I don’t object to moving away from FR as a default world in principle, but I think there should be some default lore/cultures for races; it’s harder to get into the roleplay of being a different race if you only have two or three brief and generic paragraphs to go on in the absence of the DM taking considerable time to write their own material. Was a part of MotM that I was disappointed by; they did a complete flyby on the race details when considerable lore had already been written and then become inaccessible to anyone who hadn’t already purchased those books. Obviously it’s not mandatory for DMs to use the lore, but it’s a foundation and a shortcut so people don’t need to work from scratch.
I agree, but I'd rather see it in the setting books, going forward. It seems like they're getting away from setting books, but I think that's where the lore about the different races belongs. Keep the stats in MotM, but then do a bit on what each species is like in this particular world. The way they add new species, it could quickly get unwieldy, but they could at least do the PHB races.
I don’t object to moving away from FR as a default world in principle, but I think there should be some default lore/cultures for races.
Why? There should be some sample cultures and lores, but there's no reason they should be associated with specific races. A setting with orcs who daintily sip tea and raise flowers while the elves are vicious berserkers who slaughter everyone who enters their lands isn't any harder to get into than a more traditional D&D setting where those roles are reversed. Just provide some sample cultures and let the DM decide who each description applies to.
Sample/default, whichever; my point was just that it would be useful to have some printed guidelines/examples. I’m not looking to police how people play or worldbuild, but the different races will have different dynamics based on their racial traits, so just making all cultures generic wildcards falls short of effective examples in my opinion. Plus they haven’t printed many setting books lately, so I’m not sure saving such lore for them is the best idea unless that’s changing.
Sample/default, whichever; my point was just that it would be useful to have some printed guidelines/examples. I’m not looking to police how people play or worldbuild, but the different races will have different dynamics based on their racial traits, so just making all cultures generic wildcards falls short of effective examples in my opinion. Plus they haven’t printed many setting books lately, so I’m not sure saving such lore for them is the best idea unless that’s changing.
Having guidelines or examples could be fine but there needs to be multiple examples. When I played AD&D Orcs were just evil pig faced monsters that you could pretty much just kill on sight because they were one dimensional evil. Same for Drow. But from what I understand is there are Drow in Eberron that are not like the underdark Drow that I knew. And that’s the problem with setting a default lore. You get Drow and orcs are evil period and that limiting factor can stifle creativity of DMs and Players alike.
Leave the lore to setting books, imo. Especially for player races/species.
Yes, obviously avoiding "this race is Evil" would be a good idea, but the material should still be somewhat specific. It's not hard to keep the general themes while spinning them off as no more inherently evil than anyone else.
I'm also a bit worried that it might lead to increasingly generic races and cultures. I mean, not all dwarves are hard-drinking, rock/metal obsessed, scottish people. I think most people, though, understand that there's a difference between there being exceptions to the rule and refusing to offer concrete details because said exceptions exist.
Sample/default, whichever; my point was just that it would be useful to have some printed guidelines/examples. I’m not looking to police how people play or worldbuild, but the different races will have different dynamics based on their racial traits, so just making all cultures generic wildcards falls short of effective examples in my opinion. Plus they haven’t printed many setting books lately, so I’m not sure saving such lore for them is the best idea unless that’s changing.
Those are good points. It’s just if they write it down, no matter how optional they say it is, there’s people who will just argue it’s written down that species X can sometimes behave a certain way, which means all of them everywhere must behave that way. Though I admit the conflict it might generate would be mostly hypothetical more than anything I’d have to deal with in my games. Personally, I’ve not used written lore in ages and just homebrewed it. And I would, at least, like to get height, weight and age ranges back. Those seem like they could be pretty universal.
Sample/default, whichever; my point was just that it would be useful to have some printed guidelines/examples. I’m not looking to police how people play or worldbuild, but the different races will have different dynamics based on their racial traits, so just making all cultures generic wildcards falls short of effective examples in my opinion. Plus they haven’t printed many setting books lately, so I’m not sure saving such lore for them is the best idea unless that’s changing.
Those are good points. It’s just if they write it down, no matter how optional they say it is, there’s people who will just argue it’s written down that species X can sometimes behave a certain way, which means all of them everywhere must behave that way. Though I admit the conflict it might generate would be mostly hypothetical more than anything I’d have to deal with in my games. Personally, I’ve not used written lore in ages and just homebrewed it. And I would, at least, like to get height, weight and age ranges back. Those seem like they could be pretty universal.
