraging the Murder-hoboness. Its written into the bloody rules. The "Evil" races have more interesting story potential anyway than the prissy, self-righteous prick races of Elf, Half-Elf and gnome. (Dwarves, Halflings, and Half-Orc have interesting roleplaying potential, and doesn't have to be said for humans. The other "Good" (Doubly applicable for those gnomes and Prick Elves) tend to be rather boring)

[Kd7sov]

On the other hand, I already pointed out a particular one of the few times that makes a huge difference.

Your scenario assumes that DC 10 means the same thing in both cases, which is hardly guaranteed.

[Sith_Happens]

Your scenario assumes that DC 10 means the same thing in both cases, which is hardly guaranteed.

It's not about what a DC 10 means, it's about how often an average orc can pass it.

[danzibr]

Race isn't exactly appropriate? Nor is species?

Solution: make a new word. Let's call them... recies. Pronounced like species but with an r on the front.

Now I want some peanut butter covered in chocolate.

[Sith_Happens]

Race isn't exactly appropriate? Nor is species?

Solution: make a new word. Let's call them... recies. Pronounced like species but with an r on the front.

Now I want some peanut butter covered in chocolate.

What about "spaces?" Rolls off the tongue a little easier and is much less likely to be mistaken for something else.

http://cloud-4.steamusercontent.com/ugc/22838588368858936/4C3CF0C00C76A83B94F84DEF48141E73EEE8AB3C/268x268.resizedimage

[Eldan]

How about just people? "The Dwarven People".

[BannedInSchool]

How about just people? "The Dwarven People".
Now that's just inviting someone to say "you people". :smalltongue:

[Fawkes]

Now that's just inviting someone to say "you people". :smalltongue:

Required link. (https://youtu.be/x1iV24hL8Rk?t=6s)

[Kd7sov]

It's not about what a DC 10 means, it's about how often an average orc can pass it.

I completely fail to see your meaning here. It sounds to me like you're saying something like it doesn't matter if one mixing bowl is labeled in imperial units and the other in metric, because the latter has a smaller number. Could you clarify, perhaps?

[Malimar]

I've long been in favor of tossing out "race" in RPGs and replacing it with "kind". (Not, like, strongly in favor of it, or in favor of it enough to actually buckle down and enforce it in my games, or anything. But in favor.)

[Sith_Happens]

I completely fail to see your meaning here. It sounds to me like you're saying something like it doesn't matter if one mixing bowl is labeled in imperial units and the other in metric, because the latter has a smaller number. Could you clarify, perhaps?

Whatever it is that you know by passing a DC 10 check, 50% of 8-INT orcs know it while 100% of 10-INT orcs do.

[Kitten Champion]

How about just people? "The Dwarven People".

What do you mean? (https://youtu.be/xPxs0Qh72kY?t=29s)

[Ravian]

Whatever it is that you know by passing a DC 10 check, 50% of 8-INT orcs know it while 100% of 10-INT orcs do.

Because of take 10 rules I'm assuming. Because a 10 int person will automatically pass any DC 10 knowledge check provided they can take 10 on it. Meanwhile, an 8 int person will have to make a check to succeed, and due to the penalties therein it averages out to a 50% chance of success.

Of course this is why it's really problematic to try and simulate realistic expectations in D&D. For example, I like to think myself at least slightly above average intelligence. (I'm in college and make fairly good grades so I'm doing better than a lot of people). That said, I only speak one language. (Discounting a bare smidgen of French that I picked up doing poorly in those classes) By 3.5 rules I should automatically be picking up languages for every two points of intelligence I have above average. By 4e I'm actually an idiot or strangely deficient in some way considering that humans automatically pick up an additional language regardless of intelligence. The thing is, a lot of people only speak one language, especially in America (mainly because we don't often cross borders into a region where everyone speaks a different language.)

But this rule is maintained, primarily because it is convenient from a gameplay perspective. Exotic languages are a big part of the old fantasy traditions (particularly considering that Tolkien was a Linguist himself) But no one really likes to roleplay it constantly. If you find a map in another language, it might be interesting to find a translator. But if you need to hire an interpreter whenever you're trying to interrogate a goblin or read an orc bar menu, it can get annoying. So the alternative to everyone remaining mono-lingual (with some races knowing their own language) is to require all new languages be tied to skills and/or feats, or else give them a few freebies based on how smart they are. Skills and feats aren't effective, since you're probably gimping your potential buying languages instead of more practical talents, while the freebie method glosses over some details without sacrificing playability. Most D&D systems do a mixture of both by guaranteeing a few languages and allowing one to invest in them more thoroughly.

Essentially the only way to assume accuracy is by taking a few liberties. Essentially that multi-ligualism is likely a common concern in fantasy worlds, given close proximity to other races, as well as possibly a root race aiding the learning of other languages (4e had something like that known as Supernal. To the point where native Supernal speakers could communicate in nearly every language derived from it.)

