What they're now advocating for is a PH where you cannot make a functional character. As in now you need two books to play the game.
You need to communicate with the DM to play the game. Either the DM has some cultures in mind, or they'll tell you to make something up. The DM likely needs multiple books, but since when is that new?
There probably should be a 'worldbuilding 101' section in the Basic Rules, which would cover the stuff currently in chapter 1 of the DMG, along with a few other topics such as multiple societies and subgroups.
What they're now advocating for is a PH where you cannot make a functional character. As in now you need two books to play the game.
You need to communicate with the DM to play the game. Either the DM has some cultures in mind, or they'll tell you to make something up. The DM likely needs multiple books, but since when is that new?
There probably should be a 'worldbuilding 101' section in the Basic Rules, which would cover the stuff currently in chapter 1 of the DMG, along with a few other topics such as multiple societies and subgroups.
Seconded, Pantagruel. The idea is that you talk to the DM about cultures in the setting you're making a character for. If a DM doesn't want to be involved in character creation, and you're working with one of those "I don't wanna see you, tralk to you, or have anything to do with you until we meet next week to start, and your sheet had better be ready by then" DMs, then yes, you'll probably have to use default crappy tropes. Alternatively, you can maybe ask the DM to at least tell you which setting you're in, and if the guy just absolutely refuses to play ball? Sounds like a real red flag moment to me.
I appreciate and enjoy when DMs invite character creation questions and workshopping, and I always ensure I offer it when I'm setting up a game. I can't really figure out how the process is supposed to work properly without it, honestly.
Any campaign that doesn't come with a few pages of backstory is probably a campaign where personalities are entirely optional. If you decide you want to have a personality, just make stuff up. The DM can't complain that your character concept doesn't fit the setting if they didn't tell you what the setting was.
We've been over this already. LANGAUGE is in the PH. It cannot exist without culture. It's essential to building a character
No, it isn't essential to building a character. All you know is "do you speak the local language" and the answer to that is "yes, because PCs who can't communicate makes for terrible gameplay".
We've been over this already. LANGAUGE is in the PH. It cannot exist without culture. It's essential to building a character
No, it isn't essential to building a character. All you know is "do you speak the local language" and the answer to that is "yes, because PCs who can't communicate makes for terrible gameplay".
Choosing languages is already part of character creation. Everyone learns common, gets a free choice, and is granted one by their background. And some classes (druid and rogue) also grant additional languages.
But you're saying that should all be omitted from the PH. That it should be contained to setting splat books, or made up by the DM. Which means a player with just the PH can't actually make a complete character. Because there will always be blank spaces to be filled in later. You're gatekeeping character creation to a minimum of two products, raising the barrier for entry, and invalidating every previous setting book which doesn't meet such insane specifications.
Quintessentially cutting off ones nose to spite their own face.
What they're now advocating for is a PH where you cannot make a functional character. As in now you need two books to play the game.
You need to communicate with the DM to play the game. Either the DM has some cultures in mind, or they'll tell you to make something up. The DM likely needs multiple books, but since when is that new?
There probably should be a 'worldbuilding 101' section in the Basic Rules, which would cover the stuff currently in chapter 1 of the DMG, along with a few other topics such as multiple societies and subgroups.
Now do conventions and formal organized play.
If the DM doesn't need to have input on the culture of the characters / world then who cares about the existence of culture at all? Play Donatello from TMNT and make up a magic portal that carried you from NYC to wherever that game is happening, for all it matters. Play a goblin who worked at the Ministry of Magic in Harry Potter and fell through some magic doorway to arrive in the game. Or be a dwarf from a clan of surfer-dwarves who all have proficiency in cooking tools to make hash brownies. A character doesn't need to have a defined culture to be playable, they just need a personality.
Choosing languages is already part of character creation. Everyone learns common, gets a free choice, and is granted one by their background. And some classes (druid and rogue) also grant additional languages.
But you're saying that should all be omitted from the PH.
Honestly...I don't care if it's in there, but it's a complete waste of space. There's a reason comprehend languages is a first level ritual -- it's because language problems are interesting for about ten minutes and then transform into irritating and boring.
Jounichi, your argument is that if cultural lore is not explicitly spelled out in the PHB, a player cannot make a functional character. Yes?
Do you not realize that this means you are also forcing the DM to comply with this prewritten lore in its entirety? After all, if the player cannot make a functional character without that information and the DM decides not to use that information, does that not mean the game is broken and unplayable?
