Quote from: rytrasmi on February 16, 2023, 11:03:25 AM
The problem with bonuses/penalties to common attributes (half-giant has Str +5) is that they're boring and the underlying reason is quickly forgotten. Lazy players just want the +5. Lazy GMs will not raise any RP issues. "We go to the tavern." Do you even fit through the fucking door and why haven't the townspeople killed you on sight?

So, yeah, race as class is the only way to do this effectively. Once people start thinking in terms of differentials from human, they're just playing a Star Trek alien aka a human with face paint, silly clothing, and forehead FX.

Nonsense. Way back in AD&D we had campaign settings like Mystara, Dark Sun, Birthright, with race and class as separate templates and they (the races) were definitely thematically very different. This happened because there was a concrete setting with concrete societies and concrete relationships between the races, whereas in most recent D&D the players play in a generic fantasy world where none of that is well-defined. Hell, even the humans are just generic humans from generic village in generic Western country; there is no difference between the fighter, the cleric and the mage except for their equipment.

If the GM bothers to write up a paragraph about each of the PC races — make up maybe four ethnicities for humans, two for each nonhuman race which are expected to be playable, and maybe a couple also for the goblinoids/main antagonists — and you're 98% of the way to doing races which are more than simply a set of attribute bonuses.

The other 2% are up to the players at least pay lip service to the ethnicity/nationality they pick for their PC, particularly how they are viewed by the majority ethnicity of the area they are adventuring in and how in turn they view the members of the majority ethnic group. A good example is how the races in Crown of Solasta (5e-based CRPG) are handled.

I agree with a lot of what's been said. In particular, the concept that every race is present in every setting, and that D&D exists in a kind of setting-less mush. It doesn't make sense to talk about how specific races relate to the setting if the setting itself is vague and there's no point for most of the non-human races except to provide mechanical differentiation of +1/-1.

Quote from: Wtrmute on February 16, 2023, 12:50:04 PM

Quote from: rytrasmi on February 16, 2023, 11:03:25 AM
The problem with bonuses/penalties to common attributes (half-giant has Str +5) is that they're boring and the underlying reason is quickly forgotten. Lazy players just want the +5. Lazy GMs will not raise any RP issues. "We go to the tavern." Do you even fit through the fucking door and why haven't the townspeople killed you on sight?

So, yeah, race as class is the only way to do this effectively. Once people start thinking in terms of differentials from human, they're just playing a Star Trek alien aka a human with face paint, silly clothing, and forehead FX.

Nonsense. Way back in AD&D we had campaign settings like Mystara, Dark Sun, Birthright, with race and class as separate templates and they (the races) were definitely thematically very different. This happened because there was a concrete setting with concrete societies and concrete relationships between the races, whereas in most recent D&D the players play in a generic fantasy world where none of that is well-defined. Hell, even the humans are just generic humans from generic village in generic Western country; there is no difference between the fighter, the cleric and the mage except for their equipment.

If the GM bothers to write up a paragraph about each of the PC races — make up maybe four ethnicities for humans, two for each nonhuman race which are expected to be playable, and maybe a couple also for the goblinoids/main antagonists — and you're 98% of the way to doing races which are more than simply a set of attribute bonuses.

The other 2% are up to the players at least pay lip service to the ethnicity/nationality they pick for their PC, particularly how they are viewed by the majority ethnicity of the area they are adventuring in and how in turn they view the members of the majority ethnic group. A good example is how the races in Crown of Solasta (5e-based CRPG) are handled.

Even in current D&D the GM could build his own world and decide what is or isn't there and how they interact.

But most don't.

It's not the fault of the system/game it's the fault of the GM/Players that want everything and the kitchen sink because "lol so random" and "Muh diversity" and "It makes it MORE unique" (Yes, I have heard/read all 3 excuses), with a heapping dose of "because dragons!" on top.

This turns every table in the same insipid grey goo.

Take my current AD&D2e wizard, the GM rolled from what human kingdom he comes, turns out he's from totally not the middle east and low royalty. Which means I have to play him very much like a prude and someone who doesn't like to fight women because of his culture. He will fight them and burn them to a crisp but he doesn't like it. He will also reject sexual advances due to his upbringing.

But this isn't thanks to a TSR published setting, it's thanks to my GM's setting/worldbuilding.

The Strength issue is easily solved by distinguishing Lifting and carrying from athletic ability and ability to deal damage with weapons.

Lifting and carrying in my system is a function of Strength score and size. A small creature with the same strength score as a human-sized one can only lift half as much (inverse square-cube law... their volume is a cube root, but their muscle cross-sections are a square root). Similarly a large creature with the same strength can lift twice as much (while being 8 times heavier... i.e. regular square-cube law).

