|
Post by hamurai on Oct 11, 2020 7:30:27 GMT -6
I just sent our DM the link, his reaction to removed negative modifiers was "Pffft, not in my game."
All this "fairness for all player races" stuff is really annoying. So first you allow players to play orcs, then the players complain that they can't play orc wizards and be as good as elf wizards, then WotC takes away the negative mods and orc wizards study alongside elf wizards in the big fluffy university (because you surely aren't allowed to say that orc culture is primitive and they prefer violence, that's a bad stereotype), then the DM feels they lack an iconic monster representing Chaos in their game world, so they choose another to take the orc's place and hope no player ever wants to play one of them because omg, the whole thing would start again.
I remember from a 3E computer game that there already were Grey Orcs who were not the barbaric stereotype and were actually adept at magic, but I guess that wasn't enough.
Maybe the solution would be to bring the pig-nosed orcs back, apparently no one was fighting for their equality so they might take up the bloody orc's banner again for Chaos.
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Oct 11, 2020 7:46:27 GMT -6
You can all trust that in Elf Lair Games product, we'll still be taking the old school approach--you get bonuses AND penalties for race. The only change we're making is renaming race to species, and that's literally just a semantic change because as I said before, I've always thought race an odd term when we're talking about species.
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Oct 12, 2020 14:32:11 GMT -6
You can all trust that in Elf Lair Games product, we'll still be taking the old school approach--you get bonuses AND penalties for race. The only change we're making is renaming race to species, and that's literally just a semantic change because as I said before, I've always thought race an odd term when we're talking about species. I agree Race was always a misfit term. Not because of any modern political correctness, it just doesn't sound right for what it describes. Even as a kid back in the 80's when I made my first RPG I called it species. Now I've taken to changing Race to Ancestry. Thanks to weirdnesses like half-elves. I think it's the most accurate, and least likely to offend, term.
|
|
|
Post by talysman on Oct 12, 2020 15:01:02 GMT -6
I don't know if I want to change "Race" to something else, but I know it shouldn't be "Species". That has a specific meaning in biology, and even if I didn't want to use "races" that have nothing to do with biology, I definitely want to get away from that modern-day scientific re-imagining of what's suppose to be fantastic or mythic concepts. There's something so uninspiring about interpreting goblins and elves as just another kind of primate.
My goblins, and almost all fantastic monsters, were created out of nothing by the imagination of some magician using the Monster Summoning spell, only they stuck around after the spell was supposed to end. My elves might have once been human, although they deny it angrily, and made some kind of wish that turned them into something inherently magical. My half-elves aren't the offspring of elves, but more like a curse bestowed by elves on some innocent infant. Biology and evolution, where I acknowledge them at all, only apply to humans and normal animals and plants.
So for me, "Class" is "what you're good at", "Race" is "what you are". It's not a great word, but I might want to use "races" to describe things like "seventh son of a seventh son" or "cursed by an evil fairy" or "dhampir" or "time-traveler from the future". It's just a word for stuff you don't get from your class.
|
|
|
Post by Punkrabbitt on Oct 12, 2020 15:38:55 GMT -6
Now I've taken to changing Race to Ancestry. Thanks to weirdnesses like half-elves. I think it's the most accurate, and least likely to offend, term. tdenmark, I think "ancestry" is the term I have been looking for. I have always unliked "race" and used "species: in my sci-fi games, but that never felt right for fantasy. Currently, my Ancestries both published and in development for Punkrabbitt Publishing are labelled "A Player Character Race FOR OSR Games." Do you think in would enhance or inhibit sales if I changed that to "A Player Character Ancestry FOR OSR Games?" Everyone else is free to chime in on this as well. Thank you for the suggestion and the input.
