You know, parts of this thread really come off as a tantrum, and parts of it go into eugenics territory when talking about "lower" players of today and all that crap. The greatest part of this new system is that it is open enough that people can create what they want with it. It actually frees it up for people to correct the lore and science that D&D has wrong if they want to. Why such the fit for something that you could make yourself? D&D, being a fantasy setting, will probably make players and DMs be more concerned with folklore, mythology, and the like. When the mythology of this world actually states that these races were made as they were from gods/goddesses, I'm not sure how you could work a scientific system into it without it being heavy homebrew. I would suggest a modern setting or a futuristic setting for more science based backgrounds and lore.
Speaking as a biologist. The big difference between race (or breed or anything like that) and species is weather they can reproduce with viable off-spring. Since there are Half-Elves & Half-Orcs which can have children they can't be seen as different species Tiefling are in a similar boat. Dwarves don't have any half-dwarves at this stage but in past editions there have been half-dwarves. So only Halfings & Gnomes can really be seen as a different species.
I have no reason to believe Halflings are genetically unique enough that they can't breed with, say, humans. especially when magic is involved. After all, in D&D there is actually such a thing as an Owlbear.
Admin note: please avoid insults directed to other posters.
Ok, now to my own comment.
Generally speaking, trying to apply science to a Fantasy Role-play game, whether D&D or other games, is usually not worthwhile.
We're talking about a reality where a powerful fighter can, whilst almost naked, withstand multiple blows from weapons and fully recover with a good overnight sleep.
We're talking about a reality where dragons exist - creatures the size of a whale that can fly!
Science as we understand it just doesn't apply to these fundamentals, so we can't expect it to apply to the rest of the world.
And here's the thing - this is not our real world - it's a fantasy world.
It's made up.
The rules of our world don't apply .... and that's ok.
What is important is that the rules support a great and satisfying story, just like your favourite book or movie.
I mean, I really don't "care" to a certain extent although I have used the argument before. Back in 3rd edition when Dwarf were naturally Fighters and Elves were naturally Wizards, I thought was incredibly stupid. And told my GM the rule is dumb, because you can't say ____ people are naturally good at _____ thing.
I don't see why not—these aren't evolved creatures that might show the same variation as living creatures in the real world. Why couldn't Moradin or Reorx or whatever dwarf god is in your campaign have created the all dwarves to basically be bearded fighters who REALLY like hitting metal things with hammers? Why couldn't Correlon have shaped elves to be wizards rather than clerics or whatever?
Fantasy worlds can't be explained by science—they don't operate according to the sort of physical laws that give rise to biology and chemistry. You can tell that by all the magic stuff laying around.
Ok, and yeah I know, that's why I used the words I did ... I just wasn't writing a treatise on the subject. I said ( paraphrased ): "as opposed to the lack of such", not the absence of such ... and what was the "such"? Commonness of the phenomenon ... so successful fertile interbreeding is common amongst species, but not common amongst more general taxonomical divisions, but of course the word common is vague, because I wasn't attempting to construct the whole thing.
but that's interesting and thanks for the links
Thanks for your sarcasm, it was really helpful and constructive to criticise a suggestion that wasn't being made by anyone ... where did you get the notion of an entire chapter being dedicated to taxonomy? I don't think you'll find it anywhere in this thread except in your own comment, do you're replying to a conversation that doesn't exist outside your own head.
I take your point nsanelilmunky ... BUT ignoring the BS about tantrum ( which you can put with whatever other passive aggressive comments you want to make ), it has nothing whatsoever to do with any of that, and had you actually read and contemplated instead of reacting and leaping into criticism, you'd see that there's nothing you're saying that isn't catered for in my proposed solution ... BECAUSE IF "Lore" can be stored on a campaign by campaign basis ( see my other comment where I link to another post about Lore ), THEN a person could actually modify the taxonomy and any other Lore they wanted to.
