TheRPGSite

I really like 5th edition D&D in a number of ways. I especially like the simplicity since I came from playing Pathfinder before hand. There is one issue, though, that 5E has that has really always been an issue since the early days of D&D (or at least AD&D) and that is racial optimization. If you want to be a fighter or barbarian, choose a race with a bonus to Strength. If you want to be a rogue, choose one with a bonus to Dexterity. Bard or sorcerer, choose a Charisma race, etc. As D&D has progressed, the tendency for this has declined a bit, from the earliest days where your race was your class, to races having only narrow class options and level maximums, to more relaxed options with attribute bonuses and penalties which lent themselves to optimization, to the elimination of attribute penalties (which a feel a bit conflicted over) but still a number of bonuses and abilities which make some class combinations optimal or suboptimal.

I do see this as a weakness in D&D, as well as other games that have the equivalents of races and classes or something similar. Of course, people can always just choose what ever race and class combination that they want without worrying about optimization, but in practice a lot of people won't do this, even players who favor themes over crunch feel a disinclination to do that.

There is also the option to play exclusively human games, which I like and have mostly played over the years, but it can sometimes be fun to have a game with more exotic or fantastic races/species options.

So what alterations or options could one implement to reduce or eliminate race-class optimization as an issue.i have had a few ideas. One could be a number of race options that you can choose from when picking your race, maybe even options tied to classes. For example, maybe orc wizards get a bonus to damage on all damaging spells. Maybe Tiefling barbarians receive a Strength rather than a Charisma bonus. Something like that.

Has anybody thought of this issue and devised ways to miniseries this effect?

That has never really been a problem except with char-op type players which are a problem no matter if there were elves with +2 STR or there was no race bonus at all. They will just min-max/char-op in other ways.

Everyone else plays a character that interested them. So you are trying to fix a "problem" that in a way does not exist except within this limited arena of dysfunctional players.

How do you eliminate the issue? Tell the players at the start to create a character and not a block of points.

It is that simple. If they fail to abide that then tell them no. Go find a table that allows that. This aint one. Just dont come down on players who take certain races because the racial theme fits their idea of a class.

Elves as Rangers or Wizards. Wood Elves as Druids. Orcs as Fighters and Barbarians. Dwarves as Fighters. Halflings as Rogues. Tieflings as Warlocks.
And for whatever reasons and influences I've seen some associate Dwarves and Halflings with Clerics. Dragonborn and Orcs with Paladins.

In these cases its not about any bonuses. It is about character concept.

XP bonus for creating a PC whose bonus is not to the class prime ability?

I've run campaigns where I've limited the class and race options. You could intentionally pick races/classes that don't optimize as the PC choices.

I've played All-Elf and All-Dwarf campaigns, and that forces most of the table to not-optimize.

I agree with Omega that a min-maxer is going to min-max. This is one of the reasons I prefer race-as-class as found in BD&D. Beyond that, I tend to personally play human-centric games, which solves that particular issue.

In a high fantasy game, in your shoes, I'd be sorely tempted to let the dice decide. I'd personally pair this strictly with rolling stats in order, and strongly encourage people to roleplay whatever the oracles decide.

Roll 3D6:
   [table=width: 500]
[tr]
   [td]3[/td]
   [td]Choose: Dragonborn or Gnome[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
   [td]4-5[/td]
   [td]Halfling[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
   [td]6-8[/td]
   [td]Dwarf[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
   [td]9-12[/td]
   [td]Human[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
   [td]13-15[/td]
   [td]Elf[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
   [td]16-17[/td]
   [td]Half-elf[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
   [td]18[/td]
   [td]Choose: Half-orc or Tiefling[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

I do like the Roll for Race, then Roll for Class idea!

Orc Druid! Human Thief! Elf Barbarian! Dwarf Bard!

Roll on the druid spell Reincarnation? :cool:

But if you really want a dirt cheap solution then just remove the racial stat bonus and give any non-human race a +1 and a +2 to place in any two stats, humans get +1 in all stats. Boom. Done.

1. Play AD&D1e.
2. Roll 3d6 down the line.
3. You are human.
4. Choose fighter, magic-user, cleric or thief.
5. Roll for hit points, starting coin and choose gear.
6. Begin play.

Many problems are solved by this approach. How many Scottish dwarves, effeminate elven archers, sneaky thieving halflings and angry half-orc fighters do we really need to see to realise that the counterintuitive fact is that restricting choices actually enhances creativity?

Better yet. Play AD&D Conan. You are human and your class options are Fighter and Thief. Maybee a Monk.

I haven't really experienced this as an issue in 5e, probably because of the stat cap at 20 - a PC without a racial bonus in their primary stat will eventually hit the cap anyway. Also I mostly use randomly rolled (in order) PCs which heavily reduces min-maxing.

There are a few odd 5e min-max options like mountain dwarfs getting medium armour prof making them the best wizards & sorcerers, this was something I worried about white-room, but in play I don't see mountain dwarf wizards; I suspect the anti-archetypal nature of the build wins out over min-maxing.

I think there's the very real possibility that players, especially the less experienced and less imaginative ones, just derive plenty of satisfaction by playing a stereotype character. They want an elf because all elves are graceful, agile, intelligent, good with the bow, and at home in the woods.
I dont' see why one should discourage that.

Then you also have the munchkin who will always look for optimization. My take on him is that if his obsession becomes a pain in the back for the other players or for the storyline, then I'll deal with that. But if not, if that's what makes him happy - why not.

Quote from: ShieldWife;1091010There is also the option to play exclusively human games, which I like and have mostly played over the years, but it can sometimes be fun to have a game with more exotic or fantastic races/species options.

Well, you could also just not have stat or ability differences among the races. Just have humans with pointy ears, so it's purely a matter of role-playing.

Thing is, you have to admit, even for yourself, when you say "option" what you really mean is stuff that affects the math of the game. And someone is always standing by to crunch numbers.

But I really don't think the optimizers are necessarily creating optimal characters. I think they actually miss a lot of key factors in their formulas. So to my eyes, the "problem" is more like player preferences tend to cluster around certain combinations. And I don't know that's actually a problem. Nor is it obvious that fighting against player preferences would be a good idea.

This is actually one of the ways I think the older versions of the game are superior. There are probably millions of ways you could mix and match things to produce a character. And it takes zero effort or insight to just say, "Have at it!" Not all of them are going to be equally fun and interesting to play. What players will ultimately choose will inevitably cluster. And from that, archetypes emerge, and that's what the older versions of the game were doing with all their nasty restrictions. Now it may be the case that after all these years the archetypes need to be updated. But the idea of having a discrete set of archetypes is here to stay.

QuoteSo what alterations or options could one implement to reduce or eliminate race-class optimization as an issue.i have had a few ideas. One could be a number of race options that you can choose from when picking your race, maybe even options tied to classes. For example, maybe orc wizards get a bonus to damage on all damaging spells. Maybe Tiefling barbarians receive a Strength rather than a Charisma bonus. Something like that.

