"Pick a race that gives ability points that favor the class you want to play" does not cause people to play their race differently. It just means you have a weird party full of people hunting the best bonuses. The way to get people to to play their race differently is to make sure people don't play nonhumans unless they actually want to, and the way to do that is to make it completely cosmetic.
Ooooooor...remove the numeric bonuses, leave the saucy stuff that actually differentiates species, and see how it goes?
Because making species 'cosmetic' doesn't actually promote everybody-is-always-human. Aesthetic is a huge deal, and humans are and always have been f@#$ing boring. They'll never not be boring. Nothing about humanity is interesting. People will play Other just because they want to look cool, and since you've turned species into "look cool", you'll end up with even more issues of people not playing the way you (generic 'you' addressed to the audience, not Pant in particular) feel they should play, which is to twist their brain up in loops and spend all their time being so alien and inscrutable nobody has the foggiest idea what they're doing most of the time.
Or, Option 2: we recognize that in a world where different species interact all the time, the ones capable of communicating, trading, and occasionally interbreeding with each other will develop enough commonality to not eradicate each other, meaning a player can portray their species as being Different in some ways without having to figure out how to convincingly act like an oddly nonhostile xenomorph. And if you as a DM truly feel super strongly that nobody at the table could ever handle playing an 'Other' properly? Ban all nonhuman species. Say 'everybody here is human, no arguments or exceptions, and I'll prove to you that humanity isn't 'boring'.' then do your best to somehow prove to your players that humanity isn't boring. Which will be difficult to do because humanity is boring as sin, even if individual human characters can find ways to be interesting despite their supremely milquetoast, utterly anti-interesting physiology.
"Pick a race that gives ability points that favor the class you want to play" does not cause people to play their race differently. It just means you have a weird party full of people hunting the best bonuses. The way to get people to to play their race differently is to make sure people don't play nonhumans unless they actually want to, and the way to do that is to make it completely cosmetic.
Ooooooor...remove the numeric bonuses, leave the saucy stuff that actually differentiates species, and see how it goes?
Any sort of mechanical bonus runs the risk of people taking the race because they want the bonus, rather than RP reasons. You can get across the essence of most of the PHB races with nothing more than Custom Origin
Dragonborn: The signature trait is a breath weapon, which there's no convenient way to obtain.
Dwarf: The signature traits of dwarves are being short (cosmetic), association with smithing (handle with background and/or class), long lifespan (ignored in 5e), and toughness (take tough, resilient (con), or whatever).
Elf: The signature traits of elves are longevity (ignored in 5e) and being Better Than Everyone Else (not viable in a game, other than an Arrogant flaw).
Halfling: The signature trait of halflings is being small. Everything else has been inconsistently presented.
Gnome: see Halfling.
Half-Elf: see Elf and halve. Also frequently some sort of Outside background.
Half-Orc: the signature trait of half-orcs is "everyone despises you", which is trivially achievable with backgrounds.
I don't think you can really claim people are failing to accurately portray the true way a non-human race would behave, when non-human races don't... Uh... Exist.
But anyway, I would argue that the point of the racial features is, at least in part, to motivate players to choose races they wouldn't ordinarily be motivated to choose. That it's doing so isn't a condemnation at all. It's fine if that's not something you want, but I think calling it a failing is missing the point.
I think the problem I'm seeing here is that, unless there is a mechanical rule in place forcing players to roleplay different races in strict, specific ways, there's nothing you can do to control how the players will choose to act. Some players will lean in hard to the idea of Orcish culture being dramatically different than human culture, while others might just want to be a big green tough guy and don't give much thought to what that means within the culture of the game. Some people don't want to have to include inter-species racism as part of their gameplay.