but hey, thanks for your sarcasm and criticism too, it was as useful as the other guys ... and you're basically just proving my point about the devolution of the game
Actually I have to disagree with you stormknight ... if we live in a multiverse where universes like D&D exist, then they will ALL have their own natural laws, and magic will merely be the natural laws of some of those other universes ... so this is a discussion OF THE SCIENCE of those natural laws of those universes & realms ... and that is how D&D was founded at the beginning, and how gygax did his work
ElusivePan that's not the case ... science is about the discovery of the natural laws of a domain, so science does exist in D&D and is the discovery of the natural laws of that domain ( including commonalities and differences of its sub-domains ), and magic is merely one sub-set of such natural laws
What D&D has always been about to me, is a set of rules ( natural laws ) that govern the actions, consequences, functions, properties, and relations between objects within a set of traversible realms of existence ... hence there are changes in those rules in some campaign scenarios, take for example the portals to the elemental planes from The Temple of Elemental Evil ( which for those who don't know, would impact spells and other things while in those planes ).
I think the real problem is that after Gygax, the game took a different direction that was driven by commercial concerns, and so for those of us whom preferred the direction Gygax was taking it, it's a completely different game in many respects.
A couple of quick reminders on the forum rules all:
Please don't reply to yourself, especially multiple times - you can just edit your existing post if you have more text you wish to add.
Don't post personal attacks - it doesn't strengthen your position. Discussion and disagreement are possible without such things. I know that this is the internet and it happens a lot on other sites, but the staff and moderator team at D&D Beyond hold this site to a higher standard.
ElusivePan that's not the case ... science is about the discovery of the natural laws of a domain, so science does exist in D&D and is the discovery of the natural laws of that domain ( including commonalities and differences of its sub-domains ), and magic is merely one sub-set of such natural laws
What D&D has always been about to me, is a set of rules ( natural laws ) that govern the actions, consequences, functions, properties, and relations between objects within a set of traversible realms of existence ... hence there are changes in those rules in some campaign scenarios, take for example the portals to the elemental planes from The Temple of Elemental Evil ( which for those who don't know, would impact spells and other things while in those planes ).
There's not really any evidence of that, though. There is no reason to believe that the world is made of chemical molecules formed by elemental atoms, when the gods might have simply formed matter from various mixtures of the four elements or something like that. No reason to believe that living things have DNA or evolve—for example if I understand Tolkien-lore (probably not) more modern beings are LESSER than their ancestors because they're farther away from the source of creation or some such thing.
Basically, I think you're saddling your fantasy with a whole load of assumptions that don't really fit in the setting most of us are playing in.
I take your point nsanelilmunky ... BUT ignoring the BS about tantrum ( which you can put with whatever other passive aggressive comments you want to make ), it has nothing whatsoever to do with any of that, and had you actually read and contemplated instead of reacting and leaping into criticism, you'd see that there's nothing you're saying that isn't catered for in my proposed solution ... BECAUSE IF "Lore" can be stored on a campaign by campaign basis ( see my other comment where I link to another post about Lore ), THEN a person could actually modify the taxonomy and any other Lore they wanted to.
but hey, thanks for your sarcasm and criticism too, it was as useful as the other guys ... and you're basically just proving my point about the devolution of the game
You may try to claim that your statements support all of my comments, but that is not the case. Most of the basic elements of your statements seem to be at odds with the Multiverse of D&D and the races in it. About the only examples of evolution that I can really see in D&D are the subraces, and even those are sometimes influenced by individual gods and goddesses (like the Drow and Lolth) instead of genetic mutation and environmental adaptation. And lore isn't really stored. It exists and is perpetuated through the culture of the worlds. The lore of Greyhawk will always be the same unless a DM homebrews it. Folklore can change over time in a culture, but the world lore we're talking about here doesn't really change that much because it has to do with the very framework of the fantasy setting. Modifying that lore is entirely homebrew.
Some of the "folklorists" and works that I tend to draw from are things like Jacob Grimm's Teutonic Mythology, Joseph Campbell's works, and Ellis Davidson. If you'd like to get into more lore and legend study, they would be some of the people to start with. If you want to stick with the taxidermy thing, by all means, go for it. I just don't see how it will fit into most worlds or campaigns and be helpful to the story.
