Thats a good point...looking at diversity within races is pretty important to me as well.
Humans are such a varied species that we have huge powerlifters who are almost 7ft tall and can lift 1000lbs and have small contortionists who can fit into a carry on and weight like 90lbs.
I would assume dwarves and elves have the same variety of sorts. It might be more rare to see a super tall jacked elf but I am sure they exist!
It doesn't matter if we're talking ASI or other racial quality - both imply stereotypes, and both imply a cost for stepping outside those stereotypes. The only way to avoid that is to drastically limit racial diversity...
1) They could totally avoid it without limiting diversity (in fact they would increase diversity). D&D is too hidebound to move to a proper mix-and-match trait system, though. Making ASIs float is a small step, that at least improves the situation. Complaining that it should be all-or-nothing is often a way to refuse any progress.
2) Floating ASIs increases diversity, by increasing available variation. Generally, increasing player options means they will come up with more diverse ideas.
1) Could you expand a bit on this?
2) Not diversity within races, diversity among races. Clear, defining differences between one race and the next, so elves aren't just aloof and graceful humans with pointy ears and dwarves aren't just stout and gruff humans with strong livers and a propensity for excessive facial hair.
1) Imagine that all the traits are broken down into parts. (I'm not doing that actual work, but I'll reference some off-the-cuff examples, that might not "add up" consistently.) Individuals (or groups, like cultures and races, if you prefer) could be "built" by combinations of those parts. The product of those possible combinations will, absolutely, be more diverse that the status quo.
Furthermore, players and/or GMs could have some freedom in determining which traits are nature, nuture, or in-between. That freedom allows for a diversity of ideas. For example, some character could be "I was born with dragonskin, but I got wings in a special magic ritual on my 16th birthday." Or "it's tradition in my village to teach everyone to use longbows." Or "I went to college and majored in stone, so I have stonecunning, then I got cyberware installed to have darkvision." Or whatever. More freedom, more player happiness, more diversity. If a GM doesn't want flying halflings or whatever, they can forbid that combination.
As stated, I don't think D&D is likely to ever work like that, because their brand is too tied to their sacred cows. But you can see how it would increase diversity and remove hard-coded racial stereotyping. Could cultures and races still have in-character stereotypes about each other? Sure, if you think that's important, maybe to help foster conflict that your campaign is built upon. But there's no need to limit players to fulfulling those stereotypes, nor really a reason to make the cultures or races fulfill them, either.
2) I personally hate the idea of explicitly enforcing distinction between races or cultures. (and others have commented on this as well.) However, if you were really set on it, a mix-and-match trait system would make it easy to build a great number of unique ones. Whether you call them "races" or "species" or "cultures" or "subraces" or whatever.
Edit (later addition): why do I hate that idea? Because that's what racism is, when removed from the modern-day real-world context. I don't want to create, run, or play in a world where psuedoscientific "race science" nonsense is provably true according to game rules. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism)
Heh. Pointing out the irony of that statement, Pang. "Not diversity within races, diversity among races." Because the former just isn't important, ne? Doesn't matter if every single dwarf is an exact clone of every other dwarf, just so long as that legion of completely identical dwarves is markedly distinct from this other legion of completely identical elves?
I think both are important.
Humans don't have scales, horns and breath fire, BUT humans are still wildly diverse when compared to one another. I think much of that diversity should be depicted through culture in D&D since Stats already cover physical and mental capability and diversity. Backgrounds and Culture would cover social diversity within a given Lineage.
Heh. Pointing out the irony of that statement, Pang. "Not diversity within races, diversity among races." Because the former just isn't important, ne? Doesn't matter if every single dwarf is an exact clone of every other dwarf, just so long as that legion of completely identical dwarves is markedly distinct from this other legion of completely identical elves?
BS. I don't worry about diversity within races because we have plenty of that. There can always be more, but I don't see any problem with it as is nor going forward with the new design concepts set out in the UA.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I think DND has a, dare I say it, an -obligation- to be simple. A newbie should be able to create their character in 15 minutes. DND is for most RPers their first system.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting more options. I’m not going to say that the kind of fun you want is bad or wrong. But, I think DND Core should be, should -always- be, simple. More complexity can be added in add-on books.
