I don't disagree that the sidebars would be better off more developed. In fact, I think pretty much everybody here agrees with that. However, I do disagree with your idea that it constrains players to such a significant degree.
The quote you used here is very cherry-picked. You left out an important word at the start: "first". You also omitted the latter part of that sentence, which makes it pretty clear that those are not the only kinds of dwarven settlements, but rather that most dwarves are descended from (and probably impacted by the culture of) dwarves that lived in those places.
Simple question.
Would you allow an oceangoing dwarven storm sorceress in one of your games? Aileen Thunderheart, storm-souled daughter of the sea, born of traveling tradesmen and unable to stand being far from the open sky.
Genetic Determinism people wouldn't. They'd probably burst something first. Their guts would roil violently at just reading that description, in fact. First of all, dwarven women don't exist; second of all, dwarves don't know how to boat; third of all, dwarves simply cannot be spellcasters; fourth of all, dwarves hate the sun; fifth of all, D&D species don't intermingle enough for there to be dwarven 'traveling tradesmen'.
This is the kind of shit I'm talking about. Genetic Determinism people will never accept that it's possible for someone to be a non-archetypical member of a given species, because then "there's no reason to be that species just be a human you insensitive jerk if you're not gonna play it RIGHT don't play it!" And that is bad for the game.
It. Just. Is.
Yurei, stop trying to make generic determinism happen. It's not going to happen.
A sidebar pointing to the myriad places a species might most take advantage of their traits is not the unforgivable sin you're making it out to be. And whatever you, or anyone else, thinks the "rule" might be, know that it's worthless unless tested. After all, there are official adventures with seafaring dwarf pirates. Exceptions are everywhere.
Players are always the exception because they're adventurers. They can be anything, do anything. I've had dwarf storm sorcerers and dwarf sailors (or at least proficient with water vehicles) at my table. I've even played as one.
Did you know there's even an official setting with seafaring minotaurs? It's true. They aren't all monstrous, and they needn't be confined to dungeon labyrinths.
A fascinating assertion that is completely unsupported by all sides of this discourse besides your own insistence that this is the only possible alternative position people might hold to the idea that race should be nothing but a cosmetic look and a collection of mechanics. Saying that the typical dwarven culture is primarily found in the mountains and as such primarily practices such trades as would be available to them in that region is not the same thing as saying there's no possibility that a dwarf could set to sea and be claustrophobic.
Sigh.
Here's the thing.
The common statement from Genetic Determinists on this issue is "there needs to be a default culture/setting in the core books."
When asked why, the answer is "Because people are completely incapable of coming up with that information themselves and need it to be supplied to them, and they shouldn't have to buy an extra book to get it."
When asked what happens if someone, by some miracle of happenstance, is capable of supplying that information for themselves? The rejoinder is always "well you don't HAVE to use the default stuff if you don't want to."
The issue Genetic Determinists never, ever, bother to address: "What happens when a table feels forced to use this material because the book actively discourages discarding it, due to indelibly and irrevocably tying together a given species and its "default" culture in ways that make it drastically more difficult and time-consuming to strip that garbage away and do what they want to do, instead?"
Or "What happens when third-party creatives want to make a unique and interesting new setting/world for people to play in, but they actually cannot because they're forced to comply with the Default Lore presented in the core books that cannot be changed, and the Default Lore is all the same tired Eurocentric Tolkienite moose piss we've all played through fifty times already?"
Or "What happens when a group of players really just does not like the Default Lore from the core books and would simply rather not play the game at all and leave the hobby entirely because they don't care for this Default Story being crammed down their throat with a backhoe?"
The average D&D player, as stated by Wizards on numerous occasions, treats the game books as unbreakable canon and iron laws rather than 'a guideline'. If it's in the books, it CANNOT be changed or discarded. Once you put Default Lore in the core books, that's it. That is what ninety-nine out of a hundred tables are going to use, because they don't believe they're allowed to do anything else.
There is no effective difference, at all, in a core rulebook between the phrases "Dwarven societies tend to congregate in mountains, where they build their clanholds into the stone and pursue mining, metalsmithing and stonemasonry, and the brewing of strong spirits" and "All dwarves, across the entirety of the D&D multiverse, were raised in the clanholds of the mountains; every single dwarf in the cosmos knows metalwork and stonework and every single dwarf in the cosmos is an extremely heavy drinker bordering on alcoholism. These traits are intrinsic to the very core of dwarfdom, it's unimaginable that any dwarf would be any other way."
These are 100% completely equivalent statements to the average yutz Wizards is trying to sell books to. Genetic Determinists somehow think it's easy-breezy-effortless to discard Default Lore a table doesn't like while also simultaneously believing that most tables are too fundamentally stupid to come up with their own stories, and the dichotomy is never addressed. Either people are easy-breezy-effortlessly able to come up with their own stuff - or use stuff from a setting book sold by whoever makes the one they like - or they're too stupid to deviate from the rails the core books are supposed to put them on.
You keep going back to this Catholic linguistics professor who wrote up languages and a world first. And then uses it to tell an allegorical story about his time in the trenches of France, the horrors of war, and how it's okay to not be okay after that. It was a bedtime story for his children. He only started writing it down because they were calling him out on inconsistencies.