Similarly, because of their lighter weight with the same Strength score, smaller creatures can jump proportionally further while larger creatures jump proportionally less. A typical 6' human of average strength for the setting can clear a long jump about twice their height with a short run to start it. A 3' humanoid with the same could clear four times their height and a 12' giant could manage only their height.... That all those happen to be the same distance in game is a nice convenience.

However, "hit points" in setting are entirely non-physical and represent skill, stamina and willpower to avoid a telling blow. The halfling's blade skillfully wielded can be as dangerous as a giant's club and the halfling is getting far less tired evading the giant's blows while the giant has to expend proportionally more stamina avoiding those daggers being hurled at their vitals.

But the other half of balancing the weirder races in my system is what I call the "big damned heroes" effect, but is, in D&D terms "PCs start at level 4/4HD".

PCs are special in setting and that specialness comes down to rarity. For humans, only about 1-in-10,000 (top 1% of the top 1%) have the talent and ability to be a PC.

By contrast, there's probably only one dragon for every 10,000 humans, but every last dragon is at least as capable as one of those rare human adventurers.

So in your PC party you can have that rare 1-in-10,000 knight right alongside a dragon (who is completely average as dragons go) and not have any issues. Both will have similar levels of plot armor and means of piercing enemy plot armor. And along with them you can have the gnome beast rider and the dwarven mechanist and the malfean wizard and they're not so far apart in ability that one will automatically hog the spotlight via mechanics.

Quote from: rytrasmi on February 16, 2023, 11:03:25 AM
Mutant Crawl Classics (MCC) does different races fairly well.  It uses race as class. Mutants can have 2 heads, stuff like that. Manimals have wings, claws, etc. Plantients are similarly weird. There are also cultural problems between the races.

The problem is the GM and players have to really buy in. If your mutant has 6 legs, that's a strong defining characteristic and you and the GM have to consider it in most interactions. Can you even climb a ladder? If it's session #5 and you're just now recalling that you have 6 legs, you and the GM have failed and you should have just played a human.

Do you feel like lack of buy-in is a common problem in MCC? When I've played games with majorly non-human PCs, it was usually a point of great interest that the PC was a sea dragon or a living statue or similar. It wasn't something the players had to stretch to remember. Then again, the examples I think of in play weren't using D&D-esque race+class rules.

I guess Monster of the Week effectively has race-as-class with playbooks like The Monstrous and The Construct. I recall games where there was a PC who was a seven foot demon or a Ben Franklin statue, and it was something never forgotten in game. But both MCC and that are a different genre from medieval fantasy.

Rolemaster certainly has deeper racial stat variation than D&D sometimes it's a bit much.  You don't want to play a halfling fighter, the impact is too deep.  Recently we had a Satyr rogue and that turned out to be a really deep cut because a -10 Self Discipline bonus really destroys your stealth and subterfuge skills.  Really, much as I love Spacemaster Privateers, I feel the races are badly designed and too extreme.  There are the Oorts who are smarter than Einstein on average.  There's the Valesians who are velociraptors straight outta Jurassic Park.  No, not velociraptor/men just straight up carnivorous dinosaurs who are barely smart enough to learn languages, super fast, and utterly without empathy.

I've got a fantasy setting where there player character races are generationally diluted vampires, were wolves, and talking bears.  That's certainly more stat variation than D&D's demi-humans.  I generally try to avoid low intelligence player races as player characters don't need another excuse to act like idiots.

Quote from: David Johansen on February 17, 2023, 03:13:45 PM
a Satyr rogue

That's the perfect argument for race as class.

A satyr is a satyr.

Quote from: rytrasmi on February 17, 2023, 07:29:43 PM

Quote from: David Johansen on February 17, 2023, 03:13:45 PM
a Satyr rogue

That's the perfect argument for race as class.

A satyr is a satyr.

To use D&D classes, a satyr could be a rogue, a bard, or a barbarian, depending on whether this particular character focus on subterfuge, merrymaking or bacchans fury. A satyr is, most emphatically, not just a satyr; any more than a hero has to go around in lion skin and wield a club.

I see a good bit of support for race as class, but what about RPGs with race-exclusive classes(or skills)? Any good examples?

Quote from: rusty shackleford on February 17, 2023, 11:32:23 PM
I see a good bit of support for race as class, but what about RPGs with race-exclusive classes(or skills)? Any good examples?

Lejendary Adventure had a few. Trollkin Deathdancer, Dwarven War Cleric, Veshoge Sellsword. I also homebrewed a few more.

But I think that was more or less the rhyme and reason for multi-classing in AD&D. I don't think the idea was just mix and match classes. I think it was a short-cut for giving demi-humans their own templates. Early 1E was very particular as to which combinations were allowable. For example, Cleric/Thief and Cleric/Assassin combos were originally reserved only for half-orcs.