I could imagine that would upset a lot of the more conservative types. I'm not sure if it would be a good move for the game in a financial sense. It is very ingrained into the very identity of the game. Getting rid of it would very much be taking away such a core concept of the game could break the franchise. When people think of D&D, they think of the guy saying "I'm a level two Elven Fighter!". Those are all strongly identified as being core to D&D, particularly by people who aren't players (aka prospective customers). Getting rid of them...could easily break that identity and render D&D back into obscurity. Changing your identity just as you're starting to gain traction with your current one is not generally advised.
I'm not saying they shouldn't do it, I'm not even saying the game wouldn't be better without it, but I'm not sure that's water that WotC would be particularly willing to tread at the moment. Personally, I'd want to see the replacement and I'd judge it from that, but I'm not who they need to attract.
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.
A point-builder system for ancestry/heirtage traits makes for a better, cleaner, more immersive and fun TTRPG experience.
It's never going to happen for D&D.
Fixed species trait blocks is a hallmark of D&D, the same way fixed, rigid, unbending classes are. They're part and parcel of the system's identity, as Linklite said. D&D gets away with that where other games do not because people want and expect it from D&D. This game doesn't get to make those changes, and whenever they even come within sniffing distance of it we get long-winded ranting diatribes from a great many Old Heads who will not tolerate player choice, freedom, creativity, or expression in their tabletop RPG.
Such is life. There are other, less restrictive systems out there, but they're commensurately less supported. If you want a rich ecosystem of both primary and third-party support, D&D is the only game in town regardless of its pitfalls. Fortunately, some of that third-party support includes modifying the core game to account for better choices at a level below that which Old heads care about. I've plugged it before and will likely do so again, but Ghostfire Gaming's Arora: Age of Desolation promises to deliver a point builder-style heritage system when it hits. I'm keenly anticipating it and cannot wait to see what they've built. Check it out, if the idea of point builder heritage systems strongly appeals to you.
A point-builder system for ancestry/heirtage traits makes for a better, cleaner, more immersive and fun TTRPG experience.
That depends on the system. Shadowrun does that with Karma, players buy qualities together as a variable-cost package, and it's always been a mess.
Pathfinder 1e eventually added rules, and a book, so people could see the cost breakdown and build their own races. It also revealed what some already knew: that some races were inherently stronger than others. And people learned how to game the system, creating even more optimized races under a given budget.
Even if it were a good idea to include such a system, it doesn't belong in the Player's Handbook. That's a lot of page space and math that's only going to bog the game down.
I used to run games where I told the players, you’re all human. You can pick whichever package of racial abilities you want, but you will look like and play a human. (e.g. mechanically, they’d have all the dwarf abilities, but they’d end up just being a shorter, stockier human who could see in the dark and was good at stone masonry.) I liked doing it, because it helped fantasy creatures seem more exotic. If they ever met an actual elf, it became a big deal since they were the stuff of legend. It was also a super-low magic setting, both in terms of casters and items, so it really worked. And I didn’t have to worry about new races being introduced into the setting, since they were all human in my world anyway.
I know wizards would never do something like that, but it’s another way to get at the issue.
I used to run games where I told the players, you’re all human. You can pick whichever package of racial abilities you want, but you will look like and play a human. (e.g. mechanically, they’d have all the dwarf abilities, but they’d end up just being a shorter, stockier human who could see in the dark and was good at stone masonry.) I liked doing it, because it helped fantasy creatures seem more exotic. If they ever met an actual elf, it became a big deal since they were the stuff of legend. It was also a super-low magic setting, both in terms of casters and items, so it really worked. And I didn’t have to worry about new races being introduced into the setting, since they were all human in my world anyway.
I know wizards would never do something like that, but it’s another way to get at the issue.
Yes and no.
Wizards of the Coast wouldn't design a "super-low magic setting" like that because it breaks from the type of fantasy they want to facilitate. But, mechanically, you can do that already. The playtest allows for "half-dwarves" who look like humans and have dwarf statistics.
I used to run games where I told the players, you’re all human. You can pick whichever package of racial abilities you want, but you will look like and play a human. (e.g. mechanically, they’d have all the dwarf abilities, but they’d end up just being a shorter, stockier human who could see in the dark and was good at stone masonry.) I liked doing it, because it helped fantasy creatures seem more exotic. If they ever met an actual elf, it became a big deal since they were the stuff of legend. It was also a super-low magic setting, both in terms of casters and items, so it really worked. And I didn’t have to worry about new races being introduced into the setting, since they were all human in my world anyway.
I know wizards would never do something like that, but it’s another way to get at the issue.
Yes and no.
Wizards of the Coast wouldn't design a "super-low magic setting" like that because it breaks from the type of fantasy they want to facilitate. But, mechanically, you can do that already. The playtest allows for "half-dwarves" who look like humans and have dwarf statistics.
In addition, one of the first things presented in the DMG is "It's Your World", and the first entry in that section is "The World is a Mundane Place".
It seems to me that, for the more "traditional" fellows in this game community, the key thing that's lacking in terms of understanding why a number of people see this shift in race mechanics as a positive thing is empathy. The capability to actually put yourself in different shoes and see why this might be a breath of fresh air for others just doesn't seem to be there, primarily because the experience that led to that perspective is also absent.