Quote from IvanInverse>> I have no reason to believe Halflings are genetically unique enough that they can't breed with, say, humans. especially when magic is involved. After all, in D&D there is actually such a thing as an Owlbear.
This does make me curious... would the offspring of a Halfling and a Human be a Half-Halfling, or a Quarterling?
How would this enhance the game? What precisely would it do? Is this something that would enhance story telling?
Because it's coming off as a pet peeve more than anything. Which is fine, come up with your own taxonomy of species and feel free to post it in the homebrew section. Come up with your own criteria on how to classify your species/races complete with a glossary of terms and easy flow chart making apps. I'm all about making your world yours, whether it's by laws of nature or laws of magic i.e. I ain't gotta explain S&*$.
I just...disagree that this would serve any useful purpose.
I mean really not sure why half of you have replied to this since clearly all you want to do is disagree with it ... why not focus your efforts on something you agree with. I'm not going to waste my time further replying to people who cannot be convinced no matter what I say - that would be a pointless exercise.
I agree that it would be a good tool for some DM's, enough that it's probably worth your time making this as a community contribution. For the majority of users though, I don't think it would play well or be utilized to add to the storytelling. That's my opinion having only played 5th edition with 10 or so people in total. If you make something like that, or want to start a collaborative project, I hope you let me know. I don't have the time resource to do something like that myself, but a team effort could work. I would join in that project. Or post the final product on the Dungeon Masters guild or something like that so you can get a little something back for your effort. I could see it being very helpful for DM's wanting to make a detailed world, especially one with a long timeline before the players arrive. Heck, you could make a whole bundle of extra materials with trade patterns, supply and demand rules, geographic guidelines, and taxonomic resources for creating a more realistic world.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Experience: 5e Only - Playing, DM, world building.
DM for Home-brew campaign based on Forgotten Realms lore. 5 player. Also play in party of 8.
Why wouldn't I want to contribute to a discussion? Discussions lead to new ideas and I'm always down for that.
If you don't like the specific criticisms or want to answer the questions I've asked I'm not sure what you want. I simply asked how this would enhance the game, I've not received an answer.
You came up with a topic, you were asked to defend that idea, and you failed. If you are unable to answer the most basic of questions I'm not sure what to tell you. Were we just supposed to hop on board and accept this idea without exploring it? Because that's how this is reading.
I immediately roll my eyes any time the tired old "wizards did it" excuse is used in fantasy. Sometimes people want to look deeper into fantasy mythos, or think about it on a deeper level. No one complains about the complicated planar physics of the Planescape setting, so what does it matter if someone wants to see a setting with a different take on race/species taxonomy?
If GalacticPresident wants all of D&D to change to specify a difference between species and race that's one thing. Though, it seems like what he's suggesting is the usual optional splatbook sort of content. If the only input opposite that is "well magic exists so no" then that's an intellectually lazy and unhelpful excuse. The argument that most humanoids can interbreed but the stumpies can't is a much better argument. "Well there's magic so I don't want to have to think about this" is so weak and unimportant in a discussion. I could make the argument that we shouldn't have hill dwarves and mountain dwarves because they're all dwarves in the end.
What if there was a setting that took place in a renaissance or islamic golden era where the old ways of looking at the world and fantasy tropes is now under scientific scrutiny. Where the denizens of this world are starting to question the nature of reality, what it means to be metahuman, and the nature of magic? Where wizards argue about the nature of magic and religion with clerics, and study the differences between the two?
Maybe that doesn't interest you, but then you don't have to play it do you? I think that'd be compelling, where each adventure is an experiment, and at the end of the adventure the players try to interpret the data. There wouldn't be as much combat, but exploration could play a role in gathering data in a hostile fantasy world. Maybe the players need to harvest and study griffon eggs high in the clouds? Maybe a necromancer and a cleric want to study how different bodies break down after death and are revived, so they travel to a recent battlefield and a crypt to collect data? Maybe a wizard wants to study how many devils can be summoned into an enclosed space, but hires some protection in case his alchemical cages fail?
