Quote from: Ghostmaker on February 08, 2021, 08:30:01 AM
I hope Maliszewski's gotten over his fart-sniffing addiction, because that rant about Dragonlance was about as convincing as Paris Hilton insisting 'I'm a real gamer too!'.

He complains about how 'story' became more important and how 'modules' were deemphasized. Well, excuse me, I'm so terribly sorry I expressed interest in having a game with more plot depth than a parking lot puddle.

If he had complained about the actual plot arcs in DL (especially War of the Lance), then sure, I can admit the worldbuilding and plotline could use some tightening up. But crying about 'how dare people want more than just dice rolls and stats' is just plain stupid.

And my favorite character was Flint. Fight me.

Oh, get your panties out of your buttcrack. Even for a self-admitted hyperbolic rant, Mazilewski isn't shitting on plot in RPG. He's specifically criticizing Dragonlance's scripted plot.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 08, 2021, 01:01:37 PM
Totally incorrect.  Anecdotal evidence is perfectly fine to refute a categorical statement.  And that is how it was used above.  People keep asserting that D&D was frequently played with large numbers of exotic races, even from the beginning.  Many of us, some who had a pretty large circle of gaming friends and/or a frequent presence at conventions, never observed this.  So the categorical is called into question by the observations of those people.

I'd argue that you're not dealing with a categorical statement in this case because "frequently" isn't something you can apply as a category. By its very definition it isn't claiming ubiquity (a requirement for a categorical statement to be refutable by anecdote). Anecdotal evidence can neither prove nor disprove the claim of "frequently" only "all" or "none." Basically, you've no proof the circles you frequented were large enough to be a valid statistical sample vs. a self-selected group based on common interests.

Regardless, the question I answered was "when does Anecdotal becomes Statistical evidence?" to which the answer remains 'never' because statistics require representative samples and anecdotes are, but definition, self-reported (i.e. not representative; indeed almost invariably the most extreme edges of any given sample).

You may as well use the volume of Twitter comments about a subject as evidence (leading contributor to the "Get Woke, Go Broke" phenomena precisely because Twitter is the antithesis of a representative sample).

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 08, 2021, 01:01:37 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 08, 2021, 12:14:50 PM

Quote from: Zalman on February 08, 2021, 10:09:57 AM
(At what point does mounting "anecdotal" evidence become statistical?)

When you conduct an actual study that doesn't involve a self-reporting sample population. Particularly a self-reporting sample population on a board that skews heavily OSR.

As the famous political quote goes "I can't believe Nixon won. I don't know anyone who voted for him." - Pauline Kael, New Yorker film critic

If you asked my circles you would find almost no one who played in the manner you described... so my anecdotal compilation of dozens of players would be that playing just humans, elves, dwarves and halflings is a bizarre anomaly.

Half a dozen posters on an OSR-fan board doesn't prove anything other than half-a-dozen OSR fans who post here prefer the default OSR options.

Totally incorrect.  Anecdotal evidence is perfectly fine to refute a categorical statement.  And that is how it was used above.  People keep asserting that D&D was frequently played with large numbers of exotic races, even from the beginning.  Many of us, some who had a pretty large circle of gaming friends and/or a frequent presence at conventions, never observed this.  So the categorical is called into question by the observations of those people.

A single counter example can refute a proof or law, but it's utterly useless to disprove a tendency.

More importantly, I think you're talking past each other. The group who are saying exotic races are fine seem to be either new school or very old (0e) old school. Whereas the group who are saying that the most exotic race anyone played was an elf seem to be the post-OD&D crowd. It's worth remembering there was a major shift in tone in between OD&D and AD&D. OD&D told DMs that balrog PCs were fine, while the AD&D DMG has that notorious rant against playing monsters. It shouldn't surprise anyone that there was a strong shift in how people played.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 08, 2021, 01:38:42 AM
Well, I don't agree that an elf with wings is ridiculous or playing a lizard man is so far off the beam for a game about wizards and dragons. My concern nowadays is, does the character fit the world? Does it break the tone of the setting? That kind of stuff.

