Elennsar wrote:There is absolutely no reason in the world why all nonhuman races are human peers or superiors. None.
I don't recall the passage in any definition of PC that said "unique being, conforming to no social or racial norms."
So, having "I'm a ____." actually mean something other than a bunch of utterly irrelevant fluff is a sign of being "unimaginative"? Riiiight.
There's a fundamental disconnect between your interpretation of the game and everyone else's, and even though I'm a lame-ass min/maxxer who would much rather toss out the rules and make totally fruity characters based on clichéd flaws, I still disagree with you. Here's the break down:
There are roleplaying reasons to make characters: You want to be different than everyone else, you're rebelling against your family, you were sold into slavery, you live in the wrong culture, you suffered a debilitating accident, you're not human, etc, etc. It's totally cool to want those differences to manifest in your character...
However, from a mechanical standpoint, you are a playing piece. In Monopoly, you don't have mechanical differences between the top hat and the dog. All the playing pieces start with the same mechanical advantages - even though it would make sense that the top hat get an extra amount of money because it is a symbol of wealth, and the dog get extra movement because it can actually propel itself.
Likewise, in D&D, each PC is a playing piece, and it totally sucks mechanically to have one playing piece be inferior because it looks cooler or different than the other pieces. It would be like giving the top hat a movement penalty because it can't propel itself.
What makes things even more critically important is that in D&D you're part of a team, and if your playing piece is penalized for some superficial reason, you have a noticeable effect on how well your friends can play the game - which sucks. A lot.
Elennsar wrote:Unless there's a reason other than "I'm a PC!" to be different, yes. PCs can be exceptions. PC=/= exception.
Having recently become a parent, I can tell you that the medical profession has averages for everything. They measure my son's head circumference and put that on a chart of averages. They measure his height, weight, and ratio of those things and chart those, too. And there are benchmarks that have averages - like when you start holding your head up, sitting without help, smiling, teething, etc, etc.
I don't know a single child who actually falls on the 50% mark everytime. They might possibly hit the average on a couple of the statistics (though they don't have to), but rarely is an individual actually dead average. My son, for example, has an average head circumference and weight, but his height is well above average, and his height/weight ratio is very much below average. He was holding his head up within the first week, rather than at one month.
The point I'm trying to get at is that there is no reason why a character should ever be burdened with the average abilities of their race or class. Averages are just reference points used to characterize a large group as a whole, and when you start taking a look at specific individuals, the idea of averages is rather silly.
Elennsar wrote:To put it this way, "my viking was taught kenjutsu by the samurai" is pushing it well beyond the limits of plausible No Way Could This Happen events.
Not a big fan of Xena, are you?
Elennsar wrote:So basically you wind up with having to find more and more powerful things in order to even have a close fight.
Um... No offense, but that's what a level-based system does for you. If you don't want that paradigm, ditch the levels.
Elennsar wrote:If it won't influence what you're good at and it won't influence what you generally do, it has no meaning.
There are two approaches to this conundrum:
1) Allowing each player to choose an ability that suits them based on their race/culture/whatever: Why does an elf have to be perceptive? Why can't my elf just never get lost? Why does my elf have to be proficient with a bow? Why not a hunting knife?
2) Leaving the differences in the realm of roleplaying: This is a roleplaying game, and while that doesn't mean everyone needs to study acting, that does mean you can give your character quirks like being more comfortable in a forest, or prefering to eat only organic vegetables, or whistling bird calls that reflect being elven while also ensuring the character starts off on equal footing with the others. If what's written on your character sheet is the only thing that matters, you're gonna kill yourself trying to keep track of everything that a
character would actually do.
When it comes right down to it, there is no good roleplaying reason to justify foisting those stereotypes on every elven character. There really is an elven klutz out there, and it's OK to play that as a character.
Elennsar wrote:So don't put words in my mouth or attribute opinions to me that I don't hold. THe brief version:
1) Race means something. Some races are good fighters. Some are bad fighters. Some are no better or worse at being fighters as a result of their racial attributes.
A race may be characterized by being good at fighting, but that doesn't mean that each individual of that race must be good at fighting. You say "race means something," but if you can't differentiate one race from another
without putting mechanical differences down on your character sheet, you have a problem.
Elennsar wrote:2) Culture also means something.
The same principle as race applies to culture. If the only way to tell the difference between one culture and another is by a certain feat or a +2 somewhere, you're not actually building a character. You're building a pile of statistics.
Elennsar wrote:3) PCs are special, but not necessarily freakishly atypical.
Why not? Again, when you look at an individual's abilities, rather than the stereotype of a group, you will find lots of things that aren't typical. And it's generally the difference from average that allows a person to begin walking the path of being noticed. "History" never remembers the slew of people who were average, but it does remember people who started off being considered average, but actually weren't.
Elennsar wrote:4) There are other special people out there. You will run into them.
I don't see anyone arguing this at all.
Elennsar wrote:5) Not all races are human or equal to humanity. You could set up a game like that, or you could set up a game where some races are subhuman. Nothing wrong with either in regards to racism.
I don't think this is relevant, either.
The point everyone is trying to make is that all
players should start off with fair mechanics, regardless of whatever race or class they choose for their character. And because the stereotype of half-orcs being not smart is reflected in the individual's mechanics, a
player who wants to break the mold is forced to play a subpar character.