Quote from: Pat on January 28, 2021, 11:51:54 PM

Quote from: TJS on January 28, 2021, 11:38:12 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 28, 2021, 11:28:52 PM

Quote from: Theory of Games on January 28, 2021, 10:19:44 PM
I feel "Race as Class" works. An Elf or Dwarf is something different from a Human. The Demihumans live so long. Their culture is different. Those things create characters completely different from Humanity.

Apparently not completely different. They're still fighter/mages or warriors or rogues with a handful of special abilities as spice.

I use the illusionist spell list for elves to give them more of a 'faery magic' feel.

The bard list works pretty well.

What bard list?

As far as I'm aware there was never a bard list that is compatible rules wise with basic D&D.

Quote from: TJS on January 29, 2021, 12:51:34 AM

Quote from: Pat on January 28, 2021, 11:51:54 PM

Quote from: TJS on January 28, 2021, 11:38:12 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 28, 2021, 11:28:52 PM

Quote from: Theory of Games on January 28, 2021, 10:19:44 PM
I feel "Race as Class" works. An Elf or Dwarf is something different from a Human. The Demihumans live so long. Their culture is different. Those things create characters completely different from Humanity.

Apparently not completely different. They're still fighter/mages or warriors or rogues with a handful of special abilities as spice.

I use the illusionist spell list for elves to give them more of a 'faery magic' feel.

The bard list works pretty well.

What bard list?

As far as I'm aware there was never a bard list that is compatible rules wise with basic D&D.

There wasn't an illusionist spell list for Basic D&D, either. But it's not hard to adapt one from AD&D1, AD&D2, or D&D3. Pick correctly, and you'll end up with a Tom o' Bedlam / knight of ghosts and shadows feel.

So if we are trying to create some kind of statistical model of different races in a fantasy world, then I could see modifiers serving that purpose. In some setting, orcs may be stronger on average than humans but not as intelligent, our +2/-2 models that. But should character generation be based on representative population statistics? I would say no. I would fully acknowledge that men are stronger than women on average and that the strongest men are stronger than the strongest women. Can strength bonuses or penalties model this difference? I guess it can to some degree, but does that mean that in a game where somebody wants to have a super strong barbarian, that they should only be able to have a 16 strength for a female character and can have an 18 strength for a male? I would say no, not for any real world sort of agenda, but just because if people want to play a certain character type, and it isn't disruptive, then why penalize that? If a certain character type is disruptive or if it undermines important themes in the game or setting, then having -2 to your key attribute probably won't help - it would be better in that case just to tell the player that x, y, z doesn't exist in that game world or isn't allowed in this particular campaign. If orcs can't be wizards in this setting or only elves can be bards, fine, I'm alright with that.

One issue that some people brought up is optimization. But I feel that racial bonuses actually create a stronger push to optimize or min/max than not having such modifiers. Players who are all into optimizing every single bonus won't be bothered by suboptimal choices, they will simply avoid them. It is the players who care less about optimization and are interested in a certain character type who will make those suboptimal choices and so will be less effective than the optimizers. Having those racial bonuses and penalties just ends up creating a greater mechanical divide between the optimizers and the non-optimizers, or it encourages people who are the fence between theme and optimization to choose optimization and so diminishes their playing experience. Of course, one could argue that a small bonus or penalty doesn't mean much in the long run, there is some case for that but many of us play mostly low level games where a +1 or +2 makes more of a difference, but even a small bonus really can cause a disproportionate amount of pressure on players to make certain choices. If you have a bunch of different one handed weapons with maces doing 1d6, axes doing 1d8, and arming swords doing 1d10 (assuming no other mechanical advantages or disadvantages) then you're be mazed at how many adventurers there are using arming swords and how few there are using maces. It's also already been said, if those bonuses or penalties don't matter, then why is it so important that player characters are subject to them? You can still run a campaign where your orc NPCs have higher strength and lower intelligence than human NPCs without rewarding or punishing certain race/class combinations.