Yes, but "a handful of people might misuse this tool" is not a compelling reason not to put a tool out there.
Sample/default, whichever; my point was just that it would be useful to have some printed guidelines/examples. I’m not looking to police how people play or worldbuild, but the different races will have different dynamics based on their racial traits, so just making all cultures generic wildcards falls short of effective examples in my opinion.
Really? I'm looking at the species, and, well, I don't see a lot of traits that would affect culture, at least beyond what's already in the description in the playtest.
Plus, if we look IRL, we can see that, while a certain trait may not hold true on the individual level, it can hold true on the macro level even if said trait is extremely negative. *points to North Korea* That's sort of why I feel really irked by the whole thing. Cause we've seen tons of empires dominated heavily by a single ethnicity/culture/etc throughout history IRL where plenty of things that we'd consider horrible today were considered 'normal'. Like I said, I feel most people understand that this doesn't hold true on the individual level, especially if a character is away from said culture specifically because they reject it, but would hold true on the macro level. So the vast majority of drow belonging to an evil aligned matriarchy that worships Lolth... that's not actually all that odd.
Sample/default, whichever; my point was just that it would be useful to have some printed guidelines/examples. I’m not looking to police how people play or worldbuild, but the different races will have different dynamics based on their racial traits, so just making all cultures generic wildcards falls short of effective examples in my opinion.
Really? I'm looking at the species, and, well, I don't see a lot of traits that would affect culture, at least beyond what's already in the description in the playtest.
The super long lives and innate magic of elves? Dwarven stone sense? Orcish endurance? You think that wouldn't make a difference in how they develop and where their priorities are?
Sample/default, whichever; my point was just that it would be useful to have some printed guidelines/examples. I’m not looking to police how people play or worldbuild, but the different races will have different dynamics based on their racial traits, so just making all cultures generic wildcards falls short of effective examples in my opinion.
Really? I'm looking at the species, and, well, I don't see a lot of traits that would affect culture, at least beyond what's already in the description in the playtest.
The super long lives and innate magic of elves? Dwarven stone sense? Orcish endurance? You think that wouldn't make a difference in how they develop and where their priorities are?
So THAT'S why they say orcs make the best lovers...
The super long lives and innate magic of elves? Dwarven stone sense? Orcish endurance? You think that wouldn't make a difference in how they develop and where their priorities are?
Long lives would in fact have cultural effects, but existing lore does a bad job of representing it anyway so it's not much of a loss. The effects of innate magic are mostly obvious and probably aren't going to have cultural effects, though they might have economic effects which, again, existing lore does a bad job with.
Dwarven stone sense, again, has no particular cultural effect. It just means they're particularly suited to living underground, which is adequately covered by the playtest lore.
Orcish Relentless Endurance... doesn't seem relevant at all.
Plus, if we look IRL, we can see that, while a certain trait may not hold true on the individual level, it can hold true on the macro level even if said trait is extremely negative. *points to North Korea* That's sort of why I feel really irked by the whole thing. Cause we've seen tons of empires dominated heavily by a single ethnicity/culture/etc throughout history IRL where plenty of things that we'd consider horrible today were considered 'normal'. Like I said, I feel most people understand that this doesn't hold true on the individual level, especially if a character is away from said culture specifically because they reject it, but would hold true on the macro level. So the vast majority of drow belonging to an evil aligned matriarchy that worships Lolth... that's not actually all that odd.
Just a quick FYI an "Empire" is defined as an ethnically diverse sprawling area controlled by a single governmental system. I think you mean to say that there are "countries" that are culturally homogeneous which is true, however homogeneous cultures defined by aggression rarely last very long - either they are successful in their aggression and become a culturally diverse empire, or they fail and are destroyed. Homogeneous cultures only last a long time if they are isolationist.
It’s not determinism but a) if there’s not some solid examples on how the cultures vary they often end up feeling extremely same-y in a game and b) things like an innate capacity for magic, the ability to sense your surroundings through stone, or a better capacity for physical exertion would have an influence on a culture’s development and priorities. This doesn’t mean every or even most individuals would perfectly conform to a single model, but trends would develop to play to strengths.
