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.
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.
I agree, there is no decent reason to try and force people to play races they don't like. When I was new to D&D I thought dragonborn were cool and I always played them. Nowadays, I love playing new and different types of races.
Again, as long as the person is having fun, there is no reason to try to "motivate players to choose races they wouldn't ordinarily be motivated to choose." If people are enjoying themselves, why stop them? Unfortunantely, racial tied ASI's do just that.
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.
Interesting starting point, but sure. Are you saying that players who don't world-build aren't truly RPing? In the standard setup of D&D, that's the DM's role. Giving it to players in any capacity is a variant rule explained in the DMG.
Likewise, magical affinity. How would high magic and low magic societies differ?
Not all that much, according to what the books say.
How would living with a dramatically smaller population change society and the people living inside?
Not a whole lot. See previous.
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.
Or they could drink whatever the books say they drink. Is good roleplay when you contradict the established fiction, now? In the absence of such fiction, sure, do whatever you like, but again, if you're making stuff up about the world, you're stepping on the DM's toes. (Which I don't mind, I think it's cool, but it's not a player responsibility, typically, so it's weird to me that you're criticizing players for not doing it.)
P.S. Why should we motivate players to play races they wouldn't normally play? What is the inherent value of that?
This is a good point. I would say it might be to avoid unintentionally making a "best" option, like if everyone agreed that tieflings were the coolest race, you wouldn't see any dwarves or elves anymore. But I'm not thoroughly convinced by this argument. It's also possible that players would get bored by just playing the thing they think they want every time. Designers often push players away from their preferred choice for this reason. Super Smash Bros famously has damage drop-off for using the same attacks over and over. Devil May Cry does the same thing in the opposite direction, by giving bonuses for changing it up. XCOM uses randomness in shot accuracy, hidden enemies, and soldier recovery times, to prevent you from using the exact same tactics every time. Divinity gives you randomized loot to push you to respec or change your build path. Mario gives you super stars that only last a few seconds so you move faster when you would otherwise be careful. Etc. But I'm still not entirely convinced this is the reason.
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.
Interesting starting point, but sure. Are you saying that players who don't world-build aren't truly RPing? In the standard setup of D&D, that's the DM's role. Giving it to players in any capacity is a variant rule explained in the DMG.
Likewise, magical affinity. How would high magic and low magic societies differ?
Not all that much, according to what the books say.
How would living with a dramatically smaller population change society and the people living inside?
Not a whole lot. See previous.
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.
Or they could drink whatever the books say they drink. Is good roleplay when you contradict the established fiction, now? In the absence of such fiction, sure, do whatever you like, but again, if you're making stuff up about the world, you're stepping on the DM's toes. (Which I don't mind, I think it's cool, but it's not a player responsibility, typically, so it's weird to me that you're criticizing players for not doing it.)
P.S. Why should we motivate players to play races they wouldn't normally play? What is the inherent value of that?
This is a good point. I would say it might be to avoid unintentionally making a "best" option, like if everyone agreed that tieflings were the coolest race, you wouldn't see any dwarves or elves anymore. But I'm not thoroughly convinced by this argument. It's also possible that players would get bored by just playing the thing they think they want every time. Designers often push players away from their preferred choice for this reason. Super Smash Bros famously has damage drop-off for using the same attacks over and over. Devil May Cry does the same thing in the opposite direction, by giving bonuses for changing it up. XCOM uses randomness in shot accuracy, hidden enemies, and soldier recovery times, to prevent you from using the exact same tactics every time. Divinity gives you randomized loot to push you to respec or change your build path. Mario gives you super stars that only last a few seconds so you move faster when you would otherwise be careful. Etc. But I'm still not entirely convinced this is the reason.
Selling more player race supplements?
Oh wait. Yeah, that.
I mean if we differ to what the books say, sure. That doesn't mean the books are well-written. Those things surely mattered in the works that inspired D&D.