This continues to be the strangest argument I've ever had. Tolkien's novels have collectively sold over 600 million copies (100 million of which are the Hobbit) and a popular and a critical success in its time. The LotR was written at the request of the publisher after the success of the Hobbit. Though they really came to prominence in the 1960s after 150,000 unauthorized copies were sold in the USA after which an authorized paperback was released and became a best-seller in the USA. The movies made a fortune being watched by hundreds of millions in theatres, and led to the successful (if not actually 'good') series on Amazon, plus around 40 computer games (some of which are highly successful), and several board games including a TTRPG based on the 5e rules set. TBH the only reason the movie studios were willing to invest so much into the Jackson movies was because the novels were already very popular guaranteeing a substantial audience of the films. Just because you hate him doesn't mean he wasn't culturally influential (I hate Shakespeare but it's undeniable that his work has had a massive impact of English-speaking culture).
BTW Tolkien had written and published several poems and short works before writing the Hobbit, which his own letters claim first came to him while he was bored marking school exams. So I don't know where you got the "whiny kids" story from.
The author himself wrote that the novels are not allegorical, and they can be interpreted many different ways but are clearly steeped in his male Oxbridge British perspective and have large portions of dry world building that some readers justifiably hate.
A fascinating assertion that is completely unsupported by all sides of this discourse besides your own insistence that this is the only possible alternative position people might hold to the idea that race should be nothing but a cosmetic look and a collection of mechanics. Saying that the typical dwarven culture is primarily found in the mountains and as such primarily practices such trades as would be available to them in that region is not the same thing as saying there's no possibility that a dwarf could set to sea and be claustrophobic.
Sigh.
Here's the thing.
The common statement from Genetic Determinists on this issue is "there needs to be a default culture/setting in the core books."
When asked why, the answer is "Because people are completely incapable of coming up with that information themselves and need it to be supplied to them, and they shouldn't have to buy an extra book to get it."
When asked what happens if someone, by some miracle of happenstance, is capable of supplying that information for themselves? The rejoinder is always "well you don't HAVE to use the default stuff if you don't want to."
The issue Genetic Determinists never, ever, bother to address: "What happens when a table feels forced to use this material because the book actively discourages discarding it, due to indelibly and irrevocably tying together a given species and its "default" culture in ways that make it drastically more difficult and time-consuming to strip that garbage away and do what they want to do, instead?"
Or "What happens when third-party creatives want to make a unique and interesting new setting/world for people to play in, but they actually cannot because they're forced to comply with the Default Lore presented in the core books that cannot be changed, and the Default Lore is all the same tired Eurocentric Tolkienite moose piss we've all played through fifty times already?"
Or "What happens when a group of players really just does not like the Default Lore from the core books and would simply rather not play the game at all and leave the hobby entirely because they don't care for this Default Story being crammed down their throat with a backhoe?"
The average D&D player, as stated by Wizards on numerous occasions, treats the game books as unbreakable canon and iron laws rather than 'a guideline'. If it's in the books, it CANNOT be changed or discarded. Once you put Default Lore in the core books, that's it. That is what ninety-nine out of a hundred tables are going to use, because they don't believe they're allowed to do anything else.
There is no effective difference, at all, in a core rulebook between the phrases "Dwarven societies tend to congregate in mountains, where they build their clanholds into the stone and pursue mining, metalsmithing and stonemasonry, and the brewing of strong spirits" and "All dwarves, across the entirety of the D&D multiverse, were raised in the clanholds of the mountains; every single dwarf in the cosmos knows metalwork and stonework and every single dwarf in the cosmos is an extremely heavy drinker bordering on alcoholism. These traits are intrinsic to the very core of dwarfdom, it's unimaginable that any dwarf would be any other way."
These are 100% completely equivalent statements to the average yutz Wizards is trying to sell books to. Genetic Determinists somehow think it's easy-breezy-effortless to discard Default Lore a table doesn't like while also simultaneously believing that most tables are too fundamentally stupid to come up with their own stories, and the dichotomy is never addressed. Either people are easy-breezy-effortlessly able to come up with their own stuff - or use stuff from a setting book sold by whoever makes the one they like - or they're too stupid to deviate from the rails the core books are supposed to put them on.
Which is it?
I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's neither.
We can propose one hypothetical after another until Armageddon and back, and we won't get anywhere because hypotheticals aren't useful outside of a thought experiment.
I also don't think you have actual quotes from personnel or statistics to cite, so your argument is still ringing hollow. If want to convince people you're right, put in the work.
You keep going back to this Catholic linguistics professor who wrote up languages and a world first. And then uses it to tell an allegorical story about his time in the trenches of France, the horrors of war, and how it's okay to not be okay after that. It was a bedtime story for his children. He only started writing it down because they were calling him out on inconsistencies.
This continues to be the strangest argument I've ever had. Tolkien's novels have collectively sold over 600 million copies (100 million of which are the Hobbit) and a popular and a critical success in its time. The LotR was written at the request of the publisher after the success of the Hobbit. Though they really came to prominence in the 1960s after 150,000 unauthorized copies were sold in the USA after which an authorized paperback was released and became a best-seller in the USA. The movies made a fortune being watched by hundreds of millions in theatres, and led to the successful (if not actually 'good') series on Amazon, plus around 40 computer games (some of which are highly successful), and several board games including a TTRPG based on the 5e rules set. TBH the only reason the movie studios were willing to invest so much into the Jackson movies was because the novels were already very popular guaranteeing a substantial audience of the films. Just because you hate him doesn't mean he wasn't culturally influential (I hate Shakespeare but it's undeniable that his work has had a massive impact of English-speaking culture).
BTW Tolkien had written and published several poems and short works before writing the Hobbit, which his own letters claim first came to him while he was bored marking school exams. So I don't know where you got the "whiny kids" story from.