I think DND has a, dare I say it, an -obligation- to be simple. A newbie should be able to create their character in 15 minutes. DND is for most RPers their first system.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting more options. I’m not going to say that the kind of fun you want is bad or wrong. But, I think DND Core should be, should -always- be, simple. More complexity can be added in add-on books.
Tasha's Lineage system is very simple, I actually think it is too simple.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
I think DND has a, dare I say it, an -obligation- to be simple. A newbie should be able to create their character in 15 minutes. DND is for most RPers their first system.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting more options. I’m not going to say that the kind of fun you want is bad or wrong. But, I think DND Core should be, should -always- be, simple. More complexity can be added in add-on books.
Eh, as-is, even if you just stick to the PHB, it's not actually very simple.
However, it does a very good job of having a shallow, if long, learning curve. It's pretty easy for a new player to throw together a level 1 character, or a level N character for a one-shot, if they stick to the simpler building blocks and get good advice. And, the game balance is decent enough that, no matter how they do that, they're unlikely to feel functionally worthless.
I think DND is simple for new players. New GMs, on the other hand, can struggle with it, particularly if they’ve never played before.
That is true, but that isn't just due to complex rules.
For me as a new DM the hardest thing was trying to balance attention for all the players. Some turns took no time at all (Fighter) while some turns took a very long time indeed (Druid).
The rules for 5e are less complex but I also found it was directly connected to how well the players knew their character. The fighter had less to learn so he mastered his character quicker and would have very quick turns. The druid struggled on the basics of actions, bonus actions, and what spells did so she fell behind a lot and her turns would take much longer.
I get that 5e is the simple approachable system and its one of the reasons I love it so much. But I also think that does not excuse your players from not knowing their own character. If you need additional help or notes to help you make decisions that is up to the player to ask for help.
It doesn't matter if we're talking ASI or other racial quality - both imply stereotypes, and both imply a cost for stepping outside those stereotypes. The only way to avoid that is to drastically limit racial diversity...
1) They could totally avoid it without limiting diversity (in fact they would increase diversity). D&D is too hidebound to move to a proper mix-and-match trait system, though. Making ASIs float is a small step, that at least improves the situation. Complaining that it should be all-or-nothing is often a way to refuse any progress.
2) Floating ASIs increases diversity, by increasing available variation. Generally, increasing player options means they will come up with more diverse ideas.
1) Could you expand a bit on this?
2) Not diversity within races, diversity among races. Clear, defining differences between one race and the next, so elves aren't just aloof and graceful humans with pointy ears and dwarves aren't just stout and gruff humans with strong livers and a propensity for excessive facial hair.
1) Imagine that all the traits are broken down into parts. (I'm not doing that actual work, but I'll reference some off-the-cuff examples, that might not "add up" consistently.) Individuals (or groups, like cultures and races, if you prefer) could be "built" by combinations of those parts. The product of those possible combinations will, absolutely, be more diverse that the status quo.
Furthermore, players and/or GMs could have some freedom in determining which traits are nature, nuture, or in-between. That freedom allows for a diversity of ideas. For example, some character could be "I was born with dragonskin, but I got wings in a special magic ritual on my 16th birthday." Or "it's tradition in my village to teach everyone to use longbows." Or "I went to college and majored in stone, so I have stonecunning, then I got cyberware installed to have darkvision." Or whatever. More freedom, more player happiness, more diversity. If a GM doesn't want flying halflings or whatever, they can forbid that combination.
As stated, I don't think D&D is likely to ever work like that, because their brand is too tied to their sacred cows. But you can see how it would increase diversity and remove hard-coded racial stereotyping. Could cultures and races still have in-character stereotypes about each other? Sure, if you think that's important, maybe to help foster conflict that your campaign is built upon. But there's no need to limit players to fulfulling those stereotypes, nor really a reason to make the cultures or races fulfill them, either.
2) I personally hate the idea of explicitly enforcing distinction between races or cultures. (and others have commented on this as well.) However, if you were really set on it, a mix-and-match trait system would make it easy to build a great number of unique ones. Whether you call them "races" or "species" or "cultures" or "subraces" or whatever.