Then the players interpret the data and it's written down on a special form that makes that interpretation canon for that campaign. Like if the PCs determine that devils take up no physical space until they reach a certain limit then all devils gain the ability to pass through small cracks and openings, but if the PCs determine that devils take up physical space then instead they gain a bonus to toughness. And that these affects apply to demonology spells as well, like casters and alchemists would gain access to potions and spells that allow players the same buffs. Every experimental adventure would unlock new potential spells and technologies while also making the dangers larger and larger.
Again, not a canon, THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO PLAY D&D kind of thing, but it would make for a pretty cool supplement or splatbook.
Thank you orphansmith, I wish they'd actually read and contemplated all my comments in their entirety, then they'd have seen the link to my other post and understood that nothing I was saying would stop anyone else doing it any way they wanted to, it would simply add a level of adaptable sophistication for those who do want to use it & in whatever way they decided to actually use it ( including ways that no one even mentioned in the thread because they haven't been thought up yet ).
I immediately roll my eyes any time the tired old "wizards did it" excuse is used in fantasy. Sometimes people want to look deeper into fantasy mythos, or think about it on a deeper level. No one complains about the complicated planar physics of the Planescape setting, so what does it matter if someone wants to see a setting with a different take on race/species taxonomy?
If GalacticPresident wants all of D&D to change to specify a difference between species and race that's one thing. Though, it seems like what he's suggesting is the usual optional splatbook sort of content. If the only input opposite that is "well magic exists so no" then that's an intellectually lazy and unhelpful excuse.
Maybe that doesn't interest you, but then you don't have to play it do you?
Then the players interpret the data and it's written down on a special form that makes that interpretation canon for that campaign.
Again, not a canon, THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO PLAY D&D kind of thing, but it would make for a pretty cool supplement or splatbook.
You are actually stating some of the same things we have. There is nothing stopping him from doing this, and others have even said they might look at it- so a little bit of interest in it. The biggest parts that we seem to have problems with are his tone, his demanding, and generally curiosity on how you could make a system work in a system that honestly works against natural scientific principals. He has yet to answer that.
Thank you orphansmith, I wish they'd actually read and contemplated all my comments in their entirety, then they'd have seen the link to my other post and understood that nothing I was saying would stop anyone else doing it any way they wanted to, it would simply add a level of adaptable sophistication for those who do want to use it & in whatever way they decided to actually use it ( including ways that no one even mentioned in the thread because they haven't been thought up yet ).
The only thing I'm contemplating at this point is posting the definition of contemplate. You've not posted anything truly deep that would require extended amounts of review, and you've not even answered basic questions that questioned your thesis. You should also consider your audience. You wouldn't really go into a basketball game and ask people to support adding skydiving to it, would you? It would be fun for a handful of people to try, but for the majority of people, it doesn't appeal to them. Whether not it would add 'sophistication' to it is also highly debatable. It sounds more like bloat for most campaigns.
You know, parts of this thread really come off as a tantrum, and parts of it go into eugenics territory when talking about "lower" players of today and all that crap. The greatest part of this new system is that it is open enough that people can create what they want with it. It actually frees it up for people to correct the lore and science that D&D has wrong if they want to. Why such the fit for something that you could make yourself? D&D, being a fantasy setting, will probably make players and DMs be more concerned with folklore, mythology, and the like. When the mythology of this world actually states that these races were made as they were from gods/goddesses, I'm not sure how you could work a scientific system into it without it being heavy homebrew. I would suggest a modern setting or a futuristic setting for more science based backgrounds and lore.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersAdmin note: please avoid insults directed to other posters.
Ok, now to my own comment.
Generally speaking, trying to apply science to a Fantasy Role-play game, whether D&D or other games, is usually not worthwhile.
We're talking about a reality where a powerful fighter can, whilst almost naked, withstand multiple blows from weapons and fully recover with a good overnight sleep.
We're talking about a reality where dragons exist - creatures the size of a whale that can fly!
Science as we understand it just doesn't apply to these fundamentals, so we can't expect it to apply to the rest of the world.
And here's the thing - this is not our real world - it's a fantasy world.
It's made up.