[Fawkes]

By 4e I'm actually an idiot or strangely deficient in some way considering that humans automatically pick up an additional language regardless of intelligence. The thing is, a lot of people only speak one language, especially in America (mainly because we don't often cross borders into a region where everyone speaks a different language.)

I think you've solved your own problem here. D&D characters DON'T live in America, and DO often cross borders. Hence, intelligent characters in that culture have picked up additional languages.

[Avilan the Grey]

I don't really see an issue here. It's like arguing that we should be troubled by the fact that Neanderthals have a different "stats" than we do.
And regardless if you use the term race or species, we DID in fact interbreed with them. It's a proven fact. So...

[Ravian]

I think you've solved your own problem here. D&D characters DON'T live in America, and DO often cross borders. Hence, intelligent characters in that culture have picked up additional languages.

Yes but it's certainly not something they learn automatically when they get smart enough. A far more accurate scenario would be that inhabitants of other countries are far more likely to invest skill points in foreign languages because it will be more useful in their daily lives. Of course this solution is impractical from a gameplay standpoint because few players will invest those skill points in languages, since other skills are far more useful in their profession. At the very best those points will be considered a tax to keep a character viable. Imagine if every non-human race had to spend a skill point simply to learn common, that would be universally hated if it were implemented.

D&D is not meant to be that simulationist. Few systems are. It might be better if we simply accept that the rules apply differently to PC's and important NPC's than average Joes. A random villager is going to be pretty average in all regards, regardless of what race they are. A dedicated study would likely show that elves have slightly faster reflexes than most or that dwarves have better pain and toxin tolerance or even that Half-Orc's don't place as much emphasis culturally on intellectuals (likely due to the prejudice many of them face.) but it certainly doesn't make enough difference to say that all humans have a higher IQ genetically, while all Half-Orcs have a significantly lower IQ.

Instead consider the racial stats to be more pronounced in adventurers and other individuals, largely representing a mixture of inborn traits mixed with cultural norms brought out by their society's adventuring traditions.

For example (using 5e rules for consistency):

Elves as a people have better reflexes than humans statistically (in more of a more likely to catch a bouncing ball sense than a dodging arrows sense), better vision (including darkvision) and they trance instead of sleeping.

However their adventurers, even the ones that have a greater emphasis in other stats still consider their natural reflexes to be something that should be channeled for greater effectiveness. Thus their dexterity is noticeably higher than other races including among normal non-adventuring elves (who only use a fraction of their potential). Similarly depending on what sub-race they're a part of, Elf adventurers place a greater emphasis on mental acuity, be it through intelligence, wisdom or charisma. They also learn how to use certain weapon types (even if they don't use them while adventuring) simply because wielding these weapons are considered a basic parts of an elven adventurer's training. They're also more resistant to charms and sleep due to training and High Elves typically pick up a cantrip and an extra language while training a wood elf will learn how to move faster and hide better and a dark elf how to channel their inborn magic into lights and darkness.

Meanwhile regular humans are pretty bog standard with no bonuses or penalties to anything. They're likely a little more adaptable than other races but not by much. Meanwhile exceptional humans get a little jack-of-all-tradeslike. They remember that nearly everything is useful to train in, and so push themselves a little further in all of their stats. (Example: An exceptional human fighter and an exceptional half-orc fighter with otherwise identical stats will have the human with higher intelligence than the half-orc. This is likely not because the human is naturally smarter, but because the half-orc's natural and cultural factors place a greater emphasis on relying more on brute strength than book-learning. A human meanwhile, will likely have read (and encouraged to read by his society) at least a couple of books on fighting and strategy, believing that he shouldn't rely on his strength for everything.

D&D is a game about exceptional people leading exceptional lives, who are already a cut above the rest simply by being PC's. Regular races are generally pretty similar to one another, with a few slight variations but nothing huge from a gameplay perspective. The exceptional people from among those races will emphasis those variations to a much higher degree than others. So a PC half-Orc with no bonus to strength other than his racial one (like a half-orc wizard or something) will still win an arm wrestling match with an average strength non important half-orc simply by virtue of being a PC. Similarly a PC human with average intelligence will generally know more trivia questions than an average intelligence non-important half-orc, not because the half-orc is dumber genetically, but because the human knows more trivia simply due to their training as an adventurer. That same trivia match between average intellect NPC half-orc and average intellect NPC human will likely come down to luck or a draw.

PC's break the rules of the world by following the rules of the game, and we'll all save ourselves a lot of trouble by avoiding using the rules for such strict simulations.

[Bulldog Psion]

I don't really see an issue here. It's like arguing that we should be troubled by the fact that Neanderthals have a different "stats" than we do.
And regardless if you use the term race or species, we DID in fact interbreed with them. It's a proven fact. So...

Agreed. Are we going to start saying the monster books discriminate against humans because dragons have higher Intelligence, Strength, and Armor Class naturally? And that this discrimination is a "problem" that needs to be dealt with? A 2,000 year old dragon 150 feet long with a brain 200 times the size of a human's IS going to be stronger, smarter, wiser, and tougher -- there's just no two ways around it, and any "fix" short of removing either dragons or humans is going to end up looking mighty silly, IMO.

