Quote from: jhkim on September 19, 2022, 05:40:48 PM
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.

I think you're absolutely right there.

Look, if a Halfling is basically half of a man, their STR should top out around 9--half of 18. Or if we're trying to account for exceptional STR, maybe I could argue a halfling as possibly having as high as a 12 STR. Average STR for a halfling should maybe be 6, tops.

It goes to show just how far away from any attempts to model biology the game is written. I think the idea is indeed to allow PCs to vary. The game wanted to retain the least amount of differentiation possible to say something about the world. That, yeah, halflings are obviously weaker than humans to an extent great enough to break through the noise of the variation of individuals.

It's worth holding onto lest the game become abstract mush. It was actually suggested in the linked article for the game numbers to be entirely divorced from the lore. I can't think of a better sign to indicate we're dealing with people who just don't "get" roleplaying games at all.

Quote from: FingerRod on September 19, 2022, 06:33:47 PM

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?

Greetings!

*LAUGHING*! Hey, my friend! Yeah, it just...geesus. These people are so moronic that they see racism and "Racist Coding" in stat modifiers? In languages? WTF is wrong with these people? "The race coding of D&D causes real harm to people of colour" (Paraphrase). WTF? Somehow, having specific race-based attribute profiles--for fantasy game characters in a fantasy world--somehow promotes racist attitudes for people in the real world? WTF??

How fucking retarded can these people get? I feel like I am listening to drugged up, brain-damaged homeless people ranting about aliens fucking their life over and are insidiously infiltrating society.

NB: I have gamed with *many* friends that were minorities. Or "People of Colour". Blacks, Hispanics, Asians. Many of them were brothers of mine in the Marine Corps, carrying a rifle and jumping out of helicopters with me. Strange, not fucking one of them ever brought any of this kind of bullshit up about the game. NONE of them felt fucking "oppressed" or otherwise insulted by the game rules. Everyone was happy with having different races all have different racial attribute profiles and characteristics. Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Gnomes, Half Orcs, Half Elves, Humans. Even when I also allowed Wolf Humanoids, Minotaurs, and Half Ogres. Everyone knew and expected each race to be distinct and different, all having some advantages and some disadvantages. In the Marines, my game group was filled with hard-charging beasts, most of whom smoked and drank, and were absolutely ruthless in-game. Can you even imagine what they all talked about at the game table? Glorifying violence. Glorifying hunting down the sweet women. Full Conquest mode, my friend! Even in my groups now, none of my friends even think or speak like these people, except in satire.

ARRGGHH. These people have been so corrupted and poisoned in their minds that they cannot even think anymore in a serious manner, you know what I'm saying? Just listening to them spew their emotional diarrhea shows me how mentally dysfunctional they are. GAMING is about playing an *imaginary* fantasy character--not a mirror image or stand-in of you, the pathetic sobbing crybaby. The game isn't "about people of colour" or "social justice"--it doesn't have fuck all to do with our modern sewage world. And yet, again, and again, and again, these people can't even comprehend a game or game world where their character themselves isn't a precise stand-in for themselves!

*Sigh* I am relaxing with some fresh coffee now, and smoking my pipe. I use a Cavendish mix, with a bit of Lattikah.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: an IQ-draining articleChris Nammour, a lifelong roleplayer, described how people often codify racial dynamics onto their fantasy unintentionally. "[I'll ask players] what does an elf sound like? What's their accent? And people say, Oh, well, they sound British, and dwarves sound Scottish and so on," he says. "It's always associating historically heroic races with Western and Northern European traits. And then my immediate response to that is what accent does an orc have?" The responses, he noted, are not 'they sound British.'

It's a real shame Linda only sees what she wants to see. Otherwise she might have come upon that time Gary Gygax suggested that dwarves should have a Jamaican accent. The more I think about it, the more right that feels. At the very least, people could read the actual dwarf description.

I won't be lectured on racial coding by people who white-wash dwarves.

Quote from: Monster ManualDescription: Dwarves are typically deep tan to light brown of skin, with ruddy cheeks and bright eyes (almost never blue). Their hair is brown, black or gray.