Actually, that's sort of the biggest gripe I have this multiverse book: the attempt to separate culture from races is ignoring the much larger question raised. If elves can be anything now that my world requires, why would I have elves at all? If I wasn't playing up those connections to past D&D and mythology, then what is the value of including them at all? Would Wheel of Time been better if the Trollocs were actually orcs? Why are there these classic races appearing in most D&D worlds at all? Again, other than marketability? If one is going to make elves that behave not like elves and dwarves who behave not like dwarves, why not go that one final step and give them new appearances and actually create something fully original?
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.
Interesting starting point, but sure. Are you saying that players who don't world-build aren't truly RPing? In the standard setup of D&D, that's the DM's role. Giving it to players in any capacity is a variant rule explained in the DMG.
Likewise, magical affinity. How would high magic and low magic societies differ?
Not all that much, according to what the books say.
How would living with a dramatically smaller population change society and the people living inside?
Not a whole lot. See previous.
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.
Or they could drink whatever the books say they drink. Is good roleplay when you contradict the established fiction, now? In the absence of such fiction, sure, do whatever you like, but again, if you're making stuff up about the world, you're stepping on the DM's toes. (Which I don't mind, I think it's cool, but it's not a player responsibility, typically, so it's weird to me that you're criticizing players for not doing it.)
P.S. Why should we motivate players to play races they wouldn't normally play? What is the inherent value of that?
This is a good point. I would say it might be to avoid unintentionally making a "best" option, like if everyone agreed that tieflings were the coolest race, you wouldn't see any dwarves or elves anymore. But I'm not thoroughly convinced by this argument. It's also possible that players would get bored by just playing the thing they think they want every time. Designers often push players away from their preferred choice for this reason. Super Smash Bros famously has damage drop-off for using the same attacks over and over. Devil May Cry does the same thing in the opposite direction, by giving bonuses for changing it up. XCOM uses randomness in shot accuracy, hidden enemies, and soldier recovery times, to prevent you from using the exact same tactics every time. Divinity gives you randomized loot to push you to respec or change your build path. Mario gives you super stars that only last a few seconds so you move faster when you would otherwise be careful. Etc. But I'm still not entirely convinced this is the reason.
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.
Interesting starting point, but sure. Are you saying that players who don't world-build aren't truly RPing? In the standard setup of D&D, that's the DM's role. Giving it to players in any capacity is a variant rule explained in the DMG.
Likewise, magical affinity. How would high magic and low magic societies differ?
Not all that much, according to what the books say.
How would living with a dramatically smaller population change society and the people living inside?
Not a whole lot. See previous.
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.
Or they could drink whatever the books say they drink. Is good roleplay when you contradict the established fiction, now? In the absence of such fiction, sure, do whatever you like, but again, if you're making stuff up about the world, you're stepping on the DM's toes. (Which I don't mind, I think it's cool, but it's not a player responsibility, typically, so it's weird to me that you're criticizing players for not doing it.)
P.S. Why should we motivate players to play races they wouldn't normally play? What is the inherent value of that?
This is a good point. I would say it might be to avoid unintentionally making a "best" option, like if everyone agreed that tieflings were the coolest race, you wouldn't see any dwarves or elves anymore. But I'm not thoroughly convinced by this argument. It's also possible that players would get bored by just playing the thing they think they want every time. Designers often push players away from their preferred choice for this reason. Super Smash Bros famously has damage drop-off for using the same attacks over and over. Devil May Cry does the same thing in the opposite direction, by giving bonuses for changing it up. XCOM uses randomness in shot accuracy, hidden enemies, and soldier recovery times, to prevent you from using the exact same tactics every time. Divinity gives you randomized loot to push you to respec or change your build path. Mario gives you super stars that only last a few seconds so you move faster when you would otherwise be careful. Etc. But I'm still not entirely convinced this is the reason.
Selling more player race supplements?
Oh wait. Yeah, that.
I mean if we differ to what the books say, sure. That doesn't mean the books are well-written. Those things surely mattered in the works that inspired D&D.