Oddly enough, I find AD&D sort of does that.

For example:

Dwarf Fighters get +1 to hit half-orcs, goblins, and hobgoblins. And ogres, trolls, ogre magi, giants, and titans have -4 to hit dwarves.
Dwarf Thieves can detect traps involving stonework--pits and falling blocks--at 50% probability.

Sure, thieves also get the combat bonuses and fighters get the detection bonuses, but how often is a fighter going to be checking for traps when there's a thief in the party? How often are thieves going to engage in direct confrontation when there are fighters to do it? It's not never, but the significance of the various racial benefits do vary with class. Sort of like what you're suggesting, only more organic.

There are basically 3 tiers of this issue, not 2:

1. Min-maxers, already discussed sufficiently above.

2. Normal people that primarily have a character idea in mind but don't want something that feels "useless" to them--given the nature of the campaign, what the other players are doing, etc.  This is, of course, highly dependent upon the GM and group chemistry.  In a normal game, it can be a fairly wide band.   For these people, finding the perfect race is not an issue.  But they do want to pick from a set of races that are "good enough".

3. Players that for whatever reason (fidelity to character, cluelessness, a perverse desire to push the envelope all the time, a desire for a mechanical challenge, etc.) somehow manage to make a race pick that sets them back.  (Usually the race pick by itself isn't enough to do this in 5E, but that type is unlikely to make compromises elsewhere to mitigate going that hard against type.)  Some of these players don't mind the result.  If they are happy, and the rest of the group isn't rabid min-maxers, then it probably works fine.  It's a great way for a savvy player to push themselves and give newer players some room.

For my current 5E campaigns, I've used two tweaks that make it not an issue at all.  (It wasn't much of one before, since I'm more likely to have someone of type 3 than type 1, but same principle.)  To wit:

A. File the serial numbers off of the races, separating the mechanics from the archetype/story/campaign aspects.  I've tweaked humans to be mechanically human, half-elf, half-orc, halflings to be mechanically halflings and gnomes, toned down drow a little to have a good (for my purposes) third elf race.  So that's 12 racial choices to play human, halfling, elf, or dwarf.  That gives a wider range of classes that work with each campaign race.

B. Use the fact that magic items aren't that important to handle "character balance" issues. Namely, I'm doing a mostly moderate magic item campaign that leans slightly towards the stingy side.  The expectations are that characters don't have many items.  The more a character is optimized, the less likely I am to include an item that will help them much, and vice versa.  It's a subtle effect, and useful for more than simply race choices, but it handles that too.  If someone really had their heart set on a halfling (forest gnome) barbarian with strange ability score placement, that character is going to get a slightly better set of magic items, and get them slightly quicker than the other characters.  That also how I handled the moon druid issues.  Moon druids are somewhat over-powered in the early levels.  For some strange reason, in my campaign moon druids start finding useful equipment about the same time they learn than bears, wolves, and panthers can't handle the current opposition. :)

Require players to pick their race before rolling stats.  In a game I'm working on right now I set it up so the attribute rolls are modifiers to racial ability scores.  So, if humans get 10s straight across the board, and you're adding 1d10-5 to each ability score, you have to pick your race before rolling stats.

I use regional demographics for my campaign scope. :)

Yes, that means I have a percentage chance for the races I allow, all stacked together within 100%. Direct Majority Halfling region? They get 51%+ and the rest of the allowed races take up the rest. If a player does not know what they want to play, they can roll on the Demographics Table for a random choice.

(The Demgraphics Table is also useful in randomizing different NPC encounters, too! Party meets a traveller on the Main Road coming into Halfling Land? Dunno who they are? Randomly roll their race, their personality, and a rumor! Ta-dah! Adventure. :D)

Exceptions are by GM permission only. Any threats to not play unless they get their preferred race is gladly accepted and a new player vacancy appears -- all are happy. ;)

Voilà, all is fixed. :) My campaign, my rules. Your time, your choice to walk away.

If all races are equal and it makes no difference over game play which one you choose, Why not play humans only then?

And IMHO even a humans only game can and sometimes should have different bonuses depending on your backgrounds. For instance take Conan, You're playing a Cimmerian Barbarian. Does it make sense to allow you to be a priest of Set? Would a Cimmerian born and raised in Cimmeria dabble in magic? Would a Pict know how to build a zigurat? A Turanian what plants are edible in the Kushite Jungles? Not without some in-game justification right?

And this is with a mono species game, just based on culture, and environment.

So there's even stronger reasons in a game with different species, and don't kid yourself those are different species, even if they were called races from day one for some obscure reason.

I'm going to take a different tack on this. Here goes.

I'm going to bid $1.

Specifically - from a GM's standpoint I don't think racial stat optimization is a player-issue. It is a GM-issue. Why? Because the GM should be enforcing the realities of the setting. If players are juvenile enough to think that just because playing an Elf in a setting where the Usual Fantasy Tropes(tm) are in effect - Humans dominate, Elves are a vanishing race, Marauding Orcs etc. - then enforce those conceits. Humans might look at the elf with suspicion, wonder etc. But in the end - they're going to prefer dealing with the humans in the party. Same is true with the other races.

By erasing this normal distinction and assuming everyone is the same except they're wearing different rubber prosthetics, by that silly standard Half-Orcs should rule the D&D-space, by simply beating the crap out of everyone. The races aren't the same. Not just by stats, but by cultural imperatives and social realities. That is how you balance the "issue".

Players that think they can "win" the game by having superior stats - might be true only in games where dungeon-crawling and murder-hoboing are the dominant methods in play. If you're running your setting with broader conceits, then these ideas of stat-differences being an issue go away. If you enforce the social realities of your setting, you'll sober those players up.

Yeah half-orc, you get to go sleep in the stable... if you're lucky enough to be allowed into town. Yeah human, you're going to get punked when you show up with your half-orc friend at his den of scum-and-villainy.

This is one of the reasons why I love Talislanta. The races are wildly unbalanced in terms of stats on *purpose*. The status-quo of reality should be established and reinforced by the GM.

Quote from: ShieldWife;1091010Has anybody thought of this issue and devised ways to miniseries this effect?

As someone who likes to do odd race/class combos, I say let 'em. You can drive yourself batty trying to come up with some solution that the min/maxer is just going to consider another challenge.
Let them have their fun.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;10910351. Play AD&D1e.
2. Roll 3d6 down the line.
3. You are human.
4. Choose fighter, magic-user, cleric or thief.
5. Roll for hit points, starting coin and choose gear.
6. Begin play.

Many problems are solved by this approach. How many Scottish dwarves, effeminate elven archers, sneaky thieving halflings and angry half-orc fighters do we really need to see to realise that the counterintuitive fact is that restricting choices actually enhances creativity?