Another issue that is brought up is that the racial bonuses and penalties add to the flavor and theme of races and the setting. I would contend that attribute bonuses and penalties are actually quite bland and if you have to rely on them then there are bigger problems. Let me give an example:

Let's say that we have a certain group in a fantasy setting. A race, a nation, civilization, something like that. These creatures have an extremely violent society, most men are warriors or were at some point in their lives. Strength and bravery in battle is held in high regard and war and conflict is a part of their religion. Weakness is despised and small or sickly infants are slain, adult men who cannot or will not fight are made into slaves. This a patriarchal society, ruled by the most deadly male warriors, often having harems in proportion to the glory they have gained in battle, though as a society that values strength there are cases of female warriors who have gained great renown for their prowess in battle and are respected in proportion to their combat ability. The warriors go into battle clad in red garments to represent blood in battle and to hide their own wounds, to show pain or fear causes much shame among the warriors of this society. They like to collect souvenirs from their defeated enemies - bones and body parts, sometimes heads. Their villages often have huge piles of skulls of their defeated foes, sometimes the skull of an enemy leader is turned into a drinking cup. In some cases, a victorious warrior may eat the heart of a particularly brave foe, thus gaining a portion of his courage and even soul. Captured enemies are turned into slaves, who do much of the manual labor. This is an extremely violent society that many would regard as evil, but they also have a deep sense of honor and obligation, they believe in honoring their word and obeying their ruler.

So, what are the attribute bonuses of this culture? How important is that to providing flavor? Maybe these are what orcs are like in this setting. Maybe they aren't orcs, maybe these are humans and they are fantasy vikings, maybe they aren't vikings, maybe they are fantasy steppe archers or fantasy Spartans - biologically completely human. Whether or not they are biologically humans or orcs does provide a thematic difference, but I don't think that an attribute bonus makes that much of a difference. Let's take the above group and say that they get +2 strength. Okay, that's kinda cool, it makes sense if they are a such a violent civilization that values combat, but they still work even if they humans with no modifiers. Okay, instead of (or in addition to) adding +2 strength, what if give them -2 intelligence. Well, so, these guys are kinda dumb them. I kinda feel like that makes them less cool, but maybe that fits with how you want to make this group. The +2 seems to fit but doesn't really make that much of a difference, they -2 seems to detract, at least to me.

So this group described above have +2 strength and -2 intelligence. They are stronger but dumber than normal humans. So, I guess they don't have many wizards or wizards among them are weaker and less competent than in other groups. Well, does that make this group more fun? Maybe it would be more fun and thematic to say that spell casters are rare among this society but when they appear they are fearsome war wizards who are known for striking down their foes with lightning or releasing a battle cry that strikes terror into the hearts of the enemy while giving courage to friends, that the wizard seldom becomes the king or warlord within this civilization but is often a high ranking adviser or, some whisper, power behind the throne.

Oh, but those wizards aren't as good or as smart as humans (or standard humans) because of the -2 intelligence. Your wizard character will be doing 1d4 with his dagger instead of 1d4-1 if you had made him a standard human. I feel like trying to actually describe this group (be it a race, a species, a civilization) seems interesting and the bonuses and penalties aren't. So, if that group are in fact our setting's version of orcs, maybe we can add a few things based on that which could be thematically interesting and have some mechanical effect. They're orcs, they can see in the dark, that adds a benefit that could apply to any class and is thematic - it affects how they might live or fight, they attack at night, they can live in caves or castles with no windows. You give have a number of different racial (or cultural?) bonuses or penalties that could be useful for any class or character type. +1 hit point per level, a bonus to save against fear, something like that.

The above warlike race I briefly described above would be radically different from, for example, a kind of gentle giant race of simple minded but peaceful forest dwellers who only eat plants, avoid outside contact or conflict, and who also have +2 strength and -2 intelligence.

Anyway, I much prefer a point distribution character creation to rolling for attributes, so coming from that perspective it isn't that helpful when you're assigning points anyway, except that it changes the maximum attribute value or decreases overall attribute totals if attribute costs increase non-linearly as they get higher.

I don't say any of this with any kind of real world political agenda in mind regarding race or anything like that, I just think it might be more fun not to be penalized for certain character design choices. I could even apply that thought to other kinds of games, like what if I wanted a Malkavian with Potence but I have to pay more experience points to get it than a Brujah does. The longer I am in the hobby, the more I think that those atypical choices shouldn't be penalized and that in setting statistical trends shouldn't necessarily confine character design.