Actually, that's sort of the biggest gripe I have this multiverse book: the attempt to separate culture from races is ignoring the much larger question raised. If elves can be anything now that my world requires, why would I have elves at all? If I wasn't playing up those connections to past D&D and mythology, then what is the value of including them at all? Would Wheel of Time been better if the Trollocs were actually orcs? Why are there these classic races appearing in most D&D worlds at all? Again, other than marketability? If one is going to make elves that behave not like elves and dwarves who behave not like dwarves, why not go that one final step and give them new appearances and actually create something fully original?
Because they are still different in many ways: each race has different abilities, different histories, and even if they don't have it in the book, they still have different cultures, it's just up to you on what those cultures entail.
Just because there is less on a culture of a specific race.doesn't mean there's no difference between races at all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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 & explainHERE.
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.
Interesting starting point, but sure. Are you saying that players who don't world-build aren't truly RPing? In the standard setup of D&D, that's the DM's role. Giving it to players in any capacity is a variant rule explained in the DMG.
Likewise, magical affinity. How would high magic and low magic societies differ?
Not all that much, according to what the books say.
How would living with a dramatically smaller population change society and the people living inside?
Not a whole lot. See previous.
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.
Or they could drink whatever the books say they drink. Is good roleplay when you contradict the established fiction, now? In the absence of such fiction, sure, do whatever you like, but again, if you're making stuff up about the world, you're stepping on the DM's toes. (Which I don't mind, I think it's cool, but it's not a player responsibility, typically, so it's weird to me that you're criticizing players for not doing it.)
P.S. Why should we motivate players to play races they wouldn't normally play? What is the inherent value of that?
This is a good point. I would say it might be to avoid unintentionally making a "best" option, like if everyone agreed that tieflings were the coolest race, you wouldn't see any dwarves or elves anymore. But I'm not thoroughly convinced by this argument. It's also possible that players would get bored by just playing the thing they think they want every time. Designers often push players away from their preferred choice for this reason. Super Smash Bros famously has damage drop-off for using the same attacks over and over. Devil May Cry does the same thing in the opposite direction, by giving bonuses for changing it up. XCOM uses randomness in shot accuracy, hidden enemies, and soldier recovery times, to prevent you from using the exact same tactics every time. Divinity gives you randomized loot to push you to respec or change your build path. Mario gives you super stars that only last a few seconds so you move faster when you would otherwise be careful. Etc. But I'm still not entirely convinced this is the reason.
Selling more player race supplements?
Oh wait. Yeah, that.
I mean if we differ to what the books say, sure. That doesn't mean the books are well-written. Those things surely mattered in the works that inspired D&D.
Actually, that's sort of the biggest gripe I have this multiverse book: the attempt to separate culture from races is ignoring the much larger question raised. If elves can be anything now that my world requires, why would I have elves at all? If I wasn't playing up those connections to past D&D and mythology, then what is the value of including them at all? Would Wheel of Time been better if the Trollocs were actually orcs? Why are there these classic races appearing in most D&D worlds at all? Again, other than marketability? If one is going to make elves that behave not like elves and dwarves who behave not like dwarves, why not go that one final step and give them new appearances and actually create something fully original?
Because they are still different in many ways: each race has different abilities, different histories, and even if they don't have it in the book, they still have different cultures, it's just up to you on what those cultures entail.
Just because there is less on a culture of a specific race.doesn't mean there's no difference between races at all.
Don't confuse my argument with my aside.
The point of my aside was that races, stripped of their culture and lore cease to be what they are. If you are going to be world building, why are you limiting yourself to the designs of other people. Make your own races that are unique to your setting and stop repackaging content from the Forgotten Realms. Saying that we can create our own culture is true, but we can-- for not a lot of work more-- create something actually original instead of chaining ourselves to concepts that we are, evidently, trying to escape.
My Spicy Opinion: There is way too many races to begin with in 5e. And by taking away the culture of many of these races to begin with, they have been turned into just basic generic fantasy creatures. To me it was more fun playing a character of a race that might have a rather strict culture or whatever, and going against that grain. Standing out as my own person... you know the point of being a hero or villain character in these fantasy adventures? Now if everyone is just the same, we might as well just be NPCs in our adventures.
