PDA

View Full Version : Right way to do racial stat modifiers?



Pages : [1] 2

Talakeal
2020-12-24, 04:07 PM
In the last year or two, I have seen many people assert that D&D style racial ability modifiers, particularly to mental stats, are offensive. I have never really been able to figure out why, and the threads invariably get closed due to some sort of racist tangent before I can ask, but that isn't really here or there.

I am about to revise the races chapter of my own system (playtest link in the sig) and was wondering if anyone had any input about how one could do ability modifiers "right"?

Currently, it is a point buy system and all stats cost the same amount, but have different ranges for different species, so orcs can put more points into strength than a human and halflings less, which isn't quite the same thing as straight modifiers, but is pretty similar in end results.

Thanks!

Vahnavoi
2020-12-24, 05:52 PM
Well your current system doesn't seem too good, for a few reasons: it encourages over-specialization and it is too easy to specialize.

Roughly: if there's a character type that benefits from having an attribute above normal maximum, you pick the race with highest range for that attribute and buy it to cap. This is the one and only scenario where a different ability range ever really is relevant and where there is no incentive to buy attributes to cap, these ranges don't create any play differences between characters of different races.

In general, point-buy is crappy for a similar reason: it's too easy to optimize and thus heavily encourages stereotypical characters. To even begin doing racial stat modifiers "right", you want heavy randomization. You also want modifiers big enough to create play differences across character types. Because such big differences are hard to balance, it's often best to create significant racial differences in other ways. To give a D&D example, dark vision and infravision are significant non-modifier differences, because every class uses visual senses and so all classes are impacted by difference in visual ability. By contrast, an ability modifier borders on irrelevant for classes that don't have major secondary features tied to that ability.

Back to big ability score differences, I'll use Ancient Domains of Mystery, a computer game, as an example: the difference between something like a Troll and a Grey Elf in Strength and Toughness is not one or two points, it's closer to ten or twenty. This means that while Trolls vary among themselves, each Troll is massively stronger than basically any Grey Elf, to the degree that a Troll Wizard (a particularly weak Troll) can wield a log or an anvil as a weapon, while a Grey Elf Barbarian (a particularly strong Elf) would struggle to do so. Differences on the mental side are equally dramatic: even Grey Elf Barbarians (class noted for being uncivilized) can usually read, while most Trolls struggle to do so even if they're of a civilized class (such as a Weaponsmith); on the other side, a Grey Elf Fighter (a non-caster) can approach Learning, Willpower and Mana abilities of a Troll Wizard. Differences of such magnitude guarantee that members of a race place differently across classes: a Troll Wizard isn't just a slightly worse Grey Elf Wizard, they play differently throughout the game.

Talakeal
2020-12-24, 06:35 PM
Well your current system doesn't seem too good, for a few reasons: it encourages over-specialization and it is too easy to specialize.

Roughly: if there's a character type that benefits from having an attribute above normal maximum, you pick the race with highest range for that attribute and buy it to cap. This is the one and only scenario where a different ability range ever really is relevant and where there is no incentive to buy attributes to cap, these ranges don't create any play differences between characters of different races.

In general, point-buy is crappy for a similar reason: it's too easy to optimize and thus heavily encourages stereotypical characters. To even begin doing racial stat modifiers "right", you want heavy randomization. You also want modifiers big enough to create play differences across character types. Because such big differences are hard to balance, it's often best to create significant racial differences in other ways. To give a D&D example, dark vision and infravision are significant non-modifier differences, because every class uses visual senses and so all classes are impacted by difference in visual ability. By contrast, an ability modifier borders on irrelevant for classes that don't have major secondary features tied to that ability.

Back to big ability score differences, I'll use Ancient Domains of Mystery, a computer game, as an example: the difference between something like a Troll and a Grey Elf in Strength and Toughness is not one or two points, it's closer to ten or twenty. This means that while Trolls vary among themselves, each Troll is massively stronger than basically any Grey Elf, to the degree that a Troll Wizard (a particularly weak Troll) can wield a log or an anvil as a weapon, while a Grey Elf Barbarian (a particularly strong Elf) would struggle to do so. Differences on the mental side are equally dramatic: even Grey Elf Barbarians (class noted for being uncivilized) can usually read, while most Trolls struggle to do so even if they're of a civilized class (such as a Weaponsmith); on the other side, a Grey Elf Fighter (a non-caster) can approach Learning, Willpower and Mana abilities of a Troll Wizard. Differences of such magnitude guarantee that members of a race place differently across classes: a Troll Wizard isn't just a slightly worse Grey Elf Wizard, they play differently throughout the game.

I agree that is a problem with all point buy games but it is, imo, better than any of the alternatives.

My game tries to alleviate this by having every ability score be useful for every character archetype, and to make it fairly trivial to bypass racial limitations with magic, cybernetics, mutations, or the like.

Vahnavoi
2020-12-24, 07:42 PM
My game tries to alleviate this by having every ability score be useful for every character archetype, and to make it fairly trivial to bypass racial limitations with magic, cybernetics, mutations, or the like.

It's easy for this to collapse into a situation where choice of race just doesn't matter, or only matters in the early game. Ranges in particular are bad in creating differences between characters in this kind of system, because if all stats are useful, there's a big opportunity cost to buy up to above-normal racial caps: you could've spread those points more evenly for equal or greater benefit. Especially if points have diminishing returns.

If all ranges are equally large for all races, you avert part of that, but at that point your system is mathematically equivalent to flat modifiers.

Grod_The_Giant
2020-12-24, 09:21 PM
I would argue "by not having racial ability modifiers." Regardless of real-world concerns, they're boring. They basically vanish as soon as you're done with character creation, especially if you didn't min-max (ie, if you start with a 20 when the normal max at creation is 18, that's at least sort of noticeable; if you start with a 16, who can even tell?) If you want orcs to be stronger than humans, it's more fun to give them something like Powerful Build than +2 Strength.

Talakeal
2020-12-25, 01:42 AM
I would argue "by not having racial ability modifiers." Regardless of real-world concerns, they're boring. They basically vanish as soon as you're done with character creation, especially if you didn't min-max (ie, if you start with a 20 when the normal max at creation is 18, that's at least sort of noticeable; if you start with a 16, who can even tell?) If you want orcs to be stronger than humans, it's more fun to give them something like Powerful Build than +2 Strength.

For sure.

But that also creates a ton of balancing issues, requires a lot of book space and effort on the parts of both authors and readers, and risks limiting creativity by making certain races drastically superior / inferior at certain tasks.

I would personally prefer PC races to be mostly cosmetic, with the benefits being non numerical things like night vision or resistance to heat, but that can create certain issues when comparing them to NPCs who need to be more numerically distinct to be interesting as opponents.

Still doesn't really touch on the real-world concerns that I was hoping to address, or at least understand, though.

Ignimortis
2020-12-25, 02:21 AM
I would argue "by not having racial ability modifiers." Regardless of real-world concerns, they're boring. They basically vanish as soon as you're done with character creation, especially if you didn't min-max (ie, if you start with a 20 when the normal max at creation is 18, that's at least sort of noticeable; if you start with a 16, who can even tell?) If you want orcs to be stronger than humans, it's more fun to give them something like Powerful Build than +2 Strength.

That depends on the available ranges. When any Shadowrun Troll can start with a Body higher than anyone will ever have without high-end gear, that's significant. Also, there's the issue of how much a +1 matters - if it's just one more die, when you have 15 to roll, or one more bonus when you roll d20+10, it's not that significant. But if you roll, say, 2d6+4 against a DC of 10, then that +1 gains a higher value.

VoxRationis
2020-12-25, 03:23 AM
For sure.

But that also creates a ton of balancing issues, requires a lot of book space and effort on the parts of both authors and readers, and risks limiting creativity by making certain races drastically superior / inferior at certain tasks.

I would personally prefer PC races to be mostly cosmetic, with the benefits being non numerical things like night vision or resistance to heat, but that can create certain issues when comparing them to NPCs who need to be more numerically distinct to be interesting as opponents.

Still doesn't really touch on the real-world concerns that I was hoping to address, or at least understand, though.

You're not going to address or touch on those concerns adequately by making a decision about character building mechanics. You'll have to do so with careful and thoughtful world-building and characterization: making sure to avoid playing to harmful stereotypes, not presenting races or cultures as monoliths, allowing individuals moral agency, demonstrating an awareness that some things are cultural rather than innate, etc. You can fail at that easily with neutered racial mechanics, and you can succeed at it with meaningful racial mechanics. I'd argue that Pillars of Eternity does a good job of the latter*, which is probably helped by the fact that they have a non-D&D system where every class can use every stat, so you don't run into the halfling problem.

I'm in favor of retaining racial stat modifiers for reasons of verisimilitude; it strains credulity to have a dozen or more sapient species who all happen to have exactly the same range and variance in terms of strength, intelligence, reaction time, what have you. This is true in both a naturalistic setting with evolved creatures (because competition should drive niche specialization that affects these characteristics) or a mythological setting with various deities creating these species (because those deities will have different goals and priorities for their creations and may even have varying levels of skill at creation). Perhaps, in a very specific setting, you have a pantheon with a Congress of Vienna-style obsession with balance that got together and decided that each of them would make a race, and that they should all be exactly the same except for certain cosmetic differences, so as not to create an imbalance, but that A) seems more like a parody setting than anything else, and B) represents one world-building instance that can't be applied to other situations.

*Probably not absolutely perfect, but absolute perfection is unlikely in any endeavor.

Anonymouswizard
2020-12-25, 04:29 AM
It's easy for this to collapse into a situation where choice of race just doesn't matter, or only matters in the early game.

I would like to mention that this isn't inherently a bad thing, the game in writing intentionally does this. This is mainly to be true to the source material of 60s television scheme fiction, where rubber foreheads could sometimes be too expensive, so except for descriptive traits that work a little like Fate's Aspects (they give Permissions, and can explicitly Deny you the ability to do things as well, and you roll an extra die if you have a relevant one) aliens and robots differ from humans only cosmetically.

On how to do them properly? It's tricky. The easiest answer is don't, the longer answer is to avoid negative modifiers, and the nicest way I've seen it done is DSA 5e where nonhuman races get a slightly higher starting cap but have to pay the full cost to advance to that rank. I'm not near my book right now, but I believe that it's only raising the cap by one, and humans get a floating +1 to the cap anyway (so they can have the same score in stats that really matter, like the one you use to determine AE).

The problem with racial modifiers is that, if your race can believably be said to be based on a certain culture, it can look like you're making problematic statements whether you are or not. The one that came up most is orcs, because people connected then to certain groups and in 5e they got both an Intelligence penalty and the intimidate skill (5e has since updated to make Eberron orc racial traits the standard, which doesn't include the penalty and gives a choice of skills). There's also a lesser issue with racial modifiers pushing certain races towards certain concepts, but that's unavoidable even if you get rid of modifiers entirely. Honestly, it's probably best sticking to recess that are physically different enough that them but having special rules is absurd, like intelligent horses.

Azuresun
2020-12-25, 04:51 AM
In the last year or two, I have seen many people assert that D&D style racial ability modifiers, particularly to mental stats, are offensive. I have never really been able to figure out why, and the threads invariably get closed due to some sort of racist tangent before I can ask, but that isn't really here or there.

Just don't give anyone a modifier to Intelligence, and you'll probably be fine. 99% of the complaints I've seen about racial modifiers seem to be about that one stat.

MoiMagnus
2020-12-25, 05:20 AM
IMO, there are a lot of considerations.

First, you need to decide whether playable races have (1) different physical abilities in average and (2) different mental abilities in average (3) if those differences are innate or cultural.

Second, you need to decide to what degree the character creation of PC actually match the state of the universe. Just because roughly half of the PC do magic doesn't mean that half of the NPCs of the universe do magic. Same apply here, just because the average human has less Strength than the average dwarf does not necessarily mean that the average human PC should have less Strength than the average dwarf PC, in other words it does not mean the PC race dwarf should have a Strength bonus. But it can if you want.

Third, you need to consider the gameplay. Races grant different bonuses as a way to increase how unique each character is. It help the player to build an identity to their character, both in-universe and mechanically. However, the pitfall to avoid is to have combinations that are clearly better than others, as instead of increasing diversity of the PCs, you will see more and more instances of the exact same combinations.
IMO, ability improvement are one of the worst kind of boost you can give from a race: it is both good and boring, which is the opposite of what you want (something interesting, but isn't a must-have)

Vahnavoi
2020-12-25, 06:01 AM
I would like to mention that this isn't inherently a bad thing, the game in writing intentionally does this.

If math behind racial modifiers collapses to a cosmetic difference, you are introducing mechanical complexity that doesn't impact gameplay. This is bad game design, period. It' s cluttering a system with non-choices. The right design choice, if you don't want there to be beyond cosmetic differences, is to do away with mechanized racial differences entirely. But this isn't a right way to do racial modifiers, it's just not doing it.

Kane0
2020-12-25, 06:14 AM
Instead of increasing a score, increase the minimum. For example instead of an orc getting a flat +2 to strength their minimum is 10 instead of the usual 8.
If you’re using point buy then this will effectively reduce the cost of a higher score but doesnt just increase it

Anonymouswizard
2020-12-25, 06:32 AM
If math behind racial modifiers collapses to a cosmetic difference, you are introducing mechanical complexity that doesn't impact gameplay. This is bad game design, period. It' s cluttering a system with non-choices. The right design choice, if you don't want there to be beyond cosmetic differences, is to do away with mechanized racial differences entirely. But this isn't a right way to do racial modifiers, it's just not doing it.

Sure, which is why there are no actual Ability modifiers. Aliens are intentionally 'like humans unless otherwise noted', it's not that the modifiers collapse, it's that in the Fiction I'm working from there's no actual difference with noting (mostly). Unless you have a trait like 'strong psychic space elf' you're just going to be treated like a normal human.

Robots are treated in the same way, they're assumed to need equivalent downtime to human sleep and to intake materials and energy as hard to get as food is. This is to minimise complexity.

Not doing racial modifiers is a perfectly legitimate way of doing them, and deserves to be discussed, including when it is and isn't appropriate to just leave them out.

Vahnavoi
2020-12-25, 06:46 AM
Just don't give anyone a modifier to Intelligence, and you'll probably be fine. 99% of the complaints I've seen about racial modifiers seem to be about that one stat.

This is a bad argument. Sturgeon's Law applies to complaints just as well as anything: 90% of complaints are worthless whining.You don't get better game design by appealing to worthless whining, so for those complaints to have any weight, they have to be justified and shown to be reasonable first.

For the record, there are good arguments for not mechanizing intelligence, but the best one has nothing to do with race. To wit: the best argument for not mechanizing intelligence at all is that intelligence, as far as we can show in real life, is primarily the ability to make good choices. The basic task of a player in a game is to make choices; the only way we can ensure those are good choices (or bad choices, for that matter) is by removing those choices from the players' hands and outsourcing them to something else. The logical conclusion for mechanically modelling intelligence is something that will play the game for the player; this is obviously pointless if you want your player to be the one doing things.

Ignimortis
2020-12-25, 07:32 AM
This is a bad argument. Sturgeon's Law applies to complaints just as well as anything: 90% of complaints are worthless whining.You don't get better game design by appealing to worthless whining, so for those complaints to have any weight, they have to be justified and shown to be reasonable first.

For the record, there are good arguments for not mechanizing intelligence, but the best one has nothing to do with race. To wit: the best argument for not mechanizing intelligence at all is that intelligence, as far as we can show in real life, is primarily the ability to make good choices. The basic task of a player in a game is to make choices; the only way we can ensure those are good choices (or bad choices, for that matter) is by removing those choices from the players' hands and outsourcing them to something else. The logical conclusion for mechanically modelling intelligence is something that will play the game for the player; this is obviously pointless if you want your player to be the one doing things.

Or just make intelligence completely separate from common sense and thoughtfulness, so it's raw logical capacity that is in no way related to actually making good or even sensible decisions. I like that approach more.


Just don't give anyone a modifier to Intelligence, and you'll probably be fine. 99% of the complaints I've seen about racial modifiers seem to be about that one stat.

I mean, yeah. However, most of those arguments, as Vahnavoi notes above, are bull, and stem from people's own prejudices. I have never had any problems with orcs or other typically evil humanoids being hit with an INT penalty simply because I have never associated them with any real-world ethnicity or people or race. They're orcs, just orcs. They're not humans, and any human shares all human racial bonuses with other humans, regardless of culture, skin color, or what have you. Being sentient doesn't mean you're necessarily, on average, as smart (or as dumb) as humans.

Herbert_W
2020-12-25, 08:17 AM
...you need to decide to what degree the character creation of PC actually match the state of the universe. Just because roughly half of the PC do magic doesn't mean that half of the NPCs of the universe do magic. Same apply here, just because the average human has less Strength than the average dwarf does not necessarily mean that the average human PC should have less Strength than the average dwarf PC.

I think that this is the solution, right here - decouple PC and NPC creation mechanics. This checks all of the boxes that we're looking for.


Fits with existing systems: PCs are already built differently from NPCs. It's widely acknowledged that a typical human adventurer is more capable than a typical human commoner. We're just applying the same principle in different ways to other races. Maybe dwarves tend to lack charisma, but as dwarf PCs are exceptional individuals this limitation does not apply to them.
Verisimilitude: Depending on your setting, it might not make any sense for various humanoid races to all have the same range and variance of basic abilities. Heck, it might not even make sense for different humanoid species to have the same overall level of capability. To draw an example of two species of similar bodily shape from the real world, a jaguar would have a higher baseline in every stat than a sloth. (Sloths have other advantages that allow them to survive as a species, but that wouldn't make individual sloths balanced as adventurers in a party of jaguars.) Perhaps human PCs are exceptional individuals by human standards while elf PCs are average elves, so the game is balanced for players despite the average difference in capability between the species.
Unique NPCs: You can have incredibly strong half-orc NPCs. You can have your players think "Well, the bandit with greenish skin probably has orc blood, so he's a priority threat." You can have all of this without half-orc PCs being strong enough to unbalance the game.
Diverse PCs: Most players care about optimization as well as roleplay. For those players, racial ability modifiers restrict the range of race/class combinations that they might play - so without modifiers, you'll get a wider range of combinations (including odd combinations such as half-orc wizards).
Leaves room for more interesting racial differences in PCs: Playing a tiefling should feel different from playing a human with cosmetic differences and slightly more charisma. If tiefling PCs don't have a charisma bonus, that leaves feature-space open for them to have more interesting abilities such as fire resistance or SLAs.


It might feel weird to have PC and NPC stats be completely disconnected, though. If half-orcs are supposed to be incredibly strong for example, then this should be reflected mechanically in some way - though preferably in a way that doesn't limit player choices significantly. Perhaps half-orcs should have a minimum starting strength that's not high by PC standards bus still a bit above the human norm - or, better yet, give players a choice by requiring half-orcs to start with either at least a certain strength or at least a certain constitution.

Vahnavoi
2020-12-25, 09:01 AM
Or just make intelligence completely separate from common sense and thoughtfulness, so it's raw logical capacity that is in no way related to actually making good or even sensible decisions. I like that approach more.

This a nonsensical statement. Any decision-making involves logic: specifically, ability to draw conclusions from premises.

The closest you can get is rationing premises by limiting available information; you cannot logically draw correct conclusions from incorrect information. But this does not support mechanizing intelligence. On the contrary, the best way to do this is this: you have another stat, such as Perception, which provides a player with correct information, and the player uses their own logic to draw conclusions from that information, with no mechanized Intelligence or other logic stat in sight.

EDIT:

As a commentary on what Herbert W above said:

You easily get more diversity out of random generation than players cherry-picking their characters. If diversity is what you desire, then get it across to your players that optimization starts only when basics of a character have already been decided by a randomizer.

Grek
2020-12-25, 09:41 AM
In the last year or two, I have seen many people assert that D&D style racial ability modifiers, particularly to mental stats, are offensive. I have never really been able to figure out why, and the threads invariably get closed due to some sort of racist tangent before I can ask, but that isn't really here or there.
There's two issues at hand here: the racism issue and the available characters issue.

The racism issue is based on the fact that D&D-style races are basically ethnic groups with distinct appearances and cultures (almost invariably based on or inspired by a superficial take on some real life culture) which are then labelled as a 'race' and proclaimed to be in-world objectively superior or inferior to other 'races'. And of course only once of those 'races' gets to be human (usually the one that's coded as being generic/default/culturally white caucasian) while every other culture gets exaggerated and labelled as some sort of non-human. No matter how delicately you try to handle that, you're basically building your house on a foundation of landmines. Probably the best way to combat this is to make your non-humans distinctly alien while making your default culture very cosmopolitan - even though Klingons, Vulcans and Humans are all shown as very different, the fact that they all serve on the same ships makes it hard to say that Star Trek's species are racist.

The available characters issue is basically this: If having extra <STAT> makes your character better at <CONCEPT>, and picking <RACE> gives you the option to start with higher <STAT> than you could otherwise acquire, there's inherently going to be a pressure to make all characters for said <CONCEPT> also be <RACE>. The way that attributes are handled in D&D implicitly discourages people from wanting to play a bookish orc wizard, or a halfling knight or an elven berserker. Which is really weird when you think about it - surely those are all concepts that are less tired and played out than yet another elven wizard, human paladin or half-orc barbarian? Even if you can technically play the less supported options, the fact that the game rewards you for playing to a stereotype sticks in many people's craw. Consider The Wandering Inn, where the most famous military mind in the world is a 6 inch tall Fraeling who needs a butler to help him into his seat at dinner if he wants to dine with mixed company. You don't need to go that extreme, but at least don't have the abstract attribute mechanics fighting them the whole way.


ICurrently, it is a point buy system and all stats cost the same amount, but have different ranges for different species, so orcs can put more points into strength than a human and halflings less, which isn't quite the same thing as straight modifiers, but is pretty similar in end results.
This is basically how Shadowrun handles it, except that in Shadowrun race also sets the minimum for your stats as well as your maximum. Weak trolls aren't a thing; even a troll who is a total couch potato decker is still pretty strong and has to take points as appropriate, simply by virtue of the fact that they are a troll.

Herbert_W
2020-12-25, 10:09 AM
All is that intelligence, as far as we can show in real life, is primarily the ability to make good choices. The basic task of a player in a game is to make choices . . .


Or just make intelligence completely separate from common sense and thoughtfulness, so it's raw logical capacity that is in no way related to actually making good or even sensible decisions. I like that approach more.

I think that the fundamental problem here is the choice of the name "intelligence" for this stat. Going by 3.5e rules, so-called intelligence determines how many skill points a character gets per level, provides a flat bonus to knowledge checks, and allows wizards to prepare more and more powerful spells . . . none of which are really functions of decision-making ability at all! These are all functions of memory, not intelligence.

I completely agree that mechanizing decision-making in an RPG would be silly. However, this argument misses the point because that's not what the so-called intelligence stat does. Really, it's a representation of the capability of a character's memory. There's a lot of things that a character might be able to remember and which their player would not know, and it makes good sense to have a mental ability score to represent a character's ability to recall them.

There's nothing wrong with having a DnD-style "intelligence" stat in a game, except for the fact that it shouldn't be called intelligence - it's really a memory stat, and that's what we should call it.

Bringing this back on-topic:

99% of the complaints I've seen about racial modifiers seem to be about that one stat [intelligence].
Renaming intelligence to memory would have the additional benefit of dodging those complaints.

Draconi Redfir
2020-12-25, 10:27 AM
there is nothing wrong with racial modifiers, full stop.

they're designed to help make each playable race feel different from one another, stemming from either biological build, or cultural stimulus, which are again all different from one another. If you live in a culture that mandates everyone has a morning yoga routine for two hours every morning, then of course you'll get that +2 Dex. If your culture doesn't believe in formal education, and instead encourages individuals learning from trial and error independently, then yea that -2 Int would make sense. If your biology makes you completely immune to some forms of poison, then it'd be understandable to have that +2 constitution, etc.

That's all assuming each race is raised in their own culture of course. If you want to play around with things, you could have an Orc raised by Elves. Because of the different culture, perhaps the orc would gain an intelligence or a wisdom boost due to having a formal education, while loosing a strength bonus due to not having mandatory combat training every day. You can absolutely play around with things.

Vahnavoi
2020-12-25, 11:54 AM
@Herbert W:

Regarding mechanical role given to Intelligence stat, you're not wrong. You can scrub out "Intelligence" and replace it with "Learning" and, with no further changes to mechanical niche of that stat, boom, all's fine.

The reason why this isn't a solved problem is because some players bake the idea of intelligence, as in the ability to make smart decisions, into their character concept. They want to play, say, a genius detective because they read a book once and it had this cool genius detective in it, but they (the players) think (rightly or wrongly) they can't do the genius detective stuff themselves, so they want the game system to give them a leg up. And if it doesn't, you get an old discussion that goes something like this:

GM: "So you made a stupid mistake."
Player: "How? My character is really smart, they don't make stupid mistakes."
GM: "Sure, but you didn't figure out how this detail fit the puzzle..."
Player: "Surely, my character would've figured it out, they're really smart, it reads so right here on the paper..."
GM: "Look, regardless of what it reads on the paper, you're still the one responsible for choosing what your character does."
Player: "Yeah, but I'm not that smart. You should've just told me what to do."
GM: "But what's left for you to do in the game if I tell you what to do?"

Alternatively:

GM: "So you made a stupid mistake."
Player: "How? My character is really smart, they don't make stupid mistakes."
GM: "Okay, I'll just tell you what the smart decision is next time."
Player: "Wait... if you just tell me what's the right decision, won't it be super boring?"

Or:

GM: "So you made a stupid mistake."
Player: "How? My character is really smart, they don't make stupid mistakes."
GM: "Okay, I'll tell you what your character ought to think next time."
Player: "Hell no. Only I get to decide what my character think or feels!"

Vahnavoi
2020-12-25, 12:15 PM
@Tanarii: That's a bad defence for a bad argument. Yes, sometimes designers and publishers cave in under public pressure. Do I need to give you a list of all the times this had lead to a designer or company making bad decisions? Sane developers have either limited pool of people to get reasoned feedback from or a group of professionals to vet the public opinion for useful feedback. They do not follow Azuresun's line of reasoning.

Ignimortis
2020-12-25, 12:15 PM
This a nonsensical statement. Any decision-making involves logic: specifically, ability to draw conclusions from premises.

The closest you can get is rationing premises by limiting available information; you cannot logically draw correct conclusions from incorrect information. But this does not support mechanizing intelligence. On the contrary, the best way to do this is this: you have another stat, such as Perception, which provides a player with correct information, and the player uses their own logic to draw conclusions from that information, with no mechanized Intelligence or other logic stat in sight.


On the contrary. I know some people who are smart and logical in the typical RPG Intelligence/Logic sense (good with numbers and complex concepts, fast learners, can retain information well), and also have their head so far up their bum, they just don't follow common sense and therefore can still interpret data absolutely wrong, because they fixate on some irrelevant detail or interpret it in a way that might be logical, but also very dumb when you look at it for more than two seconds.

RPG Intelligence is usually more narrow than "high value = perfect analytics" and tends to be more like "high value = faster thinking, but not necessarily the right way of thinking", and "the right way of thinking" is usually relegated to a different stat like Wisdom or Wits or Intuition, to create those distinct archetypes of "inept sage", "street smart kid" and "unlearned, but wise nonetheless".

Therefore, it might need a better name, but the concept itself is solid.

Vahnavoi
2020-12-25, 12:34 PM
On the contrary. I know some people who are smart and logical in the typical RPG Intelligence/Logic sense (good with numbers and complex concepts, fast learners, can retain information well), and also have their head so far up their bum, they just don't follow common sense and therefore can still interpret data absolutely wrong, because they fixate on some irrelevant detail or interpret it in a way that might be logical, but also very dumb when you look at it for more than two seconds.

This appeal to real life is not a counter argument to anything I said. It is, instead, a description of a logical person acting on incorrect premises. Nothing about this observation supports mechanizing intelligence.


RPG Intelligence is usually more narrow than "high value = perfect analytics" and tends to be more like "high value = faster thinking, but not necessarily the right way of thinking", and "the right way of thinking" is usually relegated to a different stat like Wisdom or Wits or Intuition, to create those distinct archetypes of "inept sage", "street smart kid" and "unlearned, but wise nonetheless".

Therefore, it might need a better name, but the concept itself is solid.

Again: correct logic founded on incorrect premises yields incorrect conclusions. You can gatekeep correct premises behind a stat like Wisdom - it is the exact same solution I posed with Perception - but you don't need Intelligence as a stat in this equation at all.

A system honestly interested in modeling speed of thinking is trivial to implement but no version of D&D, or most other games that have an Intelligence stat, actually implement it. To wit, it goes like this: player of an intelligent character has more real time to make a decision, player of a less intelligent character has less. This way, intelligent character actually have more thinking behind their decisions for each unit of game time.

---

EDIT:


More commonly it leads to success.

Oh, you actually have statistics showing it is better than a coin flip? I doubt you do. A few cherry-picked examples don't prove you right. Your "it's how real life works" is rhetoric, not logical, defense.

VoxRationis
2020-12-25, 12:49 PM
I think that this is the solution, right here - decouple PC and NPC creation mechanics. This checks all of the boxes that we're looking for.


Fits with existing systems: PCs are already built differently from NPCs. It's widely acknowledged that a typical human adventurer is more capable than a typical human commoner. We're just applying the same principle in different ways to other races. Maybe dwarves tend to lack charisma, but as dwarf PCs are exceptional individuals this limitation does not apply to them.
Verisimilitude: Depending on your setting, it might not make any sense for various humanoid races to all have the same range and variance of basic abilities. Heck, it might not even make sense for different humanoid species to have the same overall level of capability. To draw an example of two species of similar bodily shape from the real world, a jaguar would have a higher baseline in every stat than a sloth. (Sloths have other advantages that allow them to survive as a species, but that wouldn't make individual sloths balanced as adventurers in a party of jaguars.) Perhaps human PCs are exceptional individuals by human standards while elf PCs are average elves, so the game is balanced for players despite the average difference in capability between the species.
Unique NPCs: You can have incredibly strong half-orc NPCs. You can have your players think "Well, the bandit with greenish skin probably has orc blood, so he's a priority threat." You can have all of this without half-orc PCs being strong enough to unbalance the game.
Diverse PCs: Most players care about optimization as well as roleplay. For those players, racial ability modifiers restrict the range of race/class combinations that they might play - so without modifiers, you'll get a wider range of combinations (including odd combinations such as half-orc wizards).
Leaves room for more interesting racial differences in PCs: Playing a tiefling should feel different from playing a human with cosmetic differences and slightly more charisma. If tiefling PCs don't have a charisma bonus, that leaves feature-space open for them to have more interesting abilities such as fire resistance or SLAs.


It might feel weird to have PC and NPC stats be completely disconnected, though. If half-orcs are supposed to be incredibly strong for example, then this should be reflected mechanically in some way - though preferably in a way that doesn't limit player choices significantly. Perhaps half-orcs should have a minimum starting strength that's not high by PC standards bus still a bit above the human norm - or, better yet, give players a choice by requiring half-orcs to start with either at least a certain strength or at least a certain constitution.

This, to me, smacks of an attempt at obfuscation more than anything else. You've still got the racial stat differences baked into your world-building and NPCs (and include the suggestion that the average elf is equal to the very best of humanity, something way more problematic than just giving them +2 Dex/-2 Con) but have simply removed the player-facing elements so it's harder for people to point to in the book and complain about.

Also, PC/NPC separation is something of a pet peeve of mine, particularly when it's in blatant ways that are reflected in game.

Ignimortis
2020-12-25, 12:54 PM
Again: correct logic founded on incorrect premises yields incorrect conclusions. You can gatekeep correct premises behind a stat like Wisdom - it is the exact same solution I posed with Perception - but you don't need Intelligence as a stat in this equation at all.

A system honestly interested in modeling speed of thinking is trivial to implement but no version of D&D, or most other games that have an Intelligence stat, actually implement it.

Well, what stat would something like hacking or medicine use? Having to make correct IC decisions in (usually) short amounts of time shouldn't probably be a player-based ability, considering few people know much of such things to actually describe a correct procedure - especially if it's not necessarily the same thing as IRL, i.e. medicine in sci-fi, or hacking in Shadowrun, which is much more action-y.

This argument is basically the same thing as Charisma - most games assume that a Charisma check is supplemented with some roleplaying of the action taken, or at least a presentation of arguments, and that means the player is expected to make some sort of contribution regardless of their CHA score. In fact, I've played with some people who were harshly against CHA being a stat at all, as they said that it diminished roleplaying and made persuasion and deception more reliant on stats than choosing the right words.

Besides, I don't think that having a character stat sometimes correct a player's inability to make right choices is a bad thing. One might want to play a smart character while not being smart (or at least as smart) themselves, they just need to not be a prick about it, like the person described above insisting that their character is smart enough to not make a mistake. And they can always roll for it, you know? If they do roll INT or LOG or w/e well enough, give them a hint or a warning. If they don't, then their character made a mistake — which is fine, everyone makes mistakes sometimes, even the smartest people. That's why you play a TTRPG instead of just pretend - to have a chance of failure, a chance of success, and the numbers on which to base those things.

SwordCoastTaxi
2020-12-25, 12:54 PM
The funny aspect here is racially-based ability modifiers CREATE DIVERSITY in a game. It differentiates Orcs from Elves from Humans. It adds identity, capability, and disability.

Removing those mods makes all races the same, which could be identified as boring design since it makes player choice ineffectual.

Draconi Redfir
2020-12-25, 01:08 PM
The funny aspect here is racially-based ability modifiers CREATE DIVERSITY in a game. It differentiates Orcs from Elves from Humans. It adds identity, capability, and disability.

Removing those mods makes all races the same, which could be identified as boring design since it makes player choice ineffectual.

*inset "this. *points up*" image here*


the whole point of having different playable races with different modifiers, cultures, and abilities is to let people play different things. If you want to have a human-only game then that's fine, but don't give me an urban human dude painted green and tell me it's a goblin.

Silly Name
2020-12-25, 01:18 PM
The funny aspect here is racially-based ability modifiers CREATE DIVERSITY in a game. It differentiates Orcs from Elves from Humans. It adds identity, capability, and disability.

Removing those mods makes all races the same, which could be identified as boring design since it makes player choice ineffectual.

+X to Thing isn't the only way to differentiate humans from elves and orcs. It's, in my experience, one of the least interesting ways to make them different.

In the context of D&D 5e, I could make orcs that fit the usual archetype by switching the bonus to Strength with Powerful Build. They're still stronger than an average human being, and mechanically distinct thanks to all the doodads like Darkvision, Relentless Endurance and Savage Attacks (the latter also plays in the idea of higher strength). Give them the option to pick a Skill and/or Tool proficiency from a pool that makes sense for orcs in your world and you're done.

None of those abilities are vanilla +X to Thing, yet they play in the archetypal idea of orcs being strong and resilient without making them the optimal choice for every Strength-based character, because now if you pick elf as your race you aren't effectively giving up a bonus ASI spent on Strength (this obviously assumes we give every race this treatment).

I feel that moving away from racial ability modifiers is a good way to design options without falling back on the lazy choice of "humans but stronger/quicker/healthier". This is a possibility even if your game isn't derivative of D&D. If you're making, I don't know, a Star Trek inspired game, I'd like Vulcan to have the ability to hide/suppress their emotions and think clear even when under stress rather than just having a bonus to mental stats or skills.

Talakeal
2020-12-25, 01:44 PM
*inset "this. *points up*" image here*


the whole point of having different playable races with different modifiers, cultures, and abilities is to let people play different things. If you want to have a human-only game then that's fine, but don't give me an urban human dude painted green and tell me it's a goblin.

This works both ways though.

Imagine wanting to play a goblin, only to find out that they suck at whatever archetype you want to play and you will be at a huge mechanical disadvantage the entire campaign.

SwordCoastTaxi
2020-12-25, 01:53 PM
+X to Thing isn't the only way to differentiate humans from elves and orcs. It's, in my experience, one of the least interesting ways to make them different.

In the context of D&D 5e, I could make orcs that fit the usual archetype by switching the bonus to Strength with Powerful Build. They're still stronger than an average human being, and mechanically distinct thanks to all the doodads like Darkvision, Relentless Endurance and Savage Attacks (the latter also plays in the idea of higher strength). Give them the option to pick a Skill and/or Tool proficiency from a pool that makes sense for orcs in your world and you're done.

None of those abilities are vanilla +X to Thing, yet they play in the archetypal idea of orcs being strong and resilient without making them the optimal choice for every Strength-based character, because now if you pick elf as your race you aren't effectively giving up a bonus ASI spent on Strength (this obviously assumes we give every race this treatment).

I feel that moving away from racial ability modifiers is a good way to design options without falling back on the lazy choice of "humans but stronger/quicker/healthier". This is a possibility even if your game isn't derivative of D&D. If you're making, I don't know, a Star Trek inspired game, I'd like Vulcan to have the ability to hide/suppress their emotions and think clear even when under stress rather than just having a bonus to mental stats or skills.
Yes, but we're discussing GAME. Games have mechanical aspects. How do you express Orcs as "strong" without an in-game mechanic? Are you desiring a "let's-play-pretend" storygame that excludes modifiers and dice? If WotC did that with D&D it would destroy the game, and possibly the hobby.

You suggest a Vulcan being something other than a Roddenberry Vulcan. Okay. You can do that at your table if the group agrees. The issue is you wanting racial sameness to extend, as official content, across the hobby.

The preface of the AD&D GM Guide is Gygax telling DMs they can run any kind of game we want, outside of official, GENCON-related games. The rules are OURS, so homebrew is the STANDARD.

You want to make YOUR rules the standard. That will NEVER happen. EVER.

Morty
2020-12-25, 01:57 PM
I would argue "by not having racial ability modifiers." Regardless of real-world concerns, they're boring. They basically vanish as soon as you're done with character creation, especially if you didn't min-max (ie, if you start with a 20 when the normal max at creation is 18, that's at least sort of noticeable; if you start with a 16, who can even tell?) If you want orcs to be stronger than humans, it's more fun to give them something like Powerful Build than +2 Strength.

That's my take on it. Racial stat modifiers are far more trouble than they're worth and there are better ways to handle racial characteristics - ones that don't lock them into particular roles as much.

Grim Portent
2020-12-25, 02:02 PM
My preferred way is to only have mechanical distinctions where they're going to have significant implications to play.

Rogue Trader inclues three non-human races to play as and each comes with a huge difference in stats compared to humans, has a unique class that only they can take and has access to talents/traits that humans can't get.

A Dark Eldar can jump off a building and take no damage where the others would all be smooshed to paste, a Kroot can peel open armour with it's bare hands, an Ork can survive a shotgun blast to the face that would reduce the others to a pile of miscellaneous meat, and those are only where their differences start.

They also interact differently with the medicine skill, implants, some weapons and armour, diplomacy and so on.

These differences generally grow more pronounced as the game progresses as well. The frailest starting Ork is as tough as all but the toughest humans, and by the end game a tough Ork is unable to be harmed by anything short of anti-tank weapons because they're just that big and tough.



For races as D&D does them a 5% difference to a roll here or there is so minimal it's not worth the paper it's printed on imo. Make elves agile as the wind and fragile as ice, orcs as strong as oxen and thick as planks and so on and they'll actually be distinct. A piddly little -x or +x here or there amounts to nothing more than statistical noise.

SwordCoastTaxi
2020-12-25, 02:05 PM
If you homebrew the rules, especially Abilities, you've already gone outside of the racially-based mechanics offered.

Vahnavoi
2020-12-25, 02:12 PM
Well, what stat would something like hacking or medicine use?

Actual solutions used by other games:

Ancient Domains of Mystery solution: Learning. That is, a stat representing general book learning and memory.

Praedor: no stat. Some skills are purely taught and you have to buy them up from a flat minimum, with no help from primary abilities.


Having to make correct IC decisions in (usually) short amounts of time shouldn't probably be a player-based ability.

Wrong. It always depends on player skill, or you don't have a player playing. What changes is what player skill is being used and to what degree. When you abstract, say, hacking or medicine to a simple dice game using addition and substraction of small numbers, you obviously don't use the player's real skill in hacking or medicine, but you do use the player's skill to solve trivial math problems.

Eliminating player skill is not a good game design goal.


considering few people know much of such things to actually describe a correct procedure - especially if it's not necessarily the same thing as IRL, i.e. medicine in sci-fi, or hacking in Shadowrun, which is much more action-y.

