Quote from: TJS on January 27, 2021, 08:39:12 PM
Honestly.  I think a lot of the issues are to do with this whole idea of building a special character to play and the idea that the whole game should revolve around the special character.

Exactly.  I can say that all of my 1e fighters started off as... fighters.  Then things happened.  Then they got magic items, made allies, got strongholds.  Then, suddenly (/s), they had become characters.  Their story grew out of play; it sure as hell wasn't written beforehand.  But, today, every special flower has to express themselves through their character.  How sad do you have to be when your imaginary character must be a reflection of who you are?

Part of the issue is that, as the mechanics have expanded to become more "universal." there is more in D&D to "optimize."  Bonuses that used to be small and only apply in a handful of cases now apply to every skill determined to relate to that attribute.  Bonuses pile on bonuses, rewarding those that plan characters accordingly.  We never "planned" a character's abilities (there was no such thing)!  We planned what they would do.

The fundamental question behind racial bonuses is this: are there some genetic traits that cannot be avoided?  You can see this in the argument over sex penalties to attributes.  The strongest woman alive is not even in the top 15% of the strongest men.  No amount of training, work, willpower, or dedication can ever change that.  Now, if you want sex to be irrelevant in your game, you can handwave that reality (and most of us do).  But you have to choose a level of verisimilitude that works for you and your players.  Some people cannot handle the concept that certain people, groups, etc. can be born irredeemably evil, flawed, or inferior to the norm.  If you are one of those people, feel free to reflect that in your game.  The problem arises when those same people demand that my game not include those concepts.  Which is what this argument is really about.

Lamborghini makes an SUV.  And you'd have to be a total retard to want one.  You buy a Lamborghini to own an expensive sports car.  Sure, some special flower might want to spend $100K+ for an SUV, just to prove that they are "different."  And they deserved to be relentlessly insulted and mocked.  If every car is a Lambo, the the brand loses its meaning.  If an elf can be anything, just as well as any other race, then being an elf is meaningless.  Go buy a Ferrari truck, then...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 27, 2021, 09:14:20 PM

Quote from: TJS on January 27, 2021, 08:39:12 PM
Honestly.  I think a lot of the issues are to do with this whole idea of building a special character to play and the idea that the whole game should revolve around the special character.

Exactly.  I can say that all of my 1e fighters started off as... fighters.  Then things happened.  Then they got magic items, made allies, got strongholds.  Then, suddenly (/s), they had become characters.  Their story grew out of play; it sure as hell wasn't written beforehand.  But, today, every special flower has to express themselves through their character.  How sad do you have to be when your imaginary character must be a reflection of who you are?

I don't mind the special flower character if the player would have been happy to have played a random one.  More specifically, I don't mind a player having ideas of characters they would prefer to play as long as they aren't fixed on "this character" for "that campaign".  A player capable of playing any old character they are handed, playing it well, and making the journey enjoyable for the whole group--probably can handle the special character equally well or even better.  A player with a lot of ideas for characters they would like to try can probably find one they are happy with in any campaign that fits their preferences in style.

That is, the demand of the special flower is not a problem because of the character, per se, though it might add to the problem.  No, the problem is the player sucks as a player and is using the special character to try to work around, hide, or possibly mask insecurity.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 27, 2021, 09:37:36 PM
Lamborghini makes an SUV.  And you'd have to be a total retard to want one.  You buy a Lamborghini to own an expensive sports car.  Sure, some special flower might want to spend $100K+ for an SUV, just to prove that they are "different."  And they deserved to be relentlessly insulted and mocked.  If every car is a Lambo, the the brand loses its meaning.  If an elf can be anything, just as well as any other race, then being an elf is meaningless.  Go buy a Ferrari truck, then...

What?

Quote from: ShieldWife on January 27, 2021, 05:30:35 PM
I actually had the same thought about sex based attribute adjustments. I'm not offended by the desire to give male characters +2 Strength, it would in fact be more realistic, but I would prefer not because it such a rule change encourages and discourages certain player choices. If females get +2 Cha and males +2 Str, then it punishes players who want to make male bards or sorcerers and players who want to make female fighters or barbarians. If someone wants a character that goes against type - like a female barbarian, or wizard, or whatever (regardless of how politicized it is or isn't) then why penalize them for that choice?

So, when it comes to removing racial modifiers, I can see a good argument. Not because I want to be politically correct or anything, but because I think that it would be better for players who player characters that break stereotypes not to be punished for doing so mechanically. Of course, people will say that they can still make the character and a few penalties here or there aren't the end of the world. This is kind of true, but being a wizard with a -2 Int when there is another wizard out there with a +2 Int is going to reduce enthusiasm somewhat and will effect many people's choices.