My Spicy Opinion: There is way too many races to begin with in 5e. And by taking away the culture of many of these races to begin with, they have been turned into just basic generic fantasy creatures. To me it was more fun playing a character of a race that might have a rather strict culture or whatever, and going against that grain. Standing out as my own person... you know the point of being a hero or villain character in these fantasy adventures?
Just because one element of a race has been taken away, does not mean they are all now the same. There are still many differences and if you want, you can always work with your DM to invent the races culture.
Now if everyone is just the same, we might as well just be NPCs in our adventures.
Two things on this:
(1) Again, every race is not the same, just because you removed one differentiating factors from them. There are several things to make them different as I said in my post responding to Verenti.
(2) Even if you were to remove race from the game or eliminate the differences between them (which has certainly not happened), it doesn't mean each character is still the same. You still have your class and backround.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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 & explainHERE.
My Spicy Opinion: There is way too many races to begin with in 5e. And by taking away the culture of many of these races to begin with, they have been turned into just basic generic fantasy creatures. To me it was more fun playing a character of a race that might have a rather strict culture or whatever, and going against that grain. Standing out as my own person... you know the point of being a hero or villain character in these fantasy adventures?
Just because one element of a race has been taken away, does not mean they are all now the same. There are still many differences and if you want, you can always work with your DM to invent the races culture.
Now if everyone is just the same, we might as well just be NPCs in our adventures.
Two things on this:
(1) Again, every race is not the same, just because you removed one differentiating factors from them. There are several things to make them different as I said in my post responding to Verenti.
(2) Even if you were to remove race from the game or eliminate the differences between them (which has certainly not happened), it doesn't mean each character is still the same. You still have your class and backround.
Yeah, they're moving away from racial ASIs, and they're moving away from orcs/drow always being evil by default but that's pretty much it from what I understand. On the physical side yous till have all the other racial features which are more interesting and unique anyway. (Darkvision spam aside.) Orcs and elves are not interchangable now or anything like that.
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.
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.
I agree, there is no decent reason to try and force people to play races they don't like. When I was new to D&D I thought dragonborn were cool and I always played them. Nowadays, I love playing new and different types of races.
Again, as long as the person is having fun, there is no reason to try to "motivate players to choose races they wouldn't ordinarily be motivated to choose." If people are enjoying themselves, why stop them? Unfortunantely, racial tied ASI's do just that.
This is a very negative way of putting this mechanic. Notice how the verb has gone from "encourage/motivate" to "force." I'd like to propose a different one - "inspire."
I like elves. I can play an elf wizard if I want. But wait, look over here. This gnome has an INT bonus and some features that seem kind of neat for a wizard. What would a gnome wizard be like?
I have stumbled into a number of awesome character concepts this way. These mechanical hooks can serve as just another source of inspiration. That's not a bad thing.
And likewise it's hyperbole to say that race/class combos that don't have complete synergy between their features are useless to the point that there shouldn't be racial features. That's just burning the house down because you found a spider in it. Sure, there may be a few... extremely focused players who will only play optimal combinations of game pieces. But they are a fraction of a percent of the playerbase. We don't need to make sweeping changes based on that.
Race and culture refers to people, groups, and their classifications although both words are very different in how they classify people. To start with the concept of race and culture, it is important to know what each of them mean. “Race” is a classification of people according to their physical appearances, geographic ancestry, and heritable characteristics. “Culture” is a classification of people according to their beliefs and values that include spirituality, religion, region, language, and livelihoods.
My Spicy Opinion: There is way too many races to begin with in 5e. And by taking away the culture of many of these races to begin with, they have been turned into just basic generic fantasy creatures.