The truth of the matter is that, unless there have been some amazing scientific breakthroughs recently I'm unaware of, every single person playing D&D is a human. Every dragon you encounter is your human DM describing their idea of what a dragon would do or say. Every player is a human being putting in as much effort as they feel necessary to control their character... for some people it's purely mechanical. Out-of-combat roleplay is just a series of questionnaires they need to fill out to get to the next combat encounter. Maybe they invest in a crazy high Persuasion score not because they like roleplaying these conversations, but just because it lets them talk their way out of them more quickly. And that's fine, there's nothing wrong with that style of gameplay. For some people it's just a War Game. For other people the focus is really on the storytelling... I know as a DM my players will happily just hang out in a tavern all day interacting with different characters, regardless of whether there's any challenges or even advancement of the adventure. They just want to interact and tell their stories.
I think the biggest challenge with trying to "fix" players not roleplaying their character's race correctly is the inherent problem that there is no one correct way to play a race. Not every Elf needs to be an arrogant elf supremacist... not every dwarf needs to be a scottish guy who drinks too much. Not every story needs tieflings to be inherently hated and feared by the populous. There's also nothing wrong with stories that include those elements... I've used all of those examples as a DM to help tell a story that's instantly understandable by my players. But I also don't lean in constant racism and hatred against specific player races because it would be exhausting to deal with... we're playing a TTRPG in order to escape the trials and tribulations of the real world and replace them with the fake trials and tribulations of going on an adventure where we all get to be powerful, skilled warriors.
But anyway, I would argue that the point of the racial features is, at least in part, to motivate players to choose races they wouldn't ordinarily be motivated to choose. That it's doing so isn't a condemnation at all. It's fine if that's not something you want, but I think calling it a failing is missing the point.
Well, it completely fails at that, because racial features are tuned to encourage players to choose races exactly as expected.
I think the problem I'm seeing here is that, unless there is a mechanical rule in place forcing players to roleplay different races in strict, specific ways, there's nothing you can do to control how the players will choose to act. Some players will lean in hard to the idea of Orcish culture being dramatically different than human culture, while others might just want to be a big green tough guy and don't give much thought to what that means within the culture of the game. Some people don't want to have to include inter-species racism as part of their gameplay.
The truth of the matter is that, unless there have been some amazing scientific breakthroughs recently I'm unaware of, every single person playing D&D is a human. Every dragon you encounter is your human DM describing their idea of what a dragon would do or say. Every player is a human being putting in as much effort as they feel necessary to control their character... for some people it's purely mechanical. Out-of-combat roleplay is just a series of questionnaires they need to fill out to get to the next combat encounter. Maybe they invest in a crazy high Persuasion score not because they like roleplaying these conversations, but just because it lets them talk their way out of them more quickly. And that's fine, there's nothing wrong with that style of gameplay. For some people it's just a War Game. For other people the focus is really on the storytelling... I know as a DM my players will happily just hang out in a tavern all day interacting with different characters, regardless of whether there's any challenges or even advancement of the adventure. They just want to interact and tell their stories.
I think the biggest challenge with trying to "fix" players not roleplaying their character's race correctly is the inherent problem that there is no one correct way to play a race. Not every Elf needs to be an arrogant elf supremacist... not every dwarf needs to be a scottish guy who drinks too much. Not every story needs tieflings to be inherently hated and feared by the populous. There's also nothing wrong with stories that include those elements... I've used all of those examples as a DM to help tell a story that's instantly understandable by my players. But I also don't lean in constant racism and hatred against specific player races because it would be exhausting to deal with... we're playing a TTRPG in order to escape the trials and tribulations of the real world and replace them with the fake trials and tribulations of going on an adventure where we all get to be powerful, skilled warriors.
But anyway, I would argue that the point of the racial features is, at least in part, to motivate players to choose races they wouldn't ordinarily be motivated to choose. That it's doing so isn't a condemnation at all. It's fine if that's not something you want, but I think calling it a failing is missing the point.
Well, it completely fails at that, because racial features are tuned to encourage players to choose races exactly as expected.
