Quote from: Ghostmaker on September 18, 2022, 06:24:29 PM

Quote from: Effete on September 18, 2022, 05:36:52 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 18, 2022, 09:25:34 AM
... It provides the wrong kind of incentive, and makes everything about race a cost/benefit analysis, focusing on treating ability differences as hard bonuses and (once upon a time) penalties, rather than just tendencies.

One of the design benefits of treating racial ability differences as min/max REQUIREMENTS rather than modifiers is that you have to qualify for races, rather than your race just piling on a bunch of benefits. Which serves as a balancing mechanism rather contribute to more stuff that could beef up your character. And it also helps minimize the prevalence of some races, or at least make you pay for them somehow.

Yes. This is what I was trying to say, but couldn't put the right words together.

Gettong rid of racial ASIs is not a bad thing. Doing it because of "bioessentialism" nonsense and not for balancing purposes is missing the point and sets WotC up for creating a mess of the mechanics.

The whole argument to get rid of racial attribute adjustments has always been kind of weaksauce to me. The adjustments aren't THAT limiting and playing against type can make for an interesting character.

Sure, but if the adjustments "aren't that limiting" then a similar argument can be made for them being "not that useful." What really matters is the purpose they serve, which initially seemed to be balance along with some cohesion with a race's physiology. If a race is described as "large and muscelled" it makes no sense to have them just as strong (or just as weak) as a race of four-foot spindly-arms wimps. Racial adjustments fills the purpose just as easily as racial requirements. Want to play a strong orc? Put a minimum requirement score into Strength.

Quote from: Effete on September 18, 2022, 11:23:27 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on September 18, 2022, 06:24:29 PM

Quote from: Effete on September 18, 2022, 05:36:52 PM

Quote from: VisionStorm on September 18, 2022, 09:25:34 AM
... It provides the wrong kind of incentive, and makes everything about race a cost/benefit analysis, focusing on treating ability differences as hard bonuses and (once upon a time) penalties, rather than just tendencies.

One of the design benefits of treating racial ability differences as min/max REQUIREMENTS rather than modifiers is that you have to qualify for races, rather than your race just piling on a bunch of benefits. Which serves as a balancing mechanism rather contribute to more stuff that could beef up your character. And it also helps minimize the prevalence of some races, or at least make you pay for them somehow.

Yes. This is what I was trying to say, but couldn't put the right words together.

Gettong rid of racial ASIs is not a bad thing. Doing it because of "bioessentialism" nonsense and not for balancing purposes is missing the point and sets WotC up for creating a mess of the mechanics.

The whole argument to get rid of racial attribute adjustments has always been kind of weaksauce to me. The adjustments aren't THAT limiting and playing against type can make for an interesting character.

Sure, but if the adjustments "aren't that limiting" then a similar argument can be made for them being "not that useful." What really matters is the purpose they serve, which initially seemed to be balance along with some cohesion with a race's physiology. If a race is described as "large and muscelled" it makes no sense to have them just as strong (or just as weak) as a race of four-foot spindly-arms wimps. Racial adjustments fills the purpose just as easily as racial requirements. Want to play a strong orc? Put a minimum requirement score into Strength.

But that's not what the wokeists want. They don't want ANY adjustments or requirements.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on September 19, 2022, 08:18:29 AMBut that's not what the wokeists want. They don't want ANY adjustments or requirements.

Yeah, we can talk about all sorts of changes to make race selection more interesting or compelling, but as long as "bioessentialism" is the driving force, none of those things will be implemented.

The sad part is that bioessentialism isn't really important to these people. If you get to the end of the article you see this:

"I want them to hire mixed-race people to consult on this."

The entire thing is just an extortion racket for a low paying consultation job on D&D6.

I can understand discarding mental ability score modifiers because we don't really understand how intelligence works, much less across species. If we're being realistic then each race would have dozens of circumstantial modifiers to account for how they value different things. What might be charismatic to dwarves might not appear charismatic to humans, for example, so it doesn't make sense to give dwarves a flat charisma penalty because that also applies to interactions between dwarves. And then there's nature versus nurture...

But of course the SJWs are just doing it to grift rather than because they're remotely interested in actually deepening how writers approach speculative worldbuilding.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on September 19, 2022, 10:49:25 AM
I can understand discarding mental ability score modifiers because we don't really understand how intelligence works, much less across species. If we're being realistic then each race would have dozens of circumstantial modifiers to account for how they value different things. What might be charismatic to dwarves might not appear charismatic to humans, for example, so it doesn't make sense to give dwarves a flat charisma penalty because that also applies to interactions between dwarves. And then there's nature versus nurture...

But of course the SJWs are just doing it to grift rather than because they're remotely interested in actually deepening how writers approach speculative worldbuilding.

A good way to manage that is to lower the DC for social interactions in appropriate encounters.

