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

Andor · Apr 28, 2012

I think it's great!

Not because it's brilliant, or that I'm going to agree with what rarity each race is, or even that I think Common, Uncommon and Rare are good terms to use.

Why is it great? Because it's a reminder, right there in the race section that not all campaigns are the same. The player is reminded to talk to his GM and thus find out that No, there are no Elves in his Hyborean Age game or conversely that there are no Dragonborn in this Middle-Earth 4th age game. And the GM is reminded that it's his setting and his campaign and yes, he can say no.*

(* - Insert standard GM advice about talking with your played and embracing new ideas yadda, yadda, yadda - But in the end I firmly believe in a GMs right to say "No, that just doesn't fit into my world.")

Steely_Dan · Apr 28, 2012

Andor said:
But in the end I firmly believe in a GMs right to say "No, that just doesn't fit into my world.")

Yep, my very first DM had a slogan "Not in my world.", which was great, he was looking after the integrity of the campaign.

Nikosandros · Apr 28, 2012

I'm all for giving many different options for races so that each group cha chose what to include in their campaign, but I utterly fail to see any usefulness at all in the common/uncommon/rare tagging. What's the point, really? Maybe my world has dwarves and gnomes, but no halflings and elves...

Morrus · Apr 28, 2012

HardcoreDandDGirl said:
I think the terms are the problem. I think that the C/U/R from collactable sets puts a thought in your mind. I think maybe they need to re write the way they communicate the idea if you are right.

I agree (ughh... pink text hurts my eyes!) that terminology is of vital importance, and that sharing terminology with CCGs is probably something best avoided in order to avoid the inevitable "comparisons with X" stuff that will come after.

But I don't really care that much about terminology at this point. Terminology is easily changed, and a blog post about a concept doesn't mean "We have writtena chapter and this is the exact text we're using" - it just means "I've had some thoughts on a concept".

They haven't started writing the rulebooks yet. The entire rulebook, its layout, its terminology, that sort of thing - that's all to come, and it's a year or more away. Maybe it'll be a chapter, or a sidebar; maybe it'll use those words or something else; maybe it'll be a pop-up leaflet; Robert Scwalb doesn't know at this point, and neither does anyone else.

Like I mentioned above, at the point where they haven't settled on a name for the game, they definitely haven't settled on what words they'll use or what sidebar will appear on what page. I bet they haven't even fully settled on "PHB/DMG/MM" yet (though I'll be surprised if they don't go that way in the end).

Steely_Dan · Apr 28, 2012

Nikosandros said:
Maybe my world has dwarves and gnomes, but no halflings and elves...

Tell your players that.

I'm not too keen on Halflings/Hobbits in non-Middle-Earth campaigns (but in Dark Sun/Athas, I have to adjust).

Steely_Dan · Apr 28, 2012

The only problem I can see is a player thinking: ooh, I want to play a rare race, so I'm special.

HardcoreDandDGirl · Apr 28, 2012

Morrus said:
I agree (ughh... pink text hurts my eyes!)

1st I just want you to know your the only person who ever got me to no change the color to stand out.

that terminology is of vital importance, and that sharing terminology with CCGs is probably something best avoided in order to avoid the inevitable "comparisons with X" stuff that will come after.

I hope that terminology is one of the things the open playtest will fix for them. Becuse as much as WotC is not my fav system publishers, I do think they made great games, I think they need help in Invoking the right feel.

thecasualoblivion · Apr 28, 2012

Kaodi said:
Consider this in the context of the wider world, however. The Bible is not a book about the average Joe, or even the average Sir; it is a collection of all of the notable characters in a single book. Of course it is littered with the exceptions; that is what it is about. Throw in a complete list of the great unwashed masses, however, and suddenly they do not look so prevalent. The core presumption of D&D characters, however, is not that they are notable for who or what they are, but for having the right stuff that will allow them to climb the ladder to greatness. That is a different kind of notable than most myths are based on.

PCs are the exception, not Joe Schmoe off the street or your unwashed masses. PCs are the notable characters in that single book.