Actually I agree with that. Lizard Men and Cat People seem rather tame by today's offerings, but at the risk of sounding like Old Man Yelling at Clouds, this was not the case back in the 80's. My point was not that you should forbid wacky races, rather that parties back in the 80's did not consist of balrogs and vampires.

As for characters with wings, flight is a BIG advantage, and if you're going to go that route you'd be better off using a system like Gurps or Hero where you can cost out all of your superpowers. Gives the vanilla humans a break as well.

I loved how Tieflings and Dragonborn were handled in 4E, because it meant something. That didn't carry over to 5E. As you mention, if the GM presents a coherent and interesting campaign world, that's great. But the trend I see in 5E is anything but. The party ends up looking like a circus freak show with zero ramifications in the gameworld. I've played Tieflings that stroll into a merchant's shop in a small country village and no one bats an eye. It's like the guy who will die in the same village he was born in is not even phased that 6 freaky monster PCs that he's never seen before have just entered his shop. And when guys neighbor asks the same 6 freakshows to save the village from a band of raiding hobgoblins, it really makes you wonder WTF is happening in that world. Is that all just anecdotal? Perhaps a string of bad GMs? Maybe.

On a related note, SJWs say that the games in the past were filled with racists who didn't allow women to play. No, they weren't, I was there. Anecdotal? Maybe. Was there a game somewhere where they said "No girls allowed?" or made racist jokes? No doubt, people are imperfect and some are just stupid. Was it representative of the hobby as a whole? No.

The thing about "that's just anecdotal evidence" is it's a conversation ender. No one here has anything but anecdotes. I guess the question is: Are are enough anecdotes to make it become a valid experience?

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 08, 2021, 01:02:53 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on February 08, 2021, 08:30:01 AM
I hope Maliszewski's gotten over his fart-sniffing addiction, because that rant about Dragonlance was about as convincing as Paris Hilton insisting 'I'm a real gamer too!'.

He complains about how 'story' became more important and how 'modules' were deemphasized. Well, excuse me, I'm so terribly sorry I expressed interest in having a game with more plot depth than a parking lot puddle.

If he had complained about the actual plot arcs in DL (especially War of the Lance), then sure, I can admit the worldbuilding and plotline could use some tightening up. But crying about 'how dare people want more than just dice rolls and stats' is just plain stupid.

And my favorite character was Flint. Fight me.

Oh, get your panties out of your buttcrack. Even for a self-admitted hyperbolic rant, Mazilewski isn't shitting on plot in RPG. He's specifically criticizing Dragonlance's scripted plot.

Plots have scripts? Wow, I am shocked, shocked. Oh wait, not that shocked.

Let's not mince words here, Dragonlance barely cracks the top fifty of 'worst things in RPGs' these days.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on February 08, 2021, 02:14:04 PM
Let's not mince words here, Dragonlance barely cracks the top fifty of 'worst things in RPGs' these days.

One word: Kender.

Quote from: Aglondir on February 08, 2021, 02:07:54 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 08, 2021, 01:38:42 AM
Well, I don't agree that an elf with wings is ridiculous or playing a lizard man is so far off the beam for a game about wizards and dragons. My concern nowadays is, does the character fit the world? Does it break the tone of the setting? That kind of stuff.

Actually I agree with that. Lizard Men and Cat People seem rather tame by today's offerings, but at the risk of sounding like Old Man Yelling at Clouds, this was not the case back in the 80's. My point was not that you should forbid wacky races, rather that parties back in the 80's did not consist of balrogs and vampires.

As for characters with wings, flight is a BIG advantage, and if you're going to go that route you'd be better off using a system like Gurps or Hero where you can cost out all of your superpowers. Gives the vanilla humans a break as well.