The author himself wrote that the novels are not allegorical, and they can be interpreted many different ways but are clearly steeped in his male Oxbridge British perspective and have large portions of dry world building that some readers justifiably hate.
I didn't call his children whiny, and lifetime sales that doesn't break it down by decade does not diminish my earlier point.
Sub Mariner was raised in Atlantis, though. And has been an enemy of the surface world, especially in early depictions but even in some more modern stories.
Yes, this is exactly my point? If different PCs of different species are linked to cultures that are fundamentally different from each other then they have no reason to share a common goal thus work together and are likely to have conflicting goals and end up enemies. The best you can sort of hope for is the modern WonderWoman movie where Diana is 'born' and raised an Amazon with their own values and culture, and spends the whole movie pursuing her own goal - to kill Ares - that through a misunderstanding leads her to working together with the rest of the 'party' because Chris Pine is using her misunderstanding to get her to help him achieve his goals and the rest just sort of follow along because they share Chris Pine's goal (sort of). At no point does WonderWoman actually care about WW1 at all because why should she? She doesn't even really care all that much about the chemical warfare comically evil villains except for the fact that one of them might be Ares. The closest we get is the no-mans land scene where she chooses to care about crying woman begging for her help.
Sub Mariner was raised in Atlantis, though. And has been an enemy of the surface world, especially in early depictions but even in some more modern stories.
Yes, this is exactly my point? If different PCs of different species are linked to cultures that are fundamentally different from each other then they have no reason to share a common goal thus work together and are likely to have conflicting goals and end up enemies. The best you can sort of hope for is the modern WonderWoman movie where Diana is 'born' and raised an Amazon with their own values and culture, and spends the whole movie pursuing her own goal - to kill Ares - that through a misunderstanding leads her to working together with the rest of the 'party' because Chris Pine is using her misunderstanding to get her to help him achieve his goals and the rest just sort of follow along because they share Chris Pine's goal (sort of). At no point does WonderWoman actually care about WW1 at all because why should she? She doesn't even really care all that much about the chemical warfare comically evil villains except for the fact that one of them might be Ares. The closest we get is the no-mans land scene where she chooses to care about crying woman begging for her help.
Against my better judgement...
Is each PC a stand-in for an unyielding monoculture─a representative of their entire race/species, whether they like it or not, simply by virtue of existing?
Or are they people with individual motives and goals, unique to their specific circumstances, that can align?
A fascinating assertion that is completely unsupported by all sides of this discourse besides your own insistence that this is the only possible alternative position people might hold to the idea that race should be nothing but a cosmetic look and a collection of mechanics. Saying that the typical dwarven culture is primarily found in the mountains and as such primarily practices such trades as would be available to them in that region is not the same thing as saying there's no possibility that a dwarf could set to sea and be claustrophobic.
Cut it out, Yurei. If you think your argument is made remotely stronger by calling people harmful and offensive things, then you really need to reconsider a lot of things. Just because you can't see the person on the other side of the screen, or see how they're impacted by your words, doesn't mean that your words have no impact at all.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
This is just like everything else in this godforsaken playtest.
If you all want to force a single genetic default culture on EVERYONE who plays, go for it. Have fun. Enjoy your genetic conformity. Why you absolutely must have it so badly I will never ******* know, but take it.
I’m sure this has been mentioned in this thread but I can’t bother to look through it all but would it be ok if:
1. They don’t have any culture info directly in the species description, but
2. Have a blurb about (elves for example) elves can vary greatly. Some examples are. In Forgotten Realms they can be a, b, and c. In Eberron they can be d, e, f. Dark sun they can be g, h, I. Etc. But you can play them however you like. Consult with your DM.
3. Specific setting lore can go into greater detail in a setting book.
I’m sure this has been mentioned in this thread but I can’t bother to look through it all but would it be ok if:
1. They don’t have any culture info directly in the species description, but
2. Have a blurb about (elves for example) elves can vary greatly. Some examples are. In Forgotten Realms they can be a, b, and c. In Eberron they can be d, e, f. Dark sun they can be g, h, I. Etc. But you can play them however you like. Consult with your DM.
3. Specific setting lore can go into greater detail in a setting book.
That's basically the "of Many Worlds" bit of the playtest species that I've pointed to a couple times. It shows how cultures vary between settings, and shows different cultures within settings as well. For example:
Halfling communities come in all varieties. For every sequestered halfling shire tucked away in some unspoiled corner of the world, there’s a halfling crime syndicate like the Boromar Clan on the world of Eberron or a territorial mob of halflings like those found on the world of Athas.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
PJ. Buddy. I understand where you're coming from. But if these guys got what they wanted? Every single D&D character I've ever made would be illegal. I wouldn't have been able to play ANY OF THEM. They're trying to put rules forbidding players from going off-script in the core rulebook, and somehow nobody sees anything wrong with that?
Yes, I'm extremely upset. This entire One D&D process has been an absolute nightmare of watching "The Community" be the worst people since insert-war-criminal-of-choice-here. I am honestly more pissed off about "The Community" and its absolute hatred and rejection of the entire One D&D process than I was over the whole OGLGate debacle. Any excitement I or anyone else might ever have felt for the One D&D initiative has long since decayed into ash as they've watched "The Community" rise up and absolutely forbid Wizards from doing exactly what Wizards said it was going to do and make this next iteration of 5e a BETTER GAME. "The Community" is constantly screaming that 5e is "perfectly fine" as it is and actively pitching a tantrum trying to get the whole thing canceled and shut down, and never mind that they already have what they want. They're bound and determined to spike as many other people's fun as they can. Just look at the poll at the start of this thread - the incredibly lopsided, biased poll that automatically assumes everyone in the world despises the One D&D initiative and wants nothing more than for it to die.