But you and hedgehobbit have it right. This isn't about background or mechanical refinement of the game. It's about grifting and virtue signaling.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on September 19, 2022, 10:49:25 AM
I can understand discarding mental ability score modifiers because we don't really understand how intelligence works, much less across species. If we're being realistic then each race would have dozens of circumstantial modifiers to account for how they value different things. What might be charismatic to dwarves might not appear charismatic to humans, for example, so it doesn't make sense to give dwarves a flat charisma penalty because that also applies to interactions between dwarves. And then there's nature versus nurture...

But of course the SJWs are just doing it to grift rather than because they're remotely interested in actually deepening how writers approach speculative worldbuilding.

I can't just be a matter of other races disliking dwarves. A Charisma modifier means that dwarves don't get along with each other as well as elves get along with other elves. If we wanted to represent racism or some kind of cultural boundary that makes it harder for different races to interact with each other, then we could, for example, just give anybody a -2 penalty to Charisma based rolls with other races. Then a dwarf with suffer a -3 penalty with other races while elves would suffer a -2 penalty. Dwarves would have a -1 penalty with each other while elves no penalty with each other. Elves would still have a harder time interacting with dwarves than dwarves would with each other.

There is no reason why this couldn't be the case. It could be that for what ever reason, dwarves are biologically less social than other races, even with each other.

As a DM I could care less about letting an individual player change their character's attributes. If they want to have an across-the-board 18 statline, that's fine by me.

What I care about is having a logical and sensible gameworld that my players and I can relate to. From that perspective, removing racial modifiers is damaging to the game fiction. A world where halflings are just as capable at being warriors as orcs, and orcs are just as capable as humans, and giants are just as strong as gnomes, makes no sense at all.

Quote from: Zelen on September 19, 2022, 01:24:58 PM
What I care about is having a logical and sensible gameworld that my players and I can relate to. From that perspective, removing racial modifiers is damaging to the game fiction. A world where halflings are just as capable at being warriors as orcs, and orcs are just as capable as humans, and giants are just as strong as gnomes, makes no sense at all.

I generally assume that PCs are not representative samples of their race and gender. In most systems, I keep the default that female humans PCs don't have stat adjustments, but I still have it in my world that human women are smaller and less strong than men. Similarly, in AD&D, I wouldn't have said that the average halfling had 9.5 Strength, just that adventuring halflings were stronger than average.

In most systems, the PC creation rules don't define what an average member of that race is. There are at least three different sets: all members of a race, typically encountered member of the race, and typical PC. For example, often a quarter or more of PCs are wizards or similar, but I don't keep that percentage for members of any PC race.

In general, I think it's tricky balancing PC options in general - and multiple option picking can complicate things further. I'd like to start a thread on that separated from the politics.

Quote from: jhkim on September 19, 2022, 04:44:12 PM

Quote from: Zelen on September 19, 2022, 01:24:58 PM
What I care about is having a logical and sensible gameworld that my players and I can relate to. From that perspective, removing racial modifiers is damaging to the game fiction. A world where halflings are just as capable at being warriors as orcs, and orcs are just as capable as humans, and giants are just as strong as gnomes, makes no sense at all.

I generally assume that PCs are not representative samples of their race and gender. In most systems, I keep the default that female humans PCs don't have stat adjustments, but I still have it in my world that human women are smaller and less strong than men. Similarly, in AD&D, I wouldn't have said that the average halfling had 9.5 Strength, just that adventuring halflings were stronger than average.

In most systems, the PC creation rules don't define what an average member of that race is. There are at least three different sets: all members of a race, typically encountered member of the race, and typical PC. For example, often a quarter or more of PCs are wizards or similar, but I don't keep that percentage for members of any PC race.

In general, I think it's tricky balancing PC options in general - and multiple option picking can complicate things further. I'd like to start a thread on that separated from the politics.

Lets talk about bell curve distribution regarding the members of an adventuring party:

We have one of each:

Human
Elf
Dwarf
Halfling
HalfOrk

ALL are exceptional among their race, agreed?

It still makes no fucking sense to have the halfling be as strong as the average human, much less the average halfork.

Take it from real life, the strongest woman isn't nearly as strong as the strongest man, hell she gets bested by guys not even in the competition for strongest man.

So, yes, racial modifiers DO make sense even if all of the party are exceptional among their own.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on September 19, 2022, 04:59:05 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 19, 2022, 04:44:12 PM
In most systems, the PC creation rules don't define what an average member of that race is. There are at least three different sets: all members of a race, typically encountered member of the race, and typical PC. For example, often a quarter or more of PCs are wizards or similar, but I don't keep that percentage for members of any PC race.

Lets talk about bell curve distribution regarding the members of an adventuring party:

We have one of each:

Human
Elf
Dwarf
Halfling
HalfOrk

ALL are exceptional among their race, agreed?

