Quote from: Ratman_tf on July 12, 2024, 11:23:19 PMMy view has always been, if we're playing make believe, why not let people, within reason, play an elf or dwarf or even the more quirky races that have become popular. I guess the line people draw is what's reasonable.

I've got room in my heart for both, though the kitchen sink approach makes more sense to me for soft sci fi than it does for fantasy. Some day I'll get to run the Heavy Metal 2000 wacky space fantasy point-crawl I've always dreamed of, and then I'll allow people to play whatever outlandish creature they can think of.

About Darkvision, people will always play fast and loose with the rules. Darkvision sounds restriction-free, hence why it is seen as objectively better. But in reality it is specific:

[/i]

Dim light has a tight radius, everything beyond that requires a Dim Light active Perception roll, killing an action, to make anything out in vague broad strokes. Treating it like illusions requiring active Investigation rolls helps complicate the process.. I knew when GMs actually played that up in actual play players quickly found the usefulness of providing light for everyone. People stopped asking "Oh, I read that in the dark, darkvision," "I grab the correct (e.g. 'red') key and run, darkvision" and started to realize its limits. Bee sure to add the -5 penalty to Passive Perception, and unless the PC actively gets involved that's all you feed back.

But that requires playing the rules and reminding the players how things really work. Most of the time people are swayed by titles and subject lines. This is an old problem we've known for generations. Being isolated from your allies is always a risk, so being without light is useful for *some* reconnaissance but can also put you in grave danger. And torches are soooo cheap, a copper a piece, so there's little reason to play uncooperatively keeping your allies in the dark.

People skim and scan, which is close to "skip and scam," because what you allow is what will continue.

Quote from: DUCATISLO on July 12, 2024, 08:17:19 AMmuh humans have to be everywhere reee

like why not have them be the only race if you want the setting to be human centric then? GOD forbid humans are the under dog

furry pfp detected, opinion rejected

Quote from: Opaopajr on July 13, 2024, 12:41:43 AMAbout Darkvision, people will always play fast and loose with the rules. Darkvision sounds restriction-free, hence why it is seen as objectively better. But in reality it is specific:

Darkvision. You can see in dim light within 120 feet of yourself as if it were bright light and in darkness as if it were dim light. You discern colors in that darkness only as shades of gray.

[/i]

Dim light has a tight radius, everything beyond that requires a Dim Light active Perception roll, killing an action, to make anything out in vague broad strokes. Treating it like illusions requiring active Investigation rolls helps complicate the process.. I knew when GMs actually played that up in actual play players quickly found the usefulness of providing light for everyone. People stopped asking "Oh, I read that in the dark, darkvision," "I grab the correct (e.g. 'red') key and run, darkvision" and started to realize its limits. Bee sure to add the -5 penalty to Passive Perception, and unless the PC actively gets involved that's all you feed back.

But that requires playing the rules and reminding the players how things really work. Most of the time people are swayed by titles and subject lines. This is an old problem we've known for generations. Being isolated from your allies is always a risk, so being without light is useful for *some* reconnaissance but can also put you in grave danger. And torches are soooo cheap, a copper a piece, so there's little reason to play uncooperatively keeping your allies in the dark.

People skim and scan, which is close to "skip and scam," because what you allow is what will continue.

Darkvision is only one issue with D&D vision and light problems. Torches and lanterns and other forms of fire based light are only a factor for a couple of levels anyway. Once a caster hits 3rd level there is Continual Light, and with a little downtime the whole party is outfitted with heatless flashlights and lots of extra lights stored in a blag back that can be thrown around lighting up wherever they want.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on July 13, 2024, 04:17:03 AMfurry pfp detected, opinion rejected

coming from a weeb but in 3D lol

Quote from: Opaopajr on July 13, 2024, 12:41:43 AMAbout Darkvision, people will always play fast and loose with the rules. Darkvision sounds restriction-free, hence why it is seen as objectively better. But in reality it is specific:

Darkvision. You can see in dim light within 120 feet of yourself as if it were bright light and in darkness as if it were dim light. You discern colors in that darkness only as shades of gray.

Dim light has a tight radius, everything beyond that requires a Dim Light active Perception roll, killing an action, to make anything out in vague broad strokes. Treating it like illusions requiring active Investigation rolls helps complicate the process.. I knew when GMs actually played that up in actual play players quickly found the usefulness of providing light for everyone. People stopped asking "Oh, I read that in the dark, darkvision," "I grab the correct (e.g. 'red') key and run, darkvision" and started to realize its limits. Bee sure to add the -5 penalty to Passive Perception, and unless the PC actively gets involved that's all you feed back.