So we're right back where we started - "culture" is hard baked into the core books and nobody can change it, play against it, or do anything at all other than conform to it because according to your own words, players cannot make functional characters without that prewritten lore being in place.
Jounichi, your argument is that if cultural lore is not explicitly spelled out in the PHB, a player cannot make a functional character. Yes?
Do you not realize that this means you are also forcing the DM to comply with this prewritten lore in its entirety? After all, if the player cannot make a functional character without that information and the DM decides not to use that information, does that not mean the game is broken and unplayable?
So we're right back where we started - "culture" is hard baked into the core books and nobody can change it, play against it, or do anything at all other than conform to it because according to your own words, players cannot make functional characters without that prewritten lore being in place.
Some culture cannot be avoided and must be tacitly acknowledged.
I'm not saying you need everything detailed. I've never said that, and it would be impractical to implement. That said, as long as there needs to be at least some acknowledgement, then you may as well throw something meaningful in there instead of ignoring it.
Because despite whatever regional differences you might have among the different dwarves who live in a setting, they still share a common language and history. If the Forgotten Realms has seven different dialects of Dethek, then that language didn't spontaneously occur in seven different places at the same time. It spread out and changed as people moved, the same way our dialects do. And while that specific detail does belong in a setting book, the fact that the PH acknowledges Dwarvish as a language still carries the same overtones. That language had to come from somewhere, and everyone who speaks it can trace a path back to that origin point.
Like it or not, the different playable species of D&D aren't just humans with funny hats. That's bigoted thinking. It erases their uniqueness. Most are humanoid, yes, but they aren't human. They can do things humans cannot. They would have, logically, advanced their culture in favor of their uniqueness. What people wouldn't? Those differences should be celebrated, not erased, and using the PH to communicate that to players is the morally correct thing to do.
Give them a meaningful starting point. If you're going to try and omit everything having to do with culture, even the bare bones, then all that's left is the features and traits. A few lines of text. It's dry, unengaging reading. It turns people off. And it doesn't help newcomers to the game. It's better to assume they know nothing at all and write in a considerate manner so as not to insult their intelligence or unfamiliarity.
Otherwise you risk sounding like a snob, and I would hope nobody here wants that.
Choosing languages is already part of character creation. Everyone learns common, gets a free choice, and is granted one by their background. And some classes (druid and rogue) also grant additional languages.
But you're saying that should all be omitted from the PH.
Honestly...I don't care if it's in there, but it's a complete waste of space. There's a reason comprehend languages is a first level ritual -- it's because language problems are interesting for about ten minutes and then transform into irritating and boring.
Well, not every party has someone who can cast it. You can't force it on everyone, can you? And even if they did, some people like to, you know, roleplay their character. That might mean their character speaks the actual language, and not use a spell as a shortcut. It might even net them advantage on their Influence check.
I don't know why you want a PH where people who don't think like you can't use it, but I think that only makes the game smaller. Closed off. You can always ignore whatever suggestions are in there. Every past PH I've read from WotC has always described culture in broad leanings and trends, not absolutes. Those trends aren't always pleasant, and at times have been problematic, but they explicitly made room for exceptions. Just because you don't need, or want, a tool doesn't mean other people share your opinions.
Because despite whatever regional differences you might have among the different dwarves who live in a setting, they still share a common language and history.
Um... says who? Sure, go far enough back in the depths of time it's probably true, but the same holds for humans, and you aren't claiming all humans speak the exact same language.
As for roleplaying, my experience is that forcing a language on people makes them value it less (and thus less likely to RP it) than making it a choice.
Because despite whatever regional differences you might have among the different dwarves who live in a setting, they still share a common language and history. If the Forgotten Realms has seven different dialects of Dethek, then that language didn't spontaneously occur in seven different places at the same time. It spread out and changed as people moved, the same way our dialects do. And while that specific detail does belong in a setting book, the fact that the PH acknowledges Dwarvish as a language still carries the same overtones. That language had to come from somewhere, and everyone who speaks it can trace a path back to that origin point.