Please, guys. Please. You can have 5e. You already do. Nobody can take it away from you. Let the rest of us have 5e 2.0. Pretty pretty please?
PJ. Buddy. I understand where you're coming from. But if these guys got what they wanted? Every single D&D character I've ever made would be illegal. I wouldn't have been able to play ANY OF THEM. They're trying to put rules forbidding players from going off-script in the core rulebook, and somehow nobody sees anything wrong with that?
Nobody sees anything wrong with that because nobody sees it at all. Because it's not there. Because at no point during this discussion has anything been said about rules, Yurei. You keep acting like the way you envision other people's idea is the way they envision it, too. Like the only way of implementing it would be in absolutes that every DM across every nation takes as gospel. That's not what anybody here has requested.
Take these sentences. "On some worlds, such as Greyhawk and Faerûn, ancient dwarves built civilizations within the hearts of mountains and hills. Although a few of these ancestral homes still stand, dwarves as a whole have spread out across these worlds, some taking with them and spreading the cultures that were developed inside the rock and stone. Consider whether or not the culture of the settlement that your dwarf character is from affects their personality or traditions." You claim that your DM would read this and come to the conclusion that all dwarves guzzle beer, produce no female offspring(?), and live in caves. I claim that, if your DM really would do that, you just need to find a new DM.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Yurei what do you think about the VTT? and also if one dnd is the next edition they will stop printing 5e.
I'm honestly so indifferent to the VTT it's legitimately a little difficult to convey properly. My utter lack of concern over the Official VTT one way or the other is immeasurable. Science hasn't invented a microscope powerful enough to see how much I care about the VTT.
My table doesn't invest heavily in VTT stuff. We do a lot of theater of the mind, and when we do use a VTT it's a simplified, rules-agnostic one like TaleSpire. We actively dislike integrated automation - the more the VTT assumes it knows better than the players how the game works, the more wrong it is. All I EVER want from a VTT is the ability to show a map, the ability to move tokens around on it, and maybe a ruler function to determine ranges. I don't need or want automation, I don't need or want animation, I don't need or want anything any of the major VTTs are trying so hard to sell everybody. Between Owlbear Rodeo being a free basic browser VTT and TaleSpire offering HeroForge integration, my VTT needs (such as they are) are covered and over-covered.
I honestly couldn't care less about Wizards' fancy pantsy new VTT. Let 'em do whatever, won't change how I play. Y'know, unlike forcing a setting on players through the core rulebooks.
You know what, since it was brought up I'm going to voice what is probably a very unpopular opinion that's going to get a bunch of people shouting and potentially calling me a racist again: going setting neutral for the PHB is a mistake. Roleplaying games do not operate in a vacuum, players need context for the various roles so that they can then decide how they want to play them. World of Darkness, Warhammer, Battletech, Exalted, Cyberpunk, etc. All roleplaying games, and all with defined settings they take place in as a part of their core material. Neither the GM nor the players need to be constrained to a single rigid doctrine of "The Way Things Are" that some suggest giving such parameters in the PHB will cause, but they provide resources for all parties to draw on to help differentiate the various roles so a group of players isn't just wearing race/faction/clan/tribe/etc. choices as a costume and bundle of mechanics. Going setting neutral and giving the kind of descriptions we got in Monsters of the Multiverse for the various races is just going to make it harder for a new group of players to take the core books and actually make a diverse party and world with them, rather than either leaving it at generic fantasy where the various races just exist in a faceless mélange in the background or just defaulting to exactly the kind of stereotypical Planet of Hats theming that people are getting up in arms over any suggestion of. Some kind of substantial prompts need to exist in the PHB so DMs can decide how they want to use them in their setting and players can decide how they want to use them for their character.
Please note that nowhere in here am I insisting that all members of a given race must be expected to hew to a single cookie cutter model. I am not saying anything about them all being pre-destined to behave a certain way. Disagree with me if you'd like, but in the name of common decency please don't resort to the ad hominem of calling me a racist again; I am trying very hard to communicate that what I want in the game is diversity of character expression.
You know what, since it was brought up I'm going to voice what is probably a very unpopular opinion that's going to get a bunch of people shouting and potentially calling me a racist again: going setting neutral for the PHB is a mistake. Roleplaying games do not operate in a vacuum, players need context for the various roles so that they can then decide how they want to play them. World of Darkness, Warhammer, Battletech, Exalted, Cyberpunk, etc. All roleplaying games, and all with defined settings they take place in as a part of their core material. Neither the GM nor the players need to be constrained to a single rigid doctrine of "The Way Things Are" that some suggest giving such parameters in the PHB will cause, but they provide resources for all parties to draw on to help differentiate the various roles so a group of players isn't just wearing race/faction/clan/tribe/etc. choices as a costume and bundle of mechanics. Going setting neutral and giving the kind of descriptions we got in Monsters of the Multiverse for the various races is just going to make it harder for a new group of players to take the core books and actually make a diverse party and world with them, rather than either leaving it at generic fantasy where the various races just exist in a faceless mélange in the background or just defaulting to exactly the kind of stereotypical Planet of Hats theming that people are getting up in arms over any suggestion of. Some kind of substantial prompts need to exist in the PHB so DMs can decide how they want to use them in their setting and players can decide how they want to use them for their character.