Unless we rule that everything has to be the same in order to avoid prejudice, and that all species/races/whatever in D&D have a flat 10 in every ability score regardless of size or other traits, making everything equal in a practical sense is impossible.

Look, I'm a humanist, albeit a rather hard-eyed and wary one, in the real world, and I despise real-world racism. But this has nothing to do with that, as far as I can see. I expect that in our mundane universe, there are sapient species with higher and lower average intelligence than humans; higher and lower average strength; higher and lower average toughness; etc. etc. Now throw in magic and other fantastic elements, and you're going to have species with radically different abilities.

Which the rules currently reflect.

The only way to get rid of these inequalities -- which are somehow offensive, though I don't see it -- is to make everything literally equal. In which case you have nothing in your game but a bunch of humans. While there's nothing wrong with that, it's also no longer the same game; it's something approximating real life, not a fantastic world full of elves, dragons, and even stranger creatures.

(In a similar way, violence is kind of natural to a genre that appeals to people looking for adventure stories. The highest stakes are life-and-death; the most exciting stories are the ones where the stakes are as high as possible. Again, if this is a problem, there are plenty of games already that don't involve violence: bridge, poker, billiards, racing and aviation simulators on the computer, sports sims, actual sports, etc. etc. So again, I'm not quite sure what the problem is.)

Please note that I'm not trying to flame anyone here for their opinions or say that they can't express them; it's just that the "problems" seem to me to be the whole point of D&D in the first place (i.e. exciting action-adventure stories in fantastic worlds filled with species/races that differ from the human norm in various ways). In short, I'm having trouble conceptually disentangling the problem(s) from D&D itself.

ADDENDUM: actually, our own language uses "race" for "species" at times; after all, the phrase "the human race" pretty much refers to "the human species," doesn't it?

[sktarq]

I think for me the kicker in all this is that in DnD the races, peoples, sub races, species etc are not people but expressions of archetypes and ideas. The rules are written translate archetype into an effect helps them matter.

[Avilan the Grey]

I think for me the kicker in all this is that in DnD the races, peoples, sub races, species etc are not people but expressions of archetypes and ideas. The rules are written translate archetype into an effect helps them matter.

Yes and no. From the beginning, definitely. But all races has evolved since then.

[Raimun]

Three things:

1) Yeah, 'race' is actually inaccurate. 'Species' would be more accurate.
2) You can go against the type. Existentialism, yo.
3) Most people I've played with realize it's just a game with artificial (and a bit arbitrary) constructs and all of this is ultimately not applicable to real life.

[Jayngfet]

I don't really see an issue here. It's like arguing that we should be troubled by the fact that Neanderthals have a different "stats" than we do.
And regardless if you use the term race or species, we DID in fact interbreed with them. It's a proven fact. So...

Probably the most sensible way to look at it.

The different "races" of humanity were once incredibly disparate and vastly different. It makes a bit more sense if you think of it as being the difference between two different homo subgroups than two different ethnic groups. Particularly depending upon how big one considers a game "world" to be. Colloquially we presume that everyone basically lives down the road from each other, as opposed to continents away or distances measured in thousands of miles. In real life even into the victorian period average Englishmen are documented usually having never met a Frenchman or even knowing exactly where France even IS, and that's a neighboring country they've been at war with a dozen times over. As far as they're concerned Africa or Asia may as well be the moon. By that same logic a civilization with a tech level usually way below that has even less experience with it's neighbors. The average Orc would have no idea what an elf actually is and the average Dwarf probably thinks of goblins the way actual humans think of goblins.

Trying to fit real life allegory into this kind of thing never really works, especially so blatantly.

[Lord Raziere]

2) You can go against the type. Existentialism, yo.


Yeah. true that. Say what you will about rebels, but there is a reason why I ascribe to a rebel mindset: its very freeing. I can play whatever species I want without worrying about they fit in. you can argue for culture and social environment all you want but ultimately what a person is like comes down to their own choices and their own reasons for making them. no one person is a complete example of a culture, and not everyone agrees with what they've been taught by the environment around them- teenagers would be a lot more boring and manageable if that were the case. a culture is a very broad set of traits that are very wide and only applicable to a certain person in the vaguest of senses.

[Jayngfet]

Yeah. true that. Say what you will about rebels, but there is a reason why I ascribe to a rebel mindset: its very freeing. I can play whatever species I want without worrying about they fit in. you can argue for culture and social environment all you want but ultimately what a person is like comes down to their own choices and their own reasons for making them. no one person is a complete example of a culture, and not everyone agrees with what they've been taught by the environment around them- teenagers would be a lot more boring and manageable if that were the case. a culture is a very broad set of traits that are very wide and only applicable to a certain person in the vaguest of senses.

...which is all well and good for you to say as a modern first worlder, but that's not even nearly how it works in feudal societies(Read: basically ANYTHING with kings, active lords, and professional soldier groups as their own caste). If you're a farmer your dad was probably a farmer. You probably won't have lordship without your dad having it first. If you're a professional fighter you're probably going to be related to other ones in some way. In any case you're more or less literally property of your superiors, and they in turn sworn to their own.