Yes, it is a privilege to not have experienced lifelong racism. Those so privileged don't have the perspective to understand the experience of people who have.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Canto alla vita alla sua bellezza ad ogni sua ferita ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
A point-builder system for ancestry/heirtage traits makes for a better, cleaner, more immersive and fun TTRPG experience.
That depends on the system. Shadowrun does that with Karma, players buy qualities together as a variable-cost package, and it's always been a mess.
Pathfinder 1e eventually added rules, and a book, so people could see the cost breakdown and build their own races. It also revealed what some already knew: that some races were inherently stronger than others. And people learned how to game the system, creating even more optimized races under a given budget.
Even if it were a good idea to include such a system, it doesn't belong in the Player's Handbook. That's a lot of page space and math that's only going to bog the game down.
I actually think it would be a great place for it. It seems we have a couple of camps when it comes to character builds. Camp one wants a lot of pre defined options that they can point to and say 'This is how things are, choose from among those options' and be done with it. Camp two wants a maximally flexible system they can point to and say 'These are the rules for building whatever you desire, have at it'. I find myself liking both options for different reasons, so it would be nice to have both available and be official.
A point-builder system for ancestry/heirtage traits makes for a better, cleaner, more immersive and fun TTRPG experience.
Even if it were a good idea to include such a system, it doesn't belong in the Player's Handbook. That's a lot of page space and math that's only going to bog the game down.
I actually think it would be a great place for it. It seems we have a couple of camps when it comes to character builds. Camp one wants a lot of pre defined options that they can point to and say 'This is how things are, choose from among those options' and be done with it. Camp two wants a maximally flexible system they can point to and say 'These are the rules for building whatever you desire, have at it'. I find myself liking both options for different reasons, so it would be nice to have both available and be official.
That's exactly what they appear to be doing with the new background system, so it's not out of the question. Or, at least, it's very understandable why people may be wishing for it.
A point-builder system for ancestry/heirtage traits makes for a better, cleaner, more immersive and fun TTRPG experience.
Even if it were a good idea to include such a system, it doesn't belong in the Player's Handbook. That's a lot of page space and math that's only going to bog the game down.
I actually think it would be a great place for it. It seems we have a couple of camps when it comes to character builds. Camp one wants a lot of pre defined options that they can point to and say 'This is how things are, choose from among those options' and be done with it. Camp two wants a maximally flexible system they can point to and say 'These are the rules for building whatever you desire, have at it'. I find myself liking both options for different reasons, so it would be nice to have both available and be official.
That's exactly what they appear to be doing with the new background system, so it's not out of the question. Or, at least, it's very understandable why people may be wishing for it.
I'm not sure it's going to work out that way. The stat bonus being attatched to race made it so people would look into races other than human to try and get the best bonus. With that gone they might instead opt to just stay as human and will also be picking all the exact same two or three backgrounds to boot. So whereas in 5e we might have three different fighters that are human sailor, dwarf noble, and half-orc hermit, in 1DD we might see instead three fighters that are all human and have matching backgrounds to boot. We'll have to wait and see, and I sure hope it's not the case (I like having parties full of varied and distinct races and backgrounds... Not to mention it ruins the whole point of having all that stuff if everyone picks the same two to three options.) but I am concerned that will be the fallout.
I'm not entirely convinced that it would be a bad thing to have more human-centric parties. It kind of feels dumb to me that the party is like a travelling zoo. In many ways, having mostly humans would produce a better feel. That Aarakocra or Dragonborn will have a more genuine foreign feel to them, because the party are mostly humans...apart from that odd stranger that looks suspiciously like a snake.
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.
I really do hate this idea everybody seems to cling to that playing a human character is just Better Somehow than playing something else. I spend every day of my blurdy life in this awful human meat suit, let me enjoy my brief detour into the fantasy of Something Else. If I play a human character, it should be because the human species fits the character I'm doing, not because the DM Frowney Faces every time somebody plays something other than a pock-faced human bumpkin rags-to-theoretical-riches nobody. Let me have my nontraditional kith, and if that means the DM has to choke down the idea that humanity is not the be-all end-all Supreme Sole Species of the game world? Cool. I hate humanocentric games anyways, bring on the worlds where everybody has their place, their piece, and their baggage.
A point-builder system for ancestry/heirtage traits makes for a better, cleaner, more immersive and fun TTRPG experience.
Even if it were a good idea to include such a system, it doesn't belong in the Player's Handbook. That's a lot of page space and math that's only going to bog the game down.
I actually think it would be a great place for it. It seems we have a couple of camps when it comes to character builds. Camp one wants a lot of pre defined options that they can point to and say 'This is how things are, choose from among those options' and be done with it. Camp two wants a maximally flexible system they can point to and say 'These are the rules for building whatever you desire, have at it'. I find myself liking both options for different reasons, so it would be nice to have both available and be official.
That's exactly what they appear to be doing with the new background system, so it's not out of the question. Or, at least, it's very understandable why people may be wishing for it.
I'm not sure it's going to work out that way. The stat bonus being attatched to race made it so people would look into races other than human to try and get the best bonus. With that gone they might instead opt to just stay as human and will also be picking all the exact same two or three backgrounds to boot. So whereas in 5e we might have three different fighters that are human sailor, dwarf noble, and half-orc hermit, in 1DD we might see instead three fighters that are all human and have matching backgrounds to boot. We'll have to wait and see, and I sure hope it's not the case (I like having parties full of varied and distinct races and backgrounds... Not to mention it ruins the whole point of having all that stuff if everyone picks the same two to three options.) but I am concerned that will be the fallout.