So what? I'm playing in a game set in Theros and dwarves don't exist in that setting, but one of the players wanted to make a character with the species traits of a dwarf so the DM allowed them to change the lore of their character so they are the child of a human who was punished by the gods thus was born smaller and tougher than usual. We also have a half-orc (also doesn't exist in Theros lore) who is a human enchanted by an evil wizard to be disfigured. And we have a Goblin (also doesn't exist in Theros) who's lore is they are a human cursed with physical weakness by a group of gods in order to prevent them from fulfilling a prophecy. So our dwarf doesn't speak dwarven, our goblin doesn't speak goblin and our half-orc doesn't speak orc.
Why should dwarves have a single common ancestor and why should they share a common language (IRL all humans have a single common ancestor but don't share a language)? There are multiple subspecies of dwarf, why can't each of them have their own language and own origin completely independent of each other? Why can't a human and a halfling have a child with the traits of a dwarf? Why can't half-orc and a goblin have a child with the traits of a dwarf?
The species lore of 5e D&D makes no sense at all - why can humans give rise to half-orcs and half-elves but not half-halflings? Why don't halflings and gnomes have a hybrid subspecies? Why would a half-orc raised entirely by their human parent speak orc?
Lore should be setting-specific and in setting-books or the DMG or Dungeon-master-facing portion of the Basic Rules, not in the PHB.
Like it or not, the different playable species of D&D aren't just humans with funny hats. That's bigoted thinking. It erases their uniqueness. Most are humanoid, yes, but they aren't human. They can do things humans cannot. They would have, logically, advanced their culture in favor of their uniqueness. What people wouldn't? Those differences should be celebrated, not erased, and using the PH to communicate that to players is the morally correct thing to do.
Mm.. but they are. This may come as a surprise to you but there are humans that can do things that you cannot, that doesn't require them to have a completely different culture than you. There are little people with different strengths and weaknesses, blind people, people who are 7+ ft tall, people who are naturally athletics, people who are naturally smarter, people who are naturally more charismatic. But does that mean there is a "tall people culture" where we all love basketball, living in places with tall fruit trees that we can pick more easily, and only marry and have children with other tall people.
A dwarf might live in a fantasy version of Australia an use their tremorsense and poison resistance to navigate underwater caves to catch/harvest sea anemones, sea urchins, sea stars, and eels. Another dwarf might use their tremorsense to be an awesome security guard for rich people who live in stone mansions. Another dwarf might use their tremorsense in a skiing-community in the mountains to check for avalanches. Another dwarf might live in the artic taiga and use their tremorsense to hunt game across the rocky terrain. Another dwarf live in a fantasy Netherlands and use their tremorsense to build fantastic stone dams to reclaim land from the ocean. A desert-dwelling dwarvish community might use their tremorsense to locate undergrown aquifers and build communities on top on them, and use their poison resistance to domesticate giant scorpions.
An Aarakocra society is almost certainly going to develop significantly differently from a human society, even if there will be similarities. Any of the aquatic races, again differently. For the Fae, either the Faewild is a separate, metaphysically unique region or they might as well have just called it 'Normalville' Metaphysically unique homeland means culture that fits said homeland.
The problem there is that if this is true, it's very hard to justify them being part of an adventuring party in a generic campaign that isn't focused on these locations as a setting. E.g. if we go back to Tolkien and the assumption that "different species live in completely segregated communities in geographically distinct regions with completely separate cultures" then why would they come together as a random adventuring party? Tolkein spends half of a novel justifying the Fellowship of the Ring, and breaks up by the end of the novel.
Any campaign that doesn't involve a world-ending threat thus would be unviable if species are constrained to be isolated from each other geographically, linguistically, or culturally. Why would an Aarakocra care about the Waterdeep Dragon Heist at all if they live in a completely separate society from land dwellers? Why would a Triton? Why would they are about Wildbeyond the Witchlight? Or Balder's Gate DtA?
Species in D&D are generally just humans with funny hats for good reasons. It's easier to roleplay, it's easier to empathize and be invested in each character's story, it's quicker to explain to participants, it's easier for everyone to remember, and it's easier to justify the party working together and participating in many different types of adventure. As I said earlier D&D is a cartoony game where you can't think too hard about it or it will all fall apart b/c it is just a bunch of tropes, stolen/borrowed folklore and mythology, and just barely legally distinct inspirations from popular literature thrown together into a big pot and scaffolded to a common mechanical framework. The lore is a mishmash of stuff from many authors written across decades with no cohesive plan or longterm narrative or rigorously defined world building, that players and DMs shouldn't be bound to as "fundamental" to character creation.