Quote from: BronzeDragon on January 29, 2021, 12:07:14 AM
To me the setting should dictate limitations or combinations.

So, in Birthright Elves can't be Clerics, because they're immortal and never worship anything as "a higher power" (they arrogantly believe they're the equals of the human/dwarven gods). However, they're naturally magical, and thus can advance as Magic-users without any limits.

In most settings Dwarves are either magically resistant or lack aptitude for magic use, therefore they either can't be Magic-users or are severely limited.

Dragonlance establishes early on that elves like to dabble in magic, even when they are training to become something else. So Qualinesti or Silvanesti Fighter/Mages are relatively common.

I absolutely hate settings where anything goes. They make no sense to me, since the races are different in nature, have different preferences and aptitudes. Even in Planescape some limits apply.

Limits make for interesting situations and cultures. If Dwarves are unmagical, or even resistant to magic, then their society will be substantially different from those of other races that can count on magic-users to do certain things.

...

I agree. Then the question becomes, how much of the setting is embedded into the mechanics, how much is presented elsewhere in the rules but not embedded in the mechanics, and how much is left for the GM to decide? 

I don't want the game to embed the setting into the mechanics because, frankly, I so rarely enjoy the choices made by the authors of the game.  To use their game to produce a setting I like, I must first reverse-engineer their setting choices out of the game and then put them back together again.  Of course, race as class isn't the only way to embed (too much?) setting into the game.  5E's problem in that regard is arguably that the class, race, and background combinations are ill-chosen in some respects.  Namely, some of them are done well, some not so well, but the overall problem is that they don't deliver options nearly as well as they could given the number, complexity, and page count devoted to them. 

I suppose if I'm going to be consistent about this approach, then I need to consider the point made by Trinculoisdead above about blandness.  Suppose you go with mostly generic mechanical elements (e.g. race, culture, class, etc.) as I am.  I had assumed that the GM would limit the combinations allowed to fit the setting.  It would be very reasonable for the GM to turn the allowed combinations into "setting classes" that already had race and culture embedded.  However, ideally what makes more sense is that there would be some mechanical flavor attached to each combination, as supplied by the GM to really make that particular option stand out.  The game would need to supply examples, both as examples for the GM to get the sense of the thing as well as ready made play options for a GM that didn't care.  More or less the D&D equivalent of templates (not in the 3E use of the term but from other games that use templates to condense the complexity of character generation).

As an example, assume you were starting with the raw elements of BEMCI/RC broken out mechanically.  So you've got fighters, magic users, and elves as distinct things.  The GM decides that for setting X, the elf class is a particular elf with fighter and magic/user combinations.  Then the GM decides that elves can wear armor and still cast magic user spells but can only advance so far as fighter and magic user.  You end up with the BEMCI/RC elf. 

QuoteIf it's what you like - you should add it. As I understand your preference, you want to simulate generating a random member of the population - so roll randomly for race, gender, and social background - and then have those modify attribute rolls (which are done in order with no re-arranging of rolls). That's how Harnmaster worked, and there were a few times when I generated characters that way in the old Harnmaster campaigns that I played in. (Actually, I generated three random characters this way and picked one of the three.)

What's your experience like doing this in actual campaigns? In my experience, it's vanishingly rare for players to roll for race and gender and social background, and most players strongly prefer to choose. Even in Harnmaster, it seemed like rarely-used optional rules to roll for those, and other games don't even have them as an option.

Not much unfortunately. Aside of early uni episode with very weird D&D and very large groups that quickly was devoured by entropy, I started regular RPGs with D&D and WH with rather build, chosen characters, so when I started running my D&D I followed this way. My fascination with randomness started bit later. I applied it to my planned Warhammer campaign - but it fizzled out because it started because some players could not make their characters for some reason, and due to me being to lenient with them everything just imploded - though players were fine with randomness then. Now I'm planning something new, and I randomized all my last character creations endeavours - for Call of Cthulhu, for Blades in the Dark, PBTA hack of Warhammer I was helping to test and for Fading Suns, and I'm very very happy with it. It goes much more interesting, and I'm even more into running whole campaign based on such premise.

Also: I don't have ambition of making perfect representation of society. Random profession roll in Warhammer definitely promotes unusual professions over peasants, and I'm fine with it.