You're reading quite a bit into this. We're just talking about an open ended system for "build a race" where WotC also supplies a bunch of pre-built combinations to make it easier on people who just want to plug-and-play. Which is quite similar to the background system as presented in UA.
Such a thing would let you build with the features you want (and sure, some people might min-max that, but that already happens and could be minimized with good balance design) and label it what you want (elf, orc, dwarf, part-halfling-part-tiefling-part-gnome-but-actually-an-android, etc).
WotC has plenty of reasons to not do this (mostly, a core of the fanbase is hidebound). But "everyone would just play humans with the same 3 min-maxed builds" isn't one of them.
A point-builder system for ancestry/heirtage traits makes for a better, cleaner, more immersive and fun TTRPG experience.
It's never going to happen for D&D.
Fixed species trait blocks is a hallmark of D&D, the same way fixed, rigid, unbending classes are. They're part and parcel of the system's identity, as Linklite said. D&D gets away with that where other games do not because people want and expect it from D&D. This game doesn't get to make those changes, and whenever they even come within sniffing distance of it we get long-winded ranting diatribes from a great many Old Heads who will not tolerate player choice, freedom, creativity, or expression in their tabletop RPG.
Such is life. There are other, less restrictive systems out there, but they're commensurately less supported. If you want a rich ecosystem of both primary and third-party support, D&D is the only game in town regardless of its pitfalls. Fortunately, some of that third-party support includes modifying the core game to account for better choices at a level below that which Old heads care about. I've plugged it before and will likely do so again, but Ghostfire Gaming's Arora: Age of Desolation promises to deliver a point builder-style heritage system when it hits. I'm keenly anticipating it and cannot wait to see what they've built. Check it out, if the idea of point builder heritage systems strongly appeals to you.
I understand what you're saying, but I strongly disagree that a point-builder system results in a better gaming experience. As you say, there are many games on the market that follow this philosophy and some work very well, but others are pure chaos.
And don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of those kinds of systems that give you real freedom when creating your character. But that, although the system works well, has other associated problems. For example, these games generally scare off new players.
For example, Ars Magica, one of my favorite games, comes to mind. In Ars Magica you not only design your character, but you also design other minor characters that you play with as well. But in addition, you design your work laboratory, your library (you have rules to design each of the books and volumes in your library), your spells, and the alliance is designed among the whole group (the place you share with the rest of the players ). Believe me, that scares a lot of players.
But there is no need to go to such extreme cases. As could also be Eclipse Phase as another example of complexity when creating a character. There are other open creation systems, to call it in some way, that are much simpler and more accessible. Still, there are players who are overwhelmed by the number of options.
On the other hand, having a more closed creation system such as D&D does not limit your creativity at all. Why would it be like this? I don't understand that part of your argument. Having to make more mechanical choices doesn't mean you have to be more creative. Not the other way around. In fact there are indy systems, such as PBTA, in which your choices when creating your character are minimal. And yet they encourage player creativity much more than other systems.
Tabletop RPGs are, fundamentally, games about making decisions and dealing with the consquences of those decisions. Advancement/progression/creation systems that allow a character to reflect decisions the player has made are better than systems which do not. D&D 5e, by and large, does not allow a character to reflect the decisions that character's player has made at all. Progression/advancement is on rails, with the only meaningful choice in most cases being which set of rails you choose to advance along. Your character's actions, their decisions, their stories and experiences, none of them have anything to do with your character's progression. Similarly, while backgrounds are better now - at least until the Internet gets its way and the entire Origins document is thrown out - traditional R5e backgrounds present precisely zero decision points or choice axes for characters.
As was pointed out in the last thread I attempted to argue the point in, were I to decide to play a character whose story is "I'm the daughter of an innkeeper family, but I was fourth in line and had no chance of inheriting the inn, so I studied under the town apothecary until Adventure Called" is a tale that is strictly impossible to play in R5e as written without homebrew. Regardless of her species, that story is Not Allowed because it is not one of the backgrounds in the book(s). I am not allowed to make that choice.
Ditto with class features. Ditto with species features. Ditto even equipment - while I am allowed to purchase anything the DM states is available, R5e ignores its own expansive equipment table and tells all DMs to simply turn everything into a skill check, without allowing players to make any case for using their equipment, tools, or non-Eighteen Skills training to solve any problems in front of them.
D&D 5e purports to be a game of boundless imagination and possibility. It can be...but only if a DM kicks the core books in the spleen and tells them to sod off and runs a game of Boundless Imagination(C) no matter all the ways the books try to bound the imaginations of players involved.
Nor are Rules-Lite Narrative Experience games any better - saying "you can tell any story you want and our game's two and a half whole pages of the loosest, fuzziest, most abstracted possible rules will handle it!" sends instead the message of "nothing you decide matters because our game treats everything you do exactly the same way anyways, so whatever I guess."
Nevertheless. Systems which allow zero choices are worse than systems which allow many choices. D&D R5e strives to eliminate as much choice as possible in the interests of enticing New Players, but eventually those New Players become Experienced Players and find there's little to hold their interest and attention, and so either they quit, they move on, or they get into increasingly elaborate homebrew spirals trying to force R5e to allow them to make decisions. Seen it myself, experienced it myself. No matter how often everyone says "that's just not true, Rei!"