Does a fictionalized task need to use exact same skills as the equivalent real life task? Obviously not. But this obvious truth does not get you far down the road of game design. Once you've decided your Guitar Hero game is going to use a toy guitar instead of a real guitar, you still need to design a toy guitar that can provide sufficient challenge for skilled players to stay interested.


This argument is basically the same thing as Charisma - most games assume that a Charisma check is supplemented with some roleplaying of the action taken, or at least a presentation of arguments, and that means the player is expected to make some sort of contribution regardless of their CHA score. In fact, I've played with some people who were harshly against CHA being a stat at all, as they said that it diminished roleplaying and made persuasion and deception more reliant on stats than choosing the right words.

Yes, I am one of those people who'd argue against excessive mechanization of Charisma, or social skills in general. :smalltongue: You have living people capable of emulating human behaviour at the table, you can replace hard social problems with easier social problems and have people actually socialize at the table, instead of reducing social interaction to a die roll.

For contrast, notice how you can't make the same argument for Strength. Obviously, it's possible to make a game based on real physical activity by players, but it rapidly escapes design space of a tabletop game, because you can't have people sitting at a table when they're running around. Point being: each real ability and each real skill has its own design space for making games. Abstracting them all to same type of simple math problem is easy, but it's not be-all-end-all for RPG design.


Besides, I don't think that having a character stat sometimes correct a player's inability to make right choices is a bad thing. One might want to play a smart character while not being smart (or at least as smart) themselves, they just need to not be a prick about it, like the person described above insisting that their character is smart enough to not make a mistake. And they can always roll for it, you know? If they do roll INT or LOG or w/e well enough, give them a hint or a warning. If they don't, then their character made a mistake — which is fine, everyone makes mistakes sometimes, even the smartest people. That's why you play a TTRPG instead of just pretend - to have a chance of failure, a chance of success, and the numbers on which to base those things.

Rolling to get a hint is, again, fundamentally the same as my suggestion regarding Perception. I agree it's functional, but you don't need a roll to mechanize it. Example: you get to ask one binary question, Twenty Questions style, for each point of Perception (or Logic or Intelligence, if you insist). And you're guaranteed to get a correct answer. This actually involves the player using logic while making the task easier with higher Perception, with no need to involve dice.

Silly Name
2020-12-25, 02:42 PM
Yes, but we're discussing GAME. Games have mechanical aspects. How do you express Orcs as "strong" without an in-game mechanic? Are you desiring a "let's-play-pretend" storygame that excludes modifiers and dice? If WotC did that with D&D it would destroy the game, and possibly the hobby.

Did you actually read what I wrote? The orc I proposed is still stronger (can carry and push more, deals extra damage in melee), it simply isn't so through getting a flat bonus to an ability score.


You suggest a Vulcan being something other than a Roddenberry Vulcan. Okay. You can do that at your table if the group agrees. The issue is you wanting racial sameness to extend, as official content, across the hobby.

So, the fact all Vulcan in this hypothetical game would have a mechanic that lets them keep their cool in situations where humans freak out (and in general control their emotions better) isn't enough to make them not the same as humans? They need to have "+2 to Logic & Reason" for you to consider them a mechanically different option?


You want to make YOUR rules the standard. That will NEVER happen. EVER.

Uh... ok? I was just offering my opinion, I didn't mean you need to burn your books because I think there are other ways to create mechanical differences between humans, orcs and elves.

Draconi Redfir
2020-12-25, 03:00 PM
This works both ways though.

Imagine wanting to play a goblin, only to find out that they suck at whatever archetype you want to play and you will be at a huge mechanical disadvantage the entire campaign.


Magical items, DM intervention, or just plain adaptation can all fix this.

Want to play a Goblin Bard but have lowsy charisma? Well, You could:

Get a headband of extra charisma

Talk to the DM to see if you can base your perform (Acrobatics) on Dexterity instead of Charisma

Adapt to say that your character is not a very good bard

Talk to the DM to see if you can trade your Dexterity bonus for a Charisma one via backstory

etc

If you chose to play as a Goblin Bard, then you should be willing and able to play as a Goblin Bard.

Vahnavoi
2020-12-25, 03:34 PM
This works both ways though.

Imagine wanting to play a goblin, only to find out that they suck at whatever archetype you want to play and you will be at a huge mechanical disadvantage the entire campaign.

So you, as a game designer, state that playing goblin means playing on Hard Mode. Problem solved! :smallwink:

Seriously: there is no imperative for each playable character to be distinctly advantaged. Being distinctly disadvantaged can be a feature in itself, as it actually is in plenty of games.

This is where you need to, at least for a moment, abandon the idea that making a character is about player self-expression, and instead consider the idea that making a character is about choosing a challenge.

KaussH
2020-12-25, 04:26 PM
This works both ways though.

Imagine wanting to play a goblin, only to find out that they suck at whatever archetype you want to play and you will be at a huge mechanical disadvantage the entire campaign.

So...you read the race write up, including whatever makes you suck at something, and you choose to be a goblin anyway? In my brain that means you want something else from the goblin write up. It has, as written, something you like.


So race attributes, depends a little on the game, but for me the stat mods +/- just reflect details about that race. I made a race with a + st and - int for 2nd ed. It's a larger than normal oral tradition race. (7 foot is on the low end) self proclaimed masters of the sea, sailors and islanders. No one one ooc or ic thinks they are dumb, and its presented in game as a lack of written training (int) and more stories, traditions, songs, ect (wis and cha learning and skills)

Long point made short, as long as you dont make a terrible culture, the stat mods are often fine.

Now to address the best race with best stat to be the best class, that is honestly an ooc issue. Being the best is not needed to play games. You want to be a person, not a robot statatron (my 2 cents)
But in game, characters dont say "Bob's half orc gets a plus 5 and I dont." That is a purely player thing.

MoiMagnus
2020-12-25, 05:05 PM
This, to me, smacks of an attempt at obfuscation more than anything else.

It depends what is the problem you're trying to solve.

Some peoples have absolutely 0 problems with races having ability modifiers in-universe, but dislike the mechanical effects of it at the level of character creation. And for that this is the perfect solution, you keep the in-universe distinction and get rid of the unwanted mechanical effect.

On the other hand, some peoples have 0 problems with the mechanics of having racial ability modifiers but are uncomfortable with the consequences it has in term of world-building, and for them this solution is obfuscation.

Talakeal
2020-12-25, 05:35 PM
Now to address the best race with best stat to be the best class, that is honestly an ooc issue. Being the best is not needed to play games. You want to be a person, not a robot statatron (my 2 cents)
But in game, characters dont say "Bob's half orc gets a plus 5 and I dont." That is a purely player thing.

It is an issue both in and out of character. Stereotypes will absolutely exist in universe, and there will be many characters in the setting who are told they cant do something they want to do because of their race.

At a player level, many players simply want to be the best character and wont choose an inferior race, thus reducing diversity at the table.

On the other hand, some players will just like a race and be frustrated that they have to suffer penalties for playing the race they like.

Imo PCs are already special individuals, I don’t see any problem with having PCs who break stereotypes instead of reinforcing them.

Vahnavoi
2020-12-25, 05:53 PM
At a player level, many players simply want to be the best character and wont choose an inferior race, thus reducing diversity at the table

[...]

Imo PCs are already special individuals, I don’t see any problem with having PCs who break stereotypes instead of reinforcing them.

It has been pointed out you by multiple people that you don't really get stereotype-breaking characters if your point-buy system makes it too easy and too optimal to play a stereotype. Having player characters break internal stereotypes of your setting is not really preferable. To use an example that's been spoofed all to Hell, including in Order of the Stick: a Chaotic Good male Drow rebelling against their Evil matriarchal society was only original the first time. If all playable Drows fit that bill, you've only "broken" the stereotype of Evil Drow by substituting it with stereotype of Self-Hating Drow. :smalltongue:


On the other hand, some players will just like a race and be frustrated that they have to suffer penalties for playing the race they like.
.

I'd like you to take a moment and explain to me, what do you think these people like about a race when they clearly don't like the mechanical implementation? Where do they get the idea of what they want to play when clearly, in this situation, it can't be the game system?

Kane0
2020-12-25, 06:20 PM
Currently, it is a point buy system and all stats cost the same amount, but have different ranges for different species, so orcs can put more points into strength than a human and halflings less, which isn't quite the same thing as straight modifiers, but is pretty similar in end results.

Thanks!

Can you elaborate on your current setup? Might be helpful to directly critique with modifiers in mind.

Talakeal
2020-12-25, 06:23 PM
It has been pointed out you by multiple people that you don't really get stereotype-breaking characters if your point-buy system makes it too easy and too optimal to play a stereotype. Having player characters break internal stereotypes of your setting is not really preferable. To use an example that's been spoofed all to Hell, including in Order of the Stick: a Chaotic Good male Drow rebelling against their Evil matriarchal society was only original the first time. If all playable Drows fit that bill, you've only "broken" the stereotype of Evil Drow by substituting it with stereotype of Self-Hating Drow. :smalltongue:

Maybe in an MMO or something, but for a tabletop RPG the sample size is really too small for that to be an issue. The Drizzt thing isnt a trend for players, its a popular novel character who has, allegedly, been copied a whole bunch, although I must admit I have been playing D&D for decades and never seen it.

If diversity in PC races is your goal, I don't see how forcing then to adhere to stereotypes is going to help. Likewise, I don't see any reason why it is a bad thing for PC demographics and NPC demographics to line up.


I'd like you to take a moment and explain to me, what do you think these people like about a race when they clearly don't like the mechanical implementation? Where do they get the idea of what they want to play when clearly, in this situation, it can't be the game system?

Aesthetics? Culture? Psychology?

For example, I am currently playing a Changeling the Dreaming campaign. In that system, there are a plethora of different fantasy races, and the only mechanical difference between each race is that they get two benefits and one penalty. Sometimes these are numerical in nature, but usually aren’t.

Still, the different races are so fleshed out that people still enthusiastically choose races and have all sorts of preferences.

Talakeal
2020-12-25, 06:27 PM
Can you elaborate on your current setup? Might be helpful to directly critique with modifiers in mind.

I would love to.

What specifically would you like me to share?

Draconi Redfir
2020-12-25, 06:31 PM
If diversity in PC races is your goal, I don't see how forcing then to adhere to stereotypes is going to help. Likewise, I don't see any reason why it is a bad thing for PC demographics and NPC demographics to line up

The only people being "Forced" to adhere to stereotypes are the people who think they are the only way to play. there is nothing preventing anyone from playing a halfling barbarian or a half-orc wizard. you can absolutely play those without issue and still have them be viable and effective characters. the racial traits are only a problem if you -personally- make them a problem.

Talakeal
2020-12-25, 07:12 PM
The only people being "Forced" to adhere to stereotypes are the people who think they are the only way to play. there is nothing preventing anyone from playing a halfling barbarian or a half-orc wizard. you can absolutely play those without issue and still have them be viable and effective characters. the racial traits are only a problem if you -personally- make them a problem.

Do keep in mind that I was directly responding to this:


Having player characters break internal stereotypes of your setting is not really preferable.

I suppose the word "force" is a bit of hyperbole, but it really depends on the system.

We aren't talking about D&D as is, but about designing a system in a vacuum. Some systems do indeed flat out prohibit certain race / class combinations, for example World of Warcraft bans players from making characters of non stereotypical race / class combinations because it wants those rare NPCs who buck the stereotypes to feel more special. And some systems effectively ban certain combinations by just making them too mechanically ineffective to even consider.


When designing a new system, I really don't think there is any valid justification for saying "no" to a player who wants to have green skin and tusks but also wants to (eventually) be the most powerful wizard in all the land just because most orcs are anti-intellectual barbarians.

Kane0
2020-12-25, 08:47 PM
I would love to.

What specifically would you like me to share?

- What are the stats?
- How do you allocate stats using Point Buy in your system?
- What races do you currently have and what are their ranges?
- What variables are and are not subject to change via our input?

Keltest
2020-12-25, 09:01 PM
This works both ways though.

Imagine wanting to play a goblin, only to find out that they suck at whatever archetype you want to play and you will be at a huge mechanical disadvantage the entire campaign.

Going to take a moment here to point out that this is a feature, not a bug. If you want to play a goblin, then youre either expecting to play into their type, in which case this isnt a problem, or youre prepared to play against type and are actually banking on that.

Like, if i want to play a big muscly barbarian, im not going to be a gnome unless i deliberately want to invoke the gnome doing something he's bad at as part of the character.

Herbert_W
2020-12-25, 09:11 PM
Regarding mechanical role given to Intelligence stat, you're not wrong. You can scrub out "Intelligence" and replace it with "Learning" and, with no further changes to mechanical niche of that stat, boom, all's fine.

The reason why this isn't a solved problem is because some players bake the idea of intelligence, as in the ability to make smart decisions, into their character concept. They want to play, say, a genius detective because they read a book once and it had this cool genius detective in it, but they (the players) think (rightly or wrongly) they can't do the genius detective stuff themselves, so they want the game system to give them a leg up.

Renaming "intelligence" to "learning" (or "memory," which I think is a bit more appropriate, but either would do) won't solve all problems forever, but I do think that it would be a step in the right direction.

Your example of a player who wants to play as a character who's more intelligent than they are actually supports my point. It's inevitable that one of the following will be true:

Either someone else tells the player what their character won't do, or
their character will sometimes make stupid mistakes, or
they need to be intelligent IRL in order to play an intelligent character.

A player who isn't aware of this Morton's fork could walk into a game with expectations that'll inevitably never be met. They're doomed to disappointment. Letting them write "INT 18" on their character sheet sets up and reinforces this doomed expectation, and when you take these players out back to quietly shoot them manage expectations, they'll point to those character sheets and exclaim "But this! This! This says that I can get the experience that you're now turning around and saying is impossible!"

If those sheets instead read "MEM 18" (or LRN 18 or something similar) then those troublesome expectations either wouldn't exist in the first place or would be easier to expel.

In short, having a stat named intelligence doesn't let players bake intelligence, as in the ability to make good decisions, into their character concept. It only lets them think that they can and sets them up for disappointment. It's better to rip that bandaid off at character creation IMO.


This, to me, smacks of an attempt at obfuscation more than anything else. You've still got the racial stat differences baked into your world-building and NPCs (and include the suggestion that the average elf is equal to the very best of humanity, something way more problematic than just giving them +2 Dex/-2 Con) but have simply removed the player-facing elements so it's harder for people to point to in the book and complain about.

Also, PC/NPC separation is something of a pet peeve of mine, particularly when it's in blatant ways that are reflected in game.


It depends what is the problem you're trying to solve.

Some peoples have absolutely 0 problems with races having ability modifiers in-universe, but dislike the mechanical effects of it at the level of character creation. And for that this is the perfect solution, you keep the in-universe distinction and get rid of the unwanted mechanical effect.

On the other hand, some peoples have 0 problems with the mechanics of having racial ability modifiers but are uncomfortable with the consequences it has in term of world-building, and for them this solution is obfuscation.

MoiMagnus is mostly right here; I'm trying to solve the mechanical problems associated with racial ability modifiers. The worldbuilding implications aren't what I'm trying to address through mechanics.

That's not because I don't care about the worldbuilding implications and I'm not trying to obfuscate anything, though. That's because I think that worldbuilding implications should be addressed through worldbuilding. There are two directions that you can go in here.

The first would be to build a non-discriminatory cosmopolitan society around whatever mechanics exist. Most races in DnD have ability scores that still usually fall within the human norm. -2 isn't more than human-to-human random variation. Sure, clever half-orcs are statistically less common than clever humans, but they do exist, so every half-orc deserves the same chance as a human would get. Fictional races with severe negative ability score modifiers aren't fundamentally different from humans with disabilities, so we can look to the way that people with disabilities are (or should be) treated for inspiration. There's a tricky balance to be struck here - on one hand, acknowledging and providing support for the disability, and on the other acknowledging that people with disabilities still have agency and can sometimes be quite capable. Nonetheless, that's a balance that can be struck in the real world so there's absolutely no reason why it couldn't in a fictional one.

The second is to build overtly discriminatory societies around the mechanics, make it clear to your players that these societies are not OK, and use that as a source of conflict in your games.

Personally, I'm inclined towards the second approach. It makes for a more thoughtful and more complex game where even the "good guy" authorities are morally flawed and where the players will on occasion need to subvert those authorities to do what's right.

What I said about elves compared to humans was just an example of something that might be true in a given campaign setting - it's a possible facet of worldbuilding that's compatible with the mechanics that I'm suggesting, but not required by anything.

If PC/NPC separation is a pet peeve of yours, then . . . well, that's you. Most players are comfortable with it. PCs in most RPGs, DnD included, are significantly more capable overall than the average inhabitant of their worlds.


This works both ways though. . . . Imagine wanting to play a goblin, only to find out that they suck at whatever archetype you want to play and you will be at a huge mechanical disadvantage the entire campaign.


Magical items, DM intervention, or just plain adaptation can all fix this.

The fact that a problem can be fixed doesn't change the fact that there's a problem. By using the word "fix," you're implicitly acknowledging that there's something broken here. A better system wouldn't have that problem in the first place.

Theoretically, any build could be made viable so long as players are willing to accept a reduction in power and/or DMs are willing to hand out whatever homebrew or level-inappropriate thing is required to balance it. Realistically, most players don't like being underpowered and most DMs are wary about handing out things which a different player might later abuse.

Practically speaking, you do end up with situations where players say to themselves "Hey, you know what would be comedy gold? A goblin bard! Every song he sings would be incredibly crude - 'casue that's just how goblins roll - and he'd end up adventuring because every respectable employer kicks him out . . ." and then wind up being disappointed that they couldn't make a viable character out of that idea.

There are other combinations that obviously don't and probably shouldn't work, such as a pixie barbarian. Someone who wants to play as a pixie barbarian obviously wants to have a hard time. My point here is that the range of character ideas that are viable is much less broad than it should be and that the racial ability modifier score system is to blame.

Draconi Redfir
2020-12-25, 09:35 PM
i think you're looking at small racial modifiers too much as big character-defining things. At the end of the day, there is very little difference between a level 10 sorcerer with a charisma of 20, and a level 10 sorcerer with a charisma of 18. just because one got a +2 charisma bonus and one got a -2 charisma penalty doesn't mean squat in the long term, they're both equally viable characters who can both do what they need to do to more or less the same effect. The first sorcerer might have a higher DC to their spells, but that's really about it.

racial bonuses are really more general flavor for culture and biology then anything else. The Dwarves are hearty and wise, but pretty blunt, hence +2 con, +2 wis, -2 Cha. You can still make a dwarven bard all you want, nothing is stopping you, and you'll likely be just as good as that Elven bard down the line. In the meantime you could use those modifiers to help define or balance out your character. if you wanted, you could drain your Con down to an 8 for extra point buy, then use the +2 racial bonus to keep it at an average 10. Or just put a couple points into it to get a pretty decent 14.

VoxRationis
2020-12-25, 09:43 PM
MoiMagnus is mostly right here; I'm trying to solve the mechanical problems associated with racial ability modifiers. The worldbuilding implications aren't what I'm trying to address through mechanics.

Ah, fair. I apologize for the misunderstanding. I thought that you were reacting to the OP's original vein of conversation, that an aversion to ability score modifiers was to be viewed in the context of addressing racism and whatnot.


If PC/NPC separation is a pet peeve of yours, then . . . well, that's you. Most players are comfortable with it. PCs in most RPGs, DnD included, are significantly more capable overall than the average inhabitant of their worlds.

"Average inhabitant" is different from "average NPC." It's accepted (at least in certain systems) that PCs are both innately more able and have more advanced training than the majority of individuals in the setting. However, if the NPCs who fit into the same positions as the PCs end up behaving mechanically differently (say, because the NPCs have racial stat modifiers and the PCs do not, or because various low-level enemies have access to unique abilities that PCs of thematically equivalent class can't get until later, or because the NPC warlord can endure ten times as much damage as the PC fighter, but only do half as much damage, because it is intended as a boss fight), it breaks verisimilitude.



Theoretically, any build could be made viable so long as players are willing to accept a reduction in power and/or DMs are willing to hand out whatever homebrew or level-inappropriate thing is required to balance it. Realistically, most players don't like being underpowered and most DMs are wary about handing out things which a different player might later abuse.

Practically speaking, you do end up with situations where players say to themselves "Hey, you know what would be comedy gold? A goblin bard! Every song he sings would be incredibly crude - 'casue that's just how goblins roll - and he'd end up adventuring because every respectable employer kicks him out . . ." and then wind up being disappointed that they couldn't make a viable character out of that idea.

There are other combinations that obviously don't and probably shouldn't work, such as a pixie barbarian. Someone who wants to play as a pixie barbarian obviously wants to have a hard time. My point here is that the range of character ideas that are viable is much less broad than it should be and that the racial ability modifier score system is to blame.

Well, since the OP is discussing a system which is still under development, the solution is to make a system where these sorts of modifiers do not render a particular race/class combination nonviable. If Strength controls spell damage but Intelligence spell duration, for example, a half-orc wizard with higher than normal Strength but lower than normal Intelligence could still prove quite functional. The character will play differently from other wizards, but not necessarily at a disadvantage.

Now, if you acknowledge that pixie barbarians (being a rather extreme case) "shouldn't work," how do you plan on reinforcing that without having ability score modifiers? You could try and hack it by adding various traits like "does 1/4 melee damage" or the like, but that ends up being roundabout ways of doing the same thing as just giving them a Strength penalty and ends up breaking in various other scenarios, like said barbarian moving heavy objects.

Talakeal
2020-12-26, 01:16 AM
i think you're looking at small racial modifiers too much as big character-defining things. At the end of the day, there is very little difference between a level 10 sorcerer with a charisma of 20, and a level 10 sorcerer with a charisma of 18. just because one got a +2 charisma bonus and one got a -2 charisma penalty doesn't mean squat in the long term, they're both equally viable characters who can both do what they need to do to more or less the same effect. The first sorcerer might have a higher DC to their spells, but that's really about it.

Yeah, they aren't toobad in D&D. But still, in a reasonably low op game, but if you are playing a race with a -2 penalty to your prime stat vs. a race with a +2 bonus to the same stat, that can be a pretty big difference, especially when combined with other racial abilities that may or may not suit you.


- What are the stats?

Nothing too special, Agility, Charisma, Dexterity, Endurance, Intelligence, Perception, Strength, Willpower.


- How do you allocate stats using Point Buy in your system?

Starting characters get 50 points to distribute amongst their stats. They can also use these points to buy additional skills or feats, or take flaws for extra points.

Over the course of play characters get more points to improve their ability scores, and a maximum level character has roughly twice the currency of a starting character.


- What races do you currently have

A whole bunch. The game is built around the default assumption of human PCs, but the rules allow you to play anything in bestiary with GM permission.


and what are their ranges?

Humans have 1-10 in all stats. Magic, equipment, mutations, and the like can increase maximums up to 15.
Same races have natural caps as low as 5 or as high as 15. The augmented maximum is still fifteen.


So, let's look at Orcs, as they are often discussed and a pretty close to human analogue.

Currently, their ranges are:
Agility 1-9
Charisma 1-9
Dexterity 1-9
Endurance 3-12
Intelligence 1-9
Perception 1-9
Strength 3-12
Willpower 1-10

They also have symbiotic algae in their cells which halves their food intake and can see into the infrared spectrum which allows them to see warm bodies clearly in the dark but also blinds them in areas of excessive ambient heat.



What variables are and are not subject to change via our input?

At this stage pretty much anything short of redesigning the core mechanics of the game.

SwordCoastTaxi
2020-12-26, 01:21 AM
Racial modifiers are a mechanic of CHOICE. RPGs are big on player choices.

Removing the distinct aspect of racial choice and how that modifies capability takes something away from the game. Emphasis GAME. This isn't simple "Pretend", it is a game played around the world by some people that take it very seriously. If you remove options they've become accustomed to, they might feel a certain way.

Remember the 4th edition changes? It led to Paizo's Pathfinder becoming the dominant game over D&D.

As influential as D&D is now, never forget that tampering with the game mechanics can lead to ruin. It's why WotC isn't listening to the SJWs and their rant against races.

They've given you monsters to play as characters, but there will always be a level of culture and mechanical capability attached to that monster.

Morty
2020-12-26, 02:43 AM
Racial modifiers are a mechanic of CHOICE. RPGs are big on player choices.

Removing the distinct aspect of racial choice and how that modifies capability takes something away from the game. Emphasis GAME. This isn't simple "Pretend", it is a game played around the world by some people that take it very seriously. If you remove options they've become accustomed to, they might feel a certain way.

Remember the 4th edition changes? It led to Paizo's Pathfinder becoming the dominant game over D&D.

As influential as D&D is now, never forget that tampering with the game mechanics can lead to ruin. It's why WotC isn't listening to the SJWs and their rant against races.

They've given you monsters to play as characters, but there will always be a level of culture and mechanical capability attached to that monster.

You do realize the OP is talking about their own system, don't you? They haven't broken into the WotC office with a nefarious plan to change D&D forever.

Kane0
2020-12-26, 03:04 AM
Nothing too special, Agility, Charisma, Dexterity, Endurance, Intelligence, Perception, Strength, Willpower.

I personally dont see enough of a reason to sparate dexterity and agility but thats probably off topic.



Starting characters get 50 points to distribute amongst their stats. They can also use these points to buy additional skills or feats, or take flaws for extra points.

Over the course of play characters get more points to improve their ability scores, and a maximum level character has roughly twice the currency of a starting character.

50 plus Flaws plus another 50 from progression may be too generous? It sounds really generous, suppose that impression depends on skill, feat and ability costs.



Humans have 1-10 in all stats. Magic, equipment, mutations, and the like can increase maximums up to 15.
Same races have natural caps as low as 5 or as high as 15. The augmented maximum is still fifteen.

Im not seeing a problem with that really. Some might chafe at the ‘penalties’ though, same reasoning that 5e dropped them.

Edit: what i would suggest is instead of races changing the available range (which is a racial bonus in disguise) institute increasing costs for higher stat values and races give discounts to that increasing cost. There is still an ‘optimal’ use for your points, you cant really get around that, but at least you arent ‘forced’ to spend you points in certain ways based on race and feel ‘wasted’.

Vahnavoi
2020-12-26, 05:07 AM
Maybe in an MMO or something, but for a tabletop RPG the sample size is really too small for that to be an issue. The Drizzt thing isnt a trend for players, its a popular novel character who has, allegedly, been copied a whole bunch, although I must admit I have been playing D&D for decades and never seen it.

If you're raising too small sample sizes as a point, that implies you don't except to play a lot of different games with your own system, and don't really care about what other people do it. Also, Drizzt thing was a trend for players, that's part of what the comic was spoofing. Drizzt codified the idea that a Ranger fights with two swords and this wormed its way to game mechanics of multiple games, including his parent game D&D. If you didn't see it, you didn't look too hard


If diversity in PC races is your goal, I don't see how forcing then to adhere to stereotypes is going to help. Likewise, I don't see any reason why it is a bad thing for PC demographics and NPC demographics to line up.

I'm not talking about forcing players to play stereotypes, I'm talking about your system encouraging, by it's mechanical structure, playing of stereotypical characters. Substituting one internal stereotype with another isn't preferable here. Also, again, if you want diversity and are fine with PC demographics lining up with NPC demographics, just randomize character creation already.




Aesthetics? Culture? Psychology?

[...]

Still, the different races are so fleshed out that people still enthusiastically choose races and have all sorts of preferences.

I'm going to ignore your Changeling example because I don't know that game and you aren't giving me enough information to give a reasoned analysis.

The point I want to make here is that since it's your game you want feedback for, explaining aesthetics, culture and psychology of your races is part of your system. It's part of the same package as your mechanics. If you're doing your job competently, the mechanical facets of your system are congrous with what you say about their aesthetics, culture and psychology.

So, for example, if your system says goblins are small, ugly and evil and they are at mechanical disadvantage because of that: if a player wants to play a goblins that's neither small nor ugly nor evil, what exactly are they liking about your goblins?


When designing a new system, I really don't think there is any valid justification for saying "no" to a player who wants to have green skin and tusks but also wants to (eventually) be the most powerful wizard in all the land just because most orcs are anti-intellectual barbarians.

If your designing a new system, what's your valid justification for having orcs in the first place?

It's already been pointed out that if you want race to be a cosmetic difference - if putting green skin and tusks on a wizard is all it's about - then nix racial modifiers entirely. Don't complicate your game system with mechanics that you don't really want to matter.

But beyond that, let me write you another satirical conversation:

GM: "In this world, dark elves are called Drow, they are an evil, subterranean, matriarchal spider-worshipping race."
Player: "That's so cool! I want to play a Drow!"
GM: "Nice! So let's start by rolling your abi-..."
Player: "But I don't want to be evil."
GM: "Okay? Well, that's workable..."
Player: "I also don't want to play any subterranean adventures. Those are so cliched."
GM: *Puzzled* "... well okay, you could be
part of an exploration party send to the surface..."
Player: "I also don't want to worship spiders."
GM: "... well they do have some other gods..."
Player: "Also, I find this matriarchy thing not to my tastes, so I'll play a lone male who has no ties to that social paradigm.
GM: *Looks at the player* "Okay, let's see if I got this right: I described an evil, subterranean, matriarchal spider-worshipping race..."
Player: "That's right!"
GM: "... but you want your character to not be evil, not live underground, not worship spiders and not have anything to do with their social order?"
Player: "Yes!"
GM: *crossing their arms* "... what, exactly, did you find cool about my Drow?"
Player: *points to a book* "Well, you see, they have dark skin in that picture."
GM: "And?"
Player: "And I find your game has too few dark skinned people in it."
GM: "Okay?"
Player: "So I thought I'd fix that by playing a Drow."
GM: "Uh..."
Player: "But I don't want to be part of an evil matriarchy. That'd give a bad impression of dark skinned people. So, instead, I will be lovable good ranger!"
GM: "You... you do realize my setting has actual dark skinned humans in it? Including an entire culture of immigrant from historical Egypt?"
Player: *puzzled* "Yes?"
GM: "So if you want a positive representation of dark skinned people, why not play, you know, a dark skinned human?"
Player: "... but they're not elves."
GM: "... I'm sorry?"
Player: "They're not elves. So they don't have pointed ears. Or this totally awesome bonus to dexterity. Playing a ranger is totally unoptimal without a bonus to dexterity."
GM: "Doesn't sound like you really want to play a Drow at all."
Player: "How come? I just said I wanted to play a Drow."
GM: "Would you be satisfied with playing an Egyptian with one-time boost to dexterity?"
Everyone else at the table: "Hey, wait a second! You didn't give us that option when we made our characters!"
GM: "... why's that a big deal all of a sudden?"
Player 2: "I totally wouldn't have picked orc and eaten an ability score penalty to mental stats if I could've just been a human with a bonus to strength.
GM: "But I thought you liked exploring orc culture and special disadvantages they have in society?"
Player 2: "Well sort of, but these penalties totally stink. I could've just picked a human and... I dunno, pretended I was still an orc?"
Player 3: "Refluffed."
Player 2: "Say what?"
Player 3: "Not 'pretended'. Refluffed. It's what you call it when you take a mechanic made to model one thing and use it for a completely different thing!"
GM: "Hold on... so you would've been fine playing... refluffed humans?"
Player 2: "Yes."
GM: "But then, what was the point of me creating all these special mechanics to model differences between orcs and humans?"
Player 2: "Eh, I don't play orcs for the mechanics, I play them to explore the culture, the psychology..."
GM: "But those mechanics are there to model the culture and the psychology! How are you supposed to explore being disadvantaged withouy actually having any disadvantage?"
Player 2: *sips juice through a straw* "Eh, I can just roleplay it."
Player 1: "So, can I play a Drow now?"

Kane0
2020-12-26, 05:14 AM
-Snip-

Did... did you bug my table?

Morty
2020-12-26, 06:21 AM
Racial bonuses to attributes and skills could work in a "lifepath" style of character creation, where you assemble your character from various options instead of having direct control over the numbers. So getting a strength bonus for being an orc wouldn't be much different from getting one from being a laborer or getting a survival bonus for having survived famine or whatnot. In a more traditional point-buy, they're a waste of time.

Quertus
2020-12-26, 08:11 AM
Multiple quotes can get so unwieldy.

So, it depends on what you mean by "right" or "best".

Oldschool D&D used small modifiers on bell-curve rolled stats, alongside racial abilities like Infrared vision and Immunity to Sleep, plus racial level limits (plus "die-> start over at level 1, unless you've made it to level x), to make other races great starter charters for beginners, who then graduate on to the humans that Gygax wanted to see dominate the party.

The Ancient Domains of Mystery, with *huge* start modifiers, method makes race *mean* something, makes races play very differently, even for the same class.

One homebrew I played used point buy with XP, and cost multipliers on stats, ranging from x1 to x5. I loved playing the mineral people, who had x1 on DR (*most* races had x4 or x5), whereas my brother, a true spike, preferred the draconic races, who had the overall best multipliers (plus other racial advantages, like flight and energy immunity).

The Warhammer Fantasy method gave oldschool D&D style small bonuses and penalties, alongside named modifiers (like "strong" or "tough" or "flee!") that were already being used by the system / classes. It was great for detailing exactly what did and did not stack, and for making the mechanics consistent and easily referenced.

The marvel facerip method effectively had you roll different dice for stats based on race (imagine if humans rolled d4s, and gods rolled d10s). This made different races very different, like they are in the comics.

I've played games where, on level-up, you got to improve 2 attributes… but (at least) 1 *had* to be a "preferred" attribute (Dex or Magic for elves, Strength or Con for dwarves, etc).

The Talakeal method of being one of several methods of changing the cap in point buy is great for making races meaningless ("cosmetic") outside of min-maxing. And point buy is great for letting people create the character that they envision, and for min-maxing. So it's a system that has doubled down on encouraging min-maxing.

So, start with answering the question, "what do you want?". Then we can describe a system which does that.

Anymage
2020-12-26, 01:49 PM
Is anyone else reading this and coming to the conclusion that, from a game design standpoint, trying to please everybody is futile? D&D by dint of being huge and iconic might want to maximize appeal, but Talakeal's game isn't going to be facing that.

Also, I do think it's worth noting that most fans of flex stats aren't calling racial modifiers actively racist. They can say that they diminish the real options at the table to only ones with properly stat boosts, or that a stat modifier (especially one that boils down to just +1 to a roll) isn't all that exciting as a racial feature. Those are game design points. That's different from a race like drow having been written in problematic ways, which is solved by being more conscious in your writing. Again Tal won't be perfect, but it's worth splitting the game design elements from the world design elements.

Vahnavoi
2020-12-26, 03:01 PM
Is anyone else reading this and coming to the conclusion that, from a game design standpoint, trying to please everybody is futile?

That's a trivial truth that applies to everything. If you're only now drawing that conclusion, oh boy.


That's different from a race like drow having been written in problematic ways, which is solved by being more conscious in your writing. Again Tal won't be perfect, but it's worth splitting the game design elements from the world design elements.

World design is game design. Specifically, how you describe a race is how you communicate what that race's role is in your roleplaying game and single biggest justification for mechanized racial traits is modeling that role. If you do your job right, your setting and your mechanics should be harmonious with each other to the degree that a player who likes the description of a race also likes mechanics of that race. If this is not happening, you want to dig into why it's not happening, to see where the error is.

Herbert_W
2020-12-26, 03:33 PM
Well, since the OP is discussing a system which is still under development, the solution is to make a system where these sorts of modifiers do not render a particular race/class combination nonviable. If Strength controls spell damage but Intelligence spell duration, for example, a half-orc wizard with higher than normal Strength but lower than normal Intelligence could still prove quite functional. The character will play differently from other wizards, but not necessarily at a disadvantage.

That's possible, but it's a very tricky design goal. You also need to ensure that no race/class combination ends up overwhelmingly good, so as to render other options that fill that role strictly suboptimal. This would require that all ability scores be roughly equal in overall value to all classes.

You'd be effectively multiplexing all of the ability scores across all of the classes and requiring that each and every score/class combination is (a) not a killer problem if the score is low and (b) not overpowered if the score is high.

This design goal does become easier in a classless system, however. For example, I currently have a classless system on the back burner where a character's power level and versatility level are on separate progression tracks. Their versatility level determines what features they have access to while their power level determines how many are active at once. Having a high ability score allows a character to have additional features active, but only if those features are ones that are tied to that ability. So, a character with +1 charisma might have improved feint or forceful spells available but only be able to use one at a time. Under this system, every ability score could be useful for every type of character so long as they can find the right feature to make it useful.


Now, if you acknowledge that pixie barbarians (being a rather extreme case) "shouldn't work," how do you plan on reinforcing that without having ability score modifiers?

No racial ability modifiers does not mean no ability modifiers. Size modifiers should exist. Our hypothetical pixie barbarian would suffer the same disadvantage that a human barbarian would if magically shrunken, however that's represented, except that the pixie barbarian would suffer that disadvantage all of the time.

(Come to think of it . . . maybe a pixie barbarian should be viable after all, if they have some way of magically growing. That'd be a cool concept - they'd be an excellent scout while shrunk, as excellent a warrior as any other barbarian while human-sized, and if they can re-shrink when needed they'd be great for hit-and-run operations.)


So, for example, if your system says goblins are small, ugly and evil and they are at mechanical disadvantage because of that: if a player wants to play a goblins that's neither small nor ugly nor evil, what exactly are they liking about your goblins?

This varies depending on your setting, but the list could be pretty long. Goblins are more than small, ugly, and evil. They can also be wacky, endlessly crass, and literally have no sense of shame. So, if a player wants to play a wacky, endlessly crass bard who literally has no sense of shame then it makes perfect sense that they'd want to be a goblin.

Talakeal
2020-12-26, 03:42 PM
If your designing a new system, what's your valid justification for having orcs in the first place?

What do you mean by valid?

Do you mean have a reason at all? Do you mean a reason you agree with? Do you mean one that isn't logically inconsistent?

To answer the question, I guess simply put it is because I want to have a large variety of opponents, and things like dragons, orcs, griffons, werewolves, fairies, and ghosts all have a lot of cultural weight behind them; it makes the game feel more familiar and comfortable, and allows more creativity than my mind alone could come up with creating so many species from whole cloth.


If you're raising too small sample sizes as a point, that implies you don't except to play a lot of different games with your own system, and don't really care about what other people do it. Also, Drizzt thing was a trend for players, that's part of what the comic was spoofing. Drizzt codified the idea that a Ranger fights with two swords and this wormed its way to game mechanics of multiple games, including his parent game D&D. If you didn't see it, you didn't look too hard

Players characters are a very small sample size across all games. Let's say the average group has four players and starts a new campaign every six months. That means that I have been at the table with less than 100 PCs despite playing regularly for a quarter of a century.

This is too small a sample size to make statements about the capabilities of a population, especially considering it is comprised of PCs who are already extraordinary outliers who are defined by their exceptionalism to begin with.


I'm not talking about forcing players to play stereotypes, I'm talking about your system encouraging, by it's mechanical structure, playing of stereotypical characters. Substituting one internal stereotype with another isn't preferable here. Also, again, if you want diversity and are fine with PC demographics lining up with NPC demographics, just randomize character creation already.

The goal is for players to play the character they want to play. If it conforms with a stereotype, that's fine, if it contradicts it, that's also fine.

I haven't said I want diversity or PCs to line up with NPC demographics, those are terms other people have used.

Randomized character creation is, imo, the worst of all worlds.