Exceptions to the rule imply desperation and almost never choice. Historical examples of real life adventurers show a trend of being kidnapped or forced into the lifestyle, not having many if any alternatives, or just plain having a crappy lot to begin with. Because, and this should surprise nobody, being away from civilization and regularly risking your life with no guarantee of gains or honor isn't exactly an attractive career choice.

[Lord Raziere]

...which is all well and good for you to say as a modern first worlder, but that's not even nearly how it works in feudal societies(Read: basically ANYTHING with kings, active lords, and professional soldier groups as their own caste). If you're a farmer your dad was probably a farmer. You probably won't have lordship without your dad having it first. If you're a professional fighter you're probably going to be related to other ones in some way. In any case you're more or less literally property of your superiors, and they in turn sworn to their own.

Exceptions to the rule imply desperation and almost never choice. Historical examples of real life adventurers show a trend of being kidnapped or forced into the lifestyle, not having many if any alternatives, or just plain having a crappy lot to begin with. Because, and this should surprise nobody, being away from civilization and regularly risking your life with no guarantee of gains or honor isn't exactly an attractive career choice.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. ....

dungeons and dragons is a feudal society. thats a hilarious joke. mostly because no fantasy is that accurate and is actually detrimental to fun to be that accurate. the entire point of fantasy is to be inaccurate to reality. it matters not what society actually was like back then, it matters what you want it to be. realism is not a virtue in games, verisimilitude is.

[Raimun]

As a player you can spin any story for your character that makes sense for an exceptional and heroic character. And that is what a player character is. Exceptional. 'Heroic'*

Sometimes, that means you'll be going against the tradition of a feudalist society. Sometimes, you'll be a paragon of all the virtues of a society. Sometimes, you are neither but something else**. You might be successful or not but your character can still make the choice.

Point is, there is nothing stoping you playing a Lawful Good Half-Orc Wizard if you really want to. Or any other character you would fancy creating.

*As in possessing potential for great deeds.

** Yeah, I like this the best.

[Jayngfet]

Point is, there is nothing stoping you playing a Lawful Good Half-Orc Wizard if you really want to. Or any other character you would fancy creating.


Correction: There's nothing stopping you from making such a character, DM willing. Playing such a character, however, is another story. If your DM is fine with you living in la-la land where everybody gets along then you won't run into any problems. But if you use a world made by a DM with any sense, or even just the worlds described by half the books, that's another matter entirely. You could be denied service by merchants or denied entrance to towns, or even attacked given certain circumstance. Unless you're running a straight dungeon crawling game people generally react to seeing something both that far out of the norm and that combination of things they don't like or understand.

Though according to Razere up there, facing the consequences of your choice is evidently detrimental to fun.

[Kd7sov]

Correction: There's nothing stopping you from making such a character, DM willing. Playing such a character, however, is another story. If your DM is fine with you living in la-la land where everybody gets along then you won't run into any problems. But if you use a world made by a DM with any sense, or even just the worlds described by half the books, that's another matter entirely. You could be denied service by merchants or denied entrance to towns, or even attacked given certain circumstance. Unless you're running a straight dungeon crawling game people generally react to seeing something both that far out of the norm and that combination of things they don't like or understand.

"There would be disadvantages to playing this character" means "this character is unplayable"? Would you care to rethink that position?

Shall I tell you about my city-raised druid? Or perhaps the bard who only adventures (or, for that matter, bards) to rescue his family from a curse laid in the backstory? The half-orc based on Twoflower? (And that's just characters I personally have made in the last few months.)

A character is a character. Part of being a good GM is making the challenges relevant; part of being a good player is dealing with them when they come. Perhaps this prospective half-orc wizard makes a point of preparing illusion spells to pass unremarked, or spells that dampen onlookers' emotions, or a bunch of ranks in Intimidate to cow anyone who tries to deny service. Or maybe they live with the discrimination, gradually sulking their way toward a less-charitable alignment.

[Lord Raziere]

Correction: There's nothing stopping you from making such a character, DM willing. Playing such a character, however, is another story. If your DM is fine with you living in la-la land where everybody gets along then you won't run into any problems. But if you use a world made by a DM with any sense, or even just the worlds described by half the books, that's another matter entirely. You could be denied service by merchants or denied entrance to towns, or even attacked given certain circumstance. Unless you're running a straight dungeon crawling game people generally react to seeing something both that far out of the norm and that combination of things they don't like or understand.

Though according to Razere up there, facing the consequences of your choice is evidently detrimental to fun.

huh, so the character can choose what they can be born as? what strange setting are you talking about? but would't such a world assume that everyone can choose what they are before birth and therefore accept that everyone has different tastes as to what to be born as?

[Avilan the Grey]

huh, so the character can choose what they can be born as? what strange setting are you talking about? but would't such a world assume that everyone can choose what they are before birth and therefore accept that everyone has different tastes as to what to be born as?