An aaracokra would care about the events of Waterdeep: Dragon Heist because they're already there in Waterdeep. Politics are local, and just because a people might claim a specific part of the world as their doesn't mean every member will stay there. Stop treating different species as monolithic, because they're not.
Aaracokra in the Forgotten Realms can be found in the Star Mounts of the High Forest, the Storm Horns of Cormyr, Chult, and elsewhere. They're just as varied as any other species. They also stand apart from every other species.
Or we can revisit the dwarves of the Forgotten Realms, if you need another example. Each dwarven dialect is a twist on a single language. That points to a shared history. It's not that different from, say, how multiple Jewish languages are descended from Aramaic. Each sect or tribe can trace a lineage back to a shared point in time. But they're still distinct through differing practices and observances. This can be easily contrasted with the several dozen human languages in the forgotten Realms alone. They can't all point to that, though some languages are in a family of sorts and are descended from a single language.
To use a contemporary, real world example, let's look at ethnic italians. Italy is mostly populated by ethnic Italians. You can still find people of Italian decent all over the world because their ancestors migrated for one reason or another. The United States, sure, but also Ireland and Australia; along with numerous other countries. Player characters are the exceptions, not the rule. They test the rule, but they are not limited by it.
Yeah, D&D is messy. Anything that's been around for this long is going to be. It doesn't matter how many hands have worked it. That messiness isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's part of what makes D&D what it is. Because it's always been messy. The Keep on the Borderlands was a crashed spaceship with recoverable power armor. The game has always drawn from a hodge podge of different inspirations.
Professor Tolkien is fairly low on the list. You'd do better by avoiding that well.
There are species that you would expect significantly different economic development. I wouldn't call that 'culture' but it's understandable. However, the core species in the PHB really don't have anything all that dramatic.
There are species that you would expect significantly different economic development. I wouldn't call that 'culture' but it's understandable. However, the core species in the PHB really don't have anything all that dramatic.
And you would be wrong.
Economics is dictated by the resources available. That means geography, flora, fauna, and minerals are all factors. And that's going to have an effect on the material their clothes are made from, what kind of musical instruments they can make, and what food they eat. All of that is culture.
If the cities of Lucerne and Machu Picchu were hypothetically settled by dwarves, would you expect them to be identical? Or would they be recognizably dwarven while still maintaining stark differences from one another?
But, Italian-ness though has nothing to do with genetics. The argument as I understand it is that the species have distinct cultures because they are biologically incompatible with each other thus are innately driven to live in different locations / styles - thus those species will always develop specific types of cultures regardless of setting (thereby justifying it existing in the PHB). Then species should be far more segregated than human cultures. E.g. Tritons live underwater b/c they can breath in water just as easily as in air. You should see 0 characters of non-aquatic races in an underwater Triton city because they literally can't breathe there, and almost no Tritons should exist in on-land cities because they are inherently inferior at living in those places than the species that built them.
Otherwise there is no reason for cultures to be species-specific, b/c cultures migrate, and shift all the time. E.g lots of Africans are Muslim even though Islam originated in a completely different ethnic group and geographic location. Loads of Chinese are Christian despite the same things. English draws half its words from Germanic languages and half from Romance languages because the British Isles has so much cultural mixing throughout its history.
Either culture is not driven by biology and can be radically different for the same species in different settings (making having cultural description in the PHB pretty pointless), or it is driven by different brain chemistries and biological abilities and all the species are almost entirely segregated from each other into ethno-cities or ethno-states in every single setting - and those adventurers that deviate from it are viewed as freaks / weirdos.
(This is why reading-between the lines the biological-determinism argument is very aligned with alt-right propaganda, it is inherently a pro-segregationist / ethno-nationalist argument)
If the cities of Lucerne and Machu Picchu were hypothetically settled by dwarves, would you expect them to be identical? Or would they be recognizably dwarven while still maintaining stark differences from one another?
I wouldn't expect identical because a lot of stuff is just straight random, but other than architectural details like the height of doors and ceilings, I wouldn't expect anything particularly recognizably 'dwarven'.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Reference to earlier languages of the game where people spoke 'chaotic evil' or some such. The concept mostly died in the mid 80s.
You need to communicate with the DM to play the game. Either the DM has some cultures in mind, or they'll tell you to make something up. The DM likely needs multiple books, but since when is that new?