Tabletop RPGs are, fundamentally, games about making decisions and dealing with the consquences of those decisions. Advancement/progression/creation systems that allow a character to reflect decisions the player has made are better than systems which do not. D&D 5e, by and large, does not allow a character to reflect the decisions that character's player has made at all. Progression/advancement is on rails, with the only meaningful choice in most cases being which set of rails you choose to advance along. Your character's actions, their decisions, their stories and experiences, none of them have anything to do with your character's progression. Similarly, while backgrounds are better now - at least until the Internet gets its way and the entire Origins document is thrown out - traditional R5e backgrounds present precisely zero decision points or choice axes for characters.
As was pointed out in the last thread I attempted to argue the point in, were I to decide to play a character whose story is "I'm the daughter of an innkeeper family, but I was fourth in line and had no chance of inheriting the inn, so I studied under the town apothecary until Adventure Called" is a tale that is strictly impossible to play in R5e as written without homebrew. Regardless of her species, that story is Not Allowed because it is not one of the backgrounds in the book(s). I am not allowed to make that choice.
Ditto with class features. Ditto with species features. Ditto even equipment - while I am allowed to purchase anything the DM states is available, R5e ignores its own expansive equipment table and tells all DMs to simply turn everything into a skill check, without allowing players to make any case for using their equipment, tools, or non-Eighteen Skills training to solve any problems in front of them.
D&D 5e purports to be a game of boundless imagination and possibility. It can be...but only if a DM kicks the core books in the spleen and tells them to sod off and runs a game of Boundless Imagination(C) no matter all the ways the books try to bound the imaginations of players involved.
Nor are Rules-Lite Narrative Experience games any better - saying "you can tell any story you want and our game's two and a half whole pages of the loosest, fuzziest, most abstracted possible rules will handle it!" sends instead the message of "nothing you decide matters because our game treats everything you do exactly the same way anyways, so whatever I guess."
Nevertheless. Systems which allow zero choices are worse than systems which allow many choices. D&D R5e strives to eliminate as much choice as possible in the interests of enticing New Players, but eventually those New Players become Experienced Players and find there's little to hold their interest and attention, and so either they quit, they move on, or they get into increasingly elaborate homebrew spirals trying to force R5e to allow them to make decisions. Seen it myself, experienced it myself. No matter how often everyone says "that's just not true, Rei!"
Technically that background is supported in 5e. The PHB gives guidance on customizing backgrounds. People just get stuck on the easy to use prebuilt ones. It’s not homebrew it’s in the PHB chapter 4. You are even allowed to do this in AL, so it’s definitely supported in 5e.
Tabletop RPGs are, fundamentally, games about making decisions and dealing with the consquences of those decisions. Advancement/progression/creation systems that allow a character to reflect decisions the player has made are better than systems which do not. D&D 5e, by and large, does not allow a character to reflect the decisions that character's player has made at all. Progression/advancement is on rails, with the only meaningful choice in most cases being which set of rails you choose to advance along. Your character's actions, their decisions, their stories and experiences, none of them have anything to do with your character's progression. Similarly, while backgrounds are better now - at least until the Internet gets its way and the entire Origins document is thrown out - traditional R5e backgrounds present precisely zero decision points or choice axes for characters.
As was pointed out in the last thread I attempted to argue the point in, were I to decide to play a character whose story is "I'm the daughter of an innkeeper family, but I was fourth in line and had no chance of inheriting the inn, so I studied under the town apothecary until Adventure Called" is a tale that is strictly impossible to play in R5e as written without homebrew. Regardless of her species, that story is Not Allowed because it is not one of the backgrounds in the book(s). I am not allowed to make that choice.
Ditto with class features. Ditto with species features. Ditto even equipment - while I am allowed to purchase anything the DM states is available, R5e ignores its own expansive equipment table and tells all DMs to simply turn everything into a skill check, without allowing players to make any case for using their equipment, tools, or non-Eighteen Skills training to solve any problems in front of them.
D&D 5e purports to be a game of boundless imagination and possibility. It can be...but only if a DM kicks the core books in the spleen and tells them to sod off and runs a game of Boundless Imagination(C) no matter all the ways the books try to bound the imaginations of players involved.
Nor are Rules-Lite Narrative Experience games any better - saying "you can tell any story you want and our game's two and a half whole pages of the loosest, fuzziest, most abstracted possible rules will handle it!" sends instead the message of "nothing you decide matters because our game treats everything you do exactly the same way anyways, so whatever I guess."
Nevertheless. Systems which allow zero choices are worse than systems which allow many choices. D&D R5e strives to eliminate as much choice as possible in the interests of enticing New Players, but eventually those New Players become Experienced Players and find there's little to hold their interest and attention, and so either they quit, they move on, or they get into increasingly elaborate homebrew spirals trying to force R5e to allow them to make decisions. Seen it myself, experienced it myself. No matter how often everyone says "that's just not true, Rei!"
This makes me think that the main thing you need is a good DM.
As the above poster mentioned, custom backgrounds are an official part of the game. Your background idea sounds great, what mechanical benefits were you thinking would fit with it?
A good DM also allows for what I think is the best and most rewarding type of progression: story based. I have found that the majority of my players are far more attached to features/traits/items/etc that come as a result of the adventure than stuff they can just pick out of a book.
