Generic, “adaptable” Humans in TTRPG settings, especially fantasy settings, is a sign that the writer of same doesn’t actually understand how diverse groups in the world work, or how to examine a presumed default thoughtfully. As such, they make me deeply, ragingly angry. I may be at the point where I refuse to play or run a setting that does this. If the rules set it up that way, I will hack them before engaging.
— Rabbit (@caudelac) November 24, 2019
So as a for instance, in 5e if all humans were essentially variant, but with feats and skills that represent their regional culture, would that fit more with what you’d want to see?
— Dan Dillon 👥 (@Dan_Dillon_1) November 24, 2019
In my game, everything is variant. Each race/ancestry gets A Thing, including humans, who in my game, have limited stats too (+1 con, and +1 to either int or wis), and get to pick 1 feat. There is also a version of each that has more “traditional”/additional features.But the base approach, which I've seen a lot here, is almost accidentally more not-okay, because it dives deeper on only humans get to have individuality and unique cultures, and everyone else is a lumpen monolith, which is a whole other part of the problem.
— Rabbit (@caudelac) November 24, 2019
I’m pretty sure that Waterdhavian elves, humans, dwarves, halflings, et al have way more in common than they do with anyone of their own nominal group in Rashemen, for example. I get you. Was just using existing 5e human mechanics as an example of a different way to do racial stats in general.
— Dan Dillon 👥 (@Dan_Dillon_1) November 24, 2019
I would be hesitant to give cultures bonuses but that is largely so people can run games in their own world rather than in the cultures for the world I cooked up. I am fine with divorcing bonuses from specific races tho At first glance that approach is kind of a design nightmare.
It’s very difficult not to create a tiny number of “best” options and all the rest are traps.
— Dan Dillon 👥 (@Dan_Dillon_1) November 24, 2019
It also creates a ton of DM work if they want to use that approach in any other setting.
Note: I’m thinking through the approach and it’s challenges, not discounting it as a viable one.
— Dan Dillon 👥 (@Dan_Dillon_1) November 24, 2019
I’d say that the present design approach in D&D has resulted in a bunch of super samey settings, because the default is unquestioned, and the racial bonuses carry a bunch of setting weight. I see the value of customized racial bonuses and traits that differentiate cultures.
I’m just thinking through how to approach it but also make it generally useful, without just being a melange of traits everyone picks out of, that are either ribbons or a system mastery puzzle.
— Dan Dillon 👥 (@Dan_Dillon_1) November 24, 2019
One of my favorite parts of the Al-Qadim setting is the shift in meaningful difference between city-dweller vs nomad, rather than between races.
Elf and dwarf al-hadar have more in common with each other than with al-badia of the same race. That said, there was no mechanical difference between them, it was all down to roleplay and flavor.
Even the different cities/city-states of Zakhara are pretty different from one another. We used “background feats” in 3e to model that.
— Dan Dillon 👥 (@Dan_Dillon_1) November 24, 2019
That said, there was no mechanical difference between them, it was all down to roleplay and flavor.
Even the different cities/city-states of Zakhara are pretty different from one another. We used “background feats” in 3e to model that.
— Dan Dillon 👥 (@Dan_Dillon_1) November 24, 2019
I feel like some of the people arguing against the current state of humans didn’t read the full entry for humans in 5e PHB, or are under the assumption that your +2 stat HAS TO BE your highest. Gnomes CAN be dumb if you decide to dump INT, but you don’t usually see that because if your game uses the mechanics at all, it’s usually not a great idea to dump your +2, but I could see the appeal of the challenge.
Humans are (typically) supposed to be the most common race, hence their unspecified diversity. The idea is that either they’re just average at everything while other races are usually better at certain things, or that you have specific racial ABIs because of your culture, which should probably be talked about with your DM during character creation and/or session zero. Personally, I see no problem in tailoring this to your class, because why play a wizard that has +2 in DEX rather than INT. As long as that’s kept as the consistent norm for that culture, of course.