That is not an unreasonable point of view.  There's a tradeoff though.  If you eliminate mechanical racial differences, then only the cultural/behavioral/appearance differences are left.  You get more freedom to be what you want to be without penalty, but you also lose the ability to make a mechanically meaningful racial choice for your character.  I'd rather go with the mechanically differentiated races for this reason.

That said, if the only difference between races is a +/- to stats, then all of your PC wizards will be elves, or whatever the advantageous combo happens to be.  I think it's better design to give races a mix of bonuses and penalties that are more complex than that and also situational, so that different choices of near equal value are offered. 

A couple people commented on attribute shifts eliminating differences between races - it seems to me that the +2/-2 attribute shifts cause much of a *feel* in difference in play. It's a minor stat shift that isn't very noticeable from the outside. A half-orc fighter isn't significantly more distinctly half-orc because of the attribute difference. I think special racial features make far more of a difference in feel.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 27, 2021, 09:37:36 PM
Lamborghini makes an SUV.  And you'd have to be a total retard to want one.  You buy a Lamborghini to own an expensive sports car.  Sure, some special flower might want to spend $100K+ for an SUV, just to prove that they are "different."  And they deserved to be relentlessly insulted and mocked.  If every car is a Lambo, the the brand loses its meaning.  If an elf can be anything, just as well as any other race, then being an elf is meaningless.  Go buy a Ferrari truck, then...

If you don't want a Lamborghini SUV - don't buy it! But it's a different thing to insult everyone who did buy it. And a lot of people did - from what I read, SUVs are over half of Lamborghini's sales.

QuoteUrus sales totaled 4,962 units in 2019, accounting for more than half of all the Lamborghinis sold — and, at its starting price, Urus customers spent more than $1 billion on the SUV in 2019.

Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/lamborghini-urus-lambo-sales-year-photos-specs-supercar-2020-3

In terms of game mechanics - GMs can feel free to disallow half-orc wizards if they think those suck. But I don't think it makes sense for the game to build into the game mechanics that they're penalized for those who do like them. It just makes the game less balanced when they are in play.

Greetings!

I think that stat-based mechanical modifiers--both bonuses and penalties--are excellent aspects of differentiating entirely different races, and reflective of particular racial strengths and weaknesses. Half Orcs can *be* Wizards--but since Half Orcs have challenges with deeper mental attributes, they suffer penalties, like negatives to Intelligence, because they tend to be stupid.

That's entirely appropriate.

Half Orcs make sub-optimal Wizards, and are unlikely to ever be the equals of humans in Wizardry, let alone the majestic Elves. If a player doesn't like that, well, too bad. Play a human or Elf Wizard then. Otherwise, embrace the diversity.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: jhkim on January 28, 2021, 02:52:07 AM
A couple people commented on attribute shifts eliminating differences between races - it seems to me that the +2/-2 attribute shifts cause much of a *feel* in difference in play. It's a minor stat shift that isn't very noticeable from the outside. A half-orc fighter isn't significantly more distinctly half-orc because of the attribute difference. I think special racial features make far more of a difference in feel.

I agree. Stat bonuses are blatantly gameable, and directly impact class selection. Racial features a lot less so.

I like racial adjustments to ability scores a lot more when there is random ability score generation.  It seems rather pointless in most point buy methods, especially if the point buy method is generous.  Using the 5E array (or a similar earlier mechanic) is admittedly a mixed bag.

For my game, all ability score adjustments are conditional (e.g. roll a d20.  If higher than your current ability score, you can get 2-4 points in the ability score.  Otherwise, get 1 point).  That is also true of the racial adjustments, but these usually have further limitations.  Now, I'm using different ability scores, but translated to D&D, an example would be something like an elf getting an ability score improvement to either Int or Dex, whichever is lowest.   There, now elves are generally smarter and more graceful than humans, but the upper end doesn't move much.

Meanwhile, I've got elves with a conditional racial ability that gives them more "spell power" (think a few more spells per day) as long as they aren't carrying a lot of cold iron on their person and gives them less when they do carry the iron.  Non-elves with magic have reasons for not wearing heavy armor (usually), but the effect is more subtle.  With elves, it is a stark choice on equipment.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 27, 2021, 09:14:20 PM
The fundamental question behind racial bonuses is this: are there some genetic traits that cannot be avoided?  You can see this in the argument over sex penalties to attributes.  The strongest woman alive is not even in the top 15% of the strongest men.  No amount of training, work, willpower, or dedication can ever change that.  Now, if you want sex to be irrelevant in your game, you can handwave that reality (and most of us do).  But you have to choose a level of verisimilitude that works for you and your players.  Some people cannot handle the concept that certain people, groups, etc. can be born irredeemably evil, flawed, or inferior to the norm.  If you are one of those people, feel free to reflect that in your game.  The problem arises when those same people demand that my game not include those concepts.  Which is what this argument is really about.