Quote from: Lunamancer on September 19, 2022, 07:18:14 PM
Look, if a Halfling is basically half of a man, their STR should top out around 9--half of 18. Or if we're trying to account for exceptional STR, maybe I could argue a halfling as possibly having as high as a 12 STR. Average STR for a halfling should maybe be 6, tops.

It goes to show just how far away from any attempts to model biology the game is written.  I think the idea is indeed to allow PCs to vary.

Quote from: Lunamancer on September 19, 2022, 07:18:14 PM
It was actually suggested in the linked article for the game numbers to be entirely divorced from the lore. I can't think of a better sign to indicate we're dealing with people who just don't "get" roleplaying games at all.

You're saying that the game-world accurate answer would be -4 or -5 Strength, max 12 tops. But then of two implementations:

A) -1 Strength (AD&D)
B) -0 Strength (D&D 4th, D&D 5th)

It sounds like you think A is okay presuming some reason for it, but B means the authors don't understand RPGs at all. I feel like in practice, these two are negligibly different.

Quote from: jhkim on September 19, 2022, 08:10:55 PM
A) -1 Strength (AD&D)
B) -0 Strength (D&D 4th, D&D 5th)

It sounds like you think A is okay presuming some reason for it, but B means the authors don't understand RPGs at all. I feel like in practice, these two are negligibly different.

If an ordinary bee stings a PC, I say, "Take a half point of damage." The player emits an almost involuntary "Ouch!" Works every time.

Whether the PC has 10 hit points after the bee attack or 9 1/2 hit points after the bee attack, the PC will still survive 9 damage, and still go down after taking 10 damage. The difference between a half point of damage and 0 damage is even more negligible than a -1 to STR vs -0 to STR.

But I still got the player to say "Ouch!"

That's the significance your question misses.

And that's the significance that gets lost if you divorce the flavor text from the game numbers. And when people aren't even aware that something is even being lost by separating the lore from the mechanics? I'm definitely on firm ground saying there's something they clearly just don't get. That thing, in this case, happens to be the magic of the correlation of descriptions to stats and action to narrative. I believe that to be the single most fundamental thing there is about RPGs.

Quote from: Lunamancer on September 19, 2022, 09:07:06 PM
If an ordinary bee stings a PC, I say, "Take a half point of damage." The player emits an almost involuntary "Ouch!" Works every time.

Whether the PC has 10 hit points after the bee attack or 9 1/2 hit points after the bee attack, the PC will still survive 9 damage, and still go down after taking 10 damage. The difference between a half point of damage and 0 damage is even more negligible than a -1 to STR vs -0 to STR.

But I still got the player to say "Ouch!"

That's the significance your question misses.

And that's the significance that gets lost if you divorce the flavor text from the game numbers. And when people aren't even aware that something is even being lost by separating the lore from the mechanics? I'm definitely on firm ground saying there's something they clearly just don't get. That thing, in this case, happens to be the magic of the correlation of descriptions to stats and action to narrative. I believe that to be the single most fundamental thing there is about RPGs.

Let me first start out by saying that I agree with the sentiment you proposed: that a setting should provide standards and "averages" for the different inhabitants of the world. Halflings, at their strongest, should not be as strong as a peak human, let alone a peak orc or giant. To that extent, racial adjustments serve the role of reinforcing those standards, even if player-characters occasionally prove to be the exception.

My contention with racial ability score adjustments is that it sets a bad example of how to create a character.

Take, for example, this character concept:
An orc who made a bargain with a Deep God to become highly intelligent, but the treacherous god cursed him with a muscle-wasting disease. The player puts his lowest stat (6) into Strength and his highest stat (16) into Intelligence. With racial adjustments, the game then "forces" the player to increase Strength and decrease Intelligence, REGARDLESS of what their backstory would say.

If the game instead used minimum scores as "racial qualifiers," they player can enter into negotiations to have their concept realized.

"But, Effete, you fukken moron," you might say, "you can negotiate ability score adjustments too!"
True, but it's the perception that such negotiations aren't required that puts a damper on that. Because there's NOTHING STOPPING a player from putting Strength 6 on their orc, there no implied reason to negotiate scores. But if it REQUIRES a Strength 9 or 10 to even be eligiable for an orc, it raises the question of, "what would it take to have a lower score?"