Uh what? I can't make any sense of your question / statement?

as for Jayngfet: Indeed. This is one of the things Pillars of Eternity did wrong, btw. It has this brief, and frank, description of the Godlikes that most Death Godlikes are killed at birth (as people think they are carriers of bad omens) and most people think Nature Godlikes are plaguebearers, but you see ZERO of that in the actual game.

[Jayngfet]

huh, so the character can choose what they can be born as? what strange setting are you talking about? but would't such a world assume that everyone can choose what they are before birth and therefore accept that everyone has different tastes as to what to be born as?

Players choose what characters are born as. Unless the DM deliberatly hands you a lawful good half orc wizard, that's your call and you have to own up to it(and if the DM does hand you that sheet without prompt, you should probably feed it to him). If one of my players tried a build like that, and they occasionally do, I'm not going to baby them. Your character, in character, presumably just wound up with the cosmic short end of the stick but that doesn't confer any inherent sympathy from the world around them.

[SuperPanda]

For myself as a player: - If I decide I want to play a character which wildly bucks "normal" for a setting or rules system I'm usually doing that for a purpose, because something about that story is interesting.

For myself as a DM: - If I see someone playing a character that wildly bucks "normal" for a setting I interpret this as the player saying they want to challenge the setting's view of normal with everything that comes with that. I let them know that I read PC character sheets in this way and make sure they're okay with it.

This has only ever been a problem for me when the players (myself or others) and the DM (myself or others) don't have a common basis for what sort of game people are looking to play or don't have a common knowledge of the setting.


For some of my players - dealing with discrimination in a game world makes it feel more real and allows them to explore what they feel are new and interesting role-play elements.

For some of my players - dealing with discrimination in a game world just sucks royally because they already deal with it enough in real life.

When I DM from group A, I cater accordingly. When I DM for group B, I do as well. The thing is though: My group B players usually don't go out of their way to buck "normal" for a setting. They either come up with an idea that bucks "normal" in a different setting and ask me to world-build a setting where its not really an issue (which is part of the fun of DMing) or they play humans - because humans don't have a "normal" in most settings anyway.

The only problems I have are when group A players decide they want to play a character than pokes group B's buttons and both are in the same game. Those games generally never get off the ground those.

[Lord Raziere]

Players choose what characters are born as. Unless the DM deliberatly hands you a lawful good half orc wizard, that's your call and you have to own up to it(and if the DM does hand you that sheet without prompt, you should probably feed it to him). If one of my players tried a build like that, and they occasionally do, I'm not going to baby them. Your character, in character, presumably just wound up with the cosmic short end of the stick but that doesn't confer any inherent sympathy from the world around them.

way to make me not play your game, if your going to negotiate like that.

[ryuplaneswalker]

Correction: There's nothing stopping you from making such a character, DM willing. Playing such a character, however, is another story. If your DM is fine with you living in la-la land where everybody gets along then you won't run into any problems. But if you use a world made by a DM with any sense, or even just the worlds described by half the books, that's another matter entirely. You could be denied service by merchants or denied entrance to towns, or even attacked given certain circumstance. Unless you're running a straight dungeon crawling game people generally react to seeing something both that far out of the norm and that combination of things they don't like or understand.

Though according to Razere up there, facing the consequences of your choice is evidently detrimental to fun.

But isn't that the entire FUN of DnD, to see what crazyness your adventures bring forth to your characters.

Else you might as well play a farmer who stays in his farm, Frodo could have chucked the Ring into the trash, Luke could have wiped the droid's memories, Link could stay in bed on a cold rainy night, and Samus could turn down a mission to Zebes, Princess Garnet could have just decided that her mother's political games were not her beeswax, Eddard Stark could have turned down the offer to be hand of the king.

But none of those would have made anywhere near as interesting stories would they have now.

[Lord Raziere]

But isn't that the entire FUN of DnD, to see what crazyness your adventures bring forth to your characters.

Else you might as well play a farmer who stays in his farm, Frodo could have chucked the Ring into the trash, Luke could have wiped the droid's memories, Link could stay in bed on a cold rainy night, and Samus could turn down a mission to Zebes, Princess Garnet could have just decided that her mother's political games were not her beeswax, Eddard Stark could have turned down the offer to be hand of the king.

But none of those would have made anywhere near as interesting stories would they have now.

quoted for this guy knows whats up.

its always good to remember that what Jayngfet is talking about is good for world-building but not good for telling the story of individual characters of RPG's, who are often exceptions to the rules that are made. I do NOT expect any character made within a setting to perfectly fit within it or make sense entirely by that setting's rules, and I wouldn't expect characters that completely fit the setting from my players if I was a GM. characters that aren't an exception to anything well...you might as well play Office Worker: The RPG.

that and for some reason I just don't like the attitude that somehow every single little choice I make starting from character creation is open invitation by the DM to do whatever they want to me. thats a paranoid mindset that would only lead to me playing a boring human fighter with a sword because I would be too afraid to play anything interesting because then the DM would be invited to do whatever horrible thing they have in mind. thats no way to have fun.

