Nationality Feats!?!?!?!

[CARTMAG]

KD.. I think you forgot the first rule of gaming... and that is ALL RULES ARE SUBJECT TO THE DM'S RULING. which means is that every single rule in every single game book is allowed to be changed by the Dungeon Master. in every game i have played with my group if we dont like a rule we modify it or remove it.. and if you dont like the National Feats.. then dont use them or shock of shocks remove the stipulation you have to be from one place or another.... you realise iv noticed something about you KD.. is that every single time i read a post your complaining about one rule or another.. you seem to want everyone to think the way you do.. well im sorry not everyone does.. honestly i have no problems with the Natonality feats.. but as i said earlier if you dont like a rule change it.. or remove it alltogether.

 

[psyclonejack]

Okay some people still are not communicating, let me try to help.

A can of worms has been opened up over a touchy subject.

What can of worms? A few people on a message baords are asking about a rule included in a recent book that has the potential to be offensive. This is a far cry from a can of worms.

The can-o-worms® I believe Mdraconis was refering to KDladage is the "How does this make you feel" Brand. I dislike this brand because who ever picks the can up off the shelf changes the contents upon touch. No two cans are the same. Thus it is very hard to sample, or discuss. However, CARTMAG and LoneStranger your statements of:

Fine, lemme make a point that will fit with the "problem" here. Anyone who gets offended by the feats is placing too much emphasis on a game. I'll say it again, if you don't like it, change it or dump it. And if you're offended, don't buy the stuff. It's as simple as that.

KD.. I think you forgot the first rule of gaming... and that is ALL RULES ARE SUBJECT TO THE DM'S RULING. which means is that every single rule in every single game book is allowed to be changed by the Dungeon Master. in every game i have played with my group if we dont like a rule we modify it or remove it. honestly i have no problems with the Natonality feats.. but as i said earlier if you dont like a rule change it.. or remove it alltogether.

These statements 'FIX' in your mind the problem. However, your problem and KDLadage's problem don't match. The problem is not a rule as much as it is the idea behind them. (Hope I am reading your mind right on this one KD)

KDLadage is afraid that such a stance with restricted national feats, which by some on the board, (NOT KDLADAGE) have found borderline offensive. Such as: Springheeledjack, Pascalahad, bob_morden, JonAcheson. Now, in order to keep the maximum intrest in any game you don't want to turn anyone off by rules or ideals. You want to keep as many as possible. The more you sell the more supplements you can produce. Thus, I believe, KDLadage is trying to to raise the point

. . . of "why were they included in the first place?" which I would be interested in knowing.

Now by why were they included he is refering to the restrictions. We know from the author of the national feats

I didn't intend to insult or offend, I merely wanted to find a mechanic that allowed the RPG to explore the vast differences that exist in humans...and since the show had already shown us that national cultures still existed, I chose to use those lines of demarcation.

Thus, an innocent idea of we need some way to split these up. Has raised a possible air of contention that could lead people not to buy. CARTMAG and LoneStranger it is easy for you to say "don't buy the stuff", but you need to realize that if people "don't buy the stuff" then you will never be able to "buy the stuff".

I feel the issue has been raised. Mongoose knows that some people out there could take such things the wrong way. It could cost customers. So in future suppliments it is something they need to keep in mind. For us, who have purchased the book or plan to play B5, we can make any number of decisions how we are gonna to play. But again, Mongoose needs to be aware of anything that could hurt them, because I for one hope they stick around for a long long time. I enjoy a good deal of the products they produce, and hope they keep coming. However, they must navigate around snags that could cost them consumer base.

Hope I have helped clear up the two sides because to me, communication was not occuring.

PsycloneJack

 

[hassanisabbah]

When you come up with a explination why only the Italians, Greeks and people from Denebian can be good enougth to be a proffesional cricketer. (And be aware, apparently YOU cannot be so without this feat,) Then i would be impressed.

Thats not my reading of it. My reading is that anyone could be a professional cricketer, its just that several nationalities might excell at producing the occassional or even a few exceptional cricketer (and a good example is previous cricketing talent training new talent) - See nothing to do with race. Viv Richards or Imran Khan as an instructor is probably a lot better than David Gower.....

Then we can look at Wealthy, (which is an excellent feat, neatly ending one of the quibbles i had with the game,) and explain why you *have* to be Ameican or chinese. The Royal Family and William Edgars apparently work for a living.