The real problem of WoTC getting rid of racial ability adjustments is that they aren't replacing them with something else. To this end, you and I are in agreement... it's going to turn the setting into shapeless mush, with halflings that can deadlift 500 lbs and ogres that can recite Shakespeare.

Quote from: Effete on September 19, 2022, 11:02:36 PM
Let me first start out by saying that I agree with the sentiment you proposed: that a setting should provide standards and "averages" for the different inhabitants of the world. Halflings, at their strongest, should not be as strong as a peak human, let alone a peak orc or giant. To that extent, racial adjustments serve the role of reinforcing those standards, even if player-characters occasionally prove to be the exception.

Let me first reinforce that where I'm coming from is bigger than a setting providing standards. It's that the mechanics should be linked to the descriptive elements. If I'm playing old-school D&D where we really don't have hit locations, but the player says "I want to fire my crossbow into his leg" I don't want to treat that the same way as any other attack roll and then just pretend *wink*wink* and narrate it as if you actually shot the guy's leg. I want there to be at least some mechanical differentiation.

On the flip side, if I'm running an RPG with a more complicated combat system, I don't want to hear a player say, "Okay, so I use the all-out combat option, convert my free defense for being ninjaborn into a half-attack, then sacrifice that for a bonus to my main attack..." That doesn't tell me anything about what your character is actually doing. You're just mashing up a bunch of numbers. I don't know what it looks like or what exactly your character is even doing that makes the attack "all out."

If I'm imagining something, I want some idea of what it means game wise. If something has a mechanical effect, I want to be able to picture in my mind what's happening. I don't want these two things to be separate just because we can make them separate as an intellectual exercise.

QuoteMy contention with racial ability score adjustments is that it sets a bad example of how to create a character.

Take, for example, this character concept:

Just so you know, in my opinion, I think beginning with a character concept sets a bad example of how to create a character.

QuoteAn orc who made a bargain with a Deep God to become highly intelligent, but the treacherous god cursed him with a muscle-wasting disease. The player puts his lowest stat (6) into Strength and his highest stat (16) into Intelligence. With racial adjustments, the game then "forces" the player to increase Strength and decrease Intelligence, REGARDLESS of what their backstory would say.

The thing is, and I'm trying my best to address the central point rather than flying off on tangents, it's just this is so foreign to the way I'd handle such a request. Or even the way I do character creation in general.

First thing I'd ask is if this is even something the character should start the game with. Should this be something that should be happening in game. Even if I ultimately decide it is best left to the background, by simply entertaining the idea if playing it out, it tells me the stats are set prior to the bargain, meaning the adjustments would also be applied prior to the bargain.

Second, I don't consider it a bad thing at all if the stat adjustments do run counter to the concept. In fact, I often think that's for the best. I can almost imagine the Deep God mocking the orc, saying what a waste of a gift, more knowledge than his stupid orc brain can handle. (Though, I also have to point out, I don't do racial attribute adjustments for non-physical features for PCs).

Third, and this circles back to what I said at the start of this comment, this is an extraordinary background. Is it really appropriate for you to use the same exact mechanics you'd use for standard character creation? Is it really what your character bargained for, to have a high intelligence but perfectly within human range and not even at the top of human range? That's what you're seeking out a deep god for? So you can get into MENSA by the skin of your teeth? I'm not suggesting we bump it up to 20 INT. 16 is just fine. But how about a special ability related to intelligence? How about a photographic memory? Or the ability to learn any language you encounter with a successful INT check? Or being able to read any magical writing on an INT check without needing Read Magic?

QuoteThe real problem of WoTC getting rid of racial ability adjustments is that they aren't replacing them with something else. To this end, you and I are in agreement... it's going to turn the setting into shapeless mush, with halflings that can deadlift 500 lbs and ogres that can recite Shakespeare.

Maybe. There are a lot of real problems going on. Who's to say which is the real one?

I think too much emphasis on character customization contributes to becoming a hobby of wankers. It shifts the fun away from the game as the DM develops migraines trying to work in a bunch of goofy character builds into the campaign, and shifts it towards the pre-gaming character creation phase because there's so many interesting builds to try. I think what goes right along like that is overly elaborate backstories. So you have a story before you even play the game. Because, the way things go a lot of the times these days, there's a good chance you'll never get a good story for your character during play. Or at least not a complete one.