But beyond that, let me write you another satirical conversation:

GM: "In this world, dark elves are called Drow, they are an evil, subterranean, matriarchal spider-worshipping race."
Player: "That's so cool! I want to play a Drow!"
GM: "Nice! So let's start by rolling your abi-..."
Player: "But I don't want to be evil."
GM: "Okay? Well, that's workable..."
Player: "I also don't want to play any subterranean adventures. Those are so cliched."
GM: *Puzzled* "... well okay, you could be
part of an exploration party send to the surface..."
Player: "I also don't want to worship spiders."
GM: "... well they do have some other gods..."
Player: "Also, I find this matriarchy thing not to my tastes, so I'll play a lone male who has no ties to that social paradigm.
GM: *Looks at the player* "Okay, let's see if I got this right: I described an evil, subterranean, matriarchal spider-worshipping race..."
Player: "That's right!"
GM: "... but you want your character to not be evil, not live underground, not worship spiders and not have anything to do with their social order?"
Player: "Yes!"
GM: *crossing their arms* "... what, exactly, did you find cool about my Drow?"
Player: *points to a book* "Well, you see, they have dark skin in that picture."
GM: "And?"
Player: "And I find your game has too few dark skinned people in it."
GM: "Okay?"
Player: "So I thought I'd fix that by playing a Drow."
GM: "Uh..."
Player: "But I don't want to be part of an evil matriarchy. That'd give a bad impression of dark skinned people. So, instead, I will be lovable good ranger!"
GM: "You... you do realize my setting has actual dark skinned humans in it? Including an entire culture of immigrant from historical Egypt?"
Player: *puzzled* "Yes?"
GM: "So if you want a positive representation of dark skinned people, why not play, you know, a dark skinned human?"
Player: "... but they're not elves."
GM: "... I'm sorry?"
Player: "They're not elves. So they don't have pointed ears. Or this totally awesome bonus to dexterity. Playing a ranger is totally unoptimal without a bonus to dexterity."
GM: "Doesn't sound like you really want to play a Drow at all."
Player: "How come? I just said I wanted to play a Drow."
GM: "Would you be satisfied with playing an Egyptian with one-time boost to dexterity?"
Everyone else at the table: "Hey, wait a second! You didn't give us that option when we made our characters!"
GM: "... why's that a big deal all of a sudden?"
Player 2: "I totally wouldn't have picked orc and eaten an ability score penalty to mental stats if I could've just been a human with a bonus to strength.
GM: "But I thought you liked exploring orc culture and special disadvantages they have in society?"
Player 2: "Well sort of, but these penalties totally stink. I could've just picked a human and... I dunno, pretended I was still an orc?"
Player 3: "Refluffed."
Player 2: "Say what?"
Player 3: "Not 'pretended'. Refluffed. It's what you call it when you take a mechanic made to model one thing and use it for a completely different thing!"
GM: "Hold on... so you would've been fine playing... refluffed humans?"
Player 2: "Yes."
GM: "But then, what was the point of me creating all these special mechanics to model differences between orcs and humans?"
Player 2: "Eh, I don't play orcs for the mechanics, I play them to explore the culture, the psychology..."
GM: "But those mechanics are there to model the culture and the psychology! How are you supposed to explore being disadvantaged withouy actually having any disadvantage?"
Player 2: *sips juice through a straw* "Eh, I can just roleplay it."
Player 1: "So, can I play a Drow now?"

What are you trying to say here?

It seems like you are agreeing with me, that we have two players both picking a race they don't really want to play for mechanical reasons when they would be happier with a more freeform set of bonuses.

Or are you just saying the players are both idiots wanting to have "badwrongfun"?

Also, the idea that Orc culture and psychology boils down to "-2 int" is laughably absurd.


I'm going to ignore your Changeling example because I don't know that game and you aren't giving me enough information to give a reasoned analysis.

Well, that's your loss then.

In my opinion, Changeling is the optimal way to do a game with a cosmopolitan mixture of races; where each race has a handful of very flavorful rules (almost none of them numerical) but with rich cultures, psychologies, and aesthetics. The game is well liked, and people are very passionate about the races in it.

Were I trying to create or looking to play in a game with a bunch of PC races (which I am not), this would be my ideal model.

When you say this doesn't work, Changeling is the perfect counter example to illustrate that it can and does, but if you want to ignore it I guess I can try explaining it a different way.


The Talakeal method of being one of several methods of changing the cap in point buy is great for making races meaningless ("cosmetic") outside of min-maxing. And point buy is great for letting people create the character that they envision, and for min-maxing. So it's a system that has doubled down on encouraging min-maxing.

Aside from terminology, there is literally no difference between adjusting the cap and D&D style racial modifiers; I just find the math more straightforward.

As for min-maxing, it really isn't enough of an issue to warrant limiting player freedom and handholding.

Generally, a min-maxxed character slightly outshines the rest of the party in their area of specialty, and then sits around being useless and bored when their specialty isn't applicable.

Then they die the first time one of their weaknesses is targeted, and throw a temper tantrum about how the GM went out of their way to screw over their character, and I add another to my tally of gaming horror stories.


So, start with answering the question, "what do you want?". Then we can describe a system which does that.

I want a system where players are free to make the character they want but the DM can fall back and racial stereotypes to create diverse encounters that play differently.

But really, the point of the thread was trying to identify and avoid exactly what real world offense people are taking with the D&D system of racial modifiers.


As influential as D&D is now, never forget that tampering with the game mechanics can lead to ruin. It's why WotC isn't listening to the SJWs and their rant against races.

They clearly are though. They have issued public apologies, banned a bunch of old magic cards from tournament play, allegedly breached contract over offensive content in Dragonlance, and redid how racial stat modifiers work in Tasha's.

Now, if or how any of this actually addressed the problem is anyone's guess.


Also, I do think it's worth noting that most fans of flex stats aren't calling racial modifiers actively racist. They can say that they diminish the real options at the table to only ones with properly stat boosts, or that a stat modifier (especially one that boils down to just +1 to a roll) isn't all that exciting as a racial feature. Those are game design points. That's different from a race like drow having been written in problematic ways, which is solved by being more conscious in your writing. Again Tal won't be perfect, but it's worth splitting the game design elements from the world design elements.

Agreed; but I have seen numerous people on forums make statements like "Numerical racial modifiers are racist" or "Physical mods are ok but mental mods are offensive" or "Bonuses are all right but penalties need to go" or even "Abilities that encourage a certain style of play are ok as long as they aren't flat numerical modifiers".

Again, I am mystified as to how or why, but I really do want to learn and am trying to avoid those pitfalls.

Kane0
2020-12-26, 06:51 PM
Agreed; but I have seen numerous people on forums make statements like "Numerical racial modifiers are racist" or "Physical mods are ok but mental mods are offensive" or "Bonuses are all right but penalties need to go" or even "Abilities that encourage a certain style of play are ok as long as they aren't flat numerical modifiers".

Again, I am mystified as to how or why, but I really do want to learn and am trying to avoid those pitfalls.

Whether or not they even are pitfalls is subkect to debate.

Best to settle it with your target audience and adjust accordingly

Anyways, my response is a few posts back, im not qualified in game design any more than that opinion

Quertus
2020-12-26, 10:50 PM
Aside from terminology, there is literally no difference between adjusting the cap and D&D style racial modifiers; I just find the math more straightforward.

Aside from being demonstrably false, this bit is also irrelevant, as D&D stat modifiers produce similar effects.


As for min-maxing, it really isn't enough of an issue to warrant limiting player freedom and handholding.

Generally, a min-maxxed character slightly outshines the rest of the party in their area of specialty, and then sits around being useless and bored when their specialty isn't applicable.

Then they die the first time one of their weaknesses is targeted, and throw a temper tantrum about how the GM went out of their way to screw over their character, and I add another to my tally of gaming horror stories.

And… that's not enough to warrant reevaluating your mechanics? :smallconfused:


I want a system where players are free to make the character they want but the DM can fall back and racial stereotypes

Cool. Coupled with your statement of lack of concern for the number of valid / playable / optimal race/class combinations, that's perfectly workable numerous ways.


to create diverse encounters that play differently.

Now you've lost me.


But really, the point of the thread was trying to identify and avoid exactly what real world offense people are taking with the D&D system of racial modifiers.

Just… to pick on my heritage… don't make an obvious not!Viking culture… and then claim that their culture has left them all so developmentally retarded that they racially get mental penalties, and you should be fine. I think. I'm… not terribly… "sensitive" that way, tbh, so I'm probably not much help here. I'm more the "dude, you dropped out of 4th grade to help your family, *of course* you're gonna be behind scholastically (but kudos on caring for your family)" type, than the "ix-nay on the ehind-bay" type.

Also, as others have said, replacing "intelligence" with "memory" or "learning" or some such will also help.

I guess my question is, why is this a concern for you? I could see the point in raising general developer awareness, but… your system has a target audience of, what, about 5 people right now? In what way is talking to us more valuable to you than talking to them about this issue would be¹? Understanding *this* - the reason for your concern - might also help us give you more useful answers.

¹ other than, you know, the Playground being awesome, and having some of the best mind on the net. If that's your reasoning - crowd-sourcing from the best - then I can't really argue.

KineticDiplomat
2020-12-26, 11:32 PM
So...this seems like creating a problem for the sake of it? Presumably “human” is set to a flat default, so no issue there. Is anyone really going to fly into a rage at your table if the 300 pounds of snarling orc is physically more capable and mentally less so?

Vahnavoi
2020-12-27, 05:20 AM
What do you mean by valid?

Presumably, if you're making a new system but using a tired old trope, you have some premise or design goal that supports using that trope. I ask because letting a player play a powerful orc wizard after you've established orcs are generally bad wizards is a self-created problem.


To answer the question, I guess simply put it is because I want to have a large variety of opponents, and things like dragons, orcs, griffons, werewolves, fairies, and ghosts all have a lot of cultural weight behind them; it makes the game feel more familiar and comfortable, and allows more creativity than my mind alone could come up with creating so many species from whole cloth.

If your reason is familiarity, familiarity is also a valid justification for orcs being bad wizards. The problem with this approach is that you're fundamentally relying on tropes and stereotypes external to your game. It's easy for whatever you write about, for example, your orcs to be buried under what your players think about orcs.

And this is precisely where accusations of racism come in. How? Because if your players thinks orcs are racist stand-ins for whatever real life group, they will project that on your orcs regardless of whether that's what you put on paper.


Players characters are a very small sample size across all games. Let's say the average group has four players and starts a new campaign every six months. That means that I have been at the table with less than 100 PCs despite playing regularly for a quarter of a century.

This is too small a sample size to make statements about the capabilities of a population, especially considering it is comprised of PCs who are already extraordinary outliers who are defined by their exceptionalism to begin with.

I'm not talking about perfectly modeling in-setting demographics, I'm talking about diversity among characters made by your players.

If it's too easy to optimize, every character of a type will look the same. If race has little to no impact, every character of type will look the same regardless of race, and they will also play the same. It's the basic pitfall of simple point-buy systems, as explained already multiple times. You don't need a sample size of a hundred to start seeing this. Though you'd easily get to that hundred with a character turnover rate that isn't glacial.


The goal is for players to play the character they want to play. If it conforms with a stereotype, that's fine, if it contradicts it, that's also fine.

And their idea of a character they want to play is coming from... where, exactly?


[Regarding my satire]
What are you trying to say here?

You know what they say about explaining the jokes. It's on you to get what is being said, otherwise there isn't a point. Though the actual points have been said in plain English elsewhere in this thread.


Well, that's your loss then.

It's not my loss, I simply can't do cross-comparison with a system I know nothing of.


In my opinion, Changeling is the optimal way to do a game with a cosmopolitan mixture of races; where each race has a handful of very flavorful rules (almost none of them numerical) but with rich cultures, psychologies, and aesthetics. The game is well liked, and people are very passionate about the races in it.

Were I trying to create or looking to play in a game with a bunch of PC races (which I am not), this would be my ideal model.

When you say this doesn't work, Changeling is the perfect counter example to illustrate that it can and does, but if you want to ignore it I guess I can try explaining it a different way.

If you think Changeling is optimal, copy what Changeling does. For all I know, you could already be doing that, but nothing you say about it here would allow me to look at your rules and tell me that.

Grek
2020-12-27, 12:13 PM
So...this seems like creating a problem for the sake of it? Presumably “human” is set to a flat default, so no issue there. Is anyone really going to fly into a rage at your table if the 300 pounds of snarling orc is physically more capable and mentally less so?
...the post directly above yours is someone complaining about their culture getting stereotyped as mentally deficient. No, this isn't a fake made up problem, people actually do get annoyed when people write up TTRPG races in an offensive way.

Talakeal
2020-12-27, 12:51 PM
I personally don't see enough of a reason to separate dexterity and agility but that's probably off topic.

Its something I have gone back and forth on. Basically, it is simply too good as a single stat as it has nearly twice as many applications as any other stat.


50 plus Flaws plus another 50 from progression may be too generous? It sounds really generous, suppose that impression depends on skill, feat and ability costs.

It is a bit, yeah. A well rounded starting character is above average at everything. End game characters can have perfect stats if they like, but by that point they have plenty of other things to spend advancement on including superhuman scores.



I'm not seeing a problem with that really. Some might chafe at the ‘penalties’ though, same reasoning that 5e dropped them.

Yeah, but depending on how you handle it it creates weird math or verisimilitude issues with humans.



Edit: what i would suggest is instead of races changing the available range (which is a racial bonus in disguise) institute increasing costs for higher stat values and races give discounts to that increasing cost. There is still an ‘optimal’ use for your points, you cant really get around that, but at least you arent ‘forced’ to spend you points in certain ways based on race and feel ‘wasted’.

That is a good idea, and it is what most D&D point buys do, but imo it is a lot of complexity for little gain.


Aside from being demonstrably false, this bit is also irrelevant, as D&D stat modifiers produce similar effects.

How is it false? Is it because some races are imbalanced, because some point buys use escalating costs?

Either way, yeah, my point is that it does produce similar (and in most cases identical imo) effects.


And… that's not enough to warrant reevaluating your mechanics? :smallconfused:

Well, if I held the players hand more tightly they would just bitch at me at character creation rather than their death.

So I am going with the option that allows more freedom and works out better in the long run for people who are able to learn from their mistakes rather than blaming others.


Now you've lost me.

My game is very humanocentric. While the option to play any race exists, the primary purpose of the nonhuman races is as "monsters" for the players to overcome.



I guess my question is, why is this a concern for you? I could see the point in raising general developer awareness, but… your system has a target audience of, what, about 5 people right now? In what way is talking to us more valuable to you than talking to them about this issue would be¹? Understanding *this* - the reason for your concern - might also help us give you more useful answers.

Well, I would like to publish someday. I have put some much time, effort, and money into this system I would really like to see it through, even if it ends up as another "fantasy heart breaker".

That said, even if I never publish it, I still don't want my name on something that is ignorant and offensive if I can help it.




So...this seems like creating a problem for the sake of it? Presumably “human” is set to a flat default, so no issue there. Is anyone really going to fly into a rage at your table if the 300 pounds of snarling orc is physically more capable and mentally less so?

Apparently, yes.

I don't really understand it, but I would like to.


It's not my loss, I simply can't do cross-comparison with a system I know nothing of.

If you think Changeling is optimal, copy what Changeling does. For all I know, you could already be doing that, but nothing you say about it here would allow me to look at your rules and tell me that.

No, but instead of ignoring it you could think about what I am saying about it or even take a look at the system. IMO it really does a good job of making races colorful and distinct without strong mechanical restrictions.

But no, while I said the Changelings method would be my preferred way of handling a game with a lot of distinct player races, that is not my game. As I said above, humans are the default in my game, and while the system handles player characters of any race, it is as an optional rule, and the default purpose of various races is as obstacles to be overcome.


Presumably, if you're making a new system but using a tired old trope, you have some premise or design goal that supports using that trope. I ask because letting a player play a powerful orc wizard after you've established orcs are generally bad wizards is a self-created problem.

If your reason is familiarity, familiarity is also a valid justification for orcs being bad wizards.

The key word there is generally. Even if orcs are generally bad wizards, that doesn't mean that an exceptional orc can't be an exceptional wizard.

Also, there is plenty of media where orcs are fine wizards. Warhammer orcs are innately magical creatures with powerful psychic and shamanistic powers, and while Warcraft orcs don't have a history of using arcane magic, they are the most notable warlocks (another intelligence based caster class) among any of the mortal races.


The problem with this approach is that you're fundamentally relying on tropes and stereotypes external to your game. It's easy for whatever you write about, for example, your orcs to be buried under what your players think about orcs.

And this is precisely where accusations of racism come in. How? Because if your players thinks orcs are racist stand-ins for whatever real life group, they will project that on your orcs regardless of whether that's what you put on paper.


That's a very astute point.

Not really something that can be solved though without coming up with entirely new racial archetypes from scratch.

And it still doesn't explain specific complaints about the mechanical implementation of ability mods.



I'm not talking about perfectly modeling in-setting demographics, I'm talking about diversity among characters made by your players.

If it's too easy to optimize, every character of a type will look the same. If race has little to no impact, every character of type will look the same regardless of race, and they will also play the same. It's the basic pitfall of simple point-buy systems, as explained already multiple times. You don't need a sample size of a hundred to start seeing this. Though you'd easily get to that hundred with a character turnover rate that isn't glacial.

That's just not something I have seen.

Sometimes you get a player who makes the same character over and over again, but aside from that they are all very unique.

Not counting one shots or people who just recreated a character from comics / anime, I have had (off the top of my head):

An elven acrobat.
A human sharpshooter.
A human psychic.
A human beastmaster and her wolves.
A corpulant human businessman.
A human spearman who is half bird.
A half fairy half fire elemental gish.
A half angel half asura gish (who uses different spells and fighting styles from the above).
A human knight who dual wields magic swords.
A human gunslinger.
A pixie rogue
A pixie sniper
A giant fomorian berserker
A velociraptor rogue who specializes in poisoning
A hobo with a shotgun
A vampire biker
A doppleganger
An air elemental
A human druid
A satyr surgeon
An amazon vampire
A crippled human psychic and sociopath
A frost maiden fencer
A nymph archmage
A dryad heavilly armed sword and board tank
A human artificer and monk of hephaesteus
A cat girl ninja
A cat girl conjurer
A human medic
A blind chronomancer
A half angel thaumaturgist
An elven hunter
A dwarven cleric
A human noble
A human alchemist
A human brawler
A human chaos sorceress
A human air bender
A human blacksmith
A human ranger and ballerina with mind control powers
A human pyromancer
A human gladiator
A nymph bard
A fairy healer
An ogre pirate
A human samurai
A half elven necromancer
A half demon rogue and warlock
A half angel diplomat and mercenary
A human archeologist and abjurer
A human priestess and illusionist

Only a couple of characters in there even share the same broad archetype, let alone their specific build or secondary skills. I would really strain to find any sort of stereotype on this list aside from most being combatants of some sort and most being human, which is pretty much the premise of the game.


And their idea of a character they want to play is coming from... where, exactly?

Who knows? Lots of places. You can take inspiration from anything. It can be from the text or rules of the game you are currently playing, a character or archetype from another game, a stereotype you are trying to follow, a stereotype you are trying to buck, a character from some other piece of media, a historical figure or someone you know in real life, and many more. Probably a mixture of many of the above.

Like, for example, I am currently working on a goblin PC. The idea came when I was designing a dungeon, which was the ruins of a goblin vault. These goblins, who had died a hundred years ago, were basically like the Ghost Busters, exorcists for hire, but eventually something went wrong, their containment failed, and their headquarters was turned into a haunted ruin. Throughout it, I had journals for flavor text, which were essentially conspiracy theories. And that got me thinking about who wrote them, and I came up with the idea for a goblin detective who was essentially a cross between Fox Moulder, the Question, and Philip Marlowe.

Now, the NPC in question was long dead and irrelevant to the current plot, so I put the idea on the backburner, and am slowly working on the character and plan on playing him the next time I get a chance. I really like goblins, I like their culture, their psychology, and their aesthetic. And though their game rules are built to reflect this, they don't define the character. The fact that he has small size, low light vision, a bonus to intelligence and endurance and a penalty to charisma and willpower has nothing at all to do with the character.

Keltest
2020-12-27, 02:26 PM
...the post directly above yours is someone complaining about their culture getting stereotyped as mentally deficient. No, this isn't a fake made up problem, people actually do get annoyed when people write up TTRPG races in an offensive way.

Thats not really what they were saying. They were complaining about direct real world analogues, which fantasy races generally are not (or at least not intended to be).

Underground
2020-12-27, 04:33 PM
Why, the right way to do racial stat modifiers, not just mental ones, and really about ANY choice the player can make about their character, is to make every choice have pros and cons.

This is impossible if you work with a relatively simple rulesystem like D&D in which, for example, a Wizard needs Intelligence ... and thats really already all.

However its not hard at all to make a rulesystem in which a Wizard, or really any spellcaster, needs a number of mental stats, each controlling aspects of magic.

Aspects of magic could be:

- How much damage do your offensive spells do
- How likely is it that you deal a critical hit
- How much extra damage does a critical hit do
- How much do your debuff spells weaken
- How much area do your area spells cover
- How long do spells with duration last
- How hard is it to resist your spells of mental domination
- How hard is it to resist your spells of emotional manipulation (fear, hopelessness)
- How hard is it to resist your spells of mental manipulation (confusion)
- How much healing do your healing spells
- How strong are your buffing spells
- How much mana do you have at maximum
- How fast does your mana regenerate
- How good are you at resisting spells
- How likely are you to fumble a spell
- How likely are your spells failing against spell resistance
- How fast are you at spellcasting (though that could be more of a body/physical thing)
- How taxing is spellcasting to you (though that could be more of a body/physical thing)
- Etc etc etc

So you can have a number of stats each controlling some of these aspects. You can introduce a stat thats called rage which gives you more damage from offensive spells, a stat named patience which makes your spells with duration last longer, a stat named opportunism which makes critical hits more likely, a stat named sadism which increases critical damage etc etc etc.

Though that would get excessive quickly and you probably want a number of stats that still mean something to the player. So the individual stat probably should control a number of aspects of spellcasting.

The main problem is such a system can easily be done on a computer, but wouldnt work well in a pen and paper setting, which only wants to handle as few variables as possible.


About the problem of mental differences being "offensive", I do not have any answer to that. Unless you actually make "subraces" of humans (humans are biologically one race) and actually make them have mental differences, I dont really see the offense. An orc might be mentally slow on average compared to a human being, thats actually simply tradition at this point.

jayem
2020-12-27, 05:25 PM
It's not just D&D that has this problem, Asimov's all human universe was basically to avoid these problems (specifically in his case he'd have been accused of being the SJW).

Duff
2020-12-27, 06:21 PM
The problem with racial modifiers is that, if your race can believably be said to be based on a certain culture, it can look like you're making problematic statements whether you are or not.
I'm going to suggest a useful way to avoid this is to not have an "Elvish culture" and and "Orcish culture" etc. Make your elves and your orcs as diverse as your humans and make sure none of them draw too much from any one culture and be really sure that each race* has nations/cultures that draw from a range of inspirations. No "Orcs are Africans and different Orcish nations draw on different African cultures".
One Orcish nation might draw on a Nubian influence, but have a human nation do the same. Then your next Orcish nation might mix Aztec and Scandinavian, and the one after that mixes the Dothraki and Hungarian. That way you can be confident your races will not be mistaken for any real human group.

* you could call them species or subspecies or flavour or any other less-loaded term you like as well

Draconi Redfir
2020-12-27, 06:46 PM
orcs are orcs and elves are elves. If you see one of them and think "That's really a human in a costume", then i think that's more a problem with you then it is with the writer.

The only exception i can think of is if the race's culture is written to be absolutely identical to that of the real world one. If a description of a culture is basically a carbon copy of the wikipedia page with the word "orc" thrown in in place of "human" or "people" then sure, be upset. But if they just have some similar elements but are otherwise clearly their own thing, then it's not really an issue.

Xervous
2020-12-27, 10:22 PM
I personally dont see enough of a reason to sparate dexterity and agility but thats probably off topic.

It's actually rather on topic as I've been juggling stat weighting in my own playtesting for my own personal system that everyone here seems to obligated to make.

When it comes to balancing ability scores against one another point buy systems make it glaringly obvious when there's stats that have disproportionate returns. Shadowrun decided to split the Speed stat (which governed initiative, attack rolls, dodging and various skills) into Agility (attack rolls, skills) and Reaction (dodging, initiative). Noteworthy in this case is that Shadowrun is generally not a SAD system with characters desiring multiple stats for defense and offense both. When you have one stat that does too much and no class structure that drastically warps ability score valuation (like a class that gets WIS for its attack rolls and damage rolls instead of the standard D&D arrangement) it becomes universal since there are no class based exceptions to dethrone it.

Fine tune what all the ability scores interact with and it becomes a question of tradeoffs more than the most efficient way to get more of everything.

Satinavian
2020-12-28, 02:52 AM
Racial stat modifiers would be much less of a problem if the rules would include diminishing returns for even higher stats and make every stat at least somewhat useful.

If i look at TDE, then nearly every check in the game involves 3 stats and the lowest of them has the most influence on the outcome. While you can still specialize and try to make sure that many of your important skills and abilities have some stat overlap, high stats are only desirable for prerequisites and some stat-derived secondary calues. But for most of the game, a higher stat average and roughly equal stats are better.

If i look at Splittermond, it does not have diminishing returns but is not bad at making all stats valuable. It has racial attribute modifiers but those are barely relevant for optimizing. It is all about the other racial modifiers like size or darkvision or natural armor etc. Most characters don't actually have stats at the possible maximum or minimum when their race has modifiers for that stat.


Asimov does deep dives into human socio-political theory and human and AI evolution throughout his series. I find it hard to view him as having attempted to avoid things that could be problematic in terms of causing strong reactions and potential arguments.
His publishers wanted heroic smart humans outwitting evil dumb aliens and that was the only kind of story involving aliens that he would have gotten published in his early years. But as he wanted to write stories that were not all about glorifying humanity, it lead to a human focussed world. In his late works, after he became successful, he sometimes included alien life, though generally not sentient.

anthon
2020-12-28, 03:16 AM
racial modifiers are cool. giants with big strength, elves with the power to balance on a twig duel wielding 5 ounce mithril swords, etc.

most of human history plays to racial stereotypes which offends no shortage of people. Red Heads and Irish boxers for instance.

But here's a way to keep positive about everything and give everyone who wants a way out of their standard locks:

Exception to the Rule: Race

this merit/trait/point thingy you spend points on,

allows you to have generic blando stats unmodified by any racial features whatsoever. By the power of this godlike ability, you are able to be whatever it is you thought you really should have been instead of being whatever it is you wrote down because you thought it would be dramatic to have a story about an oppressed something or other who was entirely unique in their power to stand out and do exactly the opposite of what stereotypes allowed them to do, and instead, prove once and for all to the man, that there is no glass ceiling and nothing you can't do because we are all equal and special in our own unique way.

Bonus Points:
You can make a version of this for everything. Exception to the Rule: Class
Exception to the rule: Kit
Exception to the rule: Pet
Exception to the rule: TV Dinner
Exception to the rule: Cable News Talking head...

the possibilities are endless

Mastikator
2020-12-28, 04:49 AM
This works both ways though.

Imagine wanting to play a goblin, only to find out that they suck at whatever archetype you want to play and you will be at a huge mechanical disadvantage the entire campaign.

If your race doesn't go with the archetype then that is a part of the tone of the game and you should respect that. Don't make unnecessarily disruptive characters.

Grek
2020-12-28, 07:44 AM
Thats not really what they were saying. They were complaining about direct real world analogues, which fantasy races generally are not (or at least not intended to be).
I mean, on one hand yes. But on the other hand, *gestures despairingly at the Vistani in Curse of Strahd*. Clearly even if authors set out to make their fantasy races be non-problematic, they don't always succeed. And I suspect that a big source of those errors is simply the way that D&D conceptualizes race as a bundle of appearance traits, cultural standards and exceptional abilities. It's a bad paradigm if you want to avoid accidentally encouraging offensive stereotypes.


If your race doesn't go with the archetype then that is a part of the tone of the game and you should respect that. Don't make unnecessarily disruptive characters.
The whole point of this thread is that it's from the designer perspective. Should the designer use racial stat modifiers as a way to enforce the 'tone' that orcs can't be wizards, gnomes can't be berserkers, goblins can't be clerics? Is that what people actually want, or are we only considering it for tradition's sake? You can't disrupt the tone of the game while the tone is still being decided upon.

Quertus
2020-12-28, 08:38 AM
orcs are orcs and elves are elves. If you see one of them and think "That's really a human in a costume", then i think that's more a problem with you then it is with the writer.

The only exception i can think of is if the race's culture is written to be absolutely identical to that of the real world one. If a description of a culture is basically a carbon copy of the wikipedia page with the word "orc" thrown in in place of "human" or "people" then sure, be upset. But if they just have some similar elements but are otherwise clearly their own thing, then it's not really an issue.

Read the 2e Monster Manual some day. Various races are very… racist. Everything derived (or seemingly derived) from that onwards is therefore suspect.

Mastikator
2020-12-28, 08:55 AM
I mean, on one hand yes. But on the other hand, *gestures despairingly at the Vistani in Curse of Strahd*. Clearly even if authors set out to make their fantasy races be non-problematic, they don't always succeed. And I suspect that a big source of those errors is simply the way that D&D conceptualizes race as a bundle of appearance traits, cultural standards and exceptional abilities. It's a bad paradigm if you want to avoid accidentally encouraging offensive stereotypes.


The whole point of this thread is that it's from the designer perspective. Should the designer use racial stat modifiers as a way to enforce the 'tone' that orcs can't be wizards, gnomes can't be berserkers, goblins can't be clerics? Is that what people actually want, or are we only considering it for tradition's sake? You can't disrupt the tone of the game while the tone is still being decided upon.

They should design it according to their vision. Don't like the vision, pick another setting/game. I don't think it makes sense to ask whether people want that or not, some definitely will prefer it that way, some will hate it, some will not care.

Draconi Redfir
2020-12-28, 09:37 AM
Read the 2e Monster Manual some day. Various races are very… racist. Everything derived (or seemingly derived) from that onwards is therefore suspect.

With all due respect, 2nd edition was released 31 years ago. It's older then i am. And I'm certainly nothing like i was 20 years ago, let alone 30.

I think it's fair to assume that a few things have changed since then.



The whole point of this thread is that it's from the designer perspective. Should the designer use racial stat modifiers as a way to enforce the 'tone' that orcs can't be wizards, gnomes can't be berserkers, goblins can't be clerics? Is that what people actually want, or are we only considering it for tradition's sake? You can't disrupt the tone of the game while the tone is still being decided upon.

You can absolutely play Orc wizards, Gnome barbarians, and Goblin clerics though. i've seen some of them before.

a -2 to one ability score isn't going to make you unable to play any given class. It won't even make you not effective in that class. the only thing it'll do is make it slightly harder, and not even by much. A lot of people would view that more as an obstacle to overcome then something to steer away from.

Lemmy
2020-12-28, 09:58 AM
The easiest solution is to simply ignore people who look at monsters and see human ethinicities (even in a game where that ethinicity already exists), then have the gall to call others racist.

Those people are very rarely part of the supposedly offended group and are never satisfied, anyway. If isn't racial modifiers, they'll just find something else to use as an excuse to csll you a bigot.

KaussH
2020-12-28, 10:24 AM
You can absolutely play Orc wizards, Gnome barbarians, and Goblin clerics though. i've seen some of them before.

a -2 to one ability score isn't going to make you unable to play any given class. It won't even make you not effective in that class. the only thing it'll do is make it slightly harder, and not even by much. A lot of people would view that more as an obstacle to overcome then something to steer away from.

That seems to be at the bottom of a lot of the stat mod issue. People want to play against stereotype but.... they do not want any of the mechanical issues that makes it against sterotyping.

So... make all pc races mecanicly the same. Stat, extras, ect and then provide points to buy race add ons and get more points for issues.

Make all the npcs differently however.
So unless a pc gets exactly the same set up as the npcs, they are forever not quite the same as the rest of their race.

Keltest
2020-12-28, 10:53 AM
I mean, on one hand yes. But on the other hand, *gestures despairingly at the Vistani in Curse of Strahd*. Clearly even if authors set out to make their fantasy races be non-problematic, they don't always succeed. And I suspect that a big source of those errors is simply the way that D&D conceptualizes race as a bundle of appearance traits, cultural standards and exceptional abilities. It's a bad paradigm if you want to avoid accidentally encouraging offensive stereotypes.

I mean A: they obviously are a real world analogue, and i would frankly say that any of the developers who claim it wasnt are lying, either to us or themselves, and B: if you take away culture, physical attributes, environmental effects and unusual circumstances... whats left?

Anymage
2020-12-28, 11:52 AM
The whole point of this thread is that it's from the designer perspective. Should the designer use racial stat modifiers as a way to enforce the 'tone' that orcs can't be wizards, gnomes can't be berserkers, goblins can't be clerics? Is that what people actually want, or are we only considering it for tradition's sake? You can't disrupt the tone of the game while the tone is still being decided upon.

Not quite. The question asked in this thread is if stat modifiers are intrinsically problematic/racist. At which point I will gesture broadly at 3.5, Pathfinder, and even 5e as of a year ago. You certainly had people arguing that 5e needed flex stats back then, but very few arguing that fixed stat bonuses made one racist.

I get that 5e pointbuy limiting you to a 15 max plus most campaigns petering out before 12th level means that your high elf bard will always have -1 to their important rolls compared to a halfling. How to have fantasy races maintain distinct mechanical identities without creating clear best or worst cases (some players aren't too fussed if their choices are suboptimal, some very much are) is an important design element, but I don't think that "giant blooded characters are clearly the optimal choice for melee characters" is actively offending anybody.

This is separate from tropes and writing. Vistani were based on stereotypes that were harmful to a real world people. That's fixed by better writing and not changing the +s and -s attached if someone wants to play one. And the savage trope, while convenient for simple storytelling (orcs raid in a fantasy setting for the same reason that indians raid in a western setting; they're savages), has problems with both any storytelling that's even slightly deeper (if you want to know what they want so you can engineer a more peaceful coexistence, "they're savages" doesn't give you much to go on), plus the long history of real world peoples being dismissed as savages to justify their mistreatment. Reducing something that closely resembles a human down to that does make a lot of people uncomfortable, and that has been an issue for a good long while in the gaming community. Again, though, you don't save your group of simple savages simply by letting PC members have flex stats.

To close off this long winded rant, though, Talakeal should not be too fussed about the idea that someone somewhere might be offended by his game. His first two priorities for this level of homebrew are making sure that it's something that his table will enjoy and making sure that it's mechanically sound. Constantly second guessing himself is a good way to constantly revise without making any real progress. Once he has his first few rough drafts out of the way and thinks he has something close to a finished product, he can ask for more eyes on it to see what he might have missed. Authors do have sensitivity readers and make revisions based on their feedback, but only after the main story has already been mostly hammered out.

Talakeal
2020-12-28, 12:20 PM
If your race doesn't go with the archetype then that is a part of the tone of the game and you should respect that. Don't make unnecessarily disruptive characters.

And if the tone of the game is about exceptional people changing the world in their own imsge?


To close off this long winded rant, though, Talakeal should not be too fussed about the idea that someone somewhere might be offended by his game. His first two priorities for this level of homebrew are making sure that it's something that his table will enjoy and making sure that it's mechanically sound. Constantly second guessing himself is a good way to constantly revise without making any real progress. Once he has his first few rough drafts out of the way and thinks he has something close to a finished product, he can ask for more eyes on it to see what he might have missed. Authors do have sensitivity readers and make revisions based on their feedback, but only after the main story has already been mostly hammered out.

Thanks for the sentiment, but at this point thats all there really is for me.

Right now the game is more or less finished. The mechanics arent perfect, but work as well as any published game I have ever played, and the text is complete. I cant afford a proffesional editor or layout guy atm, my artists are backed up, and I cant playtest or run demo games due to covid.

So right now all I can do is revise the text, clarifying the language, fixing typos and rules glitches, and look for things that are inconsistent, offensive, or otherwise embarrassing to smooth out.

Mastikator
2020-12-28, 12:28 PM
And if the tone of the game is about exceptional people changing the world in their own imsge?


Then the DM should let you swap out or overcome the penalties of a bad race/class combo. Or play a game that doesn't do that and make the bias an in-game culture thing rather than a mechanical thing.

Max_Killjoy
2020-12-28, 12:46 PM
I'd start by ditching the construct of "race" conflating species and culture, and then maybe have both as separate things.

Are orcs just cosmetically different humans, or a subspecies, or a different species? Does the orc struggle with complex math and book research because orc brains aren't good at those things, or because orc culture doesn't provide the necessary educational foundation for those things? Would the "average" orc raised by humans behave in ways indistinguishable from humans, or would they still be different from inherent differences in the orc brain?

Democratus
2020-12-28, 01:51 PM
The D&D racial stat bonuses aren't offensive.

Some people are offended by them - which is entirely different. Whether this matters is up to each of us to decide.

I will caution that there is no place to go with creative writing if you must always try and write such that nobody anywhere is offended. It's a losing proposition.

Anymage
2020-12-28, 02:33 PM
And if the tone of the game is about exceptional people changing the world in their own imsge?

First things first, I want to point something out. Nobody in this thread so far is making a good case, or really any case, that racial mods are intrinsically offensive. Combined with the fact that none of the flex stats fans were saying that in 2019, I think it's safe to say that claims of offensiveness were just emotions riding high and both sides being politically primed. Both by WotC's press release at the time, and the culture in general.

On to a game design and theme perspective, a lot goes into the question of how far a character can rise from the accident of their birth. Like I mentioned before, a 5e character spends over half their career in theory and often all of it in practice being 5% behind if they don't have an appropriate racial stat boost. I'm not a fan of freeform racial ASIs, and I can appreciate that's a fair argument. In an alternate D&D where everybody got enough level based ASIs to cap out their primary stat in early T2, I'd say that the problem self-corrects early enough to not be worth any fuss. If the problem persisted over a character's whole career but were a percentile system where racial mods only accounted for 1-2% of the character's total, I'd be more inclined to say it was a nonissue.

Edit to add: Looking at your system and spelling it out for everyone else here, it looks like it's 1d20 + stat (on a 1-10 scale) + usually 5 for a skill that's in your character's wheelhouse. With advancement being point based. A racial +1 to an attribute that still respects the 10 cap is essentially just a few free character points that have to be spent a specific way. Ditto for baked in traits, and point based games will often treat races as package deals that come with a slight discount over what all the bundled traits would cost individually. (Which makes sense. A package deal usually isn't as synergistic as what could be bought for the points spent freely, so it's okay to give a bit of a discount for that.) Having racial mods break the 10 cap for PC races might make people feel like some races are more or less mandatory because that would be a 5% difference that never really goes away.

So you have a couple of options. You could not bother with race rules at all, and ask people who do want to play an oddball race to approximate it buying existing traits and refluffing. (Alternately, you could create a few special monster traits for things like being exceptionally large/small and add those to the expected bundle for people who want to approximate a monster.) Or if you really want to make multiple PC races an active thing, you could have them bundle a few traits and stat boosts together and cost character points. The devil will be in the details and it will require playtesting, but in principle I don't see anybody calling it either unplayable or offensive.

Max_Killjoy
2020-12-28, 04:06 PM
The D&D racial stat bonuses aren't offensive.

Some people are offended by them - which is entirely different. Whether this matters is up to each of us to decide.

I will caution that there is no place to go with creative writing if you must always try and write such that nobody anywhere is offended. It's a losing proposition.

I'm not offended.

I just find the conflation of species and culture counter-factual.

Democratus
2020-12-28, 04:22 PM
I'm not offended.

I just find the conflation of species and culture counter-factual.

Right. I was addressing the OP who brought up the possibility that they were offensive.

As for the term "race", that is the term used in great number of fantasy stories. The race of men. The race of elves. The orc race. It's the language of the literature.

The meanings of words come from how they are used. And "race" is a word used in this very way in classic fantasy.

zlefin
2020-12-28, 05:26 PM
And if the tone of the game is about exceptional people changing the world in their own imsge?



Thanks for the sentiment, but at this point thats all there really is for me.

Right now the game is more or less finished. The mechanics arent perfect, but work as well as any published game I have ever played, and the text is complete. I cant afford a proffesional editor or layout guy atm, my artists are backed up, and I cant playtest or run demo games due to covid.

So right now all I can do is revise the text, clarifying the language, fixing typos and rules glitches, and look for things that are inconsistent, offensive, or otherwise embarrassing to smooth out.
What does a professional editor cost for a project of that size?

As to the primary issue of the thread; I don't think they're offensive, but that means little as its not my opinion that would matter; it's very hard to predict exactly what people will find offensive, as some of it is edge cases and randomness, and standards change over time. It does seem like for most stats it isn't really problematic, especially not for strength. Intelligence is the one likeliest to be perceived as a problem.


The D&D racial stat bonuses aren't offensive.

Some people are offended by them - which is entirely different. Whether this matters is up to each of us to decide.

I will caution that there is no place to go with creative writing if you must always try and write such that nobody anywhere is offended. It's a losing proposition.
I don't think those two things are really different; it seems to me that 'being offensive' is a social fact. And as such, whether or not something is offensive pretty much IS whether 'some people are offended by it'; the only real difference is that 'being offensive' is typically done on some sort of scale to measure how many people are offended to decide if it qualifies as offensive.

