Take a look at the DnD tag on twitter and all you'll see is hipster kids showing off drawings of their totally non-human orange or red or blue or purple thing, which they'll call 'my boi' or 'this cutie' or whatever, to the point where you wonder whether the fuck they've ever had them inside a dungeon or their whole campaign is just about the characters eating cake while complaining about the patriarchy.
So what do you think about modern D&D having all these kids playing tieflings, aasimar, genasi, tabaxi, dragonborn etc.?
Is it 'special snowflakeism'? Does it let them show off their (mostly imagined) non-conformity by all doing the exact same thing?
But is it basically harmless? Does it add to the game? or make it worse?
Quote from: RPGPundit;1066672So what do you think about modern D&D having all these kids playing tieflings, aasimar, genasi, tabaxi, dragonborn etc.?
This is what happens when you pander to furries.
Whereas everyone else plays humans elves and dwarves, and the rare halfling and half orc and whathaveyou.
As for people making up their odd characters. Thats been a part of D&D since the get-go. A Balrog? A Vampire? those were some early characters. And D&D itself encourages DMs to make up races or tweak them so you can and will get campaigns with all sorts of variance.
Speaking of. While it never made it into D&D that I ever saw. Dragon Dice had some interesting takes on races. Sea Elves, Lava Elves, Dark Goblins, Dryad style tree people, Snake people, Amazons and more.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1066672Take a look at the DnD tag on twitter and all you'll see is hipster kids showing off drawings of their totally non-human orange or red or blue or purple thing, which they'll call 'my boi' or 'this cutie' or whatever, to the point where you wonder whether the fuck they've ever had them inside a dungeon or their whole campaign is just about the characters eating cake while complaining about the patriarchy.
So what do you think about modern D&D having all these kids playing tieflings, aasimar, genasi, tabaxi, dragonborn etc.?
Is it 'special snowflakeism'? Does it let them show off their (mostly imagined) non-conformity by all doing the exact same thing?
But is it basically harmless? Does it add to the game? or make it worse?
No, we are just getting old.
We were raised on READING Tolkien and such.
These kids were raised on WATCHING Pokemon, My Little Pony, Phineas and Ferb, and such. Games like Skyrim have let these kids play cat people and lizard men for years even in a setting that is fairly traditional.
Tabaxi and Dragonborn are more the norm in my open library games than the wood elf or mountain dwarf.
We either yell "Get off my lawn!" or just roll with it.
Shit like this is why I ban every non-human as a playable race by default. You're a Man. Deal with it.
Pfff first D&D characters should be a tad cringe.
Builds character.
Quote from: MonsterSlayer;1066678No, we are just getting old.
We were raised on READING Tolkien and such.
These kids were raised on WATCHING Pokemon, My Little Pony, Phineas and Ferb, and such. Games like Skyrim have let these kids play cat people and lizard men for years even in a setting that is fairly traditional.
Tabaxi and Dragonborn are more the norm in my open library games than the wood elf or mountain dwarf.
We either yell "Get off my lawn!" or just roll with it.
I think this is honestly the most relevant part of it. Kids growing up in the last two decades have had a ton of exposure to non-Tolkien fantasy, and their tastes reflect that. Combine that with the natural bias of wanting a visually interesting character to showcase art for, and it makes sense that the old standbys have given way to more exotic appearances.
Really? Most people in my area play nothing but the traditional races, most who try with Dragonborn or Tieflings do it once for variety's sake, but usually just once.
Anecdote, mind you.
Greetings!
Yeah, Pundit, I know exactly what you're talking about. I agree. To a limited extent, I think some variety in races and classes can be very beneficial and fun for a campaign. Like with my "pepper" analogy though, too much of it can cause a cascade of problems for the group, and the campaign.
You're Just a Human?
I wrote about this very thing when a friend of mine and I joined our local "Adventurer's League" group at the game store. 7 players, plus a few more that always drift in and out--say, about 12 gamers. Only myself and my friend play humans. More than once, we were chided and snickered at, "You're just a Human?" Universally, all of these other players were shocked and amazed that we were playing Human characters. Of like 12 different players, us two were human. There was one dwarf. The rest were all of these crazy races, and crazy classes as well.
Defining Deviancy Down
Not many of these other players in several "Adventurer's League" groups ever seemed entirely interested in much cooperation, or team building. Not much for roleplaying either, I'm afraid. They mostly enjoy acting silly and stupid, killing everything, and laughing at how unfortunate an NPC is or how fucked up they can make the campaign. It's all about them and what they want to do, it's all about them getting the goodies, and they can plunder and slaughter and fuck with people at every opportunity, show off how uber their powers are, and lets just all giggle at each other, bro. Indeed, in my experience, yeah, back in the day, we always had a few morons like this. But they were a distinct *minority*. Now, they seem to be the majority. And even more, often times back in the day, such a douche *knew* what they were doing. They *knew* they were acting like a murdering, treacherous, selfish, immoral fucking troglodyte. NOW? No, many don't seem to be really aware of it at all. They all straight-facedly pronounce this stuff, and even the girls giggle and say, "yeah! right on...I've got this uber power I can do that will fuck them up! Woo hoo! Goodies for me!!!" They don't often have the faintest idea that there's any drawbacks to how they are presenting and playing their character, not for the rest of the group, and with no regard for what kinds of larger social and religious problems the group may suffer from because of their choices in race, class, and character presentation.
My Pepper Analogy
I enjoy good food, and cooking as well. For those of you that are also cooks, you no doubt appreciate the analogy of mine, that of "peppers." Peppers are a wonderful addition to many different meals. In just the right amount, they add flavour, diversity, and vibrancy to perhaps an otherwise "routine" kind of meal. However, that line is a fine one. Add just a bit over, too much peppers, and the whole meal is inedible, and an absolute waste of time and effort. That's kind of how I think about all these weird characters and races. One or two of them, and the campaign gains "spice", "vibrancy" and "diversity". More than that, though, and not only the group cohesion, but the integrity of the campaign as a whole can experience a growing cascade of problems and difficulties that never end. Piece by piece, race by crazy race, the illusion is presented of you gaining more "variety" and more "fun"--and while you certainly do gain such things, it also, character by character, bit by bit, comes with a cost. Before you realize it, you, as the DM are faced with "losing" all kinds of things within the milieu.
Destroying Social and Religious Cohesion
Including these crazy races seems to actually erode social and religious cohesion within a group. In previous years, having mostly humans with an occasional elf, dwarf, or Halfling was never a problem, in many ways because while the elf, dwarf, and Halfling characters all come from different cultures and have different religions--just like many of the humans--there is enough baseline familiarity, and "congruence" that they all gell together well, and minimize problems and inconsistencies. Including Tieflings, Dragonborn, Genasi, Lizardfolk, Tebaxi, and Assimars to the mix radically serves to sever lots of these more common cultural and religious bonds. No one knows much of anything about what kind of culture these characters come from, nor are any familiar with their religions. Just as importantly, the *PLAYERS* themselves have virtually no idea whatsoever. They all become this weird, bizarre mish-mash of irrelevant cultural and religious identification of being more or less, *giggling*...*stammering*..."Uhh..I don't know. *giggle*...maybe it's a little like such and such...yeah, my character believes in that religion...and..uh...my character came from a family of vagabonds. *giggles*" Alrighty...that's great for forging social and religious bonds within the group. You know, all that kind of stuff that we identify with and value, that makes us want to sacrifice each other for the team, for the mission. A campaign that has just an occasional weird character or two--much like in days of old--can be just fine, and even add dimensions of flavour and vibrancy to the campaign. Getting a whole group like that together? It doesn't really serve to support a lot of natural empathy and even comprehension for other players to ever really gell together as a team. In addition, of course, characterization and roleplaying often suffer in quality, skill and depth as well.
Gonzo Circus Campaigns
Gonzo Circus campaigns don't really have any problems with such crazy races. Almost by definition, a Gonzo Circus campaign doesn't seek to embrace any kind of historical foundation or consistency--it's just a weird grab-bag of mixing genres and technology, dungeon raiding, episodes of hack and slash, and celebrated goofiness. These kinds of campaigns certainly have their charm--but in many ways, such campaign foundations for a Gonzo campaign are entirely at odds with Sword & Sorcery, or more serious Historical and Medieval campaigns. You just can't really mix them very well. For DM's running such campaigns, having whole groups of bizarre mutants and misfits that have escaped from a circus isn't a problem.
Ancient Historical and Medieval Campaigns
For DM's seeking to build and run campaigns based on an Ancient or Medieval historic "ethic"--a milieu that embraces consistent, largely realistic historically-inspired foundations, including dozens of bizarre races as player characters can be especially jarring, problematic, and largely inappropriate. There's so much back work, prep and so on to somehow justify and explain this race of X at all, or fitting them into a more historically-based culture. Including such characters opens the door to all kinds of problems--socially, culturally, and historically that otherwise form the foundations of the campaign and make the "engine" work.
Cultural Shifts, Education and the Culture Wars
As my friend and I got into playing a weekly game at my local game store, hosting "Adventurer's League" Campaigns, my friend and I have numerous discussions about this. I've been playing D&D and DMing Campaigns for a very long time. My friend, he too, has been playing D&D forever. He lamented that our gaming group at the Adventurer's League Campaign was so diverse and weird to him. Where were the Halfling scouts? Where were the Elven Wizards, or Elven Hunters? Where were the strong, Dwarf Clerics and Fighters? Of course, where were all the Humans in their great diversity? Fighters, Paladins, Barbarians, Rogues, Rangers, Clerics, Bards and Wizards? Beyond such, where were the gritty mercenary sergeants? The chivalrous knights and paladins? No icons such as Lancelot, Galahad, Roland, Gandalf, Merlin, Robin Hood, Ivanhoe, Spartacus, or even characters of John Wayne, Yul Brynner, the Lone Ranger, Texas Rangers, nor any Conan, Solomon Kane, Aragorn, Legolas, and such. None of these character types, or any recognizably inspired by them, are readily present in our Adventurer's League group. There is a distinct dissonance created by this dynamic--or the absence of these foundations, in preference for some other dynamic. Many of our players have never seen an American Western. While ostensibly "educated"--many of their literary and cultural touchstones are entirely different from ours. Their "heroes" are taken from movies, cartoons, dramas, and video-games of the last 12 years, or so--basically anything after 2005. They typically have zero identification with any kind of traditional Christian philosophy or Biblical knowledge; they typically have only the faintest knowledge of anything from ancient or medieval history; their familiarity with American Westerns--and related icons and philosophies--is virtually non-existent. Likewise, their knowledge of culture, living, arts, literature, or philosophy of much of anything before 1900 is dismal. These are not for the most part high-school kids, either. They are all currently in college, or have graduated college already. Most of them are adults, between their early and mid-twenties, to the mid-thirties.
The very different kinds of education that they have received--both formal education and general cultural education--is vastly different from our own. Such also informs who their heroes are, what kinds of things inspire them, and their entire philosophical framework, if you will, from which they "plug into" and experience the game. I lamented in an earlier thread about the seeming "death" of heroism, self-sacrifice, and a focused attitude of cooperation and building the team. All of those kinds of virtues, attributes and inspirations are for the most part, absent from most current gamers, from the latest generation.
My friend insists that a lot of this "historical and cultural vacuum" is a direct product of our schools and universities being dominated by liberals that love post-modernism, feminism, and hate Western Civilization. Regrettably, these kinds of political, cultural, and educational "currents" flow into our hobby of gaming as well.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I don't have enough experience with this to really tell, but I don't see any problem with it. In the extended 5e campaigns I've been in, we had a gnome-dominant party, and we briefly had a tiefling - but most characters were a mix of human/elf/half-elf/dwarf/halfling. I've had a few others in one-shots, but not much.
Offhand, I think there is a bit of a hurdle because those races are less common in the source fiction (along with gnomes incidentally), so it's up to the GM a little more to show how they fit into the setting. Still, even in D&D, PCs aren't supposed to be dead average people off the street. They might be rare wizards, say, or other oddities. Having done a lot of superhero gaming (as well as some related genres), I think there's plenty of fun to be had even if every character really is unique. So while "special snowflake" has negative connotations, having rare character types is mostly fine.
For those who have run with more of these races - I'd ask, what approaches have made play with them better?
It takes all kinds, but for the campaigns I run, we can handle one or two odd races--maybe three or four if the campaign runs a long time, and some are added later. Consequently, I've always seen the odd races as much like the monster manual: It's full of crazy stuff not so that you use all of it, but rather so that you can pick the handful of crazy things that you want for that campaign. Heck, half the time the third option we open up is some monster that clicked with the events in the campaign, probably as some NPCs that ended up being important. The "odd" thing isn't merely odd for odd sake, but fits in then.
Race options in the campaign is usually something we work out as a group. Set the standards (Human? Human and elf? Whatever), then pick the exceptions. Really had your eyes set on crazy thing #3 on the list, that didn't make the cut? We'll make it a strong possibility next time.
This hasn't been my experience, everyone I know only plays humans. The most I got was a guy playing a half-elf in pathfinder...and his character was an druid/monk he made to play Aquaman in a campaign that took place on an island chain.
So many people these days enjoy being their own special kind of flower.
I'd roll with a Human, Dwarf, Elf, or Half Elf myself.
Maybe a Dragonborn for the right Campaign idea?
Tieflings can go suck it.
Quote from: Razor 007;1066694Tieflings can go suck it.
What's wrong with tieflings...besides the fact no one ever seems to react to them and try to execute the fiend spawn like the lore says they do.
But isn't this literally old school? OD&D/White Box, the purest, most noblest form of D&D (apparently) encouraged people to play other characters
QuoteOther Character Types: There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as
virtually anything, provided they begin relatively weak and work up to the top, i.e., a
player wishing to be a Dragon would have to begin as let us say, a "young" one and
progress upwards in the usual manner, steps being predetermined by the campaign
referee
And then B/X you literally had 4 supplements with monster character classes. Plus the ones from the Gazetteers.
Beyond that, most of them originate as races in AD&D in some form or the other. Mostly 2e, but there were precursors in 1e - cambions and alu-fiends,
Four is clearly the outer of limit of fantasy races that the human mind should imagine. More than that is decadent indulgence.
[video=youtube_share;RkP_OGDCLY0]https://youtu.be/RkP_OGDCLY0[/youtube]
The one 5e campaign I got into was one where everyone else at the table was a Millennial (one of whom even identified as non-binary).
What did they play? We had two humans (a fighter and my bard), two half-elves (a cleric and a wizard) and an Earth Genasi (a barbarian).
The moral of this story? Internet posters are not a representative sample of actual players.
Our first campaign, even before Rifts was a thing, was crazy gonzo. We threw everything together (Marvel Super Heroes RPG, AD&D, Gamma World, Boot Hill,etc) Mutant rabbits with plasma guns fighting Robot Hitler and demonic possesed muscle cars. I do believe we even had a squadron of X-Wings piloted by some elves from the Elfquest world. Zam! Pow@ Zowie! A "monstrous" PC in that game wouldn't have raised an eyebrow.
Around about 2nd edition AD&D we calmed down some, but I still like to play a monstrous character once in a while.
Man, those were the days. whole summers playing D&D hopped up on Mountain Dew, round robin DM style, so everyone got a chance to play, with the gentleman's agreement that your character was unavailable as an NPC while you were GMing, so you couldn't twink out too badly.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1066702Our first campaign, even before Rifts was a thing, was crazy gonzo. We threw everything together (Marvel Super Heroes RPG, AD&D, Gamma World, Boot Hill,etc) Mutant rabbits with plasma guns fighting Robot Hitler and demonic possesed muscle cars. I do believe we even had a squadron of X-Wings piloted by some elves from the Elfquest world. Zam! Pow@ Zowie! A "monstrous" PC in that game wouldn't have raised an eyebrow.
Around about 2nd edition AD&D we calmed down some, but I still like to play a monstrous character once in a while.
Man, those were the days. whole summers playing D&D hopped up on Mountain Dew, round robin DM style, so everyone got a chance to play, with the gentleman's agreement that your character was unavailable as an NPC while you were GMing, so you couldn't twink out too badly.
IME at the table with 5e the Variant Human with starting Feat is definitely most popular, with some dwarf clerics, kids playing dragonborn etc.
Girls posting their pastel-coloured My First PC drawing on Facebook are not particularly representative IME. In any case I don't bear them any ill will (unless they complain when I kill their PC). :)
Well, from the original Men and Magic LBB, "There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything, provided they begin relatively weak and work up to the top". So play whatever freakish thing you want. If it fits the campaign. (That is to say that the DM allows it.)
Current campaign I'm in has 2 humans, 1 1/2-elf and 1 dragonborn. I cannot say that the race differences amount to much. In my 4 decades of playing, I've seen very few players actually play their not human PCs as not human. It's like the gumball machine. All the different colors of gumballs ...that all taste the same.
Which is not to say that some players do not play their not human PCs fittingly.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1066672Take a look at the DnD tag on twitter and all you'll see is hipster kids showing off drawings of their totally non-human orange or red or blue or purple thing, which they'll call 'my boi' or 'this cutie' or whatever, to the point where you wonder whether the fuck they've ever had them inside a dungeon or their whole campaign is just about the characters eating cake while complaining about the patriarchy.
So what do you think about modern D&D having all these kids playing tieflings, aasimar, genasi, tabaxi, dragonborn etc.?
Is it 'special snowflakeism'? Does it let them show off their (mostly imagined) non-conformity by all doing the exact same thing?
But is it basically harmless? Does it add to the game? or make it worse?
Anime damaged generations of humans.
So much #dndgate in there. Why isn't there a #travellergate, where lesbians ask each other what their first Traveller RPG experience was like? Or are there not enough female neckbeards yet playing the game?
I'm not sure... There's a subset of 5th edition gamers who play strictly human and not for the reason you'd expect... It's because of the 1st-level feat option!
Quote from: Graytung;1066727I'm not sure... There's a subset of 5th edition gamers who play strictly human and not for the reason you'd expect... It's because of the 1st-level feat option!
Hah, I was just about to ask is there some mechanical reason why these kids are picking these races? I'm no D&D expert.
People used to think it was funny to play a duck in Runequest. Part of the de rigeur schtick was acting all offended if anyone tried to suggest playing a duck was ridiculous.
Quote from: Slambo;1066695What's wrong with tieflings...besides the fact no one ever seems to react to them and try to execute the fiend spawn like the lore says they do.
Happened to one of my PCs once. I brought a tiefling into the campaign as a replacement character. As we weren't playing with "PC" stamps on the character's foreheads, the other players let my character die of wounds when they first encountered him, because "tiefling". *shrug* Next character!
Quote from: S'mon;1066708IME at the table with 5e the Variant Human with starting Feat is definitely most popular
That has been my experience too. However, I never see anyone playing the 'standard' (non-Variant) Human, and that's an issue for me since I don't like Feats being available at 1st level.
Quote from: MonsterSlayer;1066678No, we are just getting old.
We were raised on READING Tolkien and such.
These kids were raised on WATCHING Pokemon, My Little Pony, Phineas and Ferb, and such. Games like Skyrim have let these kids play cat people and lizard men for years even in a setting that is fairly traditional.
Tabaxi and Dragonborn are more the norm in my open library games than the wood elf or mountain dwarf.
We either yell "Get off my lawn!" or just roll with it.
Pretty much this. Different, more visual source material.
Another thing I've noted is the millennial women in my new group are really into romance. Every NPC is a target for flirtation and romance.
Quote from: MonsterSlayer;1066678No, we are just getting old.
We were raised on READING Tolkien and such.
These kids were raised on WATCHING Pokemon, My Little Pony, Phineas and Ferb, and such. Games like Skyrim have let these kids play cat people and lizard men for years even in a setting that is fairly traditional.
Tabaxi and Dragonborn are more the norm in my open library games than the wood elf or mountain dwarf.
We either yell "Get off my lawn!" or just roll with it.
Agreed and seconded and nothing wrong with it.
I don't get the issue here seriously. If everyone is having fun at the table who really cares. Besides some grongnards on the Internet. More often than not at least at the tables I play at it's usually the core races with the occasional Dragonborn or Tiefling. Humans with the bonus feat seem to be most popular. Let's be brutally honest it's not for any real love of human as a race more the no level limit cap or extra feat at first level depending on the version of D&D being played. Do not confuse taking a particular race for it's in game mechanical bonus as actually liking the race. I find humans in most rpgs boring as anything. I usually take them because of the extra feat.
Quote from: Broken Twin;1066686I think this is honestly the most relevant part of it. Kids growing up in the last two decades have had a ton of exposure to non-Tolkien fantasy, and their tastes reflect that. Combine that with the natural bias of wanting a visually interesting character to showcase art for, and it makes sense that the old standbys have given way to more exotic appearances.
Again seconded. The sad part those shitting on other peoples fun would do the exact same thing if they were born with the same exposure to non-Tolkien influences to Fantasy. I'm sure they will deny it though because hypocrites are going to be hypocrites and denial is more than a river in Egypt. Myself I freely admit I would be probably be playing a non-standard race if I was a younger player.
If people want to play teiflings and other races in the game, it is fine. I don't really worry too much about what other people are doing at the table. And tastes are going to change a lot by time and place. If young people like Teiflings and Dragonborn, that is what they like. Don't see any point in wasting energy on it. There is nothing about humans, dwarves and elves that make them have to be a permanent standard. Personally, I quite like the classic D&D races and I am not too into the teifling aesthetic. But back when I first started GMing, the Drizzt books were popular and lots of players broke from the standard races to play dark elves and other humanoids. Things change but there are also fads. Especially now, when you have so many varieties of D&D available under other names, I don't think there is much point in worrying what young people do with character races. It isn't really a zero sum game because even if the standard races are evolved out of the official D&D books in some future edition, you can be sure someone will make a standard races retro clone. But I have to say, this isn't stuff I've seen much of in my own groups. Though the youngest people I've played with are in their early 20s.
Didn't Drizzt try to keep his race secret (cloak, gloves, etc.) in a humanocentric world?
Quote from: kythri;1066749Didn't Drizzt try to keep his race secret (cloak, gloves, etc.) in a humanocentric world?
I believe he did. But the point is, suddenly you had players wanting to play from and all kinds of humanoids.
Quote from: BedrockBrendan;1066752I believe he did. But the point is, suddenly you had players wanting to play from and all kinds of humanoids.
Oh, I get that, but, in the context of the novels, Drizzt kinda made sense - in a lot of tabletop sessions, with an assumed humanocentric world, the non-humans (or at least, non-human-looking) characters typically don't roleplay that aspect of their character and expect everything to function as if they were human. In my experience, when a DM/GM has the world react accordingly, they get pissy about it. Fortunately, we haven't had that many players of that type in our games, but I've certainly experienced it.
It's part of what turns me off to a lot of organized play (lack of roleplay), so I can certainly sympathize with folks who are frustrated with all the wacky races as player races.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1066672Take a look at the DnD tag on twitter and all you'll see is hipster kids showing off drawings of their totally non-human orange or red or blue or purple thing, which they'll call 'my boi' or 'this cutie' or whatever, to the point where you wonder whether the fuck they've ever had them inside a dungeon or their whole campaign is just about the characters eating cake while complaining about the patriarchy.
I'd say that means don't look at twitter for an accurate representation of who is playing the game.
QuoteSo what do you think about modern D&D having all these kids playing tieflings, aasimar, genasi, tabaxi, dragonborn etc.?