Please note that nowhere in here am I insisting that all members of a given race must be expected to hew to a single cookie cutter model. I am not saying anything about them all being pre-destined to behave a certain way. Disagree with me if you'd like, but in the name of common decency please don't resort to the ad hominem of calling me a racist again; I am trying very hard to communicate that what I want in the game is diversity of character expression.
World of Darkness, Warhammer, Battletech, Exalted, Cyberpunk, etc. All roleplaying games, all with defined settings they take place in as a part of their core material, and all far less popular than D&D. I don't think that's a coincidence.
It cannot be overstated how much setting adaptability has contributed to the success of D&D. If you want a heroic tale in a fantastical setting, D&D is all set up and rearing to go. If you want sci-fi, change longbows to laser rifles and get your d20 out. You want high fantasy? Low fantasy? Dark fantasy? No fantasy? D&D just needs a coat of paint. You want a western? Eastern? Political intrigue? Total murderfest? The systems are all already in place. You want to build an in-depth world from scratch where every nook and cranny has centuries of history? You want to look at a wiki to see the history of those nooks and crannies instead? All valid options.
You want to play Cyberpunk in any genre except cyberpunk in any place except Night City? You're fresh out of luck.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny. Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Adaptability does not preclude the existence of a framework that can be used or discarded, and it's a lot of work for a DM to make a whole world from scratch. One can look at an example and go "oh yeah, I like that, I'll use that" or "that sounds stupid, I'll do it this way instead" just as readily. They're tools, and I really think it's going to make it harder for a new group of people to pick up the core books and get an engaging campaign rolling if all the books say about all the varied peoples of D&D is what they look like and what powers they have.
Yurei what do you think about the VTT? and also if one dnd is the next edition they will stop printing 5e.
I'm honestly so indifferent to the VTT it's legitimately a little difficult to convey properly. My utter lack of concern over the Official VTT one way or the other is immeasurable. Science hasn't invented a microscope powerful enough to see how much I care about the VTT.
That is me right there.
It sounds like they are trying to make it a big deal but I just don't care.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
I don't disagree that the sidebars would be better off more developed. In fact, I think pretty much everybody here agrees with that. However, I do disagree with your idea that it constrains players to such a significant degree.
The quote you used here is very cherry-picked. You left out an important word at the start: "first". You also omitted the latter part of that sentence, which makes it pretty clear that those are not the only kinds of dwarven settlements, but rather that most dwarves are descended from (and probably impacted by the culture of) dwarves that lived in those places.
Simple question.
Would you allow an oceangoing dwarven storm sorceress in one of your games? Aileen Thunderheart, storm-souled daughter of the sea, born of traveling tradesmen and unable to stand being far from the open sky.
Genetic Determinism people wouldn't. They'd probably burst something first. Their guts would roil violently at just reading that description, in fact. First of all, dwarven women don't exist; second of all, dwarves don't know how to boat; third of all, dwarves simply cannot be spellcasters; fourth of all, dwarves hate the sun; fifth of all, D&D species don't intermingle enough for there to be dwarven 'traveling tradesmen'.
This is the kind of shit I'm talking about. Genetic Determinism people will never accept that it's possible for someone to be a non-archetypical member of agiven species, because then "there's no reason to be that species just be a human you insensitive jerk if you're not gonna play it RIGHT don't play it!" And that is bad for the game.
It. Just. Is.
Course I would. Heck, wouldn't even be the first dwarf seaperson I've dealt with (points to Beast in Divinity: OS2). As I've said elsewhere, there's a difference between the macro and the individual. So long as you aren't doing something utterly stupid (which is a different matter entirely) an individual does not have to conform to their ethnic culture. The problem I have is when people start saying that, because an individual does not have to conform to a culture, we can't include general statements about the race at all. Like, there's no reason Aileen can't be the sort that would hate being away from the open sky, but just because she exists doesn't mean I couldn't write 'dwarves are at home underground with some even going so far as to feel lost if they're ever out under an open sky' when writing their racial entry. She's an exception to the norm with reasons why (presumably because of her attatchment to storms). That can make her stand out and be distinct from other dwarves on a personality level; but her existence shouldn't also mean that, for some reason, it's not acceptable to say the vast majority of dwarves are comfortable underground.
I'm not looking for some sort of hostile confrontation here. I'm looking for a middleground and I don't understand why 'certain things apply to a race at a macro level and are generally decent guidelines for creating a character but do not necessarily apply to individuals' seems to be unacceptable.
You know what, since it was brought up I'm going to voice what is probably a very unpopular opinion that's going to get a bunch of people shouting and potentially calling me a racist again: going setting neutral for the PHB is a mistake. Roleplaying games do not operate in a vacuum, players need context for the various roles so that they can then decide how they want to play them. World of Darkness, Warhammer, Battletech, Exalted, Cyberpunk, etc. All roleplaying games, and all with defined settings they take place in as a part of their core material. Neither the GM nor the players need to be constrained to a single rigid doctrine of "The Way Things Are" that some suggest giving such parameters in the PHB will cause, but they provide resources for all parties to draw on to help differentiate the various roles so a group of players isn't just wearing race/faction/clan/tribe/etc. choices as a costume and bundle of mechanics. Going setting neutral and giving the kind of descriptions we got in Monsters of the Multiverse for the various races is just going to make it harder for a new group of players to take the core books and actually make a diverse party and world with them, rather than either leaving it at generic fantasy where the various races just exist in a faceless mélange in the background or just defaulting to exactly the kind of stereotypical Planet of Hats theming that people are getting up in arms over any suggestion of. Some kind of substantial prompts need to exist in the PHB so DMs can decide how they want to use them in their setting and players can decide how they want to use them for their character.