Grek
2020-12-28, 05:40 PM
The D&D racial stat bonuses aren't offensive.

Some people are offended by them - which is entirely different. Whether this matters is up to each of us to decide.

I will caution that there is no place to go with creative writing if you must always try and write such that nobody anywhere is offended. It's a losing proposition.

The relevant question when talking about a game mechanic is, in fact, whether it will offend people. Not whether it's objectively offensive, not whether those people are 'right' or 'wrong' to be offended in some nebulous sense, but whether you can take the rules as they are presented in the book and show them to your group without anyone refusing to play because they find the contents objectionable. That's not an impossible task by any stretch, but it does require that a game designer take a step back from whether they think they should be allowed to write something in the abstract and instead consider whether that's a good thing to add to a game that is intended for public consumption.

Consider that a bit of writing that offends 'only' one person in ten has nearly even odds of someone at a five person table (four players and a GM). And then consider that if you include ten equally controversial takes in your RPG book, you're 99.5% likely to upset someone with something in the book as a whole. And sure, maybe they don't put the book down and decide to play something else at the first whiff of suspect writing. But after three or four things that annoy them? Eventually that table is going to decide to play something else. Putting things you already know are going to be controversial is a sucker's game - you're eating directly into your leeway for accidentally offensive writing.

Anymage
2020-12-28, 06:24 PM
The relevant question when talking about a game mechanic is, in fact, whether it will offend people. Not whether it's objectively offensive, not whether those people are 'right' or 'wrong' to be offended in some nebulous sense, but whether you can take the rules as they are presented in the book and show them to your group without anyone refusing to play because they find the contents objectionable. That's not an impossible task by any stretch, but it does require that a game designer take a step back from whether they think they should be allowed to write something in the abstract and instead consider whether that's a good thing to add to a game that is intended for public consumption.

Consider that a bit of writing that offends 'only' one person in ten has nearly even odds of someone at a five person table (four players and a GM). And then consider that if you include ten equally controversial takes in your RPG book, you're 99.5% likely to upset someone with something in the book as a whole. And sure, maybe they don't put the book down and decide to play something else at the first whiff of suspect writing. But after three or four things that annoy them? Eventually that table is going to decide to play something else. Putting things you already know are going to be controversial is a sucker's game - you're eating directly into your leeway for accidentally offensive writing.

Generally speaking, if something offends more than a dozen people or so, you'll find someone willing and able to articulate why they find it offensive.

You have a fair number of people in this thread who say that they want some flexibility in racial features. Some for narrative reasons (a human orphan raised by dwarves might well mix biological and cultural traits), some for gameplay ones (being 5% behind on your main rolls for a good chunk of your career can be annoying). I don't dispute them, even if I think that the former needs to be worked out with the DM instead of Tasha's hands off "just put whatever wherever" attitude and the latter needs a more significant overhaul to 5e's systems. What I don't see here, though, is anyone even calling fixed stat mods offensive much less giving any reason why they'd be so. As such, I don't think that "gnomes get +2 Int while dwarves don't" will use up offensivity leeway in any real sense.

Grek
2020-12-28, 06:28 PM
The above logic applies just as much to "I think this is a dumb mechanic and would prefer a game that didn't work like that" as it does to "wow, this bit of flavour text is kiiiiinda racist". It also includes any glaring omissions or obviously nonfunctional rules. Anything that raises a red or even yellow flag from people reading the rules counts toward the "maybe we should play something else" tracker.

Duff
2020-12-28, 06:48 PM
They should design it according to their vision. Don't like the vision, pick another setting/game. I don't think it makes sense to ask whether people want that or not, some definitely will prefer it that way, some will hate it, some will not care.
A sensible creator considers their audience. If you want wide appeal, you need to make sure not too many people "pick another setting/game."
And if you're designing for a specific group, you probably want to make sure none of them do

RedWarlock
2020-12-29, 12:35 AM
Going back to the breaking-stereotypes thing, I've had a thought I wanted to articulate.

Let's say you have character of race X that you want to create as class B. Normally, those two mechanics don't work well together, whether because of racial stat mods, or other less-specific circumstances. You have to answer one of the two questions:


WHY does your character break the mold? What makes them exceptional from any other member of their race? In stat mods, why does this racial modifier not apply to your character?
HOW does your character excel at their class in a different way? What could they do to apply their unique strengths and weaknesses to that class to help them perform as well as another race in the same class? In stat terms, how could they apply some other stats to shore up those differences?


I'm generally more in favor of the latter than the former, but that's not my place to judge.

For the mentioned orc wizard, maybe they have a better sense of intuition granted from a more spiritual rather than logic-driven magical background, and they can either use Wisdom in place of Intelligence, or at least add their Wis mod to their Int score for purposes of spellcasting/arcana/spellcraft/etc. That could be an interesting feat or perk for orcish or shamanistic characters.

Halfling barbarians might be fast rather than super-strong. An orc barbarian standing next to a halfling barbarian, assuming both had the same general circumstances, you're going to assume the halfling is not as strong just based on sheer size. The thing is, we could add a size-based modifier for either race, to explain why the orc can carry a ton more weight and deal more damage in melee, but then how much of that is just reiterating what the strength score is supposed to be approximating anyway? Unless the system is defined as those scores being relative to their size from the outset, you're always going to have those kinds of outliers.

Mastikator
2020-12-29, 04:02 AM
A sensible creator considers their audience. If you want wide appeal, you need to make sure not too many people "pick another setting/game."
And if you're designing for a specific group, you probably want to make sure none of them do

You pick your audience based on your vision, not the other way around. We're not Disney and we're not making some blockbuster movie here, "wide audience" is out of the question.

Underground
2020-12-29, 04:51 AM
I dont really see why a DM would have to react to a player that wants to play a "weak" combination of race and class.

Thats a very powergamer kind of view on players. Not all players are powergamers.

Heck I consider myself a powergamer and even I dont always choose the best combo of race and class.

For example, one of my favorite characters is my paladin, who I recreated over multiple games. She's highelven. Is that a powergamer choice ? Not at all. Its super stylish though. :smallwink:

I do make her Aasimar or the like whenever I get the chance, though. She's a total goody two shoes, after all.

Vinyadan
2020-12-29, 05:09 AM
(almost invariably based on or inspired by a superficial take on some real life culture) which are then labelled as a 'race' and proclaimed to be in-world objectively superior or inferior to other 'races'. and played out than yet another elven wizard, human paladin or half-orc barbarian?

Could you give some examples of those cultures used as inspiration? I frankly never noticed, maybe because I don't give much thought to the handbook descriptions (I think almost anyone can come up with something more satisfying).

jayem
2020-12-29, 06:20 AM
Could you give some examples of those cultures used as inspiration? I frankly never noticed, maybe because I don't give much thought to the handbook descriptions (I think almost anyone can come up with something more satisfying).
Vistani were mentioned up thread ... https://ravenloft-curseofstrahd.obsidianportal.com/wikis/vistani

Who contain clear visual similarities. While also containing a mix of narrative elements that (pre-fixing) could be pushed to more or less match Reality, Enid Blyton, the portrayal used by Victor Hugo, that used to justify the Porjamos, and statements today...

Vinyadan
2020-12-29, 06:53 AM
Vistani were mentioned up thread ... https://ravenloft-curseofstrahd.obsidianportal.com/wikis/vistani

Who contain clear visual similarities. While also containing a mix of narrative elements that (pre-fixing) could be pushed to more or less match Reality, Enid Blyton, the portrayal used by Victor Hugo, that used to justify the Porjamos, and statements today...

OK, from what I gathered, the original version strained belief as to how it got the OK, and it's good that they changed it. That's not really a race, however, as much as a variant within the human race and in a specific setting, something I had not considered while writing my post. My main curiosity is how the very generic races in e.g. the 3.5 player's handbook can be traced to specific cultures.

Talakeal
2020-12-29, 11:15 AM
First things first, I want to point something out. Nobody in this thread so far is making a good case, or really any case, that racial mods are intrinsically offensive. Combined with the fact that none of the flex stats fans were saying that in 2019, I think it's safe to say that claims of offensiveness were just emotions riding high and both sides being politically primed. Both by WotC's press release at the time, and the culture in general.

On to a game design and theme perspective, a lot goes into the question of how far a character can rise from the accident of their birth. Like I mentioned before, a 5e character spends over half their career in theory and often all of it in practice being 5% behind if they don't have an appropriate racial stat boost. I'm not a fan of freeform racial ASIs, and I can appreciate that's a fair argument. In an alternate D&D where everybody got enough level based ASIs to cap out their primary stat in early T2, I'd say that the problem self-corrects early enough to not be worth any fuss. If the problem persisted over a character's whole career but were a percentile system where racial mods only accounted for 1-2% of the character's total, I'd be more inclined to say it was a nonissue.

Edit to add: Looking at your system and spelling it out for everyone else here, it looks like it's 1d20 + stat (on a 1-10 scale) + usually 5 for a skill that's in your character's wheelhouse. With advancement being point based. A racial +1 to an attribute that still respects the 10 cap is essentially just a few free character points that have to be spent a specific way. Ditto for baked in traits, and point based games will often treat races as package deals that come with a slight discount over what all the bundled traits would cost individually. (Which makes sense. A package deal usually isn't as synergistic as what could be bought for the points spent freely, so it's okay to give a bit of a discount for that.) Having racial mods break the 10 cap for PC races might make people feel like some races are more or less mandatory because that would be a 5% difference that never really goes away.

So you have a couple of options. You could not bother with race rules at all, and ask people who do want to play an oddball race to approximate it buying existing traits and refluffing. (Alternately, you could create a few special monster traits for things like being exceptionally large/small and add those to the expected bundle for people who want to approximate a monster.) Or if you really want to make multiple PC races an active thing, you could have them bundle a few traits and stat boosts together and cost character points. The devil will be in the details and it will require playtesting, but in principle I don't see anybody calling it either unplayable or offensive.

Nobody in this thread is really pointing it out, which is annoying, as I still people claiming pretty regularly on current threads on this and other boards, they just, for whatever reason, are declining to articulate here.

Also, that is more or less how I do it in my system currently.


What does a professional editor cost for a project of that size?

Somewhere in the four figures range, the exact amount depends on how good an editor and how thorough a job you want.


I dont really see why a DM would have to react to a player that wants to play a "weak" combination of race and class.

Thats a very powergamer kind of view on players. Not all players are powergamers.

Heck I consider myself a powergamer and even I dont always choose the best combo of race and class.

For example, one of my favorite characters is my paladin, who I recreated over multiple games. She's highelven. Is that a powergamer choice ? Not at all. Its super stylish though. :smallwink:

I do make her Aasimar or the like whenever I get the chance, though. She's a total goody two shoes, after all.

Its really only an issue for the DM if someone is unhappy because they feel they are being punished for playing a race they love or aren't able to play the character they wanted to play because they didn't want to fall behind mechanically.


OK, from what I gathered, the original version strained belief as to how it got the OK, and it's good that they changed it. That's not really a race, however, as much as a variant within the human race and in a specific setting, something I had not considered while writing my post. My main curiosity is how the very generic races in e.g. the 3.5 player's handbook can be traced to specific cultures.

Well, Forgotten Realms has a lot of human cultures imported from the real world and then not even really trying to file the serial numbers off.

Other settings, like Warcraft and Warhammer, tend to have non human cultures that are ported very heavily from real life ones, but its not as apparent in D&D.

In D&D (and most fantasy) its mostly just stereotypes of real races that can also be applied to fantasy races, for example dwarves and goblins are often seen as adhering to Jewish stereotypes and orcs often have stereotypes from Africans, mongols, or native Americans. I have seen elves and even Yuan-ti accused of stereotyping Asians, and so on.

Willie the Duck
2020-12-29, 01:03 PM
Nobody in this thread is really pointing it out, which is annoying, as I still people claiming pretty regularly on current threads on this and other boards, they just, for whatever reason, are declining to articulate here.
...
In D&D (and most fantasy) its mostly just stereotypes of real races that can also be applied to fantasy races, for example dwarves and goblins are often seen as adhering to Jewish stereotypes and orcs often have stereotypes from Africans, mongols, or native Americans. I have seen elves and even Yuan-ti accused of stereotyping Asians, and so on.

There are some pretty explicit examples, and some pretty nebulous ones, and a bunch in between (I will not comment on specific instances, nor the overall validity of claims, only that they run the gamut). Some early D&D modules and books used orcs as direct stand-ins for Africans, Native Americans, or Pacific Islanders (most glaring example might be the BECMI module Drums on Fire Mountain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drums_on_Fire_Mountain)). Later, the 2nd edition AD&D book The Complete Book of Humanoids (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Complete_Book_of_Humanoids) tried to make the various humanoid races playable (again) and framed them as noble savage-esque wilderness protectors and tribal peoples and so on and so forth. And then again in other places orcs and the like are people eating monsters who are always evil and go and and kill them, etc. In my opinion it is D&D's trying to have it both ways on whether it is a generic fantasy gaming ruleset or a specific implied setting is a major contributor to the issue. Some actual hard walls between the instances where humanoids are stand-ins for IRL non-agricultural/non-Western cultures (and not giving them int penalties, etc.) and where they are designated villains/cannon fodder might have helped, although honestly just not using the same monster manual entry creatures for both roles would have been a better idea.

Grek
2020-12-29, 02:25 PM
Nobody in this thread is really pointing it out, which is annoying, as I still people claiming pretty regularly on current threads on this and other boards, they just, for whatever reason, are declining to articulate here.
If we get into the actual reasons why people think drow, orcs, gnomes, etc. are uncomfortably close to being racial stereotypes, the thread will get locked. Just like every other thread on this topic where someone went there and people felt the need to argue against the point.

NichG
2020-12-29, 03:13 PM
That seems to be at the bottom of a lot of the stat mod issue. People want to play against stereotype but.... they do not want any of the mechanical issues that makes it against sterotyping.

So... make all pc races mecanicly the same. Stat, extras, ect and then provide points to buy race add ons and get more points for issues.

Make all the npcs differently however.
So unless a pc gets exactly the same set up as the npcs, they are forever not quite the same as the rest of their race.

Alternately, you could design things to lean into enabling against-type play while also supporting stereotype builds in different ways. Imagine for example removing all of the X stat to Y/use Y stat instead of X things from other sources, and have things along those lines be how racial modifiers work, as specific abilities:

Orc: You may use Strength-4 in place of all mental attributes. Gain +2 to Strength.

Elf: Use CL-2 in place of BAB if higher. May add Dexterity mod to damage on crits on top of Strength, and can use Dexterity for damage in place of Strength with light weapons (or double Dexterity on crits with light weapons).

Halfling: Gain access to a Luck attribute which adds it's positive modifier to all rolls and checks (no penalty on negative); however, this must be bought up from an initial score of zero via point buy points or advancement. Luck feats and abilities gain additional uses equal to the character's Luck modifier.

Dwarf: Dwarves gain 1/- DR per 2 points of Constitution modifier, and behave as if their level were 3 higher for determining hitpoints gained (or lost) from Con. Dwarven spellcasters may substitute Constitution-4 for the usual casting stat of their class.

Gnome: Each Gnome selects one attribute every day to act as a 'shadow statistic' - others who fail a Will save DC equal to HD/2 + Charisma modifier made at the start of an encounter interact with the character as if that attribute were 6 points higher (damage taken, DCs of spells, etc). The Gnome themselves must make this save at the start of
each day in order to determine if they gain direct personal benefits from the shadow statistic, and may not choose to voluntarily fail it.

The idea would be to give abilities or alternate engagements with the mechanics that would incentivize different stat distributions, while allowing those things to be utilized in a variety of ways that ideally might change how different classes end up building or playing out.

Democratus
2020-12-29, 03:42 PM
Alternately, you could design things to lean into enabling against-type play while also supporting stereotype builds in different ways.

We have that now.

You can play an Orc wizard or a Gnome barbarian in 5e. Since the game has bounded accuracy there is no need to optimize to be effective. The game as written is easy enough that even a highly sub-optimal character can excel.

Play whatever race/class combo you like. It will work out just fine in 5e.

Anymage
2020-12-29, 04:26 PM
If we get into the actual reasons why people think drow, orcs, gnomes, etc. are uncomfortably close to being racial stereotypes, the thread will get locked. Just like every other thread on this topic where someone went there and people felt the need to argue against the point.

Willie touched on where some of the tropes for humanoids got problematic. Going farther down that route would very quickly be flirting with board rules.

Explaining why 3.5 dwarves are okay as a culture but suddenly problematic when they get +2 Con, -2 Cha is not a position I've seen anyone defend, or even bring up outside of these arguments. By comparison, unease with some of the portrayals of humanoids goes back pretty far. Enough people were upset with orcs portrayed as "usually Chaotic Evil" in 3.0 that it got downgraded to "often Chaotic Evil" in 3.5. If nobody pointed at stat mods before now, I'm allowed to be curious why they're suddenly the heart of the problem.


Alternately, you could design things to lean into enabling against-type play while also supporting stereotype builds in different ways. Imagine for example removing all of the X stat to Y/use Y stat instead of X things from other sources, and have things along those lines be how racial modifiers work, as specific abilities:

...

The idea would be to give abilities or alternate engagements with the mechanics that would incentivize different stat distributions, while allowing those things to be utilized in a variety of ways that ideally might change how different classes end up building or playing out.

While that's a nice idea to tool around with, it also sounds like a nightmare to balance. Especially when you ask what humans have to make them interesting. It's hard to have a general bonus in a world of strong racial perks that doesn't either overshoot or undershoot by a long shot.


We have that now.

You can play an Orc wizard or a Gnome barbarian in 5e. Since the game has bounded accuracy there is no need to optimize to be effective. The game as written is easy enough that even a highly sub-optimal character can excel.

Play whatever race/class combo you like. It will work out just fine in 5e.

BA also means that each +1 matters more than they would in a system that can grow to insane heights. If anything, I wonder if the fact that modifiers could get so crazy high in 3.x is why the potential -2 for a poorly placed racial mod (if you play, say, a half orc wizard compared to a race that got +2 Int) mattered so much less in comparison. And as has been noted elsewhere, not having a well placed racial mod can mean being -1 to your most important rolls for your whole career given that many games don't get past 12.

But that's a specific confluence of factors relevant to 5e D&D, not a general statement about all games everywhere.

137beth
2020-12-29, 04:56 PM
Yes, but we're discussing GAME. Games have mechanical aspects. How do you express Orcs as "strong" without an in-game mechanic?

The person you are responding to said, explicitly, how he would express that orcs are strong: with a game mechanic that is more interesting than a flat number boost. Here, it's at the beginning of his second paragraph:

In the context of D&D 5e, I could make orcs that fit the usual archetype by switching the bonus to Strength with Powerful Build.

A racial game mechanic which is more interesting than a flat number boost does a better job at making races mechanically distinct. If were to design a game where the only "game mechanic" is a flat +2 to one number, then that sounds like a rather boring game to me.


Nobody in this thread is really pointing it out, which is annoying, as I still people claiming pretty regularly on current threads on this and other boards, they just, for whatever reason, are declining to articulate here.


Well, I've said explicilty why I want racial flat number bonuses gone. And, other people in this thread who agree with me have stated the same reason, starting with the fifth post in this thread:

I would argue "by not having racial ability modifiers." Regardless of real-world concerns, they're boring. They basically vanish as soon as you're done with character creation, especially if you didn't min-max (ie, if you start with a 20 when the normal max at creation is 18, that's at least sort of noticeable; if you start with a 16, who can even tell?) If you want orcs to be stronger than humans, it's more fun to give them something like Powerful Build than +2 Strength.


A discussion very similar to this one happens when people talk about magic items in D&D 3.5. Time and time again, I've seen people on the forums say something like

I hate that D&D 3.5 expects the players to get tons of magic items. I want magic items to be special! That's why I'm making house rules so that magic items are super duper rare, and when the players DO find a magic item it will only give them +1 to hit and damage and not +5.
The problem is that for me, and a lot of other people, a flat number boost on one of the most common types of die rolls is not "special" or "interesting," regardless of how common or rare they are and whether it is a +1 or a +100. If I were a player in that Generic Person's game, and my character found a magic sword just gave a flat number boost, I would not think it was "special," even if the GM insisted that it was the only magic sword in the world, because a flat number boost doesn't feel meaningfully distinct from a non-magical sword.

And, I think the same thing about species ability score modifiers. If the only mechanical distinction between orcs and elves is where their flat +2 goes, then that isn't interesting and I'd rather the rule books not use up space on it. I'd prefer that the game designers either give each playable species unique and interesting mechanics, or don't bother making species mechanically distinct at all.

Talakeal
2020-12-29, 05:36 PM
Well, I've said explicilty why I want racial flat number bonuses gone. And, other people in this thread who agree with me have stated the same reason, starting with the fifth post in this thread:.

Do not that I am talking about the "real life concerns" which Grod explicitly says he doesn't want to get into.

Silly Name
2020-12-29, 07:47 PM
I do want to say one thing about the possible poor implications, even unintentional, of racial modifiers (though I'm more of the inclination of disliking them at a mechanical level more than anything else): it's hard to make something truly inhuman and alien, doubly so if you want them to be playable and, therefore, relatable.

We are human, our examples of society, mores, religions and traditions are human ones. When we make fictional characters, we either go out of our way to make them truly alien and incomprehensible, or we can't avoid making them at least somewhat human. Their drives and ambitions will resemble human ones, their fears and hopes will be the same as those of humans.

Often, in fantasy settings, orcs and elves are completely human in their psychology, and their social structures closesly resemble human ones. This is true even in old stories and myths: the fairy-tale ogre is human in most respects apart from size. The heroes of stories featuring ogres are perfectly capable of talking with them, understand their thoughts, and trick them, to the point you could switch "ogre" with "strong, tall cannibal" in those stories and nothing would fundamentally change.

So, often, elves and orcs end up feeling like humans with a coat of paint - and their connection to humanity is further emphasised by the existence of half-orcs and half-elves. And when you imply that orcs are genetically, innately, dumber than elves and humans, you steer close to some pretty harmful pseudoscience that plagues the real world.

This can make people uncomfortable, especially if one of the races portrayed as innately dumber ends up resembling, even if by accident, a human culture. Again, this is because our frame of reference is inescapably human, and so it's hard to make things that have no relation to humanity.

This can be avoided by making those creatures truly, utterly alien, humanoid only in superficial appearance (think WH40K orcs - literal Chaos-spawned fungi that can make things true simply by believing them hard enough), but it's an arduous task and may have the side effect of making them unappealing to play.

NichG
2020-12-29, 07:49 PM
While that's a nice idea to tool around with, it also sounds like a nightmare to balance. Especially when you ask what humans have to make them interesting. It's hard to have a general bonus in a world of strong racial perks that doesn't either overshoot or undershoot by a long shot.


Balance is over-rated. As long as none of the options are actually bad, I'm happy with many or all looking so good/broken that someone is always eager to play each of them. What you do want to avoid is something like a tax, which is what e.g. a human's bonus feat tends to be.

In this case, humans could have something like getting an extra bonus stat point at levels 2, 6, 10, etc, but with the rule that they cannot invest a bonus stat point in the same stat twice in a row (so they could do Str, Dex, Str, but not Str, Str, Dex). It's +5 stat points by Lv20, which is significant, but at the same time it can't stack their SAD thing, so it means that humans would be good for MAD builds or just for having a secondary high RP attribute on a character.

Grek
2020-12-29, 08:10 PM
Explaining why 3.5 dwarves are okay as a culture but suddenly problematic when they get +2 Con, -2 Cha is not a position I've seen anyone defend, or even bring up outside of these arguments. By comparison, unease with some of the portrayals of humanoids goes back pretty far. Enough people were upset with orcs portrayed as "usually Chaotic Evil" in 3.0 that it got downgraded to "often Chaotic Evil" in 3.5. If nobody pointed at stat mods before now, I'm allowed to be curious why they're suddenly the heart of the problem.
The whole racial stat mods thing is a more subtle problem than the more glaring issues with D&D's treatment of race. Noble savages and dark skin translating to always evil are the obvious problems that every knows about and has probably read an article somewhere about. It's uncontroversial.

Racial stats are less immediately noticeable and take some fridge logic before you realize that what you just read is kinda messed up. Take dwarves as an example: They're presented as being short, hairy, sluggish cave-dwellers with unpleasant personalities, who are perpetually at war against some a bunch of different inhuman races, but compensated for those myriad weaknesses by being natural warriors trained from birth to carry out their racial grudges and being possessed of a greater tolerance for injury and especially poisoning than other races. Taken with fresh eyes like that instead of just accepting it as part of the D&D received tradition, and suddenly the problem becomes obvious. And sure, the +2 Con, -2 Cha is only a small part of that (specifically the italicized part), but it's still there. And the title of the thread is, after all, "Right way to do racial stat modifiers?", so obviously that's what's going to get focused on in this thread.

Talakeal
2020-12-29, 08:53 PM
The whole racial stat mods thing is a more subtle problem than the more glaring issues with D&D's treatment of race. Noble savages and dark skin translating to always evil are the obvious problems that every knows about and has probably read an article somewhere about. It's uncontroversial.

Racial stats are less immediately noticeable and take some fridge logic before you realize that what you just read is kinda messed up. Take dwarves as an example: They're presented as being short, hairy, sluggish cave-dwellers with unpleasant personalities, who are perpetually at war against some a bunch of different inhuman races, but compensated for those myriad weaknesses by being natural warriors trained from birth to carry out their racial grudges and being possessed of a greater tolerance for injury and especially poisoning than other races. Taken with fresh eyes like that instead of just accepting it as part of the D&D received tradition, and suddenly the problem becomes obvious. And sure, the +2 Con, -2 Cha is only a small part of that (specifically the italicized part), but it's still there. And the title of the thread is, after all, "Right way to do racial stat modifiers?", so obviously that's what's going to get focused on in this thread.

Note obvious enough apparently, because I have no idea what real world analogy that has.

Grek
2020-12-29, 09:58 PM
{Scrubbed}

Vinyadan
2020-12-30, 05:26 AM
The assumption that everyone has read an article about something is probably the reason why things that seem obviously perceivable to everyone actually aren't.

Thanks for linking the articles, although I don't think I will have a chance of commenting on them here, given their size.

About Dwarves and Jews, there is a letter where Tolkien compares them to each other, although it's merely a comparison of an ethnolinguistic condition of bilingualism spurred by the choice of how to render a Dwarf in a radio adaptation. In another letter, he also compared the very different (from the Dwarves) Numenoreans to the Jews, similarly to explain certain cultural aspects.

Vahnavoi
2020-12-30, 05:40 AM
That's because Tolkien was big on applicability instead of allegory. Which in practical terms means you can completely abandon the idea that fictional peoples are direct analogues to any real people, yet still do reasoned cross-comparison between them, just like you'd do between different real peoples and their conditions.

KineticDiplomat
2020-12-30, 08:11 AM
I can imagine session zero now:

Player: “Your orcs have different stats than humans?”
GM: “Yes?”
Player: “How could you! That is clearly an analog for <MOLEHILL TO DIE ON>. You’re saying all <MTDO> are strong and savage beasts with lesser intellect!”
GM: “Uh, they’re like 400 pounds of green (or is it gray) snarling muscle...somewhat dumber snarling muscle? Because they’re orcs. They are definitely not humans.”
P: “But they are a clear analog for <MTDO> culture! A self confirming article I read once agreed with me!”
G: “They don’t have any religion, language, habits, appearance, hierarchy, currency, or livelihoods that look like <MTDO>...so help me out here?”
P: “Well, they wouldn’t! That’s what makes it so insidious! Because there’s no way to know they’re racist unless you’re enlightened and transpose personal theories onto them!”
G: “So they don’t look, behave, sound, live or generally in any way reflect <MTDO> except for your belief that because they are both stronger and dumber this must mean they are dog whistle <MTDO>?”
P: “Yes! So do your part for great justice! Save the <MTDO>!“
G: “Out of question, what are your thoughts on vampires?”
P: “They are a different MTDO!”
G: “Yeah, you’re playing the wrong game here.”

Draconi Redfir
2020-12-30, 09:05 AM
Any time someone tries to say that "X fiction race" are really "X real life thing" in a coat of paint, i just mentally pull up this image, keywords adjusted for whatever context.

https://i.imgur.com/RWPnU0U.png

Dwarves are Dwarves, Orcs are Orcs, Goblins are Goblins, Drow are Drow. Trying to tie real-world analogies to them to make them problematic is just spending too much time digging way too deep for something that isn't there.

they're fictional. the point is that they're different and interesting. I think they've done a pretty good job of that all things considered.

Morty
2020-12-30, 09:09 AM
Any time someone tries to say that "X fiction race" are really "X real life thing" in a coat of paint, i just mentally pull up this image, keywords adjusted for whatever context.

https://i.imgur.com/RWPnU0U.png

Dwarves are Dwarves, Orcs are Orcs, Goblins are Goblins, Drow are Drow. Trying to tie real-world analogies to them to make them problematic is just spending too much time digging way too deep for something that isn't there.

they're fictional. the point is that they're different and interesting. I think they've done a pretty good job of that all things considered.

Of course, few if any people actually say that "X race is Y real-life group". What they do is point out how presentation of fictional species can coincide with portrayal of real people, even if it's unintentional. You just prefer to boil it down to an easily-rebuked strawman.

ezekielraiden
2020-12-30, 09:13 AM
The right way, as far as I'm concerned, is 13th Age's method (which I'm a bit surprised no one here seems to have mentioned!)

Your character's race gives you a choice of two stats. You get +2 in one of those stats.

Your character's class gives you a choice of two stats. You get +2 in one of those stats, as long as it's different from the previous.

So, for example, a dragonborn paladin is locked into +2 Cha/+2 Str, because both dragonborn and paladin have "Cha or Str" as the options they provide. A half-orc wizard can have either +2 Str or +2 Dex, and also +2 Int or +2 Wis. A high elf wizard would have +2 Int or +2 Cha, and +2 Int or +2 Wis. This means the aforementioned dragonborn gets one choice: Str/Cha. The half-orc has a lot of potential variety: Str/Int, Dex/Int, Str/Wis, Dex/Wis. The high elf has slightly less variety, but still a decent set: Cha/Int, Int/Wis, or Cha/Wis.

As a result of this, it is not possible for a player to be forced into playing a low-Int Wizard...yet by that same token, they are generally not forced into playing a high-Int Wizard either. (In fact, AFAICT, no first-party character would be forced into such a Wizard. You have to be a strong-and-charismatic paladin if you're a dragonborn, though, and you have to be a strong-and-hearty barbarian or fighter if you're a forgeborn, but by and large most characters have the freedom to choose something "non-standard.")

It may not seem like much, but this is a huge boon. It means that people who don't like being "forced" to play optimally can choose not to, if their story leads them that way (barring the aforementioned exceptions). Yet it also means that no one is ever "punished" for playing a half-orc wizard or a dragonborn rogue or a halfling barbarian or whatever. This method preserves the notion that there can be certain loose physiological trends, while completely avoiding the questionable "and thus you'll never be as smart as an Elf can be" stuff.

It's also worth noting that this makes the human "floating plus" actually valuable: now human is the only race that can always have "the two best stats" for any class, no matter what it wants--or can take whatever scratches the player's fancy. Human flexibility becomes actually useful, but not overpowering.

Draconi Redfir
2020-12-30, 09:15 AM
@^ that sounds like a pretty solid method actually. i wouldn't mind playing around with something like that myself.




Of course, few if any people actually say that "X race is Y real-life group". What they do is point out how presentation of fictional species can coincide with portrayal of real people, even if it's unintentional. You just prefer to boil it down to an easily-rebuked strawman.

all i know is that if I'm talking about a group of orcs and their raiding habits, then I'm talking about a group of orcs and their raiding habits. You're the ones putting words into my mouth and suddenly making it about real-life people that weren't even involved in any step of the creative process of these orcs.

Coincide or not, the Orcs are in no way related to real people. so please keep those real people off the table thank you.

Morty
2020-12-30, 09:19 AM
all i know is that if I'm talking about a group of orcs and their raiding habits, then I'm talking about a group of orcs and their raiding habits. You're the ones putting words into my mouth and suddenly making it about real-life people that weren't even involved in any step of the creative process of these orcs.

Coincide or not, the Orcs are in no way related to real people. so please keep those real people off the table thank you.

I haven't mentioned orcs or their raiding habits. Nor have you. I also haven't implied anything about how your portrayal of these hypothetical orcs is actually "about" real-life people. Could you explain how I've put any words in your mouth? All I've actually done is criticize your misrepresentation of arguments you disagree with.

Willie the Duck
2020-12-30, 09:28 AM
all i know is that if I'm talking about a group of orcs and their raiding habits, then I'm talking about a group of orcs and their raiding habits. You're the ones putting words into my mouth and suddenly making it about real-life people that weren't even involved in any step of the creative process of these orcs.

Coincide or not, the Orcs are in no way related to real people. so please keep those real people off the table thank you.
I know that you are literally talking to Morty, but realistically, who are you talking to? As in, you realize the people to whom you'd need to make this argument aren't here, right? You, me, Morty, and everyone else here -- we all can do whatever we like at our own tables. Always have been able to, and always will. All these issues are at the demographic and the corporate-response level. WotC and other game-makers have to decide how they are going to proceed with the games they make going forward, and they have to deal with the POC who know about the Fire Mountain orcs and CBoH humanoids and all the rest and are looking at what the corporations are doing with their IPs when deciding whether to join the hobby or not, and what you do at your table quite literally doesn't matter (in either direction, so keep doing what you want).


The right way, as far as I'm concerned, is 13th Age's method (which I'm a bit surprised no one here seems to have mentioned!)

Your character's race gives you a choice of two stats. You get +2 in one of those stats.

Your character's class gives you a choice of two stats. You get +2 in one of those stats, as long as it's different from the previous.

I always like this idea: An Orc can be just as good a wizard as an elf, they just might be a stronger wizard than the elf is (and an elven non-wizard be smarter than most other races).

Draconi Redfir
2020-12-30, 09:33 AM
I know that you are literally talking to Morty, but realistically, who are you talking to? As in, you realize the people to whom you'd need to make this argument aren't here, right? You, me, Morty, and everyone else here -- we all can do whatever we like at our own tables. Always have been able to, and always will. All these issues are at the demographic and the corporate-response level. WotC and other game-makers have to decide how they are going to proceed with the games they make going forward, and they have to deal with the POC who know about the Fire Mountain orcs and CBoH humanoids and all the rest and are looking at what the corporations are doing with their IPs when deciding whether to join the hobby or not, and what you do at your table quite literally doesn't matter (in either direction, so keep doing what you want).

Grek made an entire post about Dwarves being analogous to real-world cultures (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24864890&postcount=124) just a few posts up, which was the main thing i was referring too. i was also adding to KineticDiplomat's post about the same topic that came shortly after that (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24865370&postcount=127).

Morty
2020-12-30, 09:33 AM
One funny thing about all of this is that back when 4E D&D came out and removed ability score penalties for races, it was controversial - I know, because I vehemently argued against their removal. My tastes have changed a great deal since then. But when 5E came along, it didn't bring them back (not for PHB races, at least) and... nothing happened. Some people might have protested, but clearly not enough to get them reinstated during the playtest. That races only have bonuses became the new normal. Now the line has shifted towards keeping any racial modifiers at all.


Grek made an entire post about Dwarves being analogous to real-world cultures (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24864890&postcount=124) just a few posts up, which was the main thing i was referring too. i was also adding to KineticDiplomat's post about the same topic that came shortly after that (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24865370&postcount=127).

You mean the post where she said they aren't a precise analogy?

Anymage
2020-12-30, 12:17 PM
Grek made an entire post about Dwarves being analogous to real-world cultures (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24864890&postcount=124) just a few posts up, which was the main thing i was referring too. i was also adding to KineticDiplomat's post about the same topic that came shortly after that (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=24865370&postcount=127).

I just want to note that Grek's post got modded. And that discussion on whether fantasy creatures could or could not be read as analogous to real world cultures (usually involving appeals to Tolkien) was generally around the point that the mods pulled the plug on past threads.


The right way, as far as I'm concerned, is 13th Age's method (which I'm a bit surprised no one here seems to have mentioned!)...

Given that Tal's game is point based, I'm inclined to just call various races in a pointbuy game just suggested bundles of powers. Ogres are encouraged to take Extra Large and Impressive Toughness while halflings are encouraged to take Short and Lucky. If you really have your heart set on a halfling with hyper-giantism who happens to have Extra Large instead of Short, more power to you.

How WotC should/will handle racial mods in the eventual 6e, as well as prototype systems people can muck around with now (the Tasha's version feeling very slapped together) are interesting discussions that I really wish didn't get sidetracked by discussions of real world racism.

KaussH
2020-12-30, 12:29 PM
You know.. couldn't almost all the mechanical issue be handled by a stat cap at starting level. So no one can have higher than x with or without mods. That works for other games, and I could see it working for dnd as well. Then stat mods are more flavor, and can be handled as such their own. But be you a human barbarian or orc cleric or ect, your max stat is x at game start. Call it 16 for dnd for example.

Grek
2020-12-30, 12:34 PM
I just want to note that Grek's post got modded. And that discussion on whether fantasy creatures could or could not be read as analogous to real world cultures (usually involving appeals to Tolkien) was generally around the point that the mods pulled the plug on past threads.
I got warned against using a particular example which was a bit too close to the line regarding the forum's rules on inappropriate topics. I think as long as we avoid further reference to any examples in that vein, it'll probably be okay?

But more broadly, the point isn't that D&D race X is supposed to be a stand-in for real world people Y; it's that the same narratives and tropes that have historically been used to demean real world people also end up getting used to characterize various races in D&D. Hopefully nobody at anyone's table goes on about how a particular real world ethnicity are all craven cowards who habitually steal things. But Dragonlace decided to make Kender a thing, in large part by asking "What would happen if there really were a culture that actually acted like <bad stereotype>?" and running with the implications of it. Likewise, while D&D Orcs are probably not supposed to directly reflect poorly upon anyone in particular, or be a stand in for the people of any particular country, they share a common ancestor (in the 'noble savage' trope) with a great deal of modern prejudice.

No real people on the table. Just a lot of ugly history pointing at both the people and your table.


You know.. couldn't almost all the mechanical issue be handled by a stat cap at starting level. So no one can have higher than x with or without mods. That works for other games, and I could see it working for dnd as well. Then stat mods are more flavor, and can be handled as such their own. But be you a human barbarian or orc cleric or ect, your max stat is x at game start. Call it 16 for dnd for example.
Talakeal's rules actually do something pretty much exactly like that, in fact. I personally think it's a good way to handle the racial stats issue in particular.

Draconi Redfir
2020-12-30, 01:54 PM
okay okay, i misunderstood what i was reading, I'm sorry.

Pex
2020-12-30, 03:06 PM
Option 1: Don't have modifiers at all. Give all races Nice Things and have a Point Buy method that allows you a good array. Personal bias the good array doesn't require an 18 at first level in D&D terms, but you can have one and not be The Suck because of it elsewhere.

Option 2: Have a decent Point Buy system. Give all races Nice Things. Give everyone a +2 and +1, where you can have an 18 at first level, max, because of the +2/+1 and ok if only because of the +2/+1.

Option 3: Do Option 1 or 2 and have Classes give a +2 to their prime. Mad classes perhaps +1/+1 or even +2/+1, hard stop max 18 at first level.

Mastikator
2020-12-30, 03:12 PM
Option 1: Don't have modifiers at all. Give all races Nice Things and have a Point Buy method that allows you a good array. Personal bias the good array doesn't require an 18 at first level in D&D terms, but you can have one and not be The Suck because of it elsewhere.

Option 2: Have a decent Point Buy system. Give all races Nice Things. Give everyone a +2 and +1, where you can have an 18 at first level, max, because of the +2/+1 and ok if only because of the +2/+1.

Option 3: Do Option 1 or 2 and have Classes give a +2 to their prime. Mad classes perhaps +1/+1 or even +2/+1, hard stop max 18 at first level.

What Nice Things should humans have? Not asking sarcastically, I think you're right with the Nice Things approach, but humans should have one too then.

KaussH
2020-12-30, 03:44 PM
What Nice Things should humans have? Not asking sarcastically, I think you're right with the Nice Things approach, but humans should have one too then.

In past games I have given humans a few good things. "Blessing of self" humans get half the penalties for trying to do something they totally unskilled at doing. It makes them a little crazy as a race, but it's less useful for pcs.