QuoteExactly.  I can say that all of my 1e fighters started off as... fighters.  Then things happened.  Then they got magic items, made allies, got strongholds.  Then, suddenly (/s), they had become characters.  Their story grew out of play; it sure as hell wasn't written beforehand.  But, today, every special flower has to express themselves through their character.  How sad do you have to be when your imaginary character must be a reflection of who you are?

Now TBH at least from my experience those "special flowers" characters are not necessarily relfections of players, there are special-flowerers who do very diverse characters based on vastly different things - I'd put it more in "oversaturation with popculture" basket - you have dozens different fictional characters and you want emulate them. Lots of people go into RPG, with thought they shall be able to be like those characters and have stories like they.

QuoteIf an elf can be anything, just as well as any other race, then being an elf is meaningless.

It's like saying human culture is meaningless in D&D 1e because every human from every culture can be any human class. Just because in terms of life-paths elves being generally species simmilar to human (unless we talk about plant-elves from Glorantha) have well simmilar possibilities of acting (both elf and man can be archer, I mean any humanoid can be archers, even hobbits in Shire had bloody archers with small puny bows, and so on). Especially with non-magical classess there really is not much reason to restrict them.

QuoteThat said, if the only difference between races is a +/- to stats, then all of your PC wizards will be elves, or whatever the advantageous combo happens to be.  I think it's better design to give races a mix of bonuses and penalties that are more complex than that and also situational, so that different choices of near equal value are offered.

Depends. Let's say you roll old school but pick elf or orc beforehand. And then you pick profession based on what you're character is able to do.
You can roll half-orc and he will have like 7 STR and 15 INT, and then sure you go with wizard, why not.

QuoteA couple people commented on attribute shifts eliminating differences between races - it seems to me that the +2/-2 attribute shifts cause much of a *feel* in difference in play. It's a minor stat shift that isn't very noticeable from the outside. A half-orc fighter isn't significantly more distinctly half-orc because of the attribute difference. I think special racial features make far more of a difference in feel.

Yes, but it changes from societal perspective proportions of various classes in races.
Halflings will have less melee tanks, elves will have more wizards and alchemists, orcs will have less wizards.

QuoteI like racial adjustments to ability scores a lot more when there is random ability score generation.  It seems rather pointless in most point buy methods, especially if the point buy method is generous.  Using the 5E array (or a similar earlier mechanic) is admittedly a mixed bag.

I definitely agree. That's what I desire - players coming to game without pre-convieved notions and desires about characters to play and crafting chracters from rolls.

QuoteBut if a player decides to make a halfling wizard, that doesn't necessarily mean that I should necessarily make sure that his halfling wizard is less powerful than the other PCs.

If you roll randomly - halfling wizard can be better than characters with more optimised race+class combo.

QuoteIn the case of Wicked Woodpecker, I understand that he really is trying to simulate the population distribution. He prefers that players roll randomly for race, sex, and social class - and then roll in order for attributes based on these. So the player characters are a representative sample of average people in the world. Is that what you want to simulate too?

As I said - no not really. I do not desire simulationism here. It's more on... putting your fate in hands of dice, about being surprised, about not having much expectation about who you are, and special plans for special character that will emulate your favourite fiction or smth.

QuoteSomeone brought up the "I'll play an Elven Barbarian engaging rage-porn completely in opposition to normal Elven culture." Then they get offended when a GM tells them that character doesn't fit the setting.

I see no problem with characters engaging in activities completely opposite to their normal culture. Humans do it all the time.
Unless barbarianism is some supernatural shamanistic thing in specific verse and elves dunno cannot commune with spirits - then why not. There's nothing special in being angry durable fighter that should be really race specific. As long as elf has two hands to hold big axe or sword, and as long as elf is able to be very angry (have you ever heard about tragedy of King Feanor the Wise) then... it seems quite normal concept. Nothing game breaking.

QuoteThey want their snowflake PC despite your setting and the group dynamic.

Maybe. But just wanting to have unconventional combination of race/class does not need to destroy neither of those two.

QuoteI ran 5e and the players were offended when I presented challenges that led to failure. It's like they never considered failing a scene and I've seen how hyper& proficient 5e PCs can dominate the game. So. I adjusted to create real challenge. But, the veteran 5e players EXPECTED success.