I think you misunderstand me. When I say "otherwise motivated to choose," I'm referring to thematics/aesthetics. For instance, I would traditionally be inclined to pick tieflings for every character because they're objectively the coolest, but with the existence of racial features and ASIs, I'm usually picking other races for practical reasons. Which means now I'm roleplaying other stuff than just tieflings all the time.
Come to think of it, I still haven't played a tiefling.
But anyway, I would argue that the point of the racial features is, at least in part, to motivate players to choose races they wouldn't ordinarily be motivated to choose. That it's doing so isn't a condemnation at all. It's fine if that's not something you want, but I think calling it a failing is missing the point.
Well, it completely fails at that, because racial features are tuned to encourage players to choose races exactly as expected.
I think you misunderstand me. When I say "otherwise motivated to choose," I'm referring to thematics/aesthetics. For instance, I would traditionally be inclined to pick tieflings for every character because they're objectively the coolest, but with the existence of racial features and ASIs, I'm usually picking other races for practical reasons. Which means now I'm roleplaying other stuff than just tieflings all the time.
I'm... not sure why you think "I want to play an X, but X's are lame" is an argument for racial features and ASIs.
But anyway, I would argue that the point of the racial features is, at least in part, to motivate players to choose races they wouldn't ordinarily be motivated to choose. That it's doing so isn't a condemnation at all. It's fine if that's not something you want, but I think calling it a failing is missing the point.
Well, it completely fails at that, because racial features are tuned to encourage players to choose races exactly as expected.
I think you misunderstand me. When I say "otherwise motivated to choose," I'm referring to thematics/aesthetics. For instance, I would traditionally be inclined to pick tieflings for every character because they're objectively the coolest, but with the existence of racial features and ASIs, I'm usually picking other races for practical reasons. Which means now I'm roleplaying other stuff than just tieflings all the time.
I'm... not sure why you think "I want to play an X, but X's are lame" is an argument for racial features and ASIs.
I don't have to think other races are lame to think tieflings are the coolest. And even if I did think that, I may change my tune after I have actually tried them. Some things make a better first impression and some are slow burners.
Edit: I think I misread your comment. I don't think tieflings are lame mechanically either. They just aren't the best fit for every possible character concept.
But anyway, I would argue that the point of the racial features is, at least in part, to motivate players to choose races they wouldn't ordinarily be motivated to choose. That it's doing so isn't a condemnation at all. It's fine if that's not something you want, but I think calling it a failing is missing the point.
Well, it completely fails at that, because racial features are tuned to encourage players to choose races exactly as expected.
I think you misunderstand me. When I say "otherwise motivated to choose," I'm referring to thematics/aesthetics. For instance, I would traditionally be inclined to pick tieflings for every character because they're objectively the coolest, but with the existence of racial features and ASIs, I'm usually picking other races for practical reasons. Which means now I'm roleplaying other stuff than just tieflings all the time.
I'm... not sure why you think "I want to play an X, but X's are lame" is an argument for racial features and ASIs.
Think of it more like, I want to play a Tabaxi because I think they're cool and I want to play a dwarf because they have sweet features. There are different reasons to go with a race.
And I object to the idea that choosing a race for its mechanics is somehow inferior to choosing it for RP. A good player will RP that character regardless of why they chose it, and can often lead them to really get more into the lore of the race as they see through their eyes.
Like for me personally, I have zero interest in tieflings. Horns, tail, sordid ancestry, it all just feels like edgelord pandering to me. But I'd be willing to play one if it fit mechanically well into a certain build concept I had, and I'd RP it to the best of my abilities. I'm pretty sure doing so would change my feelings about the race.
The ultimate goal is to bring an idea to life, and that can be magical no matter the route you take to get there.
I hope they don’t drop half orcs, I think they’re an important counterpoint to half elves. In fact, I wish there were more official hybrids like those.
Take Dark Sun for example. Dragonborn and tieflings don’t fit Athas at all.