Please note that nowhere in here am I insisting that all members of a given race must be expected to hew to a single cookie cutter model. I am not saying anything about them all being pre-destined to behave a certain way. Disagree with me if you'd like, but in the name of common decency please don't resort to the ad hominem of calling me a racist again; I am trying very hard to communicate that what I want in the game is diversity of character expression.
In theory, I’m not opposed, but in practice, I’ve not seen it work. Every rpg I’ve tried where there was deep setting lore presented in the book makes it near impossible to remove the setting lore. I always homebrew worlds for any system I’ve played/run. And every time it’s a new game, I find the mechanical choices are pretty tightly bound to the lore for that system. I manage to pull something out, but it’s a lot of very annoying work, and it always feels a bit wrong. Maybe it could be done, but I’ve not really seen it pulled off.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Yurei, stop trying to make generic determinism happen. It's not going to happen.
A sidebar pointing to the myriad places a species might most take advantage of their traits is not the unforgivable sin you're making it out to be. And whatever you, or anyone else, thinks the "rule" might be, know that it's worthless unless tested. After all, there are official adventures with seafaring dwarf pirates. Exceptions are everywhere.
Players are always the exception because they're adventurers. They can be anything, do anything. I've had dwarf storm sorcerers and dwarf sailors (or at least proficient with water vehicles) at my table. I've even played as one.
Did you know there's even an official setting with seafaring minotaurs? It's true. They aren't all monstrous, and they needn't be confined to dungeon labyrinths.
Sigh.
Here's the thing.
The common statement from Genetic Determinists on this issue is "there needs to be a default culture/setting in the core books."
When asked why, the answer is "Because people are completely incapable of coming up with that information themselves and need it to be supplied to them, and they shouldn't have to buy an extra book to get it."
When asked what happens if someone, by some miracle of happenstance, is capable of supplying that information for themselves? The rejoinder is always "well you don't HAVE to use the default stuff if you don't want to."
The issue Genetic Determinists never, ever, bother to address: "What happens when a table feels forced to use this material because the book actively discourages discarding it, due to indelibly and irrevocably tying together a given species and its "default" culture in ways that make it drastically more difficult and time-consuming to strip that garbage away and do what they want to do, instead?"
Or "What happens when third-party creatives want to make a unique and interesting new setting/world for people to play in, but they actually cannot because they're forced to comply with the Default Lore presented in the core books that cannot be changed, and the Default Lore is all the same tired Eurocentric Tolkienite moose piss we've all played through fifty times already?"
Or "What happens when a group of players really just does not like the Default Lore from the core books and would simply rather not play the game at all and leave the hobby entirely because they don't care for this Default Story being crammed down their throat with a backhoe?"
The average D&D player, as stated by Wizards on numerous occasions, treats the game books as unbreakable canon and iron laws rather than 'a guideline'. If it's in the books, it CANNOT be changed or discarded. Once you put Default Lore in the core books, that's it. That is what ninety-nine out of a hundred tables are going to use, because they don't believe they're allowed to do anything else.
There is no effective difference, at all, in a core rulebook between the phrases "Dwarven societies tend to congregate in mountains, where they build their clanholds into the stone and pursue mining, metalsmithing and stonemasonry, and the brewing of strong spirits" and "All dwarves, across the entirety of the D&D multiverse, were raised in the clanholds of the mountains; every single dwarf in the cosmos knows metalwork and stonework and every single dwarf in the cosmos is an extremely heavy drinker bordering on alcoholism. These traits are intrinsic to the very core of dwarfdom, it's unimaginable that any dwarf would be any other way."
These are 100% completely equivalent statements to the average yutz Wizards is trying to sell books to. Genetic Determinists somehow think it's easy-breezy-effortless to discard Default Lore a table doesn't like while also simultaneously believing that most tables are too fundamentally stupid to come up with their own stories, and the dichotomy is never addressed. Either people are easy-breezy-effortlessly able to come up with their own stuff - or use stuff from a setting book sold by whoever makes the one they like - or they're too stupid to deviate from the rails the core books are supposed to put them on.
Which is it?
Please do not contact or message me.
This continues to be the strangest argument I've ever had. Tolkien's novels have collectively sold over 600 million copies (100 million of which are the Hobbit) and a popular and a critical success in its time. The LotR was written at the request of the publisher after the success of the Hobbit. Though they really came to prominence in the 1960s after 150,000 unauthorized copies were sold in the USA after which an authorized paperback was released and became a best-seller in the USA. The movies made a fortune being watched by hundreds of millions in theatres, and led to the successful (if not actually 'good') series on Amazon, plus around 40 computer games (some of which are highly successful), and several board games including a TTRPG based on the 5e rules set. TBH the only reason the movie studios were willing to invest so much into the Jackson movies was because the novels were already very popular guaranteeing a substantial audience of the films. Just because you hate him doesn't mean he wasn't culturally influential (I hate Shakespeare but it's undeniable that his work has had a massive impact of English-speaking culture).
BTW Tolkien had written and published several poems and short works before writing the Hobbit, which his own letters claim first came to him while he was bored marking school exams. So I don't know where you got the "whiny kids" story from.
The author himself wrote that the novels are not allegorical, and they can be interpreted many different ways but are clearly steeped in his male Oxbridge British perspective and have large portions of dry world building that some readers justifiably hate.
I'm going to go out on a limb and say it's neither.