But that requires playing the rules and reminding the players how things really work. Most of the time people are swayed by titles and subject lines. This is an old problem we've known for generations. Being isolated from your allies is always a risk, so being without light is useful for *some* reconnaissance but can also put you in grave danger. And torches are soooo cheap, a copper a piece, so there's little reason to play uncooperatively keeping your allies in the dark.

People skim and scan, which is close to "skip and scam," because what you allow is what will continue.

I don't disagree with any of this, but I don't think it fully addresses the issue. I had two issues with Darkvision:

The issue for the purpose of this topic is that it's useful to the point where it can be perceived as a "no brainer" when choosing a character race. I don't think enforcing restrictions on color vision or fine detail is really enough to counteract that. IME the reason everyone wants darkvision is that it's a backstop. You can carry a light source, but you know you're going to be ok without one. It moves light from something you always need to deal with to something you use for particular problems. I don't run/play 5e, so I don't know the action economy/rules details, but a broad Perception penalty sounds like a good a good idea. More generally though, I think the only restriction that would make a real difference when it comes to player race choice would be if darkvision imposed combat penalties.

My other issue with it is that it's a pain for the DM to account for and adjudicate. Basically I find it annoying to have to tell half my players they see one thing and the other half something else, not to mention that the non-darkvision players are still hearing the description I give to my darkvision players (or seeing the revealed map on Roll20). If anything the finer details of how darkvision works compound that rather than simplify it.

If you're gonna run a freakshow setting like Gamma Terra or Fairyland or a fantasy miniatures game, then you really need to set out the logic of your setting beforehand to account for that.

With cosmopolitan settings like Star Wars and Star Trek, the approach is to use diplomacy first. If the aliens attack, then you can put them on the blacklist.

These settings run on very different logic from D&D's original "go through the dungeon cell by cell, kill everyone who looks ugly/evil, and steal everything that isn't nailed down."

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 12, 2024, 02:20:32 PMThe problem I can predict with the freakshow approach is that it messes with the logic of how adventurers determine "is it a monster or not?" If the PCs look like monsters, then how do they keep track of what monsters are okay to kill? Do they wait to be attacked? Do monsters have red circles around them to indicate they're hostile?

So, "Looks Different = OK to Kill It" is a desireable state of play?

Quote from: Brad on July 12, 2024, 04:07:22 PM

Quote from: DUCATISLO on July 12, 2024, 03:33:45 PM

Quote from: Socratic-DM on July 12, 2024, 02:53:08 PMFurry Detected

old fart detected

Shut up, faggot. Go back to Reddit.

kill yourself and do us both a favour

Quote from: HappyDaze on July 13, 2024, 10:52:05 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 12, 2024, 02:20:32 PMThe problem I can predict with the freakshow approach is that it messes with the logic of how adventurers determine "is it a monster or not?" If the PCs look like monsters, then how do they keep track of what monsters are okay to kill? Do they wait to be attacked? Do monsters have red circles around them to indicate they're hostile?

So, "Looks Different = OK to Kill It" is a desireable state of play?

I'd say it was definitely the way us Junior-and-Senior-High kids played it in the late 70s/early 80s.  All Orcs & Goblins evil, kill 'em all.

Was that desirable?  Don't know.  It was fun.  But as I age, I tend to think having all members of a sapient race as "evil" or "good" simplistic.  It can be fun, sure ("not that there's anything wrong with that"), but depending on how believable (in the context of a game with magic, dragons, and other supernatural creatures) you want the game to be, it may not be the best.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 13, 2024, 10:27:58 AMIf you're gonna run a freakshow setting like Gamma Terra or Fairyland or a fantasy miniatures game, then you really need to set out the logic of your setting beforehand to account for that.

With cosmopolitan settings like Star Wars and Star Trek, the approach is to use diplomacy first. If the aliens attack, then you can put them on the blacklist.

These settings run on very different logic from D&D's original "go through the dungeon cell by cell, kill everyone who looks ugly/evil, and steal everything that isn't nailed down."

Precisely.  It all depends on the flavor of the gaming world you want to have.

Quote from: ForgottenF on July 13, 2024, 09:51:33 AM

Quote from: Opaopajr on July 13, 2024, 12:41:43 AMAbout Darkvision, people will always play fast and loose with the rules. Darkvision sounds restriction-free, hence why it is seen as objectively better. But in reality it is specific:

Darkvision. You can see in dim light within 120 feet of yourself as if it were bright light and in darkness as if it were dim light. You discern colors in that darkness only as shades of gray.

Dim light has a tight radius, everything beyond that requires a Dim Light active Perception roll, killing an action, to make anything out in vague broad strokes. Treating it like illusions requiring active Investigation rolls helps complicate the process.. I knew when GMs actually played that up in actual play players quickly found the usefulness of providing light for everyone. People stopped asking "Oh, I read that in the dark, darkvision," "I grab the correct (e.g. 'red') key and run, darkvision" and started to realize its limits. Bee sure to add the -5 penalty to Passive Perception, and unless the PC actively gets involved that's all you feed back.