3) Edit (later addition): why do I hate that idea? Because that's what racism is, when removed from the modern-day real-world context. I don't want to create, run, or play in a world where psuedoscientific "race science" nonsense is provably true according to game rules. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism)
1) This seems more like a framework to create races than as having actual ones. It's great that everyone can make their own setting with its own racial lineup, but unless there is some kind of standard set of races it's not possible to have ready-made setting info. It might just be me, but I think it better to have a PHB a group can start to play with right out the gate if they want - not an IKEA warehouse of parts to build your game with first.
I'm all for separating out the nurture part from race, but 2) a mix-and-match system (be it for nature, nurture or both) is still limited by the options presented for mixing and matching. I can already create 27 unique takes on dwarves or elves. It's called homebrew. Why not give me something ready to use in the book? I'll change it if I want to.
3) "Scientific racism, sometimes termed biological racism, is the pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority." I don't see any D&D race as superior or inferior. They all have strengths (and by that dint relative weaknesses as well), but to me that doesn't make one better than another. Racists will always find a justification for being racist, unless everyone is literally the same. If you don't want distinction between races and cultures, what you really want is a mono-racial and monocultural world.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I shouldn’t have to point out the blindingly obvious that races in DND are not equivalent to races in real life. Any argument to the effect that “it is racism to have different races in DND have different distinctions” is pure ass-hat-ry.
It doesn't matter if we're talking ASI or other racial quality - both imply stereotypes, and both imply a cost for stepping outside those stereotypes. The only way to avoid that is to drastically limit racial diversity...
1) They could totally avoid it without limiting diversity (in fact they would increase diversity). D&D is too hidebound to move to a proper mix-and-match trait system, though. Making ASIs float is a small step, that at least improves the situation. Complaining that it should be all-or-nothing is often a way to refuse any progress.
2) Floating ASIs increases diversity, by increasing available variation. Generally, increasing player options means they will come up with more diverse ideas.
1) Could you expand a bit on this?
2) Not diversity within races, diversity among races. Clear, defining differences between one race and the next, so elves aren't just aloof and graceful humans with pointy ears and dwarves aren't just stout and gruff humans with strong livers and a propensity for excessive facial hair.
<snip>
1) This seems more like a framework to create races than as having actual ones. It's great that everyone can make their own setting with its own racial lineup, but unless there is some kind of standard set of races it's not possible to have ready-made setting info. It might just be me, but I think it better to have a PHB a group can start to play with right out the gate if they want - not an IKEA warehouse of parts to build your game with first.
Recall that my post (in response to you) was attempting to demonstrate that you can have a system by which you remove all forms of racial stereotyping, yet still have racial diversity. I don't really care if you prebuild the options, some book prebuilds "default" races, or you let players build their own.
Probably the most ideal version of what I posted would essentially be left to player whims, like a massively expanded version of Tasha's Custom Lineage option. But even subtly changing things from "Dwarves are hardy, so they get +2 CON" to "Dwarves have a reputation for being hardy, so maybe choose +2 to Con to represent that" for players would be a big step. Floating ASIs do a decent job of doing exactly that, if only for just ASIs.
I'm all for separating out the nurture part from race, but 2) a mix-and-match system (be it for nature, nurture or both) is still limited by the options presented for mixing and matching. I can already create 27 unique takes on dwarves or elves. It's called homebrew. Why not give me something ready to use in the book? I'll change it if I want to.
Again, you can do that. I just deny the assertion that you can't ditch essentialism without ditching diversity.
3) "Scientific racism, sometimes termed biological racism, is the pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority." I don't see any D&D race as superior or inferior. They all have strengths (and by that dint relative weaknesses as well), but to me that doesn't make one better than another. Racists will always find a justification for being racist, unless everyone is literally the same.
Also recall that the post that started this thread asked "This new lineage idea, does it make room for races which are biologically superior or inferior in some way?" I don't think the system should leave room for that idea, because that idea is pretty abhorrent.
If you don't want distinction between races and cultures, what you really want is a mono-racial and monocultural world.
“I don't think the system should leave room for that idea, because that idea is pretty abhorrent.”