We can propose one hypothetical after another until Armageddon and back, and we won't get anywhere because hypotheticals aren't useful outside of a thought experiment.
I also don't think you have actual quotes from personnel or statistics to cite, so your argument is still ringing hollow. If want to convince people you're right, put in the work.
I didn't call his children whiny, and lifetime sales that doesn't break it down by decade does not diminish my earlier point.
We're done.
Yes, this is exactly my point? If different PCs of different species are linked to cultures that are fundamentally different from each other then they have no reason to share a common goal thus work together and are likely to have conflicting goals and end up enemies. The best you can sort of hope for is the modern WonderWoman movie where Diana is 'born' and raised an Amazon with their own values and culture, and spends the whole movie pursuing her own goal - to kill Ares - that through a misunderstanding leads her to working together with the rest of the 'party' because Chris Pine is using her misunderstanding to get her to help him achieve his goals and the rest just sort of follow along because they share Chris Pine's goal (sort of). At no point does WonderWoman actually care about WW1 at all because why should she? She doesn't even really care all that much about the chemical warfare comically evil villains except for the fact that one of them might be Ares. The closest we get is the no-mans land scene where she chooses to care about crying woman begging for her help.
Against my better judgement...
Is each PC a stand-in for an unyielding monoculture─a representative of their entire race/species, whether they like it or not, simply by virtue of existing?
Or are they people with individual motives and goals, unique to their specific circumstances, that can align?
Cut it out, Yurei. If you think your argument is made remotely stronger by calling people harmful and offensive things, then you really need to reconsider a lot of things. Just because you can't see the person on the other side of the screen, or see how they're impacted by your words, doesn't mean that your words have no impact at all.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Sigh.
Never mind.
This is just like everything else in this godforsaken playtest.
If you all want to force a single genetic default culture on EVERYONE who plays, go for it. Have fun. Enjoy your genetic conformity. Why you absolutely must have it so badly I will never ******* know, but take it.
Whatever.
Please do not contact or message me.
I’m sure this has been mentioned in this thread but I can’t bother to look through it all but would it be ok if:
1. They don’t have any culture info directly in the species description, but
2. Have a blurb about (elves for example) elves can vary greatly. Some examples are. In Forgotten Realms they can be a, b, and c. In Eberron they can be d, e, f. Dark sun they can be g, h, I. Etc. But you can play them however you like. Consult with your DM.
3. Specific setting lore can go into greater detail in a setting book.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
That's basically the "of Many Worlds" bit of the playtest species that I've pointed to a couple times. It shows how cultures vary between settings, and shows different cultures within settings as well. For example:
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
PJ. Buddy. I understand where you're coming from. But if these guys got what they wanted? Every single D&D character I've ever made would be illegal. I wouldn't have been able to play ANY OF THEM. They're trying to put rules forbidding players from going off-script in the core rulebook, and somehow nobody sees anything wrong with that?
Yes, I'm extremely upset. This entire One D&D process has been an absolute nightmare of watching "The Community" be the worst people since insert-war-criminal-of-choice-here. I am honestly more pissed off about "The Community" and its absolute hatred and rejection of the entire One D&D process than I was over the whole OGLGate debacle. Any excitement I or anyone else might ever have felt for the One D&D initiative has long since decayed into ash as they've watched "The Community" rise up and absolutely forbid Wizards from doing exactly what Wizards said it was going to do and make this next iteration of 5e a BETTER GAME. "The Community" is constantly screaming that 5e is "perfectly fine" as it is and actively pitching a tantrum trying to get the whole thing canceled and shut down, and never mind that they already have what they want. They're bound and determined to spike as many other people's fun as they can. Just look at the poll at the start of this thread - the incredibly lopsided, biased poll that automatically assumes everyone in the world despises the One D&D initiative and wants nothing more than for it to die.
Please, guys. Please. You can have 5e. You already do. Nobody can take it away from you. Let the rest of us have 5e 2.0. Pretty pretty please?
Please do not contact or message me.
Nobody sees anything wrong with that because nobody sees it at all. Because it's not there. Because at no point during this discussion has anything been said about rules, Yurei. You keep acting like the way you envision other people's idea is the way they envision it, too. Like the only way of implementing it would be in absolutes that every DM across every nation takes as gospel. That's not what anybody here has requested.
Take these sentences. "On some worlds, such as Greyhawk and Faerûn, ancient dwarves built civilizations within the hearts of mountains and hills. Although a few of these ancestral homes still stand, dwarves as a whole have spread out across these worlds, some taking with them and spreading the cultures that were developed inside the rock and stone. Consider whether or not the culture of the settlement that your dwarf character is from affects their personality or traditions." You claim that your DM would read this and come to the conclusion that all dwarves guzzle beer, produce no female offspring(?), and live in caves. I claim that, if your DM really would do that, you just need to find a new DM.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
I'm honestly so indifferent to the VTT it's legitimately a little difficult to convey properly. My utter lack of concern over the Official VTT one way or the other is immeasurable. Science hasn't invented a microscope powerful enough to see how much I care about the VTT.
My table doesn't invest heavily in VTT stuff. We do a lot of theater of the mind, and when we do use a VTT it's a simplified, rules-agnostic one like TaleSpire. We actively dislike integrated automation - the more the VTT assumes it knows better than the players how the game works, the more wrong it is. All I EVER want from a VTT is the ability to show a map, the ability to move tokens around on it, and maybe a ruler function to determine ranges. I don't need or want automation, I don't need or want animation, I don't need or want anything any of the major VTTs are trying so hard to sell everybody. Between Owlbear Rodeo being a free basic browser VTT and TaleSpire offering HeroForge integration, my VTT needs (such as they are) are covered and over-covered.