Likewise for your point on skill checks. Reading the DMG does not give me the sense that it encourages the DM to turn everything into a skill check. In fact, one of the first sections in the Running the Game chapter is about The Role of Dice. Later, under the section on Advantage/Disadvantage, they mention how player creativity can give Advantage.
Yurei, you show so much creativity in your posts that it makes me want to have you as a player in my game! I hope you don't give up on D&D (but if you find another RPG you like better, that's fine too), just keep looking for a good DM.
Yurei, again I disagree. In classical role-playing game theory, three pillars are established on which the design of a game is based. These pillars, in turn, define the players. Obviously it's very rare that the player doesn't get fun out of one of them, but it's understood that every player leans a bit more towards one pillar than the others. These three pillars are: Narrative: Create a space of shared imagination in which a story is told. Games whose design leans more towards this principle are often called narrativists. Prominent examples can be FATE or PBTA. Simulation: Generate mechanics that make sense with the internal logic of the game. This is to simulate a believable gaming environment to aid immersion. The games that focus more on this aspect are called simulationists. The paradigmatic example of this principle is GURPS. Ludic: It is based on decision making, and its consequences (mechanical or narrative). Basically what you said was an RPG. The games that focus more on this aspect are called gamists, and a classic example is precisely D&D.
This theory, called GNS, is pretty outdated today as role-playing game design has come a long way. But it serves to understand why I disagree with what you have written. What you say is an RPG is basically a gamist RPG type game. But there are thousands of games on the market that are based on different principles. And all of them are equally valid, they just look for a different gaming experience.
Yurei, again I disagree. In classical role-playing game theory, three pillars are established on which the design of a game is based. These pillars, in turn, define the players. Obviously it's very rare that the player doesn't get fun out of one of them, but it's understood that every player leans a bit more towards one pillar than the others. These three pillars are: Narrative: Create a space of shared imagination in which a story is told. Games whose design leans more towards this principle are often called narrativists. Prominent examples can be FATE or PBTA. Simulation: Generate mechanics that make sense with the internal logic of the game. This is to simulate a believable gaming environment to aid immersion. The games that focus more on this aspect are called simulationists. The paradigmatic example of this principle is GURPS. Ludic: It is based on decision making, and its consequences (mechanical or narrative). Basically what you said was an RPG. The games that focus more on this aspect are called gamists, and a classic example is precisely D&D.
This theory, called GNS, is pretty outdated today as role-playing game design has come a long way. But it serves to understand why I disagree with what you have written. What you say is an RPG is basically a gamist RPG type game. But there are thousands of games on the market that are based on different principles. And all of them are equally valid, they just look for a different gaming experience.
Yea. I have to agree here. RPG's in general appeal heavily to me due to their narrative power and impact. Even in an TTRPG I'll usually try for at least a basic plotline for each character. The best and happiest moment for me tend to be story-driven narrative events. Especially when I can share them with my friends.
I'd also like to point to your own experiences with the background as proof why neglecting individual options in favor of a universal generic, especially one not well fleshed out, is a bad idea. Customizing a background is right there in the PHB and you not only didn't realize it was there but said it had to be 'homebrewed' (I'd argue you could do it with Guild Artisan) and even then, as backgrounds don't usually covey anything powerful in 5e, no one would likely care if you did beyond the most rules-lawyery of players. I'm fine with it being there to catch characters who wouldn't normally be covered, like a half-tabaxi/half-tortle or something, but neglecting the most popular races that would be covered is going to cause problems.
Yurei, again I disagree. In classical role-playing game theory, three pillars are established on which the design of a game is based. These pillars, in turn, define the players. Obviously it's very rare that the player doesn't get fun out of one of them, but it's understood that every player leans a bit more towards one pillar than the others. These three pillars are: Narrative: Create a space of shared imagination in which a story is told. Games whose design leans more towards this principle are often called narrativists. Prominent examples can be FATE or PBTA. Simulation: Generate mechanics that make sense with the internal logic of the game. This is to simulate a believable gaming environment to aid immersion. The games that focus more on this aspect are called simulationists. The paradigmatic example of this principle is GURPS. Ludic: It is based on decision making, and its consequences (mechanical or narrative). Basically what you said was an RPG. The games that focus more on this aspect are called gamists, and a classic example is precisely D&D.
This theory, called GNS, is pretty outdated today as role-playing game design has come a long way. But it serves to understand why I disagree with what you have written. What you say is an RPG is basically a gamist RPG type game. But there are thousands of games on the market that are based on different principles. And all of them are equally valid, they just look for a different gaming experience.
And therein lies the rub. A TTRPG is the only form of entertainment where all of those things can combine together fluidly into a single unified whole. Video games can come close, but they're too rigid. The player can only act within the game's code. A TTRPG, on the other hand, is limited only by the DM's ability to run a game.
People keep wanting to throw out all the so-called "simulationist" and "ludic" stuff, put more and more emphasis on "Narrative! Narrative is the best!" But riddle me this: what use is a narrative the players cannot influence? The 'read a book' argument - if you want an expertly crafted tale you have no influence over, novels are cheaper by far and fulfill the need much better. To create a game, the players must be able to act, and their actions must be able to influence the tale - your so-called, so-casually-dismissed 'ludic' pillar. And in order for players to act, but must have an understanding of the game world, their abilities and positions within it, and the various options available to them. They must have an idea of what they can do and how those things they can do will affect and influence the game - i.e. mechanical systems and the also-casually-dismissed "simulation" pillar. And for those two pillars to become more than just a weird case of spreadsheet mathleticisim, for those decisions and mechanics to carry emotional weight and investment, there must be a tale wrapped around and woven through them that the players care about.