That the game resembles Breath of Fire (1991) a bit more than it used to. (Cf. Omaha the Cat Dancer, Secret of NIMH, Usagi Yojimbo; granted these are more furry types than others, but if you look hard enough you'll find devil-men, angel-men, and dragon-men going pretty far back as well.)
QuoteBut is it basically harmless? Does it add to the game? or make it worse?
Harmless.
D&D has become Star Wars*.
It's the Mos Eisley Cantina freakshow without any expansive consistency. D&D has become fan-fic gone horribly wrong and rendered contextually meaningless, trying to appeal to all things outside of its own conceits.
Or haven't you been paying attention to who is running the show with the brand, and the nature of a lot of threads around these parts? The D&D we know has become deconstructed. Cambions are being censored by Tiefling activists! They're totally marginalized
Think of the Demons!
*Kathleen Kennedy Star Wars
Quote from: tenbones;1066771D&D has become Star Wars*.
It's the Mos Eisley Cantina freakshow without any expansive consistency. D&D has become fan-fic gone horribly wrong and rendered contextually meaningless, trying to appeal to all things outside of its own conceits.
Or haven't you been paying attention to who is running the show with the brand, and the nature of a lot of threads around these parts? The D&D we know has become deconstructed. Cambions are being censored by Tiefling activists! They're totally marginalized
Think of the Demons!
*Kathleen Kennedy Star Wars
Gygax would weep to see the carefully constructed ecology of the world presented is his original
Monster Manual turning into a mish-mash of influences. Next they will be tossing in crashed spaceships, crossing it over with tonally different works like those of Lewis Carroll, or allowing people to play balrogs.
Quote from: SHARK;1066688Greetings!
Yeah, Pundit, I know exactly what you're talking about. I agree. To a limited extent, I think some variety in races and classes can be very beneficial and fun for a campaign. Like with my "pepper" analogy though, too much of it can cause a cascade of problems for the group, and the campaign.
You're Just a Human?
I wrote about this very thing when a friend of mine and I joined our local "Adventurer's League" group at the game store. 7 players, plus a few more that always drift in and out--say, about 12 gamers. Only myself and my friend play humans. More than once, we were chided and snickered at, "You're just a Human?" Universally, all of these other players were shocked and amazed that we were playing Human characters. Of like 12 different players, us two were human. There was one dwarf. The rest were all of these crazy races, and crazy classes as well.
Defining Deviancy Down
Not many of these other players in several "Adventurer's League" groups ever seemed entirely interested in much cooperation, or team building. Not much for roleplaying either, I'm afraid. They mostly enjoy acting silly and stupid, killing everything, and laughing at how unfortunate an NPC is or how fucked up they can make the campaign. It's all about them and what they want to do, it's all about them getting the goodies, and they can plunder and slaughter and fuck with people at every opportunity, show off how uber their powers are, and lets just all giggle at each other, bro. Indeed, in my experience, yeah, back in the day, we always had a few morons like this. But they were a distinct *minority*. Now, they seem to be the majority. And even more, often times back in the day, such a douche *knew* what they were doing. They *knew* they were acting like a murdering, treacherous, selfish, immoral fucking troglodyte. NOW? No, many don't seem to be really aware of it at all. They all straight-facedly pronounce this stuff, and even the girls giggle and say, "yeah! right on...I've got this uber power I can do that will fuck them up! Woo hoo! Goodies for me!!!" They don't often have the faintest idea that there's any drawbacks to how they are presenting and playing their character, not for the rest of the group, and with no regard for what kinds of larger social and religious problems the group may suffer from because of their choices in race, class, and character presentation.
My Pepper Analogy
I enjoy good food, and cooking as well. For those of you that are also cooks, you no doubt appreciate the analogy of mine, that of "peppers." Peppers are a wonderful addition to many different meals. In just the right amount, they add flavour, diversity, and vibrancy to perhaps an otherwise "routine" kind of meal. However, that line is a fine one. Add just a bit over, too much peppers, and the whole meal is inedible, and an absolute waste of time and effort. That's kind of how I think about all these weird characters and races. One or two of them, and the campaign gains "spice", "vibrancy" and "diversity". More than that, though, and not only the group cohesion, but the integrity of the campaign as a whole can experience a growing cascade of problems and difficulties that never end. Piece by piece, race by crazy race, the illusion is presented of you gaining more "variety" and more "fun"--and while you certainly do gain such things, it also, character by character, bit by bit, comes with a cost. Before you realize it, you, as the DM are faced with "losing" all kinds of things within the milieu.
Destroying Social and Religious Cohesion
Including these crazy races seems to actually erode social and religious cohesion within a group. In previous years, having mostly humans with an occasional elf, dwarf, or Halfling was never a problem, in many ways because while the elf, dwarf, and Halfling characters all come from different cultures and have different religions--just like many of the humans--there is enough baseline familiarity, and "congruence" that they all gell together well, and minimize problems and inconsistencies. Including Tieflings, Dragonborn, Genasi, Lizardfolk, Tebaxi, and Assimars to the mix radically serves to sever lots of these more common cultural and religious bonds. No one knows much of anything about what kind of culture these characters come from, nor are any familiar with their religions. Just as importantly, the *PLAYERS* themselves have virtually no idea whatsoever. They all become this weird, bizarre mish-mash of irrelevant cultural and religious identification of being more or less, *giggling*...*stammering*..."Uhh..I don't know. *giggle*...maybe it's a little like such and such...yeah, my character believes in that religion...and..uh...my character came from a family of vagabonds. *giggles*" Alrighty...that's great for forging social and religious bonds within the group. You know, all that kind of stuff that we identify with and value, that makes us want to sacrifice each other for the team, for the mission. A campaign that has just an occasional weird character or two--much like in days of old--can be just fine, and even add dimensions of flavour and vibrancy to the campaign. Getting a whole group like that together? It doesn't really serve to support a lot of natural empathy and even comprehension for other players to ever really gell together as a team. In addition, of course, characterization and roleplaying often suffer in quality, skill and depth as well.
Gonzo Circus Campaigns
Gonzo Circus campaigns don't really have any problems with such crazy races. Almost by definition, a Gonzo Circus campaign doesn't seek to embrace any kind of historical foundation or consistency--it's just a weird grab-bag of mixing genres and technology, dungeon raiding, episodes of hack and slash, and celebrated goofiness. These kinds of campaigns certainly have their charm--but in many ways, such campaign foundations for a Gonzo campaign are entirely at odds with Sword & Sorcery, or more serious Historical and Medieval campaigns. You just can't really mix them very well. For DM's running such campaigns, having whole groups of bizarre mutants and misfits that have escaped from a circus isn't a problem.
Ancient Historical and Medieval Campaigns
For DM's seeking to build and run campaigns based on an Ancient or Medieval historic "ethic"--a milieu that embraces consistent, largely realistic historically-inspired foundations, including dozens of bizarre races as player characters can be especially jarring, problematic, and largely inappropriate. There's so much back work, prep and so on to somehow justify and explain this race of X at all, or fitting them into a more historically-based culture. Including such characters opens the door to all kinds of problems--socially, culturally, and historically that otherwise form the foundations of the campaign and make the "engine" work.
Cultural Shifts, Education and the Culture Wars
As my friend and I got into playing a weekly game at my local game store, hosting "Adventurer's League" Campaigns, my friend and I have numerous discussions about this. I've been playing D&D and DMing Campaigns for a very long time. My friend, he too, has been playing D&D forever. He lamented that our gaming group at the Adventurer's League Campaign was so diverse and weird to him. Where were the Halfling scouts? Where were the Elven Wizards, or Elven Hunters? Where were the strong, Dwarf Clerics and Fighters? Of course, where were all the Humans in their great diversity? Fighters, Paladins, Barbarians, Rogues, Rangers, Clerics, Bards and Wizards? Beyond such, where were the gritty mercenary sergeants? The chivalrous knights and paladins? No icons such as Lancelot, Galahad, Roland, Gandalf, Merlin, Robin Hood, Ivanhoe, Spartacus, or even characters of John Wayne, Yul Brynner, the Lone Ranger, Texas Rangers, nor any Conan, Solomon Kane, Aragorn, Legolas, and such. None of these character types, or any recognizably inspired by them, are readily present in our Adventurer's League group. There is a distinct dissonance created by this dynamic--or the absence of these foundations, in preference for some other dynamic. Many of our players have never seen an American Western. While ostensibly "educated"--many of their literary and cultural touchstones are entirely different from ours. Their "heroes" are taken from movies, cartoons, dramas, and video-games of the last 12 years, or so--basically anything after 2005. They typically have zero identification with any kind of traditional Christian philosophy or Biblical knowledge; they typically have only the faintest knowledge of anything from ancient or medieval history; their familiarity with American Westerns--and related icons and philosophies--is virtually non-existent. Likewise, their knowledge of culture, living, arts, literature, or philosophy of much of anything before 1900 is dismal. These are not for the most part high-school kids, either. They are all currently in college, or have graduated college already. Most of them are adults, between their early and mid-twenties, to the mid-thirties.
The very different kinds of education that they have received--both formal education and general cultural education--is vastly different from our own. Such also informs who their heroes are, what kinds of things inspire them, and their entire philosophical framework, if you will, from which they "plug into" and experience the game. I lamented in an earlier thread about the seeming "death" of heroism, self-sacrifice, and a focused attitude of cooperation and building the team. All of those kinds of virtues, attributes and inspirations are for the most part, absent from most current gamers, from the latest generation.
My friend insists that a lot of this "historical and cultural vacuum" is a direct product of our schools and universities being dominated by liberals that love post-modernism, feminism, and hate Western Civilization. Regrettably, these kinds of political, cultural, and educational "currents" flow into our hobby of gaming as well.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
I just want to say, the majority of players *aren't* like this, but it's when you play Adventurer's League that you're basically playing Russian Roulette. It's like taking a dive into the YouTube comment section for inspiring discourse. Often the people that play AL exclusively, are the kinds that are too dysfunctional to participate in a real group and got kicked out, or don't want to bother with any continuity and just hoard loot and EXP.
That said, there are plenty of good folks out there, but it's definitely trying to find a diamond in the rough.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1066672So what do you think about modern D&D having all these kids playing tieflings, aasimar, genasi, tabaxi, dragonborn etc.?
Not much. I don't care. I don't play 5e. It's not my thing. (And actually, I much prefer human PCs. I'm not even a big fan of elves and dwarves and such.)
QuoteIs it 'special snowflakeism'? Does it let them show off their (mostly imagined) non-conformity by all doing the exact same thing?
No idea. I imagine they think it's cool. I don't agree, but just like I don't care what they think, I suspect they don't care what I think.
QuoteBut is it basically harmless? Does it add to the game? or make it worse?
It makes "modern D&D" even less attractive to me, so I'd consider it "worse" in that respect. But even without such an approach to PCs, I wouldn't be part of the modern D&D market, so it's irrelevant to me and my gaming.
Quote from: Baulderstone;1066787Gygax would weep to see the carefully constructed ecology of the world presented is his original Monster Manual turning into a mish-mash of influences. Next they will be tossing in crashed spaceships, crossing it over with tonally different works like those of Lewis Carroll, or allowing people to play balrogs.
I see what you did there.
I approve. :D
Seeing my own offspring independently get into D&D with friends over the past year or so gives me an entirely new perspective. If by "kids" the OP means 20-somethings, than perhaps. But real kids are trying to use familiar building blocks just like we did, in a genuine and excited way.
They also are really interested in seeing the older fantasy too - it's fresh to them. But of course their first and primary inclination is to act out what their imagination is generating already.
Quote from: Chris24601;1066802I see what you did there.
I approve. :D
I couldn't place the balrog one. Which one was that?
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1066809I couldn't place the balrog one. Which one was that?
OD&D. One of Gary's examples of monsters being used as PCs was a balrog.
People underestimate just how off the wall fantasy kitchen sink early D&D was because most people have a point of entry at B/X or AD&D or later when a lot of the wackier stuff got put in the "DM only" box and limited the PCs to the Fellowship of the Ring for PC options.
There's a reason I base my campaign world more on Thundarr the Barbarian and He-Man than on Tolkien.
Quote from: Baulderstone;1066787Gygax would weep to see the carefully constructed ecology of the world presented is his original Monster Manual turning into a mish-mash of influences. Next they will be tossing in crashed spaceships, crossing it over with tonally different works like those of Lewis Carroll, or allowing people to play balrogs.
I think Gygax would be doing enthusiastic back flips at the idea that some people's full-time job is to play D&D for an audience.
And he would then proceed to totally cash-in on the phenomena with live Twitch broadcast of him running a group through his new OSR D&D spin off.
Quote from: tenbones;1066771D&D has become Star Wars*.
It's the Mos Eisley Cantina freakshow without any expansive consistency. D&D has become fan-fic gone horribly wrong and rendered contextually meaningless, trying to appeal to all things outside of its own conceits.
Quote from: Baulderstone;1066787Gygax would weep to see the carefully constructed ecology of the world presented is his original Monster Manual turning into a mish-mash of influences. Next they will be tossing in crashed spaceships, crossing it over with tonally different works like those of Lewis Carroll, or allowing people to play balrogs.
Bwahahahaha! Nice one, Baulderstone.
I first played in the Eberron setting a few weeks ago, which I thought was really cool. I liked the extensions to the setting like Warforged.
I do think there may be a potential disconnect if the setting and adventure material has no mention of tieflings, aasimar, genasi, tabaxi, or dragonborn - but the PCs are of those races. If this was something my players were interested in, I would take more steps to integrate those races into the setting.
Quote from: Baulderstone;1066787Gygax would weep to see the carefully constructed ecology of the world presented is his original Monster Manual turning into a mish-mash of influences. Next they will be tossing in crashed spaceships, crossing it over with tonally different works like those of Lewis Carroll, or allowing people to play balrogs.
You cheeky Baatezu!
I don't think it's so much the issue of having fantasy races outside the 'main' ones so much as a mixture of DM letting everything fly combined with the main races being generally seen as boring and played out.
The first thing to keep in mind is that most of these people are of my generation and began playing from 3E onward. While having a ton of options was something which existed in D&D (and by extension, all RPG) to some extent I'd say it certainly exploded with the business model of 3E with it's obsession and 'builds' and making people buy new books. It seems that, at some point, people forgot the DM was supposed to police what was and wasn't allowed in his game and these new books went from 'new options' to 'every new book must be immediately added' resulting in games where I saw GM thinking refusing to use certain books was somehow a bad thing. They became less like options and more like a major DLC to videogames or, more accurately, an MMORPG expansion which superseded previous releases. It seems this 'buffet' mentality really took hold and I do recall people whining to me whenever I didn't want to add a certain book, in part because I hadn't read the book and did not want to add new mechanics. This was especially true of Psionics, even if nowadays I do like them as long as they fit.
The second problem is that, for you grognards over 35 these fantasy races (Elves, Dwarves, Halflings as the playable races plus Orcs for monsters) are the OG Fantasy Races, accept no substitute. They are basically seen as the archetypal races with a lot of interesting history in part derived from Grandpa Tolkien. However, do keep in mind not everyone my age or younger is ready and willing to read LotR and The Silmarillion. Instead these people were raised on the shitty ripoff of the ripoff of the ripoff. These races seemingly only exist in the public consciousness in some sort of debased, boring form and do not appear fantastical to the average person. Today an elf is not an ancient wise, unfallen human with a rich history: no they are either just longer-lived and pointy-eared humans or they are essentially 'fantasy nazi' (due to writers playing off the idea that elves are 'smug and superior'). Dwarves today are reduced to memes about mining, beards and alcohol. Halflings are forgotten or seen as boring humans. Orcs have undergone so many changes that most people think 'fantasy Klingons' or 'fantasy black people' when their name is mentioned rather than 'souless abomination and human-shaped demon'. Even with the enduring popularity of The Elder Scrolls franchise, most casuals generally don't know the interesting and fantastical background of the races of that setting and only see the surface details the game portray. Fantasy has been nothing but derivative shit or the past 20-30 years and the current generation is too fucking dumb to bother digging on how and why we got there, which is why the current generation see the core races as stupid and boring.
Today the core races are about as exotic and alien as a Star Trek alien race: a human in a funny hat with some rubber parts. Of course there's far more to it than just that, but then we'd have to move this to Pundit's forum.
That said the problem isn't the new races themselves, but rather how people choose to use them. If people were using Tiefling and Dragonborn better rather than treating them as part of the Mos Eisley cantina people would not be remotely bitching, but then we'd be asking my generation for too much, since writing something interesting and unique (and complex) is far beyond their programming. That and the problem is, when you allow every fantasy race it stop being fantastical. Personally I like the Dragonborn and Tiefling but I understand why they are so loathed. Dragonborn could be terrifying and interesting, since they walk an interesting line where they are monster-like and people-like in equal measure but, unlike the Hobgoblin they are more clearly aligned with the idea of using magic. Portraying them as an ancient, alien and war-like culture which breed mighty and fearsome warriors equally as it breed Clerics and Magic-Users would really go a long way to make them seem cool, but that is lost when they are just thrown into the mix 'just because'. If anything, I'd personally portray Dragonborn more akin to a less degenerate and evil take on the Serpent-Men with a more draconic bent. Alternatively they work fine as a minion race to evil dragons, especially if you want your evil dragons to have something like Orcs but that isn't just Orcs.
Meanwhile Tieflings suffer from the fact people see them as 'MUH OPPRESSED PEOPLE' and because the idea of clearly defined cosmic evil is so alien and antithetical to today's postmodern thoughts: granted that one game I did use Tiefling, I completely went along with the idea they were in fact misunderstood. But that was a Godbound game where things labelled as 'demons' weren't 'demons' in the D&D sense. Tieflings work because their concept is, I think, sound enough: a people cursed to be tainted with evil on a fundamental level. The problem is in how it is portrayed and understood by players and GM, not in the idea itself. You can use that to great effect but you got to think beyond the 'curse anime emo protagonist' shtick. Or, alternatively, you can play Tieflings 100% straight and portray them as a whole race of evil motherfuckers. It worked for Melnibonean, after all.
Of course if your setting has more than 3-4 nonhuman races you got a problem. So there is that.
Edit: That said there are furries who play D&D to enact their weird furry fetish shit and it's disgusting. Purge with napalm whenever possible.
My problem isn't the Mos Eisley-ness of it. Spelljammer is probably my favorite setting outiside of Dark Sun. I'm saying the established settings do a poor job of giving relevance to these new elements.
Case in point - I don't run modules. So Barrier Peaks, and Dungeonland do not exist in any of my settings for the very reasons you cite. They're incongruous. (god knows I love some Barrier Peaks as a one-shot). The point being is WotC needs to start building settings where the non-traditional stuff is cooked into their settings.
Eberron tried and did an okay job. The issue with 5e is that they're not really producing campaign settings like they did in 1e/2e. So it looks/feels like a big shoe-horn.
Of course there is denying a lot of this come from my generation's desire to be SPESHULL and making cookie cutter boring characters who are only interesting based on a serie of randomly thrown-together labels. How fitting.
Quote from: kythri;1066753Oh, I get that, but, in the context of the novels, Drizzt kinda made sense - in a lot of tabletop sessions, with an assumed humanocentric world, the non-humans (or at least, non-human-looking) characters typically don't roleplay that aspect of their character and expect everything to function as if they were human. In my experience, when a DM/GM has the world react accordingly, they get pissy about it. Fortunately, we haven't had that many players of that type in our games, but I've certainly experienced it.
It's part of what turns me off to a lot of organized play (lack of roleplay), so I can certainly sympathize with folks who are frustrated with all the wacky races as player races.
Bob Something tackles some of the following but basically I think these are two different issues. One is a question of what races are the norm in the game. The other is a question of how much cohesion should there be between character creation options and setting, and how much authority does the GM have to allow/disallow based on what works with the setting. This is something that cropped up way back in 3E (and frankly I was dealing with it before as a GM whenever a player insisted on being a Drow). Personally, I think setting is important and I don't enjoy play as much when the setting creation or setting options are put in the hands of the PCs. Back when I was running 3rd edition, this was a big problem for me because the game moved more in the direction of writing books for players and giving players the expectation that the options in those books would be allowed. There was definitely a cultural shift. Suddenly if a player had some kind of prestige class option that made them draconic, you were expected to allow it, even if the setting didn't have draconic things in it. And it is one of the reasons I moved away from playing as much D&D (or at least as much official D&D). I didn't see any point getting bitter about it though. I just viewed that as a taste issue. They were just giving people what they wanted and making books that sold. If that doesn't appeal to me, I can find other games or use an older edition. New tastes and approaches crop up all the time. If people want forty race options and don't want the GM's setting to muck with their choices, that is just where things are. That is what is giving them enjoyment. Mostly I play with people my own age anyways so this isn't really much of an issue for me. That said, I think persuading people that there is merit to the style you play can be good. I just don't think an approach that starts with 'kids these days' is likely to convince anyone but the choir and those who are dissatisfied with their current group.
By the way I'm utterly, straight-faced serious in my belief that something as maligned and a byproduct of 'corporate D&D' like the Dragonborn can be used in a good way. There is untapped potential in the race.
I prefer my fantasy games to have a more serious tone, preferably lowish magic, and with a more gritty pseudo-historical feel. This leads me to usually prefer all human parties. Once you throw in all sorts of weird races, it just starts to strike me as being silly. It kind of feels the same way as when you introduce too much magic into a setting, it demystifies the setting and makes things which should feel wondrous into the mundane.
There is also the added issue that D&D races, even the traditional ones like elves and dwarves, all too often just become hats for the character to wear that undermines more deep character development. If someone is going to role play a person who is obviously half human and half demon, that should be something far more profound than merely having some horns and I suspect that it usually isn't. That idea would go for elves too, it should be about more than just having pointy ears and a high Dexterity.
Quote from: Bob Something;1066821By the way I'm utterly, straight-faced serious in my belief that something as maligned and a byproduct of 'corporate D&D' like the Dragonborn can be used in a good way. There is untapped potential in the race.
Context is key.
I'm currently working on a new campaign that is set in a highly mutated version of the Realms. It's a continuing campaign where the end result had Planescape, Spelljammer, Forgotten Realms slamming headlong together with the Underdark, Kara-tur that at the end resulted in the main hub of the game being a Spelljamming port with a permanent portal to the city of Sigil - and the newly freed Githyanki and Githzerai (the Lich Queen died) have called a truce and have come home after ten-thousand years of of inter-planar war.
So the new game has as potential playable races on top of the "standard" D&D fare - Imperial Elves, Twilight Elves (new race of cursed Drow that forsook Lolth), Githyanki, Githerzerai, Gith, Duergar, Drow, Hadozee, Grommams, Warrgs (intelligent Gnolls), Scro, Krynn Tinker Gnomes - all as minority communities in the main metropolis.
But they're all there because the setting supports the conceit of WHY they're playable. This is not counting the intense politics of the human culture and the dominant Dwarf culture (it's set in the Great Rift) who are largely very bigotted and not a few outright hostile and racist to non-Dwarves (the main metropolis is far more progressive for pragmatic reasons).
So yeah it's a freakshow. But it's a freakshow where nothing is simply there "just because". And while these cultures are very snowflakey - I make sure they feel the real social impact of being looked at as outsiders and treated as such. IF the players choose to play one.
the problem with D&D as it stands is that most games I've seen, players approach the game with the assumption that any race that has stats is appropriate for the game.
Quote from: Baulderstone;1066787Gygax would weep to see the carefully constructed ecology of the world presented is his original Monster Manual turning into a mish-mash of influences. Next they will be tossing in crashed spaceships, crossing it over with tonally different works like those of Lewis Carroll, or allowing people to play balrogs.