How is that idea abhorent? How is it abhorent to say that Orcs are stronger than Halflings or that Dwarves are more hardy than Humans.
Even among humans in reality, regional variation of biology is scientific (I won’t say “racial” because race is sociological in reality, Hss has no biological races).
Again, there is no correspondence between DND races and real world races.
“I don't think the system should leave room for that idea, because that idea is pretty abhorrent.”
How is that idea abhorent? How is it abhorent to say that Orcs are stronger than Halflings or that Dwarves are more hardy than Humans.
Even among humans in reality, regional variation of biology is scientific (I won’t say “racial” because race is sociological in reality, Hss has no biological races).
Again, there is no correspondence between DND races and real world races.
Give it up man. Some people just want to be offended and conflate racial injustice in the real world with fantasy games. They project their anger and perceived slights onto D&D's differentiated species. They can't grasp one is the real world, and the other a very structured fantasy game, with specific rules, other than they don't like those rules. You can't change these people.
We have seen months of arguing, all over the same thing, across a dozen different threads.
We have seen months of arguing, all over the same thing, across a dozen different threads.
I’d go even further. There seems to be this ultra-bizarre notion that people are fighting racism by working to undifferentiate elves, dwarves, and halflinggs in a fantasy RPG.
I mean, seriously, wtf?
That’s not how you fight racism. You fight racism by volunteering time in charities to address systemic issues. And you fight racism by embracing diversity, not pretending it doesn’t exist.
1) This seems more like a framework to create races than as having actual ones. It's great that everyone can make their own setting with its own racial lineup, but unless there is some kind of standard set of races it's not possible to have ready-made setting info. It might just be me, but I think it better to have a PHB a group can start to play with right out the gate if they want - not an IKEA warehouse of parts to build your game with first.
Recall that my post (in response to you) was attempting to demonstrate that you can have a system by which you remove all forms of racial stereotyping, yet still have racial diversity. I don't really care if you prebuild the options, some book prebuilds "default" races, or you let players build their own.
Probably the most ideal version of what I posted would essentially be left to player whims, like a massively expanded version of Tasha's Custom Lineage option. But even subtly changing things from "Dwarves are hardy, so they get +2 CON" to "Dwarves have a reputation for being hardy, so maybe choose +2 to Con to represent that" for players would be a big step. Floating ASIs do a decent job of doing exactly that, if only for just ASIs.
2) I'm all for separating out the nurture part from race, but 2) a mix-and-match system (be it for nature, nurture or both) is still limited by the options presented for mixing and matching. I can already create 27 unique takes on dwarves or elves. It's called homebrew. Why not give me something ready to use in the book? I'll change it if I want to.
Again, you can do that. I just deny the assertion that you can't ditch essentialism without ditching diversity.
3) "Scientific racism, sometimes termed biological racism, is the pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority." I don't see any D&D race as superior or inferior. They all have strengths (and by that dint relative weaknesses as well), but to me that doesn't make one better than another. Racists will always find a justification for being racist, unless everyone is literally the same.
Also recall that the post that started this thread asked "This new lineage idea, does it make room for races which are biologically superior or inferior in some way?" I don't think the system should leave room for that idea, because that idea is pretty abhorrent.
4) If you don't want distinction between races and cultures, what you really want is a mono-racial and monocultural world.
For the third time, no, that doesn't follow.
1) A big part of the argument, at least on my side, is that ASIs and other racial qualities are equivalent. Can we do this exercise with those, instead of non-explicit ability bonuses? You know - elves have keen senses and darkvision, half-orcs have relentless endurance and darkvision, dragonborn have a breath weapon and are resistant to a certain type of damage, humans have nothing special (I assume feats are cultural?), and so on on.
2) I make the suggestion above because you can deny whatever you want, I don't think you can deny that in the list above elves make much better scouts than dragonborn, while dragonborn are better suited to combat. As long as such qualities are race-specific, so are the stereotypes that follow.
3) It isn't, assuming we acknowledge the "in some way" part - so no race is superior or inferior period - and assume each race has its own way, its own thing they're better at (which means they also have things they're worse at than other races).