"Adapatable " humans suffer reduced environment penalties for all environments

"Common" humans are the majority race and suffer no/reduced social interaction penalties.

Ect

Draconi Redfir
2020-12-30, 03:46 PM
What Nice Things should humans have? Not asking sarcastically, I think you're right with the Nice Things approach, but humans should have one too then.

Humans are almost universally "The Mario" in media, meaning they're pretty good with almost everything, jack-of-all-trades master-of-none style.

Pathfinder gets that pretty well with the +1 skill point per level and the extra feat at 1st level. not entirely sure what they get in 5th edition. extra proficiency options i guess?


If you want something specifically specific that isn't "good at almost everything", then i think our adaptability, endurance, and creativity could all be good things to look for.

Adaptability: Humans have spread all over the world into every biome, from the coldest to the hottest, from the deepest to the tallest, humans will find a way to live there. What this translates too in-game i'm not sure, extra bonus on all saves VS environmental checks, and a bonus to any Survival checks? Perhaps even immunity to difficult terrain?


Endurance: Humans (at least in real life) are biologically designed to be long-distance walkers, exhausting prey by simply following it at a walking pace until it can run no further and collapses. I could see this translating to no penalties from forced-march maneuvers, reduced hours of sleep needed, perhaps more classes can fully recover during a short rest rather then a long one, and maybe even an increased movement speed when not in combat.


Creativity: With some exceptions, humans generally seem to be the ones doing all the inventing and empire-building, it's rare to see any particular group of other races having more then one or two settlements united under the same banner, and it doesn't seem too common for them to create something non-magical that really changes the world. If your world has exotic weapons like the Gnomish hook-hammer or the Orc double-axe, i would definitely include some Human-specialized exotic weapons, possibly black-powder based firearms. Beyond that you could take a route similar to those "humans as space orcs (https://humans-are-space-orcs.tumblr.com/)" posts you'll sometimes see floating around. Humans will continue to attempt things even if they've proven to be dangerous before, this could translate to a guaranteed minor success at crafting and maybe even knowledge checks, but with some small penalty like a small blow to HP if rolled low enough. Or a bonus to some skill checks if the human tries something new, like getting a bonus to diplomacy checks if the human has recently eaten a local food that was almost harmful or otherwise didn't sit well with them.

Grek
2020-12-30, 03:52 PM
What Nice Things should humans have? Not asking sarcastically, I think you're right with the Nice Things approach, but humans should have one too then.

Depends on if you're doing Human as Default or if you want them to be One Species Among Many. D&D usually goes for the former option, which is why humans get generic stuff like a bonus feat, or extra skill points or (in very early versions) bonuses to XP. If you're going for One Species Among Many, you'd probably play into humans as tool users (bonus tool proficiency?) or humans as pursuit predators (increased fatigue/health recovery during rests?) or humans as diplomatic (can speak haltingly, but not read/write in any language that they've heard spoke for more than an hour?).

awa
2020-12-30, 07:22 PM
Humans are also exceptionally good at throwing things. Perhaps give them increased range, thus making thrown weapons better than normal but still not making a javelin better than say a bow.


We also have good eyes at least during the day color vision.
In a species neutral setting you could give humans advantage (or something similar) to see during the day and a penalty in the dark.

edit
humans are also very cooperative. I know it doesn't seem that way sometimes but its true human work together exceptionally well so you could give them a bonus on aid another actions.

Of course humans biggest advantage besides intelligence does not translate very well to rpgs, extremely fast reproductive rate is very powerful for a species not so much for an adventurer.

VoxRationis
2020-12-30, 08:00 PM
Humans are almost universally "The Mario" in media, meaning they're pretty good with almost everything, jack-of-all-trades master-of-none style.

Pathfinder gets that pretty well with the +1 skill point per level and the extra feat at 1st level. not entirely sure what they get in 5th edition. extra proficiency options i guess?


If you want something specifically specific that isn't "good at almost everything", then i think our adaptability, endurance, and creativity could all be good things to look for.

Adaptability: Humans have spread all over the world into every biome, from the coldest to the hottest, from the deepest to the tallest, humans will find a way to live there. What this translates too in-game i'm not sure, extra bonus on all saves VS environmental checks, and a bonus to any Survival checks? Perhaps even immunity to difficult terrain?


Endurance: Humans (at least in real life) are biologically designed to be long-distance walkers, exhausting prey by simply following it at a walking pace until it can run no further and collapses. I could see this translating to no penalties from forced-march maneuvers, reduced hours of sleep needed, perhaps more classes can fully recover during a short rest rather then a long one, and maybe even an increased movement speed when not in combat.


Creativity: With some exceptions, humans generally seem to be the ones doing all the inventing and empire-building, it's rare to see any particular group of other races having more then one or two settlements united under the same banner, and it doesn't seem too common for them to create something non-magical that really changes the world. If your world has exotic weapons like the Gnomish hook-hammer or the Orc double-axe, i would definitely include some Human-specialized exotic weapons, possibly black-powder based firearms. Beyond that you could take a route similar to those "humans as space orcs (https://humans-are-space-orcs.tumblr.com/)" posts you'll sometimes see floating around. Humans will continue to attempt things even if they've proven to be dangerous before, this could translate to a guaranteed minor success at crafting and maybe even knowledge checks, but with some small penalty like a small blow to HP if rolled low enough. Or a bonus to some skill checks if the human tries something new, like getting a bonus to diplomacy checks if the human has recently eaten a local food that was almost harmful or otherwise didn't sit well with them.


Depends on if you're doing Human as Default or if you want them to be One Species Among Many. D&D usually goes for the former option, which is why humans get generic stuff like a bonus feat, or extra skill points or (in very early versions) bonuses to XP. If you're going for One Species Among Many, you'd probably play into humans as tool users (bonus tool proficiency?) or humans as pursuit predators (increased fatigue/health recovery during rests?) or humans as diplomatic (can speak haltingly, but not read/write in any language that they've heard spoke for more than an hour?).


Humans are also exceptionally good at throwing things. Perhaps give them increased range, thus making thrown weapons better than normal but still not making a javelin better than say a bow.


We also have good eyes at least during the day color vision.
In a species neutral setting you could give humans advantage (or something similar) to see during the day and a penalty in the dark.

edit
humans are also very cooperative. I know it doesn't seem that way sometimes but its true human work together exceptionally well so you could give them a bonus on aid another actions.

Of course humans biggest advantage besides intelligence does not translate very well to rpgs, extremely fast reproductive rate is very powerful for a species not so much for an adventurer.

The problem with "humans are special" approaches tends to be that people tend to try to execute them in the manner demonstrated above: by comparing humans to other animals in real life, saying that these things that are unique to us in Holocene Earth must be unique to us in an alternate world where we are surrounded by other sapient humanoids, and assigning ourselves bonuses to things that should be equally applicable to most fantasy races.

- Endurance running: The things that make us good at that (little body hair, long limbs, torso that easily rotates independently of the neck, perspiration) apply just as much to most fantasy races.

- Throwing: ditto. Our arms, shoulders, and hands aren't significantly different from those of elves, halflings, what have you.

- Adaptability: This comes from tool use and the ability to change cultural practices to suit the environment, which is generally true of D&D-style fantasy races. If orcs were the only sapient species on the planet, you'd find them everywhere, too. The sort of biome specialization we see in fantasy settings (elves get forests, dwarves get mountains, and whatnot) makes sense as a form of niche protection, and we'd likely see humans in such a setting also develop a fixture to some

- Black powder firearms: I don't know why that would be floated as a human-specific weapon. It's as human-specific as every other weapon more sophisticated than an untooled rock is, but the majority of humans who have ever lived have not seen, much less used, a firearm.

- Language acquisition: I rather doubt that merely an hour of experience will get an adult human to be able to be functional in a new language, even haltingly.

- @awa: Humans are just about the opposite of a species with an "extremely high reproductive rate." Human gestation takes the better part of a year, almost always produces single offspring, and then the resulting offspring will not be able to reproduce for well over a decade and won't be fully mature for over two. This is a reproductive rate closer to that of elephants and whales than to most mammals of similar size to us. Our population growth rate, under the right circumstances, can be alarming, but only on a time scale relative to our normal experiences. If you put the same amount of care and infrastructure into medicine and food production for rats as we do into humans, we could increase their population at a rate many, many times the billion-a-decade or so the world human population has been growing by.

Pex
2020-12-30, 08:06 PM
What Nice Things should humans have? Not asking sarcastically, I think you're right with the Nice Things approach, but humans should have one too then.

The bonus feat and skill works for me. :smallbiggrin:

If not D&D a bonus mechanic of what the system provides. Say a class gives you one power from a list of choices. A human gives you two powers.

Draconi Redfir
2020-12-30, 09:08 PM
The problem with "humans are special" approaches tends to be that people tend to try to execute them in the manner demonstrated above: by comparing humans to other animals in real life, saying that these things that are unique to us in Holocene Earth must be unique to us in an alternate world where we are surrounded by other sapient humanoids, and assigning ourselves bonuses to things that should be equally applicable to most fantasy races.

This is why it's a work of fiction, you can alter or change things as you see fit. To use the long distance walking as an example, you could say:

Orcs, with their higher general muscle mass and high adrenaline production, tend to burn through energy faster then humans, possibly they have a much faster metabolism and heart rate that makes walking nonstop for days on end with little rest completely unviable. As a tradeoff though, they can run much faster and much longer then any human at a full sprint, but this will still quickly tire them out.

Elves are adept at short jaunts through the forest and little else. Perhaps their height and longer limbs make them more adept to an Arboreal (tree dwelling) lifestyle, making them more adept for running and swinging among tree branches, tree trunks, vines, and large leaves. This combined with their general territorial nature causing them not to leave the forests very often makes them not adept at long walks on flat surfaces, but they are much more capable at moving in 3D environments up and down the forests and jungles.

Dwarves despite their smithing lifestyles, are built for the cold. their beards may be just one of many biological insulation factors to keep them warm, they could sport short but thick full-body fur everywhere except the face and hands. Usually this is covered by clothing and armor, so some may believe they have skin like humans. All this fur though means fewer sweat glands, meaning they need to take longer periods of rest between excursions. Plus their isolationist lifestyle may have adapted them to shorter walks, or even a reliance on assisted movement such as beasts or vehicles. The heat of the forge could be a cultural thing they need to overcome their biology in order to fully embrace. Those who become true forge-masters may need to completely shave off their fur and arrange their beards in specific patterns to ensure maximum heat ventilation, as a result though, they may be less capable of leaving the area heated by the forge due to loosing their natural insulation.

Halflings could just be the opposite of Orcs, having a much slower metabolism and moving around much less in general. They focus more on farming and animal husbandry then anything else, and have been doing so much longer then even Humans. They may need to take multiple breaks to even cross town, but as a result developed very friendly demeanors to one another as everyone figuratively stops to smell the roses multiple times per day, and may strike up a conversation with others. This would likely cause them to live much longer lifespans then humans in general.


All you need are slight lore tweaks like this and you can really justify anything you want. If you really want to do research into the topic though, I'd recommend looking into our own history on earth, as there was one or more points in time where we did live alongside other sapient humanoids, such as the Neandertals. Looking up what helped us survive over them could be a good place to start determining what makes us special. Just take that, and assume those other hominids were able to survive to the medieval (or whatever other timeline you're in) era.

awa
2020-12-30, 09:27 PM
- @awa: Humans are just about the opposite of a species with an "extremely high reproductive rate." Human gestation takes the better part of a year, almost always produces single offspring, and then the resulting offspring will not be able to reproduce for well over a decade and won't be fully mature for over two. This is a reproductive rate closer to that of elephants and whales than to most mammals of similar size to us. Our population growth rate, under the right circumstances, can be alarming, but only on a time scale relative to our normal experiences. If you put the same amount of care and infrastructure into medicine and food production for rats as we do into humans, we could increase their population at a rate many, many times the billion-a-decade or so the world human population has been growing by.

While humans tend to have a single child at a time we can have a second child while the first is still growing something few animals can do.
Sure we don't match up compared to a rat but instead lets compare us to our close relatives, orangutan reproduce only once every 6-8 years, Humans can have another child every year. chimps are a bit faster needing to wait only 4-6 years between births and begin breeding at around 12 a few years earlier than is safe for humans but still overall slower than a human. gorillas are similar. So yes humans actually can reproduce very fast.

Smarter animals tend to reproduce slower something equal in intelligence to a human like most fantasy races without humans ability to have multiple children at a time would suffer an immense numerical disadvantage.

In regards to other stuff yeah were effectively taking stuff away from other species, but think about it dwarfs have short legs it wouldn't be implausible to me they are not good endurance runners. If a game designer told me his elves didn't sweat that feels entirely in character with elves I could even see them looking down on humans for being filthy sweaty beasts.

As for shoulders dwarfs and orcs are often depicted with a lot of muscles you could just say that extra strength in the arms comes at the cost of less range of motion in their shoulders limiting their ability to throw things.

edit
not to mention the fiction that the long lived races reproduce slowly is already their

Anymage
2020-12-30, 10:38 PM
This is why it's a work of fiction, you can alter or change things as you see fit. To use the long distance walking as an example, you could say:

...

All you need are slight lore tweaks like this and you can really justify anything you want. If you really want to do research into the topic though, I'd recommend looking into our own history on earth, as there was one or more points in time where we did live alongside other sapient humanoids, such as the Neandertals. Looking up what helped us survive over them could be a good place to start determining what makes us special. Just take that, and assume those other hominids were able to survive to the medieval (or whatever other timeline you're in) era.

Three problems with this.

First, many times the things that let us survive weren't cool things. Small rat-like mammals could survive the extinction event that wiped out the dinosaurs because they didn't need as many calories and could more easily find shelter, but those things aren't cool. Being a dinosaur is super cool. Since we play this game in order to do cool things, you're going to want to give humans something actively cool to do. This is the most important element; how much it would theoretically help a community for each member to have this trait is less important to a player than what it lets their individual PC do.

Second, people's intuitive sense of biology and physics doesn't necessarily map with real biology and physics. Dragons couldn't fly on earth and giant monsters would collapse under their own weight, but very few people will walk out of Godzilla vs. Mothra because their suspension of disbelief is shattered. Playing a fantasy game already invites a certain amount of playing fast and loose with the logic, plus you can have magic cover any gaps you need. You needn't hew too close to what would does or does not work under earth physics.

Third, most people's idea of normal is based on humans and humanlike fictional characters. Like our language and tool use are clearly light years beyond even our closest relatives in the animal kingdom, but elven poets and dwarven smiths are described as surpassing human ones. So while looking at the things that humans have over other earth animals is interesting in a HFY sci-fi story, they don't necessarily hold when compared to very humanlike fantasy creatures.

awa
2020-12-30, 11:10 PM
That is a weakness, dwarves and elves are incredibly human like. It makes it harder to give humans something concrete because elves and dwarves are typically depicted as human +. Thus they have to go with the generic humans get free skills or feats because there isn't actually anything that fits the fiction. An extra feat or skill would make more sense for an extremely long lived race. The fiction usually does have humans reproduce faster but like I said earlier that's not a great pc trait.

Grek
2020-12-30, 11:26 PM
I mean, if you specifically want to go for the fantastic, why not do something like:

Human
For all that the myriad races differ from one another, they all share approximately the same body plan - humanoid. This is no accident: humans are the prototypical mortal, the first draft from which all later creations diverged and made directly in the image of the Gods themselves and benefit from some small measure of divine authority:
Medium size.
30' movement.
Standard vision.
Beloved of the Gods: All beneficial divine spells cast on a human have their caster level increased by 1.
Masters of Nature: Humans count as being trained in Handle Animal and gain a +4 bonus on any associated checks.
Martial Traditions: If a human has a patron deity, they gain Weapon Proficiency in that deity's favoured weapon; otherwise they gain Improved Unarmed Attack as a bonus feat.

anthon
2020-12-30, 11:43 PM
I mean, if you specifically want to go for the fantastic, why not do something like:

Human
For all that the myriad races differ from one another, they all share approximately the same body plan - humanoid. This is no accident: humans are the prototypical mortal, the first draft from which all later creations diverged and made directly in the image of the Gods themselves and benefit from some small measure of divine authority:
Medium size.
30' movement.
Standard vision.
Beloved of the Gods: All beneficial divine spells cast on a human have their caster level increased by 1.
Masters of Nature: Humans count as being trained in Handle Animal and gain a +4 bonus on any associated checks.
Martial Traditions: If a human has a patron deity, they gain Weapon Proficiency in that deity's favoured weapon; otherwise they gain Improved Unarmed Attack as a bonus feat.


{scrubbed}

Morphic tide
2020-12-31, 01:09 AM
On the mechanical end of things, one of the big veins of complaints is the matter of them disallowing certain character concepts. In this case, the solution is to have the system as a whole disincentivise highly focused player characters, penalizing the blunter varieties of min-maxing in the process, then using floor/ceiling changes as has been described about Shadowrun (notably, you have to take away from something else to actually use the increased cap, so if getting the standard 18 is already ruinous...). Consequently, there will be no robot Alcibiades or orcish Einstein, but such are specifically not proper player characters in the first place from needing to sacrifice so much of your build resources to accomplish it that you don't have enough left for necessary variety, essentially making it so everyone has to be some kind of combination build to work in play correctly.

Keeping race choice meaningful in this situation can be done in a number of ways, obviously, but the simplest I can think of off the cuff is using secondary niche superiority, having the race "lock in" a foundational property you can do a variety of things with as their mechanical "hat". So you can be an Orc Wizard despite a lower ceiling because you don't need that reduction in maximum to be a perfectly solid Wizard, but what you gain in the process is that your core abilities for melee combat start at "solid soldier" and go up from there so magic can hone in on supplemental uses, which are required to be a solid PC because pure melee combat abilities have too many blindspots, yet also there are plentiful blind spots for any seeking to be pure magic-users (note that this necessitates setting limits on what magic can do, which having multiple fantastical power sources is damn near necessary for).

For the worldbuilding complaints, my suggestion is simple: If your game has vastly beyond human gribblies that successfully stabbing is a major achievement, then throw the complaints in the trash. The existence of the D&D Dragon as an intelligent creature fundamentally disproves the underlying ethical framework responsible for the complaints, so if your game's setting has anything at all in the vein of the Dragon, then you can't actually solve the problem without restarting from scratch, and therefor should ignore it. When it comes to a higher-fantasy game like D&D, at least, it is equivalent to complaining that Mario Kart is a bad platformer. Those making the complaint are not your target audience if you're including inherently threatening intelligent beings.

Though if one insists on squaring that circle, my suggestion is having a backbone of consumables as ongoing expenses and make extensive use of progress lock-in like 3.5's Racial Hit Dice. This allows for having your ridiculously powerful dragons in spectacular excess of any regular race, but also place them within a framework that locks them to needing much the same resources as a conventional race to reach the same capabilities, resulting in all the talk of superiority being undermined by the fact that they actually take about the same effort, it's that such is simply a biological imperative for them instead of a very complicated mess of discipline and scattered expenses as with the standard races. If they fail, they die before becoming fully grown, rather than platauing somewhere below the setting-shaping legends.

---

To give a jab of specifics about how the caps and tradeoffs might work, there's actually a lot of things involved in extreme musculature that are directly at odds with proper intellectual function. The two big ones are that a lot of growth hormones have neurological side-effects, and the human brain, as variable in performance as it is, already consumes a vast chunk of energy as far as a creature of our body mass goes. Consequently, an Orc society in a pseudo-medieval setting is quite liable to simply not be able to sustain a fully-formed human brain alongside their more impressive musculature without running into issues getting enough energy for this, and the very same processes responsible for that musculature do a number on some aspects of intellectual function.

This can also generate the utterly mentally incapable ever-hungering bear-crushing Ogres, as their usual depiction is roughly analogous to a triple-sized Sumo wrestler, who already need about six thousand calories a day at the least to sustain the exercises to prevent the fat from imploding their metabolism and build the muscles to actually properly move through it. Like a vastly more threatening Koala, where it is a wide array of kinds of biologically screwed up, but in this case it's in the form of a massive idiot able to punch your house down.

Draconi Redfir
2020-12-31, 05:43 AM
thought i had on unique human features; Packbonding maybe?


Perhaps Humans are the only or one of the only races truly capable of forming emotional bonds with non-sapient entities. Most if not all other races merely just view animals and objects as tools to use. They might feel pity or distress at seeing a wounded animal, but they won't truly feel the emotional pain of a friend being hurt like a human would.

how this could translate to in-game mechanics largely depends. If you like just passive abilities, a bonus to animal handling and machine-use checks would probably be fine. (People can back-bond with objects. it's happened, just look up "Lt Stabby the Roomba")

If you're looking for something substantial however, perhaps Humans always start the game with a medium or smaller animal companion that's trained in whatever way(s) the player wants within reason, some feats or racial traits possibly allowing for larger animals, different types of companions such as feral aberrations, fey, or small draconics. Said animal companions could possibly get a template at a certain level, possibly getting small buffs throughout the game so they're not left behind. Most animals likely won't be capable of assisting in combat, but could still be used for other things such as transport, carrying items, repeated use of the "Help" action, or a passive buff to diplomacy or whatnot.

There could also be alternative racial traits that replace this animal companion with something else if someone doesn't want to have a pet. Starting the game with additional equipment or maybe even a single masterwork item, with the fluff being that it's something the character has a close bond too such as a family heirloom. Doesn't seem quite equivalent, and one could easily make a case that everyone would immediately go for the free masterwork item, but it's 4am, i have four hours of sleep right now. you can forgive me if brain no think full at the moment.

Silly Name
2020-12-31, 07:46 AM
Re: humans and mechanical features thereof

Some years ago, I decided to try and see if I could come up with some alternative racial features for d&d 3.5, mostly because I wanted to see if I could incentivise more varied character building, since the bonus feat and skill points are a pretty big deal overall.

What I came up with was removing the idea of "humans are good at being versatile", and changing it to answer the question of "how do humans thrive when they're surrounded by humans+?"

The answer I came up with was: determination and stubbornness. See, when an elf is stuck on a problem, their first instinct is to study that problem in depth, researching, asking elders, etc. While this makes sense, the elves tend to take an extremely slow and cautious approach: if it's not something that demands to be resolved immediately, elves can spend decades on finding the perfect solution, which leads to spectacular but incredibly slow achievements. That magnificent alabaster tower at the edge of the woods? Elven architects spent twelve years to decide what the floor tiles would look like.

Humans instead have a tendency to try and try again and never give up until they can make things work. And since they don't have the leisure of devoting decades of their lives on a single issue, to the long-lived races this comes across as humans stubbornly smashing their faces on a wall, yet managing to break the wall anyways and walk off with no long-lasting injuries.

And this also translates to a certain resilience, mental and physical, that borders on the extraordinary.

So, in short, I gave humans a pool of rerolls (which could be improved on by feats) that could be spent on saving throws and skills checks to represent this spirit of never giving up. Because when your neighbors are elves that live for centuries and whose "children" surpass your master craftsmen, or dwarves who can adapt themselves to the harshest living conditions and work non-stop for a week, you need something to stay competitive, and an extra feat isn't going to cut it.

zlefin
2020-12-31, 12:31 PM
I also had a project like that; trying to make humans just another race and not being 'the versatile one', because really any sapient should be pretty versatile.

but some of the solutions just odn't work that well, and one of the big challenges is how the rules assume human baselines for a lot of things, thus applying them to all races. Since I have my link I may as well put it here:
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?624213-Races-Redesigned

the tldr is trying to give each race a real advantage, particularly a combat-relevant one, that is applicable in certain environments but not others, so that each race has a clear 'adaptive advantage' but none of them outcompete each other everywhere, because each is best in its preferred terrain. It didn't fully work, and I overused movement modes; and couldn't come up with something for every race. the link also has a lot of comments/analysis about how I worked through the problem


On another note, I'm wondering if we're getting off-topic and should go back to focus on the op's question.

Peelee
2020-12-31, 01:04 PM
The Mod on the Silver Mountain: Please remember that real world religion and politics are inappropriate topics on this forum, even when they intersect a gaming topic. Please leave such content off the forum, even if it you think it relevant (or even necessary). If this thread cannot remain in-bounds, it will be closed permanently..

Kane0
2020-12-31, 04:54 PM
Alright so you have 8 stats and 50 points to spend in a 1-10 range yeah?

I say set the cost higher than 1:1 for higher stats, this sets up a diminishing returns structure (curbing minmaxing like 10-10-10-10-3-3-2-2) and allows you some freedom in how you handle racial stat modifiers.
By which i mean they don’t, at least not directly. Orcs dont give you a +2 to strength for a 2-12 range, they instead reduce the mounting costs of those higher ranges. So for example going from strength 7 to 8 costs 3 points normally but only 2 for an orc. You can also do the reverse if you want to disincentivize other stats like charisma, costing more than average after the 1:1 range (about 4-6 i’m guessing?)

So you can sort of have the best of both worlds. You get to differentiate the capabilities between races but at the same time within the ‘normal’ capability range of say 1-5 nobody is at a disadvantage, even if you do include penalties as well (since those penalties kick in at the ‘beyond the guy at the gym’ portion of the stat range same as the beneficial deductions)

And thats my 2cp

Amdy_vill
2021-01-02, 08:26 PM
In the last year or two, I have seen many people assert that D&D style racial ability modifiers, particularly to mental stats, are offensive. I have never really been able to figure out why, and the threads invariably get closed due to some sort of racist tangent before I can ask, but that isn't really here or there.

I am about to revise the races chapter of my own system (playtest link in the sig) and was wondering if anyone had any input about how one could do ability modifiers "right"?

Currently, it is a point buy system and all stats cost the same amount, but have different ranges for different species, so orcs can put more points into strength than a human and halflings less, which isn't quite the same thing as straight modifiers, but is pretty similar in end results.

Thanks!

the problem for the most part is not the Modifiers but the coding of the race. outside of humans, races are often coded as other groups, the problem is that when you start coding large groups of people as dumb you seem "insensitive" to say the least. the best way to do a racial modifier is to remove coding from your race. this is a big hump thou do to just how much writing reallies on coding, and how much each of these ideas are tie-up in historical coding. your best bet is to just remove them, or have your setting be something like space and avoid the robots are slave/neurodivergent trope. sadly fantasy is pretty much built on bad coding due to the fact the most of the creatures in fantasy have historical ties to political coding. things like historical propaganda comparing Jews to dragons, or ogres are Africans. I personally think that a character choice of stat bumps is a better idea than it being based on race but you do you.

Pex
2021-01-02, 10:15 PM
The only reason humans need a "special feature" is D&D switched to a model of non-humans having only extras with no limitations.

Humans don't need features if other races have extras and limitations compared to them. The default rules can be for humans (assuming they're supposed to be the common race in the setting), non-humans are modified in comparison.

I disagree because players will min/max, not that there's anything wrong with that. Whatever the limitation is won't affect the character as much as the benefit will help them, so it's a net gain while the Human gets nothing. The old -2 racial modifiers are a good example. Dwarf fighter players cared not one whit they had a -2 CH modifier. Many even enjoyed roleplaying it to the hilt. They were never upset they would make for a poorer paladin because they were never played. Halfling rogues couldn't care less having -2 ST. If you're playing a halfling you're playing a rogue. Once in a blue moon you'll see a halfling non-rogue, but no one ever really cared playing a halfling fighter or halfling barbarian wouldn't work as well as others because they were never played.

Humans need something. I call it a feature since 3E D&D agreed.

Ashiel
2021-01-02, 10:24 PM
This works both ways though.

Imagine wanting to play a goblin, only to find out that they suck at whatever archetype you want to play and you will be at a huge mechanical disadvantage the entire campaign.
Having a -2 to a "primary stat" has never been particularly debilitating enough to write off a character for, unless you are intentionally building something that is actively counter to your goal, such as choosing a halfling as your foundation for someone wielding oversized weapons at extreme natural reaches or something like that.

Currently there is nothing to stop you from playing (and excelling) at playing an orc wizard for example. It just changes some of your options, which is in and of itself a source of emergent gameplay. If you're playing an Orc Wizard, you have a massive bonus to strength and a penalty to Intelligence, so what does that mean in hard numbers? It means you're probably better off not making a save-or-suck caster and relying on spell DCs, and instead emphasis things like buffing, summoning, dispelling, and effects that care more about caster levels. You might craft more pearls of power and use more metamagic versions of low-level spells that you can recall with your pearls, and in Pathfinder may find yourself drawn more to polymorphing spells (which in Pathfinder modify your base statistics) and actually mix it up in melee from time to time. It actually creates differences between characters that are subtle but very noticeable if your intent is to be the best you can be.

Racial modifiers also generally explain the root of most cultural norms for different races in the campaign, because those that naturally find certain things easier due to genetic influence are more likely to gravitate towards those things. Dwarves, Hobgoblins, and Orcs all have aspects that make them well suited for being warriors and their cultures reflect that. The same tends to be true for most of the other races (halflings for example are more likely to be acrobats and pickpockets than they are sell-sword mercenaries). Again, subtle but far reaching, a bit like a ripple on the pond.

It also increases the interest level when you find such a character that stands out from the norms. The aforementioned orc wizard can be an exceptionally effective adventurer, and very well rounded, and seems quite novel because most orcs just aren't going to be particularly interested in wizardry or have the focus for it, and will lean into their natural strengths. There is nothing wrong with the halfling barbarian, the orc wizard, the dwarven bard, or the goblin ranger.

----

This is something I thought about a lot for a while, because I too used to think that rather than ability score adjustments that races should have some sort of "active" abilities. The problem I generally found is that makes it even harder to balance, is largely superfluous to everyone except player characters, and just adds an extra degree of complexity to choosing a class/race combination and generally leads to far more focus on mixing the right abilities than a +5/-5% difference on a d20 roll does.

Max_Killjoy
2021-01-02, 10:44 PM
We might avoid a lot of the unfortunate parts of this if we used "species" or something instead of "race" when what we're talking about are probably not just "races".

Draconi Redfir
2021-01-03, 02:15 AM
The word "Race" when used in the context of fantasy is clearly defined as separate instances of intelligent beings, no one is saying one is a racial offshoot of the other, and no one is implying that either. In terms of Fantasy, "Race" is just a smoother and easier way of saying "Species", one syllable instead of two to three. Everyone who knows fantasy understands it, and no one who knows fantasy is applying it to real world Race.

Consider Pokemon who use the term "Gender" to refer to the creature's biological sex. in this case it was because Nintendo didn't want to include the dreaded "S-word" into their games for children, but anyone who knows anything about pokemon and it's use of the term know they're referring to biological sex, and not the creature's personal identity.

it's really only an issue if you choose to make it one.

VoxRationis
2021-01-03, 03:43 AM
While I largely agree with your assessment*, Redfir, and would add that the more technical-sounding "species" tends to contrast tonally with most fantasy settings, I would say that context external to our games, that which makes the term "race" uncomfortable for some (and into which I shall not delve more deeply so as to avoid running afoul of forum rules), proves somewhat difficult to exclude.** I'm not sure what I would replace "race" with, however. "Species" is unpalatable; I would suggest "kind," if it were not a trifle vague and also lacking in an appropriate and familiar adjectival form ("kindly" would work, were its present definition not something else).


*I'd like to see the arguments made against racial stat modifiers be advanced were we to frame the topic with species in the vein of Star Wars! Really, though, Morphic Tide's point about the ridiculousness of stat parity in a setting with dragons is probably the simplest and strongest argument that I've seen in the thread thus far.

**I find it interesting that "class," which also has a more charged meaning in the real world and a different meaning in RPGs, does not fall afoul of such contextual contamination. Perhaps it's because the two meanings are more obviously distinct and non-overlapping in that case.

Ashiel
2021-01-03, 04:30 AM
We might avoid a lot of the unfortunate parts of this if we used "species" or something instead of "race" when what we're talking about are probably not just "races".

Most seem to be capable of interbreeding. There's half orcs, half elves, and even half-goblins (IIRC there's a hobgoblin/human NPC in TRHoD).

But I suppose that might in turn indicate that they're also all related to dragons, or that everything is related to dragons, and similar things.

Honestly it largely seems large to be semantics to me at this point. "A race of men" vs "a race of goblins" sounds infinitely less dehumanizing to me than "Elves are a curious species", so I will continue to refer to them as races. They are all, after all, just different flavors of humanoid.

I also don't really put much stock in the rather debased ideas that humans in D&D are some sort of narrative equivalent to white males, nor do I believe that short pranksters that live inside of tree trunks and commune with animals and fairies are some sort of stereotype for ethnic groups from our real world, and find races like orcs to be even less believably so (to do so would be to truly think revulsion worthy thoughts about a demographic of real people given the fact orcs are an amalgamation of the basest brutalities of humanity packaged in a monstrous form so as to be close-enough to human to provide a worthy humanoid adversary but far enough from human to not be an allegory for anything other than the whole of humanity's darkest days), what with their entire culture being one of savage cruelty, greed, violence, oppression, rape, cannibalism, etc. I would sincerely shudder and perhaps roll my stomach should I ever actually meet someone who sees orcs and says "Yes, that is an allegory for those people who live down the street from me".

Not something specifically directed at you, but I have seen a few sentiments that lean uncomfortably close to such things in the past and I am just thinking out loud as it pertains to this discussion. :smallsmile:

Anymage
2021-01-03, 05:19 AM
"Orcs resemble what real-world racists thought about various indigenous people" isn't a bad reason to have some second thoughts about your writing. Doubly so if it's "orcs live up to all the things that real-world racists said about indigenous people to justify racist mistreatment of those people". That's a writing thing instead of a stats thing and I really don't want to talk about what D&D races may be coded as whatever real groups of people (that inevitably veers political and gets threads locked), but that is a reason why giving orcs more cultural depth is a good thing.

Pex
2021-01-03, 06:25 AM
Class and level limits. Not all limitations have to be stat modifiers.

Yeah, you ended up with non-humans specializing. As low level henchmen in a mostly human world.

Campaigns ended by then, so they never came into play. They were also able to multiclass, which humans were denied dual classing is not the same thing and worse, enjoying the full benefits of two (or three) classes. Splitting XP delayed reaching level limits long enough the campaign ended. In the off chance they did reach a level limit they still had their other class to continue for a few levels longer, then the game ended. Not the game's fault, true, but some DMs house ruled the level limits away. Humans sucked donkey in D&D pre-3E.

ezekielraiden
2021-01-03, 07:55 AM
Most seem to be capable of interbreeding. There's half orcs, half elves, and even half-goblins (IIRC there's a hobgoblin/human NPC in TRHoD).

But I suppose that might in turn indicate that they're also all related to dragons, or that everything is related to dragons, and similar things.

Honestly it largely seems large to be semantics to me at this point. "A race of men" vs "a race of goblins" sounds infinitely less dehumanizing to me than "Elves are a curious species", so I will continue to refer to them as races. They are all, after all, just different flavors of humanoid.

The word I settled on for English discussion of the concept is "folk," if I were ever to try avoiding the word "race" while writing some hypothetical RPG. It lacks the "sterile" feel that Latin-derived terms often carry, which is often the main complaint people raise against alternatives. It's a relatively commonly-used word today, but not one that (in English) has any particularly loaded connotations, largely addressing the main concern with the use of "race" to describe a conglomerate of physiology and culture. (I'm aware that the German equivalent has baggage galore, but I personally don't think that baggage justifies avoiding an English word that hasn't meaningfully taken on any association with the German one.) "Folk" feels more specific than "people," and implies kinship and relation, but doesn't imply the exclusivity of terms like "species," nor does it imply the "born from organic parents" aspect of terms like "ancestry." And the casual use of it in various known phrases seems useful: "you folks" (referring to a collective group), "my folks" (referring to one's parents or extended family more generally), "folk music"/"folksong" (implications of rustic or even medieval style), "different strokes for different folks" (tastes vary, implying tolerance of divergent views), and even "queer as folk" (the double-meaning of "people are weird" and implying that LGBT* identity is merely different rather than bad or wrong).

So, yeah. Your Folk is the origin of you: how you came to be who and what you are. It helps define where you came from, as part of your Heroic Origin.

Pex
2021-01-03, 11:45 AM
And yet the idea of being capped at 8 (halflings), 10 (elves) or 12 (dwarves) meant that almost everyone played humans in BECMI.

In AD&D Multiclassing was a big draw to overcome level limits, but the extra XP needed was a big turn off. Especially since getting to 2nd level took a long time already and was a crap shoot or worse odds in terms of living that long. The longer you spent at 1st level, the more your chance of dying to the first hit. And for some classes that held until you got to 3rd level.

Level limits and class restrictions did the job very effectively ... if you considered the job to be having a mostly human PCs, with a sprinkling of non-humans. If that's not your goal, then such extreme measures probably aren't desired.

In my 2E days I only played humans out of protest in how bad they were. Unless someone was playing a paladin or druid, which were human only in those days, I was the only human in the party. Everyone else multiclassed though I recall a number of single class halfling, half-elf, and one gullydwarf Thieves. Half-elves had no limit in Thief. Except for one player the single class Thieves were That Guy jerks using the "That's what my character would do" excuse. That one player who wasn't would become my favorite DM.

We had different experiences in the old days.

Keltest
2021-01-03, 11:49 AM
In my 2E days I only played humans out of protest in how bad they were. Unless someone was playing a paladin or druid, which were human only in those days, I was the only human in the party. Everyone else multiclassed though I recall a number of single class halfling, half-elf, and one gullydwarf Thieves. Half-elves had no limit in Thief. Except for one player the single class Thieves were That Guy jerks using the "That's what my character would do" excuse. That one player who wasn't would become my favorite DM.

We had different experiences in the old days.

Dont forget the wizards who werent very useful for anything until about 5th level.

Keltest
2021-01-03, 01:02 PM
if a game is deadly and unlikely to gain even 1 level before death, I can theoretically see why that'd make some people NOT play humans. You're going to die before you gain levels anyway, why worry about a cap? Just take the power now. :smallamused:

But 2e experience was the same as 1e and BECMI, everyone played humans because elves were just Legolas clones and dwarves were all drunk Scots* and no one in their right mind wanted to play a hobbit ... and level limits did their work. Even in something guaranteed to end before they came into play, they stopped people from choosing them.

If someone played a non-human, it was usually a multiclass half-elf, because yes at a certain point if you pile on enough advantages it beats out the limitations.

*I've never understood this. Why Scots? To me dwarves should be Norse, not Scots. Or maybe it's just that I'm half Scottish and players accents are terrible :smallwink:

Speaking from experience, even when you survived campaigns in AD&D rarely got past about 10th level. It just took forever to get that far. When it came to deciding race, level limits were never a consideration for anybody i played with. If they became that much of a concern, we just ignored them.

Max_Killjoy
2021-01-03, 02:08 PM
The word I settled on for English discussion of the concept is "folk," if I were ever to try avoiding the word "race" while writing some hypothetical RPG. It lacks the "sterile" feel that Latin-derived terms often carry, which is often the main complaint people raise against alternatives. It's a relatively commonly-used word today, but not one that (in English) has any particularly loaded connotations, largely addressing the main concern with the use of "race" to describe a conglomerate of physiology and culture. (I'm aware that the German equivalent has baggage galore, but I personally don't think that baggage justifies avoiding an English word that hasn't meaningfully taken on any association with the German one.) "Folk" feels more specific than "people," and implies kinship and relation, but doesn't imply the exclusivity of terms like "species," nor does it imply the "born from organic parents" aspect of terms like "ancestry." And the casual use of it in various known phrases seems useful: "you folks" (referring to a collective group), "my folks" (referring to one's parents or extended family more generally), "folk music"/"folksong" (implications of rustic or even medieval style), "different strokes for different folks" (tastes vary, implying tolerance of divergent views), and even "queer as folk" (the double-meaning of "people are weird" and implying that LGBT* identity is merely different rather than bad or wrong).

So, yeah. Your Folk is the origin of you: how you came to be who and what you are. It helps define where you came from, as part of your Heroic Origin.

Bold added.

To me, JUST replacing "race" with "folk" while continuing to conflate "elf by birth" with "elven by culture" (replace with any other "race") doesn't solve much of the core problem -- it still implies that culture and ancestry are somehow inherently one and the same, that if your ancestors were X, then you have an inherent culture as well.

If orcs are a different species, I don't mind that species being more inclined to violent reactions because their brains are not the same as human brains. Same with elves. Etc.