There probably should be a 'worldbuilding 101' section in the Basic Rules, which would cover the stuff currently in chapter 1 of the DMG, along with a few other topics such as multiple societies and subgroups.
Now do conventions and formal organized play.
Seconded, Pantagruel. The idea is that you talk to the DM about cultures in the setting you're making a character for. If a DM doesn't want to be involved in character creation, and you're working with one of those "I don't wanna see you, tralk to you, or have anything to do with you until we meet next week to start, and your sheet had better be ready by then" DMs, then yes, you'll probably have to use default crappy tropes. Alternatively, you can maybe ask the DM to at least tell you which setting you're in, and if the guy just absolutely refuses to play ball? Sounds like a real red flag moment to me.
I appreciate and enjoy when DMs invite character creation questions and workshopping, and I always ensure I offer it when I'm setting up a game. I can't really figure out how the process is supposed to work properly without it, honestly.
Please do not contact or message me.
Any campaign that doesn't come with a few pages of backstory is probably a campaign where personalities are entirely optional. If you decide you want to have a personality, just make stuff up. The DM can't complain that your character concept doesn't fit the setting if they didn't tell you what the setting was.
No, it isn't essential to building a character. All you know is "do you speak the local language" and the answer to that is "yes, because PCs who can't communicate makes for terrible gameplay".
Choosing languages is already part of character creation. Everyone learns common, gets a free choice, and is granted one by their background. And some classes (druid and rogue) also grant additional languages.
But you're saying that should all be omitted from the PH. That it should be contained to setting splat books, or made up by the DM. Which means a player with just the PH can't actually make a complete character. Because there will always be blank spaces to be filled in later. You're gatekeeping character creation to a minimum of two products, raising the barrier for entry, and invalidating every previous setting book which doesn't meet such insane specifications.
Quintessentially cutting off ones nose to spite their own face.
If the DM doesn't need to have input on the culture of the characters / world then who cares about the existence of culture at all? Play Donatello from TMNT and make up a magic portal that carried you from NYC to wherever that game is happening, for all it matters. Play a goblin who worked at the Ministry of Magic in Harry Potter and fell through some magic doorway to arrive in the game. Or be a dwarf from a clan of surfer-dwarves who all have proficiency in cooking tools to make hash brownies. A character doesn't need to have a defined culture to be playable, they just need a personality.
Honestly...I don't care if it's in there, but it's a complete waste of space. There's a reason comprehend languages is a first level ritual -- it's because language problems are interesting for about ten minutes and then transform into irritating and boring.
Jounichi, your argument is that if cultural lore is not explicitly spelled out in the PHB, a player cannot make a functional character. Yes?
Do you not realize that this means you are also forcing the DM to comply with this prewritten lore in its entirety? After all, if the player cannot make a functional character without that information and the DM decides not to use that information, does that not mean the game is broken and unplayable?
So we're right back where we started - "culture" is hard baked into the core books and nobody can change it, play against it, or do anything at all other than conform to it because according to your own words, players cannot make functional characters without that prewritten lore being in place.
Please do not contact or message me.
Some culture cannot be avoided and must be tacitly acknowledged.
I'm not saying you need everything detailed. I've never said that, and it would be impractical to implement. That said, as long as there needs to be at least some acknowledgement, then you may as well throw something meaningful in there instead of ignoring it.
Because despite whatever regional differences you might have among the different dwarves who live in a setting, they still share a common language and history. If the Forgotten Realms has seven different dialects of Dethek, then that language didn't spontaneously occur in seven different places at the same time. It spread out and changed as people moved, the same way our dialects do. And while that specific detail does belong in a setting book, the fact that the PH acknowledges Dwarvish as a language still carries the same overtones. That language had to come from somewhere, and everyone who speaks it can trace a path back to that origin point.
Like it or not, the different playable species of D&D aren't just humans with funny hats. That's bigoted thinking. It erases their uniqueness. Most are humanoid, yes, but they aren't human. They can do things humans cannot. They would have, logically, advanced their culture in favor of their uniqueness. What people wouldn't? Those differences should be celebrated, not erased, and using the PH to communicate that to players is the morally correct thing to do.
Give them a meaningful starting point. If you're going to try and omit everything having to do with culture, even the bare bones, then all that's left is the features and traits. A few lines of text. It's dry, unengaging reading. It turns people off. And it doesn't help newcomers to the game. It's better to assume they know nothing at all and write in a considerate manner so as not to insult their intelligence or unfamiliarity.