[SuperPanda]

From Jayngfet

But if you use a world made by a DM with any sense, or even just the worlds described by half the books, that's another matter entirely. You could be denied service by merchants or denied entrance to towns, or even attacked given certain circumstance. Unless you're running a straight dungeon crawling game people generally react to seeing something both that far out of the norm and that combination of things they don't like or understand.

Wouldn't most of those things happen to any adventuring party regardless?

Getting denied service is going to happen sooner or later in every game if only as part of a story hook: I'm not selling no healing potions to outsiders till long legged Frank the midnight mugger is caught... and so on.

Also I don't think I've ever had a single group I've run for that didn't give shop owners cause to be scared of them sooner or later.

Getting attacked... well, that's how we level up. At least I, as a player, would be reasonably sure the attackers had some loot on them this way. This one might actually encourage odd race selections on the meta-game level... Once you hit three you've got good odds of masterwork weapons every few random encounters. :smallbiggrin:

More seriously - My players have always given authorities, nobility, criminals, and most often of all - the city watch - ample reason for a good throw-down sooner or later.

Getting denied entrance to town... the PCs are a small band of heavily armed strangers... Altercations with the city watch should happen to everyone sooner or later.

People acting like the PCs are "far out of the norm" or "things they don't understand" would likely be business as usual once they hit even 6th level. Between the huge amounts of money they'd be bringing in, the sheer wonder of what they've accomplished by that point, and the destructive power they can bring to bear: there is nothing normal left about any PC. At that point the PC being of Race Y isn't that odd.

From: ryuplaneswalker

But isn't that the entire FUN of DnD, to see what crazyness your adventures bring forth to your characters.

Else you might as well play a farmer who stays in his farm, Frodo could have chucked the Ring into the trash, Luke could have wiped the droid's memories, Link could stay in bed on a cold rainy night, and Samus could turn down a mission to Zebes, Princess Garnet could have just decided that her mother's political games were not her beeswax, Eddard Stark could have turned down the offer to be hand of the king.

But none of those would have made anywhere near as interesting stories would they have now.

For me: Having the player's actions (including their choice of race/class/stats) ripple out into the game world is part of what that's all about. If I'm playing a half-ling out to prove he can be just as powerful a warrior as a half-orc... I expect to get laughed at whenever I'm walking into a new town, to get talked down to... it makes grinning at those commoners with smug satisfaction as you haul your share of the dragon horde into town so much sweeter. Getting to level 8 and sitting back in a bar while a bard tells your story (in which you are a 9 foot tall half giant) becomes an amusing reward of its own.

Ultimately though: I find characters interesting because of what they do, not what they are. With the above character concept I could take the inspiration and have them set out to arm-wrestle the universe. With enough magic items I might even do pretty darn well at it. In a different game, with the same concept, I might find that it makes since to "fight smart" and develop that setting's equivalent to Tai Chi. In yet another one I might decide that Bard's can always re-write songs and so its not how you win, but the winning itself which matters - then I'd fight dirty and tip very well after. - All three would be completely different characters based on the same theme and I could remove the "halfling" from them without it mattering.

If my DM tells me the game he's about to run is set in a world where elves and arcane magic users have been hunted to near extinction by religious zealots - choosing to play an elvan wizard is done with a certain foreknowledge of what sort of adventure its going to be. Playing the same race/class combination in a different game should not carry those same consequences.

For me at least; that's where "fun" meets "good story" and starts a beautiful friendship.

[Fawkes]

For me at least; that's where "fun" meets "good story" and starts a beautiful friendship.

Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlMwc1c0HRQ)

Seriously, those last two posts of yours hit the nail on the head. I don't know what else can even be said on this topic.

[Jayngfet]

way to make me not play your game, if your going to negotiate like that.

I don't recall inviting you.


From Jayngfet


Wouldn't most of those things happen to any adventuring party regardless?

Getting denied service is going to happen sooner or later in every game if only as part of a story hook: I'm not selling no healing potions to outsiders till long legged Frank the midnight mugger is caught... and so on.

Also I don't think I've ever had a single group I've run for that didn't give shop owners cause to be scared of them sooner or later.


More frequently. It's kind of a given that players screw up and get thrown out of places. But having it done preemptivley can be an annoyance.


Getting attacked... well, that's how we level up. At least I, as a player, would be reasonably sure the attackers had some loot on them this way. This one might actually encourage odd race selections on the meta-game level... Once you hit three you've got good odds of masterwork weapons every few random encounters. :smallbiggrin:

The problem there is going by DND rules that stops being effective pretty quickly. Basically nobody in the "civilized" world is above level five so once you hit the heroic tier it starts just being an annoyance. Though at that point it's not really a big deal anyway. Unless the players do what they always do and get themselves on a wanted list for it.



People acting like the PCs are "far out of the norm" or "things they don't understand" would likely be business as usual once they hit even 6th level. Between the huge amounts of money they'd be bringing in, the sheer wonder of what they've accom

The difference is that around 6th level, shops kinda stop having meaning outside of the ones just as weird as you.