Some nations are wealthier than others - but yes each nation has its wealthy dynasties - That said the US is about 5 times wealthier than its nearest counterparts, so the people you meet outside - the more elite and wealthy (as the bought the feat) will be wealthier than most others, regardless of their income, the Yankee Credit is just goes further. The Royal Family do work hard for a living, doing nothing every day is hard! :twisted:

Apparently all countries apart from Argentinea, the Ukrain and Deneb have evolved past placing an import on farming, which eliminates rural englad, france, america and well practically every other country infact.

Farming is pretty much dead and dying in the UK. Many countries have found it cheaper to import foodstuffs, than produce them. These nations of course still have farming, its just that farmers are a disappering breed, as they cannot compete with overseas prices.

To an extent feats, like charming, i could almost accept. I wouldent like the limitation, but the french having +1 charisam in limited circumstances is hardly worth getting totally worked up about.

Quite right, show me a french girl talking either her or my language, and I'll show you a fool.... Ask a french girl to say Buffy and you'll hear the sexiest word in the English Langauage (and I don't Like Buffy)

But feats that exclude people, either by dint of saying you must have the feat to gain this, (So called Ruke breaking feats,) or ones that say you poseess a particualler upbring or profession. (there can't be an Archbishop of Cantubury, or if there is then we must have imported him from UIN, India, Israil or the vatican!) are not only insulting, but quite frankly, silly. .

Agreed - though one would argue there is sense in Saying the Archbishop of Cantabury must have a unique English Feat (Friendly Discourse!). The rule should not be hard and arbitory. Sure there should be English Farmers who have Farming Feats, but not many, as they have become a dying breed (they may have moved overseas or become Agricultural Managers, or simply been good enough to turn profit, and see the end coming, and move into a different field.

This is not a matter of Political Corectness, there is nothing political to be gained from discouraging the use of steriotypes which only seem to have been adopted to lend support for a game mechainic that is available in other products. Although if this idea never reared its head again i would obviously be happy.

I have tried to outline some alternative views of National Feats from a socialisation position. Its a question of generalisation rather than PC, but certain nations do excell, and usually not for Genetic or Biological reasons. Why are black boxers generally the better heavy weights, probably not genetic, but rather because its a escape route from the social position that black men suffer in western society. White people have more options to choose before sports. Black people have access to those options only in theory.

 

[KDLadage]

KD.. I think you forgot the first rule of gaming... and that is ALL RULES ARE SUBJECT TO THE DM'S RULING.

Again (and for about the tenth time) I am fully aware of Rule 0. This is not at issue here. The issue is why such a rule would be in the book in the first place, when (in the end) it adds nothing, and has the potential to offend.

And before you ask or say it, no I am not refereing to the feats themselves, but the restriction on what nationalities can take them.

 

[KDLadage]

These statements 'FIX' in your mind the problem. However, your problem and KDLadage's problem don't match. The problem is not a rule as much as it is the idea behind them. (Hope I am reading your mind right on this one KD)

It is scary, Psyclone, but I think you are starting to figure me out...

 

[jadrax]

Thats not my reading of it. My reading is that anyone could be a professional cricketer, its just that several nationalities might excell at producing the occassional or even a few exceptional cricketer (and a good example is previous cricketing talent training new talent) - See nothing to do with race. Viv Richards or Imran Khan as an instructor is probably a lot better than David Gower.....

just re-read it, and i dont see how you can get that impression. Its pretty clear that this feat is "needed" to treat a sport skill as a profession skill.

Some nations are wealthier than others - but yes each nation has its wealthy dynasties.

gain, without this feat they do not, this dosent make Americans richer overall, its meakes america and china able to have milionaires, and no other country can.[/quote]

Farming is pretty much dead and dying in the UK.

is it really, what are all thouse people in my village with tractors doing all the time then? I can actually see your point on this one, as it is only a bonus to farming. But i disagree soundly that people in rural europe or else where do not live in an area where "farming, hydroponics or other agriculteral industries are of prime importance."

(and I don't Like Buffy)

Nice to see we have some common ground ;o)

The rule should not be hard and arbitory. Sure there should be English Farmers who have Farming Feats, but not many, as they have become a dying breed (they may have moved overseas or become Agricultural Managers, or simply been good enough to turn profit, and see the end coming, and move into a different field.

erm, thats pretty much my point tbh. I love the feats, its the non sensical way there limited that I really oppose, if the list of sample nationalities where mearly examples everything would be fine.

