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
Take a look at Grazillax’s guide to ancestry.
https://www.dmsguild.com/m/product/287638
Not only does it diversify humans but it also eliminates cultural stereotypes by decoupling stat bonuses from race. Not all gnomes are good at math, not all elves are graceful , not all orc are strong but stupid. Dm has to pick the stat variant. I use +2 to abilities as the players choose and an asi at level 1 that can also be used for racial traits. Oh and it provides rules for crossbreeding every thing, take that bards! Go ahead and seduce my bbeg, they’ll be back for child support.
I’m really confused as to what rabbit means… isnt the whole point of having an adaptable human to be able to customize it to fit your needs for the character’s culture and background without the writers trying to cover every conceivable variation that anyone might think of? Sorry if I’m completely missing the point here but it doesn’t quite make sense to me.
It seems like the issue they have isn’t “adaptable” humans, it’s the fact that ever other race is NOT “adaptable”. Basically, it’s the D&D equivalent of the “white savior” trope.
In this trope, non-European peoples live in homogeneous mono-cultures, and some random white guy comes along and learns all the wisdom of the non-Europeans culture and becomes better at their culture than them. Because unlike the the non-Europeans, who can only be what they are, random white guy can be anything he puts his mind to.
This is the same way Dwarves all love jewels and tinkering/smithing, or Elves are all graceful and expert archers, but Humans can be whatever you want them to be. Just like “white savior” stories, this robs characters from the other cultures of their individuality, and reinforces the idea that people from other groups aren’t really fully people in their own right seperate from their group.
This, exactly. Everyone seems to really hate the “adaptable humans” default, but no one seems to have bothered to either explain WHY it is bad, nor offered a better alternative… Humans being average in everything makes perfect sense, from a gameplay aspect. They are the connection to real life that allows us to understand and judge what the differences in the other races are. We get it, Orcs are naturally stronger and tougher than humans humans on average, Elves are more graceful, Gnomes are exceptionally clever, etc. had a set +1 to int or str, that just makes it all the more confusing to visualise what those bonuses mean in other races. Why are people getting legitimately angry over this?
The alternative to the adaptable human is that of stereotyping – which whether positive or negative is a form of racial discrimination.
It’s a slippery slope from this to giving all female characters a negative modifier to strength, because, after all, giving the exact same stats for males and females implies that the writer has no concept of biological differences between the sexes either.
“all humans are equal and can be anything they set out to be” is infinitely preferable than profiling.
The point of versatile humans as a baseline is that real players are human. If they want to play a character that looks more like they do, they can do that regardless of what class they pick. You can always create custom racial stats for your setting, but if anything I would make the other races MORE versatile. Let the differences be in culture and choice, not mechanical bonuses.
This was originally done so as to avoid racist stereotypes that were hard coded into the rules. The lack of human “races” was a progressive acknowledgement of the diversity of humanity. Interpreting this as not understanding diversity is completely and utterly wrong.
Is this a rsnt anout stereotyping non existent races? In a game of make believe? If not I apologize for misreading. If so
.I am flummoxed. I have loved and have played TTRPGs for 40 years. I have always been an inclusive DM and staunch proponent of free and fair play… For real people with real feelings. I loathe to see real world prejudices in any way, shape. or form but this really has me questioning how fat we have gotten away feom having fun.
What am I missing?
Now the problem with that thinking spawns at the writers viewpoint. Take Pathfinder for example. They’re not creating a world to explore, they were providing the building blocks for a DM to design a world to explore. Not to mention the need to expand to a wide audience. Orcs, Dwarves, Elves, Gnomes, they all had a preconcept thanks to J. R. R. Tolkiens book series. When the audience asks for one of these races the majority thought process is that of Tolkiens designs. Usually to create a character around that specific design. Plus if you elimanate the uniqueness of the other races you limit the race to being a purely cosmetic feature. While some might enjoy that I’d consider it quite boring. Why make all the races superficial when you can just get creative and let the player be a unique race that fits what they want to be? Pathfinder has even given building blocks for background traits and the sort. Why limit creativity? This is fantasy, not reality. Explore the unexplored, explain the unexplained, and have fun doing it. That’s what I do as a dm.