The rules of our world don't apply .... and that's ok.
What is important is that the rules support a great and satisfying story, just like your favourite book or movie.
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Nevermind. I thought that comment was directed at me :P
The taxonomic terms have always bugged me too.
However, in any game where one is able to cast Magic Missile, I don't get too caught up in the science of it all.
Be careful what you Wish for... your DM may just give it to you!
Ok, and yeah I know, that's why I used the words I did ... I just wasn't writing a treatise on the subject. I said ( paraphrased ): "as opposed to the lack of such", not the absence of such ... and what was the "such"? Commonness of the phenomenon ... so successful fertile interbreeding is common amongst species, but not common amongst more general taxonomical divisions, but of course the word common is vague, because I wasn't attempting to construct the whole thing.
but that's interesting and thanks for the links
Thanks for your sarcasm, it was really helpful and constructive to criticise a suggestion that wasn't being made by anyone ... where did you get the notion of an entire chapter being dedicated to taxonomy? I don't think you'll find it anywhere in this thread except in your own comment, do you're replying to a conversation that doesn't exist outside your own head.
I take your point nsanelilmunky ... BUT ignoring the BS about tantrum ( which you can put with whatever other passive aggressive comments you want to make ), it has nothing whatsoever to do with any of that, and had you actually read and contemplated instead of reacting and leaping into criticism, you'd see that there's nothing you're saying that isn't catered for in my proposed solution ... BECAUSE IF "Lore" can be stored on a campaign by campaign basis ( see my other comment where I link to another post about Lore ), THEN a person could actually modify the taxonomy and any other Lore they wanted to.
but hey, thanks for your sarcasm and criticism too, it was as useful as the other guys ... and you're basically just proving my point about the devolution of the game
Actually I have to disagree with you stormknight ... if we live in a multiverse where universes like D&D exist, then they will ALL have their own natural laws, and magic will merely be the natural laws of some of those other universes ... so this is a discussion OF THE SCIENCE of those natural laws of those universes & realms ... and that is how D&D was founded at the beginning, and how gygax did his work
ElusivePan that's not the case ... science is about the discovery of the natural laws of a domain, so science does exist in D&D and is the discovery of the natural laws of that domain ( including commonalities and differences of its sub-domains ), and magic is merely one sub-set of such natural laws
What D&D has always been about to me, is a set of rules ( natural laws ) that govern the actions, consequences, functions, properties, and relations between objects within a set of traversible realms of existence ... hence there are changes in those rules in some campaign scenarios, take for example the portals to the elemental planes from The Temple of Elemental Evil ( which for those who don't know, would impact spells and other things while in those planes ).
I think the real problem is that after Gygax, the game took a different direction that was driven by commercial concerns, and so for those of us whom preferred the direction Gygax was taking it, it's a completely different game in many respects.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersA couple of quick reminders on the forum rules all:
Please don't reply to yourself, especially multiple times - you can just edit your existing post if you have more text you wish to add.
Don't post personal attacks - it doesn't strengthen your position. Discussion and disagreement are possible without such things. I know that this is the internet and it happens a lot on other sites, but the staff and moderator team at D&D Beyond hold this site to a higher standard.
Thank you :)
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
It seems that I have to restate my question.
How would this enhance the game? What precisely would it do? Is this something that would enhance story telling?
Because it's coming off as a pet peeve more than anything. Which is fine, come up with your own taxonomy of species and feel free to post it in the homebrew section. Come up with your own criteria on how to classify your species/races complete with a glossary of terms and easy flow chart making apps. I'm all about making your world yours, whether it's by laws of nature or laws of magic i.e. I ain't gotta explain S&*$.
I just...disagree that this would serve any useful purpose.
I mean really not sure why half of you have replied to this since clearly all you want to do is disagree with it ... why not focus your efforts on something you agree with. I'm not going to waste my time further replying to people who cannot be convinced no matter what I say - that would be a pointless exercise.