Quote from: S'mon;1066708Girls posting their pastel-coloured My First PC drawing on Facebook are not particularly representative IME. In any case I don't bear them any ill will (unless they complain when I kill their PC). :)
Quote from: sureshot;1066746The sad part those shitting on other peoples fun would do the exact same thing if they were born with the same exposure to non-Tolkien influences to Fantasy. I'm sure they will deny it though because hypocrites are going to be hypocrites and denial is more than a river in Egypt. Myself I freely admit I would be probably be playing a non-standard race if I was a younger player.
There were other equally good posts put down here, but these are representative of what I think the case of it is. To sum up:
- What you see when you go on Twitter is not representative of what people are doing in general
- People who want to draw character art of their characters are not representative of modern D&D players in general
- Assuming we're talking about actual kids, I consider myself extremely fortunate that I had no avenue to publicly display the character art and character ideas I had at age 9 (or heavens forfend, age 12-13).
- As everyone has pointed out, D&D has had PC vampires, balrogs, dragons, and all sorts of things that would fit squarely in the 'hipster'/'edgelord'/'snowflake' category.
- Exactly how playing as friggin' elves and dwarves and gnomes is somehow less namby-pamby/pretentious/whatever-snowflake-is-supposed-to-mean or whatever than dragon people or devil spawn is a mystery to me.
- Why exactly is it that people born more recently than us are supposed to like the same things that we do? Why would, could, or should they want to play strictly the Tolkein/Howard/Burroughs-inspired stuff that inspired us (that stuff that inspired us specifically because it was what came out during our or our father's times and we grew up with it)? This is like whatever stodgy old professor it was that complained that the kids of the 90s should be reading Wind in the Willows books instead of Harry Potter, but then couldn't come up with a reason except that it was what he grew up with.
- I just don't have, or really enjoy, a preoccupation with desperately trying to explain why something someone else is doing is somehow wrong (with incredibly torturous mental gymnastics to explain how and why it is wrong). It violates my libertarian ideals.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1066672Take a look at the DnD tag on twitter and all you'll see is hipster kids showing off drawings of their totally non-human orange or red or blue or purple thing, which they'll call 'my boi' or 'this cutie' or whatever, to the point where you wonder whether the fuck they've ever had them inside a dungeon or their whole campaign is just about the characters eating cake while complaining about the patriarchy.
So what do you think about modern D&D having all these kids playing tieflings, aasimar, genasi, tabaxi, dragonborn etc.?
Is it 'special snowflakeism'? Does it let them show off their (mostly imagined) non-conformity by all doing the exact same thing?
But is it basically harmless? Does it add to the game? or make it worse?
Data disagrees with your guessimate (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-your-dd-character-rare/).
Quote from: Mistwell;1066841Data disagrees with your guessimate (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-your-dd-character-rare/).
Holy crap, that link.
(https://i.imgur.com/pQo7e8E.jpg)
Though now I want to play an Aasimar Druid.
Dont let the table layout fool ya. Aasimar ranger is where its at.
Quote from: Bob Something;1066815That said the problem isn't the new races themselves, but rather how people choose to use them. If people were using Tiefling and Dragonborn better rather than treating them as part of the Mos Eisley cantina people would not be remotely bitching, but then we'd be asking my generation for too much, since writing something interesting and unique (and complex) is far beyond their programming. That and the problem is, when you allow every fantasy race it stop being fantastical. Personally I like the Dragonborn and Tiefling but I understand why they are so loathed. Dragonborn could be terrifying and interesting, since they walk an interesting line where they are monster-like and people-like in equal measure but, unlike the Hobgoblin they are more clearly aligned with the idea of using magic. Portraying them as an ancient, alien and war-like culture which breed mighty and fearsome warriors equally as it breed Clerics and Magic-Users would really go a long way to make them seem cool, but that is lost when they are just thrown into the mix 'just because'.
It seems to me that this is holding dragonborn to a higher standard than other PCs. In my experience, most PCs aren't fascinating, fantastical creations - regardless of their race. They're most often simple stereotypes that the player mucks around with. And that's OK. It's not like the game has to be high art with great psychological and mythological depth.
Quote from: Bob Something;1066815Of course if your setting has more than 3-4 nonhuman races you got a problem. So there is that.
I also don't buy this. Obviously, more races inherently means less detail on each race - but it's not like maximum detail is always better. Personally, my current setting has humans as an evil NPC-only race and eight core PC races, and I think it's been working fine. Everyone has gotten into the contrast of the eight races, and they're all well-integrated into the setting. (The PC races are kobold, goblin, orc, drow, bugbear, gnoll, hobgoblin, and yuan-ti.)
Quote from: tenbones;1066816My problem isn't the Mos Eisley-ness of it. Spelljammer is probably my favorite setting outiside of Dark Sun. I'm saying the established settings do a poor job of giving relevance to these new elements.
Case in point - I don't run modules. So Barrier Peaks, and Dungeonland do not exist in any of my settings for the very reasons you cite. They're incongruous. (god knows I love some Barrier Peaks as a one-shot). The point being is WotC needs to start building settings where the non-traditional stuff is cooked into their settings.
Eberron tried and did an okay job. The issue with 5e is that they're not really producing campaign settings like they did in 1e/2e. So it looks/feels like a big shoe-horn.
Conversely, I've used modules but I have never done much with published D&D settings. I've technically used Forgotten Realms, but it's been a default backdrop that is mostly irrelevant. The default for a while has been for alternate settings to be stuff for third parties and individual GMs, rather than part of the core product line, which makes sense to me. Since the beginning, many people have seen D&D as a toolkit to put together their own setting from the disparate elements, rather than playing in a published world.
I have nothing against new settings that highlight new stuff, but I don't think it should be necessary.
Quote from: Mistwell;1066841Data disagrees with your guessimate (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-your-dd-character-rare/).
I'd say that the Dragonborn, Tiefling, and Gensi coming in the list above the halfling and especially the half-orc supports Pundit's theory.
I always thought half-orc was a bit snow flake so I see a snowflake being and supercede by more snow flakes.
The Elf group probably includes Drow. I know it includes Eladrin which I find even more insufferable at the hands of most players because you know they are going to be played as insufferable jerks.
But I stand by my original hypothesis that a generation of players raised on super hero movies are looking for the most unique avatar they can to represent them in game. I have had several players go human to get their feet wet and then want something more exotic after a couple of games and catching glimpses of the PHB or online character builder.
Halflings in 5e honestly look really odd thanks to the dodgey artwork in the rulebooks, couple that with the hobbit movies and you dont really have a race folks want to touch when you have a ton of better options with way more interesting art to draw from...also they scrapped the cool halfing lore form 4e which honestly made them something unique in favor of hobbit-lite...and half orcs are kinda shite as a race option and always have been so cant really blame anyone there.
dont really get dragonborn since rules wise they kinda suck in 5e and the lore is ropey as heck too(another case of scrapping what worked for something that needs work), but again if its a toss up between half orc or dragonborn most will pick the dragonborn since 'its a frickin dragon person' so why wouldnt you?
I can't stand Tolkein, I only play humans.
Given the choice, I prefer to run historical games, so all-human and nothing else.
Quote from: ShieldWife;1066824That idea would go for elves too, it should be about more than just having pointy ears and a high Dexterity.
Oh, but it is; it's about Darkvision too!
I think Bob Something's first point, paraphrase "the optional becomes the expected," is a major one. But it also has to do with Org Play Talk and Power Gamers setting the discussion, and thus mental paradigm (assumed standard) across non-home games. WotC did some survey work and found Feats and Multiclassing is not as popular in play (as in prevalent,) as they thought it was going to be.
There is definitely a "squeaky wheel gets the grease" element among perceptions. Or as I like to think of it, it's that one asshole out of a hundred regular or awesome people that will ruin your day. So too is that "Killfuck Soulshitter, lone wolf assassin" 14 year old power fantasy. They are desperately trying so hard to be different and cool that they all end up the same... and, well, we grew out of that charm.
And it's OK, it's for another generation of youth to feel rebellious and optimized, but end up looking uniform. :)
One factor that hasn't gotten enough notice is that a lot of this... say Drow Fandom occurred during the 3E era, both with the Drizz't novels providing a geek-culture touchstone, even for people like me (I love to hate Drizz't and RA Salvatore....), while IN GAME Drow were very popular because they had awesome stats and special powers, including free spells, Magic Resistance and MOAR darkvision than anyone else.
Can you have a perfect storm with only two contributing factors? If so, that creates a perfect storm of snowflake specialness.
And since DMs quickly twigged to the Drow-Rush (like the Gold Rush, only Racist...), players of both Drow Camps began looking at other ways to get their fix for either Spechulnus or Powah by looking at other extremely fringe races, like Tieflings or Gensai... and DMs, a bit like a frustrated parent with a kid constantly asking for a pony, quickly caved when the kid suddenly wanted a dog.
Quote from: Tanin Wulf;1066809I couldn't place the balrog one. Which one was that?
Mike Mornard, who posts here sometimes as Gronan, was in Gygax's original D&D group. He wanted to play a balrog, and Gary was cool with it.
One can also play Balrogs in Palladium Fantasy. Its not recommended as they are pretty powerful as well. Nor a standard race yet they have stats if one has a GM willing to allow one.
Quote from: Mistwell;1066841Data disagrees with your guessimate (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-your-dd-character-rare/).
Thanks for that link, that is awesome. It confirms theee of my anecdotal observations-- the dragonborn paladin, elf ranger, and especially the tiefling warlock-- are popular 5E combos. But what really amazes me, to the point of non-belief, is that human fighters are the most popular choice.
Quote from: Mistwell;1066841Data disagrees with your guessimate (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-your-dd-character-rare/).
Quote from: Aglondir;1066895Thanks for that link, that is awesome. It confirms theee of my anecdotal observations-- the dragonborn paladin, elf ranger, and especially the tiefling warlock-- are popular 5E combos. But what really amazes me, to the point of non-belief, is that human fighters are the most popular choice.
Well, among the combos, tiefling warlock is #10 and dragonborn paladin is #20. The top thirty combos are:
1) HUMAN FIGHTER : 4888
2) ELF RANGER : 3076
3) ELF WIZARD : 2744
4) HUMAN WIZARD : 2568
5) HUMAN ROGUE : 2542
6) HUMAN CLERIC : 2339
7) HUMAN PALADIN : 2326
8) ELF ROGUE : 2257
9) DWARF CLERIC : 2199
10) TIEFLING WARLOCK : 2188
11) DWARF FIGHTER : 2009
12) HUMAN MONK : 1946
13) HALF-ELF BARD : 1808
14) HALFLING ROGUE : 1797
15) ELF DRUID : 1779
16) GOLIATH BARBARIAN : 1729
17) HUMAN RANGER : 1715
18) HUMAN WARLOCK : 1714
19) HALF-ORC BARBARIAN : 1709
20) DRAGONBORN PALADIN : 1688
21) HUMAN BARD : 1454
22) HUMAN BARBARIAN : 1435
23) HALF-ELF WARLOCK : 1401
24) GNOME WIZARD : 1360
25) ELF MONK : 1349
26) DRAGONBORN FIGHTER : 1335
27) HALF-ELF ROGUE : 1325
28) HUMAN SORCERER : 1324
29) DWARF BARBARIAN : 1323
30) HALF-ELF SORCERER : 1258
Quote from: jhkim;1066899Well, among the combos, tiefling warlock is #10 and dragonborn paladin is #20. The top thirty combos are:
1) HUMAN FIGHTER : 4888
2) ELF RANGER : 3076
3) ELF WIZARD : 2744
4) HUMAN WIZARD : 2568
5) HUMAN ROGUE : 2542
6) HUMAN CLERIC : 2339
7) HUMAN PALADIN : 2326
8) ELF ROGUE : 2257
9) DWARF CLERIC : 2199
10) TIEFLING WARLOCK : 2188
11) DWARF FIGHTER : 2009
12) HUMAN MONK : 1946
13) HALF-ELF BARD : 1808
14) HALFLING ROGUE : 1797
15) ELF DRUID : 1779
16) GOLIATH BARBARIAN : 1729
17) HUMAN RANGER : 1715
18) HUMAN WARLOCK : 1714
19) HALF-ORC BARBARIAN : 1709
20) DRAGONBORN PALADIN : 1688
21) HUMAN BARD : 1454
22) HUMAN BARBARIAN : 1435
23) HALF-ELF WARLOCK : 1401
24) GNOME WIZARD : 1360
25) ELF MONK : 1349
26) DRAGONBORN FIGHTER : 1335
27) HALF-ELF ROGUE : 1325
28) HUMAN SORCERER : 1324
29) DWARF BARBARIAN : 1323
30) HALF-ELF SORCERER : 1258
That's interesting as well. The top 9 combos are not "special snowflake" races, but the ones that have been around since the early days of the game. And there are only 4 "special snowflake" races in the top 30 (bolding mine).
Quote from: RPGPundit;1066672Take a look at the DnD tag on twitter and all you'll see is hipster kids showing off drawings of their totally non-human orange or red or blue or purple thing, which they'll call 'my boi' or 'this cutie' or whatever, to the point where you wonder whether the fuck they've ever had them inside a dungeon or their whole campaign is just about the characters eating cake while complaining about the patriarchy.
I get the impression that they don't actually play, and just want to show off their (usually bad) drawing of their (completely unoriginal, boring) character.
It's certainly odd, but what bugs me more is when they're wearing these elaborate outfits and dresses that you'd never wear into the dungeon in the first place due to cost and how impractical they'd be (and also because the cost of fancy custom clothing is probably outside of your price range at 1st-level anyway).
QuoteSo what do you think about modern D&D having all these kids playing tieflings, aasimar, genasi, tabaxi, dragonborn etc.?
Is it 'special snowflakeism'? Does it let them show off their (mostly imagined) non-conformity by all doing the exact same thing?
I don't have a problem with a lot of those races
in theory (they could make sense in a given setting), but also think that it
can be a case of special snowflakism.
I've tried to run campaigns where I restricted classes and races to those that I felt made sense for the setting, and had players piss and moan, possibly
just because I said, "This class doesn't fit" or "This race would be exceedingly rare", that they wanted to play that restricted class and/or rare race. As if that just so happened to be the
one thing they were hoping to play the entire time.
Over 10 years ago I tried running Age of Worms in 3rd Edition
Eberron, which has warforged (kind of like golems), kalashtar (humans with psionic spirits), changelings (like doppelgangers but you can't change your clothes at will), and shifters (you're like a quarter or half therianthrope). I
would have allowed all of those since it's all part of the setting, but that apparently wasn't "unique" enough for one player, who argued with me for
hours because I wouldn't let him play some bizarre winged half-dragon tiefling monk
at 1st-level. He didn't even want to gradually level up and gain all of the shit he'd have: he wanted it all at the start, so he could fly and breath fire and show off to everyone.
I think a big part of it is that they couldn't come up with an actually interesting character, so overcompensate by making it as "cool" and "unique" as possible.
QuoteBut is it basically harmless? Does it add to the game? or make it worse?
I think it's mostly harmless,
can add to the game in certain circumstances, but can also make it worse. Really depends on the campaign you want to run and your players.
Quote from: jhkim;1066899Well, among the combos, tiefling warlock is #10 and dragonborn paladin is #20. The top thirty combos are:
1) HUMAN FIGHTER : 4888
2) ELF RANGER : 3076
3) ELF WIZARD : 2744
4) HUMAN WIZARD : 2568
5) HUMAN ROGUE : 2542
6) HUMAN CLERIC : 2339
7) HUMAN PALADIN : 2326
8) ELF ROGUE : 2257
9) DWARF CLERIC : 2199
10) TIEFLING WARLOCK : 2188
11) DWARF FIGHTER : 2009
12) HUMAN MONK : 1946
13) HALF-ELF BARD : 1808
14) HALFLING ROGUE : 1797
15) ELF DRUID : 1779
16) GOLIATH BARBARIAN : 1729
17) HUMAN RANGER : 1715
18) HUMAN WARLOCK : 1714
19) HALF-ORC BARBARIAN : 1709
20) DRAGONBORN PALADIN : 1688
21) HUMAN BARD : 1454
22) HUMAN BARBARIAN : 1435
23) HALF-ELF WARLOCK : 1401
24) GNOME WIZARD : 1360
25) ELF MONK : 1349
26) DRAGONBORN FIGHTER : 1335
27) HALF-ELF ROGUE : 1325
28) HUMAN SORCERER : 1324
29) DWARF BARBARIAN : 1323
30) HALF-ELF SORCERER : 1258
The only way I can see anything like that happening in AL is if all of those Humans were Variant Humans.
Can I get a definition, please? What do people mean by 'Special Snowflake'? And how is it disruptive to a game?
For ME, an attention hog is not limited to the non-standard races, they can be loud with any race/class combo. So can I get what people are using Special Snowflake for?
Honest query.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1066907Can I get a definition, please? What do people mean by 'Special Snowflake'? And how is it disruptive to a game?
For ME, an attention hog is not limited to the non-standard races, they can be loud with any race/class combo. So can I get what people are using Special Snowflake for?
Honest query.
I use it for something that doesn't fit into the flavor of the rest of the setting and/or requires lots of houseruling or fiat to make work. The 5e player that wanted to play a (fucking Variant) Human Fighter (Cavalier) in fairly by-the-book Forgotten Realms didn't seem like a snowflake until he expressed that he wanted to have a motorcycle as his mount (from the start of the game) and that planned to play like the character like an outlaw biker...
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1066907Can I get a definition, please? What do people mean by 'Special Snowflake'? And how is it disruptive to a game?
.
The term originates in the idea that every snowflake (the Ice crystals, not the people) is unique. There are a depressingly bog standard set of personality types among people that insist they are special and unique, so it is common to insult them by referring to the Unique Snowflake, as the uniqueness of an individual snowflake is not readily apparent to the naked eye.
So players wanting to play a rare and often rule-breakingly special 'Race' are trying to revel in their uniqueness, just like a Snowflake.
Seriously, brah. This is third grader level metaphor.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1066909I use it for something that doesn't fit into the flavor of the rest of the setting and/or requires lots of houseruling or fiat to make work. The 5e player that wanted to play a (fucking Variant) Human Fighter (Cavalier) in fairly by-the-book Forgotten Realms didn't seem like a snowflake until he expressed that he wanted to have a motorcycle as his mount (from the start of the game) and that planned to play like the character like an outlaw biker...
What was he using as fuel? That proves my point, though. It doesn't matter what a player makes, it's how it's used.
I was going to apologise for warping the stats for Human Fighters, seeing how many of them I played in 3E...
But then I could point out that my favorite 3e race was, for a time, Aasimar. For those times I wasn't playing a Human Fighter, if a GM allowed LA races. No idea why, other than I just like the concept.
Our current 5e game features:
· Human Cleric
· Human Ranger
· Human Fighter
· Sun Elf Fighter (arcane archer)
· Dragonborn Fighter (played by my 9 year old daughter).
If anything, humans are still the most commonly played race at our table. +1 to all stats and the option for the variant option is hard for us to pass up apparently.
As to whether or not all these races dilute the game or make people 'snowflakes' - I'd have to say no. They're just options that the DM can include or exclude as they please. Hells didn't Gygax have a friend play a Pit Fiend in a game? Its Ok for people to like things even if others don't.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1066909The 5e player that wanted to play a (fucking Variant) Human
At the risk of a 5E tangent, what idiot decided to make the standard Human from previous editions a "Variant"?
Quote from: Kiero;1066935At the risk of a 5E tangent, what idiot decided to make the standard Human from previous editions a "Variant"?
When feats became an optional variant, anything that interacted with that bit of system had to follow suit.
ETA: feel free to put scare quotes around anything in that sentence to fit your individual needs ;)
Quote from: Kiero;1066935At the risk of a 5E tangent, what idiot decided to make the standard Human from previous editions a "Variant"?
Actually, it makes sense given that the developers decided to make feats optional for 5e (everyone I know uses them anyway, but theoretically it allows for a more old-school feel to not have them). As such, they needed to design a human who was not reliant on feats as the standard, and the one who gets a bonus feat as the variant available if feats are enabled.
Honestly, the few times I've played I did actually consider playing the 'default' human once... I'd rolled a 17, 15, 13, 13, 11, 12 so the +1 to all stats would have been AMAZING. Ultimately I chose the variant anyway as the bonus feat let me pick up the fire bolt cantrip, which along with all the overt spells (vs. ones that could be passed off as luck/encouragement) was the work of the tiny invisible pet dragon (who may, or may not, be imaginary) who accompanied my bard (who thought he was a fighter).
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1066915What was he using as fuel? That proves my point, though. It doesn't matter what a player makes, it's how it's used.
Exactly. But some players and apparently especially not-players have gotten it in their head that "playing something different" = "ooh ohh look at me! Im special!"
Its especially pathetic looking at the various posts here from posters who bitch incessantly about how people are no longer being
creative or imaginative or trying new things for fun. And then spit on people who are being
creative, imaginative, and trying new things for fun.
Gotta admit, I never really got the disconnect between OSR, which is fairly well known for being associated with gonzo fantasy, and the hatred towards playing non-Tolkien races.
Players playing as odd, fantastical creatures has been a thing since the beginning of the hobby. The proliferation of the internet has just made the more visually impacting characters stand out a lot more.
Quote from: Broken Twin;1066947Gotta admit, I never really got the disconnect between OSR, which is fairly well known for being associated with gonzo fantasy, and the hatred towards playing non-Tolkien races.
Players playing as odd, fantastical creatures has been a thing since the beginning of the hobby. The proliferation of the internet has just made the more visually impacting characters stand out a lot more.
You've obviously never seen the fantasy menagerie or travelling circus that many D&D parties are in contrast to the world they inhabit. Where they are not even remotely representative of demographics, but instead contain one each of all the supposedly rare species that exist, and have none of the common ones.
Quote from: Kiero;1066956You've obviously never seen the fantasy menagerie or travelling circus that many D&D parties are in contrast to the world they inhabit. Where they are not even remotely representative of demographics, but instead contain one each of all the supposedly rare species that exist, and have none of the common ones.
Wait: are you saying that random collections of murder-hobos should be made up of the normal people, and not the weirdos and freaks?
Quote from: Aglondir;1066895But what really amazes me, to the point of non-belief, is that human fighters are the most popular choice.
The thing is, it's probably bullshit. This graph shows a count of each type of character
created in D&D Beyond. Not
played. Because D&D Beyond is a software service, most people that sign up will experiment with the service before building any character they want to play. I would wager that "Human" and "Fighter" are the boxes that are checked by default (or first on the list), and new users often just clicked through to see what the process was like -- inadvertently "creating" a human fighter in the process -- before starting in on their real character.
Quote from: Zalman;1066962The thing is, it's probably bullshit. This graph shows a count of each type of character created in D&D Beyond. Not played. Because D&D Beyond is a software service, most people that sign up will experiment with the service before building any character they want to play. I would wager that "Human" and "Fighter" are the boxes that are checked by default (or first on the list), and new users often just clicked through to see what the process was like -- inadvertently "creating" a human fighter in the process -- before starting in on their real character.
There are no defaults. There are drop down menu in alphabetical order. Neither Human nor Fighter is at the top.
It is free for limited use so you could ....try it yourself, with parental permission.
This is literally the stupidest thing to complain about in other peoples dnd games. Why do you give a shit? Not your table and not your rules, mate.