If orc culture promotes violent resolution of conflict, then I don't mind that influencing orcs to be more inclined to violence -- but an orc raised in another culture should have a different outlook.

But when it becomes "orcs have orc cultural traits because they're orcs" and the biological and cultural bits are treated as inherently one and the same, THAT's just simply wrong on a factual level. And that's what "race" in D&D and systems/settings that take its assumptions as given have done for decades now.

NichG
2021-01-03, 02:14 PM
For what it's worth, in Mythclad (current campaign, loose D&D 3.5 basis but heavily modded) I split up bonuses from biological form and bonuses from nation and culture. The primary motivation wasn't anything about implications w.r.t. real world interpretations, but rather I didn't want 'human' to be the only viable option due to the power of a bonus feat over stat adjustments, especially since feats are more potent in Mythclad than in baseline D&D. So you can be an Ambrillan Elf, gaining the innate bonuses elves get but having the social and legal resources of belonging to a massive colonial empire that projects force throughout the world on behalf of its citizens. Or you could be a Skyborn Elf and get elf stuff but also the bonus feat. Or a Bronze Enclave Elf and get magic/technology/martial ability transparency as the culture benefit due to coming from a place whose underlying philosophy doesn't make a difference between a warrior channelling Qi and a wizard channelling mana, or ...

Honestly though, it seems to me that its much more of an issue that Orcs (or chromatic dragons, or drow, or whatever) are a designated enemy kind/folk/race/species/whatever you want to call it that is basically deemed okay to kill on sight because of what they are, rather than that they get particular bonuses or penalties that might align with real world stereotypes. Even something like monsters that are intelligent, but at the same time inherently incapable of being anything other than hostile, have this problem to me. Worrying about a -2 Int seems to be missing the forest for the trees there.

Max_Killjoy
2021-01-03, 02:19 PM
For what it's worth, in Mythclad (current campaign, loose D&D 3.5 basis but heavily modded) I split up bonuses from biological form and bonuses from nation and culture. The primary motivation wasn't anything about implications w.r.t. real world interpretations, but rather I didn't want 'human' to be the only viable option due to the power of a bonus feat over stat adjustments, especially since feats are more potent in Mythclad than in baseline D&D. So you can be an Ambrillan Elf, gaining the innate bonuses elves get but having the social and legal resources of belonging to a massive colonial empire that projects force throughout the world on behalf of its citizens. Or you could be a Skyborn Elf and get elf stuff but also the bonus feat. Or a Bronze Enclave Elf and get magic/technology/martial ability transparency as the culture benefit due to coming from a place whose underlying philosophy doesn't make a difference between a warrior channelling Qi and a wizard channelling mana, or ...

Honestly though, it seems to me that its much more of an issue that Orcs (or chromatic dragons, or drow, or whatever) are a designated enemy that is deemed okay to kill on sight because of what they are, rather than that they get particular bonuses or penalties.

The starting motivation of splitting ancestry from culture, at least for me, is one of not liking the counter-factual conflation of the two.

PhoenixPhyre
2021-01-03, 02:36 PM
The starting motivation of splitting ancestry from culture, at least for me, is one of not liking the counter-factual conflation of the two.

I agree. I'm working on disentangling the two for my setting, using Race as the biology and subrace for the culture and largely making cultures that span multiple races. I'd be more aggressive about the changes (making the two completely independent) if I weren't trying to get away with minimal changes on the mechanical side so that existing race mechanics still can be used by those who don't want to dig through a complete racial overhaul. Maybe that will change some day.

Draconi Redfir
2021-01-03, 04:00 PM
If orcs are a different species, I don't mind that species being more inclined to violent reactions because their brains are not the same as human brains. Same with elves. Etc.

If orc culture promotes violent resolution of conflict, then I don't mind that influencing orcs to be more inclined to violence -- but an orc raised in another culture should have a different outlook.

But when it becomes "orcs have orc cultural traits because they're orcs" and the biological and cultural bits are treated as inherently one and the same, THAT's just simply wrong on a factual level. And that's what "race" in D&D and systems/settings that take its assumptions as given have done for decades now.

I mean... why can't they have both?:smallconfused:

Why can't Orcs be a species more naturally inclined to violent reactions because their brains are not the same as human brains, and AS A RESULT OF THIS their culture promotes violent resolutions to conflict. But you can still have Orcs raised in another culture that has a different outlook.

like if you're a naturally more aggressive species, it only makes sense that the culture(s) you develop would be more aggressive ones as well wouldn't it? No one is saying it needs to be just the one either. There could be one group of orcs with culture A over there, and another group of orcs with culture B over there, they're both Orcs, they're both Orc culture, but that doesn't mean they're the same culture.

Anymage
2021-01-03, 04:09 PM
The starting motivation of splitting ancestry from culture, at least for me, is one of not liking the counter-factual conflation of the two.

Both narratively and mechanically, monocultural races make things simpler for newer and more casual players. The DMG already has advice for making a new race/subrace. Expanding that a bit for characters of one race who were raised in another culture shouldn't be too hard while still acknowledging that it should be something hammered out by the DM and player.

As far as racial level limits in 2e, I will say that the vast majority of games that I've played in houseruled them out and claimed that the balancing factor was "prejudice". (Which if it was applied, was aimed at the humans as often as not.) A lot of building 3e did involve looking at popular houserules to see what bits of 2e were or were not used in practice.

ezekielraiden
2021-01-03, 06:18 PM
Bold added.

To me, JUST replacing "race" with "folk" while continuing to conflate "elf by birth" with "elven by culture" (replace with any other "race") doesn't solve much of the core problem -- it still implies that culture and ancestry are somehow inherently one and the same, that if your ancestors were X, then you have an inherent culture as well.

If orcs are a different species, I don't mind that species being more inclined to violent reactions because their brains are not the same as human brains. Same with elves. Etc.

If orc culture promotes violent resolution of conflict, then I don't mind that influencing orcs to be more inclined to violence -- but an orc raised in another culture should have a different outlook.

But when it becomes "orcs have orc cultural traits because they're orcs" and the biological and cultural bits are treated as inherently one and the same, THAT's just simply wrong on a factual level. And that's what "race" in D&D and systems/settings that take its assumptions as given have done for decades now.
Well, uh, it was actually intended to be more complex than that. Just as "North African" can mean one's culture irrespective of one's ethnicity, or one's ethnic origin (such as Berber) irrespective of one's birthplace, your culture is not totally identical to your folk.

I don't really know why you'd assume that LITERALLY NOTHING would change besides the term used...

VoxRationis
2021-01-04, 02:10 AM
Decidedly more complex. Redfir has a point in that culture doesn't arise spontaneously from a vacuum, and that we can expect the traits of whoever's developing the culture to influence the end product, which will in turn influence the people within that culture in a feedback cycle, and that this interactivity is partially separate from the biological traits those same people would possess if deracinated.*

Adding to this complexity is the point, which appears to be generally agreed upon, that we can expect distinct cultures, likely many distinct cultures, from each race. With a few exceptions, I think it's largely a matter of effort that prevents this from being expounded upon more in settings, rather than any specific ideological point.

As for PhoenixPhyre's sentiment of multiracial cultures, I must say that since we are largely discussing broadly separate biological populations (that is, race X and race Y are not mere morphs of one another, and do not interbreed), it is more likely that in most** cases, each culture will be predominantly of one race, or at least was so at some time in the historic or legendary past, before X conquest or Y alliance or Z wave of immigration and assimilation. But of course, those events can be expected to occur, and so we should have some elements of cultural mixing (in various forms of completeness).

*I would expect this to be doubly true if in a milieu with multiple sapient species, due to the effects of niches and specialization. An orcish society living in a continent all its own might end up being not altogether different from human society, or at least a human society, but one interacting with and competing with gnomes and satyrs and whatnot will be obliged to shift away from those niches where the other species can do things better. This might take the form of peaceful interaction, developing economic regimes that focus on the orcs' strengths and trading for what the others can provide, or it might take the form of violent interaction, with the orcs claiming those environments and adopting those social structures that allow them to achieve local supremacy, or more likely, both forms of specialization will end up applying.

**I want to put some emphasis on "most" because it is not difficult to think of situations in which symbiosis would occur from the beginning of a culture, but broadly speaking, social species tend to stick in groups of their own kind by habit, whether they tolerate nonspecifics or not.

ezekielraiden
2021-01-04, 10:54 AM
As for PhoenixPhyre's sentiment of multiracial cultures, I must say that since we are largely discussing broadly separate biological populations (that is, race X and race Y are not mere morphs of one another, and do not interbreed), it is more likely that in most** cases, each culture will be predominantly of one race, or at least was so at some time in the historic or legendary past, before X conquest or Y alliance or Z wave of immigration and assimilation. But of course, those events can be expected to occur, and so we should have some elements of cultural mixing (in various forms of completeness).

I...don't buy this one. Cultures often collide, intermix, and produce new and interesting directions as a result. For example, most Indo-European mythologies feature a two-deity-group system, with one group conquering the other, peacefully integrating, or intermarrying with the other. Sometimes it's a complicated familial descent thing (Greek myth, where the primordial deities are overthrown by the Titans, who are in turn overthrown by the Olympians), sometimes it's two broad family groups going at each other (Asura vs Deva in Hinduism) that may not always have a moral message to it, sometimes it's a solely good-guy group being invaded by bad guys (the Tuatha de Dannan and Fomorians), sometimes it's just two groups that fight and mingle in equal measure (Vanir and Aesir), sometimes it's a hodgepodge mingling of two different systems that never settles on anything specific (the pantheons of Upper and Lower Egypt).

And that's literally only looking at the religious angle. Language does similar stuff, both dividing (the various local flavors of Latin that became French, Spanish, Romanian, Italian, Romanian, etc.) and merging (English is a fusion of several languages; pidgins and creoles are blends between source languages forced into daily contact). Empires can engage in active syncretism and yet still retain local culture (Rome was huge on that; the Mongolian empire actively supported religious tolerance; etc.) Cuisine is often bound to a land rather than an ethnic group per se, because it comes from the food available there, the growing conditions and seasons; we only really have "fusion" cuisine today because we have pretty thoroughly decoupled the food we eat from its native environments due to farming, which is how things like pad thai can exist.

And if you allow for any division finer than the highest possible abstraction, you totally get cultural divides. I'm religious, but I know a lot of the people on this board aren't. And even though I am religious, my culture differs vastly from the Orthodox Jews I know, which differs from the Catholics, Muslims, and Buddhists I know. Intersectionality is a thing, and presuming that there's any inherent link between physiology and culture in either direction--whether it be that being X means you will have culture Y, or that being culture Y means you're an X. The most you can get is trends, and trends by their nature have both demonstrations and exceptions. You cover trends with the baseline options, and exceptions with the "build your own" option(s).

Maybe an Elf is raised in New Arkhosia, and so even though she has elf parents and belongs to the feyfolk as a physiology, her culture is New Arkhosian, meaning she shares far more values and concepts with most dragonborn than she does with most elves. Maybe a genasi has an adoptive orc father, so though she technically grew up in genie-ruled lands and thus was implicitly exposed to the Jinnistani culture, she internalized and takes pride in the Gar-Ket culture of her father, which he taught her through story and song as well as giving her the traditional hunter's coming-of-age ceremony. Etc.

Monocultures and planets-of-hats are lazy writing. We can, and should, do better.

Edit: And honestly, I see the "in the distant and legendary past" as being basically unimportant. It's a founding myth, not a history. Myths by their nature are not a precise accounting of things, they are a partly-symbolic explanation of things. Such monoculture status pushed back into the "we only know the names of gods and heroes" times may as well not even have ever happened, because it has little relevance to whether there is any current "(nearly) all dragonborn are X" or "nearly everyone from culture Y is an elf."

Draconi Redfir
2021-01-04, 11:21 AM
Maybe an Elf is raised in New Arkhosia, and so even though she has elf parents and belongs to the feyfolk as a physiology, her culture is New Arkhosian, meaning she shares far more values and concepts with most dragonborn than she does with most elves. Maybe a genasi has an adoptive orc father, so though she technically grew up in genie-ruled lands and thus was implicitly exposed to the Jinnistani culture, she internalized and takes pride in the Gar-Ket culture of her father, which he taught her through story and song as well as giving her the traditional hunter's coming-of-age ceremony. Etc.

I think this is what we usually call "The exception that proves the rule". You can absolutely have an Elf spend her life among Dragonborn and associate with Dragonborn culture. But this not only implies that there is a Dragonborn culture for her to associate with, but also for there to be an Elf culture for her to not be associating with.

As a general rule, we're not looking at individual examples. My Drow who was abducted from her home and grew up in a human city is not an example of Drow culture, because Drow culture is the culture of a large amount of Drow all clustered together. If you take 50 of X race and put them all together in a place, the culture that develops from that is inevitably going to be X-culture. Others can join in this even if they are not X, but since it was formed and maintained by X, then it will still be X-culture. One could argue that even if X is entirely wiped out, but their conquerors take over the culture (I.E. Romains in Egypt) then it would still be X-culture, even if it's populated entirely by Y. Though, it could also at that point transition to Y-culture. not 100% on that.


From personal experience, I've tended to notice that people generally tend to gravitate towards people of similar types as their own. there is comfort in familiarity, and it's easier to understand someone who grew up the same way you did then it is to understand a stranger. This is how you can get an entire neighborhood of a city populated solely by Gnomes, or have an "Elf-town" as an entire district in a major settlement. Having one Orc living in Elf-town doesn't mean it's no longer Elf-town, it just means there is an Orc living in Elf-town.

Max_Killjoy
2021-01-04, 11:29 AM
Maybe dial this back to a very simple example.

Per most incarnations of D&D, elves get free proficiency in a sword and a bow, usually "long" in both cases. They also get some form of enhanced vision.

* Do they have enhanced vision because of their elven biology, or because they were raised by other elves?

* Do they have skill with sword and bow because of their elven biology, or because they were raised by other elves?

That's the sort of thing the conflation of "species" and "culture" into just "race" makes a mess of, and those are the sorts of things some of us are talking about splitting up.

Keltest
2021-01-04, 11:43 AM
Maybe dial this back to a very simple example.

Per most incarnations of D&D, elves get free proficiency in a sword and a bow, usually "long" in both cases. They also get some form of enhanced vision.

* Do they have enhanced vision because of their elven biology, or because they were raised by other elves?

* Do they have skill with sword and bow because of their elven biology, or because they were raised by other elves?

That's the sort of thing the conflation of "species" and "culture" into just "race" makes a mess of, and those are the sorts of things some of us are talking about splitting up.

Im going to be a radical here and ask why the rules need that to be split? Theyre trying to allow you to create a typical adventurer from a given race, not a special snowflake chosen child of destiny. If you want to mix and match racial abilities, talk to your DM about what that would look like. Theres no need to add more moving parts to character creation that most players wont even make use of.

Democratus
2021-01-04, 11:46 AM
Maybe dial this back to a very simple example.

Per most incarnations of D&D, elves get free proficiency in a sword and a bow, usually "long" in both cases. They also get some form of enhanced vision.

* Do they have enhanced vision because of their elven biology, or because they were raised by other elves?

* Do they have skill with sword and bow because of their elven biology, or because they were raised by other elves?

That's the sort of thing the conflation of "species" and "culture" into just "race" makes a mess of, and those are the sorts of things some of us are talking about splitting up.

Depends very heavily on your world.

In mine, the answer to both questions is "because they are the race of elves". Neither biology nor culture play a part in it. Elves are elven because they were created to be that way. Illuvitar created the elves, Aule created the dwarves, etc. And the members of the various races are born knowing what they are and how they should follow their nature.

Draconi Redfir
2021-01-04, 11:49 AM
Maybe dial this back to a very simple example.

Per most incarnations of D&D, elves get free proficiency in a sword and a bow, usually "long" in both cases. They also get some form of enhanced vision.

* Do they have enhanced vision because of their elven biology, or because they were raised by other elves?

* Do they have skill with sword and bow because of their elven biology, or because they were raised by other elves?

That's the sort of thing the conflation of "species" and "culture" into just "race" makes a mess of, and those are the sorts of things some of us are talking about splitting up.

I'm going to guess that since low-light vision has something to do with vision, a biological function, it's a result of elven biology.

the sword and bow skill being a learned skill is likely culture, though there could be some degree of natural talent depending on how much you believe in that kind of thing. My Drow for example still has the poison use ability despite not being raised in a Drow culture, i mainly explain it as a natural affinity for poisons.

But you could absolutely trade that bow and sword skill for something else if your Elf was raised by orcs or humans or something, just need to talk to your DM about it. The low-light vision though would likely stay.

Max_Killjoy
2021-01-04, 12:51 PM
Im going to be a radical here and ask why the rules need that to be split? Theyre trying to allow you to create a typical adventurer from a given race, not a special snowflake chosen child of destiny. If you want to mix and match racial abilities, talk to your DM about what that would look like. Theres no need to add more moving parts to character creation that most players wont even make use of.

Because of course anyone who wants more nuance or less counter-factualism in their character creation is trying to make "a special snowflake chosen child of destiny". /s

Keltest
2021-01-04, 01:03 PM
Because of course anyone who wants more nuance or less counter-factualism in their character creation is trying to make "a special snowflake chosen child of destiny". /s

D&D isnt a world or culture simulator and racial modifiers are not, in general, meant to be a significant contributor to a player's power. I was being hyperbolic with the snowflake comment, but i stand by the idea that the game is not interested in making rules for a corner case of an elf being raised by dwarves in a human city or whatever other scenario that youre imagining.

137beth
2021-01-04, 01:08 PM
Im going to be a radical here and ask why the rules need that to be split? Theyre trying to allow you to create a typical adventurer from a given race, not a special snowflake chosen child of destiny. If you want to mix and match racial abilities, talk to your DM about what that would look like. Theres no need to add more moving parts to character creation that most players wont even make use of.

Well, looking at the signature of the person you responded to, it seems like Max_Killjoy places a high value on verisimilitude. Even if not every player character would use separated culture and species rules, splitting them up probably makes it easier for Max_Killjoy to suspend their disbelief.

Keltest
2021-01-04, 01:14 PM
Well, looking at the signature of the person you responded to, it seems like Max_Killjoy places a high value on verisimilitude. Even if not every player character would use separated culture and species rules, splitting them up probably makes it easier for Max_Killjoy to suspend their disbelief.

Max is perfectly allowed to imagine whatever personalities and cultural traits he wants onto a given individual. As NPCs rarely need full stat blocks for combat i find the benefits of creating a set of rules for mixing and matching traits to be negligible. If youre creating an atypical character for whatever reason, just have the DM make something up. Thats the whole point of the DM. Creating rules for a strictly out of character process doesnt contribute to verisimilitude in and of itself.

Willie the Duck
2021-01-04, 01:34 PM
There is a practical level where the ruleset doesn't necessarily have to cover every single contingency or edge case, particularly in don't-have-tos ('you want your elf to be raised amongst dwarves and as such never learned swords and bows? Simple solution: don't use swords and bows'). Particularly since in the current version of the game, weapon proficiencies in isolation are a minimal part of combat prowess (if you really want to be good at fighting, you grab a martial class which will have all the proficiencies anyways; if you are an elven wizard, getting to use a rapier or longsword for 1d8+stat damage instead of the 1d4 a dagger would bring will not change whether you are a competent melee combatant). That said, since the game has started to split out character creation in terms of background as well as race and class, there's no particular reason why they couldn't (in the next edition, for example) split out species-that-raised-you from biological traits.

Keltest
2021-01-04, 01:41 PM
There is a practical level where the ruleset doesn't necessarily have to cover every single contingency or edge case, particularly in don't-have-tos ('you want your elf to be raised amongst dwarves and as such never learned swords and bows? Simple solution: don't use swords and bows'). Particularly since in the current version of the game, weapon proficiencies in isolation are a minimal part of combat prowess (if you really want to be good at fighting, you grab a martial class which will have all the proficiencies anyways; if you are an elven wizard, getting to use a rapier or longsword for 1d8+stat damage instead of the 1d4 a dagger would bring will not change whether you are a competent melee combatant). That said, since the game has started to split out character creation in terms of background as well as race and class, there's no particular reason why they couldn't (in the next edition, for example) split out species-that-raised-you from biological traits.

I mean, i guess we "could" but if were going to do that, then i think were better off just expanding the background system more. You want the classic dwarf traits? Ok, be a mountain dwarf with the "monster hunter" background or whatever. No need to add cultural background as something separate.

Willie the Duck
2021-01-04, 02:03 PM
I mean, i guess we "could" but if were going to do that, then i think were better off just expanding the background system more. You want the classic dwarf traits? Ok, be a mountain dwarf with the "monster hunter" background or whatever. No need to add cultural background as something separate.
Well they could have 'traditional dwarven upbringing' or the like as one of the backgrounds, but overall I agree. Getting a 'Background' and then a 'Racial Background' would probably cause as much issues as it corrected --plus highlighted that the monolithic racial cultures of D&D are simplifications for brevity. I was mostly pointing out that this kind of splitting out where a character gets various traits (from pre-adventuring 'what you did,' from adventuring 'what you expect to do', and from base biology) is already happening, so this certainly can be put into the formulation for a theoretical future version.

ezekielraiden
2021-01-04, 02:40 PM
I think this is what we usually call "The exception that proves the rule". You can absolutely have an Elf spend her life among Dragonborn and associate with Dragonborn culture. But this not only implies that there is a Dragonborn culture for her to associate with, but also for there to be an Elf culture for her to not be associating with.

As a general rule, we're not looking at individual examples. My Drow who was abducted from her home and grew up in a human city is not an example of Drow culture, because Drow culture is the culture of a large amount of Drow all clustered together. If you take 50 of X race and put them all together in a place, the culture that develops from that is inevitably going to be X-culture. Others can join in this even if they are not X, but since it was formed and maintained by X, then it will still be X-culture. One could argue that even if X is entirely wiped out, but their conquerors take over the culture (I.E. Romains in Egypt) then it would still be X-culture, even if it's populated entirely by Y. Though, it could also at that point transition to Y-culture. not 100% on that.


From personal experience, I've tended to notice that people generally tend to gravitate towards people of similar types as their own. there is comfort in familiarity, and it's easier to understand someone who grew up the same way you did then it is to understand a stranger. This is how you can get an entire neighborhood of a city populated solely by Gnomes, or have an "Elf-town" as an entire district in a major settlement. Having one Orc living in Elf-town doesn't mean it's no longer Elf-town, it just means there is an Orc living in Elf-town.

Here's a big question then: What happens if you have a culture that isn't specific to any particular race?

There are four cultures described in the game I run, tied to regions: Tarrakhuna, Jinnistan, Yuxia, and the Ten-Thousand Isles of the Sapphire Sea. There are also some dead cultures, such as the culture which used to live in the northern jungles. None of these cultures is race-specific, except maybe Jinnistani culture...and that's really only because its leadership is those few genies who make the transition into "noble genie" status and thus become SERIOUSLY powerful with time. (They've worked out a cutthroat but very civil culture of political intrigue--vaguely analogous to the noble houses of Dune, but more numerous and diverse, and lacking a single Emperor or legislative body.)

The Tarrakhuna is explicitly a melting pot of a dozen or more races, with it being explicitly clear that humans, orcs, and elves have all lived in this region for tens of thousands of years (enslaved by genies for a significant portion of that time), and formed their culture independently of other areas (after overthrowing their genie masters). The Ten-Thousand Isles are stuffed to the brim with dozens of distinct microcultures, ruling single islands or small island chains in an ocean the size of the Pacific. Yuxia is a China-like nation of incredible racial diversity (greater even than the Tarrakhuna), but which considers itself to be "one culture" even though it covers an absolutely enormous territory. (Its equivalent in the elemental otherworld, Fusang, is controlled by a very different class of beings than genies, and thus might not have a "culture" proper.)

In a world like this, where's the "dragonborn culture"? We have dragonborn native to Yuxia and dragonborn native to the Tarrakhuna--some even becoming heroes of religious movements in the area. Where's the "tiefling culture"? Tieflings just sort of happen here, there is no equivalent of Bael Turath. There's just Tarrakhunan culture, heavily driven by the largest of the city-states, Al-Rakkah. There will always be local flavors for each city-state (particularly Kafer-Naum, the Temple-City, because of its religious focus), but racial divides are largely meaningless.

Don't presume that cultures grow and thrive either by exclusively suborning, or by narrowly diving into a specific niche and letting the next group over dive into theirs. That's just not going to happen in practice. Even when physiological needs mandate that each group sticks to its own, you're going to have intermixing and exchange at various levels. For goodness' sake, look at the Hellenization of Alexander's empire, or the syncretic holidays of Central and South America; even where there were active efforts to stamp one culture out and replace it with another, you end up with blends and integration, sometimes in surprising places. In places where instead of destruction, cooperation is sought? You'll have far more blending and diversity.

Ashiel
2021-01-04, 02:44 PM
"Orcs resemble what real-world racists thought about various indigenous people" isn't a bad reason to have some second thoughts about your writing. Doubly so if it's "orcs live up to all the things that real-world racists said about indigenous people to justify racist mistreatment of those people". That's a writing thing instead of a stats thing and I really don't want to talk about what D&D races may be coded as whatever real groups of people (that inevitably veers political and gets threads locked), but that is a reason why giving orcs more cultural depth is a good thing.

"People wrongly saw monsters where there weren't. Ergo, we cannot have monsters or descriptions of monsters in our fantasy."

Orcs are a narrative tool and always have been. The sheer fact that gamers have further developed them into having deeper cultures (even deeper evil cultures) is evidence that they want to see them as more than monsters. One of the most common tropes in fantasy gaming is the belief that you can take something that is essentially an incarnation of evil and "give it a chance". This is why there are good drow, or heroic orcs, and so on. Fantasy gamers have for as long as I know, tried to see the best in the worst.

Also, "various indigenous peoples" is pretty vague. People all over the world, including "various indigenous peoples" committed terrible atrocities on the regular. Everyone everywhere did. The flaws of cultures are magnified in the eyes of other cultures. Again, orcs are a narrative tool, because they embody the wrongness of humanity and that makes them a frightening boogeyman. They are human vices of violence without counterbalance.

It's worth stating again that the sheer fact we have non-evil and/or noble-minded orcs (like the orcs in the Eberron setting) is a testament to how gamers are inclined to try to see the best in people, and other gamer's willingness to embrace such things. Without everyone first knowing what an Orc is, then there would be no impact of having non-barbaric orcs in a setting, because they would just be a different creature by the same name, even if their racial statistics were identical and their naming would be a misnomer rather than a subverted expectation.

EDIT:

Maybe dial this back to a very simple example.

Per most incarnations of D&D, elves get free proficiency in a sword and a bow, usually "long" in both cases. They also get some form of enhanced vision.

* Do they have enhanced vision because of their elven biology, or because they were raised by other elves?

* Do they have skill with sword and bow because of their elven biology, or because they were raised by other elves?

That's the sort of thing the conflation of "species" and "culture" into just "race" makes a mess of, and those are the sorts of things some of us are talking about splitting up.

Pathfinder handles things like this using lists of alternate racial traits. It would actually be a pretty simple task to create races in your d20 game that have a division between biological and cultural bits, and allow the interchanging of cultural features more easily than biological ones. Naturally this would add some nuance and variance to individuals within the same grouping to distinguish between their respective sub-cultures or event personal experience.

For an example of how easy something like that would be to create, I would direct your attention to Martial Traditions in Spheres of Might. In that, all warriors have simple armor proficiency, light armor proficiency, and buckler proficiency, and then get build upon those by selecting 4 additional talents (at least 2 of which must be equipment talents which cover things like unusual weapon styles, emphasis on armors, or weapon proficiencies). You could easily see how something like this could translate into a cultural option for races.

Dwarfs for example could have things like +2 Con, +2 Wis, -2 Cha, Darkvision, etc. But when it came to their "cultural" adjustments such as their proficiencies in axes and the like, such things could be exchanged for some similar cultural distinction. They might have proficiency with bows for example if they were raised by elves or something.

Draconi Redfir
2021-01-04, 02:53 PM
Here's a big question then: What happens if you have a culture that isn't specific to any particular race?

then you have a culture that isn't tied to any particular race.


you can have both.

edit:

And you'd probably get something similar to the whole "gathering together" thing. Take twenty Tarrakhuna and put them into a Yuxia city, and the Tarrakhuna will likely begin to gather together in some form, be it an embassy, a neighborhood, or a restaurant. Even if you scattered everyone apart from one another, eventually they would randomly encounter others like them, and being in a culture that isn't their own, they would likely find comfort in finding someone who knows what they're going through and has the same sense of normal as them, so they'd likely start to hang out.

People form Cliques, clubs, families, societies. We like to be close to one another, and sometimes it's easier to be close to someone who is more like you then someone who isn't.

PhoenixPhyre
2021-01-04, 03:02 PM
Here's a big question then: What happens if you have a culture that isn't specific to any particular race?

There are four cultures described in the game I run, tied to regions: Tarrakhuna, Jinnistan, Yuxia, and the Ten-Thousand Isles of the Sapphire Sea. There are also some dead cultures, such as the culture which used to live in the northern jungles. None of these cultures is race-specific, except maybe Jinnistani culture...and that's really only because its leadership is those few genies who make the transition into "noble genie" status and thus become SERIOUSLY powerful with time. (They've worked out a cutthroat but very civil culture of political intrigue--vaguely analogous to the noble houses of Dune, but more numerous and diverse, and lacking a single Emperor or legislative body.)

The Tarrakhuna is explicitly a melting pot of a dozen or more races, with it being explicitly clear that humans, orcs, and elves have all lived in this region for tens of thousands of years (enslaved by genies for a significant portion of that time), and formed their culture independently of other areas (after overthrowing their genie masters). The Ten-Thousand Isles are stuffed to the brim with dozens of distinct microcultures, ruling single islands or small island chains in an ocean the size of the Pacific. Yuxia is a China-like nation of incredible racial diversity (greater even than the Tarrakhuna), but which considers itself to be "one culture" even though it covers an absolutely enormous territory. (Its equivalent in the elemental otherworld, Fusang, is controlled by a very different class of beings than genies, and thus might not have a "culture" proper.)

In a world like this, where's the "dragonborn culture"? We have dragonborn native to Yuxia and dragonborn native to the Tarrakhuna--some even becoming heroes of religious movements in the area. Where's the "tiefling culture"? Tieflings just sort of happen here, there is no equivalent of Bael Turath. There's just Tarrakhunan culture, heavily driven by the largest of the city-states, Al-Rakkah. There will always be local flavors for each city-state (particularly Kafer-Naum, the Temple-City, because of its religious focus), but racial divides are largely meaningless.

Don't presume that cultures grow and thrive either by exclusively suborning, or by narrowly diving into a specific niche and letting the next group over dive into theirs. That's just not going to happen in practice. Even when physiological needs mandate that each group sticks to its own, you're going to have intermixing and exchange at various levels. For goodness' sake, look at the Hellenization of Alexander's empire, or the syncretic holidays of Central and South America; even where there were active efforts to stamp one culture out and replace it with another, you end up with blends and integration, sometimes in surprising places. In places where instead of destruction, cooperation is sought? You'll have far more blending and diversity.

Exactly. For my setting, very few of the races grew up independently and then met other cultures. Instead, they were created relatively recently in a context of other racial groups. For example, the date of the first dragonborn is known, and it's about 800 years ago. Halflings are even more recent (by about 100 years). They've never existed outside these multi-racial cultures. Even humans and orcs were created by other races and spent most of their history in multi-racial nations.

And then there are the nations formed by refugees of many nations fleeing a super-cataclysm, where they all had to band together to survive. Or the nation who was forged when a few tribes of orcs had a vision that they needed to help this band of dragonborn who had allied with some goblin tribes. Note that not all orcs are part of that nation (most aren't, even in that area), neither are most goblins. And then there was a merger of the dragonborn survivors in the refugee nation with the "main" body 150 years later, bringing with them a quite-different culture.

Or the human group with a very distinct culture who descended into the lowlands and mingled with an elven population, fusing almost entirely. Heck, that culture now is really 3, not correlated well by race at all: the "tribal" cultures on the fringes who haven't been assimilated, the "mainline" culture, and the maritime island culture that also hasn't fully assimilated.

And furthermore, mono-cultural races break my verisimilitude hardcore. Why are the dwarves on <continent 1> the same culture as the dwarves on <continent 2>, despite having been separated now for 10k+ years? Heck, why are the dwarves in <region 1> the same culture as the dwarves in <region 2>, despite having been under different empires for a thousand years and having long-standing influences from other cultures (<region 1> is heavily cosmopolitan, while <region 2> is isolated and has just barely come back into contact with the "main" cultures)? Repeat for the other races.

Cultures shift, cultures merge and cross-pollinate. And hybridization of cultures and nations is a tremendous source of strength in my view. For instance, there's a general tendency of goblins in my setting to be really inventive, but bad at follow-through. They reinvent the wheel every few days, often throwing away partially-completed projects and starting over. This stems from some of their biology and is present more or less in many goblin cultures. Humans (and human-descended groups like dragonborn), with their longer lifespans and other differences are not as directly inventive, but have strengths (in many cultures) involving organization and management and keeping goblins on task and filtering their ideas. And then dwarves and elves, with their strong traditions and long lifespans are great at iterating and refining the finished designs. A pure <X> nation will fall behind a mixed-race culture where everyone's working to their comparative advantage.

Draconi Redfir
2021-01-04, 03:05 PM
... No one is saying you can't have multiple different cultures for the same race?:smallconfused:

i'm not quite understanding what the problem is...

PhoenixPhyre
2021-01-04, 03:15 PM
... No one is saying you can't have multiple different cultures for the same race?:smallconfused:

i'm not quite understanding what the problem is...

It's a consequence of talking about "Dwarven" culture and blending that culture with race. Unless you go through lots of contortions, you no longer have a representation of different dwarven cultures in the game. At most, you have hats that don't inform anything.

Take 5e, for instance. The only race that talks about having multiple cultures in its race description is Humans--all the others are presumed uniform as they never really mention variations. There is one dwarven naming pattern given. For all areas of every setting. And those are the small things.

Defaults matter, because they set expectations. And here, the default is that one dwarf is just like any other dwarf. All of them are miners/craftsmen who get drunk and have clans and honor. All of them worship the same gods (don't get me started on racial pantheons not making any sense) in the same ways. Etc. Edit: at least at the sub-race level. And even the difference between hill and mountain dwarves is de minimus and gets like 1 sentence in a sidebar.

Even the books that have looked more at particular races (ie Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes looked at elves) only split things out to Drow/not-drow.

And that, in my mind, is horrible worldbuilding.

Draconi Redfir
2021-01-04, 03:28 PM
It's a consequence of talking about "Dwarven" culture and blending that culture with race. Unless you go through lots of contortions, you no longer have a representation of different dwarven cultures in the game. At most, you have hats that don't inform anything.

i mean, again. You can have both.

Mountain Dwarven culture is all about smithing,

Hill Dwarven culture is all about Ale brewing

Sea Dwarven culture is all about raiding and conquering


they're different cultures, but they're all cultures comprised or originated by predominantly Dwarves. All you really need to do is add one minor descriptor in there somewhere and you've got an easy way of describing it. That's kind of how Elves work right? You've got your High Elves, your Grey Elves, your Dark Elves, your Wood Elves, your Elderan, they're all still Elves, and they all still have Elven culture, but that doesn't necessarily mean all of their cultures are the same.

i mean, Humans in the real world don't all have the same culture right? But i'm sure aliens could look at earth and still talk about "Human culture" when referring to any one of them, or all of them as a whole.[/QUOTE]

Willie the Duck
2021-01-04, 03:31 PM
And that, in my mind, is horrible worldbuilding.

It isn't worldbuilding it is unworld-building. D&D keeps trying to have it bothmultiple ways as to whether it is a generic fantasy game with a 'impute your own game world' implication, the implied game world of the base rules, or one of the many pre-made gameworlds*. Thus yes Dwarves are default described as a monolithic monoculture, as are non-drow elves, and so on, with humans being the outlier (and their description being pretty much 'you decide.' My point isn't that this is good or bad -- I think it could be done better (and certainly more clearly), but also that they are between Charybdis and Scylla given fan expectations and exactly for what people are going to use the D&D rulebooks (whereas, as a counterexample, if you use RuneQuest outside of Glorantha, you just accept that you have to mentally replace the culturally-specific text from the books) -- my point is simply that they are actively trying not to do worldbuilding.
*in 5e default assumption being Forgotten Realms

NichG
2021-01-04, 03:37 PM
If you polymorph someone into an elf, do they get the proficiencies?

PhoenixPhyre
2021-01-04, 03:40 PM
i mean, again. You can have both.

Mountain Dwarven culture is all about smithing,

Hill Dwarven culture is all about Ale brewing

Sea Dwarven culture is all about raiding and conquering


they're different cultures, but they're all cultures comprised or originated by predominantly Dwarves. All you really need to do is add one minor descriptor in there somewhere and you've got an easy way of describing it. That's kind of how Elves work right? You've got your High Elves, your Grey Elves, your Dark Elves, your Wood Elves, your Elderan, they're all still Elves, and they all still have Elven culture, but that doesn't necessarily mean all of their cultures are the same.

i mean, Humans in the real world don't all have the same culture right? But i'm sure aliens could look at earth and still talk about "Human culture" when referring to any one of them, or all of them as a whole.[/QUOTE]

I disagree. As to the last point--no. I'd say that if they did so, they were making a huge error. I'd actually expect that they'd look at Earth and see it as a bunch of very different peoples, all of the same species. Or even different species--the whole "can't interbreed" definition is seriously flawed and isn't really used by biologists. You can have identical (biologically) groups of squirrels that are different species because they live on different sides of the Grand Canyon and don't interbreed, even if when brought together they could breed just fine. The definition of species is really really messy.

If the phrase "dwarven culture" means anything, it has to give you more information than "a culture with dwarves in it". Because that's utterly tautological. Describing two different cultures as both being "dwarven cultures" tells players that those cultures only differ in inconsequential ways. Especially when you say "they're different" but don't say anything else. Even down to naming patterns. That's what I mean by "different colored hats"--it's like the "rubber face" aliens of Star Trek, taken to an extreme degree.

And none of that matches what I see all around me. People intermix, cultures change and shift and grab pieces of other cultures. If the different races are alien enough that they don't do so, then they're alien enough that they won't be able to be played together in a sane, world-consistent party.


It isn't worldbuilding it is unworld-building. D&D keeps trying to have it bothmultiple ways as to whether it is a generic fantasy game with a 'impute your own game world' implication, the implied game world of the base rules, or one of the many pre-made gameworlds*. Thus yes Dwarves are default described as a monolithic monoculture, as are non-drow elves, and so on, with humans being the outlier (and their description being pretty much 'you decide.' My point isn't that this is good or bad -- I think it could be done better (and certainly more clearly), but also that they are between Charybdis and Scylla given fan expectations and exactly for what people are going to use the D&D rulebooks (whereas, as a counterexample, if you use RuneQuest outside of Glorantha, you just accept that you have to mentally replace the culturally-specific text from the books) -- my point is simply that they are actively trying not to do worldbuilding.
*in 5e default assumption being Forgotten Realms

First, the default assumption in 5e is not FR. In fact, FR departs from the PHB's descriptions more than many other settings do; just read the House Style Guide for FR (freely available on DMs Guild).

And I disagree with WotC on the benefit of that approach. Because, as I'm discovering, they've set very hard defaults that set very strong expectations. Effectively, they've created a homogenous meta-setting where you have to rework just about everything from the ground up to move to a setting that gets away from those defaults (racially). And, to me, that's a strong negative.

Willie the Duck
2021-01-04, 03:50 PM
First, the default assumption in 5e is not FR. In fact, FR departs from the PHB's descriptions more than many other settings do; just read the House Style Guide for FR (freely available on DMs Guild).

I meant the default assumed pre-made game world is Forgotten Realms, as opposed to Greyhawk in 3e or Known World in BX. As I stated the PHB description is an implied setting in and of itself.


And I disagree with WotC on the benefit of that approach. Because, as I'm discovering, they've set very hard defaults that set very strong expectations. Effectively, they've created a homogenous meta-setting where you have to rework just about everything from the ground up to move to a setting that gets away from those defaults (racially). And, to me, that's a strong negative.
I'm not sure that I think it is a benefit, and I am not convinced WotC thinks so either. I think they think they have to stick with this course, because people expect to flip open their D&D books and find axe/hammer-swinging dwarves and bow-and-magic slinging elves and halflings which vacillate between chubby homebodies and lithe adventurous explorers. I'm fairly certain that there is something of a better way to do it, but I also think that them genuinely getting rid of the iconic dwarven culture is something of a nonstarter as well.