Otherwise you risk sounding like a snob, and I would hope nobody here wants that.
Well, not every party has someone who can cast it. You can't force it on everyone, can you? And even if they did, some people like to, you know, roleplay their character. That might mean their character speaks the actual language, and not use a spell as a shortcut. It might even net them advantage on their Influence check.
I don't know why you want a PH where people who don't think like you can't use it, but I think that only makes the game smaller. Closed off. You can always ignore whatever suggestions are in there. Every past PH I've read from WotC has always described culture in broad leanings and trends, not absolutes. Those trends aren't always pleasant, and at times have been problematic, but they explicitly made room for exceptions. Just because you don't need, or want, a tool doesn't mean other people share your opinions.
Um... says who? Sure, go far enough back in the depths of time it's probably true, but the same holds for humans, and you aren't claiming all humans speak the exact same language.
As for roleplaying, my experience is that forcing a language on people makes them value it less (and thus less likely to RP it) than making it a choice.
So what? I'm playing in a game set in Theros and dwarves don't exist in that setting, but one of the players wanted to make a character with the species traits of a dwarf so the DM allowed them to change the lore of their character so they are the child of a human who was punished by the gods thus was born smaller and tougher than usual. We also have a half-orc (also doesn't exist in Theros lore) who is a human enchanted by an evil wizard to be disfigured. And we have a Goblin (also doesn't exist in Theros) who's lore is they are a human cursed with physical weakness by a group of gods in order to prevent them from fulfilling a prophecy. So our dwarf doesn't speak dwarven, our goblin doesn't speak goblin and our half-orc doesn't speak orc.
Why should dwarves have a single common ancestor and why should they share a common language (IRL all humans have a single common ancestor but don't share a language)? There are multiple subspecies of dwarf, why can't each of them have their own language and own origin completely independent of each other? Why can't a human and a halfling have a child with the traits of a dwarf? Why can't half-orc and a goblin have a child with the traits of a dwarf?
The species lore of 5e D&D makes no sense at all - why can humans give rise to half-orcs and half-elves but not half-halflings? Why don't halflings and gnomes have a hybrid subspecies? Why would a half-orc raised entirely by their human parent speak orc?
Lore should be setting-specific and in setting-books or the DMG or Dungeon-master-facing portion of the Basic Rules, not in the PHB.
Mm.. but they are. This may come as a surprise to you but there are humans that can do things that you cannot, that doesn't require them to have a completely different culture than you. There are little people with different strengths and weaknesses, blind people, people who are 7+ ft tall, people who are naturally athletics, people who are naturally smarter, people who are naturally more charismatic. But does that mean there is a "tall people culture" where we all love basketball, living in places with tall fruit trees that we can pick more easily, and only marry and have children with other tall people.
A dwarf might live in a fantasy version of Australia an use their tremorsense and poison resistance to navigate underwater caves to catch/harvest sea anemones, sea urchins, sea stars, and eels. Another dwarf might use their tremorsense to be an awesome security guard for rich people who live in stone mansions. Another dwarf might use their tremorsense in a skiing-community in the mountains to check for avalanches. Another dwarf might live in the artic taiga and use their tremorsense to hunt game across the rocky terrain. Another dwarf live in a fantasy Netherlands and use their tremorsense to build fantastic stone dams to reclaim land from the ocean. A desert-dwelling dwarvish community might use their tremorsense to locate undergrown aquifers and build communities on top on them, and use their poison resistance to domesticate giant scorpions.
The problem there is that if this is true, it's very hard to justify them being part of an adventuring party in a generic campaign that isn't focused on these locations as a setting. E.g. if we go back to Tolkien and the assumption that "different species live in completely segregated communities in geographically distinct regions with completely separate cultures" then why would they come together as a random adventuring party? Tolkein spends half of a novel justifying the Fellowship of the Ring, and breaks up by the end of the novel.
Any campaign that doesn't involve a world-ending threat thus would be unviable if species are constrained to be isolated from each other geographically, linguistically, or culturally. Why would an Aarakocra care about the Waterdeep Dragon Heist at all if they live in a completely separate society from land dwellers? Why would a Triton? Why would they are about Wildbeyond the Witchlight? Or Balder's Gate DtA?