Stop gatekeeping.
Quote from: MonsterSlayer;1066965There are no defaults. There are drop down menu in alphabetical order. Neither Human nor Fighter is at the top.
It is free for limited use so you could ....try it yourself, with parental permission.
This is complete bullshit. What the hell are you doing bringing data and facts into the discussion!!
:-)
But seriously, the data might not be 100% accurate - but I think it at least disproves this thread's subject line "no one in 5e plays humans, dwarves, elves or halflings anymore".
Quote from: Kiero;1066956You've obviously never seen the fantasy menagerie or travelling circus that many D&D parties are in contrast to the world they inhabit. Where they are not even remotely representative of demographics, but instead contain one each of all the supposedly rare species that exist, and have none of the common ones.
As Spike says, there's no reason that an adventuring party should necessarily be representative of people off the street. Wizards are very rare in the population, for example.
I do think there's a common problem particularly in D&D of creating a party who have no connection to each other or reason to be companions. I prefer to start character creation by creating a group template and common cause or reason bringing them together.
Yeah, the vast majority of the "random grouping of unrelated strangers" problem exists regardless of the ancestries of the strangers in question, and is usually best solved by proper usage of a Session 0.
Quote from: Broken Twin;1066947Gotta admit, I never really got the disconnect between OSR, which is fairly well known for being associated with gonzo fantasy, and the hatred towards playing non-Tolkien races.
Players playing as odd, fantastical creatures has been a thing since the beginning of the hobby. The proliferation of the internet has just made the more visually impacting characters stand out a lot more.
Because the OSR is a gate keeping community who love to preach 'their way is the right way', and yet as another thread proves, they can't even agree on that end.
Quote from: FeloniousMonk;1066968This is literally the stupidest thing to complain about in other peoples dnd games. Why do you give a shit? Not your table and not your rules, mate.
Stop gatekeeping.
Welcome to the OSR. And I've been saying that since I've heard of it. OSR is about gatekeeping certain types of D&D players 'out of their side' of the hobby, despite it all being D&D. It's edition warring, without actually calling it that.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3083[/ATTACH]
Happily protecting the goodrightfun since 1999. :) Muwaha ha ha ha! :cool:
Quote from: RPGPundit;1066672Take a look at the DnD tag on twitter
This was your most heinous and unforgivable mistake.
You took something on Twitter seriously.
To give 4E (the edition that made Dragonborn and Tieflings core races) credit, its Nentir Vale setting wove both Dragonborn and Tieflings pretty well into the setting's backstory; arguably better than it did for elves, dwarves and halflings (both also got their own 60-ish page books devoted to their lore and place in the world).
Dragonborn get a rather mythic creation myth; when the dragon god Io was cleaved in two (the the halves becoming Bahamut and Tiamat) during the Dawn War, the Dragonborn were born wherever his blood spilled upon the Earth. While the chromatic and metallic dragons (created by Io before his demise) were naturally drawn to the aspect of Io that most resembled them, the Dragonborn being born of neither half were free to choose between good and evil.
Eventually the Dragonborn founded the Arkosian Empire which sought to conquer its neighbor, the human kingdom of Bael Torath. On the verge of losing, the desperate leaders of Bael Torath turned to the dark god Asmodeus to destroy the Arkosian Empire. In a dread month-long ritual involving mass sacrifices, Asmodeus infused the nobles of Bael Torath and all their vassals and descendants with a bit of his fallen divine essence... transforming them into Tieflings.
Then Asmodeus carried out their poorly worded will. True to the letter of the bargain the Arkosian Empire was shattered, but that destruction also obliterated Arkosia's neighbors as well... destroying Bael Torath as well. The survivors of the other neighboring kingdoms blamed the Tieflings for the devestation and that blood libel has been carried to one degree or another ever since.
It also cleared the decks so that the kingdom of Neranth could one day rise to become one of the most powerful empires in history (until it too collapsed just a hundred years before the present day of the campaign world... leaving its border colonies in the Nentir Vale to fend for themselves and in desperate need of heroes).
Honestly, in the Nentir Vale setting Dragonborn and Tieflings make more sense as PC races than a lot of the bog standard D&D races do. Hell, halflings don't get much development beyond being river nomads (so they're in the Nentir Vale because it has rivers they can travel and trade on).
Which I think goes back to the point a few pages back that the problem isn't so much weird creatures as PCs, it's that in a lot of settings there's little consideration given to that race's actual place in the world.
Quote from: Chris24601;1067042Which I think goes back to the point a few pages back that the problem isn't so much weird creatures as PCs, it's that in a lot of settings there's little consideration given to that race's actual place in the world.
I agree. I also feel that this gets made harder the more races they try to shoehorn into a setting. Honestly, the Ravnica setting at least dispenses with some of the classic D&D races in order to make room for its unique ones (OK, really because that's what was in the cards), so I have to give it some credit. OTOH, settings like Eberron expressly say that everything in D&D is found in the setting, and this isn't really a positive thing.
Quote from: Omega;1067037This was your most heinous and unforgivable mistake.
You took something on Twitter seriously.
Dndgate is literally also stupid. This is Pundit trying to politicize a hashtag as he is pointing his finger at SJW for politicizing dndgate. Empty rhetoric across both sides.
Quote from: Baulderstone;1066787Gygax would weep to see the carefully constructed ecology of the world presented is his original Monster Manual turning into a mish-mash of influences. Next they will be tossing in crashed spaceships, crossing it over with tonally different works like those of Lewis Carroll, or allowing people to play balrogs.
And Edgar Rice Burroughs--there were wandering monster charts for Barsoom (but no stats for them); I played a green martian in an OD&D campaign. Second favorite character, behind an elf character. Add in that the original rules for the Reincarnation spell gave you a random monster or humanoid. One player's character ended up a giant squid but didn't really get any adventuring opportunities.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1066789I just want to say, the majority of players *aren't* like this, but it's when you play Adventurer's League that you're basically playing Russian Roulette. It's like taking a dive into the YouTube comment section for inspiring discourse. Often the people that play AL exclusively, are the kinds that are too dysfunctional to participate in a real group and got kicked out, or don't want to bother with any continuity and just hoard loot and EXP.
That said, there are plenty of good folks out there, but it's definitely trying to find a diamond in the rough.
I've played in a lot of AL games. I have not met anyone I would describe as a bad person; certainly none as bad as the haters you can find here. Don't be a hater, mAcular Chaotic.
In fairness, I gather that some people here have had bad experiences in AL that seem to stem from poor organizers. Good organizers would clean it up. No organizer, like the non-organized play everyone here seems to laud, would seem
more prone to being Russian roulette; but maybe if you never play with anyone you haven't already played with for decades you'll be OK. Maybe.
Quote from: MonsterSlayer;1066678No, we are just getting old.
We were raised on READING Tolkien and such.
These kids were raised on WATCHING Pokemon, My Little Pony, Phineas and Ferb, and such. Games like Skyrim have let these kids play cat people and lizard men for years even in a setting that is fairly traditional.
Tabaxi and Dragonborn are more the norm in my open library games than the wood elf or mountain dwarf.
We either yell "Get off my lawn!" or just roll with it.
Or you can use stuff like Game of Thrones to encourage newbs to see the virtues of a human-only campaign.
Quote from: Mistwell;1066841Data disagrees with your guessimate (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-your-dd-character-rare/).
Does it? Because for starters D&D Beyond is not necessarily where the new-wave players are mostly hanging out. There's likely to be a larger percentage of long-term players who will tend to play more conventional races.
And yet,
even with all that, there's still 31.94% of players on there making non-conventional races. Nearly one-third of players on D&D beyond making weirdo races, and they don't even have tabaxi there as an option!
Quote from: Omega;1066676As for people making up their odd characters. Thats been a part of D&D since the get-go. A Balrog? A Vampire? those were some early characters.
Gygax was soft. He should have slapped Mike M down the moment he gave voice to that stupid idea. Melt the snowflakes with the fire of righteous DM fury! The hobby would have been better for it. Start as you mean to go on.
Oh, and real gamers don't twitter.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1067831Does it? Because for starters D&D Beyond is not necessarily where the new-wave players are mostly hanging out. There's likely to be a larger percentage of long-term players who will tend to play more conventional races.
And yet, even with all that, there's still 31.94% of players on there making non-conventional races. Nearly one-third of players on D&D beyond making weirdo races, and they don't even have tabaxi there as an option!
OK, I'm comparing the thread title with this.
1) "Apparently no one in 5e plays humans, dwarves, elves or halflings anymore."
vs.
2) "Nearly one-third of players on D&D beyond making weirdo races"
Quote from: RPGPundit;1067827Or you can use stuff like Game of Thrones to encourage newbs to see the virtues of a human-only campaign.
Useful if the world you're playing in is (largely) human-only, but it doesn't seem so fitting if the world has been established as having many other races/species/ancestries other than human that live among the humans. For example, I wouldn't try to push a human-only gaming experience in Earthdawn or Shadowrun, but I would love to run a Conan game where humans are the only option.
Quote from: Aglondir;1066895Thanks for that link, that is awesome. It confirms theee of my anecdotal observations-- the dragonborn paladin, elf ranger, and especially the tiefling warlock-- are popular 5E combos. But what really amazes me, to the point of non-belief, is that human fighters are the most popular choice.
That's because human fighters are the best race/class combination in D&D. Always have been, always will be.
Quote from: FeloniousMonk;1066968This is literally the stupidest thing to complain about in other peoples dnd games. Why do you give a shit? Not your table and not your rules, mate.
Stop gatekeeping.
So now "gatekeeping" is complaining about a bunch of kids on an Internet messageboard? Dude, get a grip.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1067827Or you can use stuff like Game of Thrones to encourage newbs to see the virtues of a human-only campaign.
Again, I hear you and would probably rather play in "your" game rather than the ones I tend to run. Do not get me wrong, I love what I get to play but it is not my perfect choice.
That said:
1) I'm not suggesting to a 11-17 year old they go read or watch any Game of Thrones. I have numerous kids from grade to high school coming in to the library to play. The first time little darling asks mommy about Martin's incest fetish because I suggested a "good read", I'm out of a library gig.
2) Kids are savvy. Most of them have already gotten online and researched what they want to play (gnarly Tiefling Warlock dude!) before they come to the first game. The cat is out of the bag before I can even suggest a "human only" campaign.
And that's ok. I have accepted that not every game of D&D has to be the perfect idea of my campaign world. I would much rather be playing "Conan" than "Harry Potter goes to Waterdeep". But to steal a phrase from the fishing community: "The worst day playing D&D is still better than the best day working"
I can still have fun even if the kids want to play purple haired minotaurs or a bird person from the closest prison in the campaign world. Sometimes I laugh and think about the silly crap I would have thrown on the table at that age. But I don't take it home with me.
Quote from: Brad;1067852That's because human fighters are the best race/class combination in D&D. Always have been, always will be.
3e/3.5e says hi! It took Tome of Battle near the end of the run to fix the fighter (i.e. the warblade class) into anything other than a joke.
QuoteSo now "gatekeeping" is complaining about a bunch of kids on an Internet messageboard? Dude, get a grip.
Except this is an ongoing trend with Pundit declaring entire playstyles wrong/illegitimate/not real roleplaying. One gets the impression sometimes that Pundit's real beef with the SJW crew is that they're the ones in charge of the gatekeeping and not him because he'd gatekeep just as much based on his ideas of what is "true roleplaying".
He alienates a lot of people he doesn't have to because of continual jabs at anyone not playing a human-only (1e races if you HAVE to) sandbox in the standard of AD&D or B/X is doing it wrong and unknowingly playing into the hands of the SIWs (i.e. "they taught you wrong on purpose" implying sinister intent to anyone who plays differently than him).
I appreciate his commitment to free speech, but he's his own worst enemy sometimes and I know from PMs he's driven off more than a few people who would otherwise be good fits (i.e. care about gaming and not politics) with his absolutism.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1067827Or you can use stuff like Game of Thrones to encourage newbs to see the virtues of a human-only campaign.
I thought the goal was to get them to want to play... :D
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1067867I thought the goal was to get them to want to play... :D
The
real purpose of old-school D&D is to learn how to die, thus training to confront the bleak and uncaring universe with your own unfettered freedom and Will to Power.
(I wish I could be certain I was joking. :( )
Quote from: RPGPundit;1067831And yet, even with all that, there's still 31.94% of players on there making non-conventional races. Nearly one-third of players on D&D beyond making weirdo races, and they don't even have tabaxi there as an option!
Oh heavens? One whole third? So at any given table, I might have 4 humans and a dragonborn and a tiefling?! That party sure would look... pretty darn normal. A bunch of humans and two "special/unique" (whatever term you want there) characters. ...so just fancier/more dressed up dwarves and elves when they get to the costuming department.
Quote from: Kiero;1066956You've obviously never seen the fantasy menagerie or travelling circus that many D&D parties are in contrast to the world they inhabit. Where they are not even remotely representative of demographics, but instead contain one each of all the supposedly rare species that exist, and have none of the common ones.
Have you ever considered reflecting that in the campaign world? Make all the races they choose the common ones, and dump all the rest. Nobody wants to play a human, halfling, dwarf or elf? Bye-bye.
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1067867I thought the goal was to get them to want to play... :D
You know the goal (and goalposts) will just keep moving as the thread goes on. If it's people having fun doing things Pundy doesn't personally like, there'll be a reason it's tantamount to the downfall of civilization.
Man, that joke fell flat.
Quote from: Chris24601;10678653e/3.5e says hi! It took Tome of Battle near the end of the run to fix the fighter (i.e. the warblade class) into anything other than a joke.
You're equating my use of "better" with "mechanically advantageous". They have nothing to do with one another.
QuoteExcept this is an ongoing trend with Pundit declaring entire playstyles wrong/illegitimate/not real roleplaying. One gets the impression sometimes that Pundit's real beef with the SJW crew is that they're the ones in charge of the gatekeeping and not him because he'd gatekeep just as much based on his ideas of what is "true roleplaying".
He alienates a lot of people he doesn't have to because of continual jabs at anyone not playing a human-only (1e races if you HAVE to) sandbox in the standard of AD&D or B/X is doing it wrong and unknowingly playing into the hands of the SIWs (i.e. "they taught you wrong on purpose" implying sinister intent to anyone who plays differently than him).
I appreciate his commitment to free speech, but he's his own worst enemy sometimes and I know from PMs he's driven off more than a few people who would otherwise be good fits (i.e. care about gaming and not politics) with his absolutism.
Well, quite honestly, all those stupid races can rightly fuck off. Is it gatekeeping for me to say that people who want to play dragonborn in a normal D&D campaign are just fucking it up?
Quote from: Kiero;1066956You've obviously never seen the fantasy menagerie or travelling circus that many D&D parties are in contrast to the world they inhabit. Where they are not even remotely representative of demographics, but instead contain one each of all the supposedly rare species that exist, and have none of the common ones.
Quote from: Pat;1067880Have you ever considered reflecting that in the campaign world? Make all the races they choose the common ones, and dump all the rest. Nobody wants to play a human, halfling, dwarf or elf? Bye-bye.
For that matter, consider the demographics of veteran warriors, miracle-working priests and wizards capable of practical magic in comparison to the world they inhabit... warriors in general were in the roughly 1% club (so veterans would be a fraction of that), priests were in the 1-in-1000 range (monks, sisters, deacons and the like were more like 1-in-50, but I figure clerics should be at least "priest" level rare) and there's no real way to measure wizards with practical magic in the real world, but probably also in the 1-in-1000 range.
Frankly, if there's an entire kingdom inhabited by a given species (dragonborn or tieflings for example) somewhere on the continent, the odds of meeting a traveling one is probably no rarer than meeting a wizard and they're going to have veteran warriors, priests and wizards too.
Quote from: Brad;1067899You're equating my use of "better" with "mechanically advantageous". They have nothing to do with one another.
Actually, I was equating "better" with able to do anything meaningful in a party of other adventurers.
Fighters in 3e have crap skills (and an even crappier skill list), awful saves, largely useless feats (at level 20 you're still choosing from a list of abilities that were barely solid for a level 6 character) and because of how full attacks work in 3e can't even dish out reliable damage if their target moves more than 10 feet away from them during their turn. You are absolutely better in all situations having a barbarian, ranger or even a rogue in your party than a fighter.
Hell, the Expert NPC class is considered to be as good an addition to a party as a 3e fighter would be.
Quote from: Brad;1067899Well, quite honestly, all those stupid races can rightly fuck off. Is it gatekeeping for me to say that people who want to play dragonborn in a normal D&D campaign are just fucking it up?
Yes. Yes it is. Just because it doesn't meet your tastes doesn't mean its not a fun roleplaying experience for others.
This is why, despite the game I'm designing being 95% in line with OSR sensibilities, I'd NEVER market it as something OSR... because most of the OSR ("Honorable" and otherwise) has turned into a bunch of fucking awful gatekeepers who look down their noses at anyone who doesn't play the way they think they should.
Congratulations to both sides on making OSR a toxic brand.
Quote from: Brad;1067899Well, quite honestly, all those stupid races can rightly fuck off. Is it gatekeeping for me to say that people who want to play dragonborn in a normal D&D campaign are just fucking it up?
Yes.
There's something to be said for the idea that the perfect time to run a snowflake race is under a DM that hates when you do it. If you play something thats supposed to be viscerally unique and then, in game, nothing's really different than if you were playing a human... It loses a certain something. The only tiefling in 500 miles walks into a bar in a city he's never been to and everyone treats him all normal...
But a gm who hates schmancy races seems ideal for bringing the appropriate level of antischmancy gravitas to the behavior of local npcs.
Thats sort of the only time I think of funky races as snowflakey, when a player expects to have all the advantages of the fancy race, but none of the blowback.
Quote from: MonsterSlayer;1067854I have accepted that not every game of D&D has to be the perfect idea of my campaign world. I would much rather be playing "Conan" than "Harry Potter goes to Waterdeep". But to steal a phrase from the fishing community: "The worst day playing D&D is still better than the best day working"
No! This forum has established as an article of faith of GoodRightFun that "
No gaming is better than bad gaming", an absolute principle that must never ever be compromised! You must demand a human only campaign, loudly! Stomp out if there's even one human who is a sorcerer with the draconic bloodline! Familiars must be humans! Paladin steeds must be humans! All treasure chests must be the actual bloody chests of humans! If you can't play Dungeons & Humans and nothing else, you must take your dice and your all-human miniature figures and GO HOME! :mad:
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1067896Man, that joke fell flat.
I haven't even posted it yet and already the reviews are bad. :(
Gabe from interparty conflict recently pined for a warforged warlock. They're calling it the Forgelock.
I don't think the OP's observation is anything new. Talislanta may have marketed itself as the "no elves" game, but it also had a distinct lack of humans, dwarves, halflings, etc. You basically played creatures created straight out of Jim Henson's workshop.
Quote from: FeloniousMonk;1067912Yes.
You just told me that it's "not my table", so maybe you just need to shut the fuck up and let me run my games how I want. Right?
Quote from: Chris24601;1067903For that matter, consider the demographics of veteran warriors, miracle-working priests and wizards capable of practical magic in comparison to the world they inhabit... warriors in general were in the roughly 1% club (so veterans would be a fraction of that), priests were in the 1-in-1000 range (monks, sisters, deacons and the like were more like 1-in-50, but I figure clerics should be at least "priest" level rare) and there's no real way to measure wizards with practical magic in the real world, but probably also in the 1-in-1000 range.
Frankly, if there's an entire kingdom inhabited by a given species (dragonborn or tieflings for example) somewhere on the continent, the odds of meeting a traveling one is probably no rarer than meeting a wizard and they're going to have veteran warriors, priests and wizards too.
Actually, I was equating "better" with able to do anything meaningful in a party of other adventurers.
Fighters in 3e have crap skills (and an even crappier skill list), awful saves, largely useless feats (at level 20 you're still choosing from a list of abilities that were barely solid for a level 6 character) and because of how full attacks work in 3e can't even dish out reliable damage if their target moves more than 10 feet away from them during their turn. You are absolutely better in all situations having a barbarian, ranger or even a rogue in your party than a fighter.
Hell, the Expert NPC class is considered to be as good an addition to a party as a 3e fighter would be.
Yes. Yes it is. Just because it doesn't meet your tastes doesn't mean its not a fun roleplaying experience for others.
This is why, despite the game I'm designing being 95% in line with OSR sensibilities, I'd NEVER market it as something OSR... because most of the OSR ("Honorable" and otherwise) has turned into a bunch of fucking awful gatekeepers who look down their noses at anyone who doesn't play the way they think they should.
Congratulations to both sides on making OSR a toxic brand.
Oh look, another person telling me I'm not allowed to have an opinion about rpgs. Is "gatekeeper" just a buzzword for someone who won't play with you? Like, start your own stupid fucking game. I could care less if a bunch of idiots want to play D&D in a way I think is stupid. Conversely, I'm under no obligation to play with them.
Quote from: Brad;1067936You just told me that it's "not my table", so maybe you just need to shut the fuck up and let me run my games how I want. Right?
A lot of anger there, snowflake.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1067827Or you can use stuff like Game of Thrones to encourage newbs to see the virtues of a human-only campaign.
Because incest, rape and regicide are the reason people play D&D.
Quote from: SavageSchemer;1067927I don't think the OP's observation is anything new. Talislanta may have marketed itself as the "no elves" game, but it also had a distinct lack of humans, dwarves, halflings, etc. You basically played creatures created straight out of Jim Henson's workshop.
My dimension hopping party really needs to visit the planet of the muppets... On a related note... So does the new doctor who.
Quote from: Brad;1067937Oh look, another person telling me I'm not allowed to have an opinion about rpgs. Is "gatekeeper" just a buzzword for someone who won't play with you? Like, start your own stupid fucking game. I could care less if a bunch of idiots want to play D&D in a way I think is stupid. Conversely, I'm under no obligation to play with them.
No, its a term for someone who is declaring whole playstyles "badwrongfun" because they don't agree with you. You didn't declare, "I prefer this." You declared that anyone who doesn't play your way is "fucking up" D&D. That the game would be better off without players who like those things in it.
THAT is gatekeeping. You are saying "That way of playing is NOT D&D/Not Real Roleplaying and the things they like need to be driven from the hobby." Its obnoxious crap like that which drives potential recruits from this section of the hobby into the arms of the SJW types. You're ceding whole categories of potential players to toxic control freaks because you'd rather limit the inhuman creatures to pointy ears and bearded ladies and declare that playing a goblin or kobold or dragonborn, even if those things are all sapient creatures that live in the world in sufficient numbers to have cultures, is "badwrongfun" and that you're a bad roleplayer if you like that stuff instead what you like.
My opinion is "play what you want." While you claim that is what you believe, you insist on throwing in the caveat that you can only do that if you acknowledge that you are doing it wrong if its not done to your preference. I don't have that caveat... I just acknowledge its not to my tastes, but there's nothing wrong with it.
The really funny thing in this? I only play humans (and the occasional half-elf) and I'd be perfectly happy in a human only or 1e races only game, but I also understand that the RPG community is bigger than just what I enjoy. If someone wants to play a Bugbear Warlock, more power to them. I'll even play in a game with them if they're not a jerk.
I admit to being a bit jerk on these boards. Granted more than a little on these boards. I have the stones to admit it.
