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
But… humans are naturally adapting animals, we’ve survived for this long because of that. Some of us may have learned certain skills but at a base level we’re all just ready to learn and adapt.
Not a good idea for many groups, as minmaxing players will treat the ultradiverse selection of traits not in the culturally meaningful sense they’re intended but as a shopping cart of bonuses to choose from.
Further, it continues to break down the individual qualities of each fantasy race from anything distinctive into a noncommittal “ehhh, kinda this way sometimes but not always.” (Weren’t you criticising humans for being adaptive?)
Everyone knows that there are concrete differences between, say, elves and dwarves. Trying to find a way to explain a +2 Strength elf bonus or a +2 Charisma dwarf doesn’t do anything but further confuse the players and melt the race attributes in this homebrew setting until they’re nothing but the samey generic mush that was originally being criticised.
It’s times like these I really miss the 2nd edition AD&D. Seems like everybody wants to be politically correct and nobody, especially DMs, want to put in any work. The comeliness stat from Unearthed Arcana of the same era is still essential for any good campaign.
If stats were stopping you from role playing a variety of character types in a race… Then you were terrible role player / writer to begin with. I’ve written and seen plenty of unique twists on the same stats. From cannibalistic elves to wise is kung fu dwarves, to eccentric clothier orcs.
Race? Humans? Humans ARE A race. Unless varying cultures and colors are representative of race to you. Doing so is to admit one color or culture is superior to another.
Those with subraces are differed by actual physiological or magical differences. The games have it right by ensuring the human race has an equal potential all throughout.
If I were to create human sub races and say the dark ones have +2 to str and +2 to cons, while the white ones have +2 int and +2 cha, how many people do you think it would offend?
Trying to reflect cultural diversity in a single race in ttrpg is inviting trouble and creating false impression that one culture is greater than another for particular classes.
And frankly I think it’s racist.
No, it means that many don’t understand that humans are diverse humans while demi-humans are supposed to be stereotypes. This reskinning of non-humans to simply be humans with pointed ears or a tail or whatever DnD does now is the falacy.
https://youtu.be/yFPdPT5K60I
Race/Ancestry
Phenotype
Ethnicity
Culture
Background
Class/Occupation