Quote from: Lunamancer on September 19, 2022, 07:18:14 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 19, 2022, 05:40:48 PM
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.

I think you're absolutely right there.

Look, if a Halfling is basically half of a man,

That doesn't follow. Their name is clearly a play on the fact that halflings are typically half the height of a human, but that doesn't indicate anything else. Do halflings have half the dexterity of a human? Half the imagination? Half the number of toes?

Quote from: Effete on September 19, 2022, 11:02:36 PM
The real problem of WoTC getting rid of racial ability adjustments is that they aren't replacing them with something else. To this end, you and I are in agreement... it's going to turn the setting into shapeless mush, with halflings that can deadlift 500 lbs and ogres that can recite Shakespeare.

So over my gaming history, I've played a lot of Hero System and GURPS, which give players a lot of freedom about which abilities / powers they can take - along with various others. A common criticism is that this will end up like "shapeless mush" because the mechanics don't force players to take abilities that fit together or fit what the character is supposed to be.

In practice, I never found that a problem. 90% of players are really trying to make a coherent character, and the other 10% can be dealt with by the GM simply saying "no". If a GM can't say "no", then I could foresee an issue - but it's only a small part of the big problem of not being able to say "no".

Player choice is not "shapeless mush". Given a choice, players will often come up with interesting as well as coherent backgrounds. Especially in worlds with hundreds of sentient creatures and endless variations of each ("sylvan wetlands high twilight elf"), there's room for plenty of options. At some point, rather than trying to carefully balance each of dozens of packages, it is simpler and cleaner to just have players select appropriate options and have the GM veto it if it doesn't seem appropriate for the game-world.

So in a made up game about pretend elves we have humanoids, presumably related by descent from common ancestors and visibly similar in most characteristics, but quantifying and relatively differentiating the capabilities of each subgroup is considered "racist."  Meanwhile, in the real world we have a species of animal, the dog, with many breeds of various behaviors, sensory capabilities, and physical attributes and vary widely in shape, size, and color. Would the same train of thought, or lack thereof, suggest that it is "racist" to say that Poodles or Australian Shepherds are the smartest dogs of that Grate Danes are stronger than Chihuahuas?

Quote from: Lunamancer on September 20, 2022, 12:46:04 AM
Just so you know, in my opinion, I think beginning with a character concept sets a bad example of how to create a character.

Out of curiousity, and just so we don't run the risk of talking past each other, what is your preferred method of character creation?

Other than that, I think we are mostly in agreement: that the mechanics should reflect the world in some way. We just might debate on the method of approach.

Quote from: jhkim on September 20, 2022, 01:36:37 AM

Quote from: Effete on September 19, 2022, 11:02:36 PM
The real problem of WoTC getting rid of racial ability adjustments is that they aren't replacing them with something else. To this end, you and I are in agreement... it's going to turn the setting into shapeless mush, with halflings that can deadlift 500 lbs and ogres that can recite Shakespeare.

So over my gaming history, I've played a lot of Hero System and GURPS, which give players a lot of freedom about which abilities / powers they can take - along with various others. A common criticism is that this will end up like "shapeless mush" because the mechanics don't force players to take abilities that fit together or fit what the character is supposed to be.

In practice, I never found that a problem. 90% of players are really trying to make a coherent character, and the other 10% can be dealt with by the GM simply saying "no". If a GM can't say "no", then I could foresee an issue - but it's only a small part of the big problem of not being able to say "no".

Player choice is not "shapeless mush". Given a choice, players will often come up with interesting as well as coherent backgrounds. Especially in worlds with hundreds of sentient creatures and endless variations of each ("sylvan wetlands high twilight elf"), there's room for plenty of options. At some point, rather than trying to carefully balance each of dozens of packages, it is simpler and cleaner to just have players select appropriate options and have the GM veto it if it doesn't seem appropriate for the game-world.