What bothers me more than DMs refusing to allow players to play more than the core. Is people going on a message boards doing the internet equivalent of running their mouth. Then acting shocked... shocked they say when they get any negative pushback of any kind. If one does not want pushback then don't post publicly on a forum where it's seen by everyone. Sure in the imaginary worlds that they create in their heads no one dares to criticize back. In reality where we all live one does not post anything and everything no matter how inflammatory it is then get bothered by negative feedback. Honestly almost no one cares. I understand and respect not wanting to allow more than the core races. I will not respect a fellow gamer or DM who acts like playing a non-core races ruins D&D completely. If it was that simple and most DMs so easily triggered and offended by it. The hobby would have died with 1E D&D.
I usually played human pre-3E D&D not for any real love of the race. Simply because of no level limit. When I played or will play a non-human race in say 2E I play the class that has the highest level limit. Sometimes certain DMs wanted to play an all Dwarf or Elf campaign myself and others said yes only if the level limits were removed. Otherwise we refused. The DM is under no obligation to allow me to play without level limits. I'm under no obligation either to play a demi-human race with level limits. I don't allow every race and it needs to be at least an uncommon race. As some races can be mechanically superior than the core and possibly cause issues at the table. I respectfully decline in many cases. The player can accept it or move one. If a fellow DM wants to get on my bad side go into a rant as a DM how bad non-core races are then as a player take one. No hypocrisy there not at all.
As for better and mechanically advantageous it's the same damn thing. Claiming one is different than the other is just semantics imo.
Quote from: Chris24601;1067903Congratulations to both sides on making OSR a toxic brand.
The only people contributing to any toxicity in the OSR are the whiny fucks who continually bitch about toxicity in the OSR.
Quote from: kythri;1067975The only people contributing to any toxicity in the OSR are the whiny fucks who continually bitch about toxicity in the OSR.
Right, despite the hilarious fact that it's at war with itself.
It's a gate keeping movement anyway, all the people who play 'the right way' belong in the OSR, every other wrongthinker isn't one of US.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1067976Right, despite the hilarious fact that it's at war with itself.
It's a gate keeping movement anyway, all the people who play 'the right way' belong in the OSR, every other wrongthinker isn't one of US.
Gatekeeping is such a spurious charge, as well. There is literally nobody in the hobby preventing anyone from buying what they want, running it how they want, playing it how they want. People on the Internet can say whatever they want, but their words hold absolutely no authority on anything.
In regards to peeople on the Internet, there is no such thing as gatekeeping when it comes to playing games.
The only real gatekeeping being done is banning of people from conventions or similar/associated arenas - quite literally, closing the gate on those folks - and that's being done by the assholes who bitch the most about gatekeeping, those currently in positions of relative authority in the industry.
Quote from: kythri;1067979Gatekeeping is such a spurious charge, as well. There is literally nobody in the hobby preventing anyone from buying what they want, running it how they want, playing it how they want. People on the Internet can say whatever they want, but their words hold absolutely no authority on anything.
In regards to peeople on the Internet, there is no such thing as gatekeeping when it comes to playing games.
Even it's not effective that doesn't mean it's not gatekeeping.
But if your assertions are correct, then there's no reason for whining endlessly on this forum about how awful rpg.net is; they're just saying things on the internet. Everyone, stop whining about rpg.net! Thanks!
What does any of this sad, pathetic whining about people playing RPGs the wrong way have to do with the OSR.
The Punditthing does not speak on behalf of The OSR (whatever that might be as any sort of organization, because such an organization does not exist.)
He froths, as far as I can tell, to generate sales. And a few, sad adults follow strange gnashing of teeth as if they have something of import to say about the state of the world.
This is all about pissing into the wind and feeling good for for feeling cranky about something. And, of course, about the enragement engine the Punditthing cranks up to no real purpose on occasion. But wiser people know better and ignore that.
But it has fuck all to do at the OSR, which demands, as the first games did, that you make up whatever crazy settings you want and play that shit.
Quote from: rawma;1067986Even it's not effective that doesn't mean it's not gatekeeping.
But if your assertions are correct, then there's no reason for whining endlessly on this forum about how awful rpg.net is; they're just saying things on the internet. Everyone, stop whining about rpg.net! Thanks!
Can we laugh at them?
Quote from: Ratman_tf;1067996Can we laugh at them?
I say laugh at everyone and everything you feels deserves it. Feel free to laugh at my game when it's done too if you think it deserves it.
Quote from: FeloniousMonk;1067942A lot of anger there, snowflake.
It's funny how when someone expresses an opinion you dislike, you call them angry. How about I just don't give a fuck what you think? How about that?
Quote from: Chris24601;1067961No, its a term for someone who is declaring whole playstyles "badwrongfun" because they don't agree with you. You didn't declare, "I prefer this." You declared that anyone who doesn't play your way is "fucking up" D&D. That the game would be better off without players who like those things in it.
THAT is gatekeeping. You are saying "That way of playing is NOT D&D/Not Real Roleplaying and the things they like need to be driven from the hobby." Its obnoxious crap like that which drives potential recruits from this section of the hobby into the arms of the SJW types. You're ceding whole categories of potential players to toxic control freaks because you'd rather limit the inhuman creatures to pointy ears and bearded ladies and declare that playing a goblin or kobold or dragonborn, even if those things are all sapient creatures that live in the world in sufficient numbers to have cultures, is "badwrongfun" and that you're a bad roleplayer if you like that stuff instead what you like.
My opinion is "play what you want." While you claim that is what you believe, you insist on throwing in the caveat that you can only do that if you acknowledge that you are doing it wrong if its not done to your preference. I don't have that caveat... I just acknowledge its not to my tastes, but there's nothing wrong with it.
The really funny thing in this? I only play humans (and the occasional half-elf) and I'd be perfectly happy in a human only or 1e races only game, but I also understand that the RPG community is bigger than just what I enjoy. If someone wants to play a Bugbear Warlock, more power to them. I'll even play in a game with them if they're not a jerk.
I can say whatever I want, whenever I want. I'm not keeping a single person from playing however they want except people who'd like to play in a campaign I'm running. I don't have any caveats; if you want to play a bunch of bullshit like dragonmen and catpeople, then yes, you're a retard. Can retards run their own games? Surely. But don't tell me I have to play with them, or accept their games as legitimate.
What the hell is so difficult about this for you to understand?
The fact that you are judging a bunch of people who are not playing pretend magic dragonmen in the same way you play pretend magic elfmen is the very definition of gatekeeping.
You do not have to play it or like it. But do not pretend there is a pecking order between the way you play pretend and the way others do.
Quote from: FeloniousMonk;1068016The fact that you are judging a bunch of people who are not playing pretend magic dragonmen in the same way you play pretend magic elfmen is the very definition of gatekeeping.
That's not gatekeeping.
Quote from: FeloniousMonk;1068016The fact that you are judging a bunch of people who are not playing pretend magic dragonmen in the same way you play pretend magic elfmen is the very definition of gatekeeping.
You do not have to play it or like it. But do not pretend there is a pecking order between the way you play pretend and the way others do.
Don't waste your time and do not feed the troll. Whatever point he was trying to make was lost once he compared those who have a different play style as retards. Poster get push back and everyone else who thinks differently is a retard, nazi etc. Don't post on forums if one is not going to like the response he or she is going to get.
I live to oppress you with my goodrightfun 4-races, 4-classes, Basic 5e D&D. :D Oppression! (In Imagination Land, no less? :eek: ) :p
FWIW, I had fun coming up with non-rogue halflings -- so as to fight against the tall-ocracy! :mad: -- when that 538 poll on D&D PC demographics came out. Pushed me out of the lazy "race as mere stat & bennies" build mentality that was creeping in from visiting the Giantitp forum. (That's right, I called you lazy, you filthy, badwrongfun heathen! :mad: ) It brings back happy PC memories. :)
Quote from: Baulderstone;1066787Gygax would weep to see the carefully constructed ecology of the world presented is his original Monster Manual turning into a mish-mash of influences. Next they will be tossing in crashed spaceships, crossing it over with tonally different works like those of Lewis Carroll, or allowing people to play balrogs.
:p Perish the thought!
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1067833Gygax was soft. He should have slapped Mike M down the moment he gave voice to that stupid idea. Melt the snowflakes with the fire of righteous DM fury! The hobby would have been better for it. Start as you mean to go on.
Oh, and real gamers don't twitter.
I have never had a twitter account or Facebook for that matter. Here is the breakdown of random murderhobos in my 5E campaign (we just played session 52 last week)
Lightfoot halfling (mostly) rogue
Human fighter (battle master)
Svirvneblin rogue/wizard
Wood elf druid
Human fighter (eldritch knight)
Goliath Paladin
LIzardfolk druid
My group has a mix of player ages. One is a millennial, one is even younger-age 15, and the others are all older players, a couple are older than me (49). Everyone is enjoying the character that they are playing so all is well.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;1068033:p Perish the thought!
I have never had a twitter account or Facebook for that matter. Here is the breakdown of random murderhobos in my 5E campaign (we just played session 52 last week)
Lightfoot halfling (mostly) rogue
Human fighter (battle master)
Svirvneblin rogue/wizard
Wood elf druid
Human fighter (eldritch knight)
Goliath Paladin
LIzardfolk druid
My group has a mix of player ages. One is a millennial, one is even younger-age 15, and the others are all older players, a couple are older than me (49). Everyone is enjoying the character that they are playing so all is well.
Notice how D&D and the rpg community as a whole is still intact. Apparently you and I are doing something wrong and mentally handicapped and so are your players for daring to play something other than core D&D races. Why no good reason really. Some play core only and some do not. One does not have to like it either position. Neither should one call anyone "retarded" or some other insult simply for not having the proper rebuttal on hand. Soem games depending on my mood are core only. Some I allow non-core races. Both are good nether is bad.
I also don't get the aboslute fear on this forum and others let alone the anti-tech phobia of using tablets and being online while doing gaming. Real gamers or should I say those who live in the present will use whatever tools needed to run, play and find players. Whether they be Twitter, Facebook and social media. I hate to tell some here but your coming across exactly Palladium books when they insisted for years that PDFs were a passing fad. Social media as a whole is not a passing fad. I recently sold off almost all my print rpgs. Beyond keeping only what is not in PDF or a few core books. From now on I'm showing up to a table with a tablet. Purchasing legal PDF as second hand sellers are insane with their prices. I'm not going to spend 40+ dollars on a 1E or 2E D&D players handbook when I can get both for 20$ or less if the PDF is on sale on their site. Either the visiting table provides a print copy for me to us or accepts my use of the tablet or I do not game.
As or the subject of gatekeeping it's less that and being more an grognard. Which is not a badge of honor imo. No one can stop anyone acting like one. Don't also be a hypocrite by being offended when you act like one and then people call you out for being one.
Quote from: sureshot;1068035I also don't get the aboslute fear on this forum and others let alone the anti-tech phobia of using tablets and being online while doing gaming. Real gamers or should I say those who live in the present will use whatever tools needed to run, play and find players. Whether they be Twitter, Facebook and social media. I hate to tell some here but your coming across exactly Palladium books when they insisted for years that PDFs were a passing fad. Social media as a whole is not a passing fad. I recently sold off almost all my print rpgs. Beyond keeping only what is not in PDF or a few core books. From now on I'm showing up to a table with a tablet. Purchasing legal PDF as second hand sellers are insane with their prices. I'm not going to spend 40+ dollars on a 1E or 2E D&D players handbook when I can get both for 20$ or less if the PDF is on sale on their site. Either the visiting table provides a print copy for me to us or accepts my use of the tablet or I do not game.
I don't care about the presence of screens at the table if someone wants to use that instead of paper but connection to the internet during a game is is a big NO. Game time is precious unconnected time. Someone who wants to keep checking their FB feed at the table can fuck off and play somewhere else.
Quote from: Exploderwizard;1068038I don't care about the presence of screens at the table if someone wants to use that instead of paper but connection to the internet during a game is is a big NO. Game time is precious unconnected time. Someone who wants to keep checking their FB feed at the table can fuck off and play somewhere else.
Obviously the tablet is there to be used as reference. Either to look at the character sheet or reference the PHB. Nothing else for me at least. As much as I prefer print. It's too expensive to buy older editions of D&D and the sourcebooks for those editions in print. As well as being heavy to carry and take up too much shelf space.
Quote from: sureshot;1068022Don't waste your time and do not feed the troll. Whatever point he was trying to make was lost once he compared those who have a different play style as retards. Poster get push back and everyone else who thinks differently is a retard, nazi etc. Don't post on forums if one is not going to like the response he or she is going to get.
This sounds like gatekeeping!!
I think it would be neat if someone made a game where the races / species differences were really enforced, so that rather than being better humans (immortal, low-light vision, magical), they were literally different creatures with radically different psychologies that were enforced manually. For example
Elves - must roll or 50% won't bother to help or assist anyone who is not immortal (why do their lives matter?), must roll or 50% of the time won't stop what they're doing to do something else.
Dwarves - must try to kill or scheme against someone who has betrayed them each game.
Bison and Sharks are very different creatures, but for some reason in kitchen-sink D&D type games the non-humans are just better humans.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1067831Does it? Because for starters D&D Beyond is not necessarily where the new-wave players are mostly hanging out
Except it is. I have no clue how you'd conclude otherwise. The Grognards are not using the new fangled pay-service which simply duplicates the stuff in their hardcopy books...that would be the new kids who like the online access stuff more than their books.
QuoteAnd yet, even with all that, there's still 31.94% of players on there making non-conventional races
The overwhelming majority are playing standard races. Less than 1/3 are not. And you're whining about that minority not playing your preferred races? Weak. Even weaker is claiming it was "Apparently no one in 5e plays humans, dwarves, elves or halflings anymore," for attention. You own the fucking board Pundy, you don't need to attention whore with intentionally deceptive thread titles to get attention. People will read and respond to your opinion even if you don't exaggerate the topic like the National Enquirer.
Quote from: Mistwell;1068066Except it is. I have no clue how you'd conclude otherwise. The Grognards are not using the new fangled pay-service which simply duplicates the stuff in their hardcopy books...that would be the new kids who like the online access stuff more than their books.
The overwhelming majority are playing standard races. Less than 1/3 are not. And you're whining about that minority not playing your preferred races? Weak. Even weaker is claiming it was "Apparently no one in 5e plays humans, dwarves, elves or halflings anymore," for attention. You own the fucking board Pundy, you don't need to attention whore with intentionally deceptive thread titles to get attention. People will read and respond to your opinion even if you don't exaggerate the topic like the National Enquirer.
I don't agree with Mistwell often, but in this case? 100%.
Quote from: PencilBoy99;1068049I think it would be neat if someone made a game where the races / species differences were really enforced, so that rather than being better humans (immortal, low-light vision, magical), they were literally different creatures with radically different psychologies that were enforced manually. For example
Elves - must roll or 50% won't bother to help or assist anyone who is not immortal (why do their lives matter?), must roll or 50% of the time won't stop what they're doing to do something else.
Dwarves - must try to kill or scheme against someone who has betrayed them each game.
Bison and Sharks are very different creatures, but for some reason in kitchen-sink D&D type games the non-humans are just better humans.
Greetings!
Hey PencilBoy99! I agree that the different races should be distinct. As for the other main tangents of the thread, I wouldn't be so dramatic--or dogmatic--that anyone that wants to play a non-human must be a retarded idiot. In fact, in my own campaigns, when I have a player that wants to roll some kind of non-human, it's never an issue. It's actually cool, because they seek to do like what you're saying--they seek to play race X as being different, and experiencing the campaign through *that* person's eyes--both the good and the bad. That kind of player that actually wants to bring the race X alive within the context of the campaign world is, I think, generally a good thing.
What I think some folks are missing isn't that, per se. Like someone else mentioned, I think, they said context matters. Exactly. Instead, what I have often experienced is so many younger players especially, picking crazy, off the wall races to play--so they can show off their special uber powers--and generally act like selfish special snowflakes--all the while not giving a damn about the campaign context and miliue at all, and of course wanting and expecting everyone around them to treat them just like they were human--or even better so, because they are so special and so on. Such play-styles, and racial choices tends to corrode and *detract* from the campaign, as opposed to actually contributing something meaningful with their character.
I think that dynamic is what frustrates me about players playing all of these crazy races. Have a crazy race played well by a cool, mature, thoughtful player? That's good. But the dynamic I have seen--and I think others are reacting as well, much as yourself too, to the increased sense of more people playing with such crazy races and styles. Whether it's an actual majority on some online thing, *shrug*--I don't care. Maybe humans are more popular with gamers in Texas, for example, and that swings the numbers. I know here, where I play, for the last year, 75% or more players are playing crazy races. Humans and elves, dwarves and halflings are a distinct minority, and in several groups I've seen over the last year, hardly appear at all.
Crazy races plus selfish, snowflake creates a dynamic that is frustrating for many.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Exploderwizard;1068033Here is the breakdown of random murderhobos in my 5E campaign (we just played session 52 last week)
You're soft, too. I am disappoint.
Quote from: PencilBoy99;1068049I think it would be neat if someone made a game where the races / species differences were really enforced, so that rather than being better humans (immortal, low-light vision, magical), they were literally different creatures with radically different psychologies that were enforced manually. For example
Elves - must roll or 50% won't bother to help or assist anyone who is not immortal (why do their lives matter?), must roll or 50% of the time won't stop what they're doing to do something else.
Dwarves - must try to kill or scheme against someone who has betrayed them each game.
Bison and Sharks are very different creatures, but for some reason in kitchen-sink D&D type games the non-humans are just better humans.
The ideas of races being different is a fine concept but any racially enforced behavior that encourages players to behave like dicks is asking for trouble. Players don't need any additional encouragement in that area.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1068070You're soft, too. I am disappoint.
Perhaps, but I run AD&D for the same group of people and I am much more of a hardass there.
Quote from: Opaopajr;1068031I live to oppress you with my goodrightfun 4-races, 4-classes, Basic 5e D&D. :D Oppression! (In Imagination Land, no less? :eek: ) :p\
4x4 4ever!
Currently running some adhoc adventures for our neighbours
The party is made up as follows:
Gnomish Druid
Stout Halfling, Monk
Human Cleric
Tiefling Warlock
So one Tiefling and the rest pretty standard races.
Age ranges from 16 to 50s
I run sessions at an Open table club too. Age ranges from 16 to 30+
The last table I ran a session for there I had the following party:
Human Warrior (Eldritch Knight)
Wood Elven Ranger
Tiefling Warrior (Champion) (although I believe his character was originally a DragonBorn, but was reincarnated (via the spell) as Tiefling)
Human Warrior
Halfling Rogue
So seems mostly core races, with a sprinkling of exotic races.
My son (18) plays DnD with his friends and they play mostly the Exotic races, such as Aasimar, Dragonborn, Tieflings and so on.
They are mostly 18 to 25 in the age range. They like to use as many extra books as possible and experiment with all sorts of race/class combinations.
Quote from: danskmacabre;1068078Stout, Halfling Monk
Playing one of those too. No human's kneecaps are safe from the two feet of death! (Height
and weaponry, both.)
Quote from: rawma;1068081Playing one of those too. No human's kneecaps are safe from the two feet of death! (Height and weaponry, both.)
Haha! yeah, Halfling monks are great fun, particularly when they get to run faster due to the Monk ability.
Makes me think of "Sonic the hedgehog" when I see how fast they can run as so small on a battlemat .. :D
Quote from: Exploderwizard;1068072Perhaps, but I run AD&D for the same group of people and I am much more of a hardass there.
I am sceptical.
Point-buy is the path to the dark side. Point-buy leads to snowflakes. Snowflakes lead to hate. Hate leads to suffering. Once you start down the 5e path, forever will it dominate your destiny.
Next you'll be going diceless.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1068085I am sceptical.
Point-buy is the path to the dark side. Point-buy leads to snowflakes. Snowflakes lead to hate. Hate leads to suffering. Once you start down the 5e path, forever will it dominate your destiny.
Next you'll be going diceless.
Who said anything about point buy? Roll your damn stats and play them, regardless of edition!
Roll of stats or Point Buy neither methods stops players who become too attached to their characters behaving poorly at a table. I have played and run for both. Nothing will stop a player from thinking his character is special than everyone else at the table. Or the campaign in general.
Quote from: Aglondir;10680764x4 4ever!
Damn right, bro, 4x4 to the imaginary face, yo! :mad: That's how we keep it real, son! :D
(But you can have as many Backgrounds in your setting as you want players to choose from, dear. :) We're nice that way. Oh, and Inspiration is of the devil. It leads down to the primrose path to Hell, FATE, & Storygames, don'tcha know? ;) Hors d'oeuvres?)
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1068085I am sceptical.
Point-buy is the path to the dark side. Point-buy leads to snowflakes. Snowflakes lead to hate. Hate leads to suffering. Once you start down the 5e path, forever will it dominate your destiny.
Next you'll be going diceless.
But I thought we're supposed to "forget the past; kill it if you have to?" :confused: Oh wait, that was just a feverish nightmare I had awhile ago. :D
Y'know, you could always randomize the 5e pointbuy as a gateway drug to the youngins. Just roll d8-1 and increase your stats down the line by so much, until you spend all your 27 points. ;) i.e. Roll an 8 for STR, increase stat by 7, dock 9 points from 27 pool.
Quote from: sureshot;1068105Roll of stats or Point Buy neither methods stops players who become too attached to their characters behaving poorly at a table. I have played and run for both. Nothing will stop a player from thinking his character is special than everyone else at the table. Or the campaign in general.
That's what the horns on the GM viking hat is for! :D
Quote from: PencilBoy99;1068049I think it would be neat if someone made a game where the races / species differences were really enforced, so that rather than being better humans (immortal, low-light vision, magical), they were literally different creatures with radically different psychologies that were enforced manually. For example
Elves - must roll or 50% won't bother to help or assist anyone who is not immortal (why do their lives matter?), must roll or 50% of the time won't stop what they're doing to do something else.
Dwarves - must try to kill or scheme against someone who has betrayed them each game.
Bison and Sharks are very different creatures, but for some reason in kitchen-sink D&D type games the non-humans are just better humans.
Low Fantasy Gaming does this. The GM may require a Will check for an elf to resist showing their alofness or hautiness, dwarves might check to see if they can resist gold or retailiating against a slight to their family name, halflings check to see if they can resist their innate curiousity, etc... So certain stereotype racial traits are hardcoded into them at the table. Humans are the only unfettered race.
My preference is a low magic game with relatively mundane races. But in a high magic world, hell yeah, bring on the dragonmen, half demons and catfolk. As long as the world explains how they're there. It kinda becomes a fantasy star wars.
Quote from: Psikerlord;1068153Low Fantasy Gaming does this. The GM may require a Will check for an elf to resist showing their alofness or hautiness, dwarves might check to see if they can resist gold or retailiating against a slight to their family name, halflings check to see if they can resist their innate curiousity, etc... So certain stereotype racial traits are hardcoded into them at the table. Humans are the only unfettered race.
Sweet
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1068085I am sceptical.
Point-buy is the path to the dark side. Point-buy leads to snowflakes. Snowflakes lead to hate. Hate leads to suffering. Once you start down the 5e path, forever will it dominate your destiny.
Weak your reasoning is.
I am mean and make my 5e players do either array or point buy so they
CANT end up with snowflakes. If someone bitched afterwards because another player put points into STR and they did not then hey there is the door. So long.
The points are sufficient to ensure everyone is above average, right? You may as well point-buy your combats, just make sure they have enough points to win them all. Point-buy your treasure and XP, too.
Einstein, that famed point-buyer, was wrong: God does play dice with the universe. Turn your horse aside from the road to Lake Wobegon, and roll the dice.