And many more are created. I dropped this method for a reason. I got tired of players who rolled sub-optimal or downright terrible characters, and they didn't want to go through the obnoxious process of playing the shitty character until their inevitable demise, cut through the gordian knot, and announce "My character commits suicide."

Quote from: tenbones;1091070By erasing this normal distinction and assuming everyone is the same except they're wearing different rubber prosthetics, by that silly standard Half-Orcs should rule the D&D-space, by simply beating the crap out of everyone. The races aren't the same. Not just by stats, but by cultural imperatives and social realities. That is how you balance the "issue".

Players that think they can "win" the game by having superior stats - might be true only in games where dungeon-crawling and murder-hoboing are the dominant methods in play. If you're running your setting with broader conceits, then these ideas of stat-differences being an issue go away. If you enforce the social realities of your setting, you'll sober those players up.

Yes.  When I talked about filing the serial numbers off of the races, I'm talking about the same idea from a different direction.  That is, you the GM wants to play the races more or less as is, then enforce the cultural and other conceits behind how those rare are done, as you say.  OTOH, if the GM wants to play the races some other way, then the GM needs to identify the new cultural and other conceits that will take their place, and then modify the races to fit them.  Either way, the player has much less vested interest in focusing solely on mechanics.  

It's never a perfect solution, because in a game as wide-open as D&D, there are always mechanical edges to be explored.  But it isn't necessary to be perfect, only good enough to discourage and identify the rabid players that need to be booted and encourage the remaining players to develop better habits.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1091079Yes.  When I talked about filing the serial numbers off of the races, I'm talking about the same idea from a different direction.  That is, you the GM wants to play the races more or less as is, then enforce the cultural and other conceits behind how those rare are done, as you say.  OTOH, if the GM wants to play the races some other way, then the GM needs to identify the new cultural and other conceits that will take their place, and then modify the races to fit them.  Either way, the player has much less vested interest in focusing solely on mechanics.  

It's never a perfect solution, because in a game as wide-open as D&D, there are always mechanical edges to be explored.  But it isn't necessary to be perfect, only good enough to discourage and identify the rabid players that need to be booted and encourage the remaining players to develop better habits.

Sure!

Again the issue is enforcing the chicken or the egg. Races have stat-differences *because* of "reasons". Those reasons are the conceits of the setting. Those assumptions if ignored (which is often the case) is where players become inadvertently incentivized to go for "best stats", because there is no effective reason not to.

So sure - you either go by what the setting implies overtly. OR you change the setting conceits and therefore change the stats of the races to reflect those. In a homogenous society of many different races, I'd expect a life of leisure would drop high-physical stats and increase mental stats (at least from negatives to zeroes) etc.

But then what's the point of having all these different races in the first place? Unless you have something special cooked up that is, again, socially relevant. This is always going to be a GM-issue, not a player-issue.

Agree completely.

As somewhat of a tangent ...

For brevity, I may have hinted at a false impression of what I did and why I did it.  In fact, I started with the conceits of the campaign settings.  The only knee-jerk reaction I had against core D&D to start was that I didn't want the archetypes of tielflings, dragonborn, half-elves, or half-orcs.  In determining the best way to get the campaign conceits implemented with as little work as possible, I settled on needing 3 radically different elven cultures, 2 radically different dwarven cultures, 3 somewhat different halfling cultures, and at least 3 human cultures.  I could have done that with 4 mechanical races, and then handled the cultural difference some other way.  But the way 5E presented races, it was already halfway to where I wanted to go.  Then it wasn't hard to squint at a few of the other racial packages and get them to fit.  (I also had a vested interest in the information in the player's books not changing any more than necessary, and was willing to compromise quite a bit to make that work.)  

My biggest changes were to the drow, but even that was pretty light on what was in the books.  All I needed was a paragraph in the player handout explaining their radically different role.

In retrospect, the 4th halfling type was overkill.  I could have dropped the stouts entirely. And in fact, probably should since no one has played one.  I only went with it because after I had three, a 4th one didn't really hurt, either.  

Circling back around more on topic, someone else starting with goals similar to mine for a campaign could have also made it work by having 4 races with no ability score adjustments at all.  Perhaps pumping up the standard array (or whatever method is chosen) to compensate would have been warranted in that case.  Or maybe tweak racial proficiency option would work.  When I talk about separating race and culture mechanics in D&D in my preferred changes to the system, making these kind of changes easier and more obvious is part of what I envision.  After all, in 5E, elves having bonus proficiency in Perception is pretty darn defining.  If we want races to lead to less pigeon-hole tendencies by default, then the races shouldn't have so much attached to them.

Either all PCs are Human, or there are No Racial Bonuses.

Next problem?

I would agree with no racial stat bonuses. The problem as I see it is mixing *frequency* with *power level*.

Within the setting, say halflings are supposed to be less strong on average than humans. So halflings will more often not be front-line fighters. But then suppose a player does create a character who is less usual for the race and is a front-line fighter. By using racial stat adjustments, this character will be less effective than a half-orc fighter.

I think that's a bad incentive. Within the setting, we can recognize that half-orc fighters are more frequent and more effective than halflings - just as fighters and rogues are more common than wizards. But we shouldn't make more rare PCs less effective just because they're supposed to be rare.

Moreover, if one wants to put limits on halfling versus half-orc relative Str, you can do that by having the races set different maximums, instead of having an ability score adjustment.  It's even easier to make a character, too.

You could even say that in 5E, the current method is counter-productive:  A halfing and a half-orc both top out at Str 20.  A halfling fighter will need more ability score improvements to get to 20, but given how many a fighter gets, they can still easily get there.  All that happens is that the half-orc gets to bump some other stat or take one more feat than the halfling.  Whereas, if you set the halfling maximum at 18, they can progress relative to the half-orc, but the half-orc has an edge later.  

If that was all the racial packages did, it might be too much.  The 1st level half-orc has no advantage over the 1st level halfling whatsoever, which might be a bridge too far for many people.  But both races have other things that make them slightly better or worse in various circumstances.

Quote from: Razor 007;1091090Either all PCs are Human, or there are No Racial Bonuses.

Next problem?

All the PCs are Human or there are No Racial Bonuses.  :/

I just accepted that race was an optimization option for D&D (and related). In 5e it's not really such a big thing to me, especially as the (Variant) Human seems to be "optimal" for almost everything.

You could have the players roll their PC's stats and then decide their race based on their stats. Thus, if they have a high STR and CON, they can be a dwarf. I'd use 2D6+6 down the line. [Oooh, you have high stats! How cool! Oh look, the goblins brought an ogre. Roll initiative high stat boy!]

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1091073And many more are created. I dropped this method for a reason. I got tired of players who rolled sub-optimal or downright terrible characters, and they didn't want to go through the obnoxious process of playing the shitty character until their inevitable demise, cut through the gordian knot, and announce "My character commits suicide."