I disagree that this is the fundamental question about racial bonuses -- because creating a PC isn't the same as reflecting the population distribution in a game-world. For example, I can have as part of the background of my world that halflings are rarely wizards, and that the most powerful halfling wizard in my game-world isn't in the top 15% of wizards overall. That's game-world background. But if a player decides to make a halfling wizard, that doesn't necessarily mean that I should necessarily make sure that his halfling wizard is less powerful than the other PCs.

Just like in my game-world, I can have that female NPCs are usually weaker than male NPCs -- and I don't need the change the PC generation rules to make this so.

A few people like Wicked Woodpecker prefer that players roll randomly for race, sex, and social class - then roll in order for attributes. But most people have players pick things that the PC has no choice over, and that doesn't represent the game-world distribution.

Quote from: SHARK on January 28, 2021, 03:13:03 AM
Half Orcs make sub-optimal Wizards, and are unlikely to ever be the equals of humans in Wizardry, let alone the majestic Elves. If a player doesn't like that, well, too bad. Play a human or Elf Wizard then. Otherwise, embrace the diversity.

Similar to Eirikrautha, you're talking here in part about what half-orcs are like as a population in the game-world, which is a different question than how to handle PC creation.

Quote from: jhkim on January 28, 2021, 10:23:43 AM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 27, 2021, 09:14:20 PM
The fundamental question behind racial bonuses is this: are there some genetic traits that cannot be avoided?  You can see this in the argument over sex penalties to attributes.  The strongest woman alive is not even in the top 15% of the strongest men.  No amount of training, work, willpower, or dedication can ever change that.  Now, if you want sex to be irrelevant in your game, you can handwave that reality (and most of us do).  But you have to choose a level of verisimilitude that works for you and your players.  Some people cannot handle the concept that certain people, groups, etc. can be born irredeemably evil, flawed, or inferior to the norm.  If you are one of those people, feel free to reflect that in your game.  The problem arises when those same people demand that my game not include those concepts.  Which is what this argument is really about.

I disagree that this is the fundamental question about racial bonuses -- because creating a PC isn't the same as reflecting the population distribution in a game-world. For example, I can have as part of the background of my world that halflings are rarely wizards, and that the most powerful halfling wizard in my game-world isn't in the top 15% of wizards overall. That's game-world background. But if a player decides to make a halfling wizard, that doesn't necessarily mean that I should necessarily make sure that his halfling wizard is less powerful than the other PCs.

Just like in my game-world, I can have that female NPCs are usually weaker than male NPCs -- and I don't need the change the PC generation rules to make this so.

A few people like Wicked Woodpecker prefer that players roll randomly for race, sex, and social class - then roll in order for attributes. But most people have players pick things that the PC has no choice over, and that doesn't represent the game-world distribution.

You totally missed the next few sentences, apparently.  The distinctions are not just population-based, they are distinctions at the margins, too.  A female can NEVER become as strong as the strongest male.  That's not a distribution issue; it's an issue at the maximums, based on biology.  So an argument based on PC special-ness is irrelevant, because, if these modifiers express true genetic differences, then they will hold true at the extremes as well.  Honestly, if there is any legit criticism of the system, it's that all races cap out at 20s.  Goliaths should cap out at 20+racial mod.  Ditto that for the others.  So WotC have managed to mangle the system at both ends...

In terms of population distributions; one of the things I actually go into in my system is how rare PC-quality individuals are;

"While those trained as warriors (about 1-in-100 people in most places) can be more capable, even among their numbers those capable of matching even a low level PC are the elite top 1% (so one-in-ten-thousand overall). PCs who reach the expert tier (level 6+) are one-in-a-million paragons and those who reach the master tier (level 11+) are once-in-a-century heroes remembered in story and song for centuries if not millennia."

So a starting character in the system is basically 1-in-10,000 among the population (they tend to congregate though so an important city of 15,000 might have 12 while the surrounding area with a population of 150,000 has none). By level 6 they're literally one-in-million and you'll see only a handful of 11+ heroes in the world during an entire century.

I don't have hard caps on attributes like 5e, but they also don't improve as much after character creation either (+1 at level 6, +1 at 11) so I don't need 5e's bounds to keep scores from getting too high. I also have size-based modifiers too so that even a scrawny giant* (Str 0; a 10-11 in D&D) can carry as much as a beefy human (Str 3; a 16-17 in D&D) while a strong high-level giant and a human paragon of strength both could have Str 7 (a 24-25 in D&D), the giant will be able to lift four times what a human could (unless the human has a magic item that improves their lifting capacity, but that's magic).

* most giants in my setting are between 8-10' tall with elders reaching 16-20' (which is HUGE compared to a 5-6' human who maybe reaches a normal giant's navel and an elder's knee... still only 4x the lifting capacity despite 30x the volume though because square-cube law is a thing).