Einstein was terrible at arithmetic -- the whole adding and subtracting thing. He would totally be a "roll the dice and just play the damned PC already" sort of player. Couldn't balance his checkbook, that Einstein guy.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1068424The points are sufficient to ensure everyone is above average, right? You may as well point-buy your combats, just make sure they have enough points to win them all. Point-buy your treasure and XP, too.
I don't like dice to dictate something that itself becomes an ongoing modifier (and a static modifier is really all ability scores are in D&D) for the whole life of the character. If those values randomly changed, then fine, but rolling to see how strong you are in the moment before rolling to see how well your melee attack goes is an unnecessary step IMO. For the same reason, I go with static hit points per level as opposed to rolling them anew each day.
Quote from: Franky;1068427Einstein was terrible at arithmetic -- the whole adding and subtracting thing. He would totally be a "roll the dice and just play the damned PC already" sort of player. Couldn't balance his checkbook, that Einstein guy.
Urban legend.
http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1936731_1936743_1936758,00.html
The confusion stems from Switzerland's grading scales. Prior to 1896, Einstein's schools used a 1 to 6 scale where 1 was the highest and 6 was a failing grade. Then they switched it around so that 1's became failing grades. Einstein was scoring 1's under the older system, and 6's under the newer system. If you look at his report cards without that context, it seemed as though he was failing math.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1068431I don't like dice to dictate something that itself becomes an ongoing modifier (and a static modifier is really all ability scores are in D&D) for the whole life of the character.
By this reasoning, you should never roll dice for damage against PCs, but always make the result 0. After all, there is no greater ongoing modifier than PC death.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1066672Take a look at the DnD tag on twitter and all you'll see is hipster kids showing off drawings of their totally non-human orange or red or blue or purple thing, which they'll call 'my boi' or 'this cutie' or whatever, to the point where you wonder whether the fuck they've ever had them inside a dungeon or their whole campaign is just about the characters eating cake while complaining about the patriarchy.
So what do you think about modern D&D having all these kids playing tieflings, aasimar, genasi, tabaxi, dragonborn etc.?
Is it 'special snowflakeism'? Does it let them show off their (mostly imagined) non-conformity by all doing the exact same thing?
But is it basically harmless? Does it add to the game? or make it worse?
You spend too much time on twitter.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1068452By this reasoning, you should never roll dice for damage against PCs, but always make the result 0. After all, there is no greater ongoing modifier than PC death.
You've obviously not played D&D. Death in D&D is easier to overcome than bad ability scores.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1068431I don't like dice to dictate something that itself becomes an ongoing modifier (and a static modifier is really all ability scores are in D&D) for the whole life of the character. If those values randomly changed, then fine, but rolling to see how strong you are in the moment before rolling to see how well your melee attack goes is an unnecessary step IMO. For the same reason, I go with static hit points per level as opposed to rolling them anew each day.
For that matter it's not like use of Character Funnels, re-roll 1's, and countless other methods aren't used by those who say "dice rolls only" to ensure you don't end up with a gimped character.
Kyle talks about arrays/point buy producing above average characters... but why would an average person be going into a monster infested death trap in the first place? And again, even if its not as overt as a deliberate character funnel, just the laws of attrition for 1st level characters with poor ability scores in older editions of D&D tended to weed out sub-optimal PCs pretty quickly until the player finally rolled up one where the probabilities were on their side and the XP system of the time let them quickly catch up to their fellow players.
All point buy does is save all that wasted effort and let you build the character you actually want to play from the start.
In my experience Snowflakes mostly show up when random rolls for ability scores are used and the player is the GM's pet so they can get away with fudging their dice rolls and use the cover of "its all random, I just got lucky" to make it not quite so blatant that the GM is playing favorites (or the snowflake is abusing the GM's trust). Point buy (or arrays, which I prefer) instantly reveals if the snowflake is cheating on their character sheet because their numbers won't add up right and snowflakes hate it in my experience when they can't actually be the best at everything... something point-buy and even more particularly arrays ("what do you mean one of my scores has to be below average?") prevents.
The only other type of player I've met who prefers random rolls (versus accepting random rolls because the GM has been taught that they're just how you do things) is the one who wants the random dice rolls to control the type of character they play and their preference is usually more the "roll in order" variety of dice rolling (whereas 4d6, drop lowest, arrange in any order is the kludge 3e came up with to at least skip some of the character funneling... but notably all their organized play groups and 4E made array/point-buy the default) because that cedes control over everything that the PC themselves could not control to the whims of probability and that's what they're looking for; to get into the headspace of this new random person and decide what they'd do with the lot "life" has handed them.
I can appreciate that sentiment, but its not to everyone's taste (including my own). The compromise in my own system for this style of play would be rolling randomly to see which ability array you're going to use (I have three options; focused/excels at one thing, strong/good at a couple things, and balanced/above average in many things) and then roll to see which ability gets your best score, your next best score, etc. You can also roll randomly for your species, background and archetype (i.e. fighting man or magic-user... classes are specific expressions of your archetype and something you'd be able to choose for yourself in character) so your only actual choices left are those your PC would actually be able to make for themselves.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1068487You've obviously not played D&D. Death in D&D is easier to overcome than bad ability scores.
My preference in a D&D or D&D-like game is that the scores be mostly selected, but have a small amount of random variation to account for "playing what life has dealt to the character." I've accomplished that different ways in past games.
Lately, however, most of the players I encounter don't care that much about it one way or the other. So I've defaulted to using "standard array" instead of point buy or other more involved options. It's even simpler than rolling, doesn't produce anything too extreme, and gets the players to focus on the character that much sooner.
If push came to shove, I'd be fairly happy, for example, with a 5E game where standard array was the start. Then do something like roll 4 or 6 dice of two different colors, with one color meaning a +1 bump in an ability in the order of the d6 roll, and the other color meaning a -1 in the same way. (For example, roll Green 1, 1, 2, bump up Strength twice and Con once. Roll Red 1, 3, 4, bump down Strength, Dex, and Int.) Out of 20 odd players in my groups, I
might have one or two besides me that would find that variation a useful exercise.
Quote from: Nerzenjäger;1068480You spend too much time on twitter.
That's likely true, inasmuch as I spend time on Twitter.
Quote from: Chris24601the laws of attrition for 1st level characters with poor ability scores in older editions of D&D tended to weed out sub-optimal PCs pretty quickly until the player finally rolled up one where the probabilities were on their side and the XP system of the time let them quickly catch up to their fellow players.
On the contrary. I find the characters with the good stats got killed, and those with shitty stats survived. Why? Because if they had good stats the players were careless with them, if they had shitty stats they played smart.
Of course, you may have shitty players, or you as DM may not encourage and reward smart play. But this is a cross-system problem.
Quote from: Chris24601;1068518Kyle talks about arrays/point buy producing above average characters... but why would an average person be going into a monster infested death trap in the first place?
Because they're not going alone, they have the rest of the party with them.
Hector was a mortal man, Achilles was invulnerable, except for his ankles. Both were heroes, but each of a different type. Are your heroes extraordinary people who do extraordinary things, or ordinary people who do extraordinary things? Do you survive because you're a hero, or are you a hero because you survive?
Ancient Greek myth and modern American cinema and computer games are about extraordinary people doing extraordinary things. We'll call these Greek heroes. But many stories - and reality - are about ordinary people doing extraordinary things. We'll call these British heroes.
Old wargames didn't have one Greek hero hewing his way through the enemy ranks. They had infantry, cavalry, artillery and so on - each quite ordinary on their own, but how they co-ordinated with each-other under the player's leadership was what produced victory. Chess is the simplest example of this, even the queen can't move like a knight, nor can she castle like a rook. Individual pieces are more or less valuable, but each has their role to play. I would observe that D&D evolved out of wargames, by the way. The roots of D&D lie in the British hero - vulnerable, specialised, but working with others to make up for what he couldn't do on his own.
Observe the difference between the 1960s Mission Impossible tv series and the Tom Cruise movies. In the TV series, nobody was above average overall - each was just good at 1-2 things. But
together as a team they could do extraordinary things. In the movie, though, the whole team except for Tom Cruise is wiped out in the first ten minutes. Cruise's character
has to do everything because
there's nobody else. Even more Mary Sue was Jack Reacher, of course, but that's another (painful) story.
(https://m.media-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTA0MDQ3NTMwNTReQTJeQWpwZ15BbWU4MDgzMjY4NzIx._V1_.jpg)
Now, in movies this makes sense. A TV series has many episodes to give a chance for all the characters to shine, a movie has 110 minutes, that's just enough time for one guy and 1-2 sidekicks. So the guy has to speak 10 languages and be a crack shot and a good climber and a master of hand-to-hand and a great computer hacker and a deductive genius and good-looking and so on and so forth. Likewise in computer games - AI is too retarded still, and other players aren't always around to play, so your character has to be uber-powerful just to cover all the possibilities. Your computer game character
has to be way above average to have any chance of survival.
Now consider a roleplaying game. There are typically 3-6 players plus the DM, and it's not a one-off but a campaign of several or even hundreds of sessions. Does this more resemble a wargame or a computer game? A TV series or a movie?
And consider what we want in a game session. We game for the challenge, and why don't we just sit at home playing PS4? Because we want a social experience. We want the players
to be challenged, and for them to work together. If we have four uber-capable Rambo Sherlock Jackie Chan Gandalf, are they challenged and do they even need to work together? But what if we had four characters, each of whom was overall pretty ordinary, but really good at
just one thing? Well then they'd have to be creative, and they'd have to work together.
As an example, in one adventure my players came across a room with sarcophagi and mummies in them. The party sat on one lid and the MU cast
hold portal on another. Then the MU got a rock drill and drilled a hole in the lid the PCs were sitting on, poured in oil and lit it up. They then did the same to the other one.
What were their stats? What level were they?
It didn't matter. Because they used their wits as players, their characters' abilities didn't matter - apart from the creative use of one single first level MU spell. Whereas if the MU had had a wand of fireballs or everyone had had 100 hit points and 18/00 Strength, they wouldn't have had to be creative and could just pound away at the mummies. Necessity is the mother of invention, and ordinary characters will, working together, do extraordinary things - because
they have to. Letting every player make a Rambo Sherlock Jackie Chan Gandalf denies them the opportunity to use their wits and work together productively. That is, by making everyone awesome, you make everyone lame and boring. Don't do that to your players. Let them struggle and win against the odds by using their wits and working as a team.
3d6 down the line. Fighter, magic-user, cleric and thief. It's the way it should be.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1069510Ancient Greek myth and modern American cinema and computer games are about extraordinary people doing extraordinary things. We'll call these Greek heroes. But many stories - and reality - are about ordinary people doing extraordinary things. We'll call these British heroes.
And then there is the very British hero, James Bond. Not a particularly ordinary sort, is he?
That said, I like the idea of D&D as the Mission:Impossible team, or any other team from TV or Movies. It is very much a cooperative game.
Kyle, you don't seem to understand that the standard array produces people that are exceptional, but not outrageously so. You've excluded a huge middle ground in your arguments, and I tend to think that the array better makes Hector (who, while not superhuman, was certainly exceptional) rather than Achilles. I also find that many of the stories I read (films, books, etc.) tend to focus on exceptional people rather than on those that are mundane and unexceptional. What you describe as "British heroes" do not really interest me, but that's probably also because I don't tend to like much that is identified as British (like Dr. Who, which I can't stand).
Also, I play 5e. This is the game where a generic bandit captain is 15/16/14/14/11/14, a cult fanatic is 11/14/12/10/13/14, a humble guard is 13/12/12/10/11/10, a unnamed knight is 16/11/14/11/11/15, a bland noble is 11/12/11/12/14/16, and even a street-level thug is 15/11/14/10/10/11. None of these are beyond CR 2, and some are as low as CR 1/8, so these are not overly powerful individuals. I don't think it's a problem for PCs to have the standard array of 15/14/13/12/10/8 (adjust for race and arranged as desired) to be comparable. I think with 3d6 arranged in order, PCs are fairly likely to be less capable than many of these NPCs, and that doesn't work for me.
Quote from: Franky;1069512And then there is the very British hero, James Bond. Not a particularly ordinary sort, is he?
No. But he has become less ordinary over time, just as America has striven towards what in Civ they called a Cultural Victory - where your culture dominates the world. Plus, Bond was always Ian Fleming's Mary Sue.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1069517Also, I play 5e. This is the game where a generic bandit captain is 15/16/14/14/11/14
Yes, this is indeed a problem. I would suggest: don't play 5e. Turn around and march away from Lake Wobegon.
From
The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/14/age-of-loneliness-killing-us),
"These structural changes have been accompanied by a life-denying ideology, which enforces and celebrates our social isolation. The war of every man against every man - competition and individualism, in other words - is the religion of our time, justified by a mythology of lone rangers, sole traders, self-starters, self-made men and women, going it alone. For the most social of creatures, who cannot prosper without love, there is no such thing as society, only heroic individualism. What counts is to win. The rest is collateral damage."
The way you approach your game can encourage or discourage this approach. I would suggest again that if the players have got up from their computers and come to your game session, it's because they want to do something
together with other people. Approaches which encourage teamwork, wits and daring, rather than heroic individualism, are better in this respect.
Now, if it's a one-on-one game, then that's different.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1069518The way you approach your game can encourage or discourage this approach. I would suggest again that if the players have got up from their computers and come to your game session, it's because they want to do something together with other people. Approaches which encourage teamwork, wits and daring, rather than heroic individualism, are better in this respect.
But is old-school D&D, which seems designed to encourage growing independence and conflict as characters advance (and has a strong tradition, at least in some circles, of ruthlessness and treachery) really a better tool for such aims?
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1069518The way you approach your game can encourage or discourage this approach. I would suggest again that if the players have got up from their computers and come to your game session, it's because they want to do something together with other people. Approaches which encourage teamwork, wits and daring, rather than heroic individualism, are better in this respect.
Now, if it's a one-on-one game, then that's different.
I do not accept that using the standard array for 5e (and no, I have no interest in playing earlier editions again) discourages "teamwork, wits and daring" in any way. The method is different, neither better nor worse objectively, but I prefer it as a matter of taste, and so do (and have) my current (and past) players.
Quote from: Franky;1069512And then there is the very British hero, James Bond. Not a particularly ordinary sort, is he?
That said, I like the idea of D&D as the Mission:Impossible team, or any other team from TV or Movies. It is very much a cooperative game.
Actually, the original James Bond from the original novels DOES fit Kyle's British hero type...
He has a few things he is very good at. The rest of the time he gets through due to some mission specific training, supporting characters, luck and sheer willpower/perseverance.
The movies...now that's a different kettle of fish.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1069465That's likely true, inasmuch as I spend time on Twitter.
Any time on twitter is too much time on twitter...
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1069522But is old-school D&D, which seems designed to encourage growing independence and conflict as characters advance (and has a strong tradition, at least in some circles, of ruthlessness and treachery) really a better tool for such aims?
Yes.
I mean, whatever the edition some people will backstab each-other and sit around complaining their stats aren't good enough, and some other people will co-operate and play smart. Remember that in order of importance to the success of a game session it's: people, snacks, setting and system. This doesn't mean that the system doesn't matter, only that the other things are more important.
This British Hero thing seems to be an example of cherry picking. The good at a few specific things type hero was the general hero for much of the world (America and UK included) for most of history, with notable exceptions popping up everywhere. Late-20th/21st century popular cinema has slowly morphed into a celebration of omnicompetent protagonists, and that particular medium has been unarguably over-dominated by the US (although I expect China and India to both outsize the US in that field before most of us lay down our trophies).
Pertaining to D&D, rumors of vast differences in these fundamental trends in the game between old and new styles of play are vastly overstated. There have been players who want their characters to be special (and yes intra-party backstabbing) since time immemorial, and the system will still kill you if you don't act as a team. Same as it ever was.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1069517What you describe as "British heroes" do not really interest me, but that's probably also because I don't tend to like much that is identified as British (like Dr. Who, which I can't stand).
Nothing to do with the discussion, but I found it very entertaining that you compared not liking British (defined in this case as ordinary 3d6 in order) heroes to Doctor Who.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1066672Take a look at the DnD tag on twitter and all you'll see is hipster kids showing off drawings of their totally non-human orange or red or blue or purple thing, which they'll call 'my boi' or 'this cutie' or whatever, to the point where you wonder whether the fuck they've ever had them inside a dungeon or their whole campaign is just about the characters eating cake while complaining about the patriarchy.
So what do you think about modern D&D having all these kids playing tieflings, aasimar, genasi, tabaxi, dragonborn etc.?
Is it 'special snowflakeism'? Does it let them show off their (mostly imagined) non-conformity by all doing the exact same thing?
But is it basically harmless? Does it add to the game? or make it worse?
Honestly, I was never a fan of those cutsie Tolkien races in first place. So if those are losing space for something more huh... weird and exotic, I'm all for it.
My ideal set of playable races would be something with Beholders, Githyanki, Lieches and Mariliths (is this the correct name? The hindu fiend-woman with 6 arms and a snake lower body?).
Edit: this one in the arms of the flame dude (which would also be welcome in my party):
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3104[/ATTACH]
Quote from: Pat;1069580Nothing to do with the discussion, but I found it very entertaining that you compared not liking British (defined in this case as ordinary 3d6 in order) heroes to Doctor Who.
If you look a little closer at my statement, I noted that I don't like British heroes and I
also don't like Dr. Who (given in my statement as another example of something British that I do not like). I'm under no illusions that Dr. Who is an "ordinary" individual, but his companions probably are.
You don't like Beowulf? A British hero, or an Anglo-Saxon hero. Also an extraordinary hero.
Odysseus, a Greek Hero, was an ordinary man. Clever, but ordinary. I don't think attaching nationality to the hero types is very helpful. One can always find exceptions.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1069551...Remember that in order of importance to the success of a game session it's: people, snacks, setting and system. This doesn't mean that the system doesn't matter, only that the other things are more important.
I agree. And for all of the people to enjoy the evening, all of their PCs must matter somehow. This does not mean super ability scores. I liked that in the original game, ability scores did not mean all that much. ( The DM was supposed to roll them, too. Thing which was ignored, universally, I think.)
...And that the snacks do not include Mountain Dew or Cheetos. If that stuff shows up at the game, I swear that I'll roll up the CE thief. :D
Quote from: HappyDaze;1069591If you look a little closer at my statement, I noted that I don't like British heroes and I also don't like Dr. Who (given in my statement as another example of something British that I do not like). I'm under no illusions that Dr. Who is an "ordinary" individual, but his companions probably are.
If you'll look a littler closer at my statement, you'll see I realized that. In fact, that was kind of the point.
Quote from: Franky;1069608You don't like Beowulf? A British hero, or an Anglo-Saxon hero. Also an extraordinary hero.
Odysseus, a Greek Hero, was an ordinary man. Clever, but ordinary.
Uh, wasn't the way he proved that he was really Odysseus after his 10 year journal was to string a bow that only he could, because of his strength?
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1069631Uh, wasn't the way he proved that he was really Odysseus after his 10 year journal was to string a bow that only he could, because of his strength?
Yep and then he flawlessly fired the near-impossible shot through the row of axe-heads right before he killed every mutherfucker in the room. The guy was totally a badass and not in any way an everyman hero.
Quote from: Pat;1069630If you'll look a littler closer at my statement, you'll see I realized that. In fact, that was kind of the point.
OK. Sorry then; I must have misread.
Odysseus was also a king, so by definition not an "ordinary man".
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1069510On the contrary. I find the characters with the good stats got killed, and those with shitty stats survived. Why? Because if they had good stats the players were careless with them, if they had shitty stats they played smart.
I had exactly the opposite experience; if they rolled good stats, players were very cautious with them, and if they had bad stats then they were reckless (in some cases trying to get the character out of the way quickly to get new rolls with another). (But it was also the nature of early 3d6 in order D&D that characters often died or survived independently of the quality of the players' efforts.)
Add in that once raise dead was something a player character cleric could cast, a very high constitution gave a character a much better chance of surviving (as long as a TPK or an unresurrectable death were avoided). The one character I ever had with an 18 retired at 14th level; it was in constitution.
Of course, you may have had DMs who
tried to kill characters with good stats to prove their own theories about how bad stats were actually better. It doesn't make the idea correct.
Quote from: rawma;1069681Of course, you may have had DMs who tried to kill characters with good stats to prove their own theories about how bad stats were actually better. It doesn't make the idea correct.
Personal experience has shown me that those who claim to 'old school' DM's are notorious for this. They often also seem to have ego issue with their players not really caring about D&D, so character deaths are meaningless to them.
I'm cool with weird races...but only if they add to the game as characters/cultures, not just another set of kewl powerz.
Quote from: rawma;1069681I had exactly the opposite experience; if they rolled good stats, players were very cautious with them, and if they had bad stats then they were reckless (in some cases trying to get the character out of the way quickly to get new rolls with another). (But it was also the nature of early 3d6 in order D&D that characters often died or survived independently of the quality of the players' efforts.)
Add in that once raise dead was something a player character cleric could cast, a very high constitution gave a character a much better chance of surviving (as long as a TPK or an unresurrectable death were avoided). The one character I ever had with an 18 retired at 14th level; it was in constitution.
Of course, you may have had DMs who tried to kill characters with good stats to prove their own theories about how bad stats were actually better. It doesn't make the idea correct.
Same. You roll crap stats, you try to get rid of your character as quickly as possible for another chance to get a better one.
Quote from: rawma;1069681I had exactly the opposite experience; if they rolled good stats, players were very cautious with them, and if they had bad stats then they were reckless (in some cases trying to get the character out of the way quickly to get new rolls with another). (But it was also the nature of early 3d6 in order D&D that characters often died or survived independently of the quality of the players' efforts.)
Quote from: Kiero;1069714Same. You roll crap stats, you try to get rid of your character as quickly as possible for another chance to get a better one.
These mirror my experiences as well, which is why I brought it up in the first place. Unless your GM has it out for you, you'll eventually end up with an above average character just by laws of attrition and once you had one, you were pretty careful with it (Generally speaking, my experience was that if you could make it to about level 4-5 with an above average character you'd have enough hit points and other goodies to be able to survive most things if your party was just careful about when they chose to fight).
Character funnels, roll more dice/re-roll 1's, point buy and arrays are just ways to speed up that process. Point buy and arrays are the ones that are most efficient for cutting out the intervening steps to reaching a competent PC while also removing the prospect of an unlikely (but possible) set of dice rolls producing an omni-competent PC.
My preference is for arrays over point-buy though because it takes out the min-max aspect of leveraging the points (ex. even ability scores being better in all WotC-era D&D games) and forces you to consider which aspects of your character are only average (or even below average) and, because suiciding to get another shot at the random number generator isn't going to actually produce a better quality PC, there is no incentive to not just play your character smart/cautious like a real person would behave when going down into a monster infested death trap.
There's no siren's call of "If I flub this ridiculous risk I might get a better PC to replace them so its Win-Win to do this thing no sane person would ever attempt" with point-buy or arrays.
There's also no PCs who are so incompetent the only safe thing for a real band of adventurers to do would be to leave that PC behind so the idiotic clumsy weakling doesn't get you all killed (another reason why Kender should always be banned as a PC race... because no sane adventuring party should ever be taking one someplace where touching the wrong thing could set off a deathtrap and kill you all) but that you HAVE to take with you because they're a PC.
And there's no GMs pet who magically rolled straight 18's, upper upper social class, maximum starting wealth and scored major psionics on the random roll for that too... HONEST.