A tabletop RPG is at its best when it is a seamless fusion of Fluff and Crunch, where the story backs up the rules and the rules elevate and advance the story. Decisions that don't affect anything and don't matter because every decision has the same result is where "narrative" games fail, and games with no skin on them and nothing to get invested in are where "simulation" games fail.
It's also why this idea that half-elves and half-orcs need to be SUper Mega Ultra Special Better-Than-Everyone Uber Hybrids Who Are Nevertheless Despised By All Society Forever is a bad idea. Those rules reinforce the idea that being of mingled heritage is bad and undesirable, whilst simultaneously advancing the idea that "half" species are strictly better than 'pureblood' types because they're mechanically more powerful and desireable. Not only is it a terrible case of mixed messaging, but the rules themselves tell a tale that the fluff doesn't agree with or back up. Fluff and Crunch are fighting each other, and neither story is one the core rules should be trying to cram down people's gobs with a sledge.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please do not contact or message me.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I could imagine that would upset a lot of the more conservative types. I'm not sure if it would be a good move for the game in a financial sense. It is very ingrained into the very identity of the game. Getting rid of it would very much be taking away such a core concept of the game could break the franchise. When people think of D&D, they think of the guy saying "I'm a level two Elven Fighter!". Those are all strongly identified as being core to D&D, particularly by people who aren't players (aka prospective customers). Getting rid of them...could easily break that identity and render D&D back into obscurity. Changing your identity just as you're starting to gain traction with your current one is not generally advised.
I'm not saying they shouldn't do it, I'm not even saying the game wouldn't be better without it, but I'm not sure that's water that WotC would be particularly willing to tread at the moment. Personally, I'd want to see the replacement and I'd judge it from that, but I'm not who they need to attract.
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.
A point-builder system for ancestry/heirtage traits makes for a better, cleaner, more immersive and fun TTRPG experience.
It's never going to happen for D&D.
Fixed species trait blocks is a hallmark of D&D, the same way fixed, rigid, unbending classes are. They're part and parcel of the system's identity, as Linklite said. D&D gets away with that where other games do not because people want and expect it from D&D. This game doesn't get to make those changes, and whenever they even come within sniffing distance of it we get long-winded ranting diatribes from a great many Old Heads who will not tolerate player choice, freedom, creativity, or expression in their tabletop RPG.
Such is life. There are other, less restrictive systems out there, but they're commensurately less supported. If you want a rich ecosystem of both primary and third-party support, D&D is the only game in town regardless of its pitfalls. Fortunately, some of that third-party support includes modifying the core game to account for better choices at a level below that which Old heads care about. I've plugged it before and will likely do so again, but Ghostfire Gaming's Arora: Age of Desolation promises to deliver a point builder-style heritage system when it hits. I'm keenly anticipating it and cannot wait to see what they've built. Check it out, if the idea of point builder heritage systems strongly appeals to you.
Please do not contact or message me.
That depends on the system. Shadowrun does that with Karma, players buy qualities together as a variable-cost package, and it's always been a mess.
Pathfinder 1e eventually added rules, and a book, so people could see the cost breakdown and build their own races. It also revealed what some already knew: that some races were inherently stronger than others. And people learned how to game the system, creating even more optimized races under a given budget.
Even if it were a good idea to include such a system, it doesn't belong in the Player's Handbook. That's a lot of page space and math that's only going to bog the game down.
I used to run games where I told the players, you’re all human. You can pick whichever package of racial abilities you want, but you will look like and play a human. (e.g. mechanically, they’d have all the dwarf abilities, but they’d end up just being a shorter, stockier human who could see in the dark and was good at stone masonry.) I liked doing it, because it helped fantasy creatures seem more exotic. If they ever met an actual elf, it became a big deal since they were the stuff of legend. It was also a super-low magic setting, both in terms of casters and items, so it really worked. And I didn’t have to worry about new races being introduced into the setting, since they were all human in my world anyway.
I know wizards would never do something like that, but it’s another way to get at the issue.
Yes and no.
Wizards of the Coast wouldn't design a "super-low magic setting" like that because it breaks from the type of fantasy they want to facilitate. But, mechanically, you can do that already. The playtest allows for "half-dwarves" who look like humans and have dwarf statistics.
In addition, one of the first things presented in the DMG is "It's Your World", and the first entry in that section is "The World is a Mundane Place".
Yes, it is a privilege to not have experienced lifelong racism. Those so privileged don't have the perspective to understand the experience of people who have.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
I actually think it would be a great place for it. It seems we have a couple of camps when it comes to character builds. Camp one wants a lot of pre defined options that they can point to and say 'This is how things are, choose from among those options' and be done with it. Camp two wants a maximally flexible system they can point to and say 'These are the rules for building whatever you desire, have at it'. I find myself liking both options for different reasons, so it would be nice to have both available and be official.
That's exactly what they appear to be doing with the new background system, so it's not out of the question. Or, at least, it's very understandable why people may be wishing for it.