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Oct 12, 2020 18:22:56 GMT -6
Do you think in would enhance or inhibit sales if I changed that to "A Player Character Ancestry FOR OSR Games?" Ancestry and Culture is the current #1 in hottest small press, so if anything it might help sales.
|
|
|
Post by Punkrabbitt on Oct 12, 2020 21:19:14 GMT -6
Do you think in would enhance or inhibit sales if I changed that to "A Player Character Ancestry FOR OSR Games?" Ancestry and Culture is the current #1 in hottest small press, so if anything it might help sales. Thank you for that bit of advice
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Oct 13, 2020 4:46:11 GMT -6
This is a splat book/expansion/supplement or whatever you want to call it. That's my reading of the situation, anyway. It's like saying Eldritch Wizardry changed D&D's core three booklets. It did but it didn't. It did if the group adopted it. My understanding is that the Tasha's Cauldron book is an expansion on the 5e core rules in the exact same vein as the previously aforementioned Eldritch Wizardry for OD&D, or Unearthed Arcana for AD&D. It's a book of campaign options for DMs and players that add onto the core rules and it's meant for a specific campaign setting and style. Agreed, and the same can be said about the Sword Coast book, Volo's Guide, and Xanathar's. New class options, new spells, new whatever, and I get to decide what I allow and what I don't. I don't worry so much for my home group because we try wacky stuff but ultimately I have final say. My concern is more for Adventurer's League where we play by rules established by others. I could see where suddenly AL play may get to the point where I no longer enjoy playing.
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Oct 13, 2020 9:36:49 GMT -6
Do you think in would enhance or inhibit sales if I changed that to "A Player Character Ancestry FOR OSR Games?" Ancestry and Culture is the current #1 in hottest small press, so if anything it might help sales. That's a 5e book. No one who's searching for new OSR races, on drivethru, will think to search the term, "ancestry". Punkrabbit's listing is going to rank more like this: www.drivethrurpg.com/m/product/299118sorry. Punkrabbit, love the Cyclops, btw.
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Oct 13, 2020 14:14:55 GMT -6
That's a 5e book. No one who's searching for new OSR races, on drivethru, will think to search the term, "ancestry". Punkrabbit's listing is going to rank more like this: www.drivethrurpg.com/m/product/299118sorry. Punkrabbit, love the Cyclops, btw. Punkrabbit could still put races in the tags.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 17, 2020 13:08:56 GMT -6
This is a splat book/expansion/supplement or whatever you want to call it. That's my reading of the situation, anyway. It's like saying Eldritch Wizardry changed D&D's core three booklets. It did but it didn't. It did if the group adopted it. My understanding is that the Tasha's Cauldron book is an expansion on the 5e core rules in the exact same vein as the previously aforementioned Eldritch Wizardry for OD&D, or Unearthed Arcana for AD&D. It's a book of campaign options for DMs and players that add onto the core rules and it's meant for a specific campaign setting and style. Agreed, and the same can be said about the Sword Coast book, Volo's Guide, and Xanathar's. New class options, new spells, new whatever, and I get to decide what I allow and what I don't. I don't worry so much for my home group because we try wacky stuff but ultimately I have final say. My concern is more for Adventurer's League where we play by rules established by others. I could see where suddenly AL play may get to the point where I no longer enjoy playing. That is a concern, yes. It's a balancing act, being a tabletop enthusiast. Beggars can't be choosers, but you shouldn't run or play in games you don't enjoy. It's tough. I know it's much better if everyone in a group loves the rules and setting. My local guys went along with my Whitebox sessions mostly because they liked me and my referee style, and we all got along, but I could tell they had more fun with 5e and Call of Cthulhu. Problem is I didn't. All relationships are about some degree of compromise. It comes down to where the line is for you. I found mine and was in the process of refining my lfg method when Covid hit.
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Oct 18, 2020 0:10:03 GMT -6
I like bonuses and penalties. I think they shows that all cultural memes and evolutionary adaptations have both positive and negative affects on individual and group fitness.