Well that depends of what you've done. Games have rules. If you make challenge that was clearly GREATER in game than usual, then players were assholes. If it was usual challenge but you just raised DC levels +10 from normal description to punish proficient players then you are asshole, just like you'd randomly double monster hp while generally leaving it the same beast.

QuoteI feel "Race as Class" works. An Elf or Dwarf is something different from a Human. The Demihumans live so long. Their culture is different. Those things create characters completely different from Humanity.

Different classes for races... sure. Race as class makes most elves and dwarves the same - because well class, especially in times when classes were not customizable.
And that's just off compared even to basic Tolkienian lore we talk about - when various elves and dwarves could be quite different within their races - sure dwarven and elven spellcaster would be different beings - but they would also be different from dwarven soldier or elven archer.

And then heavy armoured Noldorin elf fighter and Numenorean human fighter would be mechanically quite simmilar beasts to keep comparisons in Tolkienian lore (and well we all know demihumans appeared in D&D a little bit despite Gary's because he had lot of Tolkien-loving players) - and then high Edain cultures were probably closer to elven cultures, than to lesser human ones.

QuoteI've always seen D&D as about exploration.  I may not want you to play a member of race X because then it is not something you can encounter and explore in play.

I don't know.   I't weird.  If I was running a noir style game in a run down dystopian modern setting I can't imagine anyone would ask to if their detective could be a vampire from another world seeking vengeance on the demonic entity that killed their father.  (And even less could I imagine that anyone would argue I should entertain that request).

Well sure if elves and dwarves are unknown forgotten beings in your world - don't play one.
I mean you may craft setting where orcs, goblins and kobolds are living alongside men as civilised more or less folk and they together colonised forgotten lands full of mythical elves, dwarves, halflings and dragonborn, whole kobold peasants growing dragonweed or something are utterly common.

TBH it sounds now way more sensible than otherwise - mysterious elves and greedy dwarves hidden in mysterious lands, while goblins and kobolds are building reneissance civilisation alongside mankind

QuoteConversely, I think the standard attribute modifiers are a *terrible* way to accomplish that. It's a minor shift that highlights more than anything how much the races are just humans. In practice, I frequently find D&D players forgetting - "Oh, is your fighter a human or some other race?"  The main thing that helps them distinguish is whether the character has infravision/darkvision or not, plus sometimes other unique abilities (like breath weapon).

If it was just attribute modifier I'd agree with that. If it is modifier alongside 10 other minor changes then it's bit different.
Besides demihumans do not have to be utterly alien and non-human. They are demiHUMANS after all - not space aliens. They are humans with something bit more, something bit less.

QuoteAmong the players who care more about character and setting than rules, you're more likely to have someone who will take an atypical combo - and when they do, the rules will highlight how little difference it makes.

Yes, but if you generate randomly elven and orcish village, you'll get maybe one wannabe adept among orcs, and three elven wizards, so on this level +2/-2 is enough to do differences in societies.

QuoteIn most settings Dwarves are either magically resistant or lack aptitude for magic use, therefore they either can't be Magic-users or are severely limited.

It's true. But also it's terrible anathema - that dwarves crafted as proxy for Semitic people - for Jews, Akkadians, Assyrians, Arabs - for all those lands from which concept of wizard really came, the dwarves about which song says "the dwarves of yore know mighty spells" - it's terrible they cannot be wizards. They should be like source of wizardry, with elves being puny sorcerers

QuoteFR is notorious for the amount of fuckery that went on with the setting every time D&D changed editions, mostly to accomodate these mechanical changes (new PC races) with retarded and contrived lore changes.

True. That's why too many playable species is also anathema. I mean what the fuck is even loxo. Give me max ten mortal races + planetouched templates that can be added to any mortal race - that's it. I'm done. Rest is resolved in culture aspects - I do not need every subrace of elves to have different modifiers dammit.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on January 29, 2021, 07:50:18 AM
I agree. Then the question becomes, how much of the setting is embedded into the mechanics, how much is presented elsewhere in the rules but not embedded in the mechanics, and how much is left for the GM to decide? 