Side note: I’ve only been playing RPGs for about 2 years at this point, but still I know why humans are what some people see as a “jack of all trades.” I’m not bragging about my knowledge, I’m just saying this is basic stuff if you read the lore.
I think, above all, people are forgetting the fact that these are FANTASY settings we’re talking about here. Who are you to say what mix of races there are or aren’t? Just cool out a little bit. Geezus. If you can’t mod your own game, then don’t play. It’s clearly not the game for you.
Two things: The author already says in his thread that he does “mod” his own game.
And secondly, the ability to make your own thing does not make official content immune to criticism. Nor does the fact that it’s “fantasy”. These things don’t exist in a vacuum.
I play a dragonborn wizard, so take that as you will
1. The difference between human subraces is insignificant compared to the differences between actual fantasy races. If you wish to demonstrate that difference as a player, do so with your skill and ability choices.
2. We’re all humans in real life. Assigning D&D attributes to human minorities is at best insensitive and at worst abject racism. Don’t be that guy. Let orcs be dumb and elves be fast, don’t presume to explain to me or anyone else why (thinly disguised fantasy version of real life racial group) would be dumber or less charming then (other thinly disguised fantasy version of real life racial group).
3. This page is called “Sage Advice D&D
Questions on Dungeons & Dragons answered by designers”. The original post does not answer a question, nor does it offer advice of any sort. I can only assume I was baited in to being angry enough to actually comment. Well played, writer. well played.
Much of the discussion (both by the OP in the SA/twitter posts, as well as in the numerous posts in the “sub”-responses) seems to be crossing wires in terms of perspective/applied definitions. While I understand the underlying point the OP (“Rabbit”) is trying to make, I believe there is an applied-context misunderstanding going on. It isn’t that (Variant) Humans can’t/don’t have ethnic/cultural influences that can be used to define them more specifically but rather that the ability for the player to *choose* what extra language, arrangement of stat bonuses, proficiency and Feat (which can provide even more detail relative to ethnic/cultural background) allows for the applied diversity in that regard. Similarly-yet-conversely, the various races (particularly the long-lived ones like Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, Firbolgs and similar) are *more*, not *less*, likely to have a more “unified” ethnic/cultural background (even when living in various places) because they *aren’t* “like humans” — even with their specific indicated “flavors”, their lifespans make interacting with humans (and other “short-lived” races) *not* how it would be in real life among the diverse cultures of the human world as we know it.
A side note, metaphysically speaking, that also often gets overlooked by many is that part of the reason why Humans in the game/setting(s) are the “adaptable/diverse” people that they are is because their “uniqueness” is that they *aren’t* as defined/delineated as the other races are (usually be the gods/divine forces at work in a given setting). They are designed to meld/adapt in ways that the other races aren’t as good at (though, in the balance, the other races are better at their defining elements that a human would/could normally be). It’s one of the oft-overlooked reasons that it’s *Humans* who are the “half-X” element in cross-racial interbreeding vs the *other* races interbreeding so. (Though not explicitly limited in 5E relative to some previous editions, it is long established that, for example, an Orc and an Elf could never readily interbreed… though humans readily can do so, along with other races they can often “half-breed” with, and historically it was Humans who were the half element for other cross-species, regardless of circumstantial factors also involved, such as with Tieflings, Aasimars and similar.)
It’s only lazy writing on the author’s part if s/he does so as a default without additional consideration on specific characterization and development of the the various characters involved in the settings/narratives. Otherwise, it’s “okay” to have humans be as they are in the books and the other races be as they are — it’s actually a much more credible situation given the inherent factors involved. (Now, if all the demihuman races *were*, in fact, just “humans with long ears/extra-crazy beards/et al”, then it would just be Humans(tm) with the ethnic/cultural diversity we have in real life today… but that *isn’t* the case, readily, and the specifics involved are generally on-point as-written….)