I loved how Tieflings and Dragonborn were handled in 4E, because it meant something. That didn't carry over to 5E. As you mention, if the GM presents a coherent and interesting campaign world, that's great. But the trend I see in 5E is anything but. The party ends up looking like a circus freak show with zero ramifications in the gameworld. I've played Tieflings that stroll into a merchant's shop in a small country village and no one bats an eye. It's like the guy who will die in the same village he was born in is not even phased that 6 freaky monster PCs that he's never seen before have just entered his shop. And when guys neighbor asks the same 6 freakshows to save the village from a band of raiding hobgoblins, it really makes you wonder WTF is happening in that world. Is that all just anecdotal? Perhaps a string of bad GMs? Maybe.

On a related note, SJWs say that the games in the past were filled with racists who didn't allow women to play. No, they weren't, I was there. Anecdotal? Maybe. Was there a game somewhere where they said "No girls allowed?" or made racist jokes? No doubt, people are imperfect and some are just stupid. Was it representative of the hobby as a whole? No.

The thing about "that's just anecdotal evidence" is it's a conversation ender. No one here has anything but anecdotes. I guess the question is: Are are enough anecdotes to make it become a valid experience?

This is strangely where a lot of D&D-influenced anime do better by often including some degree of overt racism in their world building: Humans are often racist against other fantasy races that aren't sufficiently human-looking, using their appearance as an excuse to enslave them or use them as target practice. (I'm excluding examples where the non-human races are in fact born evil, because that's not racism.)

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 08, 2021, 01:53:06 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 08, 2021, 01:01:37 PM
Totally incorrect.  Anecdotal evidence is perfectly fine to refute a categorical statement.  And that is how it was used above.  People keep asserting that D&D was frequently played with large numbers of exotic races, even from the beginning.  Many of us, some who had a pretty large circle of gaming friends and/or a frequent presence at conventions, never observed this.  So the categorical is called into question by the observations of those people.

I'd argue that you're not dealing with a categorical statement in this case because "frequently" isn't something you can apply as a category. By its very definition it isn't claiming ubiquity (a requirement for a categorical statement to be refutable by anecdote). Anecdotal evidence can neither prove nor disprove the claim of "frequently" only "all" or "none." Basically, you've no proof the circles you frequented were large enough to be a valid statistical sample vs. a self-selected group based on common interests.

Regardless, the question I answered was "when does Anecdotal becomes Statistical evidence?" to which the answer remains 'never' because statistics require representative samples and anecdotes are, but definition, self-reported (i.e. not representative; indeed almost invariably the most extreme edges of any given sample).

You may as well use the volume of Twitter comments about a subject as evidence (leading contributor to the "Get Woke, Go Broke" phenomena precisely because Twitter is the antithesis of a representative sample).

As the frequency goes up, the likelihood of not experiencing the phenomenon goes down.  Since the original argument was that D&D has incorporated weird characters races as a default from the beginning based on anecdotes, my burden of proof based on anecdote is much smaller.  But whatever.  I find most people tend to find logic to support their argument, rather than an argument built on logic.

I agree with the original post that stated weird character races were almost never played.  Now refute that with non-anecdotal evidence.  See?

QuoteI loved how Tieflings and Dragonborn were handled in 4E, because it meant something. That didn't carry over to 5E. As you mention, if the GM presents a coherent and interesting campaign world, that's great. But the trend I see in 5E is anything but

Dunno about dragonborns, but TBH I prefer older tieflings who were less race and more template on person. (Best if each planetouched is random table of visual quirks )
Like in this wacky fantasy mythical world as most D&D ones - it seems quite normal that there will be offspring of divine beings like in most mythologies, even more prevalent maybe, as most of D&D are more FANTASY saturated than real myths.

So making them just another fantasy race was bit meh for me.

Quote from: Pat on February 08, 2021, 01:55:20 PM
More importantly, I think you're talking past each other. The group who are saying exotic races are fine seem to be either new school or very old (0e) old school. Whereas the group who are saying that the most exotic race anyone played was an elf seem to be the post-OD&D crowd. It's worth remembering there was a major shift in tone in between OD&D and AD&D. OD&D told DMs that balrog PCs were fine, while the AD&D DMG has that notorious rant against playing monsters. It shouldn't surprise anyone that there was a strong shift in how people played.