You just have a group of competent PCs who are each good at what they do, but still have gaps where they'll need to rely on other PCs to fill if they hope to be successful.
That's why Arrays are always a win in my book.
As an added bonus, if you really want to run an "everyone is average" type game the GM can always just use a different array (ex. 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8) that gets exactly the type of PCs he wants.
It's absolutely harmless. Hell, in a game about storming dungeons, killing monsters and stealing treasure, nonhuman races tend to have an advantage.
Quote from: Franky;1069608You don't like Beowulf? A British hero, or an Anglo-Saxon hero. Also an extraordinary hero.
His
deeds were extraordinary. But as the people who have statted out Gandalf have shown, you don't need to be straights 18s and level 20 to stand out among ordinary men. A level 3 fighter will run through a bunch of 0-level guys like a hot knife through butter, especially if (as in Beowulf) he is wearing mail and they are not.
[quoe]I agree. And for all of the people to enjoy the evening, all of their PCs must matter somehow. This does not mean super ability scores. I liked that in the original game, ability scores did not mean all that much. [/QUOTE]
It's up to the
player to make their character matter.
I am just now watching
The Last Kingdom, and there's a scene where Uhtred has gone to a town which has changed sides to his enemies. He goes to the inn and eats, expecting the local thane to send for his enemies. The thane gets ambitious and surrounds the inn, demanding Uhtred surrender himself, his men can go. Uhtred offers his men the chance to leave, but he must have high CHA because his men-at-arms loyally stay. He has them bar the doors and he climbs up to the roof, gets an axe and hacks a hole in the ceiling, climbs through, and tosses torches from the fire onto the thatched roofs of the surrounding buildings.
The thane surrenders to Uhtred.
What are Uhtred's stats? Well, as a protagonist he's a pretty good fighter and a (sometimes, between pissing off his lord) lord in his own right. But in this scene
it didn't matter. A 0-level commoner with straight 9s in every stat could bar doors, hack a hole in a roof with an axe, and toss torches. It just takes a cunning and ruthless person to think of it.
As I said, my observation is that players rolling poor stats have their characters survive longer than players rolling great stats - because they think more. A player whose fighter has 18/00 STR and 18 CON and has 14 hit points at 1st level along with wearing mail will tend to have him just charge in, and eventually with enough dice rolls against him, some stuff hits and knocks him down. A player whose fighter has 9 STR and CON and 1 hit point and who could only afford leather armour will be more cautious.
Necessity is the mother of invention. Make it
necessary for your players to use their wits, rather than just looking down to their character sheet to find the drop-down menu to see which skill to apply. A good game is a game of wits and chance. By giving everyone high stats, you are severely underestimating the intelligence and creativity of your players. Don't insult them, give them the chance to be great, and great by their wits, daring and deeds, not great by some numbers on a piece of paper.
Quote from: rawma;1069681Add in that once raise dead was something a player character cleric could cast -
Raise Dead is a 5th level spell in AD&D1e, requiring a 7th level cleric. Achieving 7th level from 1st and 3d6 down the line would require a long campaign, and a shitload of luck. I suspect you are talking about starting characters at higher levels than 1st, and/or a DM who fudges things to keep player-characters alive. This is a good example of how once you let powergaming and MontyHallism creep in, nothing good happens.
I've played a gamut of species in D&D over the years. Plenty of the original standards, humans, elves, dwarves, halflings. But also a dragonborn, a fire genasi, a couple drow, a free-willed skeleton, a human with lycanthropy, and in 3rd ed. Oriental Adventures a rat man samurai named Seamus McSqueakSqueak; it can be fun to go weird as long as it's not disruptive to the game that's being run. As far as those darn Millennials ruining D&D Adventures nights goes, that sounds more like a bad DM who hasn't done anything to gel new players together as a party rather than a group of complete strangers all out for themselves. It's hardly a new condition that a newbie D&D player is running around murderhoboing it up; I know that's what I was doing as a kid with AD&D.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1069764His deeds were extraordinary. But as the people who have statted out Gandalf have shown, you don't need to be straights 18s and level 20 to stand out among ordinary men. A level 3 fighter will run through a bunch of 0-level guys like a hot knife through butter, especially if (as in Beowulf) he is wearing mail and they are not.
QuoteI agree. And for all of the people to enjoy the evening, all of their PCs must matter somehow. This does not mean super ability scores. I liked that in the original game, ability scores did not mean all that much.
It's up to the player to make their character matter.
I am just now watching The Last Kingdom, and there's a scene where Uhtred has gone to a town which has changed sides to his enemies. He goes to the inn and eats, expecting the local thane to send for his enemies. The thane gets ambitious and surrounds the inn, demanding Uhtred surrender himself, his men can go. Uhtred offers his men the chance to leave, but he must have high CHA because his men-at-arms loyally stay. He has them bar the doors and he climbs up to the roof, gets an axe and hacks a hole in the ceiling, climbs through, and tosses torches from the fire onto the thatched roofs of the surrounding buildings.
The thane surrenders to Uhtred.
What are Uhtred's stats? Well, as a protagonist he's a pretty good fighter and a (sometimes, between pissing off his lord) lord in his own right. But in this scene it didn't matter. A 0-level commoner with straight 9s in every stat could bar doors, hack a hole in a roof with an axe, and toss torches. It just takes a cunning and ruthless person to think of it.
As I said, my observation is that players rolling poor stats have their characters survive longer than players rolling great stats - because they think more. A player whose fighter has 18/00 STR and 18 CON and has 14 hit points at 1st level along with wearing mail will tend to have him just charge in, and eventually with enough dice rolls against him, some stuff hits and knocks him down. A player whose fighter has 9 STR and CON and 1 hit point and who could only afford leather armour will be more cautious.
Necessity is the mother of invention. Make it necessary for your players to use their wits, rather than just looking down to their character sheet to find the drop-down menu to see which skill to apply. A good game is a game of wits and chance. By giving everyone high stats, you are severely underestimating the intelligence and creativity of your players. Don't insult them, give them the chance to be great, and great by their wits, daring and deeds, not great by some numbers on a piece of paper.
I'd disagree. A peasant with straight 9's would not have kept his men loyal to him. A peasant with straight 9's wouldn't know have figured out any plan to escape. Uthred has at least a 12+ Int, Wis and Cha if not more. He's not average. No 'Hero' is.
How little you think of your fellows.
Quote from: EOTB;1069798How little you think of your fellows.
What? The average person? Who hates change? Who would rather hide, than act? Humans are creatures of habit and patterns. To want to change, or act, makes one not average.
Wanting change or action is inherently average. Every day, grifters take advantage of this compelling want possessed by nearly everyone in some fashion. Completing a change process is an accomplishment, but wanting to change is no mental separation from any other pack on the bell curve.
However, this isn't a game about any of that. It's a game about people taking actions. And here you are saying the ability to take effective action depends on natural talents and abilities.
Not that the math makes it easier to succeed after taking action if one is talented, but that success means natural talent was obviously present. Because average people fail if they try, and likely don't even try. And yet crises after crises shows us that heroes present themselves out of everyday, average people who rise to the moment, or are more worried about someone else than themselves at that moment.
Bitterness never helps man. It doesn't make anyone stronger or smarter or indicate a higher level of discernment, or cause others to think the bitter person is any wiser.
It just repels people.
Quote from: EOTB;1069814Wanting change or action is inherently average.
Hunh? No, it's not. The average human being is a creature of patterns and habits.
Quote from: EOTB;1069814Every day, grifters take advantage of this compelling want possessed by nearly everyone in some fashion.
Most grifters use fear to motivate their marks to act. They 'effectively' give people 'adventure coupons' to impel them into action.
Quote from: EOTB;1069814Completing a change process is an accomplishment, but wanting to change is no mental separation from any other pack on the bell curve.
Not sure I understand what you're talking about here? People HATE change, they prefer the misery they know, and immediately assume that being different is going to lose them whatever social cache they have. Acceptance by peers is a MASSIVE drive for most people. Adventurers are not driven by this.
Quote from: EOTB;1069814However, this isn't a game about any of that. It's a game about people taking actions.
You're right. People who have impetus to do something. A drive, if you may.
Quote from: EOTB;1069814And here you are saying the ability to take effective action depends on natural talents and abilities.
No, it's EASIER for people with natural talent, but if someone WANTS to be better than what they are, they can try. The problem is that D&D, especially early editions, your stats are locked. Thing is, it doesn't work that way. You start practicing with a sword, your strength and dexterity (In D&D terms) doesn't stay at 9, it increases, as does your endurance. Intelligence might be the only stat that tends not to change, although evidence suggests it can decrease. But in pre-3e D&D, nothing short of magic could increase your stats, no matter how much extra training you claimed to do, you were LOCKED in, permanently.
Quote from: EOTB;1069814Not that the math makes it easier to succeed after taking action if one is talented, but that success means natural talent was obviously present. Because average people fail if they try, and likely don't even try. And yet crises after crises shows us that heroes present themselves out of everyday, average people who rise to the moment, or are more worried about someone else than themselves at that moment.
If they were heroes, they were not average. A situation presented itself and they acted, unlike most people. In fact, we have a highly skilled and highly motivated group of people who do dangerous things every day, they are not average. But are they talented or magically gifted? No, they WORKED for it. And that's the problem in this argument. Someone who is going to be an adventurer, especially a fighter type WILL be training bodies and mentally, to be MORE than what they are. To help them survive.
Quote from: EOTB;1069814Bitterness never helps man. It doesn't make anyone stronger or smarter or indicate a higher level of discernment, or cause others to think the bitter person is any wiser.
It just repels people.
OK... So you bitter? I'm confused.
You know, the fact that people do effectively "train up" in real life what are ability scores in the game is actually a REALLY good point. So good in fact it actually makes me want to rewrite the rules towards that end because D&D is basically 180 degrees backwards on it. In D&D you're naturally really strong so you choose to be a fighter. In real life, you start training to be a fighter and become really strong.
You can train yourself to get stronger (STR), more coordinated (DEX), have better endurance (CON), be better at reading situations (WIS), persuading people (CHA) and even improve your ability to memorize and recall information (INT).
I think random ability scores might be more interesting if they were, say, 1d6+7 but then each class added to those scores based on the scores you'd be training to improve as part of becoming that class (say becoming a fighter gives +5 STR, +2 DEX, +3 CON while becoming a Wizard gives +2 DEX, +5 INT, +3 WIS). Thus, anyone who trains to be a fighter will have at least a 13 STR because they've spent years building up their strength to do the job (but there's only so much you can build up if you're barely over 5 feet tall with a wirey build vs. a 6' 3" broad-shouldered build).
Quote from: Chris24601;1069866I think random ability scores might be more interesting if they were, say, 1d6+7 but then each class added to those scores based on the scores you'd be training to improve as part of becoming that class (say becoming a fighter gives +5 STR, +2 DEX, +3 CON while becoming a Wizard gives +2 DEX, +5 INT, +3 WIS). Thus, anyone who trains to be a fighter will have at least a 13 STR because they've spent years building up their strength to do the job (but there's only so much you can build up if you're barely over 5 feet tall with a wirey build vs. a 6' 3" broad-shouldered build).
This is the way Modiphius does it in (some versions) of their 2d20 system. In Mutant Chronicles 3e, you get some Attribute modifiers for how you grew up, but the big ones come from your education/training and primary career selections.
That's also very similar to how roguelikes such as Moria and Angband handle it: You roll your stats (3 to 18/XX range), then add a bonus for your race, which is generally no more than +/-2 (more for really exotic races). But on top of that, you also get a bonus for your class. Which is typically a similar range (+/-2), except for Strength which is much more variable (warriors get a +5 bonus, mages get a -5 penalty).
Though I also assume the class-based bonuses and penalties are part of an ongoing regimen -- if you start training in another class, or just retire, I'd expect them to gradually switch or fade. A character with two classes should have half the bonuses and penalties of two separate classes, combined (or something in that vicinity). And I also like how it recognizes that not all stats can be trained equally.
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1069767Raise Dead is a 5th level spell in AD&D1e, requiring a 7th level cleric. Achieving 7th level from 1st and 3d6 down the line would require a long campaign, and a shitload of luck. I suspect you are talking about starting characters at higher levels than 1st, and/or a DM who fudges things to keep player-characters alive. This is a good example of how once you let powergaming and MontyHallism creep in, nothing good happens.
7th level cleric, 50000 XP, yes. So how many hours do you think cautious players would require to advance one of their number that far? The current 5e standard is 32 hours, which is much too low for original D&D. We started at 1st level, and the DMs did not fudge anything the original books called for, neither to kill players nor to spare them. My guess is that our cautious play gained us an average of 100XP per hour (more as we advanced levels and could more efficiently find good opportunities and avoid bad ones, as well as venturing to richer levels below the first). The campaign lasted perhaps six years from when I started, and was already several years old then. I lost more than half my characters, but character deaths in D&D are usually concentrated in the low levels, at least for cautious play.
If your claim is that it's impossible for a character in OD&D to survive to 7th level unless the game is being played wrong, then I observe that Gary Gygax and company must have been playing it wrong, and it's pointless to say whether low stats or high stats are more likely to survive - everyone dies. And if you extol smart play so much, you can't dismiss cautious play as unacceptable powergaming or Monty Haulism.
Quote from: Chris24601;1069866You know, the fact that people do effectively "train up" in real life what are ability scores in the game is actually a REALLY good point. So good in fact it actually makes me want to rewrite the rules towards that end because D&D is basically 180 degrees backwards on it. In D&D you're naturally really strong so you choose to be a fighter. In real life, you start training to be a fighter and become really strong.
You can train yourself to get stronger (STR), more coordinated (DEX), have better endurance (CON), be better at reading situations (WIS), persuading people (CHA) and even improve your ability to memorize and recall information (INT).
I think random ability scores might be more interesting if they were, say, 1d6+7 but then each class added to those scores based on the scores you'd be training to improve as part of becoming that class (say becoming a fighter gives +5 STR, +2 DEX, +3 CON while becoming a Wizard gives +2 DEX, +5 INT, +3 WIS). Thus, anyone who trains to be a fighter will have at least a 13 STR because they've spent years building up their strength to do the job (but there's only so much you can build up if you're barely over 5 feet tall with a wirey build vs. a 6' 3" broad-shouldered build).
I never actually thought of this. I've always let my players pick and choose which scores where, if I used random rolls, simply because I know how athletes (and let's face it Adventurers tend to be 'extreme' athletes) need to keep training in their area of focus. But I like this. If I run a pre-3e game again, I'll do this.
Quote from: Chris24601;1069866You know, the fact that people do effectively "train up" in real life what are ability scores in the game is actually a REALLY good point. So good in fact it actually makes me want to rewrite the rules towards that end because D&D is basically 180 degrees backwards on it. In D&D you're naturally really strong so you choose to be a fighter. In real life, you start training to be a fighter and become really strong.
This happens in 5e. A player can raise ability scores at certain intervals, usually 2 points at 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th and 19th. Fighters can do so more frequently. Or a player can opt for a feat instead. Given the stronger emphasis on ability scores in D&D since, well, Greyhawk, this particular mechanic was long overdue. (even it was present in 4e, or even 3e)
Quote from: Kiero;1069647Odysseus was also a king, so by definition not an "ordinary man".
Odysseus was also the great great grandson of Zeus. (And possibly Hermes.) And he was able to string the bow of Apollo.
Quote from: Omega;1069911Odysseus was also the great great grandson of Zeus. (And possibly Hermes.) And he was able to string the bow of Apollo.
THANK YOU! I knew he was related to the Greek Gods! But I forget that detail. Thanks.
Quote from: Spinachcat;1069703I'm cool with weird races...but only if they add to the game as characters/cultures, not just another set of kewl powerz.
Same. This was my main problem with 3e Gamma World and up as there was this big push to want to give all the mutant animal PCs all these different natural weapons and abilities and after a while it really does look like they only want the species for the extra attacks or whatever rather than as an interesting character. So I tend to remand it back to 2e where being a mutant animal do not grant any natural abilities unless taken as mutations.
The fall in the appeal of Middle-earth. Folks have all the Middle-earth they want, with video games, movies, etc. Don't need to play settings spawned from it as much.
Quote from: Omega;1069911Odysseus was also the great great grandson of Zeus. (And possibly Hermes.) And he was able to string the bow of Apollo.
Hermes, IIRC. That makes him as much a demigod as Elizabeth Warren is an American Indian.:rolleyes: He was a mortal.
Stringing a bow is more a learned skill than a test of strength, at least from what I've seen. Tiny Welshmen strung longbows readily enough, for example, because they know how.
Quote from: Franky;1070084Hermes, IIRC. That makes him as much a demigod as Elizabeth Warren is an American Indian.:rolleyes: He was a mortal.
Stringing a bow is more a learned skill than a test of strength, at least from what I've seen. Tiny Welshmen strung longbows readily enough, for example, because they know how.
I practiced archery as a kid. Trust me man, it's strength. The men you call tiny were massively built for their stature.
Quote from: Cave Bear;1070086I practiced archery as a kid. Trust me man, it's strength. The men you call tiny were massively built for their stature.
So much so, that the skeletons of longbowmen recovered from the wreck of the
Mary Rose had signs of huge musculature in the back and shoulders.
My current party of misfits is a bit Fraggle Rock: elf rogue, half-elf warlock, dragonborn druid, halfling barbarian, tiefling assassin, gnome illusionist thief, but they do have a human cleric to ground things a bit. I think inexperienced players tend to rely on gimmicks rather than take the trouble to work out an interesting personality. The novelty soon wears off though.
^^^Now this I did not know, but it makes sense. It took years of practice to make a good longbowman. But, they did not need to be extraordinary.
Quote from: Cave Bear;1070086I practiced archery as a kid. Trust me man, it's strength. The men you call tiny were massively built for their stature.
I did too. There was a method to stringing a bow that we were taught that made it much easier. My guess is Odysseus would have known it or something similar ( He knowing how to use his brain) and the suitors did not. Still, I think of Odysseus as an ordinary man who got by on his wits rather than any gift from the gods or any sort of super powers.
Quote from: Franky;1070108^^^Now this I did not know, but it makes sense. It took years of practice to make a good longbowman. But, they did not need to be extraordinary.
I did too. There was a method to stringing a bow that we were taught that made it much easier. My guess is Odysseus would have known it or something similar ( He knowing how to use his brain) and the suitors did not. Still, I think of Odysseus as an ordinary man who got by on his wits rather than any gift from the gods or any sort of super powers.
He got by on his extraordinary cunning, exceptional strength and fighting prowess (though less than some warriors like Achilles), and superb social skills in persuasion and deception. This is not somebody with an everyman's set of ability scores. There is no low score to be found here, so if this is an argument against using an ability array, Odysseus is perhaps only useful as "that player that rolled really well...at home...he says...but he must be telling the truth."
Eh, interesting bit I learned a few years ago... Odysseus's name translates into something like 'bearer of suffering' or something like that. I dunno, ancient greek is greek to me.
Quote from: Franky;1070108Still, I think of Odysseus as an ordinary man who got by on his wits rather than any gift from the gods or any sort of super powers.
Except for, you know, being a king and all. That coming with wealth, influence, health, combat skills, knowledge of aristocratic customs and such.
Has anyone actually read
The Oddysey? He claims guest-friendship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenia_(Greek)) with kings, something an ordinary man would have no right to.
Quote from: Kiero;1070124Except for, you know, being a king and all. That coming with wealth, influence, health, combat skills, knowledge of aristocratic customs and such.
Has anyone actually read The Oddysey? He claims guest-friendship (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenia_(Greek)) with kings, something an ordinary man would have no right to.
Excellent: Lets talk about the social structure of Bronze Age Greece!
We toss about the term 'King' but its probably a lot more accurate to say something like Cheiftan. Remember that the Greeks at Troy were all 'kings' after a fashion. How many can you name off the top of your head? I can probably force more than a dozen or so out with a tiny bit of cheating, and I'm sure it was much higher. Its not much of an exaggeration to suggest that when Odysseus killed all the suitors he wiped out the equivalent of the entire adult male population of Ithaca (though, presumably many of the Suitors were not native to Ithaca). Its not an unreasonable suggestion that anyone over the age of twenty or so on Ithaca itself has a damn good chance, regardless of social status, of recognizing Odysseus personally, which is why he goes about in disguise.
King, sure. But to clarify: Right now I live in a small town of about 15k people. By the standards of the day there would probably be three or more 'kings' in this one town alone, if not more. Don't forget that Odysseus tried to get out of the Trojan war by plowing his fields, implying strongly that even the kings had manual labor they had to perform.
Quote from: Franky;1070108I did too. There was a method to stringing a bow that we were taught that made it much easier. My guess is Odysseus would have known it or something similar ( He knowing how to use his brain) and the suitors did not. Still, I think of Odysseus as an ordinary man who got by on his wits rather than any gift from the gods or any sort of super powers.
It doesn't matter, it still requires a significant amount to just draw a bow, imagine how much stronger a GOD'S bow is. Now imagine how much stronger a pull Apollo's bow would have at that.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1070127It doesn't matter, it still requires a significant amount to just draw a bow, imagine how much stronger a GOD'S bow is. Now imagine how much stronger a pull Apollo's bow would have at that.
Bah! Even gods in 5e D&D know to dump Strength if using a bow. Much like their mortal followers that somehow have no trouble stringing and drawing a longbow with the ubiquitous Strength 8 dump stat.
Quote from: Spike;1070126Excellent: Lets talk about the social structure of Bronze Age Greece!
We toss about the term 'King' but its probably a lot more accurate to say something like Cheiftan. Remember that the Greeks at Troy were all 'kings' after a fashion. How many can you name off the top of your head? I can probably force more than a dozen or so out with a tiny bit of cheating, and I'm sure it was much higher. Its not much of an exaggeration to suggest that when Odysseus killed all the suitors he wiped out the equivalent of the entire adult male population of Ithaca (though, presumably many of the Suitors were not native to Ithaca). Its not an unreasonable suggestion that anyone over the age of twenty or so on Ithaca itself has a damn good chance, regardless of social status, of recognizing Odysseus personally, which is why he goes about in disguise.
King, sure. But to clarify: Right now I live in a small town of about 15k people. By the standards of the day there would probably be three or more 'kings' in this one town alone, if not more. Don't forget that Odysseus tried to get out of the Trojan war by plowing his fields, implying strongly that even the kings had manual labor they had to perform.
No, the Greeks worthy of mention were often lords or kings, not all of them present. It's a standard demographic pyramid, a small number of wealthy aristocrats, with a much larger number of yeoman in their train.
He was still a lord, even if king was being generous to his actual means; an aristocrat, categorically not any kind of "ordinary man". Because ordinary men did not fight and could not afford their own equipment. They tended fields on the behalf of bigger men, or worked their little garden plots.
And no, he didn't wipe out the "entire adult male population of Ithaca" by killing the suitors. At most he killed the bulk of the aristocratic, unmarried, male population of marriageable age. Which was a significantly smaller subset of that rather large figure. With perhaps a small number of additional from outside his island kingdom.
That he might know many of his subjects doesn't change the fact that as a lord or king, he has a whole suite of advantages and skills no "ordinary man" of the period would have. Including the leisure time to develop combat skills.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1070130Bah! Even gods in 5e D&D know to dump Strength if using a bow. Much like their mortal followers that somehow have no trouble stringing and drawing a longbow with the ubiquitous Strength 8 dump stat.
5E doesn't have composite longbows?