I mean, Dark Sun is just a single example. And it's not even in 5e yet. Tieflings and Dragonborn fit the Forgotten Realms, Eberron, Exandria, Strixhaven, and Ravenloft. Not to mention the "transitive" settings, like Planescape and Spelljammer. And though Dragonborn probably don't fit Greyhawk (but might get retconned to fit it), Tieflings certainly do. And Dragonborn could exist in Dragonlance pretty easily. The only ones I can think of besides Dark Sun that they don't fit in are Theros and Ravnica, which makes sense because they're M:tG settings (Strixhaven is different, because it was specifically designed to work for both M:tG and D&D).
Dark Sun has both, though. Dragonborn fit the Dray (creations of Dregoth) perfectly. And Athas does have demons, so Tieflings make perfect sense.
In fact, the 4E sourcebook went all in on that full bore.
The more that I hear about 4e's Dark Sun, the more interested I am in it. I heard that how it approached the Feywild (aka "The Lands within the Wind") was really unique and interesting. I might buy the sourcebook for it sometime.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
"Pick a race that gives ability points that favor the class you want to play" does not cause people to play their race differently. It just means you have a weird party full of people hunting the best bonuses. The way to get people to to play their race differently is to make sure people don't play nonhumans unless they actually want to, and the way to do that is to make it completely cosmetic.
Ooooooor...remove the numeric bonuses, leave the saucy stuff that actually differentiates species, and see how it goes?
Each race has several differentiating factors, for example, a half-orc has relentless endurance, faeries can fly, and an elf has trance. In addition, different races still interact with the world in different ways. Just because you get rid of one element of a character doesn't mean you have to get rid of the rest as well. Different races are still different because ability scores increases are just one factor of them.
Again, ASI's are certainly not the only things to differentiate races, and getting rid of them will not make all races the same.
Does anyone actually play D&D strictly for the mechanics?
When I'm rolling up a new character, I'm not usually thinking about their racial traits, buffs, or nerfs. I'm thinking about the flavor that race will bring.
My main PC's thus far have been Amethyst Gem Dragonborn (rogue), Tiefling (shadow sorcerer), Grung (swarmkeeper ranger), and Variant Human (chronurgy wizard). I picked all of these combos for the fun and flavor possibilities.
Does anyone actually play D&D strictly for the mechanics?
When I'm rolling up a new character, I'm not usually thinking about their racial traits, buffs, or nerfs. I'm thinking about the flavor that race will bring.
My main PC's thus far have been Amethyst Gem Dragonborn (rogue), Tiefling (shadow sorcerer), Grung (swarmkeeper ranger), and Variant Human (chronurgy wizard). I picked all of these combos for the fun and flavor possibilities.
TL:DR: I pick my races for fun, not stats.
Is that in itself a hot take?
I don't choose just because of the mechanics, but they certainly factor into my decision when I choose which race I want my character to be.
I know there are people out there that choose their race solely to get a mechanical benefit . . . but I'm pretty sure that the people that take both into account are more common.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Does anyone actually play D&D strictly for the mechanics?
When I'm rolling up a new character, I'm not usually thinking about their racial traits, buffs, or nerfs. I'm thinking about the flavor that race will bring.
My main PC's thus far have been Amethyst Gem Dragonborn (rogue), Tiefling (shadow sorcerer), Grung (swarmkeeper ranger), and Variant Human (chronurgy wizard). I picked all of these combos for the fun and flavor possibilities.
TL:DR: I pick my races for fun, not stats.
Is that in itself a hot take?
People should not have to choose a slightly more optimized character or slightly more fun. However, as I (and others) have been saying, the racial tied ASI's force a choice between "the coolest race" or "the best working ASI's".
If you have a PC with lower ability scores where it matters for their class, it can hurt them in combat and other parts of the game. If you choose the better ASI's, then you may have less fun since you might not playing the race you'd most enjoy.
Unfortunately, the way it is designed, you are given an impossible decision. You have chosen fun and flavor, and that is what many would choose. However, just because some people feel they are forced into picking their races for stats, does not mean that those people think "flavor" and "fun" are bad, but that they have no choice but to have an optimized character so that they can better face the challenges that adventurers will combat.