Good point, especially the Gary paraphrase.  The problem isn't whether someone wants to play a game with gonzo races or not.  I could care less.  It's when people argue that gonzo PC races are the norm or the default for D&D.  That hasn't always been true, and therefore doesn't serve as an argument for or against such a policy...

Quote from: Ghostmaker on February 08, 2021, 02:14:04 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 08, 2021, 01:02:53 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on February 08, 2021, 08:30:01 AM
I hope Maliszewski's gotten over his fart-sniffing addiction, because that rant about Dragonlance was about as convincing as Paris Hilton insisting 'I'm a real gamer too!'.

He complains about how 'story' became more important and how 'modules' were deemphasized. Well, excuse me, I'm so terribly sorry I expressed interest in having a game with more plot depth than a parking lot puddle.

If he had complained about the actual plot arcs in DL (especially War of the Lance), then sure, I can admit the worldbuilding and plotline could use some tightening up. But crying about 'how dare people want more than just dice rolls and stats' is just plain stupid.

And my favorite character was Flint. Fight me.

Oh, get your panties out of your buttcrack. Even for a self-admitted hyperbolic rant, Mazilewski isn't shitting on plot in RPG. He's specifically criticizing Dragonlance's scripted plot.

Plots have scripts? Wow, I am shocked, shocked. Oh wait, not that shocked.

Let's not mince words here, Dragonlance barely cracks the top fifty of 'worst things in RPGs' these days.

It's one thing to plot out an adventure path. It's another to insist that specific plot points happen regardless of what the players do.
I usually have an idea of where a campaign is heading, but that idea is very open to player input, and I dont' expect any specific thing to happen to any specific character or NPC in order to beat the players over the head with some script.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 08, 2021, 02:37:14 PM

Quote from: Pat on February 08, 2021, 01:55:20 PM
More importantly, I think you're talking past each other. The group who are saying exotic races are fine seem to be either new school or very old (0e) old school. Whereas the group who are saying that the most exotic race anyone played was an elf seem to be the post-OD&D crowd. It's worth remembering there was a major shift in tone in between OD&D and AD&D. OD&D told DMs that balrog PCs were fine, while the AD&D DMG has that notorious rant against playing monsters. It shouldn't surprise anyone that there was a strong shift in how people played.

Good point, especially the Gary paraphrase.  The problem isn't whether someone wants to play a game with gonzo races or not.  I could care less.  It's when people argue that gonzo PC races are the norm or the default for D&D.  That hasn't always been true, and therefore doesn't serve as an argument for or against such a policy...

Now we get to the root of the matter. How default is a game that includes such widely different campaign settings as Dark Sun or Spelljammer or Eberron or Ravenloft or Planescape?
I think core D&D expects to be a rather generic system, and so it includes most of the stuff in a disjointed grab-bag of races and classes.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 08, 2021, 03:56:51 PM
Now we get to the root of the matter. How default is a game that includes such widely different campaign settings as Dark Sun or Spelljammer or Eberron or Ravenloft or Planescape?
I think core D&D expects to be a rather generic system, and so it includes most of the stuff in a disjointed grab-bag of races and classes.

Agreed, and let me tell it actually took a bit of work in my own game's setting to get all the kitchen sink races to all fit in the same world in a way that made sense.

The ultimate trick I landed on was the decision to set my game at a specific point in a fictional timeline and that many of the species present at that time had  not always been there in the past nor would they all endure in perpetuity into the future. Basically, its akin to the point in pre-History where humans and Neandertals co-existed. That lasted for thousands of years, but humans ultimately won out (minus the few percent of Neandertal DNA that survives in many modern humans).

The other thing that helped it all fit was a decision that there was only one native and naturally evolved sapient species in the world; humans. Everything else was either alien to the world, created by humans or created from humans.

Humans were first. Then the fallen primal spirits entered world (what man now calls demons) and conquered it. They warped some humans into Dwarves using their primal power to make them better able to withstand the hellish mines they worked them in for the statues and cities built in their honor. In need of loyal overseers the demons bred with mortal women to produce the Malfeans.