Which is why I do that, then add "If all stats are <9, raise STR to 9; you're a Fighter." and that's it. I don't permit metagame suicide; you play the hand dealt as best you can, like it or not, and do so in good faith.

Quote from: Bradford C. Walker;1091143Which is why I do that, then add "If all stats are <9, raise STR to 9; you're a Fighter." and that's it. I don't permit metagame suicide; you play the hand dealt as best you can, like it or not, and do so in good faith.

Do you force everyone to have fun too?

Give everyone a stat array to choose from.

If you want some racial differentiation give a minimum or maximum for certain stats rather than a bonus.

The issue is what to do to compensate humans who don't get any of the racial abilities.

I'd recommend giving them one of the +1 stat + something else feats rather than a free pick (possibly don't give them the benefit of the +1 stat).

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1091073And many more are created. I dropped this method for a reason. I got tired of players who rolled sub-optimal or downright terrible characters, and they didn't want to go through the obnoxious process of playing the shitty character until their inevitable demise, cut through the gordian knot, and announce "My character commits suicide."

Ah, I see you have boring and uncreative players, rather than players who take whatever they roll up and make the best of it. Or possibly it's just you.

I have had retarded players in the past, too. This is part of why I run an open game table, that way the Brainless Slime can just quietly ooze away rather than our having to have that awkward It's Not You It's Me Actually It Is You conversation. And other players come along who get it and enjoy it.

Character suicide is a player resignation from the campaign. At least do Suicide By Insane Bravery And Not Checking For Traps. I had a player once roll up a 1HP fighter, he declared that since any damage would have killed him, Kagg must never have been hit, therefore Kagg thought he was invincible and was insanely brave. Of course, every foe ended up missing him, he made every saving throw and so on, and his first adventure he got enough xp and treasure to level up. That player was, quite obviously, trying to get his character killed - but he did it in an entertaining and creative way, rather than just "I kill myself," and so he and everyone else had fun - and it turned out to be a viable character anyway.

I rolled up a very average fighter without more than 11 or so Strength - but 17 Charisma. The DM was merciful and said I could swap stats, I said: Fabio, the Most Beautiful Fighter in the Cosmos. His spare starting money went to hiring a man-at-arms, later cash went to hiring multiple. He ended up with 15 who he'd rotate through dungeons, took 5 with him into the dungeon. "Fabio and his Five Fingers - together, we FIST YOU!" He equipped and paid them well (all silver found went to the men-at-arms, any deaths got a lavish burial, etc) and between that his CHA they were slavishly loyal. He made it up to level 5 or so when he failed a saving throw to gaze upon a medusa and was turned to stone. The other players wanted to come back and rescue him, I said, "No, it is only right that the Most Beautiful Fighter in the Cosmos should be preserved forever as a statue."

On one occasion the players came upon mummies in their sarcophagi. They won initiative and sat on one lid, and the MU cast Hold Portal on another. He used a rock drill to make two holes in the lid and then poured oil in and lit it up. What level were they, what were their stats? I can't remember - but you can cast Hold Portal at first level, and there is no level requirement for a rock drill and some oil and a torch. He could have been first level with straight 3s except for 9 INT and done that.

A sensible DM will do things which encourage and reward creativity. A dull and boring DM will just give them high stats and a splatbook to pick special options from, and then stymie all creativity they have. "The goblins sense you only have one hit point and all attack you! The men-at-arms backstab you! The mummies move too fast!"

Roleplaying games are a social creative hobby. Player with uncreative roleplayers is like playing a sport on a team of klutzes - amusing, but not really the point of the thing. Unlike the preponderance of klutzes in the world, though, I find that most players are more creative than DMs give them credit for. They just need the opportunity to do so.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1091113I just accepted that race was an optimization option for D&D (and related). In 5e it's not really such a big thing to me, especially as the (Variant) Human seems to be "optimal" for almost everything.

Yeah in the vast majority of cases variant human is going to be the best race for serious min maxers. "My class needs stat X, I'll take a race that boosts stat X" is such penny ante min maxing that it's really not worth worrying about someone getting a simple +1 over a human.

A whole lot of minmaxers are pretty shitty at it especially if you apply the RAW.

Personally I love minmaxing but mostly to power up my goofball character concepts back up to par, not to be more powerful than others.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1091152Ah, I see you have boring and uncreative players, rather than players who take whatever they roll up and make the best of it. Or possibly it's just you.

I have had retarded players in the past, too. This is part of why I run an open game table, that way the Brainless Slime can just quietly ooze away rather than our having to have that awkward It's Not You It's Me Actually It Is You conversation. And other players come along who get it and enjoy it.

Character suicide is a player resignation from the campaign. At least do Suicide By Insane Bravery And Not Checking For Traps. I had a player once roll up a 1HP fighter, he declared that since any damage would have killed him, Kagg must never have been hit, therefore Kagg thought he was invincible and was insanely brave. Of course, every foe ended up missing him, he made every saving throw and so on, and his first adventure he got enough xp and treasure to level up. That player was, quite obviously, trying to get his character killed - but he did it in an entertaining and creative way, rather than just "I kill myself," and so he and everyone else had fun - and it turned out to be a viable character anyway.

I rolled up a very average fighter without more than 11 or so Strength - but 17 Charisma. The DM was merciful and said I could swap stats, I said: Fabio, the Most Beautiful Fighter in the Cosmos. His spare starting money went to hiring a man-at-arms, later cash went to hiring multiple. He ended up with 15 who he'd rotate through dungeons, took 5 with him into the dungeon. "Fabio and his Five Fingers - together, we FIST YOU!" He equipped and paid them well (all silver found went to the men-at-arms, any deaths got a lavish burial, etc) and between that his CHA they were slavishly loyal. He made it up to level 5 or so when he failed a saving throw to gaze upon a medusa and was turned to stone. The other players wanted to come back and rescue him, I said, "No, it is only right that the Most Beautiful Fighter in the Cosmos should be preserved forever as a statue."

On one occasion the players came upon mummies in their sarcophagi. They won initiative and sat on one lid, and the MU cast Hold Portal on another. He used a rock drill to make two holes in the lid and then poured oil in and lit it up. What level were they, what were their stats? I can't remember - but you can cast Hold Portal at first level, and there is no level requirement for a rock drill and some oil and a torch. He could have been first level with straight 3s except for 9 INT and done that.

A sensible DM will do things which encourage and reward creativity. A dull and boring DM will just give them high stats and a splatbook to pick special options from, and then stymie all creativity they have. "The goblins sense you only have one hit point and all attack you! The men-at-arms backstab you! The mummies move too fast!"

Roleplaying games are a social creative hobby. Player with uncreative roleplayers is like playing a sport on a team of klutzes - amusing, but not really the point of the thing. Unlike the preponderance of klutzes in the world, though, I find that most players are more creative than DMs give them credit for. They just need the opportunity to do so.