D&D is hard game, and neither choice always works.
Edit: Just one more thing, you could also try to combine both factors (fun and an optimized character), however, that's a lot harder than picking one, and you could also end up going a lot more one way without trying to.
Does anyone actually play D&D strictly for the mechanics?
When I'm rolling up a new character, I'm not usually thinking about their racial traits, buffs, or nerfs. I'm thinking about the flavor that race will bring.
My main PC's thus far have been Amethyst Gem Dragonborn (rogue), Tiefling (shadow sorcerer), Grung (swarmkeeper ranger), and Variant Human (chronurgy wizard). I picked all of these combos for the fun and flavor possibilities.
TL:DR: I pick my races for fun, not stats.
Is that in itself a hot take?
People should not have to choose a slightly more optimized character or slightly more fun. However, as I (and others) have been saying, the racial tied ASI's force a choice between "the coolest race" or "the best working ASI's".
If you have a PC with lower ability scores where it matters for their class, it can hurt them in combat and other parts of the game. If you choose the better ASI's, then you may have less fun since you might not playing the race you'd most enjoy.
Unfortunately, the way it is designed, you are given an impossible decision. You have chosen fun and flavor, and that is what many would choose. However, just because some people feel they are forced into picking their races for stats, does not mean that those people think "flavor" and "fun" are bad, but that they have no choice but to have an optimized character so that they can better face the challenges that adventurers will combat.
D&D is hard game, and neither choice always works.
Edit: Just one more thing, you could also try to combine both factors (fun and an optimized character), however, that's a lot harder than picking one, and you could also end up going a lot more one way without trying to.
Does anyone actually play D&D strictly for the mechanics?
When I'm rolling up a new character, I'm not usually thinking about their racial traits, buffs, or nerfs. I'm thinking about the flavor that race will bring.
My main PC's thus far have been Amethyst Gem Dragonborn (rogue), Tiefling (shadow sorcerer), Grung (swarmkeeper ranger), and Variant Human (chronurgy wizard). I picked all of these combos for the fun and flavor possibilities.
TL:DR: I pick my races for fun, not stats.
Is that in itself a hot take?
I think of both. Sometimes what the character can do factors into the fun. What my character can do in combat isn't the be all end all of coming up with an interesting character, but it is a part of the equation. I want my character to be good at what they do and provide that role well for the party as a whole. And having a +3 in your main stat kind of feels like the baseline for a competent new PC.
Does anyone actually play D&D strictly for the mechanics?
When I'm rolling up a new character, I'm not usually thinking about their racial traits, buffs, or nerfs. I'm thinking about the flavor that race will bring.
My main PC's thus far have been Amethyst Gem Dragonborn (rogue), Tiefling (shadow sorcerer), Grung (swarmkeeper ranger), and Variant Human (chronurgy wizard). I picked all of these combos for the fun and flavor possibilities.
TL:DR: I pick my races for fun, not stats.
Is that in itself a hot take?
I think of both. Sometimes what the character can do factors into the fun. What my character can do in combat isn't the be all end all of coming up with an interesting character, but it is a part of the equation. I want my character to be good at what they do and provide that role well for the party as a whole. And having a +3 in your main stat kind of feels like the baseline for a competent new PC.
I do realize that for my players, and allow my players to have a +1 to anything after stat generation, but no more than 17, to allow them to get their main stat to 16 if they wish, or round out one of those odd scores if they already have it. I've found it helps keep the game balanced while also keeping the innate bonuses. (P.S. My players know about Tasha's rule, and even when I explicitly said I allowed it, they all choose to keep the default bonuses).
Hosted a battle between the Cult of Sedge and the Forum Countershere(Done now). I_Love_Tarrasques has won the fight, scoring a victory for the fiendish Moderators.
I don't think you can really claim people are failing to accurately portray the true way a non-human race would behave, when non-human races don't... Uh... Exist.