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Oct 18, 2020 2:09:12 GMT -6
This issue is really brought about by the way D&D operates, i.e. it has roughly human-range ability scores for player characters, and a different set of stats for monsters (unless, just to add another wrinkle, they are non-player characters). When I first discovered RuneQuest in '83 the first thing that hit me was that all species operated on the same system - at first, for us teenagers that meant we could play anything, but on a deeper level it means you remove the "human standard" and give every species their own set of characteristic rolls. It's not 3d6 (human) plus or minus (relative non-human adjustment). It's the "minus" thing that gets up people's nose, it's purely psychological and the current trends are just an outgrowth of what all players subconsciously feel when they have to subtract 1 from the 3d6 roll they just made for Strength. That's not to say that RQ got it all right, because their skill modifiers still used a human standard. 9-12 was average, 13 or more got you a bonus, 8 or less got you a penalty. That was bad design, simply following the D&D system without considering how little sense it made for a creature with a 15d6 Strength to be above-average at all times. In landscape architecture we now have a principle called "universal design" where everyone simply fits on a sliding scale from zero upwards, i.e. you design a park or playground (for example) so that everyone can use it regardless of ability - but different users will get different things out of it based on their personal ability. That's all a bit long-winded, but what I'm basically saying is that from a simple game design/ human psychology viewpoint it makes sense not to have negative modifiers in character generation. You just start at zero for the lowest possible ability score, and work up from there. Mechanically you still get the same result, but people feel good because they get bonuses to some abilities. Referees feel great because they pile on the bonuses for their giants and dragons and purple worms. And, not least, adding is a lot easier than subtracting at the table. This was a debate long before it became politicised, and I have been using that principle in my game design (outside the D&D retroclone arena, of course). The problem WotC has is that they are tied to keeping the majority of D&D's basic tropes and at the moment that includes 3d6 ability scores. That said, I have read some arguments for giving player characters monster stat blocks, because if they work for monsters they should work for players. And they do, as anyone who has ever played a monster character can attest - in the past a lot of my referees ignored the advice about characters becoming NPCs after being infected with lycanthropy, turning undead, or being reincarnated. As I discovered the original editions and the limited impact of ability scores in play, I have often toyed with the idea of tossing them entirely. Different die types can apply to different species and/or classes for hit points, damage rolls, climbing, spotting secret doors, etc. For example: everyone spots secret doors on a roll of 1, but elves get to roll 1d3 every time they go near one, while everyone else rolls 1d6 only if they're looking in the right place. Halfling and elf fighters get d6 hit dice, humans and dwarves get d8s, maybe others get d4s or d10s or d12s. Of course, the problem doesn't arise (much) in OD&D or Holmes.
|
|
|
Post by Punkrabbitt on Oct 22, 2020 16:49:27 GMT -6
I'm trying to remember the jolly 1e days when I was ten years old and there were more substantial negative modifiers to consider than the positive. Halflings were really weak, which made sense, but we all loved hobbits so no one cared. Elves weren't quite as sturdy as people; that -1 to Con seemed a bit like my allergies. Also, elves were 5' tall and a bit smarter than most everyone around them (+7% in game terms, +40% on my standardized testing.) So I really related to elves. Half orcs had -2 on Cha, which mean UGLY! And no one wanted to be the ugly kid. I mean, I was already short, wheezy, and nearly speaking a different language already...
I guess my point is, no one thought much about ability modifiers back in the day. It just made characters more or less relatable o.0
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2020 9:06:36 GMT -6
I just sent our DM the link, his reaction to removed negative modifiers was "Pffft, not in my game." All this "fairness for all player races" stuff is really annoying. So first you allow players to play orcs, then the players complain that they can't play orc wizards and be as good as elf wizards, then WotC takes away the negative mods and orc wizards study alongside elf wizards in the big fluffy university (because you surely aren't allowed to say that orc culture is primitive and they prefer violence, that's a bad stereotype), then the DM feels they lack an iconic monster representing Chaos in their game world, so they choose another to take the orc's place and hope no player ever wants to play one of them because omg, the whole thing would start again. I remember from a 3E computer game that there already were Grey Orcs who were not the barbaric stereotype and were actually adept at magic, but I guess that wasn't enough. Maybe the solution would be to bring the pig-nosed orcs back, apparently no one was fighting for their equality so they might take up the bloody orc's banner again for Chaos. I'd never allow players to be belong to a race/species/whatever from the MM, VGtM etc. In my experience (and I stress this is just my experience) such players would have a hard time role-playing a human in a convincing manner. They just want the cool racial abilities. I really don't care what WotC have done here. I just want them to fix the (insert expletive here) ranger!