I see you don't have much experience with RPGs. We had been through all what you describe multiple times. I even went back to that mentality of "Play what you draw" when running DCC. And it's fun enough.
But we, as a group, also like to play games where the stats aren't so random and flukey. Playing "Fabio the the most Beautiful Fighter" gets old when you've done it a few times, and for every "lucky character", there's a baker's dozen of roll-ups who just die at the first surprise round with a kobold.

This problem was solved decades ago by simply combining race and skill set into the class. Not only does this mean elven wizards and human wizards don't need to be the exact same, but it also means that the DM can adjust each race/skill combo individually for balance reasons. Plus, it's simpler for the player to run and allows DMs more freedom to create truly exotic character types.

Race-as-class FTW.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1091146Do you force everyone to have fun too?

I don't, but the taser behind my GM screen is very insistent! :eek:

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1091186Race-as-class FTW.

Hell yeah!!

For me, if any race is any class, then every race is just humans in a rubber suit. It's race as bonus grab.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1091186Race-as-class FTW.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1091191Hell yeah!!

For me, if any race is any class, then every race is just humans in a rubber suit. It's race as bonus grab.

Now don't tasser me but, there's a way to have any race be any class without it becoming all races a grey mush of sameness.

Let's take the MU: In a world where magic is real and the Gods answer it makes sense every race had a magic user, you just need to find the inworld logic that would make an Elf better or worst at some types of magic, even making that race unable to use some types.

Same with fighters, lets say you have half-orcs in your game as PCs, does it make inworld sense to have the halfling be just as effective as the taller and stronger half-orc? No, therefore a halfling gets half the benefits than the human and the half-orc 1.5 the benefits of the human.

And so on. It's a lot of work and you need to make progression tables by race/class adjusting for the differences between the races. And then there's the cultural stuff:

Some races (for cultural reasons) would eschew certain professions or favor heavily others. Lets say highlanders vs coastal ppl. Some professions would be found among both, others not because the geography makes said profession useless or even because their culture has a taboo against it.

Just like the baked bigotry of some races against others, this differences need to be baked into the system and taken into account if you're to allow any race to have any class (or almost anyway). It's the only way not to end with humans in rubber suits.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1091200Now don't tasser me but, there's a way to have any race be any class without it becoming all races a grey mush of sameness.

If the classes are tailored to the race ("racial classes"), then that works out.

In my OD&D, I've often made druid spells exclusive to Elves, instead of them as pointy eared fighter/mages.

I'd definitely be interested in a D&D variant where C/F/M/T classes were tailored for each race. It would be fun to have Dwarf Warriors have notably different fighting skills than an Elf Ranger or a Halfling Ambusher.

Get good at combat.

After one combat session with me, the player who optimized their Goblin Rogue for stealth-based Sneak Attacks or their Drider Barbarian skilled at Two-Weapon fighting learn that the most dangerous min-maxer at the table is ME.

I let players run whatever they want because I can always find the counter to what they want to do. Min-Maxing is like that; they're very good at a thing but, lacking in other areas. My job as GM is finding their weakness(es) and exploiting them.

It's a necessary degree of Gamemaster education. I've read so many forum posts about GMs struggling with optimized PCs. Seen it via PbP in-game. GMs who can't exploit surprise, terrain, lighting, weather, position, numbers. You can overwhelm any group of PCs with a CR-level group of skeletons. I almost brought sessions of Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous to a quick end by exploiting numbers-based Challenge Rating. If the PCs are outnumbered at least 2-1, it makes things "tricky".

If you use CR and players ask you how they nearly got 86ed - you're doing it right. Overwhelming them with low-CR monsters/NPCs is all the advantage you need. A pack of wolves. Skeletons. Goblins. Insects. Let them be 1 HD or less and the swarm of adversity can be a lethal problem.

Learn your game. A GM who can't kill a party within the context of the rules isn't educated and thus, easily beaten. You will bore your players during combat.

Considering how CR sets weaksauce challenges, GMs have to break out all the tricks to make any fight even remotely a challenge. I do not enjoy the baked in CR concept of "expending 1/5th of your resources". Makes games too predictable.

In 4e, I only used the "hard" CR chart as the world's baseline and let the players know that upfront. Then I'd use a +/- randomizer so 1/4 of encounters were easier and 1/4 of encounters were...worth more XP. Then on top of that, I approach 4e combat as a competitive skirmish boardgame so the monsters are played to the hilt so whatever splatbook char-optimization they bring to the table isn't my concern. I'm gonna bloody them and their PCs.
 
In OD&D, I'm all about 75% randomized encounters. But in OD&D, we don't worry about optimization.

Quote from: Spinachcat;1091205If the classes are tailored to the race ("racial classes"), then that works out.

In my OD&D, I've often made druid spells exclusive to Elves, instead of them as pointy eared fighter/mages.

I'd definitely be interested in a D&D variant where C/F/M/T classes were tailored for each race. It would be fun to have Dwarf Warriors have notably different fighting skills than an Elf Ranger or a Halfling Ambusher.

Yeah it's something I figure many would be, but like I said it's a ton of work, to tailor each class for each race. Also you'd need to limit PC races to about 7 tops or you end up with a 1000+ page book filled to the brim with progression charts with all the special snowflake races ppl like to play now.

Even with 7 races and just 4 classes you end up describing 28 classes plus their progression tables. Not counting the different spells you'd need to create for what? 7 or 14 different magic users? And forget about multiclassing.

In my Low Fantasy Sandbox I'm trying to do something like this, but then again it's humans only. The difference is in culture not on race (here used correctly) or the species of High Fantasy games.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1091218Yeah it's something I figure many would be, but like I said it's a ton of work, to tailor each class for each race. Also you'd need to limit PC races to about 7 tops or you end up with a 1000+ page book filled to the brim with progression charts with all the special snowflake races ppl like to play now.

If you were going to publish a game, you'd have that problem. But I just include the basic classes and only add new classes if a player requests it. This way the players aren't shopping for the most powerful class and since each class only has one character playing it, it greatly limits any potential problems with balance.

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1091309If you were going to publish a game, you'd have that problem. But I just include the basic classes and only add new classes if a player requests it. This way the players aren't shopping for the most powerful class and since each class only has one character playing it, it greatly limits any potential problems with balance.

4 Races times 4 classes it's 16 different entries, still plenty of work, even if it's just for your table.

I like when each race suggests a canonically "best" class, but I also like to keep a human-centric game. Rather than revamping the entire system, I find that adding a simple stat bonus for humans has more than normalized character race selection in this regard. (I don't play 5e, so I don't know exactly what would be an appropriately balancing number, probably +2 total points to any ability scores). Over the course of the last 5 years playing this way, our adventuring parties have been approximately 80% human. Before that change, they were 80% non-human on average.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1091035How many Scottish dwarves, effeminate elven archers, sneaky thieving halflings and angry half-orc fighters do we really need to see to realise that the counterintuitive fact is that restricting choices actually enhances creativity?