I don't want the game to embed the setting into the mechanics because, frankly, I so rarely enjoy the choices made by the authors of the game.  To use their game to produce a setting I like, I must first reverse-engineer their setting choices out of the game and then put them back together again.  Of course, race as class isn't the only way to embed (too much?) setting into the game.  5E's problem in that regard is arguably that the class, race, and background combinations are ill-chosen in some respects.  Namely, some of them are done well, some not so well, but the overall problem is that they don't deliver options nearly as well as they could given the number, complexity, and page count devoted to them. 

I don't think you can avoid putting setting details into race design.  I recently tried to do this and found that races play a large part in defining a setting, and that to get an acceptable setting for the game I had to design the races correspondingly.

Quote from: ShieldWife on January 29, 2021, 03:40:01 AM
I don't say any of this with any kind of real world political agenda in mind regarding race or anything like that, I just think it might be more fun not to be penalized for certain character design choices. I could even apply that thought to other kinds of games, like what if I wanted a Malkavian with Potence but I have to pay more experience points to get it than a Brujah does. The longer I am in the hobby, the more I think that those atypical choices shouldn't be penalized and that in setting statistical trends shouldn't necessarily confine character design.

Thanks for bringing specifically back to the atypical choices. There are some people that want race/class combo to be a tactical choice - where the challenge is properly min-maxing character design. But most GMs here don't favor that - and I think character creation is a poor place for tactics in an RPG, since there's little opportunity to improve and make new choices.

There are people who think atypical choices are bad for the flavor of the game and don't fit the game-world. But the more I think about it, I think addressing this by making the character weak is passive aggressive game design. "I'm fine with you playing a half-orc wizard, really. You just get a weaker character." If someone doesn't want such characters, it's better to just disallow them.

There are players that enjoy the challenge of playing a mechanically weaker character.  I also see it quite a bit when experienced players are mixed in a group of beginners.  It is done deliberately so as to let the new players more fully experience the game without being overshadowed.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on January 29, 2021, 04:17:15 PM
There are players that enjoy the challenge of playing a mechanically weaker character.  I also see it quite a bit when experienced players are mixed in a group of beginners.  It is done deliberately so as to let the new players more fully experience the game without being overshadowed.

Sure, some players may do this -- but as far as I've seen, it's much more common for a beginner to take a suboptimal race/class combo than it is for an experienced player to do so.

If an experienced player wants to deliberately take a handicap, then it's easy to accomplish. Just deliberately take lower stats, or suboptimal stat placement, or similar. If I wanted to, I could play a suboptimal elven wizard just as easily as a suboptimal half-orc wizard.

Quote from: jhkim on January 29, 2021, 12:03:48 AM
If the *goal* is for elves and dwarves to *feel* very different from humans -- then I think race-as-class is probably the best way to accomplish that in a D&D-like system. Among skill-based systems, I found that (for example) Traveller's alien modules made alien PCs feel very different from humans.

Conversely, I think the standard attribute modifiers are a *terrible* way to accomplish that. It's a minor shift that highlights more than anything how much the races are just humans. In practice, I frequently find D&D players forgetting - "Oh, is your fighter a human or some other race?"  The main thing that helps them distinguish is whether the character has infravision/darkvision or not, plus sometimes other unique abilities (like breath weapon).

Quote from: TJS on January 28, 2021, 11:09:17 PM
Goliaths and Half-orcs have +2 to Strength and Halflings don't.  From a simulationist point of view this is neglible difference and fails utterly. But it at least represents the fictional intention that the former races are bigger and stronger than others.  This works precisely because it funnels PCs of those races towards classes that would benefit fictionally from being big and strong and, therefore, helps to give the impression that the bonus is more impactful than it is.

I don't even particularly like this approach, but it seems to me that this is something that gets ignored.  They do serve a design purpose and taking them away means that design purpose is no longer served.

If the design purpose is to make the races seem different, I think it is a negligible difference and fails utterly -- as you say. The extent to which it funnels depends strongly on the personality of the player. Among a group of players who are die-hard rules optimizers, you'll *never* have half-orc wizards or halfling fighters. But conversely, this is the same set of players who typically don't give a shit about whether the races feel distinct anyway. Among the players who care more about character and setting than rules, you're more likely to have someone who will take an atypical combo - and when they do, the rules will highlight how little difference it makes.