Plus, if we look IRL, we can see that, while a certain trait may not hold true on the individual level, it can hold true on the macro level even if said trait is extremely negative. *points to North Korea* That's sort of why I feel really irked by the whole thing. Cause we've seen tons of empires dominated heavily by a single ethnicity/culture/etc throughout history IRL where plenty of things that we'd consider horrible today were considered 'normal'. Like I said, I feel most people understand that this doesn't hold true on the individual level, especially if a character is away from said culture specifically because they reject it, but would hold true on the macro level. So the vast majority of drow belonging to an evil aligned matriarchy that worships Lolth... that's not actually all that odd.
Just a quick FYI an "Empire" is defined as an ethnically diverse sprawling area controlled by a single governmental system. I think you mean to say that there are "countries" that are culturally homogeneous which is true, however homogeneous cultures defined by aggression rarely last very long - either they are successful in their aggression and become a culturally diverse empire, or they fail and are destroyed. Homogeneous cultures only last a long time if they are isolationist.
Sort of. While America is ethnically diverse I think it would be a stretch to claim there isn't an American culture. I suspect the same was for every empire.
Edit to add and most Empires were dominated by a single ethnicity for much of their run. While they may have a ton of groups in them, the people in power come from the original ethnicity for a quite a while.
The super long lives and innate magic of elves? Dwarven stone sense? Orcish endurance? You think that wouldn't make a difference in how they develop and where their priorities are?
Long lives would in fact have cultural effects, but existing lore does a bad job of representing it anyway so it's not much of a loss. The effects of innate magic are mostly obvious and probably aren't going to have cultural effects, though they might have economic effects which, again, existing lore does a bad job with.
Dwarven stone sense, again, has no particular cultural effect. It just means they're particularly suited to living underground, which is adequately covered by the playtest lore.
Orcish Relentless Endurance... doesn't seem relevant at all.
I don't think inherent magic has an obvious impact. Minor magic is, at best, a tool. They're less reliant on tools those spells can replace, but they aren't without need for them. Longer lifespans give them perspective that shorter-lived species do not, and I think that is the more self-evident one. Assuming everyone wants to leave their mark on the world, longer-lived species have more time. They can afford to be patient. It's the shorter-lived species who can't, and so they tend to become more aggressive. They take risks, maybe even shortcuts, and are expansionist.
As for dwarves, any culture that lives predominantly underground isn't dependent on solar cycles. Their cities don't need to sleep, so it's safe to assume they never do. They might not even have farms, at least on the surface, which could mean hunter-gatherer culture instead of an agrarian one. And even with darkvision, they'll want things to be brightly lit. Nobody wants to look at everything in perpetual grayscale. This means torches, bioluminescent moss, and possible spells like continual flame.
I would think relentless endurance is perhaps the most obvious. Orcs can take a beating and keep going. They make great warriors. Whether that's for amusement or military conquest, they're darn good at it. If for no other reason than they last longer than their peers. I can see many being drawn to serve as gladiators, professional soldiers, and even simple town guards. A "proud warrior culture" which might have a schism between public service and personal glory. And, of course, you'll want people who celebrate these achievements. So their art will reflect this as well. And they may very well have heirloom weapons and armor.
When it comes to these traits, think about what these people can do with them. How they can best put their natural talents to work for them will help drive culture.
For the general idea of some guidelines on the "races".
1. some guidelines are useful to give people a starting point, a sort of shallow end of DMing, don't toss them in the deep end without letting them learning to swim first.
2. Do I need it, no I have 44 years of D&D to pull from. But people new to the game might.
3. Unless the premise is people are dumber now than they used to be the idea the players wont understand the a description wont be a literal mandate for all of that group no matter the setting or basic concepts of individualism doesn't seem logical to me. No one said whoa whoa that's not a halfling when Darksun came out. No one said the forgotten realms elves are not elves because they are tall.(I prefer short elves but I don't think tall elves can't exist in D&D)No one said Dritz clearly can't be a drow since he is not evil. Why do people seem to think people will do that now.
My main concern is that One D&D will not be able to even try to address fixing certain issues. The Druid is an interesting but not very popular class. The changes to Sneak Attack were disliked and imperfect, but they also sought to add fix a way that the mechanic could be made significantly more powerful in order to buff the class overall.