So very true, and I have often intentionally played characters counter to racial stereotype with great success and much enjoyment (Dwarven Thieves are awesome!). For better or worse though, I have also found that generating interest from new players is much more difficult when they are essentially assigned a character to play. I think this approach works best with experienced players looking to take their creativity to the next level.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;10913204 Races times 4 classes it's 16 different entries, still plenty of work, even if it's just for your table.

I've done way more than that. It wasn't much work as I just didn't do them all at the same time. Like I said, unless you are publishing the game, you don't need to write-up all the classes before hand. And, even when writing them up, you don't need to write-up more than three levels until a player actually picks that class and starts to level up.

"Just in time game design" is what I call it. I started with the seven classes from B/X and started adding from there. First the goblin sneak, then the house pixie, then ogre pit fighter, then the vampire, etc, etc,

Quote from: hedgehobbit;1091324I've done way more than that. It wasn't much work as I just didn't do them all at the same time. Like I said, unless you are publishing the game, you don't need to write-up all the classes before hand. And, even when writing them up, you don't need to write-up more than three levels until a player actually picks that class and starts to level up.

"Just in time game design" is what I call it. I started with the seven classes from B/X and started adding from there. First the goblin sneak, then the house pixie, then ogre pit fighter, then the vampire, etc, etc,

Maybe I am thinking more as a game designer than a GM due to my being in the mist of designing a game.

Quote from: Zalman;1091323For better or worse though, I have also found that generating interest from new players is much more difficult when they are essentially assigned a character to play. I think this approach works best with experienced players looking to take their creativity to the next level.

Actually, I find the opposite. Or rather, players who've been brought up on later editions of D&D where everyone gets to create their own special unique snowflake are initially bewildered by just rolling it up and going with it - but they soon get into it. This is because they actually have more creative freedom in a 1e game, even with those restrictions I suggested, than in a 3.5-5e game, where things are run like a computer game with Here Is The Quest and No You Can't Jump That Three Foot Wall. If the rules describe everything you can do in great and copious detail, then they also describe everything you can't do. "What skill do I roll to sit on a mummy's sarcophagus lid and drill a hole in it?"

In a recent Classic Traveller game session, one of the new players expressed surprise the players had spent most of the session on legal wrangling over who owned a ship. "I thought it'd be more space opera," he said. I explained: it's not space opera, it's not all fighting or all legal or whatever, it's whatever you choose it to be. If you choose to solve problems with combats, you will get combats. If you choose to take your characters to Admiralty Court, you will get legal wrangling. If you choose to sit around and drink booze, that'll happen, too. But there are events happening in the game world which will happen with or without you, it's up to you whether you get involved, and once you do get involved, things might change, and there will be consequences for you. The next session was a gigantic space battle - the crew chose to get involved. "You see?" I said - and now he gets it, and is thrilled.

There's a similar reaction once they realise their characters can actually die.

Modern roleplaying games have great creative freedom during character generation, but restrict creative freedom during play. Old school games restrict creative freedom during character generation (by random rolls), but grant great creative freedom during play. In modern games, your character is awesome because of numbers on your character sheet. In old school games, your character is awesome because of what you have them do in play.

Awesome numbers on a character sheet encourage players to see themselves and their character as a unique special snowflake, and not contribute to play unless they can be the star. It's like a team of soccer players where no-one will pass the ball, everyone wants to be the one to score the goal, even the goalie - who then lets a goal through, so the referee has to change the rules to allow the team to win despite their complete lack of teamwork. AKA Challenge Ratings.

By restricting choices during character generation, you bring the focus from the character sheet to play. We are here to play a game, not look at our character sheets.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1091370Actually, I find the opposite. Or rather, players who've been brought up on later editions of D&D where everyone gets to create their own special unique snowflake are initially bewildered by just rolling it up and going with it - but they soon get into it.

That makes sense to me for players of later editions -- a very different group from truly new players. I tend to play more with the latter, which would explain our opposite experiences I think. Of course, a game that allows selection of abilities, race, and class can still be balanced to provide the desired game world (as noted my game runs about 80% human), and doesn't necessarily have to pander to the specialsnowflakeism of later edition D&D.

Quote from: Zalman;1091375That makes sense to me for players of later editions -- a very different group from truly new players. I tend to play more with the latter, which would explain our opposite experiences I think. Of course, a game that allows selection of abilities, race, and class can still be balanced to provide the desired game world (as noted my game runs about 80% human), and doesn't necessarily have to pander to the specialsnowflakeism of later edition D&D.

I mainly GM for children 8-12 to introduce them to the hobby, so after 2-3 (sometimes more) sessions they go away with a copy of the game (microlite74 3d6 edition translated by me) and a totally new group forms. I haven't found them to fail to engage. Which makes me think it's more about new players that do know a bit about the new games from popular culture, but I could be wrong.

Quote from: GeekyBugle;1091376I mainly GM for children 8-12 to introduce them to the hobby, so after 2-3 (sometimes more) sessions they go away with a copy of the game (microlite74 3d6 edition translated by me) and a totally new group forms. I haven't found them to fail to engage. Which makes me think it's more about new players that do know a bit about the new games from popular culture, but I could be wrong.

Hm, not sure we're talking about the same thing. Engagement hasn't been an issue for me either way.

No, entirely new players are fine with it. There are few people who have no exposure whatsoever to any kind of game, even eight year olds have played Minecraft or something, and many of them have played games requiring you to make choices about your character's setup or actions.

One of the issues rpgs have always had is that most board games' rules can be laid down in a page or two, but rpgs like to be wordy. A game like chess has simple rules, and the complexity emerges in play; a game like GURPS or D&D3.5 puts the complexity there at the start. So, one game allows you to just jump in and start playing, and the other requires some heavy reading.

Obviously, those of us experienced in any particular version of D&D (or other rpgs) could write a one-page startup summary. But the newbie doesn't know which are the important parts and which not, so when the game actually offers one million options, they can't help but wonder if the DM's summary is stiffing them a bit. But if the game doesn't actually have those options then it's no big deal.

One of the brilliant aspects of AD&D1e is that - even with all the race/class options allowed - it's simple to start, and it's the level system adds complexity. So as your character levels up you get more options, and you're now experienced enough to know which options are right for you.

The most popular and long-lasting games are those which are simple to start but have emergent complexity. That's why AD&D1e is still played more than 40 years after it came out, but nobody plays D&D4e. That's why Classic Traveller is still played, but Traveller 5e is just a doorstop.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1091370Actually, I find the opposite. Or rather, players who've been brought up on later editions of D&D where everyone gets to create their own special unique snowflake are initially bewildered by just rolling it up and going with it - but they soon get into it. This is because they actually have more creative freedom in a 1e game, even with those restrictions I suggested, than in a 3.5-5e game, where things are run like a computer game with Here Is The Quest and No You Can't Jump That Three Foot Wall. If the rules describe everything you can do in great and copious detail, then they also describe everything you can't do. "What skill do I roll to sit on a mummy's sarcophagus lid and drill a hole in it?"