The real concern isn't that this'll kill the PC's, or even that it'll set you back a real amount, because this is kind of what disguise checks are for. It's that the other players can easily grow to hate the guy putting them through constant messes. Your lawful good half orc wizard that casts fewer spells and starts more fights sounds great on paper, but I've met very few players who actually like dealing with that scenario.

[thethird]

The problem there is going by DND rules that stops being effective pretty quickly. Basically nobody in the "civilized" world is above level five so once you hit the heroic tier it starts just being an annoyance. Though at that point it's not really a big deal anyway. Unless the players do what they always do and get themselves on a wanted list for it.

Considering that you can get 8th level spells in a metropolis going by DND rules I doubt that's true.

[russdm]

Eddard Stark could have turned down the offer to be hand of the king.


That actually would have worked out way better for him if he had. Not every one in that bloody world is required to play the Game of Thrones, Cersei. Some people just want to live their lives, not that you have any understanding of that concept either Cersei.

I think the story of Eddard Stark staying at home and watching the story unfold would be far more interesting than what we have gotten. And, can we have everyone die by the end of the books? I totally want to see the White Walkers win more than I want anybody to survive, besides Arya and Tyrion maybe plus the dragons of course. The rest can all burn or die.

[Fawkes]

I think the story of Eddard Stark staying at home and watching the story unfold would be far more interesting than what we have gotten. And, can we have everyone die by the end of the books? I totally want to see the White Walkers win more than I want anybody to survive, besides Arya and Tyrion maybe plus the dragons of course. The rest can all burn or die.

I think you're drifting into another thread, sir. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0136.html)

[Lord Raziere]

That actually would have worked out way better for him if he had. Not every one in that bloody world is required to play the Game of Thrones, Cersei. Some people just want to live their lives, not that you have any understanding of that concept either Cersei.

I think the story of Eddard Stark staying at home and watching the story unfold would be far more interesting than what we have gotten. And, can we have everyone die by the end of the books? I totally want to see the White Walkers win more than I want anybody to survive, besides Arya and Tyrion maybe plus the dragons of course. The rest can all burn or die.

Except...

If that happened, then Eddard Stark wouldn't be around to poke his nose into things and actually have integrity to make everything go pear shaped. King Robert Baratheon dies and his will is forged to go to Joffrey. Joffrey inherits the kingdom without anyone being able to dispute it. Joffrey, while being the evilest spoiled brat in existence, probably can't cause a war by himself. He is the legit King, no one argues with the legit King no matter how evil and stupid. However he will probably still earn an assassination then his little brother inheriting anyways, but the Seven Kingdoms will still be stable.

Eddard Stark meanwhile hears of bad things happening in the North and being a good Stark and all that, decides to head north to investigate and see what he can do. Daenerys story however is completely unchanged- her events so far are completely unconnected to the events in King's Landing, and therefore still goes on this massive conquering spree across the other continent. The Seven Kingdoms, not being divided by a big five-way king war hear of this and begin to discuss how to best defend themselves if she ever makes it across the sea just in case. Daenerys comes to invade, but even with her armies and big dragons she has relatively little experience in warfare and is prone to make bad decisions while the Westerosi lords are experienced veterans of a war they fought around the time she was a child and know the land better than she does, and thus Daenerys loses

Eddard Stark returns from the North bearing news of the Others. He is laughed off but since Daenery's armies are too numerous to kill them all (warfare rarely ends with the other side being completely wiped out) they instead make all of Daenery's armies take the black as punishment, they march north, the Wall is more well-defended than it has ever been in centuries or possibly millennium and they hold against the Others quite fine until the rest of the Westerosi lords realize he is right, get their act together and all join to defeat or survive against the Others. everyone wins except Daenerys, Robert Baratheon, Joffrey and Khal Drogo.

a lot of this is interconnected, change one thing and you get very different situations.

[warty goblin]

Except...

If that happened, then Eddard Stark wouldn't be around to poke his nose into things and actually have integrity to make everything go pear shaped. King Robert Baratheon dies and his will is forged to go to Joffrey. Joffrey inherits the kingdom without anyone being able to dispute it. Joffrey, while being the evilest spoiled brat in existence, probably can't cause a war by himself. He is the legit King, no one argues with the legit King no matter how evil and stupid. However he will probably still earn an assassination then his little brother inheriting anyways, but the Seven Kingdoms will still be stable.

Aerys II Targaryan was the legit king, a point with which absolutely nobody argued. Didn't stop that whole rebellion though. Robert was the legit king, on account of being more or less responsible for killing the last one (and having the biggest army going when the last one died), didn't stop Baylon Greyjoy's rebellion either. For that matter when Robb Stark rebelled, he did so assuming Joffrey was the legitimate king. Being a legitimate ruler in Westeros doesn't count for squat if people don't want to put up with you.