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Oct 23, 2020 11:11:18 GMT -6
I'm trying to remember the jolly 1e days when I was ten years old and there were more substantial negative modifiers to consider than the positive. Halflings were really weak, which made sense, but we all loved hobbits so no one cared. Elves weren't quite as sturdy as people; that -1 to Con seemed a bit like my allergies. Also, elves were 5' tall and a bit smarter than most everyone around them (+7% in game terms, +40% on my standardized testing.) So I really related to elves. Half orcs had -2 on Cha, which mean UGLY! And no one wanted to be the ugly kid. I mean, I was already short, wheezy, and nearly speaking a different language already... I guess my point is, no one thought much about ability modifiers back in the day. It just made characters more or less relatable o.0 Much truth here. I would add, however, that older rules sets allow for quick character creation and I think it gives a more "disposable" feel to those characters. I don't want my character to die, but I can make another. I may not like low stats, but maybe next time I roll better. Newer editions are different in that they require a lot more time investment to deal with backgrounds and skills and feats and whatever. Longer time investment means harder to deal with character death, and less character death leads to using the same character a lot longer. Disadvantages stay around a lot longer. Personally, I like having a low stat in my characters because that sort of quirk makes a character interesting, in my opinion. Seems like many modern gamers have a differing viewpoint on this, however.
|
|
|
Post by captainjapan on Oct 23, 2020 12:29:26 GMT -6
Finarvyn said: At the very least, a low stat is a prompt for some comic relief, in the game. There are, understandably, different views on what makes rpg's fun. One of those is creative writing; been there since the beginning. That privelege was reserved to the dungeon master, and the players would meddle in his dungeon, thus creating a story. But, if a player wants to flex their creative muscles, on their own, outside of this system, it can be accommodated in character gen. Obviously, this aspect has come to the fore, and characterization can be given some considerable forethought that couldn't exist, bitd. Consider point buy schemes versus rolling attributes. Woe to the dm who kills a favorite character. It's not unlike an author killing off a favorite character in a book series. For casual players, this can spell the end of their d&d playing days.
|
|
|
Post by doublejig2 on Oct 23, 2020 17:22:45 GMT -6
The grieving process over a slain favorite adventurer can be worked into the game and meta game communications.
|
|
|
Post by Red Baron on Oct 23, 2020 17:25:14 GMT -6
But, if a player wants to flex their creative muscles, on their own, outside of this system, it can be accommodated in character gen. IMO the correct way for a player to use their creative juices is by hatching hair-brianed schemes. I agree it is hard to wean people off of character attachment. It helps if a new player's first few experiences with the game involve a lot of character death.
|
|
Dohojar
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 114
|
Post by Dohojar on Oct 23, 2020 18:15:47 GMT -6
But, if a player wants to flex their creative muscles, on their own, outside of this system, it can be accommodated in character gen. IMO the correct way for a player to use their creative juices is by hatching hair-brianed schemes. I agree it is hard to wean people off of character attachment. It helps if a new player's first few experiences with the game involve a lot of character death. I found that a lot of new players get too attached to their first character a bit too much. Now I have my players create 4 characters each using the basic stat array in the 5e players handbook. (15. 14,13,12,10 & 8). Then they choose a background, a name and away we go. They also start at lvl 0 so they die fast and often. This way they get used to dying and it is no big deal. The characters that survive to lvl 2 are usually in for the long haul.
|
|
|
Post by sixdemonbag on Oct 23, 2020 20:54:24 GMT -6
Making 5E more old-school and closer to the 3lbbs by removing negative racial modifiers*? Yes, great idea.
The 3lbbs not using the term "race" anywhere in the text and using "character-types" instead? Yes, also a great idea.
3lbbs? Yes, great idea!
*Yes, I realize that the 3lbbs utilizes racial, I mean "character-type", level limits in lieu of negative ability mods, but IMO, these are much more readily ignored being campaign-based rather than ability scores which are session-based.
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Oct 24, 2020 7:42:42 GMT -6
I found that a lot of new players get too attached to their first character a bit too much. I agree! I still remember my first character in 1982: Cedric Catweazle, magic-user, who survived 2 rooms in the Chaves of Chaos (only because the first room was empty). I have very little memory of the next decade's worth of characters.
|
|
Dohojar
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 114
|
Post by Dohojar on Oct 25, 2020 13:15:19 GMT -6
Last year I cleaned out a can of Pringles chips and we now use that to put the deceased character sheets in. At the moment I think there are 6 different character sheets in there. A new one was added last night. A level 2 Dwarven cleric. He met his demise fighting a group of kobolds. Those little bastards are deadly when played properly.
|
|