The chances that the DM is going to let you drill a hole in a sarcophagus lid and pour in oil is pretty slim.

Quote from: Shasarak;1091419The chances that the DM is going to let you drill a hole in a sarcophagus lid and pour in oil is pretty slim.

Eh, I assume not all sarcophagi are going to be hard schist. I'd assume maybe alabaster or gypsum... or even just whacking off, shifting aside, a corner of the lid to get oil in there. I'd reward clever play in that case, even if it is imprecise. I understand the intent at least.

Getting players to look away from the char-sheet buttons and be in the moment of the game fiction is worth it for me. :)

Quote from: Opaopajr;1091426Eh, I assume not all sarcophagi are going to be hard schist. I'd assume maybe alabaster or gypsum... or even just whacking off, shifting aside, a corner of the lid to get oil in there. I'd reward clever play in that case, even if it is imprecise. I understand the intent at least.

Getting players to look away from the char-sheet buttons and be in the moment of the game fiction is worth it for me. :)

And the Mummy is just what, playing dead while the characters are discussing what they want to do and while they laboriously unpack their drill and start grinding away?

I mean sure if you have a soft DM then he is going to let you get away with this kind of stuff no problem.  But a normal DM?  Nah, it will be flame resistant Mummies all the way down and now you are caught without weapon holding a drill.

Dont get me wrong, it is a funny anecdote.

You missed the story earlier on. That was taken care of with a whole party sitting on one lid, and Hold Portal on another.

It's almost as if the players were creative and the DM rewarded them for it - in a fantasy roleplaying game, of all places! What is this madness?!

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1091391One of the brilliant aspects of AD&D1e is that - even with all the race/class options allowed - it's simple to start, and it's the level system adds complexity. So as your character levels up you get more options, and you're now experienced enough to know which options are right for you.

The most popular and long-lasting games are those which are simple to start but have emergent complexity. That's why AD&D1e is still played more than 40 years after it came out, but nobody plays D&D4e. That's why Classic Traveller is still played, but Traveller 5e is just a doorstop.

^^^^ This.

I think back to when I learned D&D, I didn't swallow the whole thing at once. I learned it in layers. If you know attack rolls, damage rolls, initiative, and saving throws, that's enough to start playing and having a lot of fun. As you play and try to do different things, it raises questions. And the rest of the rules provide answers, filling in the blanks. Like if I sneak up on my enemies, why should he have just as much chance at attacking first as me? Oh. Okay, I see the game has rules for surprise. Learning the additional rules becomes easier when you are mindful of the purpose because you have a specific problem to solve.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1091391That's why AD&D1e is still played more than 40 years after it came out, but nobody plays D&D4e. That's why Classic Traveller is still played, but Traveller 5e is just a doorstop.

I think there is a big difference in who is playing those games that confounds a simple comparison of the games themselves. The games from 40 years ago have a lot of old (perhaps even elderly) players, and they stick with what they've known. The later games came during a glut of a wide range of games and to a generation that has a much shorter attention span. If 4e D&D had been released 40 years ago, there is a possibility that it would still be embraced by those that cut their teeth on it.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1091391But the newbie doesn't know which are the important parts and which not, so when the game actually offers one million options, they can't help but wonder if the DM's summary is stiffing them a bit. But if the game doesn't actually have those options then it's no big deal.

You're still conflating being able to select race and class with "a million options". Those are actually only two options, and a game can offer them as selections without any of the stuff about overwhelming options ever coming into play. It's a simple matter to allow race and class selection while still keeping the game utterly simple to start, and dispelling racial optimization, all at the same time.

Quote from: Zalman;1091480You're still conflating being able to select race and class with "a million options". Those are actually only two options, and a game can offer them as selections without any of the stuff about overwhelming options ever coming into play. It's a simple matter to allow race and class selection while still keeping the game utterly simple to start, and dispelling racial optimization, all at the same time.

Soooo humans in rubber suits.

I think the best way to remove racial optimisation is to remove the bonuses altogether (LFG does this).

Or allow players to simply add +2 to any one stat. Yes, most elves get a +2 bonus to Dex, but a PC can add their +2 to another stat if they wish.

Or make classes add the bonus to a stat, instead of race. Eg all Wizards gain +2 Int.

Quote from: Zalman;1091480You're still conflating being able to select race and class with "a million options". Those are actually only two options, and a game can offer them as selections without any of the stuff about overwhelming options ever coming into play. It's a simple matter to allow race and class selection while still keeping the game utterly simple to start, and dispelling racial optimization, all at the same time.

Yes, if you remove any but cosmetic differences between the options, then the choice will be a quick one to make.

I am presuming that if options are offered, there are meaningful and significant differences between them. If you're not willing to do that, then you are in effect doing just as I suggest: you have X options, now choose. As opposed to X options followed by Y options followed by Z options. If all Ys and all Zs are the same, then only X matters. If you want to make the differences merely cosmetic, then don't waste anyone's time, just take them out.

Quote from: Kyle Aaron;1091547Yes, if you remove any but cosmetic differences between the options, then the choice will be a quick one to make.

I am presuming that if options are offered, there are meaningful and significant differences between them. If you're not willing to do that, then you are in effect doing just as I suggest: you have X options, now choose. As opposed to X options followed by Y options followed by Z options. If all Ys and all Zs are the same, then only X matters. If you want to make the differences merely cosmetic, then don't waste anyone's time, just take them out.

Now you (and others) are conflating meaningful differences between options with having an overabundance of options. Those are very different things. Options can be few, and still be meaningful. There can be (i.e.) 4 races to choose from, and four classes to choose from and they can all very different. The number of options, and whether those options are meaningful or cosmetic, are entirely unrelated.

Quote from: Zalman;1091581Now you (and others) are conflating meaningful differences between options with having an overabundance of options. Those are very different things. Options can be few, and still be meaningful. There can be (i.e.) 4 races to choose from, and four classes to choose from and they can all very different. The number of options, and whether those options are meaningful or cosmetic, are entirely unrelated.

Well, not entirely unrelated.  There is eventually a loose correlation in that past some number of options, it is effectively impossible to make them all meaningful.  But your larger point is correct.

Personally I don't see this as any particular issue. I have a few players that like to focus on optimization, but most just play whatever sounds good and in the end everyone has fun.

Quote from: ShieldWife;1091010So what alterations or options could one implement to reduce or eliminate race-class optimization as an issue.i have had a few ideas. One could be a number of race options that you can choose from when picking your race, maybe even options tied to classes. For example, maybe orc wizards get a bonus to damage on all damaging spells. Maybe Tiefling barbarians receive a Strength rather than a Charisma bonus. Something like that.