[Lord Raziere]

Aerys II Targaryan was the legit king, a point with which absolutely nobody argued. Didn't stop that whole rebellion though. Robert was the legit king, on account of being more or less responsible for killing the last one (and having the biggest army going when the last one died), didn't stop Baylon Greyjoy's rebellion either. For that matter when Robb Stark rebelled, he did so assuming Joffrey was the legitimate king. Being a legitimate ruler in Westeros doesn't count for squat if people don't want to put up with you.

ok, Eddard Stark and others march to war against Joffrey. Eddard being an experienced man of war does not make the mistakes that Robb did. The Houses are still more united than not because they are specifically marching against Joffrey, who being an evil stupid child makes a lot of horrible decisions in war that the Lannisters have to go along with unless they want to constantly keep manipulating him which probably wouldn't work forever, Eddard wins and takes the throne seeing the mistake he made like 15 years ago or so, he keeps Westeros united, Daenerys still loses because she is a horrible decision maker despite her charisma. Eddard being king now has the authority to order everyone to go fight the Others when he hears news of them, he does so and everyone fights against them as best they can.

[russdm]

I was saying that the other story would be interesting only, because I think it would be.

The following is in spoilers since I don't know how many people have read all the way up to the latest book

Varys and Littlefinger are trying to wreck things allowing for Danerys to take over, so they would still rile up some kind of problems and According to the story anyway, both of Robert's already knew about Joff's parentage before Stark did.


I think the issue with a lawful Good Half-Orc Wizard is due to the stereotypes generated by the game itself. A dwarf fighter, an elven wizard, Halfling thief, human Whatever, Half-Orc/Orc Barbarian. This are all certain fantasy types that have developed as norms whereas Dwarven Wizards, elven bards (or something else, not to sure here), Halfling Wizards or fighters, Half-Orc/Orc Wizards are all considered to be rare and unlikely. The game has encouraged and discouraged certain character options with stats helping to influence that like a Half-Orc must be a dumb brute, because half-orc and full orcs are dumb brutes, and a half-orc paladin/thief/wizard/any class that requires any intelligence is seen as a bizarre choice or a joke.

How many here have actually gotten a moment of disbelief from the GM when suggesting a reasonable option such as Half-Orc Wizard, where the GM/DM pauses for a few seconds before saying unconvinced "Okay"? I know that one of my former DMs reacted that way when I made a Half-Orc wizard.

[Ravian]

Eh, I like things a little off-beat. One time I got into an argument with another DM about one of his players making an Orc Bard. This was D&D 4e, and while the idea certainly wasn't optimized. (Especially considering Orcs were a monster manual race with limited feat support in 4e) But it wasn't necessarily a bad idea, not even from a gameplay perspective since bards can use Constitution as a secondary stat. (something Orcs got a bonus in)

Of course yeah the other DM thought that this was clearly a comedic joke. Because who ever thought of an Orc who was charismatic or played music. Of course I countered saying that the constitution based bard was essentially supposed to be a skald/warsinger anyway, so why wouldn't a proud warrior race have their own bards to tell the stories of their old heroes and great legends.

That said, given that their group didn't really take the game too serious anyway, I'm pretty sure I was reading a little too much into it and Orc bard was intentionally supposed to be a joke on the player's part.

Still it does annoy me when people act like any race without ideal stats for a class in 4e is bizarre. Frankly I generally consider something with perfect stat line up to be cliche anyway, when one of your race stats line up with your primary class stat it still works almost as well as the perfect stated on anyway, and while secondary stats lining up isn't perfect, it's still fine all things considered. It gives you quite a bit more wiggle room with your possibilities (especially after they gave races an alternate stat bonus, with three stats covered for nearly ever race and every class benefiting from at least three different stats as well, it opens up the doors for possibilities. Who cares about your generic tiefling warlock? A Goliath warlock on the other hand, has a story behind it. Just like a halfling thief is dull, while a halfling battlemind is atypical and interesting, just imagine the thought of the little guy holding the line against some ogre with the strength of his mind.

[Blake Hannon]

This ties in with some of my own problems with race in DnD. Basically, there's no reason for these beings - as described - to be nonhuman at all. Elves are agile, keen-sensed humans who live in the woods. Orcs are strong, warlike humans who live in mongol style nomadic tribes. Only a few minor details (elf lifespans, dwarf darkvision, etc) put them outside the range of real life human genetics, and in a world of magic even those could easily be found within a single species' biodiversity.

And there are unfortunate implications when some of those breeds have an Int penalty, though to me that's a much smaller problem than the sheer pointlessness of these "nonhuman" races who are about as different from humans as Bumpy Forehead Species Of The Week from Star Trek.

That's why, in my campaigns, I make the nonhumans alien. Elves cannot interbreed with humans, and if you saw an elf you certainly wouldn't want to. They have more divergent stats and natural abilities, and cultures that literally COULDN'T ever emerge among humans.

[Kalmageddon]

Raziere, all you do is trying to legitimize your opinion. Frankly, I don't care if you want to only play special snowflake rebels, but don't try make it sound like it's the right way to do things.

[Haruki-kun]

The Winged Mod: Thread Necromancy.