I'm not sure it's going to work out that way. The stat bonus being attatched to race made it so people would look into races other than human to try and get the best bonus. With that gone they might instead opt to just stay as human and will also be picking all the exact same two or three backgrounds to boot. So whereas in 5e we might have three different fighters that are human sailor, dwarf noble, and half-orc hermit, in 1DD we might see instead three fighters that are all human and have matching backgrounds to boot. We'll have to wait and see, and I sure hope it's not the case (I like having parties full of varied and distinct races and backgrounds... Not to mention it ruins the whole point of having all that stuff if everyone picks the same two to three options.) but I am concerned that will be the fallout.
I'm not entirely convinced that it would be a bad thing to have more human-centric parties. It kind of feels dumb to me that the party is like a travelling zoo. In many ways, having mostly humans would produce a better feel. That Aarakocra or Dragonborn will have a more genuine foreign feel to them, because the party are mostly humans...apart from that odd stranger that looks suspiciously like a snake.
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 really do hate this idea everybody seems to cling to that playing a human character is just Better Somehow than playing something else. I spend every day of my blurdy life in this awful human meat suit, let me enjoy my brief detour into the fantasy of Something Else. If I play a human character, it should be because the human species fits the character I'm doing, not because the DM Frowney Faces every time somebody plays something other than a pock-faced human bumpkin rags-to-theoretical-riches nobody. Let me have my nontraditional kith, and if that means the DM has to choke down the idea that humanity is not the be-all end-all Supreme Sole Species of the game world? Cool. I hate humanocentric games anyways, bring on the worlds where everybody has their place, their piece, and their baggage.
Please do not contact or message me.
You're reading quite a bit into this. We're just talking about an open ended system for "build a race" where WotC also supplies a bunch of pre-built combinations to make it easier on people who just want to plug-and-play. Which is quite similar to the background system as presented in UA.
Such a thing would let you build with the features you want (and sure, some people might min-max that, but that already happens and could be minimized with good balance design) and label it what you want (elf, orc, dwarf, part-halfling-part-tiefling-part-gnome-but-actually-an-android, etc).
WotC has plenty of reasons to not do this (mostly, a core of the fanbase is hidebound). But "everyone would just play humans with the same 3 min-maxed builds" isn't one of them.
I understand what you're saying, but I strongly disagree that a point-builder system results in a better gaming experience. As you say, there are many games on the market that follow this philosophy and some work very well, but others are pure chaos.
And don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of those kinds of systems that give you real freedom when creating your character. But that, although the system works well, has other associated problems. For example, these games generally scare off new players.
For example, Ars Magica, one of my favorite games, comes to mind. In Ars Magica you not only design your character, but you also design other minor characters that you play with as well. But in addition, you design your work laboratory, your library (you have rules to design each of the books and volumes in your library), your spells, and the alliance is designed among the whole group (the place you share with the rest of the players ). Believe me, that scares a lot of players.
But there is no need to go to such extreme cases. As could also be Eclipse Phase as another example of complexity when creating a character. There are other open creation systems, to call it in some way, that are much simpler and more accessible. Still, there are players who are overwhelmed by the number of options.
On the other hand, having a more closed creation system such as D&D does not limit your creativity at all. Why would it be like this? I don't understand that part of your argument. Having to make more mechanical choices doesn't mean you have to be more creative. Not the other way around. In fact there are indy systems, such as PBTA, in which your choices when creating your character are minimal. And yet they encourage player creativity much more than other systems.
Tabletop RPGs are, fundamentally, games about making decisions and dealing with the consquences of those decisions. Advancement/progression/creation systems that allow a character to reflect decisions the player has made are better than systems which do not. D&D 5e, by and large, does not allow a character to reflect the decisions that character's player has made at all. Progression/advancement is on rails, with the only meaningful choice in most cases being which set of rails you choose to advance along. Your character's actions, their decisions, their stories and experiences, none of them have anything to do with your character's progression. Similarly, while backgrounds are better now - at least until the Internet gets its way and the entire Origins document is thrown out - traditional R5e backgrounds present precisely zero decision points or choice axes for characters.
As was pointed out in the last thread I attempted to argue the point in, were I to decide to play a character whose story is "I'm the daughter of an innkeeper family, but I was fourth in line and had no chance of inheriting the inn, so I studied under the town apothecary until Adventure Called" is a tale that is strictly impossible to play in R5e as written without homebrew. Regardless of her species, that story is Not Allowed because it is not one of the backgrounds in the book(s). I am not allowed to make that choice.
Ditto with class features.
Ditto with species features.
Ditto even equipment - while I am allowed to purchase anything the DM states is available, R5e ignores its own expansive equipment table and tells all DMs to simply turn everything into a skill check, without allowing players to make any case for using their equipment, tools, or non-Eighteen Skills training to solve any problems in front of them.
D&D 5e purports to be a game of boundless imagination and possibility. It can be...but only if a DM kicks the core books in the spleen and tells them to sod off and runs a game of Boundless Imagination(C) no matter all the ways the books try to bound the imaginations of players involved.
Nor are Rules-Lite Narrative Experience games any better - saying "you can tell any story you want and our game's two and a half whole pages of the loosest, fuzziest, most abstracted possible rules will handle it!" sends instead the message of "nothing you decide matters because our game treats everything you do exactly the same way anyways, so whatever I guess."