My spicy opinion: giving races a monoculture is as dumb as the SF tropes of 'jungle planet', etc; any reasonably common fantasy race should have just as much cultural variation as humans. For people from hybrid societies, it's quite possible that race isn't even the primary factor -- it's likely that a halfling from Waterdeep and a half-orc from Waterdeep are different, but there's still a good chance they're more similar to each other than either would be to their counterparts from Thay.
That's why "Culture" should be blended in with Background instead of included as part of Race.
It's not as simple as that though. Would a Chinese farmer have more in common with an American farmer or a Chinese shopkeeper?
Culture is linked with ethnicity (although certainly not inseparable from it) and I don't think background really links much with it. In the past, I proposed that culture be its own segment in character creation. You could have an Elf raised in a Dwarven culture, say (or you could have various Dwarven cultures). That is perhaps a bit more realistic, but it comes with its own problems. One was maintaining balance while avoiding monotonising characters, the other was that people found it hard ti differentiate from background. Strictly speaking, background is quite distinct from culture - an American farmer has more in common with an American shopkeeper than a Chinese farmer, or in otherwords, the patronym is more reflective of culture than the occupation (or in D&D terms, the background). The patronym is more analogous to race in D&D terms. However, mechanically, it is quite similar to background. Blegh.
Personally, I prefer culture to be its own separate choice, but that does have its problems that I'm unsure of how to solve.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
My Spicy Opinion: There is way too many races to begin with in 5e. And by taking away the culture of many of these races to begin with, they have been turned into just basic generic fantasy creatures.
My spicy opinion: giving races a monoculture is as dumb as the SF tropes of 'jungle planet', etc; any reasonably common fantasy race should have just as much cultural variation as humans. For people from hybrid societies, it's quite possible that race isn't even the primary factor -- it's likely that a halfling from Waterdeep and a half-orc from Waterdeep are different, but there's still a good chance they're more similar to each other than either would be to their counterparts from Thay.
I agree in principle. I think the problem is format. There's a whole raft of human cultures in the PHB, I can't remember much about any of them because there's just too many and have little impact on my character - I'm sure as I learn more about 5e or D&D lore, they'll be more meaningful, but as a kind of new player, I just find it too hard to track.
Having that for every race sounds exhausting just thinking about it. I like the idea in principle and I do have antipathy for monoculture...but I fear it would be too much to have 10 cultures for every race for new players.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Having that for every race sounds exhausting just thinking about it. I like the idea in principle and I do have antipathy for monoculture...but I fear it would be too much to have 10 cultures for every race for new players.
That's because you're thinking about the question in the wrong direction. You shouldn't go "Okay, I know my race, what culture should I pick", you should go "Okay, I know where my character comes from, how does his race fit into the culture there?" With a good chance that the answer is non-specific because the culture doesn't actually care about the differences between various smaller minorities (either treats them all fine, or abuses them all).
My Spicy Opinion: There is way too many races to begin with in 5e. And by taking away the culture of many of these races to begin with, they have been turned into just basic generic fantasy creatures.
My spicy opinion: giving races a monoculture is as dumb as the SF tropes of 'jungle planet', etc; any reasonably common fantasy race should have just as much cultural variation as humans. For people from hybrid societies, it's quite possible that race isn't even the primary factor -- it's likely that a halfling from Waterdeep and a half-orc from Waterdeep are different, but there's still a good chance they're more similar to each other than either would be to their counterparts from Thay.
I agree in principle. I think the problem is format. There's a whole raft of human cultures in the PHB, I can't remember much about any of them because there's just too many and have little impact on my character - I'm sure as I learn more about 5e or D&D lore, they'll be more meaningful, but as a kind of new player, I just find it too hard to track.
Having that for every race sounds exhausting just thinking about it. I like the idea in principle and I do have antipathy for monoculture...but I fear it would be too much to have 10 cultures for every race for new players.
That's why "base" Culture should depend on the Setting, which should have a few different examples of cultures for every race. Eberron has about four base cultures for the Halflings; the Halfling crime lords of Sharn, the two dragonmarked houses (Jorasco and Ghallanda), and the dino-riding primal Halflings of the Talenta Plains.