4) Yes, it really does. If races are distinct, the world can't be monoracial. If the world is not monoracial, then there must be a way to discern between the races there are.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Thats a good point...looking at diversity within races is pretty important to me as well.
Humans are such a varied species that we have huge powerlifters who are almost 7ft tall and can lift 1000lbs and have small contortionists who can fit into a carry on and weight like 90lbs.
I would assume dwarves and elves have the same variety of sorts. It might be more rare to see a super tall jacked elf but I am sure they exist!
1) Imagine that all the traits are broken down into parts. (I'm not doing that actual work, but I'll reference some off-the-cuff examples, that might not "add up" consistently.) Individuals (or groups, like cultures and races, if you prefer) could be "built" by combinations of those parts. The product of those possible combinations will, absolutely, be more diverse that the status quo.
Furthermore, players and/or GMs could have some freedom in determining which traits are nature, nuture, or in-between. That freedom allows for a diversity of ideas. For example, some character could be "I was born with dragonskin, but I got wings in a special magic ritual on my 16th birthday." Or "it's tradition in my village to teach everyone to use longbows." Or "I went to college and majored in stone, so I have stonecunning, then I got cyberware installed to have darkvision." Or whatever. More freedom, more player happiness, more diversity. If a GM doesn't want flying halflings or whatever, they can forbid that combination.
As stated, I don't think D&D is likely to ever work like that, because their brand is too tied to their sacred cows. But you can see how it would increase diversity and remove hard-coded racial stereotyping. Could cultures and races still have in-character stereotypes about each other? Sure, if you think that's important, maybe to help foster conflict that your campaign is built upon. But there's no need to limit players to fulfulling those stereotypes, nor really a reason to make the cultures or races fulfill them, either.
2) I personally hate the idea of explicitly enforcing distinction between races or cultures. (and others have commented on this as well.) However, if you were really set on it, a mix-and-match trait system would make it easy to build a great number of unique ones. Whether you call them "races" or "species" or "cultures" or "subraces" or whatever.
Edit (later addition): why do I hate that idea? Because that's what racism is, when removed from the modern-day real-world context. I don't want to create, run, or play in a world where psuedoscientific "race science" nonsense is provably true according to game rules. (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism)
I think both are important.
Humans don't have scales, horns and breath fire, BUT humans are still wildly diverse when compared to one another. I think much of that diversity should be depicted through culture in D&D since Stats already cover physical and mental capability and diversity. Backgrounds and Culture would cover social diversity within a given Lineage.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
BS. I don't worry about diversity within races because we have plenty of that. There can always be more, but I don't see any problem with it as is nor going forward with the new design concepts set out in the UA.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I think DND has a, dare I say it, an -obligation- to be simple. A newbie should be able to create their character in 15 minutes. DND is for most RPers their first system.
There’s nothing wrong with wanting more options. I’m not going to say that the kind of fun you want is bad or wrong. But, I think DND Core should be, should -always- be, simple. More complexity can be added in add-on books.
Tasha's Lineage system is very simple, I actually think it is too simple.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
Eh, as-is, even if you just stick to the PHB, it's not actually very simple.
However, it does a very good job of having a shallow, if long, learning curve. It's pretty easy for a new player to throw together a level 1 character, or a level N character for a one-shot, if they stick to the simpler building blocks and get good advice. And, the game balance is decent enough that, no matter how they do that, they're unlikely to feel functionally worthless.
I think DND is simple for new players. New GMs, on the other hand, can struggle with it, particularly if they’ve never played before.
That is true, but that isn't just due to complex rules.
A fool pulls the leaves. A brute chops the trunk. A sage digs the roots.
My Improved Lineage System
For me as a new DM the hardest thing was trying to balance attention for all the players. Some turns took no time at all (Fighter) while some turns took a very long time indeed (Druid).
The rules for 5e are less complex but I also found it was directly connected to how well the players knew their character. The fighter had less to learn so he mastered his character quicker and would have very quick turns. The druid struggled on the basics of actions, bonus actions, and what spells did so she fell behind a lot and her turns would take much longer.
I get that 5e is the simple approachable system and its one of the reasons I love it so much. But I also think that does not excuse your players from not knowing their own character.