But that requires playing the rules and reminding the players how things really work. Most of the time people are swayed by titles and subject lines. This is an old problem we've known for generations. Being isolated from your allies is always a risk, so being without light is useful for *some* reconnaissance but can also put you in grave danger. And torches are soooo cheap, a copper a piece, so there's little reason to play uncooperatively keeping your allies in the dark.

People skim and scan, which is close to "skip and scam," because what you allow is what will continue.

I don't disagree with any of this, but I don't think it fully addresses the issue. I had two issues with Darkvision:

The issue for the purpose of this topic is that it's useful to the point where it can be perceived as a "no brainer" when choosing a character race. I don't think enforcing restrictions on color vision or fine detail is really enough to counteract that. IME the reason everyone wants darkvision is that it's a backstop. You can carry a light source, but you know you're going to be ok without one. It moves light from something you always need to deal with to something you use for particular problems. I don't run/play 5e, so I don't know the action economy/rules details, but a broad Perception penalty sounds like a good a good idea. More generally though, I think the only restriction that would make a real difference when it comes to player race choice would be if darkvision imposed combat penalties.

My other issue with it is that it's a pain for the DM to account for and adjudicate. Basically I find it annoying to have to tell half my players they see one thing and the other half something else, not to mention that the non-darkvision players are still hearing the description I give to my darkvision players (or seeing the revealed map on Roll20). If anything the finer details of how darkvision works compound that rather than simplify it.

I'd say this is an inherent problem in trying "balance" things to discourage min-maxing.  And if someone just likes the aesthetic of a race ("elves are pretty" or "dwarves are based"), then those perks are probably not going to make a difference.

Although it's not perfect, point-buy systems (like, say, GURPS--don't take this as an endorsement of SJ Games) at least try to theoretically "balance" those perks.  "Get infravision?  Ok, then you need to take a disadvantage to offset it."  And 1st Ed AD&D tried to "balance" it with things like limiting advancement.

With 5e and especially after Tasha's, it's 100% aesthetic, where all races can choose their bonuses.  There are some definite downsides of that, but I do see it as an attempt to get to a "everyone starts out the same" kind of game, at least in approximate terms.  But if that's not what your looking for in a game, skip it (or skip it even if it is what you like if you don't want to support WOTC's leadership...and I'd agree with that sentiment).

Quote from: Osman Gazi on July 13, 2024, 11:05:54 AM

Quote from: HappyDaze on July 13, 2024, 10:52:05 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on July 12, 2024, 02:20:32 PMThe problem I can predict with the freakshow approach is that it messes with the logic of how adventurers determine "is it a monster or not?" If the PCs look like monsters, then how do they keep track of what monsters are okay to kill? Do they wait to be attacked? Do monsters have red circles around them to indicate they're hostile?

So, "Looks Different = OK to Kill It" is a desireable state of play?

I'd say it was definitely the way us Junior-and-Senior-High kids played it in the late 70s/early 80s.  All Orcs & Goblins evil, kill 'em all.

Was that desirable?  Don't know.  It was fun.  But as I age, I tend to think having all members of a sapient race as "evil" or "good" simplistic.  It can be fun, sure ("not that there's anything wrong with that"), but depending on how believable (in the context of a game with magic, dragons, and other supernatural creatures) you want the game to be, it may not be the best.

For my group, FASA broke that habit with Shadowrun and Earthdawn in late 80s/early 90s. Those games seemed far more interesting to us than D&D and, while we've played D&D since, we never played it the same way again.

Quote from: Omega on July 12, 2024, 07:16:12 PMThe first D&D novel Quag Keep had amongst the PCs a Lizardman...

Off topic, but I always wondered if there was a connection between Andre Alice Norton's Lizardman and Phoebus (Player: Jeff R. Leason) the Lizardman in the Rogues Gallery. I know Norton played in a game or two with Gary before writing the book.

Quote from: Ruprecht on July 13, 2024, 02:36:56 PM

Quote from: Omega on July 12, 2024, 07:16:12 PMThe first D&D novel Quag Keep had amongst the PCs a Lizardman...

Off topic, but I always wondered if there was a connection between Andre Alice Norton's Lizardman and Phoebus (Player: Jeff R. Leason) the Lizardman in the Rogues Gallery. I know Norton played in a game or two with Gary before writing the book.

IIRC, Phoebus was a human fighter that was killed and reincarnated as a lizard man which is not quite the same as creating a character as a lizard man. They are very different things. Phoebus was very much a human trapped in a lizard man's body. As such, he would behave very differently than an actual lizard man.