If you're not going to do race-as-class, then I think unique racial abilities are much more useful to make the races feel distinct than standard attribute modifiers.

Yes.  Well designed they would be (but I don't see why they wouldn't necessarily include some kind of Strength bonus for characters that are really big - There's something ultimately weird about a concept behind a race that is "bigger and stronger than everyone else" and not have them interface at all with the rules that measure Strength".)

In any case the point is not that the rules as they exist are good, it's that they are load bearing.  They should be replaced with something rather than nothing.

Quote from: Pat on January 29, 2021, 02:07:03 AM

Quote from: TJS on January 29, 2021, 12:51:34 AM

Quote from: Pat on January 28, 2021, 11:51:54 PM

Quote from: TJS on January 28, 2021, 11:38:12 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on January 28, 2021, 11:28:52 PM

Quote from: Theory of Games on January 28, 2021, 10:19:44 PM
I feel "Race as Class" works. An Elf or Dwarf is something different from a Human. The Demihumans live so long. Their culture is different. Those things create characters completely different from Humanity.

Apparently not completely different. They're still fighter/mages or warriors or rogues with a handful of special abilities as spice.

I use the illusionist spell list for elves to give them more of a 'faery magic' feel.

The bard list works pretty well.

What bard list?

As far as I'm aware there was never a bard list that is compatible rules wise with basic D&D.

There wasn't an illusionist spell list for Basic D&D, either. But it's not hard to adapt one from AD&D1, AD&D2, or D&D3. Pick correctly, and you'll end up with a Tom o' Bedlam / knight of ghosts and shadows feel.

Well yes.  I meant the AD&D one.  But there's also the illusionist spell lists from Labyrinth Lord or Old School Essentials which are compatible with B/X or BECMI.

Quote from: TJS on January 28, 2021, 11:09:17 PM
Goliaths and Half-orcs have +2 to Strength and Halflings don't.  From a simulationist point of view this is neglible difference and fails utterly. But it at least represents the fictional intention that the former races are bigger and stronger than others.  This works precisely because it funnels PCs of those races towards classes that would benefit fictionally from being big and strong and, therefore, helps to give the impression that the bonus is more impactful than it is.

I don't even particularly like this approach, but it seems to me that this is something that gets ignored.  They do serve a design purpose and taking them away means that design purpose is no longer served.

Quote from: jhkim on January 29, 2021, 12:03:48 AM
If the design purpose is to make the races seem different, I think it is a negligible difference and fails utterly -- as you say. The extent to which it funnels depends strongly on the personality of the player. Among a group of players who are die-hard rules optimizers, you'll *never* have half-orc wizards or halfling fighters. But conversely, this is the same set of players who typically don't give a shit about whether the races feel distinct anyway. Among the players who care more about character and setting than rules, you're more likely to have someone who will take an atypical combo - and when they do, the rules will highlight how little difference it makes.

Quote from: TJS on January 29, 2021, 05:12:19 PM
Yes.  Well designed they would be (but I don't see why they wouldn't necessarily include some kind of Strength bonus for characters that are really big - There's something ultimately weird about a concept behind a race that is "bigger and stronger than everyone else" and not have them interface at all with the rules that measure Strength".)

In any case the point is not that the rules as they exist are good, it's that they are load bearing.  They should be replaced with something rather than nothing.

I disagree. Rather than trying to enforce the flavor of the races by the rules, you can explicitly put that job in the hands of the GM and players. That may be a better choice, especially if the rules do a piss-poor job of it.

This is how point-based systems like GURPS and HERO generally work, for example. Players choose their attributes and abilities, and it's up to them (and the GM) to make sure that their stats match the character that they're supposed to describe.

Some groups might not like it, there's nothing inherently wrong if a given PC is an atypical member of their race / species. For example, hobbits are usually shy and sneaky - but maybe in one Middle Earth game, I decide to play Bullroarer Took, an exceptional hobbit who goes for mounted combat. Maybe the GM agrees that it's cool, even though it's unusual for hobbits.