Nevertheless. Systems which allow zero choices are worse than systems which allow many choices. D&D R5e strives to eliminate as much choice as possible in the interests of enticing New Players, but eventually those New Players become Experienced Players and find there's little to hold their interest and attention, and so either they quit, they move on, or they get into increasingly elaborate homebrew spirals trying to force R5e to allow them to make decisions. Seen it myself, experienced it myself. No matter how often everyone says "that's just not true, Rei!"
Please do not contact or message me.
Technically that background is supported in 5e. The PHB gives guidance on customizing backgrounds. People just get stuck on the easy to use prebuilt ones. It’s not homebrew it’s in the PHB chapter 4. You are even allowed to do this in AL, so it’s definitely supported in 5e.
This makes me think that the main thing you need is a good DM.
As the above poster mentioned, custom backgrounds are an official part of the game. Your background idea sounds great, what mechanical benefits were you thinking would fit with it?
A good DM also allows for what I think is the best and most rewarding type of progression: story based. I have found that the majority of my players are far more attached to features/traits/items/etc that come as a result of the adventure than stuff they can just pick out of a book.
Likewise for your point on skill checks. Reading the DMG does not give me the sense that it encourages the DM to turn everything into a skill check. In fact, one of the first sections in the Running the Game chapter is about The Role of Dice. Later, under the section on Advantage/Disadvantage, they mention how player creativity can give Advantage.
Yurei, you show so much creativity in your posts that it makes me want to have you as a player in my game! I hope you don't give up on D&D (but if you find another RPG you like better, that's fine too), just keep looking for a good DM.
Yurei, again I disagree. In classical role-playing game theory, three pillars are established on which the design of a game is based. These pillars, in turn, define the players. Obviously it's very rare that the player doesn't get fun out of one of them, but it's understood that every player leans a bit more towards one pillar than the others. These three pillars are:
Narrative: Create a space of shared imagination in which a story is told. Games whose design leans more towards this principle are often called narrativists. Prominent examples can be FATE or PBTA.
Simulation: Generate mechanics that make sense with the internal logic of the game. This is to simulate a believable gaming environment to aid immersion. The games that focus more on this aspect are called simulationists. The paradigmatic example of this principle is GURPS.
Ludic: It is based on decision making, and its consequences (mechanical or narrative). Basically what you said was an RPG. The games that focus more on this aspect are called gamists, and a classic example is precisely D&D.
This theory, called GNS, is pretty outdated today as role-playing game design has come a long way. But it serves to understand why I disagree with what you have written. What you say is an RPG is basically a gamist RPG type game. But there are thousands of games on the market that are based on different principles. And all of them are equally valid, they just look for a different gaming experience.
Yea. I have to agree here. RPG's in general appeal heavily to me due to their narrative power and impact. Even in an TTRPG I'll usually try for at least a basic plotline for each character. The best and happiest moment for me tend to be story-driven narrative events. Especially when I can share them with my friends.
I'd also like to point to your own experiences with the background as proof why neglecting individual options in favor of a universal generic, especially one not well fleshed out, is a bad idea. Customizing a background is right there in the PHB and you not only didn't realize it was there but said it had to be 'homebrewed' (I'd argue you could do it with Guild Artisan) and even then, as backgrounds don't usually covey anything powerful in 5e, no one would likely care if you did beyond the most rules-lawyery of players. I'm fine with it being there to catch characters who wouldn't normally be covered, like a half-tabaxi/half-tortle or something, but neglecting the most popular races that would be covered is going to cause problems.
And therein lies the rub. A TTRPG is the only form of entertainment where all of those things can combine together fluidly into a single unified whole. Video games can come close, but they're too rigid. The player can only act within the game's code. A TTRPG, on the other hand, is limited only by the DM's ability to run a game.
People keep wanting to throw out all the so-called "simulationist" and "ludic" stuff, put more and more emphasis on "Narrative! Narrative is the best!" But riddle me this: what use is a narrative the players cannot influence? The 'read a book' argument - if you want an expertly crafted tale you have no influence over, novels are cheaper by far and fulfill the need much better. To create a game, the players must be able to act, and their actions must be able to influence the tale - your so-called, so-casually-dismissed 'ludic' pillar. And in order for players to act, but must have an understanding of the game world, their abilities and positions within it, and the various options available to them. They must have an idea of what they can do and how those things they can do will affect and influence the game - i.e. mechanical systems and the also-casually-dismissed "simulation" pillar. And for those two pillars to become more than just a weird case of spreadsheet mathleticisim, for those decisions and mechanics to carry emotional weight and investment, there must be a tale wrapped around and woven through them that the players care about.
A tabletop RPG is at its best when it is a seamless fusion of Fluff and Crunch, where the story backs up the rules and the rules elevate and advance the story. Decisions that don't affect anything and don't matter because every decision has the same result is where "narrative" games fail, and games with no skin on them and nothing to get invested in are where "simulation" games fail.
It's also why this idea that half-elves and half-orcs need to be SUper Mega Ultra Special Better-Than-Everyone Uber Hybrids Who Are Nevertheless Despised By All Society Forever is a bad idea. Those rules reinforce the idea that being of mingled heritage is bad and undesirable, whilst simultaneously advancing the idea that "half" species are strictly better than 'pureblood' types because they're mechanically more powerful and desireable. Not only is it a terrible case of mixed messaging, but the rules themselves tell a tale that the fluff doesn't agree with or back up. Fluff and Crunch are fighting each other, and neither story is one the core rules should be trying to cram down people's gobs with a sledge.
Please do not contact or message me.