No, that is contradictory to what I said. As I said, PCs aren't representative of their races. That doesn't mean they're all exceptional. Some may be exceptional, some may not. If we follow after Tolkien, then maybe halflings are very rarely adventurers. So the halfling fighter in the party might an extraordinary example - like Bullroarer Took who was legendary and maybe one in a million. Conversely, half-orcs might be very used to adventuring, and a given half-orc isn't exceptional at all for his kind.

To put it another way: we'd expect halfling PCs to be roughly equal in effectiveness overall compared to dwarvish PCs. That's the nature of game balance for players. However, that doesn't necessarily imply that in the game-world, we'd expect a typical halfling army to be just as effective as a typical dwarvish army.

This isn't a new thing. I'd say that even in AD&D1, the -1 Strength +1 Dexterity for halflings wasn't intended to mean that 40% of the time an NPC halfling is stronger than an NPC human.

Greetings!

The woman that wrote the article for Gizmodo is insane. She admitted that she is an SJW and involved in "Social Justice Activism". All of her "sources"--of whatever colour or race--are all pearl-clutching, sobbing pussies. They are all *worthless* Not a damned one of them loves D&D. Yes, they all hate D&D, and as several proclaimed, "D&D needs to be changed into a different, new game!"

They are all disgusting, moron scum that should be beaten to death with lead pipes. While those who crush them laugh at them mercilessly.

Why does anyone in this hobby even listen to these fucktards? Don't play games with them. And certainly, don't hire them to do a damned thing concerning D&D. I wouldn't hire anyone of them to so much as clean the outhouse. From start to finish, all of them are morally and intellectually bankrupt. They have nothing meaningful or worthwhile to contribute to the D&D game hobby. Their opinions, their ideas, their fucking feelings--are all meaningless. With every sentence, that article describes and defines from them, the fucktards, the growing corruption and degradation of our hobby. The hobby doesn't have a problem with racism, or sexism, or any other nonsense. The hobby does have a problem, however--with these corrupt Libtard racist degenerates.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Zelen on September 19, 2022, 01:24:58 PM
As a DM I could care less about letting an individual player change their character's attributes. If they want to have an across-the-board 18 statline, that's fine by me.

What I care about is having a logical and sensible gameworld that my players and I can relate to. From that perspective, removing racial modifiers is damaging to the game fiction. A world where halflings are just as capable at being warriors as orcs, and orcs are just as capable as humans, and giants are just as strong as gnomes, makes no sense at all.

To follow up here regarding the rationale:

If we can make the argument that, "Well, PCs are exceptional people, therefore describing the physical characteristics of a given race makes no sense," then why do we have pages that describe the characteristics races at all?

Just glancing over one of the race entries in the 5E handbook, we have countless features described that we should also remove:

• Standing well-under 5 feet tall - My dwarf is 8ft tall, so we'll need to scratch this out too
• Weigh nearly as much as a human - My dwarf is thin and willowy
• Skin color - My dwarf has scales with multicolored hues
• Hair, Hair Color - My dwarf is completely hairless
• etc

If you remove all of the physical characteristics of the races, is there anything left?
Is an Orc who is adopted by Samwise Gamgee going to have the same characteristics if they both choose "Gardener" as a profession?

We can easily see how this bleeds into complete dissolution of "race" as a concept whatsoever. For example, a typical conception of an Orc culture would suggest that Orcs highly value strength and probably engage in contests of strength, like brawling or arm wrestling, rather than something like gardening, poetry, or craft. When these two do not align then why describe culture at all? Certainly in a game like D&D which aims to span myriad settings, the cultural information is much more likely to "Not matter because PC's are exceptional" than the biological underpinnings of their body?

Quote from: SHARK on September 19, 2022, 06:05:13 PM
Greetings!

The woman that wrote the article for Gizmodo is insane. She admitted that she is an SJW and involved in "Social Justice Activism". All of her "sources"--of whatever colour or race--are all pearl-clutching, sobbing pussies. They are all *worthless* Not a damned one of them loves D&D. Yes, they all hate D&D, and as several proclaimed, "D&D needs to be changed into a different, new game!"

They are all disgusting, moron scum that should be beaten to death with lead pipes. While those who crush them laugh at them mercilessly.

Why does anyone in this hobby even listen to these fucktards? Don't play games with them. And certainly, don't hire them to do a damned thing concerning D&D. I wouldn't hire anyone of them to so much as clean the outhouse. From start to finish, all of them are morally and intellectually bankrupt. They have nothing meaningful or worthwhile to contribute to the D&D game hobby. Their opinions, their ideas, their fucking feelings--are all meaningless. With every sentence, that article describes and defines from them, the fucktards, the growing corruption and degradation of our hobby. The hobby doesn't have a problem with racism, or sexism, or any other nonsense. The hobby does have a problem, however--with these corrupt Libtard racist degenerates.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

So SHARK, if I may paraphrase...you are not a net promoter?

If you were to design a game the opposite of everything suggested in the article it would probably be pretty good.