Quote from: Eirikrautha on January 28, 2021, 11:34:30 AM

Quote from: jhkim on January 28, 2021, 10:23:43 AM
I disagree that this is the fundamental question about racial bonuses -- because creating a PC isn't the same as reflecting the population distribution in a game-world. For example, I can have as part of the background of my world that halflings are rarely wizards, and that the most powerful halfling wizard in my game-world isn't in the top 15% of wizards overall. That's game-world background. But if a player decides to make a halfling wizard, that doesn't necessarily mean that I should necessarily make sure that his halfling wizard is less powerful than the other PCs.

Just like in my game-world, I can have that female NPCs are usually weaker than male NPCs -- and I don't need the change the PC generation rules to make this so.

A few people like Wicked Woodpecker prefer that players roll randomly for race, sex, and social class - then roll in order for attributes. But most people have players pick things that the PC has no choice over, and that doesn't represent the game-world distribution.

You totally missed the next few sentences, apparently.  The distinctions are not just population-based, they are distinctions at the margins, too.  A female can NEVER become as strong as the strongest male.  That's not a distribution issue; it's an issue at the maximums, based on biology.  So an argument based on PC special-ness is irrelevant, because, if these modifiers express true genetic differences, then they will hold true at the extremes as well.  Honestly, if there is any legit criticism of the system, it's that all races cap out at 20s.  Goliaths should cap out at 20+racial mod.  Ditto that for the others.  So WotC have managed to mangle the system at both ends...

So would you be satisfied if all races generated ability scores the same, but humans had an Intelligence maximum of 20, and half-orcs had an Intelligence maximum of 18? It seems to me that's a more minor difference than the current modifiers. And it's a difference that would be less noticeable in actual play.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 28, 2021, 12:00:59 PM
In terms of population distributions; one of the things I actually go into in my system is how rare PC-quality individuals are... a starting character in the system is basically 1-in-10,000 among the population (they tend to congregate though so an important city of 15,000 might have 12 while the surrounding area with a population of 150,000 has none). By level 6 they're literally one-in-million and you'll see only a handful of 11+ heroes in the world during an entire century.

This certainly makes sense for verisimilitude, although (as is my wont) I'll note the other side of it, i.e. the reason the Forgotten Realms has so many ridiculously high-level NPCs running around: If it only takes getting to level 11 to be among, literally, the best in the history of the world, where does the challenge come from?

Ultimately, the whole point of accumulating more power in most RPGs is to beat foes you couldn't beat before; rendering that power irrelevant, either by running out of challenges for it or by sidestepping it with challenges you need something other than raw power to beat, tends to undermine much of the game.

This also leads to another reason to keep race-class (or other relatively static-template) combos: one of the most popular elements in gaming is the tactical element, and one of the most important things in tactical play is (to quote Brian Gleichman) combination of dissimilar assets. If you can't meaningfully mechanically differentiate game elements in ways that the players themselves have to take into account (i.e. can't redefine by choice), then the challenge of figuring out exactly how to combine what your characters can do for best effect tends to go by the wayside.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on January 28, 2021, 12:47:17 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 28, 2021, 12:00:59 PM
In terms of population distributions; one of the things I actually go into in my system is how rare PC-quality individuals are... a starting character in the system is basically 1-in-10,000 among the population (they tend to congregate though so an important city of 15,000 might have 12 while the surrounding area with a population of 150,000 has none). By level 6 they're literally one-in-million and you'll see only a handful of 11+ heroes in the world during an entire century.

This certainly makes sense for verisimilitude, although (as is my wont) I'll note the other side of it, i.e. the reason the Forgotten Realms has so many ridiculously high-level NPCs running around: If it only takes getting to level 11 to be among, literally, the best in the history of the world, where does the challenge come from?

Personally, nearly all of my D&D experience has been level 10 and under. Once we get there, we start a new campaign. But from my experience with superhero gaming, it's pretty easy to get a challenge even if the PC is stronger than the stronger person in history. Being the strongest or the smartest single person in history, there are still plenty of challenges - legendary monsters, demi-gods, armies, and so forth.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on January 28, 2021, 12:47:17 PM
This also leads to another reason to keep race-class (or other relatively static-template) combos: one of the most popular elements in gaming is the tactical element, and one of the most important things in tactical play is (to quote Brian Gleichman) combination of dissimilar assets. If you can't meaningfully mechanically differentiate game elements in ways that the players themselves have to take into account (i.e. can't redefine by choice), then the challenge of figuring out exactly how to combine what your characters can do for best effect tends to go by the wayside.

You're generalizing here to all tactics, but what we're talking about is just choice of race/class combo. I would say that at best, it is a strategic choice - not a tactical one. And even among strategic play, I think that's one of the less interesting strategic elements. I could do without strategic race/class combinations, and still have lots of both strategy and tactics in my game.