tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post5044402763667579965..comments2023-10-14T03:58:59.333-06:00Comments on The Tao of D&D: Set the OddsAlexis Smolenskhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-76447650482946233572015-08-31T08:43:40.428-06:002015-08-31T08:43:40.428-06:00Perhaps it is because I see "versatile" ...Perhaps it is because I see "versatile" as scheming, "ambitious" as power mad and "capable" as ruthless - three traits that are firmly individual. Whereas society is built on cooperation, restraint and hard work. The traits you name, JB, tend to gum up the works.<br /><br />The traits that got us here derived from humankind's fundamental ability to act in concert. The most dangerous animals are those that also act in concert: lions, wolves, legionnaire ants, aggressive bees, bacteria and so on. I have trouble believing that goblins, hobgoblins, orcs and so on wouldn't have been wiped out like Homo Habilis and Neanderthalensis a hundred thousand years before the game started if they had not developed a nature of cooperation.<br /><br />I know I think differently on this - but I cannot understand why mankind's enemies somehow manage to be both "morons" and "indefeatable" at the same time. Something is amiss. And as a DM, I'm not here as a cheerleader for the race of the party. I play the enemies according to their intelligence and most logical behaviour - not according to the imagined traits they 'possess' that are not part of the lexicon and which are certainly alive and well in most humans I meet.<br /><br />Sorry, JB. Your comment got a little under my skin. I recognize you say that you do not buy into it, but nevertheless it purports to understand a position that sounds like a group of Mississippian confederates explaining why the local black people are poor.Alexis Smolenskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-22194850211865290162015-08-31T07:10:23.819-06:002015-08-31T07:10:23.819-06:00@ Alexis:
I suppose. I'm considering from the...@ Alexis:<br /><br />I suppose. I'm considering from the default stance of the setting that humans are the most versatile, ambitious, and capable given the (standard) rules allowing them unlimited access to class and level, compared to non-humans.<br /><br />There is the tendency in humans to hate in others what we detest in ourselves.JBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03263662621289630246noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-76304304634919750222015-08-31T01:39:59.450-06:002015-08-31T01:39:59.450-06:00Funny how the "dominant species on the fantas...Funny how the "dominant species on the fantasy planet" contrives to assign all the characteristics that humans DO have as proof that the goblins also having these are obviously "lesser."<br /><br />How does that work, exactly?<br /><br />Maybe the humans rose to be the dominant creatures because there are more of them.Alexis Smolenskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-73286385965321999052015-08-31T00:08:54.703-06:002015-08-31T00:08:54.703-06:00I think both this post and "the gong" ar...I think both this post and "the gong" are providing good brain candy. And I don't think the idea of different castes of creatures was terribly alien from the minds of the original designers (looking over Gygax's adventures, there are certainly encounters with tougher, high HP humanoids representing the "clan's best" and other encounters with the weaker members).<br /><br />But there's this pervasive idea that goblins and other humanoids aren't quite as organized as humans when it comes to this practical selection process...it goes a ways towards explaining why the (often larger, tougher) tool-making humanoids haven't become the dominant species on the fantasy planet. Gronk may the largest bully of the tribe, and thus the one to lead the war party, but he's bringing Biff and Squeak along in the group to "toughen them up." Or because it's their turn. Or to cull them for being worthless mouths who don't pull their own weight. <br /><br />Also, humanoids tend to be portrayed as having an abundance of humans' negative traits: greed, sloth, cowardice, etc.. Perhaps the "big guys" are staying home, close to the chief's table, while the runts are dealt the short straw again to brave the wilderness looking for some wild pig (or succulent halfling) for the feast. Sure they're a random, weaker group, but they possess enough cunning and organization to hunt game. It's not going to ever help their tribe rise to a higher rung on the ladder of regional powers, but if they keep a low enough profile they might escape notice (and extermination) from the local human feudal lord, at least for a few generations. And goblinoids tend to be fast breeders (explaining why they don't care that the Biffs and Squeaks are usually corpses by the end of a hunt).<br /><br />That kind of paradigm a bit of fantasy mixed with humorous pratfalls from the poor, dumb (yet-spiteful-and violent) "lesser races," feels very "Tolkien" to me, and I think is kind of a default play style for many tables. It justifies the random distribution of HPs one finds outside the lair.<br /><br />Having said that, I still think your earlier posts on HPs were pretty on the money.JBhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03263662621289630246noreply@blogger.com