Draconi Redfir
2021-01-04, 04:31 PM
And none of that matches what I see all around me. People intermix, cultures change and shift and grab pieces of other cultures. If the different races are alien enough that they don't do so, then they're alien enough that they won't be able to be played together in a sane, world-consistent party.

Again though, people like to gather together in familiarity. that's exactly why you see Chinese people in Chinese restaurants, Indian people in Indian restaurants, and Americans in McDonalds. When you're part of a group, you're going to instinctively seek out other members or places of that group to be more comfortable. Intermixing does happen yes, but so does grouping up with the familiar. That's how you get things like Chinatown and Little Italy in big cities, they're part over the city's culture, but they also group into their own native culture separate from that. you can have both.


And who's to say intermixing and cultural change isn't happening? Do you think Dwarves began forging weapons just for the fun of it? No, they needed to have an enemy to fight first, something for them to overcome. Something came at them, they needed weapons, probably got their butts handed to them, and so they started making weapons, and got really stinkin good at it all because of that other culture's interaction with them. Now people all over want Dwarven weapons because they're the best in the land, turning a culture of combat into a culture of trade. Maybe seeing the grand statues that other races have built drives Dwarves to use their weaponsmithing abilities to make more artistic sculptures, shifting them to a culture of art.

Again, you can have both.

Max_Killjoy
2021-01-04, 04:39 PM
I've eaten more Chinese and Indian than McDonalds in the last decade...

Draconi Redfir
2021-01-04, 04:41 PM
okay... and?:smallconfused:

KaussH
2021-01-04, 04:57 PM
If you polymorph someone into an elf, do they get the proficiencies?

Honestly depends on the game. In normal dnd, I dont think so. In the hybrid 1st/2nd ed I run , yes, but not right away. Any prof or skill or ability I have coded under "blessings of the gods" will be applied to anyone who becomes another race "permanently " or outsiders from another realm (aka my gnomes get their underground stuff for under ground and under ice. One player brought in an "outsider" gnome.. and once exposed to the thick ice, realized "this is easy" aka their ability changed to match the local race modification.

Now it was all added stuff, no losses so, all pretty fair. (And yes a little odd. Ig game reasons for why I have tied some race stuff to the gods that way. ) tho as a side effect, I can ignore a lot of biology for rule of cool stuff.

PhoenixPhyre
2021-01-04, 05:10 PM
Again though, people like to gather together in familiarity. that's exactly why you see Chinese people in Chinese restaurants, Indian people in Indian restaurants, and Americans in McDonalds. When you're part of a group, you're going to instinctively seek out other members or places of that group to be more comfortable. Intermixing does happen yes, but so does grouping up with the familiar. That's how you get things like Chinatown and Little Italy in big cities, they're part over the city's culture, but they also group into their own native culture separate from that. you can have both.


That's....yeah. No. That kind of stratification and separation only lasts for a generation or so, and even then gets heavily blended. Here we're talking about cultures that have been mixed for 10s of generations.

And I disagree that "that group" is dominantly along racial lines, unless those races are so alien from each other that coexistence/cooperation is impractical (like a race of giant birds who live their entire lives on the wing and a race of tiny aquatic creatures who can't exist outside of the oceans). But we're not talking about those. The differences between D&D races are relatively minimal at the deep level. Their physiological needs are pretty similar, as are their preferred living conditions. Sure, a stock halfling won't be immediately comfortable in the depths of a dwarven city, but they'll adapt pretty fast. So there's nothing stopping blending and hybridization of culture.



And who's to say intermixing and cultural change isn't happening? Do you think Dwarves began forging weapons just for the fun of it? No, they needed to have an enemy to fight first, something for them to overcome. Something came at them, they needed weapons, probably got their butts handed to them, and so they started making weapons, and got really stinkin good at it all because of that other culture's interaction with them. Now people all over want Dwarven weapons because they're the best in the land, turning a culture of combat into a culture of trade. Maybe seeing the grand statues that other races have built drives Dwarves to use their weaponsmithing abilities to make more artistic sculptures, shifting them to a culture of art.

Again, you can have both.

But you're still labeling all Dwarves as this one thing. As if the Dwarves over there and the Dwarves over here all had the same influences. Which is a non-starter if you want real worldbuilding.

Let's use an example from my setting.

I've got dwarves on two continents. These continents have seen little if no interaction for the last 10k+ years. One continent has a wide panoply of races and cultures and has seen substantial upheaval, including natural disasters that forced the dwarves in some areas to mix in with the other groups for pure survival. Even if they're living in mountain cities, they're still part of the same nations and dependent on the others for food, fuel, and many other things. That was multiple generations ago.

The other continent has many fewer races. Even so, the dwarves are a subject people (in some areas, in others they're dominant and in yet others they're isolated, and in others they're part of homogenized cooperative groups.). But mostly the dwarves are around other dwarves in most areas.

Continent A has humans and elves, continent B does not. What you're saying is that all dwarves, everywhere, no matter which races they're around, have developed identically except for cosmetic differences. That there is only one Dwarven culture. That's the consequence of tying race and culture together at the hip. There can only be one (per sub-race). And the culture of Dwarf-group A must be entirely Dwarf group A. Single-race nations don't work in any kind of a coherent setting. They get outcompeted by those who can work together.

There are dwarves that could care less about weaponsmithing. There are dwarves who are religious zealots; others who are atheist. There are dwarves who are super traditional and won't innovate on new designs beyond iterative improvements. There are dwarves who say "screw tradition, I wanna make my own thing". These are substantially different cultures even within dwarves. There are dwarves who act much more like their neighbors. Representing them as the same thing is, in my mind, horrible worldbuilding and prevents rich, vibrant worlds. And it creates these "racial siloes"--if you're a dwarf, you must be X. Basically turning races into caricatures and stereotypes. Which is, in my mind, horrible and promotes all those problems people bring up.

And it makes absolutely no sense in context of how cultures work. Cultures don't change in lockstep. They split, they fragment, they recombine, they cross-pollinate. The only constant is change, and that change is context specific.

Every race should have as much variation as makes sense based on the setting; humans can't be the only race that's allowed to have multiple actually-different cultures. And culture and race are at best mildly correlated.

This is a hill I will defend to the last.

NichG
2021-01-04, 05:54 PM
Honestly depends on the game. In normal dnd, I dont think so. In the hybrid 1st/2nd ed I run , yes, but not right away. Any prof or skill or ability I have coded under "blessings of the gods" will be applied to anyone who becomes another race "permanently " or outsiders from another realm (aka my gnomes get their underground stuff for under ground and under ice. One player brought in an "outsider" gnome.. and once exposed to the thick ice, realized "this is easy" aka their ability changed to match the local race modification.

Now it was all added stuff, no losses so, all pretty fair. (And yes a little odd. Ig game reasons for why I have tied some race stuff to the gods that way. ) tho as a side effect, I can ignore a lot of biology for rule of cool stuff.

It's got a lot of fridge horror potential, but the idea of explicitly splitting cultural, biological, and supernatural innate attributes sort of suggests there could be a matching line of mental and spiritual polymorph spells to go with the physical ones. Polymorph Magical Signature is maybe not so bad (at least without additional implications about the nature of souls and stuff like that), but Polymorph Culture (and the idea that abilities formalized enough to be propagated culturally could be magically injected in pursuit of power) could be pretty disturbing.

KaussH
2021-01-04, 06:09 PM
It's got a lot of fridge horror potential, but the idea of explicitly splitting cultural, biological, and supernatural innate attributes sort of suggests there could be a matching line of mental and spiritual polymorph spells to go with the physical ones. Polymorph Magical Signature is maybe not so bad (at least without additional implications about the nature of souls and stuff like that), but Polymorph Culture (and the idea that abilities formalized enough to be propagated culturally could be magically injected in pursuit of power) could be pretty disturbing.

2 thing. The "blessings" dont have a lot of skills/profs tied to them. So when you have a member of the culture who has left it (either by choice or by birth) it's more a "it's in your blood" feel than a full corruption.
2nd, in a small way its supposed to be a little off..... the idea of this being imposed on you, is supposed to be one of those things pcs question, even if normal people dont. :)

Also it's a low formal magic game (aka, world is magical, casters divine and arcane are newer) so polymorph is far from common.

At this point it's more casters talking about morphic fields and souls vs bodys and ect. In game very few people know the way it works for real (and me of course)

When I made this setting, it had a lot of "stuff" to it. How isums are handled, opposed ideas to some normal games, cultures as a blend of location, race, and intent (example, gnomes in the setting were tribal and nomadic much like dwarves, slowly they are moving away from that , to more settled way of living. )

This all only touches on stats however other than to say the world was made with a lot of cultural weight so its well outside the normal. Also since its built with the pcs view in mind, what they think about monsters may not be 100% true..


And on that note, to the original topic.... stat mods.. I use them for npcs..I think the rolled or bought stats represent the advantage pcs get.

If your stat mods are pcs only, then it means something diff than if alllllllllll members of a race get it.

Anymage
2021-01-04, 06:17 PM
It's got a lot of fridge horror potential, but the idea of explicitly splitting cultural, biological, and supernatural innate attributes sort of suggests there could be a matching line of mental and spiritual polymorph spells to go with the physical ones. Polymorph Magical Signature is maybe not so bad (at least without additional implications about the nature of souls and stuff like that), but Polymorph Culture (and the idea that abilities formalized enough to be propagated culturally could be magically injected in pursuit of power) could be pretty disturbing.

In-universe a racial skill or proficiency isn't different from one gained from spending build points on it, because they come from the same essential place. You practiced something and got good at it, whether the reason was encouragement from your culture or natural inclination. "Polymorph culture" wouldn't even cross anybody's mind, unless they were just whole hog creating Mindrape.


And it makes absolutely no sense in context of how cultures work. Cultures don't change in lockstep. They split, they fragment, they recombine, they cross-pollinate. The only constant is change, and that change is context specific.

Every race should have as much variation as makes sense based on the setting; humans can't be the only race that's allowed to have multiple actually-different cultures. And culture and race are at best mildly correlated.

This is a hill I will defend to the last.

In reality you're absolutely right. Ditto for any system that was built to accommodate more finely detailed character building.

In D&D which is often people's first exposure to tabletop RPGs (and as such gets a lot of new players)? I could make an argument for unrealistically broad strokes just to avoid headaches for newbies building both characters and worlds.

Democratus
2021-01-04, 06:32 PM
In Star Trek, Vulcans are stronger than humans.

They just are. It's one of their racial traits.

There's nothing inherently wrong about having a Star Trek game that reflects this in character building. Which they tend to do.

NichG
2021-01-04, 06:45 PM
In-universe a racial skill or proficiency isn't different from one gained from spending build points on it, because they come from the same essential place. You practiced something and got good at it, whether the reason was encouragement from your culture or natural inclination. "Polymorph culture" wouldn't even cross anybody's mind, unless they were just whole hog creating Mindrape.


Giving something explicit mechanics creates hooks for potential interactions, even if that's not the original intent. Psychic reformation, dark chaos shuffle, helm of opposite alignment, etc.

Nothing included in a game is guaranteed to be kept sacrosanct.

Anymage
2021-01-04, 07:20 PM
Giving something explicit mechanics creates hooks for potential interactions, even if that's not the original intent. Psychic reformation, dark chaos shuffle, helm of opposite alignment, etc.

Nothing included in a game is guaranteed to be kept sacrosanct.

I'm only minimally disagreeing, and that disagreement is only that a mechanic that lets you swap out your background will likely let you swap out other skills/feats as well because that's the implied fiction.

Just that in the universe as well as the implied fiction someone would use to justify a "change background" effect, you'd be either messing with their mind or altering time so their past was retroactively different. The former is fridge horror the system has already had for a while, and the latter avoids being a thing only because timey-wimeyness becomes a mess to adjudicate at the table.

NichG
2021-01-04, 07:36 PM
I'm only minimally disagreeing, and that disagreement is only that a mechanic that lets you swap out your background will likely let you swap out other skills/feats as well because that's the implied fiction.

Just that in the universe as well as the implied fiction someone would use to justify a "change background" effect, you'd be either messing with their mind or altering time so their past was retroactively different. The former is fridge horror the system has already had for a while, and the latter avoids being a thing only because timey-wimeyness becomes a mess to adjudicate at the table.

I guess I'll lean into it and try to give it a serious treatment as to how this would manifest in setting without just being mechanical weirdness.

The implication of a 'culture' line on the sheet with associated bonuses is that there is some kind of subconscious priming provided by upbringing and assumed world view that makes certain things easier to pick up or natural-feeling, without requiring explicit investiture of limited time or effort. So spells that mess with that would be, in-character, spells that edit those things which people have non-critically internalized and do not go back to check or verify anymore.

The horrific thing about those spells is the idea of changing someone's uncritical assumptions in a way that bypasses their ability to be consciously aware that something has changed. It is basically something like Mindrape, but less 'total personality overwrite' (which you could at least say 'well, this spell basically kills someone and replaces them') and more like changing some of the elements of a person that seem like they're a fundamental integrated part of who they are, while at the same time not changing other elements. The closest fictional example that comes to mind for this right now is how the Goddess' power worked in Ward: it left everything about people's style of thought, knowledge, biases, relationships, personality, etc alone, but it just replaced their moral compass with 'helping this individual succeed at their goals is the most important priority'.

So thats the past-the-event-horizon subliminal Domination effect styled application of this potential. To really make it disturbing, the in-setting progress towards that line should follow a path of reasonable stages of utility, or even good intentions. The fictional touch-point there is something like the skill upload stuff from the Matrix, the fantasy of effortless 'now I know kung-fu'. People diligently recording cultures from the setting world, transcribing them into magic items or spells, so that others can inject them as in-the-moment buffs or assists. Why learn math the hard way when you can inject the cultural tendencies that led to this one civilization dominating the world's premier mathematicians?

So yeah, I think there's lots of potential stuff at various levels of grey for PCs to have qualms about, and ways to connect across those levels of grey to have things naturally evolve in darker directions.

PhoenixPhyre
2021-01-04, 07:42 PM
In reality you're absolutely right. Ditto for any system that was built to accommodate more finely detailed character building.

In D&D which is often people's first exposure to tabletop RPGs (and as such gets a lot of new players)? I could make an argument for unrealistically broad strokes just to avoid headaches for newbies building both characters and worlds.

I would be ok (not happy, but ok) with either of the following:

A) reducing races to just the physiological things and shoving everything else into backgrounds (which are already customizable). Yes, that makes races quite anemic. Meh.
B) Giving a set of generic cultures not tied to races and using that instead of subraces. You could even have ones that look like "Dwarven Culture", just with the name removed and not tied in with the rest of the racial traits. Then each setting book could have more cultures in it. And guidance about making your own in the DMG.

So with B, you'd have Race + Culture + Class + Background, each of which is independent of the others.

I'd prefer B.

Edit: And as far as polymorph goes, 5e removes most of that. Only True Polymorph can do humanoid -> humanoid (or in fact anything into humanoid), and you explicitly lose any race-bound features you might have had. Yes, including proficiencies. And you only get the generic ones for that race.

Yes, that's still weird. Another reason why separating out race from culture would be better, even if you didn't have cross-race cultures.

You could think of it as reshaping your entire soul to what the caster/magic thinks of as the "average member of race X". Still pretty weird.

Draconi Redfir
2021-01-04, 08:55 PM
I disagree that "that group" is dominantly along racial lines

i'm not SAYING Racial lines, i'm saying GROUP lines!:smallsigh: it can be a group of people all obligated to wear wide brimmed hats for all i care! Race and Culture and more are all possible reasons to group together.



But you're still labeling all Dwarves as this one thing. As if the Dwarves over there and the Dwarves over here all had the same influences. Which is a non-starter if you want real worldbuilding.

No i'm not???????


i mean, again. You can have both.

Mountain Dwarven culture is all about smithing,

Hill Dwarven culture is all about Ale brewing

Sea Dwarven culture is all about raiding and conquering


they're different cultures, but they're all cultures comprised or originated by predominantly Dwarves. All you really need to do is add one minor descriptor in there somewhere and you've got an easy way of describing it. That's kind of how Elves work right? You've got your High Elves, your Grey Elves, your Dark Elves, your Wood Elves, your Elderan, they're all still Elves, and they all still have Elven culture, but that doesn't necessarily mean all of their cultures are the same.


?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ???????


Let's use an example from my setting.

I've got dwarves on two continents. These continents have seen little if no interaction for the last 10k+ years. One continent has a wide panoply of races and cultures and has seen substantial upheaval, including natural disasters that forced the dwarves in some areas to mix in with the other groups for pure survival. Even if they're living in mountain cities, they're still part of the same nations and dependent on the others for food, fuel, and many other things. That was multiple generations ago.

The other continent has many fewer races. Even so, the dwarves are a subject people (in some areas, in others they're dominant and in yet others they're isolated, and in others they're part of homogenized cooperative groups.). But mostly the dwarves are around other dwarves in most areas.

Okay, so in this situation "Dwarf culture" would likely refer to the Dwarves of whatever continent you happen to be on, with "Eastern Dwarves" or "Western Dwarves" or whatever other label you want to come up with to refer to the group on the other continent. It wouldn't be exactly 100% accurate in any given situation, but it'd still be functional. You'd likely also say "Dwarf culture" when referring to the similarities of the various dwarves of all species, If all or most groups of dwarves tend to spend more of their lives then your average human would underground, then you could refer to that as a common theme among all Dwarves, and point out how each party portrays it in different ways.




Continent A has humans and elves, continent B does not. What you're saying is that all dwarves, everywhere, no matter which races they're around, have developed identically except for cosmetic differences. That there is only one Dwarven culture. That's the consequence of tying race and culture together at the hip. There can only be one (per sub-race). And the culture of Dwarf-group A must be entirely Dwarf group A. Single-race nations don't work in any kind of a coherent setting. They get outcompeted by those who can work together.
Please show me where exactly i said that. Because from what i can tell, i've been saying that you can have many Dwarven cultures, and they are all valid examples of "Dwarven Culture".




And it makes absolutely no sense in context of how cultures work. Cultures don't change in lockstep. They split, they fragment, they recombine, they cross-pollinate. The only constant is change, and that change is context specific.

Right, and every step of that change, regardless of what that change is, would still be the culture of the group it is affecting. Dwarves that cut stones and then get attacked so they craft weapons, and then meet humans who want weapons so they sell the weapons and start learning about profit and business and then the Elves come along and teach them about Alcohol so they start getting into the business of brewing alcohol and then the Goblins invent gunpowder and so the Dwarves refine and perfect it to create guns and then become a militant power and then expand to dominate the planet and then find their empire shattered and then split into multiple separate unions all independently governing themselves and developing their own independent cultures...

It's all Dwarf culture! The entire history as a whole is collectively Dwarf culture, at no point does it not become Dwarf culture unless some other race brings an end to it by hunting Dwarves to extinction or something.

https://i.imgflip.com/4sko2p.jpg



Every race should have as much variation as makes sense based on the setting; humans can't be the only race that's allowed to have multiple actually-different cultures. And culture and race are at best mildly correlated.

This is a hill I will defend to the last.

i never said you couldn't do exactly that.:smallsigh:

PhoenixPhyre
2021-01-04, 09:01 PM
Strong non-human archetypes are important. They give gamers hooks to play off for something that is essentially an alien. Not a human in a rubber suit. That's why "monoculture" is so common for them, possibly with subcultures in the form of sub races.

If it doesn't work for your world, change it. But it exists for a good reason.

But only non-human ones. Because we all know how to play convincing humans, so humans can be anything. Everyone else must be locked into one tiny little niche forever.

And for all those "strong archetypes" (which are anything but), I've yet to see anyone play any character, human or not, as anything other than a human in a rubber suit. Ok, I've seen bad stereotype-ridden flat "I'm an alien HUR DUR DUR" portrayals that would make a Saturday Morning cartoon turn up its nose in disgust. Those have usually been the people who actually tried to follow the archetypes as written.

Those "strong archetypes" aren't archetypes at all. They're stereotypes, and flat ones. Ones that don't make any sense in any world.




It's all Dwarf culture! The entire history as a whole is collectively Dwarf culture, at no point does it not become Dwarf culture unless some other race brings an end to it by hunting Dwarves to extinction or something.


Then the phrase Dwarf Culture is tautological. And provides exactly zero information to anyone. If you can have widely varying cultures that are all "Dwarf Culture", then you've diluted that term into meaninglessness.

Or it's internally contradictory--if dwarf-group A has cultural parameters XYZ and dwarf-group B has cultural parameters ABC =/= XYZ, then Dwarf Culture is simultaneously XYZ and not XYZ. Which yeah. No. That's not useful.

And mechanically, you lack any way of operationalizing that. By tying culture into race and smooshing it all together (as 5e and all previous editions of D&D do), you're saying that those differences are merely cosmetic. At best. They're informed attributes. You have no hooks to tie them to the culture. And you get weird things like


I'm a Sea Dwarf. I've never spent a night on land since I was born! Never been in a stone building But I still know lots about the history of stonework, because I'm a dwarf! And I can see real good underground because of my long history underground....wait...what? And my name? It's tied to those clans and the whole mountain aesthetic. Because there's only one, universe-wide naming convention for dwarves. Everywhere.

That's where race + subrace just doesn't work to make coherent characters. Too much is bundled together.

And you can't have a Sea Gnome who has been raised by Sea Dwarves--Gnomes don't get sea-flavored sub-races, and they certainly don't match the dwarven one if they did, and the base races are incompatible so you can't just port over the "culture"...

And if you have a dwarf raised by humans, miles away from any mountains...he still knows all that racial dwarven stuff!

So all you get is caricatures and flat stereotypes. You end up with all dwarves (of a subrace) being carbon copies. Only humans are allowed to actually vary.

Draconi Redfir
2021-01-04, 09:25 PM
Dwarf Culture isn't the culture that defines all Dwarves.

Dwarf Culture is what culture -any culture- whatever culture or multiple cultures that it may be, that Dwarves have.

PhoenixPhyre
2021-01-04, 09:29 PM
Dwarf Culture isn't the culture that defines all Dwarves.

Dwarf Culture is what culture -any culture- whatever culture or multiple cultures that it may be, that Dwarves have.

As I said, utterly meaningless because tautological.

Edit: I should note that while D&D (in general)'s approach to races annoys me as a worldbuilder, it's still playable. It's just...ugly and creaky.

VoxRationis
2021-01-04, 10:14 PM
--snip--

Monocultures and planets-of-hats are lazy writing. We can, and should, do better.

I don't think you're arguing against what I was arguing for, since I certainly wasn't arguing for single-culture species or planet-of-hats concepts. I was saying something to the tune of "species A has cultures 1, 2, 3, species B has cultures 4, 5, 6, species C has cultures 7 and 8, but is also present in cultures 3 and 4," and so forth, to as great a level of variety and nuance as the time available to the DM and the geography of the setting permit.


Exactly. For my setting, very few of the races grew up independently and then met other cultures. Instead, they were created relatively recently in a context of other racial groups. For example, the date of the first dragonborn is known, and it's about 800 years ago. Halflings are even more recent (by about 100 years). They've never existed outside these multi-racial cultures. Even humans and orcs were created by other races and spent most of their history in multi-racial nations.

I think that a scenario in which large numbers of the species present appeared from nothing into cultures and populations defined by earlier species can be safely said to be outside the general expectation of most settings. That's fine; there are lots of stories to be told about such situations and fun that can be had by players. It's just of limited relevance to the general cases we're talking about.


And then there are the nations formed by refugees of many nations fleeing a super-cataclysm, where they all had to band together to survive. Or the nation who was forged when a few tribes of orcs had a vision that they needed to help this band of dragonborn who had allied with some goblin tribes. Note that not all orcs are part of that nation (most aren't, even in that area), neither are most goblins. And then there was a merger of the dragonborn survivors in the refugee nation with the "main" body 150 years later, bringing with them a quite-different culture.


And I disagree that "that group" is dominantly along racial lines, unless those races are so alien from each other that coexistence/cooperation is impractical (like a race of giant birds who live their entire lives on the wing and a race of tiny aquatic creatures who can't exist outside of the oceans). But we're not talking about those. The differences between D&D races are relatively minimal at the deep level. Their physiological needs are pretty similar, as are their preferred living conditions. Sure, a stock halfling won't be immediately comfortable in the depths of a dwarven city, but they'll adapt pretty fast. So there's nothing stopping blending and hybridization of culture.

But that stock halfling in that scenario is coming from somewhere, and the dwarves managed to get a whole city up and running that's "dwarven." In your earlier scenario, moreover, you outline not one, but three different earlier cultures divided among racial lines that came together over time. In that, you seem to implicitly accept my argument that the origins of these different societies will likely derive from the social interactions within a monoracial population, even if that population is in a more diverse community (in the ecological sense).


Every race should have as much variation as makes sense based on the setting; humans can't be the only race that's allowed to have multiple actually-different cultures. And culture and race are at best mildly correlated.

This is a hill I will defend to the last.

It's also a hill only tangentially related to the hills other people are "assaulting," if you will. There seems to be a general agreement among the different viewpoints in this thread that there should be cultural variety. Or, to answer with an earlier quote:


... No one is saying you can't have multiple different cultures for the same race?:smallconfused:

i'm not quite understanding what the problem is...

ezekielraiden
2021-01-05, 02:54 AM
I don't think you're arguing against what I was arguing for, since I certainly wasn't arguing for single-culture species or planet-of-hats concepts. I was saying something to the tune of "species A has cultures 1, 2, 3, species B has cultures 4, 5, 6, species C has cultures 7 and 8, but is also present in cultures 3 and 4," and so forth, to as great a level of variety and nuance as the time available to the DM and the geography of the setting permit.
No, that's still something I'm arguing against, because you're treating species A as having three cultures, when cultures can be completely distinct from species.

What I'm talking about is, "Cultures I, II, III, and IV exist. You can find members of species A in cultures I, III, and IV; members of species B in I, II, and III; species C in II, III, and IV; and species D in all four. There's also Culture V, which is ruled by the powerful and somewhat mysterious species E, but otherwise features members of all other sapient species." Under this kind of situation, there isn't any possible way of referring to any of these cultures as being "species A's culture," nor is there any way of referring to any of these species as being "Culture I's core species."

To give a more nuanced example from my own game. Due to historical reasons, City-folk and the Nomad Tribes are distinct subcultures of the larger Tarrakhunan culture (though both would see it as foolish to refer to the other as a truly "different" culture). Orcs and half-orcs are common in both subcultures, because they ultimately spring from the same source populations. No one bats an eye at a full-blooded orc street vendor selling shawarma. It would be erroneous to say that the Nomad Tribes "are orc culture." It would also be erroneous to say that orcs "belong to the Nomad culture," because there's only very minor differences in demographics between the City-folk and the Nomads; orcs and half-orcs are somewhat more common in the tribes, but quite common in both places. And there are absolutely orcish socities in the Ten Thousand Isles (microcultures), there were orcs living among the now-lost jungle civilization to the north, and orcs are no less common in Yuxia (though they might cluster slightly more there than they do in the Tarrakhuna, as the whole nomad thing is a lot less common there because it's far less arid.)


I think that a scenario in which large numbers of the species present appeared from nothing into cultures and populations defined by earlier species can be safely said to be outside the general expectation of most settings. That's fine; there are lots of stories to be told about such situations and fun that can be had by players. It's just of limited relevance to the general cases we're talking about.
Erm....isn't that literally how most D&D settings mythically arise? A deity or deities creates a species from whole cloth, or an ancient progenitor race creates the other races of the setting. Those are literally the two ways nearly all sapient race of FR came about, the main potential exception being humans (because some humans got there from Earth). It's also how the Nentir Vale setting worked, and IIRC how Greyhawk worked.


It's also a hill only tangentially related to the hills other people are "assaulting," if you will. There seems to be a general agreement among the different viewpoints in this thread that there should be cultural variety. Or, to answer with an earlier quote:
The statement here--"you can have multiple cultures under the same race"--implies that you can still reasonably order cultures in the following way:
Race A
Culture I
Culture II
Culture III
etc.

Race B
Culture 1
Culture 2
Culture 3
etc.

Race C
Culture i
Culture ii
Culture iii
etc. etc.

I--and I would assume others--are asserting that, in practice, this will rarely work out like that. You will have cultures that "belong equally" to multiple races, too, such that you get something like

Race A
Culture I
Culture 1
Culture II
Culture 3
etc.

Race B
Culture 1
Culture II
Culture 2
Culture III
etc.

Race C
Culture I
Culture 2
Culture III
Culture 3
etc.

Meaning, it's not just that you can't say "if you're a dwarf, you're from this specific culture Q" (which we all agree on), it's that you ALSO can't say "if you're from culture Q, you're definitely a dwarf." Neither connection holds more than as a loose trend. E.g. dragonborn are more common in Yuxia than the Tarrakhuna and much more common in either than in Jinnistan, but there are Jinnistani dragonborn, who would have almost nothing in common with Yuxian dragonborn culturally. Being Yuxian doesn't preclude being a genie, it's just uncommon, and a Yuxian djinn (more likely a mizaj, the "mixed-element" and mostly-mortal genie type) would be confused at the notion of "genie culture" somehow separate from being Yuxian. Indeed, Yuxia is a mix of dozens of races, some widespread, some localized, but all sharing a common feeling of one shared culture with different local variations, just like its inspiration, which is a vast land with numerous internal ethnic divisions yet one that repeatedly through history has evinced a common "Chinese culture" concept.

This doesn't mean that in D&D racial monocultures, or monoracial cultures, CANNOT exist in principle. They're just going to be only one possibility, and not terribly likely in the long run as different cultures collide, merge, and divide. As I've said, my "Sapphire Sea culture" is actually a collection of many, many tiny cultures (which I referred to as "microcultures")--perhaps only a few thousand people in each--which are small enough to make sense as either monoracial cultures or (rarely) monocultural races. There's a loose Polynesian-like connection between many of them, but some of the islands are culturally insular (no pun intended), and I allow for the possibility that a certain species is only native to one island (though no such thing has ever been demonstrated in the fiction).

Max_Killjoy
2021-01-05, 08:51 AM
Indeed, there's nothing wrong with having a specific species (or people) with a single specific culture, if the conditions of the setting make that the way things work out.

It's when that's the default, because "species = culture = race" is the assumption, no matter what the conditions of the setting itself might indicate, that it falls apart.

Kardwill
2021-01-05, 09:45 AM
I would argue "by not having racial ability modifiers." Regardless of real-world concerns, they're boring. They basically vanish as soon as you're done with character creation, especially if you didn't min-max (ie, if you start with a 20 when the normal max at creation is 18, that's at least sort of noticeable; if you start with a 16, who can even tell?) If you want orcs to be stronger than humans, it's more fun to give them something like Powerful Build than +2 Strength.

I agree with that. D&D-style racial bonus is a poor way to distinguish different people, especially in a point-buy system like this one. Either it does not matter, or it guides too much creation into specialized builds, and every one of your fighters end up being dwarves and half-orc.
If you want your dwarf soldier to be sturdier than your pal's elf soldier, then simply assign him better scores in Str and Con. Let the player build the stats as they want. There is no need for a racial +2.
A unique bonus (night vision, unmovable, etc...) can be hard to balance, but it will feel far more "special" than a bonus hidden in your statblock.

Max_Killjoy
2021-01-05, 09:50 AM
Strong archetypes?

More like Planet of Hats.

Or rather, Planet of Straight-jackets.

Willie the Duck
2021-01-05, 10:00 AM
Strong archetypes?

More like Planet of Hats.

Or rather, Planet of Straight-jackets.

Can you (preferably non-vitriolically, as that seems like where this is going) expand on this? Let's say a game or game world uses descriptions of Dwarves that strongly reinforce the Peter Jackson LotR Gimli motif. How do you see that as a straightjacket, and how loose would it have to be not to be one?

Xervous
2021-01-05, 10:25 AM
I agree with that. D&D-style racial bonus is a poor way to distinguish different people, especially in a point-buy system like this one. Either it does not matter, or it guides too much creation into specialized builds, and every one of your fighters end up being dwarves and half-orc.
If you want your dwarf soldier to be sturdier than your pal's elf soldier, then simply assign him better scores in Str and Con. Let the player build the stats as they want. There is no need for a racial +2.
A unique bonus (night vision, unmovable, etc...) can be hard to balance, but it will feel far more "special" than a bonus hidden in your statblock.

D&D style attributes flub on multiple fronts. The first is more of a system thing in that most characters get a special button that can only be pressed with one attribute. SAD ruins many possibilities for differing but comparable investments. The rogue wants DEX for attack, for damage (in some systems), for their skills, for their defenses. Wizard mostly starts and stops at INT. Layering multiple attributes into various systems, be they combat or spells, and doing it in a way where you have reasons to want a good spread does reduce the ‘strong dwarf -> every breed of fighter ever’ trend.

Another stumbling point is that the racial bonuses are merely point buy discounts that many have maligned for disappearing past character creation. Assuming a system that has stat caps, racial bonuses are a great opportunity for pushing or pulling on those caps. Characters will still have to buy those heightened attributes, so it’s an opportunity rather than a free meal.

The third is the build X, progress Y problem. Point buy tells you that increasingly higher attributes are more and more valuable, yet progression gives you flat pluses to divvy up as you desire. Of course you’re going to push the button that has the most value, which will be your highest stat. If the point buy continued on after level 1 and attribute boosts were implemented via additional point buy allotments I’d have reason to consider tradeoffs like getting 2 more STR on my fighter (lets say 18->19 is 6, and 19->20 is 7), or kicking numerous attributes up to 14, or jumping an 8 to a 16.

PhoenixPhyre
2021-01-05, 10:28 AM
Can you (preferably non-vitriolically, as that seems like where this is going) expand on this? Let's say a game or game world uses descriptions of Dwarves that strongly reinforce the Peter Jackson LotR Gimli motif. How do you see that as a straightjacket, and how loose would it have to be not to be one?

So not just one setting's dwarf, but one particular dwarf among them, and one particular director's portrayal of that one particular dwarf? For all the dwarves in that setting? How is that not a straitjacket? Can't make a bookish dwarf who doesn't like axes, because that's not dwarfish. Can't make...well...just about anything other than PJ's LotR Gimli. A world full of Gimli's misses out on most of what you'd need for a functioning, let alone organic culture.

Races, as they're actually a part of a setting and are firmly embedded in the fiction layer, can't lean into archetypes nearly as strongly as things like classes that are more game-layer. Because hard lines and pigeonholes just don't work for that sort of thing when building a world.

Keltest
2021-01-05, 12:02 PM
So not just one setting's dwarf, but one particular dwarf among them, and one particular director's portrayal of that one particular dwarf? For all the dwarves in that setting? How is that not a straitjacket? Can't make a bookish dwarf who doesn't like axes, because that's not dwarfish. Can't make...well...just about anything other than PJ's LotR Gimli. A world full of Gimli's misses out on most of what you'd need for a functioning, let alone organic culture.

Races, as they're actually a part of a setting and are firmly embedded in the fiction layer, can't lean into archetypes nearly as strongly as things like classes that are more game-layer. Because hard lines and pigeonholes just don't work for that sort of thing when building a world.

What if, and i know im really reaching here, you just say that your adventurer, who is abnormal and exceptional by definition... just doesnt conform perfectly to the stereotypes of their society? You want to play a bookish dwarf? Cool! Play a bookish dwarf. If somebody, in character or out brings it up that its kind of strange, just ask them "so?"

Heck, im playing a dwarf bard right now. He plays the harp, wears light armor, spies and generally pokes his nose into things. No axes, full plate, and he only drinks a normal amount instead of being actively drunk all the time. This is somewhat unusual among dwarves in this setting, and absolutely nobody even looked at me oddly when i rolled him, let alone protested that i wasnt "dwarfy enough" or anything like that. The fact that he's still a dwarf under the bard is half the point.

ezekielraiden
2021-01-05, 12:31 PM
What if, and i know im really reaching here, you just say that your adventurer, who is abnormal and exceptional by definition... just doesnt conform perfectly to the stereotypes of their society? You want to play a bookish dwarf? Cool! Play a bookish dwarf. If somebody, in character or out brings it up that its kind of strange, just ask them "so?"

Heck, im playing a dwarf bard right now. He plays the harp, wears light armor, spies and generally pokes his nose into things. No axes, full plate, and he only drinks a normal amount instead of being actively drunk all the time. This is somewhat unusual among dwarves in this setting, and absolutely nobody even looked at me oddly when i rolled him, let alone protested that i wasnt "dwarfy enough" or anything like that. The fact that he's still a dwarf under the bard is half the point.

Let's restructure this.

Imagine "tabletop players" as a group. Now imagine if a CEO at Hasbro is signing off on a movie about a group of TTRPG players. Because the CEO loves South Park, they latch onto a bunch of World of Warcraft player tropes from that show's WoW episode. So every portrayed TTRPG player is also a WoW player, cheeto-dusted, a bit obese, "well akshuallee...", socially avoidant, etc., etc., etc. The main character gets to be different because they have to appeal to a broader audience, but everyone else is forced to conform to this single stereotype of RPG-player-ness.

I hope you'd feel like the real diversity of just this one small subcultural niche was being unfairly pingeonholed and portrayed in a not-so-great manner. Would you feel like someone saying, "Well the main character was a gamer without being into WoW and having those other traits, so it's not actually a straightjacket" was seriously addressing your concerns? If so, could you explain why?

Keltest
2021-01-05, 12:38 PM
Let's restructure this.

Imagine "tabletop players" as a group. Now imagine if a CEO at Hasbro is signing off on a movie about a group of TTRPG players. Because the CEO loves South Park, they latch onto a bunch of World of Warcraft player tropes from that show's WoW episode. So every portrayed TTRPG player is also a WoW player, cheeto-dusted, a bit obese, "well akshuallee...", socially avoidant, etc., etc., etc. The main character gets to be different because they have to appeal to a broader audience, but everyone else is forced to conform to this single stereotype of RPG-player-ness.

I hope you'd feel like the real diversity of just this one small subcultural niche was being unfairly pingeonholed and portrayed in a not-so-great manner. Would you feel like someone saying, "Well the main character was a gamer without being into WoW and having those other traits, so it's not actually a straightjacket" was seriously addressing your concerns? If so, could you explain why?
Because in this analogy, you the player are the CEO. You can build your character to be however you want. If you choose to be boring and only make drunk dwarves or whatever, thats fine too, but nobody can look at you writing dwarf on your character sheet and say "well, you cant actually play a bard, because the dwarves arent like that." Im a dwarf, im like that, ipso facto. I dont care what other dwarves are "like" when im making mine unless im specifically setting out to make a very "standard" dwarf.

From where im sitting, its just a bizarre thing to be saying. You cant play either into or against a type without there being a type first.

Willie the Duck
2021-01-05, 01:13 PM
So not just one setting's dwarf, but one particular dwarf among them, and one particular director's portrayal of that one particular dwarf? For all the dwarves in that setting? How is that not a straitjacket?
I was using PJ's LotR's Gimli as a shorthand for a type, but whatever, let's go with it.
The reason it might not be a straight jacket (and where a case really needs to be made that it is) is because the actual avenue of constraint is missing. Straightjackets keep you from doing things. A stated cultural trend does not, it just states a general societal trend at the demographic, not individual, level. Dwarves like ale, elves like wine, Brits like tea, yanks like coffee -- is it true all the time, much less an enforceable constraint? Not inherently (I guess unless the gamebook actually states that no dwarves deviate from said stereotypes, which would be an interesting, albeit gonzo, twist).


Can't make a bookish dwarf who doesn't like axes, because that's not dwarfish.
No. If the dwarf likes books over axes, that is an individual character trait, as opposed to a cultural stereotype or trend. The culture does not prevent the character from doing so.


Can't make...well...just about anything other than PJ's LotR Gimli.
Says who, and why? Where was this bizarre constraint stated or implied?


A world full of Gimli's misses out on most of what you'd need for a functioning, let alone organic culture.
A world where everyone hews 100% to their cultural stereotypes does not exist, but said stereotypes (and the trends that feed them) exist.


Races, as they're actually a part of a setting and are firmly embedded in the fiction layer, can't lean into archetypes nearly as strongly as things like classes that are more game-layer. Because hard lines and pigeonholes just don't work for that sort of thing when building a world.
There we go. On this we agree. You need more dwarves who like archery and magic and elves who like smithing* than you need wizards who like wearing armor or clerics who like stealthing**. Classes are already both an artificial game contrivance and imply a level of presumed choice ahead of time.
*else where are the elves getting their swords, for example?
**5e makes each of these possible, but previous versions certainly showed that you don't need them.