But anyway, I would argue that the point of the racial features is, at least in part, to motivate players to choose races they wouldn't ordinarily be motivated to choose. That it's doing so isn't a condemnation at all. It's fine if that's not something you want, but I think calling it a failing is missing the point.
If the system is founded on reason, which I believe all collaborative and imaginary games must be, then we can extrapolate details based on facts we do know. We can post counterfactuals such as "how would living longer change my attitudes and perceptions of the world". If humans beings could live for 300 years, would our view on pollution and climate change, be affected? If we could witness the effects of our society over centuries, it probably would. A person born in 1750 would likely having known a pre-industrial world would likely have interesting things to say about our modern world.
Likewise, magical affinity. How would high magic and low magic societies differ? How would living underground change a society? What would their populations be like? How would they feed that population? How would living with a dramatically smaller population change society and the people living inside? Dwarves probably can't farm in our sense-- no space and likely few worthwhile crops, meaning their diet is largely based on hunted meat and cultivated fungi. Which means they probably aren't drinking beer and the alcohol they are accustomed to are likely some sort of fungal liquors.
By asking "what if" we cannot arrive at an objective answers to demihuman sociological and psychological questions, but we can arrive at one that at least has intellectual integrity and is plausible and not "Oh, we all forgot you were playing a dwarf."
P.S. Why should we motivate players to play races they wouldn't normally play? What is the inherent value of that? Selling more player race supplements? I don't see any reason to encourage people, let alone incentivise people, to play different races. It probably harms the game if those races don't have a grounding in the DM's world-- that is to say that the player doesn't have a culture to tie their character back to and is instead a lone-wandered of a species no-one has ever seen before.
Ooooooor...remove the numeric bonuses, leave the saucy stuff that actually differentiates species, and see how it goes?
Because making species 'cosmetic' doesn't actually promote everybody-is-always-human. Aesthetic is a huge deal, and humans are and always have been f@#$ing boring. They'll never not be boring. Nothing about humanity is interesting. People will play Other just because they want to look cool, and since you've turned species into "look cool", you'll end up with even more issues of people not playing the way you (generic 'you' addressed to the audience, not Pant in particular) feel they should play, which is to twist their brain up in loops and spend all their time being so alien and inscrutable nobody has the foggiest idea what they're doing most of the time.
Or, Option 2: we recognize that in a world where different species interact all the time, the ones capable of communicating, trading, and occasionally interbreeding with each other will develop enough commonality to not eradicate each other, meaning a player can portray their species as being Different in some ways without having to figure out how to convincingly act like an oddly nonhostile xenomorph. And if you as a DM truly feel super strongly that nobody at the table could ever handle playing an 'Other' properly? Ban all nonhuman species. Say 'everybody here is human, no arguments or exceptions, and I'll prove to you that humanity isn't 'boring'.' then do your best to somehow prove to your players that humanity isn't boring. Which will be difficult to do because humanity is boring as sin, even if individual human characters can find ways to be interesting despite their supremely milquetoast, utterly anti-interesting physiology.
Please do not contact or message me.
Any sort of mechanical bonus runs the risk of people taking the race because they want the bonus, rather than RP reasons. You can get across the essence of most of the PHB races with nothing more than Custom Origin
I don't think you can really claim people are failing to accurately portray the true way a non-human race would behave, when non-human races don't... Uh... Exist.
But anyway, I would argue that the point of the racial features is, at least in part, to motivate players to choose races they wouldn't ordinarily be motivated to choose. That it's doing so isn't a condemnation at all. It's fine if that's not something you want, but I think calling it a failing is missing the point.
I think the problem I'm seeing here is that, unless there is a mechanical rule in place forcing players to roleplay different races in strict, specific ways, there's nothing you can do to control how the players will choose to act. Some players will lean in hard to the idea of Orcish culture being dramatically different than human culture, while others might just want to be a big green tough guy and don't give much thought to what that means within the culture of the game. Some people don't want to have to include inter-species racism as part of their gameplay.