I think you may have misunderstood.
I'm not opposed to player options. I just think options without foundation is a recipe for disaster. What does it actually mean if both the halfling and the human have Strength 18? If the obvious biological difference between the two species is not addressed, then the game loses all meaning. Why differentiate between anything at that point?

Can there be situations where a halfling is as strong as a human? Sure, but those should be rare exceptions discussed with (and approved by) the Game Master, not normal fare. It's the difference between allowing something not expressly supported by the rules, and refusing to allow something that is supported by the rules. It's the difference between saying 'no' to a player and saying 'yes' to them. One clearly builds a more positive experience than the other.

Quote from: Effete on September 20, 2022, 03:05:22 AM
Out of curiousity, and just so we don't run the risk of talking past each other, what is your preferred method of character creation?

I prefer methods of character creation involve give and take, and that require players come to the table with some flexible ideas. And I like it if the method kicks off with rolling dice to spark ideas so that you don't have to have any idea at all what you want to play when you begin character generation.

For AD&D, I actually like 3d6 in order. And I like the 1E class requirements, including the sneaky ones (like in addition to 9 STR, fighters need a minimum of 6 WIS, 6 DEX, 7 CON, and 6 CHR). You'll end up having to re-roll about one in four times due to not qualifying for any class. Sometimes you might end up only qualifying for one class. You will rarely ever qualify for the elite classes--Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Illusionist, Monk.

I use both race and age adjustments. In my big long rejoinder to the linked article, I do make the point that racial adjustments in the 1E PHB are strictly physical--there are no racial adjustments for INT or WIS, and even when CHR is adjusted, the original charisma is the one that applies when dealing with members of one's own race.

And, yeah, often the adjustments are strong enticements. In 1E, it makes little difference what your exact DEX score is between 7 and 14. But if you happen to roll a 14, playing an Elf or Halfling will actually get you what might be your only bonus. The flip side, though, is I'm also using the racial class/level restrictions. So you're probably not going to choose a race just based on min-maxing your stats because so much else is attached to that decision. This is some of the stuff that gets lost in later editions.

I do have something I call the newbie rule, where you can always choose to play a human fighter, get your scores boosted to meet all the class minimums if need be, and also get STR boosted to 16 if it's not already higher.

Once play begins, there are plenty of opportunities for attributes to change. It's possible to later qualify for a class you didn't qualify for at first. And humans, anyway, are allowed to change classes.


If you have a very specific idea and you can't generate it by this method, it can still be a goal to work towards. Move the cool background event into something that can potentially happen in-game. Move the story into the present tense rather than the past tense. You should be unsatisfied with the character you've created. People who achieve great things do not begin at a point of being satisfied with everything.

The article is also yet another example (as if we need one) that the people screaming about "diversity" constantly, don't understand it.  They are the exact same people that showed their non-conformance with society by--all dressing the same, talking the same, wearing the same make up, etc.  It's like Henry Ford setting up the factory line for the Model T--without the producing anything useful part.

You want real diversity?  Play something outside your usual range.  Had it happen, again, recently.  Player usually plays elves, sometimes humans, occasionally something exotic.  Now, my system is 3d6 down the line, just like in some of the early D&D games, but I've got two outs:  A primary character with no score of 14 or higher gets to boost the highest score to 14.  The player can swap any two scores.  She got some unusual rolls, no bump, no obvious swap.  Took one look at it, and said, "This looks like a dwarf to me."  Two hours of play later, she said, "I've never played a dwarf before, and I'm really enjoying this."  We've been playing together, different systems, since 1987.

With the swap, she could have forced the character into one of her usual types.  Maybe not a perfect fit, but it would have worked.  The only reason she went dwarf was because the way the dwarf was described in the setting and represented mechanically had enough difference to stand out as a thing.  Mush as advocated in the article would have deprived her of the experience. 

Quote from: Effete on September 20, 2022, 03:28:18 AM

Can there be situations where a halfling is as strong as a human? Sure, but those should be rare exceptions discussed with (and approved by) the Game Master, not normal fare. It's the difference between allowing something not expressly supported by the rules, and refusing to allow something that is supported by the rules. It's the difference between saying 'no' to a player and saying 'yes' to them. One clearly builds a more positive experience than the other.

IMHO new players need more "NO" in their lives, and this goes back to their childhood.