Generic, “adaptable” Humans in TTRPG settings, especially fantasy settings, is a sign that the writer of same doesn’t actually understand how diverse groups in the world work, or how to examine a presumed default thoughtfully. As such, they make me deeply, ragingly angry. I may be at the point where I refuse to play or run a setting that does this. If the rules set it up that way, I will hack them before engaging.
— Rabbit (@caudelac) November 24, 2019
So as a for instance, in 5e if all humans were essentially variant, but with feats and skills that represent their regional culture, would that fit more with what you’d want to see?
— Dan Dillon 👥 (@Dan_Dillon_1) November 24, 2019
In my game, everything is variant. Each race/ancestry gets A Thing, including humans, who in my game, have limited stats too (+1 con, and +1 to either int or wis), and get to pick 1 feat. There is also a version of each that has more “traditional”/additional features.But the base approach, which I've seen a lot here, is almost accidentally more not-okay, because it dives deeper on only humans get to have individuality and unique cultures, and everyone else is a lumpen monolith, which is a whole other part of the problem.
— Rabbit (@caudelac) November 24, 2019
I’m pretty sure that Waterdhavian elves, humans, dwarves, halflings, et al have way more in common than they do with anyone of their own nominal group in Rashemen, for example. I get you. Was just using existing 5e human mechanics as an example of a different way to do racial stats in general.
— Dan Dillon 👥 (@Dan_Dillon_1) November 24, 2019
I would be hesitant to give cultures bonuses but that is largely so people can run games in their own world rather than in the cultures for the world I cooked up. I am fine with divorcing bonuses from specific races tho At first glance that approach is kind of a design nightmare.
It’s very difficult not to create a tiny number of “best” options and all the rest are traps.
— Dan Dillon 👥 (@Dan_Dillon_1) November 24, 2019
It also creates a ton of DM work if they want to use that approach in any other setting.
Note: I’m thinking through the approach and it’s challenges, not discounting it as a viable one.
— Dan Dillon 👥 (@Dan_Dillon_1) November 24, 2019
I’d say that the present design approach in D&D has resulted in a bunch of super samey settings, because the default is unquestioned, and the racial bonuses carry a bunch of setting weight. I see the value of customized racial bonuses and traits that differentiate cultures.
I’m just thinking through how to approach it but also make it generally useful, without just being a melange of traits everyone picks out of, that are either ribbons or a system mastery puzzle.
— Dan Dillon 👥 (@Dan_Dillon_1) November 24, 2019
One of my favorite parts of the Al-Qadim setting is the shift in meaningful difference between city-dweller vs nomad, rather than between races.
Elf and dwarf al-hadar have more in common with each other than with al-badia of the same race. That said, there was no mechanical difference between them, it was all down to roleplay and flavor.
Even the different cities/city-states of Zakhara are pretty different from one another. We used “background feats” in 3e to model that.
— Dan Dillon 👥 (@Dan_Dillon_1) November 24, 2019
That said, there was no mechanical difference between them, it was all down to roleplay and flavor.
Even the different cities/city-states of Zakhara are pretty different from one another. We used “background feats” in 3e to model that.
— Dan Dillon 👥 (@Dan_Dillon_1) November 24, 2019