Eventually the demons were cast out when the good primal spirits aligned with men and dwarves, but there was a faction of primal spirits who had been too cowardly to pick a side in the war and so they were banished to the mortal world where they would reincarnate time and again until they finally earned their redemption. These became the Eldritch (sprites, dryads, sylphs, giants, dragons and similar reclusive beings connected to nature).

Not relevant now, but relevant later, the war between the primal spirits and demons shattered the world's spiritual aspect into countless shards, each reflecting the primal energies of The Source across the dome of the Great Barrier created to trap the demons in the Outer Darkness. The shattered surface split these energies into aspects such as justice, knowledge, courage, dreams, death, etc. These motes of light became the stars and from the spiritual energies were born the Astral Gods, who took portions of this energy and created servants for themselves.

Men had been corrupted by their time in service to the demons and so used magic to created their own slaves to cater to their whims just as they had once been used, creating the many species of Beastmen. The Beastmen ultimately rebelled and destroyed the human empire but were too fractious to remain unified and so the world slipped into barbarism.

In time mankind rose again, but still hadn't learned its lesson. This time they created servants from metal and stone, the Golems. But they required constant resetting to keep them from developing personalities of their own and that was lost with the coming of The Cataclysm (while many of the golems themselves and even rare Forge Golems able to build more of their number survived).

200 years ago a global storm of fire and darkness swept across the world, killing 99% of the population (another 90% of the initial survivors would perish in the following year of starvation, disease, violence and suicide... a planetary population of nearly 8 billion was reduced to just 9 million practically overnight). Of the survivors, nearly a third had been warped into Mutants who bred true (more common varieties are trolls, troglodytes, orcs and ogres).

The Cataclysm wasn't just limited to the mortal world either, it ripped open the barriers between worlds and stranded thousands of servitor spirits from the astral realm of dreams (Elves and Gnomes) and astral psychopomps (Fetches) in the mortal world when the barriers slammed shut again.

200 years later (when the game is set), pockets of civilization have just started to reach the point where they can look beyond their borders and immediate survival. Most of the world is unpopulated wilderness (global populations have rebounded to about 60 million) and small city-states populated by various species are starting to come into contact (and into conflict).

It is highly unlikely that more than a few of these species will survive in the long term (which is still a few thousand years, though many will go into decline as populations continue to grow sooner than that), but that's for the future. What matters for my setting is that all of those many varieties (enough that every playable 3e-4E option and then some is available should a player desire it) plausibly exist in the present.

The wide array also works well for GM's creating their own world since all they have to do is cut options rather than needing to create new ones.

It's obviously going to vary by campaign setting, but I had an idea for retrofitting more monstrous PC races into more humanocentric settings: Change their outward appearance to be less monstrous, enough that they can pass for human or a performer in makeup.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 08, 2021, 03:56:51 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 08, 2021, 02:37:14 PM

Quote from: Pat on February 08, 2021, 01:55:20 PM
More importantly, I think you're talking past each other. The group who are saying exotic races are fine seem to be either new school or very old (0e) old school. Whereas the group who are saying that the most exotic race anyone played was an elf seem to be the post-OD&D crowd. It's worth remembering there was a major shift in tone in between OD&D and AD&D. OD&D told DMs that balrog PCs were fine, while the AD&D DMG has that notorious rant against playing monsters. It shouldn't surprise anyone that there was a strong shift in how people played.

Good point, especially the Gary paraphrase.  The problem isn't whether someone wants to play a game with gonzo races or not.  I could care less.  It's when people argue that gonzo PC races are the norm or the default for D&D.  That hasn't always been true, and therefore doesn't serve as an argument for or against such a policy...

Now we get to the root of the matter. How default is a game that includes such widely different campaign settings as Dark Sun or Spelljammer or Eberron or Ravenloft or Planescape?
I think core D&D expects to be a rather generic system, and so it includes most of the stuff in a disjointed grab-bag of races and classes.

Was I in the only ADnD groups that played using the Reincarnation spell and or the Unearthed Arcana book?