There are plenty of other areas where 5e struggles and plenty of other things that I wish the developers had experimented with trying to improve. However, if Treantmonk is correct and One D&D really is "Nearing the End of Experimentation", then it's likely that a lot of the problems with the current edition of the game will go unsolved.
I am really exited to see what the 2024 PHB brings, but I wish there was no 2024 deadline for One D&D and that there were more playtests, more experimentation, and more big changes being tried out so that we can find ways to drastically improve some of the less good parts of D&D in ways that almost everyone wants.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I agree, but I'd rather see it in the setting books, going forward. It seems like they're getting away from setting books, but I think that's where the lore about the different races belongs. Keep the stats in MotM, but then do a bit on what each species is like in this particular world. The way they add new species, it could quickly get unwieldy, but they could at least do the PHB races.
Why? There should be some sample cultures and lores, but there's no reason they should be associated with specific races. A setting with orcs who daintily sip tea and raise flowers while the elves are vicious berserkers who slaughter everyone who enters their lands isn't any harder to get into than a more traditional D&D setting where those roles are reversed. Just provide some sample cultures and let the DM decide who each description applies to.
Sample/default, whichever; my point was just that it would be useful to have some printed guidelines/examples. I’m not looking to police how people play or worldbuild, but the different races will have different dynamics based on their racial traits, so just making all cultures generic wildcards falls short of effective examples in my opinion. Plus they haven’t printed many setting books lately, so I’m not sure saving such lore for them is the best idea unless that’s changing.
Having guidelines or examples could be fine but there needs to be multiple examples. When I played AD&D Orcs were just evil pig faced monsters that you could pretty much just kill on sight because they were one dimensional evil. Same for Drow. But from what I understand is there are Drow in Eberron that are not like the underdark Drow that I knew. And that’s the problem with setting a default lore. You get Drow and orcs are evil period and that limiting factor can stifle creativity of DMs and Players alike.
Leave the lore to setting books, imo. Especially for player races/species.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
Yes, obviously avoiding "this race is Evil" would be a good idea, but the material should still be somewhat specific. It's not hard to keep the general themes while spinning them off as no more inherently evil than anyone else.
I'm also a bit worried that it might lead to increasingly generic races and cultures. I mean, not all dwarves are hard-drinking, rock/metal obsessed, scottish people. I think most people, though, understand that there's a difference between there being exceptions to the rule and refusing to offer concrete details because said exceptions exist.
Those are good points. It’s just if they write it down, no matter how optional they say it is, there’s people who will just argue it’s written down that species X can sometimes behave a certain way, which means all of them everywhere must behave that way. Though I admit the conflict it might generate would be mostly hypothetical more than anything I’d have to deal with in my games. Personally, I’ve not used written lore in ages and just homebrewed it.
And I would, at least, like to get height, weight and age ranges back. Those seem like they could be pretty universal.
Yes, but "a handful of people might misuse this tool" is not a compelling reason not to put a tool out there.
Really? I'm looking at the species, and, well, I don't see a lot of traits that would affect culture, at least beyond what's already in the description in the playtest.
Plus, if we look IRL, we can see that, while a certain trait may not hold true on the individual level, it can hold true on the macro level even if said trait is extremely negative. *points to North Korea* That's sort of why I feel really irked by the whole thing. Cause we've seen tons of empires dominated heavily by a single ethnicity/culture/etc throughout history IRL where plenty of things that we'd consider horrible today were considered 'normal'. Like I said, I feel most people understand that this doesn't hold true on the individual level, especially if a character is away from said culture specifically because they reject it, but would hold true on the macro level. So the vast majority of drow belonging to an evil aligned matriarchy that worships Lolth... that's not actually all that odd.
The super long lives and innate magic of elves? Dwarven stone sense? Orcish endurance? You think that wouldn't make a difference in how they develop and where their priorities are?
So THAT'S why they say orcs make the best lovers...
Long lives would in fact have cultural effects, but existing lore does a bad job of representing it anyway so it's not much of a loss. The effects of innate magic are mostly obvious and probably aren't going to have cultural effects, though they might have economic effects which, again, existing lore does a bad job with.