I have tried to outline some alternative views of National Feats from a socialisation position. Its a question of generalisation rather than PC, but certain nations do excell, and usually not for Genetic or Biological reasons. Why are black boxers generally the better heavy weights, probably not genetic, but rather because its a escape route from the social position that black men suffer in western society. White people have more options to choose before sports. Black people have access to those options only in theory.

Ithink you actually have a good handle on this, but the rules still do not. Some steriotypes, are actually true, but there normally ones that are specific. English is full of steriotypes, but we dont get that, we just get the four national ones.

Now if they went into real detail and did stuff like Pakastani shop owner, and English upper class white twit. Then i wouldent be happy because i dont think its really needed and is offensive.

What they have done instead, IMHO, is water it down so its not really offensive, but is non-sensical.

Overall i am still left with feeling this is a mechanic that was used for the sake of using the mechanic, (Presumable the auther loved it in Forgotten realms or similer,) But dosent actually work in Babylon5.

What i would like to see happen, is the national requirment dropped and turned into a guideline and these feats used in future supliments available to any NPC that ogically should have them.

 

[rbowman]

Mr. Ladage has explained what I was tyring to say just about perfectly. thanks, Dave.

And psyclonejack broke down and wrote what I would have liked to have said if I wouldn't lose my train of though every time I hit the reply button...

 

[Anonymous]

I'm glad to see that most people are clear on why I initially objected to Nationality Feats. It is not the feats themselves that are the problem, it is the stereotypical restrictions that are the problem. It has been stated that similar feat restrictions have been seen in other products, but that has been applied to Fantasy races and nationalities, not real life ones. When you talk about real life, you risk offending people, period. I hope in the future, Mongoose is a little more culturally sensitive to the ramifications of making such blanket rulings.

So, where do we go from here? Some people have stated that GMs can ignore the restrictions if they object to them, but that doesn't help in official tournaments or GMs who go strictly "by-the-book".

What we need is official errata from Mongoose stating that the restrictions on these feats are OPTIONAL, NOT MANDITORY. Problem solved.

Springheeedjack

 

[frobisher]

Forgive me for being stupid, but why all the offence over positive stereotypes?

Feats are, after all, of benefit to the owning player.

 

[Anonymous]

You can't remove the nationality limitations. I will tell you why. There is a reason why only certain nationalities can get certain NATIONALITY FEATS. If everyone, regardless of nationality, could choose any nationality feat they wanted, the feats would no longer be nationality feats. They would be SPECIES FEATS. Think about it for a moment. These feats were designed th bring out the diversity between humans and not between Humans and the alien races. KDLadage.. I think this is why the idea to place limitations on nationality feats was instituted in the first place.

This statement is soley my opinion; I would keep in the limitations in place. To remove the limitations is to change the very nature of the concept of Nationalty Feats. Transmuting them from unique nationality traits to ambiguous species' traits is not the answer. I hope I have explained my position with clearity. I personally do not think that the limitations are stereotypying an individual's nationality, buy are actually enhancing the diversity of the human condition.

mdraconis

 

[mdraconis]

Sorry I posted my last reply as a guest. I forgot to sign in.

 

[jadrax]

They would be SPECIES FEATS. Think about it for a moment.

This is even more absurd. the Swiss are better at dealing with cold than the Minbari, who live on an ice planet, the Greeks are more distrustful than the Lorka, who view all other species as moral impure, People from panama are better gorilla fighters than the Narns, germans are more militeristic then the Drakh, English more savoir-faire than the Centari, the scottish more stubborn than the Drazi, Chilians better merchants then the Brakiri.... that makes no sense.

Also, i have just spotted that Primative is nationally restricted, and has "Any primitive culture" as its requirment. If you can have a sensible rule for that one, why not Mountineer?

 

[mdraconis]

I think you missed what I was refering to. I am not suggesting that a non-human species are any more or less capable regarding these feats. What I am saying is that in regard to humans, the feat restrictions are used to seperate the uniqueness of each nationality. To remove these limitations, it makes these feats seem more like a group of species feats that humans possess rather than feats based on nationality.

Personally, I am not thrilled with the nationality feats. Why do you need a feat to enhance playing your character's role and the creativity of the player. A bonus to a skill roll should be given due to outstanding roleplay and not due to game mechanics.

