D&D 5E D&D Next Blog: Tone and Edition

Ahnehnois · Apr 28, 2012

DEFCON 1 said:
Whereas slicing everything out of the race chapter except for a select four isn't a step forward either.

Well, no. Race is not a big venue for innovation (unless you start talking about variant racial traits or racial levels or something like that). D&D is not that bad of a game. This is one area where the main thing is to not fix things that aren't broken.

Minigiant · Apr 28, 2012

As I read topics here and in other places, I am beginning to think DMs are afraid to tell players "No".

And the more I read these topics, the more I think we need an official campaign sheet for DMs.

I know many DMs have campaign primers but the amount of variation that can happen between games, players and DMs will need something simple to start conversation between them when finding groups.

You hand them the sheet that says "Races: Humans, Dwarves, Elves, Halfings. Classes: Clerics, Fighters, Rogues, Wizards."

You two talk and decide if you will make any changes to accommodate them. Then you two play D&D together or not.

Doug McCrae · Apr 28, 2012

Minigiant said:
I know many DMs have campaign primers but the amount of variation that can happen between games, players and DMs will need something simple to start conversation between them when finding groups.

You hand them the sheet that says "Races: Humans, Dwarves, Elves, Halfings. Classes: Clerics, Fighters, Rogues, Wizards."

Check out this campaign sheet for the superhero game Champions. It's from 4e, which was published in 1989.

Sunseeker · Apr 28, 2012

Ahnehnois said:
You mean that patterning a product after things that you bought doesn't attract you? Sheesh.

Now if you're saying that the game needs to innovate, I agree. But it needs to mechanically innovate. 3e is the same game as 2e, but with better mechanics. The same needs to be done again. If it's not better than 3.5, which is still free online, there is no reason to buy it.

There also is a need for innovation in tone, but I don't count adding in weird races as innovation. Expanding the range of styles that D&D can own (from comedy to gritty political drama to superhero fantasy) is innovative. Thrusting one of those styles down the reader's throat is not.

I don't count weird races as innovation either, it's just expansion and including more options. Innovation would be say, adding something to the "Core 4" to make them less boring. Basic should not be associated with "bland".

Yes, this is certainly true. That's why the monster manuals are filled with these kinds of things. That's why rules for playing monsters are important. That's not a statement that these things are ever going to be the primary PC races. Trying to make them that radically changes the game away from being classic fantasy and away from being grounded in humanity. There is one primary PC race: human. Really, everything else is optional.

Maybe to you, but I certainly don't consider it fantasy is there's only humans and monsters, it's kinda a dumb duality.
As for "monstrous PCs" I think this evokes a bit of soft racism, much like "demi human" that I really can stand to live without. Aside from setting books, the "core books" should be written from a perspective neutral view, not from a humanocentric one. Dragonborn and Tieflings are only monstrous if we assume that humanity is not. That's why I argue for racial neutrality, in a setting populated primarily by elves and gnomes(both fey descendants), humans are likely to be the "savage species" and I'm sure many elves would consider dwarves "monstrous" with those short, fat, hairy bodies.

Perhaps you should try another rpg. There are plenty that don't make this assumption, but D&D is not one of them.

Is it? Since when? 2nd edition? There hasn't been an edition of D&D I've played that has regarded the "Core four" as generic. In 3e and 4e(the editions I'm most familiar wit and played the most of), they go to pretty great lengths to give each race it's own particular favor and styling. I'd hardly call them "generic".

Shemeska · Apr 28, 2012

God in Heaven I hope they go with traditional tieflings with variation to their form and a diversity of possible fiendish heritage rather than the homogenous one form fits all "tiefling" from 4e.

If they kill off the classic tiefling in 5e in favor of only the 4e tiefling, without providing both as options, my interest is going to seriously crater.

outsider · Apr 28, 2012

Vael said:
I'm still struggling to see the point of introducing a rarity system.

The point of it is to try to reel back in groups that will absolutely not play with Dragonborn/etc, while not losing the players that like that stuff. I suspect we are going to see alot of "compromises" like this from 5e.

SkidAce · Apr 28, 2012

Doug McCrae said:
Check out this campaign sheet for the superhero game Champions. It's from 4e, which was published in 1989.

I've used that...works well.

Minigiant · Apr 28, 2012

Doug McCrae said:
Check out this campaign sheet for the superhero game Champions. It's from 4e, which was published in 1989.

Something like that

[sblock]
Campaign Name:

Campaign Tone:
Morality
Realism
Lethality
Continuity
PC Importance
Magic Rating
Divine Rating
Level Range

Base Modules:
Races Allowed
Race Rarity
Classes Allowed
Class Rarity
Backgrounds Allowed
Background Rarity
Themes Allowed
Theme Rarity

Other Modules:

Setting Description:
Notable Locations-
Notable NPCs-
Notable Events-
Notable Artifacts-
[/sblock]

Fill in.
Hand to potential players.

am181d · Apr 28, 2012

Eh. This seems harmless, but not particularly useful. Inevitably, I will use some classes and not use others.

The principle advantage is psychological. I think there are people who would freak out if Dragonborn were core again, who won't freak out if they're "optional, rare".

But ultimately all races are optional so it doesn't matter to me much either way.

I'll say this though: I'd be super happy if they added Changeling, Shifter, and Warforged to the set of races they support in the initial set of books. (Maybe in the Monster Manual?) I get more use out of those classes than a bunch of the core/common races.

Ratskinner · Apr 28, 2012

shidaku said:
No. Absolutely not. The books do not need to tell me how often races should appear in my game. Put the races in the book, let ME, the DM decide what's going to be in my world, let ME, the DM decide what my players can or cannot play.

I don't think the are. They are telling you, to a very small extent, how common those races are "in D&D". Your world, of course, remains yours. I think people are reading too much into this categorization thing.

Of course, I also think they should dump the "common-uncommon-rare" categorization. That just seems to fuel the misunderstanding. I've suggested "Basic - Expert - Advanced" for historical reasons, and because one of the writers suggested that rare and uncommon might be home to more complicated mechanical stuff.

Of course, I could be wrong.