The same thing applies for most of the core races of Eberron. That's just good world building, unlike the Forgotten Realms where it traditionally has only had 1 culture for a lot of its races (Drow, Duergar, Lizardfolk, Goblinoids, etc).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
That's why "Culture" should be blended in with Background instead of included as part of Race.
It's not as simple as that though. Would a Chinese farmer have more in common with an American farmer or a Chinese shopkeeper?
Culture is linked with ethnicity (although certainly not inseparable from it) and I don't think background really links much with it. In the past, I proposed that culture be its own segment in character creation. You could have an Elf raised in a Dwarven culture, say (or you could have various Dwarven cultures). That is perhaps a bit more realistic, but it comes with its own problems. One was maintaining balance while avoiding monotonising characters, the other was that people found it hard ti differentiate from background. Strictly speaking, background is quite distinct from culture - an American farmer has more in common with an American shopkeeper than a Chinese farmer, or in otherwords, the patronym is more reflective of culture than the occupation (or in D&D terms, the background). The patronym is more analogous to race in D&D terms. However, mechanically, it is quite similar to background. Blegh.
Personally, I prefer culture to be its own separate choice, but that does have its problems that I'm unsure of how to solve.
I agree that it should be a separate choice, but just under the heading of Background. It should be a selection you make while designing your character that helps paint a picture of where your character was from and what they were doing before they became an adventurer. Let those things flavor the various Background traits for RP as well as skills (and maybe a feat) that fit that background. After that, it doesn't really matter. A Shop Keep in Neverwinter is what they were while an Adventuring Fighter is what they are now. Through their travels, they keep the knowledge and skills they picked up in that life, but that life is in the past (or Background).
That's why "Culture" should be blended in with Background instead of included as part of Race.
It's not as simple as that though. Would a Chinese farmer have more in common with an American farmer or a Chinese shopkeeper?
Culture is linked with ethnicity (although certainly not inseparable from it) and I don't think background really links much with it. In the past, I proposed that culture be its own segment in character creation. You could have an Elf raised in a Dwarven culture, say (or you could have various Dwarven cultures). That is perhaps a bit more realistic, but it comes with its own problems. One was maintaining balance while avoiding monotonising characters, the other was that people found it hard ti differentiate from background. Strictly speaking, background is quite distinct from culture - an American farmer has more in common with an American shopkeeper than a Chinese farmer, or in otherwords, the patronym is more reflective of culture than the occupation (or in D&D terms, the background). The patronym is more analogous to race in D&D terms. However, mechanically, it is quite similar to background. Blegh.
Personally, I prefer culture to be its own separate choice, but that does have its problems that I'm unsure of how to solve.
I agree that it should be a separate choice, but just under the heading of Background. It should be a selection you make while designing your character that helps paint a picture of where your character was from and what they were doing before they became an adventurer. Let those things flavor the various Background traits for RP as well as skills (and maybe a feat) that fit that background. After that, it doesn't really matter. A Shop Keep in Neverwinter is what they were while an Adventuring Fighter is what they are now. Through their travels, they keep the knowledge and skills they picked up in that life, but that life is in the past (or Background).
I mostly agree, I think your ethnicity should be specified in your backstory. Like in Spasta's three sentence backstory thread, you should preferably specify where your character came from. There backround will help with what they've been doing, so you could also use a combination of the three (backstory, backround, race) as well.
I agree, there is no decent reason to try and force people to play races they don't like. When I was new to D&D I thought dragonborn were cool and I always played them. Nowadays, I love playing new and different types of races.
Again, as long as the person is having fun, there is no reason to try to "motivate players to choose races they wouldn't ordinarily be motivated to choose." If people are enjoying themselves, why stop them? Unfortunantely, racial tied ASI's do just that.
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.Interesting starting point, but sure. Are you saying that players who don't world-build aren't truly RPing? In the standard setup of D&D, that's the DM's role. Giving it to players in any capacity is a variant rule explained in the DMG.