I don't think this is necessary at all, but your mention of tiefling barbarian swapping out Charisma for Strength made me think that you could have a race give a bonus to one stat that makes sense (maybe even also a penalty), and then class give a bonus to another stat that makes sense.

QuoteHas anybody thought of this issue and devised ways to miniseries this effect?

In my own D&D hack I started by paring down the, well, I guess you could call it the "assumed math" quite a bit. Like, by level x you should have +y to do z things.

In 3rd Edition I remember AC, attack bonus, saves, etc being more based on the expected party level it was intended to be used against more than anything else, and to bridge any gaps you were encouraged to tack on "racial" bonuses and natural armor bonuses, bump up ability scores, and add on bonus feats if necessary.

Initially in my game I just statted up monsters how I felt it made sense, without worrying about expected levels or "level appropriate encounters" or anything like that (which, it's been awhile but I feel like 2E was more like that). In early playtesting this allowed an elven wizard to grab a bow and start picking off bandits pretty easily, and a cambion wizard was able to go into melee and clobber skeletons with his quarterstaff.

This also made it easier to mix and match non-optimal races and classes together, without worrying that you were going to suck because your numbers were too low. Case in point, the last character I played was a kobold (Germanic spirit, not little dragon guy) fighter.

Small size, whatever Strength I rolled (I think my mod was +2, not that the race gave me a bonus), had to use smaller scale weapons and moved slower than everyone else, but still really effective. I can't think of a single point where I thought, "Damn, I should have played a race that grants a Strength bonus."

I guess the short of it isn't that you need to combat racial optimization, just set things up so that unoptimized characters can get by just fine.

Quote from: SavageSchemer;1091029I agree with Omega that a min-maxer is going to min-max. This is one of the reasons I prefer race-as-class as found in BD&D. Beyond that, I tend to personally play human-centric games, which solves that particular issue.

In a high fantasy game, in your shoes, I'd be sorely tempted to let the dice decide. I'd personally pair this strictly with rolling stats in order, and strongly encourage people to roleplay whatever the oracles decide.

Roll 3D6:
   [table=width: 500]
[tr]
   [td]3[/td]
   [td]Choose: Dragonborn or Gnome[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
   [td]4-5[/td]
   [td]Halfling[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
   [td]6-8[/td]
   [td]Dwarf[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
   [td]9-12[/td]
   [td]Human[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
   [td]13-15[/td]
   [td]Elf[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
   [td]16-17[/td]
   [td]Half-elf[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
   [td]18[/td]
   [td]Choose: Half-orc or Tiefling[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

This is similar to something I set up in my game. There are two tables, actually:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3500[/ATTACH]

These are based on the assumption that some races are more common than others, and the GM chooses which to use, if any.

For the left one you roll, and either take what you get or default to human (unless you get human, of course), and for the right one you roll, and can choose what you get, or anything above that result (making it a bit more flexible).

So if you get an 83 on the right table, you can choose elf, kobold, dwarf, or human.

Quote from: Shasarak;1091419The chances that the DM is going to let you drill a hole in a sarcophagus lid and pour in oil is pretty slim.

I would! I wouldn't even care if it's the big bad evil guy or whatever, and I had this whole "epic" fight set up. If they can justify it, I'd at least give it a shot.

Quote from: Shasarak;1091419The chances that the DM is going to let you drill a hole in a sarcophagus lid and pour in oil is pretty slim.

I would allow it, but with one ex-player of mine, my worry would've been what he planned to do with his newly drilled and lubed glory hole...

Quote from: antiochcow;1091607This is similar to something I set up in my game. There are two tables, actually:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3500[/ATTACH]

These are based on the assumption that some races are more common than others, and the GM chooses which to use, if any.

For the left one you roll, and either take what you get or default to human (unless you get human, of course), and for the right one you roll, and can choose what you get, or anything above that result (making it a bit more flexible).

So if you get an 83 on the right table, you can choose elf, kobold, dwarf, or human.

Yup, an option of a) As Is Rolled, and b) As Is Rolled And Below. :) It's a nice compromise for those who have a hard time deciding, but cannot endure the dice deciding the entire choice. Regional Demographics has been one of my favorite tools to reinforce my setting's atmosphere.

--------------------

(As for the mummy, sure there'd be a struggle, maybe a goofy slappy fight or thumb war through the tiny hole -- and any spells allowable through it, if any relevant ones are known. But otherwise it's an "Oops, I guess my GMing them as a creepy atmosphere thing was cool, but my players organized better watches and rolled against Surprise amazingly well." I will reward their Surprise Watch Vigilance and Good Dice Roll by letting them have their Initiative -- and let's see if they use the opportunity well! Hold Portal and sitting on the other lid would be using their opportunity well, in my book; it's trying to meaningfully learn from the encounter.

Maybe if I beforehand described the sarcophagi as schist colossi, where only the ridiculously strong or magical could move or pierce the lid, would I be so strict. But that becomes more of a CoC game to me, where the descriptions alone should be sending you to madness. :p Sometimes I like that in D&D, but it does not sound like the atmosphere Kyle was going for in that example.)

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1091589Well, not entirely unrelated.  There is eventually a loose correlation in that past some number of options, it is effectively impossible to make them all meaningful.

Fair enough!

Quote from: Opaopajr;1091636Yup, an option of a) As Is Rolled, and b) As Is Rolled And Below. :) It's a nice compromise for those who have a hard time deciding, but cannot endure the dice deciding the entire choice. Regional Demographics has been one of my favorite tools to reinforce my setting's atmosphere.

Yeah I figured some players would use it if they were feeling, well, adventurous. But it's also there for GMs that want to better enforce racial demographics in their campaign. Also for GMs to randomly generate NPCs.

Quote(As for the mummy, sure there'd be a struggle, maybe a goofy slappy fight or thumb war through the tiny hole -- and any spells allowable through it, if any relevant ones are known. But otherwise it's an "Oops, I guess my GMing them as a creepy atmosphere thing was cool, but my players organized better watches and rolled against Surprise amazingly well." I will reward their Surprise Watch Vigilance and Good Dice Roll by letting them have their Initiative -- and let's see if they use the opportunity well! Hold Portal and sitting on the other lid would be using their opportunity well, in my book; it's trying to meaningfully learn from the encounter.

Oh yeah. I wouldn't just let them do it every time, but if they manage to get the drop on the mummy, well, them's the breaks. Sealing it with hold portal sounds like a genius move. And if they drill a hole in the mummy could possibly do stuff through the hole. Maybe it turns into sand and escapes? I wouldn't just give it that ability in order to thwart their plans, of course.

But anyway that sounds like a good story. They played it safe and smart and easily destroyed what is normally a fairly potent enemy.