Rather than mechanical modifiers (i.e. +2 Str), the races could just have description of how common a given range of stats are for that race. ("Goliaths are generally hugely strong, with average strength being 16, though particularly weak and/or crippled ones could have Strength as low as 8.") Then someone could decide to make a low-strength Goliath who learns magic to compensate for his disability relative to his kind. Perhaps that's a highly unusual goliath, but the character doesn't have to be penalized any more than any other player choosing an unusual background for their PC.

For that to work there needs to be a setting.

And it is the job of the rules to say that if you are able to play an 8ft tall mini-giant or a 3 foot halfling, to say how these concepts interface with the game rules.

Even Fate has the means to handle this.

Otherwise it's basically just the game saying "you can be whatever you want as long as it doesn't mean anything"

I don't care about atypical or atypical characters.  What I care about is that decisons the game presents as meaningful actually are.

QuoteBut the more I think about it, I think addressing this by making the character weak is passive aggressive game design. "I'm fine with you playing a half-orc wizard, really. You just get a weaker character." If someone doesn't want such characters, it's better to just disallow them.

I disagree. This statistics is meant to reflect on species as whole. And give us notion - considering each person is 3d6 rolled in order (even if heroes get leeway) what half-orc society will look like.
Also in random attribute role it reflects it's harder to be born as half-orc with talent to wizardry compared to elf with talent to wizardry. That's it. If you have point buy - you can overcome it anyway making 16 Int half-orc which is more than fine for a 1st level wizard. The point is not to make half-orc wizards impossible, it's to make them less likely both among society and players. And it does exactly this - either by random rolls, or by optimisers choosing elves.

QuoteI disagree. Rather than trying to enforce the flavor of the races by the rules, you can explicitly put that job in the hands of the GM and players. That may be a better choice, especially if the rules do a piss-poor job of it.

Rules are making good job with it - especially if you roll randomly as D&D was born to be played.

QuoteFor example, hobbits are usually shy and sneaky - but maybe in one Middle Earth game, I decide to play Bullroarer Took, an exceptional hobbit who goes for mounted combat. Maybe the GM agrees that it's cool, even though it's unusual for hobbits.

Sure. And Bullroarer Took will still has -2 to Strenght which tbh won't stop him from being very good PF cavalier.

QuotePerhaps that's a highly unusual goliath, but the character doesn't have to be penalized any more than any other player choosing an unusual background for their PC.

Only if you consider it a penalty, that smartest goliaths are not as smart as smartest elves.

QuoteI don't say any of this with any kind of real world political agenda in mind regarding race or anything like that, I just think it might be more fun not to be penalized for certain character design choices. I could even apply that thought to other kinds of games, like what if I wanted a Malkavian with Potence but I have to pay more experience points to get it than a Brujah does. The longer I am in the hobby, the more I think that those atypical choices shouldn't be penalized and that in setting statistical trends shouldn't necessarily confine character design.

Oh, dear, while in D&D I can agree it's penalty of some form as it goes down from basic level to basic level -2, how on Earth is this a penalty.
It's not. Not at all. Similarily with skills and talents in Warhammer.
It's double-price in XP for skill/talent or for dots in Vampire that's default. That is common price in world.
You just get three Disciplines for each clan for which you have bonus to learn them and they are cheaper. Just like in Warhammer - if you're shopkeeper want to advance knife-throwing you pay normal price, if he wants to advance accounting he pays half - because that's easier for him as it's his full-time job.

Allowing everyone to have everything takes out any meaning from choosing races/backgrounds/classes/clans/sects or whatever.
And this choice have to matter.

QuoteI kinda feel like that makes them less cool,

Yes. Everyone is cool in something and less cool in something else. Everything being fun and cool is just absolutely absolutely boring from mechanic and setting perspective.

I'm certain someone already hit this, but, SJWs are all about cultural diversity behaving true meaning in a sociol-economic sense. They translate it to being "Orcs, as black people, are just as, if not more, capable than normal white humans because OBVIOUSLY you can't play a black human in D&D.

So, according to the mouth-breathing SJW populace, the way to improve racial balance is to remove racial mods that were designed to balance how Orcs are stronger and Kobolds were sneakier.

Pure. 100%. Bullshit. They want their cake and eat it too.

I'll wait for the Adventure League posts on Reddit where the Kobold Paladin with 17 Strength pisses off the group by dominating combat. Or how the Orc Wizard dominates everything with high Strength and Spellcasting.