The truth of the matter is that, unless there have been some amazing scientific breakthroughs recently I'm unaware of, every single person playing D&D is a human. Every dragon you encounter is your human DM describing their idea of what a dragon would do or say. Every player is a human being putting in as much effort as they feel necessary to control their character... for some people it's purely mechanical. Out-of-combat roleplay is just a series of questionnaires they need to fill out to get to the next combat encounter. Maybe they invest in a crazy high Persuasion score not because they like roleplaying these conversations, but just because it lets them talk their way out of them more quickly. And that's fine, there's nothing wrong with that style of gameplay. For some people it's just a War Game. For other people the focus is really on the storytelling... I know as a DM my players will happily just hang out in a tavern all day interacting with different characters, regardless of whether there's any challenges or even advancement of the adventure. They just want to interact and tell their stories.
I think the biggest challenge with trying to "fix" players not roleplaying their character's race correctly is the inherent problem that there is no one correct way to play a race. Not every Elf needs to be an arrogant elf supremacist... not every dwarf needs to be a scottish guy who drinks too much. Not every story needs tieflings to be inherently hated and feared by the populous. There's also nothing wrong with stories that include those elements... I've used all of those examples as a DM to help tell a story that's instantly understandable by my players. But I also don't lean in constant racism and hatred against specific player races because it would be exhausting to deal with... we're playing a TTRPG in order to escape the trials and tribulations of the real world and replace them with the fake trials and tribulations of going on an adventure where we all get to be powerful, skilled warriors.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
Well, it completely fails at that, because racial features are tuned to encourage players to choose races exactly as expected.
Reason in a hot take thread is indeed a hot take!
I think you misunderstand me. When I say "otherwise motivated to choose," I'm referring to thematics/aesthetics. For instance, I would traditionally be inclined to pick tieflings for every character because they're objectively the coolest, but with the existence of racial features and ASIs, I'm usually picking other races for practical reasons. Which means now I'm roleplaying other stuff than just tieflings all the time.
Come to think of it, I still haven't played a tiefling.
I'm... not sure why you think "I want to play an X, but X's are lame" is an argument for racial features and ASIs.
I don't have to think other races are lame to think tieflings are the coolest. And even if I did think that, I may change my tune after I have actually tried them. Some things make a better first impression and some are slow burners.
Edit: I think I misread your comment. I don't think tieflings are lame mechanically either. They just aren't the best fit for every possible character concept.
Think of it more like, I want to play a Tabaxi because I think they're cool and I want to play a dwarf because they have sweet features. There are different reasons to go with a race.
And I object to the idea that choosing a race for its mechanics is somehow inferior to choosing it for RP. A good player will RP that character regardless of why they chose it, and can often lead them to really get more into the lore of the race as they see through their eyes.
Like for me personally, I have zero interest in tieflings. Horns, tail, sordid ancestry, it all just feels like edgelord pandering to me. But I'd be willing to play one if it fit mechanically well into a certain build concept I had, and I'd RP it to the best of my abilities. I'm pretty sure doing so would change my feelings about the race.
The ultimate goal is to bring an idea to life, and that can be magical no matter the route you take to get there.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
The more that I hear about 4e's Dark Sun, the more interested I am in it. I heard that how it approached the Feywild (aka "The Lands within the Wind") was really unique and interesting. I might buy the sourcebook for it sometime.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Each race has several differentiating factors, for example, a half-orc has relentless endurance, faeries can fly, and an elf has trance. In addition, different races still interact with the world in different ways. Just because you get rid of one element of a character doesn't mean you have to get rid of the rest as well. Different races are still different because ability scores increases are just one factor of them.
Again, ASI's are certainly not the only things to differentiate races, and getting rid of them will not make all races the same.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.https://www.dmsguild.com/product/129293/Dark-Sun-Campaign-Setting-4e
Does anyone actually play D&D strictly for the mechanics?
