7 ms·

Why interview solely the grognards? Even OSE options like Shadowdark have adopted terms like ancestry over race. It sorta feels like this article is trying to c

Why interview solely the grognards? Even OSE options like Shadowdark have adopted terms like ancestry over race. It sorta feels like this article is trying to create an issue where none exists. Changing race to species has not been a concern for myself, my players, or those I know. We're more concerned with improving the mechanics and speed of gameplay, balancing martials and casters, improvements to the core books, backgrounds, bastions, and impactful changes. We want more variety at the table, not just everyone choosing the same optimized builds from RPGBOT. I think Crawford in the article puts it well: “People really wanted to be able to mix and match their species choice with their character-class choice. They didn’t want choosing a dwarf to make them a lesser wizard.”

jltsiren 2y ago
I'm kind of surprised that optimized builds even exist, at least outside competitive games. Back in the day when I was playing tabletop RPGs, the standard GM approach was that meaningful advantages must be balanced with meaningful disadvantages. Encounters where the characters had to face their weaknesses were supposed to be common. It didn't really matter if your characters were optimized as not. Character builds as a concept were just some video game nonsense that had no place in actual role-playing games. At least among the people I used to play with.
- caeril 2y ago
  It depends on the complexity of your campaign. Back in the day when I played D&D, we had a DM who would throw together typical hack-and-slash-and-loot campaigns, in which you wanted to maximize your STR, CON, DEX, and INT( if you were a magic-using class ). Nobody wanted to assign points to anything else, as they would be a waste. It takes a good DM to balance a campaign, especially for years. And I suspect most DMs are pretty bad (I'm guessing, haven't played in over a decade now).
  - brightball 2y ago
    This is a valid point and it's honestly one of the things that I really enjoy about the Dungeon Crawler Carl series. One of the main character's best weapons is charisma. Multiple different types of spells or abilities are modified by secondary stats, like charisma with charm or illusion spells. I haven't played D&D in, like 30 years, but I don't ever remember those types of game mechanics being involved. If they are now it would make for some great potential combinations. If a dwarf gets -1 INT and +1 CON, but certain types of spells use CON as a modifier then it creates an interesting combination.
Ntrails 2y ago
> Changing race to species has not been a concern for myself, my players, or those I know. Largely the same, I acknowledge it's not being done for me and definitely doesn't impact me. Shrug (or eyeroll if so inclined) and move on. > “People really wanted to be able to mix and match their species choice with their character-class choice. They didn’t want choosing a dwarf to make them a lesser wizard.” Ok, but IMO nobody has more fun by doing 13 damage a round instead of 10. The consequence of chasing optimality is it simply leads a DM to tune encounters appropriately. > We want more variety at the table, not just everyone choosing the same optimized builds from RPGBOT. So instead everyone is using the same optimised builds but with more species variety? Does that really improve the state of games in your experience? I sort of want disparate builds, playing to aptitudes. Balancing spell lists and feats etc to make lots of viable builds is a hard problem to solve though (I've not played the 2024 rules so have no idea how well they've done?).
- rayiner 2y ago
  > Largely the same, I acknowledge it's not being done for me and definitely doesn't impact me. Shrug (or eyeroll if so inclined) and move on Who is it being done “for” if not for the people who play this game? Don’t you have the same stake in changes to the game as anyone else?
  - techwizrd 2y ago
    Not all changes are for the players. The changes to remove perceived racial biases may improve inclusion for some minority of players. It may be a serious issue for those players, the game designers, or some executive. Just like real world changes to improve inclusivity, most are unaffected and simply move on. For the changes people care about, Wizards of the Coast (WotC) publishes "Unearthed Arcana" or pre-release versions of content (e.g., bastions, the Monk class, a new Druid subclass). People will playtest the new content and WotC surveys players to get feedback. Based on the feedback, they may make additional changes or even scrap some things entirely.
    - Jensson 2y ago
ineptech 2y ago
I find this mystifying. I think of "choosing a dwarf makes you a lesser wizard" as being a pretty core part of D&D. Have they released specifics on this? If race/species is going to become purely cosmetic, have they explained what will replace it, mechanically?
- WorldMaker 2y ago
  That's kind of the problem with it was it was mechanically implementing something that was more setting/background cosmetics specific in the first place. Not all settings think dwarves should have a harder time becoming a wizard. Forgotten Realms, the modern "default" for D&D thinks anyone can do anything if they want, classes are just "jobs" available to anyone. Those settings that do care, including throwback settings, generally make it a story telling device about why things are the way they are ("dwarves are closer to the earth and have a hard time learning illusions") and the hardships exceptions face ("it took a lot more work and they lost access to some of their home community") and making it a mechanical disadvantage doesn't do anything more interesting than the storytelling tools already inherent in the setting.
  - ineptech 2y ago
    The problem is that some racial bonuses are things that can be plausibly explained away by background (stat bonuses, mental abilities, humans getting a feat) but a lot aren't (aarakocra flight, dragonborn breath weapons, halflings being able to hide more easily), and they're all balanced against each other. Does an aarakocra raised by humans get human bonuses, and still get to fly? Does a human raised by aarakocra lose their human bonuses but grow wings?
    - xyzzy_plugh 2y ago
      You're conflating physical properties with other abilities/characteristics. Does a dwarf have a physical limitation preventing them from wielding magic? This is the argument. I don't see anything innately wrong with a human who can breathe fire, or has wings, or a dwarf with four arms, so long as you're willing to RP it. It does seem silly to say that no, it's actually against the rules, your dwarf can't learn magic.
sdwr 2y ago
I've been playing Grim Dawn recently, and feeling the tension between optimizing and exploring, between pre-built and puzzled out. If you can manage to forget about the answer key lurking on every forum, the core experience of finding synergy, figuring out a build, balancing resistances is surprisingly fun. > Why interview solely the grognards? And, I know it's a rhetorical question, but the answer is: > So the article can serve double duty as a Nat Geo-style jungle expedition, providing glimpses of unwashed tribespeople to intrigued middle Americans.
drewcoo 2y ago
> Why interview solely the grognards When D&D players are described as grogs, Eurotrash has won.