I honestly couldn't care less about Wizards' fancy pantsy new VTT. Let 'em do whatever, won't change how I play. Y'know, unlike forcing a setting on players through the core rulebooks.
Please do not contact or message me.
You know what, since it was brought up I'm going to voice what is probably a very unpopular opinion that's going to get a bunch of people shouting and potentially calling me a racist again: going setting neutral for the PHB is a mistake. Roleplaying games do not operate in a vacuum, players need context for the various roles so that they can then decide how they want to play them. World of Darkness, Warhammer, Battletech, Exalted, Cyberpunk, etc. All roleplaying games, and all with defined settings they take place in as a part of their core material. Neither the GM nor the players need to be constrained to a single rigid doctrine of "The Way Things Are" that some suggest giving such parameters in the PHB will cause, but they provide resources for all parties to draw on to help differentiate the various roles so a group of players isn't just wearing race/faction/clan/tribe/etc. choices as a costume and bundle of mechanics. Going setting neutral and giving the kind of descriptions we got in Monsters of the Multiverse for the various races is just going to make it harder for a new group of players to take the core books and actually make a diverse party and world with them, rather than either leaving it at generic fantasy where the various races just exist in a faceless mélange in the background or just defaulting to exactly the kind of stereotypical Planet of Hats theming that people are getting up in arms over any suggestion of. Some kind of substantial prompts need to exist in the PHB so DMs can decide how they want to use them in their setting and players can decide how they want to use them for their character.
Please note that nowhere in here am I insisting that all members of a given race must be expected to hew to a single cookie cutter model. I am not saying anything about them all being pre-destined to behave a certain way. Disagree with me if you'd like, but in the name of common decency please don't resort to the ad hominem of calling me a racist again; I am trying very hard to communicate that what I want in the game is diversity of character expression.
World of Darkness, Warhammer, Battletech, Exalted, Cyberpunk, etc. All roleplaying games, all with defined settings they take place in as a part of their core material, and all far less popular than D&D. I don't think that's a coincidence.
It cannot be overstated how much setting adaptability has contributed to the success of D&D. If you want a heroic tale in a fantastical setting, D&D is all set up and rearing to go. If you want sci-fi, change longbows to laser rifles and get your d20 out. You want high fantasy? Low fantasy? Dark fantasy? No fantasy? D&D just needs a coat of paint. You want a western? Eastern? Political intrigue? Total murderfest? The systems are all already in place. You want to build an in-depth world from scratch where every nook and cranny has centuries of history? You want to look at a wiki to see the history of those nooks and crannies instead? All valid options.
You want to play Cyberpunk in any genre except cyberpunk in any place except Night City? You're fresh out of luck.
Look at what you've done. You spoiled it. You have nobody to blame but yourself. Go sit and think about your actions.
Don't be mean. Rudeness is a vicious cycle, and it has to stop somewhere. Exceptions for things that are funny.
Go to the current Competition of the Finest 'Brews! It's a cool place where cool people make cool things.
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat Off - Mod Hat Also Off (I'm not a mod)
Adaptability does not preclude the existence of a framework that can be used or discarded, and it's a lot of work for a DM to make a whole world from scratch. One can look at an example and go "oh yeah, I like that, I'll use that" or "that sounds stupid, I'll do it this way instead" just as readily. They're tools, and I really think it's going to make it harder for a new group of people to pick up the core books and get an engaging campaign rolling if all the books say about all the varied peoples of D&D is what they look like and what powers they have.
That is me right there.
It sounds like they are trying to make it a big deal but I just don't care.
"Sooner or later, your Players are going to smash your railroad into a sandbox."
-Vedexent
"real life is a super high CR."
-OboeLauren
"............anybody got any potatoes? We could drop a potato in each hole an' see which ones get viciously mauled by horrible monsters?"
-Ilyara Thundertale
Course I would. Heck, wouldn't even be the first dwarf seaperson I've dealt with (points to Beast in Divinity: OS2). As I've said elsewhere, there's a difference between the macro and the individual. So long as you aren't doing something utterly stupid (which is a different matter entirely) an individual does not have to conform to their ethnic culture. The problem I have is when people start saying that, because an individual does not have to conform to a culture, we can't include general statements about the race at all. Like, there's no reason Aileen can't be the sort that would hate being away from the open sky, but just because she exists doesn't mean I couldn't write 'dwarves are at home underground with some even going so far as to feel lost if they're ever out under an open sky' when writing their racial entry. She's an exception to the norm with reasons why (presumably because of her attatchment to storms). That can make her stand out and be distinct from other dwarves on a personality level; but her existence shouldn't also mean that, for some reason, it's not acceptable to say the vast majority of dwarves are comfortable underground.
I'm not looking for some sort of hostile confrontation here. I'm looking for a middleground and I don't understand why 'certain things apply to a race at a macro level and are generally decent guidelines for creating a character but do not necessarily apply to individuals' seems to be unacceptable.
In theory, I’m not opposed, but in practice, I’ve not seen it work. Every rpg I’ve tried where there was deep setting lore presented in the book makes it near impossible to remove the setting lore. I always homebrew worlds for any system I’ve played/run. And every time it’s a new game, I find the mechanical choices are pretty tightly bound to the lore for that system. I manage to pull something out, but it’s a lot of very annoying work, and it always feels a bit wrong. Maybe it could be done, but I’ve not really seen it pulled off.