NichG
2021-01-05, 01:45 PM
Worth considering what presenting this information or structure has to actually do in a game setting, which is different than a book or movie.

The setting material has to be something a player can absorb in minutes to the depth necessary to begin to make meaningful decisions as to what they want to dig more deeply into. Things that show up onscreen and aren't exaggerated like Disney animations of motion will tend to lose bids for players' attention or memory. Excessive caricatures, stereotypes, and stuff that makes use of things familiar to players and twists them in simple but effective ways (I'm a claustrophic dwarf!) are going to be more likely to organically stay in spotlight than complex and realistic characters whose nuances would generally require spending your childhood in that world to understand.

Secondly, as a roleplaying game, depictions of things in the rules can act as a prompt to give players something outside themselves to explore that they wouldn't think of on their own. The D&D races are old now and so don't serve this purpose so much. But if you have Fogles, who are 'basically as diverse as any other people but have a few stat differences' then that won't serve as well as 'Fogles, who are generally so contrary that their legal system is entirely composed of laws against things they actually want eachother to do' or 'Fogles, who are taught from a young age that everything that happens in their life is a direct consequence of their personal karma' or 'Fogles, whose society is founded on the belief that misunderstandings of emotion are sources of serious harm, and who therefore have exaggerated ways of reporting their emotional state: verbally, in their mode of dress, or even with handheld drama mask props'

Yes, those are ridiculous overgeneralizations of any sort of realistic people. But as prompts, they're ideas to help players find something that is simultaneously different from themselves but simple enough to grasp quickly to explore.

Draconi Redfir
2021-01-05, 02:10 PM
a thought i had. you might be able to describe our definition of "cliché [insert race here] culture" as basically what a tourist or other outsider would see and notice.

for example, lets stick with Dwarves as we've seen. What's their cliché? They forge weapons, they drink beer, they mine for treasure, and they fight. At least part of the argument against this seems to be that this can't be the entire culture, or at the very least that "digging, drinking, forging, fighting dwarves" are too narrow a thing to play, and/or that it's all a stereotype.

Lets look at it from the perspective of someone on the outside looking in. Lets say a human visits a Dwarven city for a few days. What are they going to notice?

Well, a human visiting is probably going to go looking for the big things, the sight-seeing the experiencing of events. So they'll probably visit the greatest landmarks, the greatest parties, the greatest souvenirs, what'll they find? Probably big forges, deep mines, and dug up treasures. If that human sees the Dwarves fight off a raid of monsters, what will they see? Highly trained warriors. If they visit a bar to relax? They'll see a lot of heavy drinkers, partiers, and singers.


now what are they not seeing? Well, a tourist probably won't have too much interest in the Dwarven justice system, their laws, their taxes, they probably won't have any interest in sitting down in a church and listening to the sermons, or the ritual meditations to the sound of stone grinding against stone. They won't see the stay-at home mothers who sing to their children, the work-all-day fathers filling tax reports and keeping track of who borrowed what, and they probably won't see the various small children's games and nursery rhymes that the young dwarves practice in school. Or if they did see any of it, the Tourist is much less likely to notice or talk about it with their friends. Who's interested in learning about Dwarven tax-law when there's a giant freaking forge full of molten steel in the middle of town?

Stereotypes usually exist for a reason. The stereotype of mining, drinking, forging fighting Dwarves exist because at one point or another, there were Dwarven fighters, Dwarven drinkers, Dwarven miners, and Dwarven smiths. They might have been a handful of Dwarves who dabbled in all of those, or many Dwarves who only knew two or three. That doesn't mean that's all there is, it just means that's what the people saw at the moment and embellished over the years. Maybe Dwarven smiths are no grander or more skilled then the average Human smith. Maybe one guy was just really into how large the human-sized forge was in comparison to the Dwarf, and over the centuries the story got embellished so the forge was even bigger and bigger, eventually getting to the point where it towered over the city. Heck, maybe Dwarves liked the story so much they actually made it true, even though such a thing would be completely impractical and mostly function as a decoration more then anything else.

Basically, the generic definition of "Dwarven culture" we know could just be nothing but a story told by outsiders, with a whole slew of different passions and professions deeper within. The mining and smithing may be popular with people, but the Dwarves will still need scholars, teachers, entertainers, musicians, performers, peacemakers, medics, and so much more. They do exist, they're just not the ones people usually tell stories about.

ezekielraiden
2021-01-05, 04:57 PM
a thought i had. you might be able to describe our definition of "cliché [insert race here] culture" as basically what a tourist or other outsider would see and notice.

for example, lets stick with Dwarves as we've seen. What's their cliché? They forge weapons, they drink beer, they mine for treasure, and they fight. At least part of the argument against this seems to be that this can't be the entire culture, or at the very least that "digging, drinking, forging, fighting dwarves" are too narrow a thing to play, and/or that it's all a stereotype.

Lets look at it from the perspective of someone on the outside looking in. Lets say a human visits a Dwarven city for a few days. What are they going to notice?

Well, a human visiting is probably going to go looking for the big things, the sight-seeing the experiencing of events. So they'll probably visit the greatest landmarks, the greatest parties, the greatest souvenirs, what'll they find? Probably big forges, deep mines, and dug up treasures. If that human sees the Dwarves fight off a raid of monsters, what will they see? Highly trained warriors. If they visit a bar to relax? They'll see a lot of heavy drinkers, partiers, and singers.


now what are they not seeing? Well, a tourist probably won't have too much interest in the Dwarven justice system, their laws, their taxes, they probably won't have any interest in sitting down in a church and listening to the sermons, or the ritual meditations to the sound of stone grinding against stone. They won't see the stay-at home mothers who sing to their children, the work-all-day fathers filling tax reports and keeping track of who borrowed what, and they probably won't see the various small children's games and nursery rhymes that the young dwarves practice in school. Or if they did see any of it, the Tourist is much less likely to notice or talk about it with their friends. Who's interested in learning about Dwarven tax-law when there's a giant freaking forge full of molten steel in the middle of town?

Stereotypes usually exist for a reason. The stereotype of mining, drinking, forging fighting Dwarves exist because at one point or another, there were Dwarven fighters, Dwarven drinkers, Dwarven miners, and Dwarven smiths. They might have been a handful of Dwarves who dabbled in all of those, or many Dwarves who only knew two or three. That doesn't mean that's all there is, it just means that's what the people saw at the moment and embellished over the years. Maybe Dwarven smiths are no grander or more skilled then the average Human smith. Maybe one guy was just really into how large the human-sized forge was in comparison to the Dwarf, and over the centuries the story got embellished so the forge was even bigger and bigger, eventually getting to the point where it towered over the city. Heck, maybe Dwarves liked the story so much they actually made it true, even though such a thing would be completely impractical and mostly function as a decoration more then anything else.

Basically, the generic definition of "Dwarven culture" we know could just be nothing but a story told by outsiders, with a whole slew of different passions and professions deeper within. The mining and smithing may be popular with people, but the Dwarves will still need scholars, teachers, entertainers, musicians, performers, peacemakers, medics, and so much more. They do exist, they're just not the ones people usually tell stories about.

If dwarves only live in one place, this is quite reasonable. That's what I've been calling a "racial monoculture": even if Culture X has various races, you know if you meet a dwarf, they come from Culture X, and Culture X has stereotypes from an outsider's perspective.

But what happens if Culture X simply has, say, 50% of all dwarves living in it, while ~25% of dwarves live in each of Culture Y and Culture Z? You couldn't call Cluture X "dwarf culture," because dwarves exist in large quantities in multiple distinct cultures. Perhaps mining, drinking, forging, and fighting are big deals to Culture X dwarves...and have no special association with those from Culture Y. Maybe Culture Y looks like the pastoral nomads of Mongolia, who have no time for sitting down and mining a single cave for three hundred years, who don't often drink because fermentables aren't a big part of their diet/lifestyle. Sure, they're warriors, but on horseback with bow and arrow, making it a completely different world from the Culture X warfare style of immovable legions of axe-and-hammer-wielding, iron-clad soldiers. And then in Culture Z, drinking intoxicants is frowned upon but coffee is celebrated, and dwarves are known for being caravaneers because of their keen eye for detail and their hardy constitution which allows them to travel overland on far less...potable rations than humans can tolerate, where warriors are people you hire from somewhere else, and it's less "smithing" and more "jewelers" or "tailors" or "spice merchants."

Under these notions, it doesn't really make any sense to speak of "dwarf culture," not because dwarves don't have culture, but because there are so few distinctly shared values across major dwarf populations. It would be sort of like trying to talk about "religious culture," as though Zen Buddhists, Wiccans, Catholics, and traditional Aztec adherents could be all treated as essentially identical with several clear, common behaviors and values among them. About the most you could say for "religious culture" is that it includes ritual and reverence of the sacred, but those are so broad and squishy as to be nearly meaningless. A Zen Buddhist is likely to have much more in common with an atheist who shares her nationality than she is to have with a Wiccan from a different continent. A neopagan Englishman will have far more in common with an agnostic Scotsman than he will with a Mexican Catholic.

We have four possible situations for any given intersection of "species" and "culture":
1. Species and culture are equivalent; every dwarf is from culture X, and every person in culture X is a dwarf. This is full, complete "planet of hats." I doubt I need to give an example of this sort of thing; Star Trek and Star Wars both resort to it a bunch.
2. Species implies culture, but culture doesn't imply species: Being a dwarf means you belong to culture X, but there are also non-dwarves in culture X. This is "planet of hats," but allowing immigration. Humanity in Star Trek is treated like this 90% of the time (exceptions for rare small enclave populations, like those protected by the Preservers.)
3. Species does not imply culture, but culture does imply species: Dwarves come from multiple cultures, but each of those cultures is exclusively made of dwarves. This is "planet of hats" with races allowed to have two or more distinct hats. This is Romulans and Vulcans, who are essentially the same species, but having two starkly different cultures.
4. There is no hard connection between species and culture: dwarves come from multiple cultures, and those cultures have members of multiple species not just dwarves. This enables (but does not guarantee) avoiding "planet of hats" writing, because stereotypes about "dwarf culture" don't make sense when no culture is exclusively dwarven and dwarves don't only belong to one culture.

Note that it is still entirely possible to have "planet of hats" even in situation 4. It's just that the hats won't be racial hats, simply cultural ones. And that's the sort of thing where "what do other cultures see as the stereotype(s) of this culture" can make a big difference. You just have to actually do the work so that the underlying culture IS thought-out, even if we don't get to SEE that in practice. But any writing that relies on any of the first 3 situations is, fundamentally, still "planet of hats" writing.

(Edit: I suppose there is a fifth situation, where somehow you retain one culture that remains purely dwarf-only but dwarves do emigrate to other cultures, but I don't see how this could ever be stable without draconian internal structures or extreme isolation to keep it dwarf-only. There's just too much advantage to permitting interested immigrants to settle down.)

Draconi Redfir
2021-01-05, 05:10 PM
But what happens if Culture X simply has, say, 50% of all dwarves living in it, while ~25% of dwarves live in each of Culture Y and Culture Z? You couldn't call Cluture X "dwarf culture," because dwarves exist in large quantities in multiple distinct cultures. Perhaps mining, drinking, forging, and fighting are big deals to Culture X dwarves...and have no special association with those from Culture Y.

Maybe Culture Y looks like the pastoral nomads of Mongolia, who have no time for sitting down and mining a single cave for three hundred years, who don't often drink because fermentables aren't a big part of their diet/lifestyle. Sure, they're warriors, but on horseback with bow and arrow, making it a completely different world from the Culture X warfare style of immovable legions of axe-and-hammer-wielding, iron-clad soldiers.

And then in Culture Z, drinking intoxicants is frowned upon but coffee is celebrated, and dwarves are known for being caravaneers because of their keen eye for detail and their hardy constitution which allows them to travel overland on far less...potable rations than humans can tolerate, where warriors are people you hire from somewhere else, and it's less "smithing" and more "jewelers" or "tailors" or "spice merchants."

Under these notions, it doesn't really make any sense to speak of "dwarf culture,"

I'd argue they're all Dwarf culture. Each and every one of them. They may not be the same culture, but they're all the cultures of Dwarves. Ergo, Dwarf culture.

Max_Killjoy
2021-01-05, 05:17 PM
I'd argue they're all Dwarf culture. Each and every one of them. They may not be the same culture, but they're all the cultures of Dwarves. Ergo, Dwarf culture.

And how do the non-Dwarves in Y and Z feel about having their cultures called "Dwarf culture"?

(To me it reads like the other two cultures aren't majority dwarven, but maybe I'm misreading it.)

ezekielraiden
2021-01-05, 05:19 PM
I'd argue they're all Dwarf culture. Each and every one of them. They may not be the same culture, but they're all the cultures of Dwarves. Ergo, Dwarf culture.

Okay, but they're so radically different that you can't say anything meaningful about belonging to "dwarf culture." Because belonging to these cultures:
- could mean either valuing or not valuing mining and smithing
- could mean either embracing, shrugging about, or actively opposing intoxicants
- could mean soldiery values, archer-cavalry values, or no martial values at all
- could mean prioritizing survivability for its exploration and trade benefits, or for making liminal spaces livable, or for simplifying the nomad lifestyle

Just about the only things you can say are stereotypical of these "Dwarf Cultures" is...that they feature people shorter than humans. Hence my example of talking about "faith culture" as though it were meaningful to lump Zen Buddhists, Neopagans, and Catholics all into a single mass. "Dwarf culture" becomes a tautology, simply meaning "any culture with dwarves in it." Saying, "I come from a Dwarven culture" communicates literally nothing you didn't already know by knowing the speaker was a dwarf.

Edit:

And how do the non-Dwarves in Y and Z feel about having their cultures called "Dwarf culture"?

That, too. These are cultures made up of many races, not just dwarves.

Draconi Redfir
2021-01-05, 05:27 PM
And how do the non-Dwarves in Y and Z feel about having their cultures called "Dwarf culture"?

Well it didn't say there were non-dwarves in Y and Z. it just said that 25% of the total population of Dwarves were in Y and Z.

if Y and Z are an equal mishmash of multiple different races, then they'd probably just be Y-culture and Z-culture without any race description on it. Unless say 90% of Z culture is Human or something, in which case you might call it human culture due to being predominantly human. really depends.



Okay, but they're so radically different that you can't say anything meaningful about belonging to "dwarf culture." Because belonging to these cultures:
- could mean either valuing or not valuing mining and smithing
- could mean either embracing, shrugging about, or actively opposing intoxicants
- could mean soldiery values, archer-cavalry values, or no martial values at all
- could mean prioritizing survivability for its exploration and trade benefits, or for making liminal spaces livable, or for simplifying the nomad lifestyle

it's the "Culture" of "Dwarves", therefore it's "Dwarf culture". They're not the Same culture, and they're not the same dwarves, but they're still cultures and they're still Dwarves. You have multiple possessions in you room, Toys, books, games, computers, desks. They're not "The toys" "the books" "the games" "the computers" and "the desks", they're just "Your possessions".




That, too. These are cultures made up of many races, not just dwarves.

well you didn't say that, you just said that Y and Z each had 25% of the total population of Dwarves.

Morphic tide
2021-01-05, 09:26 PM
My ultimate counter-argument to the "issue" of over-homogenizing is that real people still do so incessantly. We still have general cultural stereotypes of countries, which at this point comprise larger populations than are realistic for many medievalesque settings. China has over a billion people and yet there's the rather often reinforced stereotype of them being selfish egotistical racists thanks to the trends among their tourists, expats, businesses, and government (...basically everything but people on the streets and farms in China, really).

There's absolutely nothing that guarantees a particular Chinese person, or even a particular government official, is a jingoistic self-centered ethnonationalist, but that's the "type" that sticks in the minds of many who pay attention because of how so much of visible, and much more importantly memorable, Chinese presence fits it. And people tend to be better at remembering what they see as outright bad rather than simply weird, so... Yeah, stereotypes tend to reflect what a given culture finds worst in another.

Nobody notices the businesses that go on like usual under COVID, they notice the signs banning Africans from various locations. They don't notice well-behaved Chinese tourists, they notice the misbehavior. People didn't notice much of the nuances of Irish holidays, they noticed the staggering amount of alcohol consumption. If you expand the differences from minor facial features to at most a large difference in skin color? Well, just ask the Pigmies about where their neighbor's dining habits concerned them, simply being much smaller lead to being widely seen as literally not human for an extremely long time.

As for Orcs, the reason they so closely match racist caricatures is because their starting point was "Always Chaotic Evil monsters to be slain", and it just so happens that racists largely use the same rhetoric in their bid to dehumanize others. If you're connecting them with black people, that's between you and the Klukkers, not on Gygax and friends. Them being conventional sapients in the first place was actually a later addition, the Tolkein basis was that they were fundamentally broken on a spiritual level and the initial D&D form's predilections were an absolute imperative rather than divinely reinforced cultural norm. They, alongside the Goblins, Kobolds, Drow, and so many others, were made to be antagonists, and nothing more. The nuance was added in over time because that doesn't particularly work once you're building up a coherent setting.

PhoenixPhyre
2021-01-05, 10:57 PM
My ultimate counter-argument to the "issue" of over-homogenizing is that real people still do so incessantly. We still have general cultural stereotypes of countries, which at this point comprise larger populations than are realistic for many medievalesque settings. China has over a billion people and yet there's the rather often reinforced stereotype of them being selfish egotistical racists thanks to the trends among their tourists, expats, businesses, and government (...basically everything but people on the streets and farms in China, really).

There's absolutely nothing that guarantees a particular Chinese person, or even a particular government official, is a jingoistic self-centered ethnonationalist, but that's the "type" that sticks in the minds of many who pay attention because of how so much of visible, and much more importantly memorable, Chinese presence fits it. And people tend to be better at remembering what they see as outright bad rather than simply weird, so... Yeah, stereotypes tend to reflect what a given culture finds worst in another.

Nobody notices the businesses that go on like usual under COVID, they notice the signs banning Africans from various locations. They don't notice well-behaved Chinese tourists, they notice the misbehavior. People didn't notice much of the nuances of Irish holidays, they noticed the staggering amount of alcohol consumption. If you expand the differences from minor facial features to at most a large difference in skin color? Well, just ask the Pigmies about where their neighbor's dining habits concerned them, simply being much smaller lead to being widely seen as literally not human for an extremely long time.

As for Orcs, the reason they so closely match racist caricatures is because their starting point was "Always Chaotic Evil monsters to be slain", and it just so happens that racists largely use the same rhetoric in their bid to dehumanize others. If you're connecting them with black people, that's between you and the Klukkers, not on Gygax and friends. Them being conventional sapients in the first place was actually a later addition, the Tolkein basis was that they were fundamentally broken on a spiritual level and the initial D&D form's predilections were an absolute imperative rather than divinely reinforced cultural norm. They, alongside the Goblins, Kobolds, Drow, and so many others, were made to be antagonists, and nothing more. The nuance was added in over time because that doesn't particularly work once you're building up a coherent setting.

And I'd say that that's a reason to avoid intentionally homogenizing fictional cultures. Real cultures are complex and heterogenous down to very small scales (national-level culture is not homogeneous except (and not even then) in the smallest of nations, let alone regions). So fictional cultures should aspire to be just as complex, so that when people are done homogenizing them (like they will), there will be something other than just flat stereotypes that make painted cardboard look dynamic and 3D.

We should do our best to provide enough depth that something can survive the inevitable "simplification".

ezekielraiden
2021-01-05, 11:50 PM
well you didn't say that, you just said that Y and Z each had 25% of the total population of Dwarves.

Except...I did.


4. There is no hard connection between species and culture: dwarves come from multiple cultures, and those cultures have members of multiple species not just dwarves.

Bold added for emphasis.

Draconi Redfir
2021-01-06, 12:23 AM
But what happens if Culture X simply has, say, 50% of all dwarves living in it, while ~25% of dwarves live in each of Culture Y and Culture Z?

bolded for emphasis. Looks like you only mentioned additional races much later into the post, i must have missed that bit when double-checking, and this line was all i saw. Sorry about the misunderstanding.

Also those four points don't seem to mention directly referencing specifically cultures X Y and Z. i must have figured you were talking in a much broader sense and no longer talking about those three specific examples.

KaussH
2021-01-06, 01:10 AM
So.... since this seems to have wondered into culture, who wants to do the writting? Aka who is willing to make a bunch of races, multi cultures for all of them, ect? :)

Presumptions and mono cultures and the like are easy, hence why used. Now i think its a good game to do all the work, but in all honesty it can take some effort.

ezekielraiden
2021-01-06, 03:44 AM
So.... since this seems to have wondered into culture, who wants to do the writting? Aka who is willing to make a bunch of races, multi cultures for all of them, ect? :)

Presumptions and mono cultures and the like are easy, hence why used. Now i think its a good game to do all the work, but in all honesty it can take some effort.

Well, I am. And honestly, any author aspiring to create a setting should be willing to do that work too, or explain why it isn't needed. Amonkhet doesn't need it because there really is only one culture on the plane, by (nefarious) design. Theros has a broad sharing of cultural values, but the city-states are genuinely distinct, likewise the Guilds of Ravnica.

If a team making a card game can do it over and over again, surely we can expect similar from official D&D authors. I grant much more slack to DMs in general, but still think they should aspire to grow beyond planet-of-hats writing.

Satinavian
2021-01-06, 04:05 AM
So.... since this seems to have wondered into culture, who wants to do the writting? Aka who is willing to make a bunch of races, multi cultures for all of them, ect? :)

Presumptions and mono cultures and the like are easy, hence why used. Now i think its a good game to do all the work, but in all honesty it can take some effort.
A lot of default settings for systems that are not D&D have done this for decades already.

It is also quite common to have race/species and culture as different steps in character creation for many of the rule heavy systems that are not D&D.


Now overall there is an argument for cultures mixing less when interbreeding is impossible and species do have different biological needs. So there can be cultures nearly composed of one species. But that is still not a reason for that species to only have this one culture

Metastachydium
2021-01-06, 05:44 AM
Now overall there is an argument for cultures mixing less when interbreeding is impossible and species do have different biological needs.

(Not that interbreeding is impossible in D&D. Half-elves are core stuff in every edition I'm familiar with, and technically (4e lumps them in the second PHB with gnomes) so are half-orcs, and I don't remember having seen any indication that these hybrids are sterile.)


But that is still not a reason for that species to only have this one culture

Sometimes it gets thoroughly ridiculous. If I remember correctly, kenkus from the 3.5 MM3 do not have separate societies, cities and whatnot of their own, but rather fill moreally grey niches in the (mostly urban) societies of others. Despite that, they somehow have a unified, sneaky-nefarious racial culture.

Xervous
2021-01-06, 07:28 AM
I’m reminded of some blurbs from (the overly horrendous but not without its gems) PF2. Each race has a few lines dedicated to “others may think you...” bullet points. Is this manner of presenting the publicly held stereotypes a good way to paint broad pictures, given that it acknowledges it is stereotyping?

Morphic tide
2021-01-06, 07:57 AM
And I'd say that that's a reason to avoid intentionally homogenizing fictional cultures. Real cultures are complex and heterogenous down to very small scales (national-level culture is not homogeneous except (and not even then) in the smallest of nations, let alone regions). So fictional cultures should aspire to be just as complex, so that when people are done homogenizing them (like they will), there will be something other than just flat stereotypes that make painted cardboard look dynamic and 3D.

We should do our best to provide enough depth that something can survive the inevitable "simplification".

...Do you have any idea how much effort that takes? This is not vaguely, remotely, realistic to see any return on investment for. Lord of the Rings was the work of literal decades of aggregating writings, starting with painstakingly constructing fictional etymology to make fully developed languages that functioned naturally. And it's still extremely shallow as actual culture goes, despite most of a literal lifetime spent working on it in one way or another. And the takeaway was "Elves are archers in the woods" because of literally specifically Legolas, despite the broader work going into extremely spectacular detail for a work of fiction to make it clear the Elves had three major divergent cultures. But we get Legolas cloning as the standard because he's what stuck, because he's what was in the party. This is just how humans parse information. You're not getting around that.

Fifty years down the line, when you have a sprawling expanded universe and dozens of writers and the money to pay all sorts of experts on relevant subject matters, maybe that effort can be excused as something to have built up, and indeed we actually see some of this in D&D as it's shifted from the shallow needs of its gameplay to possessing real lore about its races, even as that lore is one-note compared to a real region's history for any given setting. But anything less than half a century is not reasonable to be doing that sort of work, because there's such a mind bogglingly absurd amount needed to pull that off without resorting to directly calling out real cultures to borrow framework, which you people also actively criticize, that it is flatly not worth the effort when starting something. Because again, we have seen what spending most of your life working on and off on a single setting gives in the form of Tolkein's works.

It does not matter how much work you do. Your work will be reduced to a flat stereotype without fail because humans generalize and compact and run on heuristics, this is just how people make sense of things. Faerun is often ribbed for having far too much going on, and is still the poster child of many of these complaints because all that effort is in things that can actually sell, not massive swaths of geneology, mythology, history of not-involved-in-your-campaigns, religious practices, and all the other features of remotely complex cultures. Answering your complaints is a horrifyingly bad return on investment, because it's practically a rounding error of the customer base that actually cares about this enough to buy the dozens and dozens of books necessary to cover the amount of content you'd have to make to both make a complex culture and not have stereotyping.

We are not talking a few weeks to cram out a decent framework one can sensibly roleplay on without resorting to the "special snowflake" effects. We are talking years of day in, day out writing and cross-referencing to keep internal coherence as you agonizingly make sure to not have done anything readily connected to an actual culture, build up sensible outliers as serious trends to have the PC needs within the setting, making sure to dodge volleys of bullets of tiny details that set off hair triggers of happening to overlap with negative stereotypes, and at the end of it all accept that 95% or more of this is effectively completely wasted effort because the books covering it won't have the remotest chance of turning a profit or consumer base penetration because people in general are not interested in the theology, socioeconomics, evolutionary psychology, and numerous other matters one has to cover, and much of those who do buy in are going to go right on ahead making their own stereotypes to make the remotest sense of the piles of you've written.

And if you mess up anything, it turns into an active detriment because people like you will be circling the water waiting for the slightest offense (there goes writing about in-universe negative stereotypes or disruptive trends) or people will walk away from the "insufferable grey and grey morality" you have to use because you don't get to have designated enemy groups (there goes most capacity for pre-packaged guilt-free antagonists to run the content mills on) or things won't sell for the enormous swaths of not-remotely-necessary-for-your-product page space being mind-numbing padding in the actual content books (there goes your sales so you aren't even being noticed). I am familiar with these effects, I have seen how audiences drop off for long-term writing like this. It's no different from Warhammer Fantasy withering to the point of being killed off from its cost of entry, you need too much investment to get anywhere for any audience growth to happen.

Satinavian
2021-01-06, 08:13 AM
(Not that interbreeding is impossible in D&D. Half-elves are core stuff in every edition I'm familiar with, and technically (4e lumps them in the second PHB with gnomes) so are half-orcs, and I don't remember having seen any indication that these hybrids are sterile.)Yes, elfs and orcs. But already with halflings you won't get mixed families and size difference will make it rather uncomfortable for a human living in a halfling village. And those are still pretty close, i really see difficulties for e.g. humans and sahuagin to actually really share a culture.

Metastachydium
2021-01-06, 08:41 AM
Yes, elfs and orcs. But already with halflings you won't get mixed families and size difference will make it rather uncomfortable for a human living in a halfling village. And those are still pretty close, i really see difficulties for e.g. humans and sahuagin to actually really share a culture.

Granted, it's not for everyone, but it's not impossible either (especially if we also consider that stuff like half-giants, muls and half-ogres is also a thing).
(As for the sahuagin, how viable this is mostly depends on how we define humans. UA has an aquatic variant, while Races of Destiny gives us the sea kin, who are also basically aquatic humans. Heck, if malenti can interbreed with aquatic elves (do we know that they can't?) even human-elf-sahuagin interbreeding isn't out of question, especially if we get the whole „sahuagin culture revolves around hating everyone” thing out of the way.)

PhoenixPhyre
2021-01-06, 10:32 AM
...Do you have any idea how much effort that takes? This is not vaguely, remotely, realistic to see any return on investment for. Lord of the Rings was the work of literal decades of aggregating writings, starting with painstakingly constructing fictional etymology to make fully developed languages that functioned naturally. And it's still extremely shallow as actual culture goes, despite most of a literal lifetime spent working on it in one way or another. And the takeaway was "Elves are archers in the woods" because of literally specifically Legolas, despite the broader work going into extremely spectacular detail for a work of fiction to make it clear the Elves had three major divergent cultures. But we get Legolas cloning as the standard because he's what stuck, because he's what was in the party. This is just how humans parse information. You're not getting around that.

Fifty years down the line, when you have a sprawling expanded universe and dozens of writers and the money to pay all sorts of experts on relevant subject matters, maybe that effort can be excused as something to have built up, and indeed we actually see some of this in D&D as it's shifted from the shallow needs of its gameplay to possessing real lore about its races, even as that lore is one-note compared to a real region's history for any given setting. But anything less than half a century is not reasonable to be doing that sort of work, because there's such a mind bogglingly absurd amount needed to pull that off without resorting to directly calling out real cultures to borrow framework, which you people also actively criticize, that it is flatly not worth the effort when starting something. Because again, we have seen what spending most of your life working on and off on a single setting gives in the form of Tolkein's works.

It does not matter how much work you do. Your work will be reduced to a flat stereotype without fail because humans generalize and compact and run on heuristics, this is just how people make sense of things. Faerun is often ribbed for having far too much going on, and is still the poster child of many of these complaints because all that effort is in things that can actually sell, not massive swaths of geneology, mythology, history of not-involved-in-your-campaigns, religious practices, and all the other features of remotely complex cultures. Answering your complaints is a horrifyingly bad return on investment, because it's practically a rounding error of the customer base that actually cares about this enough to buy the dozens and dozens of books necessary to cover the amount of content you'd have to make to both make a complex culture and not have stereotyping.

We are not talking a few weeks to cram out a decent framework one can sensibly roleplay on without resorting to the "special snowflake" effects. We are talking years of day in, day out writing and cross-referencing to keep internal coherence as you agonizingly make sure to not have done anything readily connected to an actual culture, build up sensible outliers as serious trends to have the PC needs within the setting, making sure to dodge volleys of bullets of tiny details that set off hair triggers of happening to overlap with negative stereotypes, and at the end of it all accept that 95% or more of this is effectively completely wasted effort because the books covering it won't have the remotest chance of turning a profit or consumer base penetration because people in general are not interested in the theology, socioeconomics, evolutionary psychology, and numerous other matters one has to cover, and much of those who do buy in are going to go right on ahead making their own stereotypes to make the remotest sense of the piles of you've written.

And if you mess up anything, it turns into an active detriment because people like you will be circling the water waiting for the slightest offense (there goes writing about in-universe negative stereotypes or disruptive trends) or people will walk away from the "insufferable grey and grey morality" you have to use because you don't get to have designated enemy groups (there goes most capacity for pre-packaged guilt-free antagonists to run the content mills on) or things won't sell for the enormous swaths of not-remotely-necessary-for-your-product page space being mind-numbing padding in the actual content books (there goes your sales so you aren't even being noticed). I am familiar with these effects, I have seen how audiences drop off for long-term writing like this. It's no different from Warhammer Fantasy withering to the point of being killed off from its cost of entry, you need too much investment to get anywhere for any audience growth to happen.

First, I do know how much work it is. Because this is something I've been doing for my own setting now for years. And I've seen the returns from even small amounts of nuance. I've found that by making a setting that actually has depth and feels real, players get much more attached to things. After years of playing with teenagers, I've yet to see a murder-hobo group. And they've all gotten involved in the realities of the setting, playing as if their characters were actual people and what they did and suffered mattered. When I've asked why, large parts of it came down to feeling like their characters were actually part of a real world and that they'd have an effect. In contrast, games run in flat worlds that I've been a part of have not-infrequently degenerated into the meta "well, it's just a game and these are just NPCs, so I can do whatever I want" level where characters are just playing pieces. The worlds shoved that meta experience in your face--everywhere you looked was flat cardboard and stock cutouts instead of people.

Second, I have absolutely no interest in looking for grievances. That attitude tells, I believe, much more about the seeker-for-grievances than it does about the subject work. I dislike flat stereotype-ridden settings because they're bad worldbuilding, and that offends my "professional" pride. Same when a TV show decides to aim for the biggest audience by flattening itself down to cheap jokes and repeated gags. And encoding flatness at the mechanics level makes it much harder for those of us who do actually want some depth. Like a world where cooking for yourself is stigmatized and difficult and all the food you can buy is microwave dinners.

Third, I'm not asking for the developers to build all those cultures. Merely make systems that are (more) extensible by people who do care, and who don't have to worry about having mass audiences. Instead of encoding "everyone except humans are mono-cultures, only humans have variation" into both fiction and mechanics, separate the two at the system level and give examples. And there are systems that actually do a decent job here (although they do other things that make them annoying for me personally). As I noted above, I'd be ok with either of (in a 5e D&D context)

a) making it clear in the text that these are just sample cultures and giving more naming variation to other people but humans.
b) making subraces cultures and the base races ancestries. Even if you couldn't mix and match (the ideal state), breaking apart the entangled mess that currently exists would be a clear signal. Then rewrite the section on making your own subrace and give examples of different cultures for a few races. "Here's how you'd change it so that you can have (a culture of) dwarves that are horse nomads." Etc.

B would give much more extensibility, but would require more effort. A is really the minimum one can expect, and it's not exactly difficult. Wouldn't fix the problem entirely, but would at least recognize that there is a problem. And none of this is for the sake of those complaining about real-world stuff. It's about taking pride in your worldbuilding and not simply purveying pre-digested paste.

Max_Killjoy
2021-01-06, 11:04 AM
First, I do know how much work it is. Because this is something I've been doing for my own setting now for years. And I've seen the returns from even small amounts of nuance. I've found that by making a setting that actually has depth and feels real, players get much more attached to things. After years of playing with teenagers, I've yet to see a murder-hobo group. And they've all gotten involved in the realities of the setting, playing as if their characters were actual people and what they did and suffered mattered. When I've asked why, large parts of it came down to feeling like their characters were actually part of a real world and that they'd have an effect. In contrast, games run in flat worlds that I've been a part of have not-infrequently degenerated into the meta "well, it's just a game and these are just NPCs, so I can do whatever I want" level where characters are just playing pieces. The worlds shoved that meta experience in your face--everywhere you looked was flat cardboard and stock cutouts instead of people.

Second, I have absolutely no interest in looking for grievances. That attitude tells, I believe, much more about the seeker-for-grievances than it does about the subject work. I dislike flat stereotype-ridden settings because they're bad worldbuilding, and that offends my "professional" pride. Same when a TV show decides to aim for the biggest audience by flattening itself down to cheap jokes and repeated gags. And encoding flatness at the mechanics level makes it much harder for those of us who do actually want some depth. Like a world where cooking for yourself is stigmatized and difficult and all the food you can buy is microwave dinners.

Third, I'm not asking for the developers to build all those cultures. Merely make systems that are (more) extensible by people who do care, and who don't have to worry about having mass audiences. Instead of encoding "everyone except humans are mono-cultures, only humans have variation" into both fiction and mechanics, separate the two at the system level and give examples. And there are systems that actually do a decent job here (although they do other things that make them annoying for me personally). As I noted above, I'd be ok with either of (in a 5e D&D context)

a) making it clear in the text that these are just sample cultures and giving more naming variation to other people but humans.
b) making subraces cultures and the base races ancestries. Even if you couldn't mix and match (the ideal state), breaking apart the entangled mess that currently exists would be a clear signal. Then rewrite the section on making your own subrace and give examples of different cultures for a few races. "Here's how you'd change it so that you can have (a culture of) dwarves that are horse nomads." Etc.

B would give much more extensibility, but would require more effort. A is really the minimum one can expect, and it's not exactly difficult. Wouldn't fix the problem entirely, but would at least recognize that there is a problem. And none of this is for the sake of those complaining about real-world stuff. It's about taking pride in your worldbuilding and not simply purveying pre-digested paste.



https://media.tenor.com/images/7486fa41d329f686e5f3ee646c1dad9e/tenor.gif

I concur.

This is exactly what I mean when I talk about the difference between characters who feel like "people who could be real" and a setting that feels like "a world that could be real", versus treating characters as plastic playing pieces and settings that feel like old movie sets that are just facades propped up along a fake main street, with curtains in all the windows to hide the emptiness.

Pex
2021-01-07, 02:06 AM
First, I do know how much work it is. Because this is something I've been doing for my own setting now for years. And I've seen the returns from even small amounts of nuance. I've found that by making a setting that actually has depth and feels real, players get much more attached to things. After years of playing with teenagers, I've yet to see a murder-hobo group. And they've all gotten involved in the realities of the setting, playing as if their characters were actual people and what they did and suffered mattered. When I've asked why, large parts of it came down to feeling like their characters were actually part of a real world and that they'd have an effect. In contrast, games run in flat worlds that I've been a part of have not-infrequently degenerated into the meta "well, it's just a game and these are just NPCs, so I can do whatever I want" level where characters are just playing pieces. The worlds shoved that meta experience in your face--everywhere you looked was flat cardboard and stock cutouts instead of people.

Second, I have absolutely no interest in looking for grievances. That attitude tells, I believe, much more about the seeker-for-grievances than it does about the subject work. I dislike flat stereotype-ridden settings because they're bad worldbuilding, and that offends my "professional" pride. Same when a TV show decides to aim for the biggest audience by flattening itself down to cheap jokes and repeated gags. And encoding flatness at the mechanics level makes it much harder for those of us who do actually want some depth. Like a world where cooking for yourself is stigmatized and difficult and all the food you can buy is microwave dinners.

Third, I'm not asking for the developers to build all those cultures. Merely make systems that are (more) extensible by people who do care, and who don't have to worry about having mass audiences. Instead of encoding "everyone except humans are mono-cultures, only humans have variation" into both fiction and mechanics, separate the two at the system level and give examples. And there are systems that actually do a decent job here (although they do other things that make them annoying for me personally). As I noted above, I'd be ok with either of (in a 5e D&D context)

a) making it clear in the text that these are just sample cultures and giving more naming variation to other people but humans.
b) making subraces cultures and the base races ancestries. Even if you couldn't mix and match (the ideal state), breaking apart the entangled mess that currently exists would be a clear signal. Then rewrite the section on making your own subrace and give examples of different cultures for a few races. "Here's how you'd change it so that you can have (a culture of) dwarves that are horse nomads." Etc.

B would give much more extensibility, but would require more effort. A is really the minimum one can expect, and it's not exactly difficult. Wouldn't fix the problem entirely, but would at least recognize that there is a problem. And none of this is for the sake of those complaining about real-world stuff. It's about taking pride in your worldbuilding and not simply purveying pre-digested paste.

Serious question.

By putting more effort into the cultures, how would the races matter? Let's say you have your stereotypical mining dwarves, but also the horse riding dwarves and maybe the sea faring dwarves. Why would it matter they are dwarves? Maybe I'm missing something, but on a superficial level it looks like you're just changing the labels, not meant to sound insulting. Instead of Mountain Dwarf and Hill Dwarf it's Mining Dwarf, Horse Dwarf, and Sea Dwarf. How would it be different than a DM who keeps Mountain Dwarves and Hill Dwarves but in his gameworld the Mountain Dwarves are the miners and the Hill Dwarves ride the horses if they live in plains or are sea farers if they live on the islands. I'm with you on wanting to teach DMs to give more culture to the game world than the stereotypes, but that's world building not game mechanics.

It appears what you want is something Pathfinder 1E did. You can substitute racial abilities for something else. I don't recall the details, but for example an aasimar can change his spell like ability. A dwarf could lose his bonus against orcs and giants and apply it to undead and aberrations. No doubt it can encourage extreme min/maxing for those who want the best plusses they can get, but the idea it to allow variation to reflect different cultures. Putting these changes in the hand of the DM only can give you cultural control. For example, in 5E a "Redeemed Drow" lives on the surface. He no longer has light sensitivity but also no darkvision. His eyes adjusted. These Tieflings are from a different fiendish stock with blue skin instead of red and have cold resistance instead of fire resistance.