Dwarven stone sense, again, has no particular cultural effect. It just means they're particularly suited to living underground, which is adequately covered by the playtest lore.
Orcish Relentless Endurance... doesn't seem relevant at all.
Just a quick FYI an "Empire" is defined as an ethnically diverse sprawling area controlled by a single governmental system. I think you mean to say that there are "countries" that are culturally homogeneous which is true, however homogeneous cultures defined by aggression rarely last very long - either they are successful in their aggression and become a culturally diverse empire, or they fail and are destroyed. Homogeneous cultures only last a long time if they are isolationist.
This is not the thread or the forum to have the Shitty Genetic Determinism 'conversation' again. Take it elsewhere.
Please do not contact or message me.
It’s not determinism but a) if there’s not some solid examples on how the cultures vary they often end up feeling extremely same-y in a game and b) things like an innate capacity for magic, the ability to sense your surroundings through stone, or a better capacity for physical exertion would have an influence on a culture’s development and priorities. This doesn’t mean every or even most individuals would perfectly conform to a single model, but trends would develop to play to strengths.
Sort of. While America is ethnically diverse I think it would be a stretch to claim there isn't an American culture. I suspect the same was for every empire.
Edit to add and most Empires were dominated by a single ethnicity for much of their run. While they may have a ton of groups in them, the people in power come from the original ethnicity for a quite a while.
I don't think inherent magic has an obvious impact. Minor magic is, at best, a tool. They're less reliant on tools those spells can replace, but they aren't without need for them. Longer lifespans give them perspective that shorter-lived species do not, and I think that is the more self-evident one. Assuming everyone wants to leave their mark on the world, longer-lived species have more time. They can afford to be patient. It's the shorter-lived species who can't, and so they tend to become more aggressive. They take risks, maybe even shortcuts, and are expansionist.
As for dwarves, any culture that lives predominantly underground isn't dependent on solar cycles. Their cities don't need to sleep, so it's safe to assume they never do. They might not even have farms, at least on the surface, which could mean hunter-gatherer culture instead of an agrarian one. And even with darkvision, they'll want things to be brightly lit. Nobody wants to look at everything in perpetual grayscale. This means torches, bioluminescent moss, and possible spells like continual flame.
I would think relentless endurance is perhaps the most obvious. Orcs can take a beating and keep going. They make great warriors. Whether that's for amusement or military conquest, they're darn good at it. If for no other reason than they last longer than their peers. I can see many being drawn to serve as gladiators, professional soldiers, and even simple town guards. A "proud warrior culture" which might have a schism between public service and personal glory. And, of course, you'll want people who celebrate these achievements. So their art will reflect this as well. And they may very well have heirloom weapons and armor.
When it comes to these traits, think about what these people can do with them. How they can best put their natural talents to work for them will help drive culture.
For the general idea of some guidelines on the "races".
1. some guidelines are useful to give people a starting point, a sort of shallow end of DMing, don't toss them in the deep end without letting them learning to swim first.
2. Do I need it, no I have 44 years of D&D to pull from. But people new to the game might.
3. Unless the premise is people are dumber now than they used to be the idea the players wont understand the a description wont be a literal mandate for all of that group no matter the setting or basic concepts of individualism doesn't seem logical to me. No one said whoa whoa that's not a halfling when Darksun came out. No one said the forgotten realms elves are not elves because they are tall.(I prefer short elves but I don't think tall elves can't exist in D&D)No one said Dritz clearly can't be a drow since he is not evil. Why do people seem to think people will do that now.
My main concern is that One D&D will not be able to even try to address fixing certain issues. The Druid is an interesting but not very popular class. The changes to Sneak Attack were disliked and imperfect, but they also sought to add fix a way that the mechanic could be made significantly more powerful in order to buff the class overall.
There are plenty of other areas where 5e struggles and plenty of other things that I wish the developers had experimented with trying to improve. However, if Treantmonk is correct and One D&D really is "Nearing the End of Experimentation", then it's likely that a lot of the problems with the current edition of the game will go unsolved.
I am really exited to see what the 2024 PHB brings, but I wish there was no 2024 deadline for One D&D and that there were more playtests, more experimentation, and more big changes being tried out so that we can find ways to drastically improve some of the less good parts of D&D in ways that almost everyone wants.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.