 

[jadrax]

I think you missed what I was refering to. I am not suggesting that a non-human species are any more or less capable regarding these feats. What I am saying is that in regard to humans, the feat restrictions are used to seperate the uniqueness of each nationality. To remove these limitations, it makes these feats seem more like a group of species feats that humans possess rather than feats based on nationality.

I think your missing what i am saying, i dont want the national limitation to be dropped in favour of making them human only, i want all artifical limitaions on them dropped, in short i want them to be normal feats. I dont want them to be based on nationality, because i find the concept abserd. (see above as to why.)

 

[KDLadage]

Forgive me for being stupid, but why all the offence over positive stereotypes?

Feats are, after all, of benefit to the owning player.

OK... this is the problem as I see it. Suppose you make a feat (we will call it "Charming") that grants a fair bonus somewhere. You then state that "only the people of France can have this feat" -- this, as you say, is a possitive stereotype: Many French are Charming.

However, with this statement, you have the implied opposing statement of "Englishmen can never be Charming" as well as "Americans..." and "Italians..." and "Spaniards..." and "Russians..." and "Canadians..." and so on.

 

[mdraconis]

I see what you are saying. At last we have understanding. I agree with you. Perhaps they should be made available to everyone regardless of species. Umm... The Minbari Warrior Caste with the Charming Feat. LOL

 

[LoneStranger]

All right now. First off I understand what everyone else has said about why they think the feats are offensive. However it looks like people happily glossed over the points I've made about not buying something that offends you. Now I know people want to see this company do well and all that but I'd rather see 100 people buy these books so they can play the game and use the material than see than for 1000 people to buy these books and have most of them get offended by what they see. I've never understood why people get so offended by something that they have to listen to or watch the entire thing then complain about it. In fact lemme quote you a line I saw in the Earth Alliance book: "...For this reason, "average" Poles make poor adventurers, but then, player characters are rarely average!" So in that regard you could have someone stand out in the crowd, a pacifist German, a charming American, a level-headed Israeli to give a couple examples. Besides, who's to say someone couldn't earn a personality feat while they play the game. It's something to think about at least.

 

[jadrax]

All right now. First off I understand what everyone else has said about why they think the feats are offensive. However it looks like people happily glossed over the points I've made about not buying something that offends you.

Problem with that is, this book is awsome, its worth buying just for the stuff on ships, just for the prestige carreers, just for the history, Just for the colony information. (probably not just for the tanks, but that could be just me, i know people who are drooling over that stuff.)

This book was 27quid, and i don't regret buying it at all. Except for the restrictions on the feats. It truely is an excellent book overall.

In fact lemme quote you a line I saw in the Earth Alliance book: "...For this reason, "average" Poles make poor adventurers, but then, player characters are rarely average!" So in that regard you could have someone stand out in the crowd, a pacifist German, a charming American, a level-headed Israeli to give a couple examples. Besides, who's to say someone couldn't earn a personality feat while they play the game. It's something to think about at least.

The person to say it is the rules, which is what I disagree with. People keep Defending the rule by saying you can ignore it But thats not enougth. I want to see NPCs in future supliments, (for an example, a series 2 fiery trial book,) who are not steriotypes, ignore the restrictions. I cirtainly dont want to see the other race books have the exact same feats or even slightly different feats with different names. (please no "Centari Gamber" feat.

 

[frobisher]

OK... this is the problem as I see it. Suppose you make a feat (we will call it "Charming") that grants a fair bonus somewhere. You then state that "only the people of France can have this feat" -- this, as you say, is a possitive stereotype: Many French are Charming.

However, with this statement, you have the implied opposing statement of "Englishmen can never be Charming" as well as "Americans..." and "Italians..." and "Spaniards..." and "Russians..." and "Canadians..." and so on.

"Many English are charming, though none have the Charming feat" (and its converse, "Many French have the Charming feat, but not all are charming").

One is an adjective, the other is a rule mechanic. The lack of access to the latter doesn't preclude you from being the former.

Postal strike willing, I should see my copy of the Fact Book today so maybe I'll find out what the fuss is about when I see them as a whole.

 

[Enlightened Bystander]

How about this interpretation;

The national restrictions show who can take these feats freely. Others can take them, but they have to ask for gm permission and give reasons for them