I agree that it would be a good tool for some DM's, enough that it's probably worth your time making this as a community contribution. For the majority of users though, I don't think it would play well or be utilized to add to the storytelling. That's my opinion having only played 5th edition with 10 or so people in total. If you make something like that, or want to start a collaborative project, I hope you let me know. I don't have the time resource to do something like that myself, but a team effort could work. I would join in that project. Or post the final product on the Dungeon Masters guild or something like that so you can get a little something back for your effort. I could see it being very helpful for DM's wanting to make a detailed world, especially one with a long timeline before the players arrive. Heck, you could make a whole bundle of extra materials with trade patterns, supply and demand rules, geographic guidelines, and taxonomic resources for creating a more realistic world.
Experience: 5e Only - Playing, DM, world building.DM for Home-brew campaign based on Forgotten Realms lore. 5 player. Also play in party of 8.Why wouldn't I want to contribute to a discussion? Discussions lead to new ideas and I'm always down for that.
If you don't like the specific criticisms or want to answer the questions I've asked I'm not sure what you want. I simply asked how this would enhance the game, I've not received an answer.
You came up with a topic, you were asked to defend that idea, and you failed. If you are unable to answer the most basic of questions I'm not sure what to tell you. Were we just supposed to hop on board and accept this idea without exploring it? Because that's how this is reading.
All I can say is that's a bizarre interpretation of my words
I immediately roll my eyes any time the tired old "wizards did it" excuse is used in fantasy. Sometimes people want to look deeper into fantasy mythos, or think about it on a deeper level. No one complains about the complicated planar physics of the Planescape setting, so what does it matter if someone wants to see a setting with a different take on race/species taxonomy?
If GalacticPresident wants all of D&D to change to specify a difference between species and race that's one thing. Though, it seems like what he's suggesting is the usual optional splatbook sort of content. If the only input opposite that is "well magic exists so no" then that's an intellectually lazy and unhelpful excuse. The argument that most humanoids can interbreed but the stumpies can't is a much better argument. "Well there's magic so I don't want to have to think about this" is so weak and unimportant in a discussion. I could make the argument that we shouldn't have hill dwarves and mountain dwarves because they're all dwarves in the end.
What if there was a setting that took place in a renaissance or islamic golden era where the old ways of looking at the world and fantasy tropes is now under scientific scrutiny. Where the denizens of this world are starting to question the nature of reality, what it means to be metahuman, and the nature of magic? Where wizards argue about the nature of magic and religion with clerics, and study the differences between the two?
Maybe that doesn't interest you, but then you don't have to play it do you? I think that'd be compelling, where each adventure is an experiment, and at the end of the adventure the players try to interpret the data. There wouldn't be as much combat, but exploration could play a role in gathering data in a hostile fantasy world. Maybe the players need to harvest and study griffon eggs high in the clouds? Maybe a necromancer and a cleric want to study how different bodies break down after death and are revived, so they travel to a recent battlefield and a crypt to collect data? Maybe a wizard wants to study how many devils can be summoned into an enclosed space, but hires some protection in case his alchemical cages fail?
Then the players interpret the data and it's written down on a special form that makes that interpretation canon for that campaign. Like if the PCs determine that devils take up no physical space until they reach a certain limit then all devils gain the ability to pass through small cracks and openings, but if the PCs determine that devils take up physical space then instead they gain a bonus to toughness. And that these affects apply to demonology spells as well, like casters and alchemists would gain access to potions and spells that allow players the same buffs. Every experimental adventure would unlock new potential spells and technologies while also making the dangers larger and larger.
Again, not a canon, THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO PLAY D&D kind of thing, but it would make for a pretty cool supplement or splatbook.
Thank you orphansmith, I wish they'd actually read and contemplated all my comments in their entirety, then they'd have seen the link to my other post and understood that nothing I was saying would stop anyone else doing it any way they wanted to, it would simply add a level of adaptable sophistication for those who do want to use it & in whatever way they decided to actually use it ( including ways that no one even mentioned in the thread because they haven't been thought up yet ).
Why are you so determined to create an argument and to see yourself as victorious over that argument? No, don't tell me, this is boring
I had to block nsanelilmunky ... anyone with that much energy for pointless criticism isn't worth listening to anymore