If you need additional help or notes to help you make decisions that is up to the player to ask for help.
1) This seems more like a framework to create races than as having actual ones. It's great that everyone can make their own setting with its own racial lineup, but unless there is some kind of standard set of races it's not possible to have ready-made setting info. It might just be me, but I think it better to have a PHB a group can start to play with right out the gate if they want - not an IKEA warehouse of parts to build your game with first.
I'm all for separating out the nurture part from race, but 2) a mix-and-match system (be it for nature, nurture or both) is still limited by the options presented for mixing and matching. I can already create 27 unique takes on dwarves or elves. It's called homebrew. Why not give me something ready to use in the book? I'll change it if I want to.
3) "Scientific racism, sometimes termed biological racism, is the pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority." I don't see any D&D race as superior or inferior. They all have strengths (and by that dint relative weaknesses as well), but to me that doesn't make one better than another. Racists will always find a justification for being racist, unless everyone is literally the same. If you don't want distinction between races and cultures, what you really want is a mono-racial and monocultural world.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I shouldn’t have to point out the blindingly obvious that races in DND are not equivalent to races in real life. Any argument to the effect that “it is racism to have different races in DND have different distinctions” is pure ass-hat-ry.
Recall that my post (in response to you) was attempting to demonstrate that you can have a system by which you remove all forms of racial stereotyping, yet still have racial diversity. I don't really care if you prebuild the options, some book prebuilds "default" races, or you let players build their own.
Probably the most ideal version of what I posted would essentially be left to player whims, like a massively expanded version of Tasha's Custom Lineage option. But even subtly changing things from "Dwarves are hardy, so they get +2 CON" to "Dwarves have a reputation for being hardy, so maybe choose +2 to Con to represent that" for players would be a big step. Floating ASIs do a decent job of doing exactly that, if only for just ASIs.
Again, you can do that. I just deny the assertion that you can't ditch essentialism without ditching diversity.
Also recall that the post that started this thread asked "This new lineage idea, does it make room for races which are biologically superior or inferior in some way?" I don't think the system should leave room for that idea, because that idea is pretty abhorrent.
For the third time, no, that doesn't follow.
“I don't think the system should leave room for that idea, because that idea is pretty abhorrent.”
How is that idea abhorent? How is it abhorent to say that Orcs are stronger than Halflings or that Dwarves are more hardy than Humans.
Even among humans in reality, regional variation of biology is scientific (I won’t say “racial” because race is sociological in reality, Hss has no biological races).
Again, there is no correspondence between DND races and real world races.
Give it up man. Some people just want to be offended and conflate racial injustice in the real world with fantasy games. They project their anger and perceived slights onto D&D's differentiated species. They can't grasp one is the real world, and the other a very structured fantasy game, with specific rules, other than they don't like those rules. You can't change these people.
We have seen months of arguing, all over the same thing, across a dozen different threads.
I’d go even further. There seems to be this ultra-bizarre notion that people are fighting racism by working to undifferentiate elves, dwarves, and halflinggs in a fantasy RPG.
I mean, seriously, wtf?
That’s not how you fight racism. You fight racism by volunteering time in charities to address systemic issues. And you fight racism by embracing diversity, not pretending it doesn’t exist.
1) A big part of the argument, at least on my side, is that ASIs and other racial qualities are equivalent. Can we do this exercise with those, instead of non-explicit ability bonuses? You know - elves have keen senses and darkvision, half-orcs have relentless endurance and darkvision, dragonborn have a breath weapon and are resistant to a certain type of damage, humans have nothing special (I assume feats are cultural?), and so on on.
2) I make the suggestion above because you can deny whatever you want, I don't think you can deny that in the list above elves make much better scouts than dragonborn, while dragonborn are better suited to combat. As long as such qualities are race-specific, so are the stereotypes that follow.
3) It isn't, assuming we acknowledge the "in some way" part - so no race is superior or inferior period - and assume each race has its own way, its own thing they're better at (which means they also have things they're worse at than other races).
4) Yes, it really does. If races are distinct, the world can't be monoracial. If the world is not monoracial, then there must be a way to discern between the races there are.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].