Quote from: HappyDaze;1070130Bah! Even gods in 5e D&D know to dump Strength if using a bow. Much like their mortal followers that somehow have no trouble stringing and drawing a longbow with the ubiquitous Strength 8 dump stat.
Uh, I tend to give my archers a decent strength, in D&D, even if it doesn't really matter mechanically. Although I have found that in the long run, it's beneficial, cuz sometimes a sword is more effective than ranged attacks in a melee.
Also, why are people so desperate to make Odysseus into a 'normal' dood? He never was. Because he'd have never been a King, nor would have been part of the Trojan War. Also, if I remember correctly, the only reason why he tried to be a farmer to avoid the War was because he had gotten a prophecy claiming that he wouldn't be able to return home after at least a decade. And Ody, having a beautiful wife, wanted to get back to her as soon as he could.
Quote from: Kiero;1070133No, the Greeks worthy of mention were often lords or kings, not all of them present. It's a standard demographic pyramid, a small number of wealthy aristocrats, with a much larger number of yeoman in their train.
Not actually arguing my point, despite starting with "no". I agree: All the greeks worthy of mention were kings by some definition. Absolutely. But also by that standard, Greece alone provided literally dozens of 'kings', making them very, very small kings, which is why I suggested chieftain is more accurate in scope and, for that matter, social relevance.
QuoteHe was still a lord, even if king was being generous to his actual means; an aristocrat, categorically not any kind of "ordinary man". Because ordinary men did not fight and could not afford their own equipment. They tended fields on the behalf of bigger men, or worked their little garden plots.
Still not arguing against my point. Odysseus commanded enough men to crew several ships, so we are agreed that Odysseus was not Private Odysseus, otherwise anonymous grunt digging ditches. You seem to think he commanded some vast impersonal kingdom from high up in his palace, which is a very modern, and not very bronze age, view of kingship.
QuoteAnd no, he didn't wipe out the "entire adult male population of Ithaca" by killing the suitors. At most he killed the bulk of the aristocratic, unmarried, male population of marriageable age. Which was a significantly smaller subset of that rather large figure. With perhaps a small number of additional from outside his island kingdom.
In 2011, Ithaca's population is just over 2000 people. Its not unreasonable to suggest that in the bronze age that number was much smaller, and most, if not all, the adult male population had left for war (Troy) twenty years earlier and ONLY Odysseus returned home. Odysseus kills 108 men, which very probably was close to the number of adult men living on Ithaca at the time, given the two prior facts. We may allow some confusion over what constituites an adult man, as it is common, but not universal, to discount men older and younger than fighting age, but even still...
QuoteThat he might know many of his subjects doesn't change the fact that as a lord or king, he has a whole suite of advantages and skills no "ordinary man" of the period would have. Including the leisure time to develop combat skills.
Yet its not just believable but canon fact (from Homer's Illiad, which as you clearly know precedes the Odyessy) that Odysseus plows his own farm, and his vast kingdom is an island that supports maybe 500 or so people in his day (roughly 1250 BC).
Since you seem to be struggling with this: I'm not at all disputing that Odysseus was in the highest social class of his realm. In fact we know he owned several slaves. Of course, we also know he built his own bed rather than hiring a craftsman, in addition to plowing his own fields, so clearly he was not far removed from manual labor despite all that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be implying that Odysseus was a social parasite aristocrat who studied warfare because he had time, not that he was a ruler because he was the guy who had to go out and fight off raiders and pirates, which is far more likely. Most nobility arose from dedicated warrior classes, which arose from the necessity of having guys who COULD fight, and thus were largely exempted from the labor to produce food so they could train and be good at it.
EDIT::: A fun bit of trivia, and a minor self correction: Odysseus's HOME is Ithica, while his KINGDOM was about four islands, maybe six depending on which source you use. He brought a total of 12 ships (compared to Agammenon's 100), each crewed by 120 dudes from six islands (Illiad as source), making him in greek terms a very minor king. For funsies, we assume an even distribution of ships/islands, he took 240 men from Ithaca, and only he returned, and we can presume that he took MOST of the fighting age men to war with him, leaving only some slave or serf farmers, along with young boys and old but hale men to maintain the joint. So 108 is low for Ithaca (maybe a third?) at its height, but after losing EVERYONE to the war and the trip home, its actually.... pretty spot on.
So my initial comment about Killing Ithaca's adult male population more or less stands, but my comment about how small a kingdom is slightly off, since Odysseus has more than one Island. My Bad.
EDIT AGAIN: Since I have shit memory, I forgot to point out that around the same era, Ramses took four divisions of 5000 men, or 20,000 men to battle at Kadesh against the Hittites, compared to Odysseus's 1440 at Troy (using Homer's numbers). When people think of kings I bet they think more like Ramses or Muwatalli II of Hattusa, than some pissant island 'king' like Odysseus. In persepective, focusing on what a kingly guy he was is a bit like pointing out that the Duke of Luxemburg is a world leader. Sure, strictly speaking. But when was the last time the Duke of Luxemburg set international trade rates aflame?
The entire point I am making is that Odysseus is not an "ordinary guy". Which people keep saying.
Being removed from manual labour is not the point, that he is from the top social class is what precludes him being an "ordinary guy". There's nothing ordinary about being from the elite. Doesn't matter whether that is impoverished or close to the manual end of things by dint of the actual setup of the real kingdom he rules over. If he weren't a king, he would have been chased off trying to claim guest-friendship with other kings.
As for Ramses and his ilk, they're more equivalent to Persian kings-of-kings - they had a distinction already built in for people who weren't merely the headman of a few villages, but someone who those headmen paid fealty to.
Quote from: Kiero;1070139The entire point I am making is that Odysseus is not an "ordinary guy". Which people keep saying.
And I never tried to make the claim he was an ordinary guy. My focus was on that 'king' is sort of a stretch based on his actual status and position, while Chieftain (still acknowledging his place at the top of the social order, but far more accurate to his actual position) was a better choice.
QuoteBeing removed from manual labour is not the point, that he is from the top social class is what precludes him being an "ordinary guy". There's nothing ordinary about being from the elite. Doesn't matter whether that is impoverished or close to the manual end of things by dint of the actual setup of the real kingdom he rules over. If he weren't a king, he would have been chased off trying to claim guest-friendship with other kings.
Actually, any member of the upper classes, to include most or all the guys Odysseus took with him, could claim that. Actually, greek rules of hospitality applied to all social orders. Note that while pretending to be a begger Odysseus claims hospitality rights in his own house, and gets it, at least in accordance to what a Begger deserves from a 'king', which is some food and a dry place to sleep, and an old servant woman to wash his feet, not bad for a begger!
QuoteAs for Ramses and his ilk, they're more equivalent to Persian kings-of-kings - they had a distinction already built in for people who weren't merely the headman of a few villages, but someone who those headmen paid fealty to.
Yet also: Agammemnon brought ten times the ships and men Odysseus did and is still called King, not King-of-kings.
Sorry, I can be a bit pedantic over use of language. King is just a huge stretch given Odysseus's actual position in even Greek states, much less the Late Bronze Age. His value to the Greeks wasn't his vast horde of fightan men, but his great cunning. In that regards he might as well have been an ordinary man (socially), as they'd have drug his ass to war just on account of how damned tricky he was known to be. I mean: In one sense we're comparing him to a guy who killed a fucking river. By THAT standard, Odysseys WAS an ordinary guy, king or no king.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1069843No, it's EASIER for people with natural talent, but if someone WANTS to be better than what they are, they can try. The problem is that D&D, especially early editions, your stats are locked. Thing is, it doesn't work that way. You start practicing with a sword, your strength and dexterity (In D&D terms) doesn't stay at 9, it increases, as does your endurance. Intelligence might be the only stat that tends not to change, although evidence suggests it can decrease. But in pre-3e D&D, nothing short of magic could increase your stats, no matter how much extra training you claimed to do, you were LOCKED in, permanently.
Quote from: Chris24601;1069866You know, the fact that people do effectively "train up" in real life what are ability scores in the game is actually a REALLY good point. So good in fact it actually makes me want to rewrite the rules towards that end because D&D is basically 180 degrees backwards on it. In D&D you're naturally really strong so you choose to be a fighter. In real life, you start training to be a fighter and become really strong.
Chris1: In early D&D you could improve stats. But only via aging, magic, pools and tomes in AD&D and I believe OD&D. Dont think so in BX and would have to dig through 2e to see what they did.
Chris2: In early D&D actually the assumption was that the PC had been training up to become their chosen class before becoming an adventurer. They were an apprentice, farmer, did training on the sly, etc prior. I believe it even mentions this in the DMG but cant pin it down at a glance.
X: Dragon and I am pretty sure 2e both introduced systems for improving stats. But even there the general assumption was the PCs had been training up or at least doing something, and/or naturally good stats, prior to the start of the adventuring.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1070115He got by on his extraordinary cunning, exceptional strength and fighting prowess (though less than some warriors like Achilles), and superb social skills in persuasion and deception. This is not somebody with an everyman's set of ability scores. There is no low score to be found here, so if this is an argument against using an ability array, Odysseus is perhaps only useful as "that player that rolled really well...at home...he says...but he must be telling the truth."
Odysseus is the protagonist of mythic tales, even more relevant than what stats he rolled is the fact that his attack rolls and saving throws and such are all exactly what are needed to propel the story forward.
Quote from: Cave Bear;10701345E doesn't have composite longbows?
Not as such, no. The game has changed such that you can use Strength as your attack and damage bonus informer (and are required to do so for things like greatswords), or use Dexterity (and are required to do so for things like bows), or either-or (for a select band of equipment with the 'finesse' property, such as rapiers). Much digital ink and think-pieces have been spent on the issue, but what it means is that you don't feel compelled to have fighters with 18 Str, 18 Dex, 18 Con, and can actually decide to put a good stat in Int, Wis, or Cha (but the guy with high Strength and Dexterity can switch-hit as needed, so everyone has some advantage).
Quote from: Omega;1070146Chris1: In early D&D you could improve stats. But only via aging, magic, pools and tomes in AD&D and I believe OD&D. Dont think so in BX and would have to dig through 2e to see what they did.
Chris2: In early D&D actually the assumption was that the PC had been training up to become their chosen class before becoming an adventurer. They were an apprentice, farmer, did training on the sly, etc prior. I believe it even mentions this in the DMG but cant pin it down at a glance.
X: Dragon and I am pretty sure 2e both introduced systems for improving stats. But even there the general assumption was the PCs had been training up or at least doing something, and/or naturally good stats, prior to the start of the adventuring.
Early D&D seemed to have all sorts of changing of stats. The whole rule addition to 1e where increasing your stats with wishes to start requiring 10 wishes/ per stat point when the stat was 16+ must have come about because too many early games had entirely too many wishes flying about. There were also magic pools in modules which raised stats, and of course a bunch of magic items. What modern D&D did that I like wasn't that you could increase your stats naturally as you leveled, so much as give some clarity on how frequent those that-improvements were supposed to be. Although, if I were to design a game, I think I'd leave stats as mostly static, and let
level (y'know, the think that is supposed to increase over time to signify your character getting better at what they do) be the primary determiner of power.
Quote from: Omega;1070146Chris2: In early D&D actually the assumption was that the PC had been training up to become their chosen class before becoming an adventurer. They were an apprentice, farmer, did training on the sly, etc prior. I believe it even mentions this in the DMG but cant pin it down at a glance.
But if that were the case, why would completely random scores make sense? Indeed, it seems 180 degrees backward. You roll your scores and then decide what you were training to become based on what works best with the random rolls instead of deciding to train to be a warrior or cleric or wizard and then training up your most important abilities to the limit you're able.
It almost feels like each class should have its own set of rolls (kinda akin to Palladium RCCs) for their ability scores (ex. a fighter rolls STR 2d4+10, DEX/CON 2d6+6, INT/WIS/CHA 3d6) or something like extra dice for certain scores (i.e. all scores are best three dice, but fighters get to roll 5 dice for Str, 4 for Dex/Con and 3 for Int/Wis/Cha).
Even better, reflect the real order that this stuff develops in... like you roll 2d6 (keeping track of the separate die results) in order so you've got a sense of your natural aptitudes as a child about to start an apprenticeship, then you pick your class and the class gives you 1-3 extra dice (3 extra for one score, 2 extra for two others and 1 extra for the other three) for each score and you use the best three results (including your initial two dice) for each score.
Quote from: Omega;1070146Chris1: In early D&D you could improve stats. But only via aging, magic, pools and tomes in AD&D and I believe OD&D. Dont think so in BX and would have to dig through 2e to see what they did.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;1070148Early D&D seemed to have all sorts of changing of stats. The whole rule addition to 1e where increasing your stats with wishes to start requiring 10 wishes/ per stat point when the stat was 16+ must have come about because too many early games had entirely too many wishes flying about.
The random magic tables give a surprisingly good chance of items with wishes, even in the original books where wish was not a spell -- 1 in 20 magic swords came with 2d4 wishes if you used the random item table. Arguably there were more valuable uses for wishes (especially in OD&D where ability scores didn't affect as much), but increasing stats at the higher range became more valuable with the Greyhawk supplement, which also introduced wish as a 9th level spell, and the manuals and tomes that increased statistics. (AD&D also weakened the permanent spell; a permanent strength spell was a shortcut to very high strength for a fighter, and I can recall players doing that.)
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1070136Uh, I tend to give my archers a decent strength, in D&D, even if it doesn't really matter mechanically. Although I have found that in the long run, it's beneficial, cuz sometimes a sword is more effective than ranged attacks in a melee.
In 5e that shortsword that archers tend to keep as a side weapon can be used with Dexterity on the attack & damage rolls. With Strength 8, the archer can carry 80 lbs. of gear without any negative effects of encumbrance, so Strength gets dumped hard.
Apparently, I need to re-evaluate my opinion of Odysseus. Live and learn.
House rule in my groups was to allow a strength bonus for custom made bows. It made for a nice way to separate a PC from some of its GP, given that such bows were very expensive to make. With the HP bloat in 5e, it won't affect game balance on whit. Players feel good about it though.
Ability scores, except charisma, in OD&D really did not matter much, a bonus to XPTs, or a small bonus/minus for missile fire or hit points if the dex was 13+, or con 15+. Charisma mattered because of the number of hirelings a PC could get, and their loyalty. There was little point in any mechanics for increasing them. However, Greyhawk changed all of this, but did not provide any way for a PC to 'train up' ability scores. Not a feature, a flaw, IMO.
I had the impression wishes were mainly used to undo PC death's, rather than bump ability scores.
Quote from: Chris24601;1070151But if that were the case, why would completely random scores make sense? Indeed, it seems 180 degrees backward. You roll your scores and then decide what you were training to become based on what works best with the random rolls instead of deciding to train to be a warrior or cleric or wizard and then training up your most important abilities to the limit you're able.
I think you are looking at this backward...randomly roll the stats and THEN decide the class. Then assume he trained for that class growing up. If the stats really match his class well, that was him doing what he was naturally gifted to do. If the stats don't match as well to the class you want to play, then that was him really wanting to be a fighter instead of a mage even if he has a 13 STR and a 15 INT. Obviously, He spent a lot of time training his physical stats to even get his strength to that level. Remember, at one time, the character actually had to have certain stats to qualify for a given class.
Quote from: Chris24601;1070151It almost feels like each class should have its own set of rolls (kinda akin to Palladium RCCs) for their ability scores (ex. a fighter rolls STR 2d4+10, DEX/CON 2d6+6, INT/WIS/CHA 3d6) or something like extra dice for certain scores (i.e. all scores are best three dice, but fighters get to roll 5 dice for Str, 4 for Dex/Con and 3 for Int/Wis/Cha).
That would have been the optional rule from the back of 1E Unearthed Arcana.
Quote from: moonsweeper;1070259I think you are looking at this backward...randomly roll the stats and THEN decide the class. Then assume he trained for that class growing up. If the stats really match his class well, that was him doing what he was naturally gifted to do. If the stats don't match as well to the class you want to play, then that was him really wanting to be a fighter instead of a mage even if he has a 13 STR and a 15 INT. Obviously, He spent a lot of time training his physical stats to even get his strength to that level. Remember, at one time, the character actually had to have certain stats to qualify for a given class.
We viewed the rolled stats as an inkblot; you played whatever you saw in them. (But I viewed adventurers as fundamentally lazy - willing to take absurd risks for huge amounts of treasure - so did not retcon to explain the stats through training; they went in for whatever their natural talents suggested.)
The minimum stats for a class started in AD&D 1e; it still exists in D&D 5e in order to multiclass, but not for single classed characters.
Quote from: rawma;1070261We viewed the rolled stats as an inkblot; you played whatever you saw in them. (But I viewed adventurers as fundamentally lazy - willing to take absurd risks for huge amounts of treasure - so did not retcon to explain the stats through training; they went in for whatever their natural talents suggested.)
The minimum stats for a class started in AD&D 1e; it still exists in D&D 5e in order to multiclass, but not for single classed characters.
I was mostly just trying to give Chris an idea of how to view the 'training' aspect backstory in relation to the numbers on a character sheet. Mostly a 'role-playing' justification for having an odd array of random stats I guess.
I do like the inkblot analogy.
1. Roll dice for stats in order
2. This looks like a thief (or magic-user or whatever) to me
That is pretty much how I remember it.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;1069843The problem is that D&D, especially early editions, your stats are locked. Thing is, it doesn't work that way. You start practicing with a sword, your strength and dexterity (In D&D terms) doesn't stay at 9, it increases, as does your endurance.
In practical terms, a player doesn't care about "Dexterity" or whatever, they care whether their character can hit so-and-so, and whether they can take and/or evade several hits from so-and-son.
In AD&D1e there is no "sword" skill, you're just proficient or not in however many weapons, and your general combat skill rises with level, for example fighters improve by +2 every 2 levels for the first several. A +1 to hit is like going from 16 to 17 Strength, or up a slot in percentile, except you don't get the damage bonus. So in effect you become more skilled at
hitting with the sword as you go up levels.
As for avoiding being hit, as I've said before level-rising hit points can be taken as an abstraction of parrying/dodging and accumulating fatigue. In game terms we could have either, with rising level,
- HP stay the same, but difficulty of hitting you rises
- HP rise, difficulty of hitting you stays the same
The first better represents the reality of improving a combat skill. BUT an additional factor in lengthy combats is fatigue making it both harder for you to hit, and easier to hit you. Not many games model this. Classic Traveller tries to model the attacker being fatigued and losing skill by saying that after Endurance melee attacks you have a malus to your roll, but it's not often used as there are enough things to keep track of already, and it doesn't model the fatigued person being easier to hit.
So if you take the second option then the abstraction of Hit Points allows you to have an abstraction of fatigue making it easier for you to be hit; of course your Armor Class doesn't change, but with enough hits you reach a point where a subsequent hit might take you down. It doesn't model the fatigued person being less likely to hit others, however this comes about indirectly as a prudent player will have their low-HP character pull back a bit.
Now, I doubt this was all thought through when they came up with it. But what Arneson came up with by the chance of pulling a copy of
Ironclads during a game session is actually a fairly elegant solution to things. Obviously it has its limits, and common sense has to be applied, so that yes a bound character can be slain in one blow, and no your 10th level dwarf can't jump off a 1,000ft cliff and expect to survive. But it works fairly well, or as well as any abstraction can work.
Quote from: moonsweeper;1070259I think you are looking at this backward...randomly roll the stats and THEN decide the class. Then assume he trained for that class growing up. If the stats really match his class well, that was him doing what he was naturally gifted to do. If the stats don't match as well to the class you want to play, then that was him really wanting to be a fighter
This is once again for me to talk about Fabio, the Most Beautiful Fighter in the Cosmos. 3d6 down the line, his best stat was CHA17, I can't recall the rest. Early on he avoided what would have been some really difficult fights by parleying, and later when treasure afforded it he hired men-at-arms, and equipped and treated them well. In AD&D1e and 2e (this was 2e - not my choice) more important than bonuses to hit is having a lot of attacks, so 5 or so men-at-arms are actually fairly formidable. Because he equipped and treated them well and had 17 Charisma, they were very loyal to him.
He made it up to 5th level and then was turned to stone by a medusa. The other players were determined to come back and rescue him but I said: no, it is only right that the Most Beautiful Fighter in the Cosmos be turned into a statue.
You don't need to choose your character class based on the best stat you rolled up. Be imaginative.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1070170In 5e that shortsword that archers tend to keep as a side weapon can be used with Dexterity on the attack & damage rolls. With Strength 8, the archer can carry 80 lbs. of gear without any negative effects of encumbrance, so Strength gets dumped hard.
If using the laxer encumbrance system, they can carry 120. If using full on encumbrance rules, though, the penalties start at 5lbs. x str., so 40.
Quote from: Franky;1070173I had the impression wishes were mainly used to undo PC death's, rather than bump ability scores.
Again, just playing off what was put in the AD&D rules published 3 years later, it would seem that rampant wishing-yourself-higher-stats was at least in some gaming groups much of a thing (such that preventative steps needed to be taken, at least).
Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1070305In practical terms, a player doesn't care about "Dexterity" or whatever, they care whether their character can hit so-and-so, and whether they can take and/or evade several hits from so-and-son.
In AD&D1e there is no "sword" skill, you're just proficient or not in however many weapons, and your general combat skill rises with level, for example fighters improve by +2 every 2 levels for the first several. A +1 to hit is like going from 16 to 17 Strength, or up a slot in percentile, except you don't get the damage bonus. So in effect you become more skilled at hitting with the sword as you go up levels.
As for avoiding being hit, as I've said before level-rising hit points can be taken as an abstraction of parrying/dodging and accumulating fatigue. In game terms we could have either, with rising level,
Once we define attributes as things you can train to get better at, exactly where attributes should end and where class and level take over becomes pretty nebulous. It is interesting to see that, in 5e, attribute contribution stayed similar to 3e (has the same progression, although clearly getting a stat of X in each edition represents significantly different commitment), while the level contribution (proficiency bonus vs. 3e's to-hit or spell save DC calculations) declined. Given the general trend of moving towards seeking inter-character-choice-balance, it makes me wonder if point-buy/stat-arrays are becoming more of an assumed choice*.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;1070320If using the laxer encumbrance system, they can carry 120. If using full on encumbrance rules, though, the penalties start at 5lbs. x str., so 40.
You are correct, but note that the "laxer encumbrance system," aka carrying capacity, is the default rule while the other is a variant option. So by default, the weakest of PCs can haul around 90lbs. without any issues, and that's on a kobold or one of the incredibly rare races that actually has a -2 Strength racial adjustment.
Quote from: HappyDaze;1070322You are correct, but note that the "laxer encumbrance system," aka carrying capacity, is the default rule while the other is a variant option. So by default, the weakest of PCs can haul around 90lbs. without any issues, and that's on a kobold or one of the incredibly rare races that actually has a -2 Strength racial adjustment.
Right, agreed. I'm just still not clear on where the "the archer can carry 80 lbs. of gear without any negative effects of encumbrance" thing comes from. In neither model is 80 lbs., a cutpoint for no-consequences.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;1070323Right, agreed. I'm just still not clear on where the "the archer can carry 80 lbs. of gear without any negative effects of encumbrance" thing comes from. In neither model is 80 lbs., a cutpoint for no-consequences.
The 80 lbs. was my error at thinking the multiple was (10 x Strength) lbs. I agreed with your correction that it should have been (15 x Strength) lbs. in the first three words of my reply. I then expanded the (now corrected) minimum to cover kobolds.