Not all that much, according to what the books say.
Not a whole lot. See previous.
Or they could drink whatever the books say they drink. Is good roleplay when you contradict the established fiction, now? In the absence of such fiction, sure, do whatever you like, but again, if you're making stuff up about the world, you're stepping on the DM's toes. (Which I don't mind, I think it's cool, but it's not a player responsibility, typically, so it's weird to me that you're criticizing players for not doing it.)
This is a good point. I would say it might be to avoid unintentionally making a "best" option, like if everyone agreed that tieflings were the coolest race, you wouldn't see any dwarves or elves anymore. But I'm not thoroughly convinced by this argument. It's also possible that players would get bored by just playing the thing they think they want every time. Designers often push players away from their preferred choice for this reason. Super Smash Bros famously has damage drop-off for using the same attacks over and over. Devil May Cry does the same thing in the opposite direction, by giving bonuses for changing it up. XCOM uses randomness in shot accuracy, hidden enemies, and soldier recovery times, to prevent you from using the exact same tactics every time. Divinity gives you randomized loot to push you to respec or change your build path. Mario gives you super stars that only last a few seconds so you move faster when you would otherwise be careful. Etc. But I'm still not entirely convinced this is the reason.
Oh wait. Yeah, that.
I mean if we differ to what the books say, sure. That doesn't mean the books are well-written. Those things surely mattered in the works that inspired D&D.
Actually, that's sort of the biggest gripe I have this multiverse book: the attempt to separate culture from races is ignoring the much larger question raised. If elves can be anything now that my world requires, why would I have elves at all? If I wasn't playing up those connections to past D&D and mythology, then what is the value of including them at all? Would Wheel of Time been better if the Trollocs were actually orcs? Why are there these classic races appearing in most D&D worlds at all? Again, other than marketability? If one is going to make elves that behave not like elves and dwarves who behave not like dwarves, why not go that one final step and give them new appearances and actually create something fully original?
(o) no supplements?
Updog
Because they are still different in many ways: each race has different abilities, different histories, and even if they don't have it in the book, they still have different cultures, it's just up to you on what those cultures entail.
Just because there is less on a culture of a specific race.doesn't mean there's no difference between races at all.
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.Don't confuse my argument with my aside.
The point of my aside was that races, stripped of their culture and lore cease to be what they are. If you are going to be world building, why are you limiting yourself to the designs of other people. Make your own races that are unique to your setting and stop repackaging content from the Forgotten Realms. Saying that we can create our own culture is true, but we can-- for not a lot of work more-- create something actually original instead of chaining ourselves to concepts that we are, evidently, trying to escape.
My Spicy Opinion: There is way too many races to begin with in 5e. And by taking away the culture of many of these races to begin with, they have been turned into just basic generic fantasy creatures. To me it was more fun playing a character of a race that might have a rather strict culture or whatever, and going against that grain. Standing out as my own person... you know the point of being a hero or villain character in these fantasy adventures? Now if everyone is just the same, we might as well just be NPCs in our adventures.
Just because one element of a race has been taken away, does not mean they are all now the same. There are still many differences and if you want, you can always work with your DM to invent the races culture.
Two things on this:
(1) Again, every race is not the same, just because you removed one differentiating factors from them. There are several things to make them different as I said in my post responding to Verenti.
(2) Even if you were to remove race from the game or eliminate the differences between them (which has certainly not happened), it doesn't mean each character is still the same. You still have your class and backround.
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.Yeah, they're moving away from racial ASIs, and they're moving away from orcs/drow always being evil by default but that's pretty much it from what I understand. On the physical side yous till have all the other racial features which are more interesting and unique anyway. (Darkvision spam aside.) Orcs and elves are not interchangable now or anything like that.
This is a very negative way of putting this mechanic. Notice how the verb has gone from "encourage/motivate" to "force." I'd like to propose a different one - "inspire."
I like elves. I can play an elf wizard if I want. But wait, look over here. This gnome has an INT bonus and some features that seem kind of neat for a wizard. What would a gnome wizard be like?