Species in D&D are generally just humans with funny hats for good reasons. It's easier to roleplay, it's easier to empathize and be invested in each character's story, it's quicker to explain to participants, it's easier for everyone to remember, and it's easier to justify the party working together and participating in many different types of adventure. As I said earlier D&D is a cartoony game where you can't think too hard about it or it will all fall apart b/c it is just a bunch of tropes, stolen/borrowed folklore and mythology, and just barely legally distinct inspirations from popular literature thrown together into a big pot and scaffolded to a common mechanical framework. The lore is a mishmash of stuff from many authors written across decades with no cohesive plan or longterm narrative or rigorously defined world building, that players and DMs shouldn't be bound to as "fundamental" to character creation.
An aaracokra would care about the events of Waterdeep: Dragon Heist because they're already there in Waterdeep. Politics are local, and just because a people might claim a specific part of the world as their doesn't mean every member will stay there. Stop treating different species as monolithic, because they're not.
Aaracokra in the Forgotten Realms can be found in the Star Mounts of the High Forest, the Storm Horns of Cormyr, Chult, and elsewhere. They're just as varied as any other species. They also stand apart from every other species.
Or we can revisit the dwarves of the Forgotten Realms, if you need another example. Each dwarven dialect is a twist on a single language. That points to a shared history. It's not that different from, say, how multiple Jewish languages are descended from Aramaic. Each sect or tribe can trace a lineage back to a shared point in time. But they're still distinct through differing practices and observances. This can be easily contrasted with the several dozen human languages in the forgotten Realms alone. They can't all point to that, though some languages are in a family of sorts and are descended from a single language.
To use a contemporary, real world example, let's look at ethnic italians. Italy is mostly populated by ethnic Italians. You can still find people of Italian decent all over the world because their ancestors migrated for one reason or another. The United States, sure, but also Ireland and Australia; along with numerous other countries. Player characters are the exceptions, not the rule. They test the rule, but they are not limited by it.
Yeah, D&D is messy. Anything that's been around for this long is going to be. It doesn't matter how many hands have worked it. That messiness isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's part of what makes D&D what it is. Because it's always been messy. The Keep on the Borderlands was a crashed spaceship with recoverable power armor. The game has always drawn from a hodge podge of different inspirations.
Professor Tolkien is fairly low on the list. You'd do better by avoiding that well.
There are species that you would expect significantly different economic development. I wouldn't call that 'culture' but it's understandable. However, the core species in the PHB really don't have anything all that dramatic.
And you would be wrong.
Economics is dictated by the resources available. That means geography, flora, fauna, and minerals are all factors. And that's going to have an effect on the material their clothes are made from, what kind of musical instruments they can make, and what food they eat. All of that is culture.
If the cities of Lucerne and Machu Picchu were hypothetically settled by dwarves, would you expect them to be identical? Or would they be recognizably dwarven while still maintaining stark differences from one another?
But, Italian-ness though has nothing to do with genetics. The argument as I understand it is that the species have distinct cultures because they are biologically incompatible with each other thus are innately driven to live in different locations / styles - thus those species will always develop specific types of cultures regardless of setting (thereby justifying it existing in the PHB). Then species should be far more segregated than human cultures. E.g. Tritons live underwater b/c they can breath in water just as easily as in air. You should see 0 characters of non-aquatic races in an underwater Triton city because they literally can't breathe there, and almost no Tritons should exist in on-land cities because they are inherently inferior at living in those places than the species that built them.
Otherwise there is no reason for cultures to be species-specific, b/c cultures migrate, and shift all the time. E.g lots of Africans are Muslim even though Islam originated in a completely different ethnic group and geographic location. Loads of Chinese are Christian despite the same things. English draws half its words from Germanic languages and half from Romance languages because the British Isles has so much cultural mixing throughout its history.
Either culture is not driven by biology and can be radically different for the same species in different settings (making having cultural description in the PHB pretty pointless), or it is driven by different brain chemistries and biological abilities and all the species are almost entirely segregated from each other into ethno-cities or ethno-states in every single setting - and those adventurers that deviate from it are viewed as freaks / weirdos.
(This is why reading-between the lines the biological-determinism argument is very aligned with alt-right propaganda, it is inherently a pro-segregationist / ethno-nationalist argument)
I wouldn't expect identical because a lot of stuff is just straight random, but other than architectural details like the height of doors and ceilings, I wouldn't expect anything particularly recognizably 'dwarven'.