When I'm rolling up a new character, I'm not usually thinking about their racial traits, buffs, or nerfs. I'm thinking about the flavor that race will bring.
My main PC's thus far have been Amethyst Gem Dragonborn (rogue), Tiefling (shadow sorcerer), Grung (swarmkeeper ranger), and Variant Human (chronurgy wizard). I picked all of these combos for the fun and flavor possibilities.
TL:DR: I pick my races for fun, not stats.
Is that in itself a hot take?
I don't choose just because of the mechanics, but they certainly factor into my decision when I choose which race I want my character to be.
I know there are people out there that choose their race solely to get a mechanical benefit . . . but I'm pretty sure that the people that take both into account are more common.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
People should not have to choose a slightly more optimized character or slightly more fun. However, as I (and others) have been saying, the racial tied ASI's force a choice between "the coolest race" or "the best working ASI's".
If you have a PC with lower ability scores where it matters for their class, it can hurt them in combat and other parts of the game. If you choose the better ASI's, then you may have less fun since you might not playing the race you'd most enjoy.
Unfortunately, the way it is designed, you are given an impossible decision. You have chosen fun and flavor, and that is what many would choose. However, just because some people feel they are forced into picking their races for stats, does not mean that those people think "flavor" and "fun" are bad, but that they have no choice but to have an optimized character so that they can better face the challenges that adventurers will combat.
D&D is hard game, and neither choice always works.
Edit: Just one more thing, you could also try to combine both factors (fun and an optimized character), however, that's a lot harder than picking one, and you could also end up going a lot more one way without trying to.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I like your view. Agreed!
I think of both. Sometimes what the character can do factors into the fun. What my character can do in combat isn't the be all end all of coming up with an interesting character, but it is a part of the equation. I want my character to be good at what they do and provide that role well for the party as a whole. And having a +3 in your main stat kind of feels like the baseline for a competent new PC.
I do realize that for my players, and allow my players to have a +1 to anything after stat generation, but no more than 17, to allow them to get their main stat to 16 if they wish, or round out one of those odd scores if they already have it. I've found it helps keep the game balanced while also keeping the innate bonuses. (P.S. My players know about Tasha's rule, and even when I explicitly said I allowed it, they all choose to keep the default bonuses).
Subclass Evaluations So Far:
Sorcerer
Warlock
My statblock. Fear me!
Hosted a battle between the Cult of Sedge and the Forum Counters here(Done now). I_Love_Tarrasques has won the fight, scoring a victory for the fiendish Moderators.
If the system is founded on reason, which I believe all collaborative and imaginary games must be, then we can extrapolate details based on facts we do know. We can post counterfactuals such as "how would living longer change my attitudes and perceptions of the world". If humans beings could live for 300 years, would our view on pollution and climate change, be affected? If we could witness the effects of our society over centuries, it probably would. A person born in 1750 would likely having known a pre-industrial world would likely have interesting things to say about our modern world.
Likewise, magical affinity. How would high magic and low magic societies differ? How would living underground change a society? What would their populations be like? How would they feed that population? How would living with a dramatically smaller population change society and the people living inside? Dwarves probably can't farm in our sense-- no space and likely few worthwhile crops, meaning their diet is largely based on hunted meat and cultivated fungi. Which means they probably aren't drinking beer and the alcohol they are accustomed to are likely some sort of fungal liquors.
By asking "what if" we cannot arrive at an objective answers to demihuman sociological and psychological questions, but we can arrive at one that at least has intellectual integrity and is plausible and not "Oh, we all forgot you were playing a dwarf."
P.S. Why should we motivate players to play races they wouldn't normally play? What is the inherent value of that? Selling more player race supplements? I don't see any reason to encourage people, let alone incentivise people, to play different races. It probably harms the game if those races don't have a grounding in the DM's world-- that is to say that the player doesn't have a culture to tie their character back to and is instead a lone-wandered of a species no-one has ever seen before.