I have stumbled into a number of awesome character concepts this way. These mechanical hooks can serve as just another source of inspiration. That's not a bad thing.
And likewise it's hyperbole to say that race/class combos that don't have complete synergy between their features are useless to the point that there shouldn't be racial features. That's just burning the house down because you found a spider in it. Sure, there may be a few... extremely focused players who will only play optimal combinations of game pieces. But they are a fraction of a percent of the playerbase. We don't need to make sweeping changes based on that.
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
Culture and Race are not chained together nor should they be.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Race is biological: Culture is experiences.
That's why "Culture" should be blended in with Background instead of included as part of Race.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
My spicy opinion: giving races a monoculture is as dumb as the SF tropes of 'jungle planet', etc; any reasonably common fantasy race should have just as much cultural variation as humans. For people from hybrid societies, it's quite possible that race isn't even the primary factor -- it's likely that a halfling from Waterdeep and a half-orc from Waterdeep are different, but there's still a good chance they're more similar to each other than either would be to their counterparts from Thay.
It's not as simple as that though. Would a Chinese farmer have more in common with an American farmer or a Chinese shopkeeper?
Culture is linked with ethnicity (although certainly not inseparable from it) and I don't think background really links much with it. In the past, I proposed that culture be its own segment in character creation. You could have an Elf raised in a Dwarven culture, say (or you could have various Dwarven cultures). That is perhaps a bit more realistic, but it comes with its own problems. One was maintaining balance while avoiding monotonising characters, the other was that people found it hard ti differentiate from background. Strictly speaking, background is quite distinct from culture - an American farmer has more in common with an American shopkeeper than a Chinese farmer, or in otherwords, the patronym is more reflective of culture than the occupation (or in D&D terms, the background). The patronym is more analogous to race in D&D terms. However, mechanically, it is quite similar to background. Blegh.
Personally, I prefer culture to be its own separate choice, but that does have its problems that I'm unsure of how to solve.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I agree in principle. I think the problem is format. There's a whole raft of human cultures in the PHB, I can't remember much about any of them because there's just too many and have little impact on my character - I'm sure as I learn more about 5e or D&D lore, they'll be more meaningful, but as a kind of new player, I just find it too hard to track.
Having that for every race sounds exhausting just thinking about it. I like the idea in principle and I do have antipathy for monoculture...but I fear it would be too much to have 10 cultures for every race for new players.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
That's because you're thinking about the question in the wrong direction. You shouldn't go "Okay, I know my race, what culture should I pick", you should go "Okay, I know where my character comes from, how does his race fit into the culture there?" With a good chance that the answer is non-specific because the culture doesn't actually care about the differences between various smaller minorities (either treats them all fine, or abuses them all).
That's why "base" Culture should depend on the Setting, which should have a few different examples of cultures for every race. Eberron has about four base cultures for the Halflings; the Halfling crime lords of Sharn, the two dragonmarked houses (Jorasco and Ghallanda), and the dino-riding primal Halflings of the Talenta Plains.
The same thing applies for most of the core races of Eberron. That's just good world building, unlike the Forgotten Realms where it traditionally has only had 1 culture for a lot of its races (Drow, Duergar, Lizardfolk, Goblinoids, etc).
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I agree that it should be a separate choice, but just under the heading of Background. It should be a selection you make while designing your character that helps paint a picture of where your character was from and what they were doing before they became an adventurer. Let those things flavor the various Background traits for RP as well as skills (and maybe a feat) that fit that background. After that, it doesn't really matter. A Shop Keep in Neverwinter is what they were while an Adventuring Fighter is what they are now. Through their travels, they keep the knowledge and skills they picked up in that life, but that life is in the past (or Background).
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I mostly agree, I think your ethnicity should be specified in your backstory. Like in Spasta's three sentence backstory thread, you should preferably specify where your character came from. There backround will help with what they've been doing, so you could also use a combination of the three (backstory, backround, race) as well.
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.