jltsiren 2y ago

I'm kind of surprised that optimized builds even exist, at least outside competitive games. Back in the day when I was playing tabletop RPGs, the standard GM approach was that meaningful advantages must be balanced with meaningful disadvantages. Encounters where the characters had to face their weaknesses were supposed to be common. It didn't really matter if your characters were optimized as not. Character builds as a concept were just some video game nonsense that had no place in actual role-playing games. At least among the people I used to play with.

caeril 2y ago
It depends on the complexity of your campaign. Back in the day when I played D&D, we had a DM who would throw together typical hack-and-slash-and-loot campaigns, in which you wanted to maximize your STR, CON, DEX, and INT( if you were a magic-using class ). Nobody wanted to assign points to anything else, as they would be a waste. It takes a good DM to balance a campaign, especially for years. And I suspect most DMs are pretty bad (I'm guessing, haven't played in over a decade now).
- brightball 2y ago
  This is a valid point and it's honestly one of the things that I really enjoy about the Dungeon Crawler Carl series. One of the main character's best weapons is charisma. Multiple different types of spells or abilities are modified by secondary stats, like charisma with charm or illusion spells. I haven't played D&D in, like 30 years, but I don't ever remember those types of game mechanics being involved. If they are now it would make for some great potential combinations. If a dwarf gets -1 INT and +1 CON, but certain types of spells use CON as a modifier then it creates an interesting combination.

Ntrails 2y ago

> Changing race to species has not been a concern for myself, my players, or those I know. Largely the same, I acknowledge it's not being done for me and definitely doesn't impact me. Shrug (or eyeroll if so inclined) and move on. > “People really wanted to be able to mix and match their species choice with their character-class choice. They didn’t want choosing a dwarf to make them a lesser wizard.” Ok, but IMO nobody has more fun by doing 13 damage a round instead of 10. The consequence of chasing optimality is it simply leads a DM to tune encounters appropriately. > We want more variety at the table, not just everyone choosing the same optimized builds from RPGBOT. So instead everyone is using the same optimised builds but with more species variety? Does that really improve the state of games in your experience? I sort of want disparate builds, playing to aptitudes. Balancing spell lists and feats etc to make lots of viable builds is a hard problem to solve though (I've not played the 2024 rules so have no idea how well they've done?).

rayiner 2y ago
> Largely the same, I acknowledge it's not being done for me and definitely doesn't impact me. Shrug (or eyeroll if so inclined) and move on Who is it being done “for” if not for the people who play this game? Don’t you have the same stake in changes to the game as anyone else?
- techwizrd 2y ago
  Not all changes are for the players. The changes to remove perceived racial biases may improve inclusion for some minority of players. It may be a serious issue for those players, the game designers, or some executive. Just like real world changes to improve inclusivity, most are unaffected and simply move on. For the changes people care about, Wizards of the Coast (WotC) publishes "Unearthed Arcana" or pre-release versions of content (e.g., bastions, the Monk class, a new Druid subclass). People will playtest the new content and WotC surveys players to get feedback. Based on the feedback, they may make additional changes or even scrap some things entirely.
  - Jensson 2y ago

ineptech 2y ago

I find this mystifying. I think of "choosing a dwarf makes you a lesser wizard" as being a pretty core part of D&D. Have they released specifics on this? If race/species is going to become purely cosmetic, have they explained what will replace it, mechanically?

WorldMaker 2y ago
That's kind of the problem with it was it was mechanically implementing something that was more setting/background cosmetics specific in the first place. Not all settings think dwarves should have a harder time becoming a wizard. Forgotten Realms, the modern "default" for D&D thinks anyone can do anything if they want, classes are just "jobs" available to anyone. Those settings that do care, including throwback settings, generally make it a story telling device about why things are the way they are ("dwarves are closer to the earth and have a hard time learning illusions") and the hardships exceptions face ("it took a lot more work and they lost access to some of their home community") and making it a mechanical disadvantage doesn't do anything more interesting than the storytelling tools already inherent in the setting.
- ineptech 2y ago
  The problem is that some racial bonuses are things that can be plausibly explained away by background (stat bonuses, mental abilities, humans getting a feat) but a lot aren't (aarakocra flight, dragonborn breath weapons, halflings being able to hide more easily), and they're all balanced against each other. Does an aarakocra raised by humans get human bonuses, and still get to fly? Does a human raised by aarakocra lose their human bonuses but grow wings?
  - xyzzy_plugh 2y ago
    You're conflating physical properties with other abilities/characteristics. Does a dwarf have a physical limitation preventing them from wielding magic? This is the argument. I don't see anything innately wrong with a human who can breathe fire, or has wings, or a dwarf with four arms, so long as you're willing to RP it. It does seem silly to say that no, it's actually against the rules, your dwarf can't learn magic.

sdwr 2y ago

I've been playing Grim Dawn recently, and feeling the tension between optimizing and exploring, between pre-built and puzzled out. If you can manage to forget about the answer key lurking on every forum, the core experience of finding synergy, figuring out a build, balancing resistances is surprisingly fun. > Why interview solely the grognards? And, I know it's a rhetorical question, but the answer is: > So the article can serve double duty as a Nat Geo-style jungle expedition, providing glimpses of unwashed tribespeople to intrigued middle Americans.

drewcoo 2y ago

> Why interview solely the grognards When D&D players are described as grogs, Eurotrash has won.