Bedrockgames said:
I think what we are really talking about is what are the core and established D&D races and tropes (fantasy lit and D&D are two different things). I think if the aim is to make this recognizeably D&D, they really need to go with the core racesof human, elf, dwarf, gnome, halfling, half elf and (possibly) half orc. But they also need a section on other races and racial variants. They could put stuff like tieflings, eladrin and dragonborn in the core but these dont appear in the core phb of any other editions so they have a clear 4E races feel (and i do realize they were present in 3E products but there arealso many races present in 2E products tha never were mentioned in the core PHB. I think it is also a good idea for them to talk about settings in the race section and use examples like Darksun and Planescape to illustrate the possibilities. Also worth talking about human only campaign worlds. I general they need to do a better job IMO of emphasizing the uniqueness of each campaign setting and how players shouldn't assume every option in the PHB, DMG or various modules will be available in a given setting.

The trouble with this is that 4E is also a part of D&D, and hence a part of 5E which promises to be able to do your style of D&D, whoever you are. In 4E, Dragonborn and Tieflings are core parts of the world, and core rules without Tiefling and/or Dragonborn means that 5E is going to fall short of delivering the 4E experience.

Morrus said:
I'm not seeing the problem, here. WotC isn't telling you how your campaign MUST be.

It's presenting a default setting, and the races have X rarity in that setting. Other settings will no doubt have different rarities. You own campaign will have your own.

Seriously, if folks are that upset about a default setting being included, do they feel that a default pantheon should be left out, also, because wotC is telling which gods you MUST use in your setting?

It seems apparent to me that the rarities will be setting-dependent. That seems such a no-brainer, that I struggle to see how anyone could imagine it would be otherwise. And a default pantheon/races/etc. is a perfectly normal and common thing to find in a D&D core rulebook.

I like it. And it makes it easy for a beginner DM to choose simple "packages" while leaving the experienced DM to tweak as he or she wishes. That's exactly how a game should be designed, in my view.

Its not so much having a problem with it per se, as much as the appearance of WotC takiing a side in the edition wars by putting a label on something that is unique to a particular edition. If the real goal is making it clear that not every option is going to be available in any given game world, why not just be clear about that? The same goes for new players, as I'd rather WotC and the game itself present diffferent things in a neutral tone, as opposed to a tone that could be mistaken for favoring one thing over another.

Bedrockgames · Apr 28, 2012

thecasualoblivion said:
The trouble with this is that 4E is also a part of D&D, and hence a part of 5E which promises to be able to do your style of D&D, whoever you are. In 4E, Dragonborn and Tieflings are core parts of the world, and core rules without Tiefling and/or Dragonborn means that 5E is going to fall short of delivering the 4E experience.

.

But you could use that argument to say everything that is in 4e and not other editions has to be core to satisfy the 4e audience. The problem with that is it doesn't meet their goal of creating an edition that is recognizeable as D&D to everyone who plays D&D. THAC0 was part of 2e and second edition is also part of D&D, but including that in core would upset a lot of people. Anything contentious like that (and yes dragonborn and tieflings are contentious) will need to be an optional ad on. They never promised that 5e would reflect all edition styles in the core, they just said the modules would allow us to tailor the core to our prefered playstyle. So I imagine the core game is going to be solid but made up of things common to all editions. After that you can build the edition you want by adding in tiefling or dragonborn.

The Shadow · Apr 28, 2012

Something that just occurred to me. Isn't this differentiation exactly what Pathfinder tries to get across by the distinction between 'core' classes and 'base' classes?

I find that terminology a little confusing, but as I understand it, 'core' classes are considered available by default unless the GM says otherwise, while 'base' classes are considered only suitable to some campaigns and you should seek GM approval for playing one.

That's pretty much what they're saying in this post about races, isn't it? Though again, the terminology is a little odd.

I mean, the 'common' races are in 4e too, along with every other edition. So one can indeed say, "You can assume these races are available in any D&D game, unless specifically told otherwise. While these other races, though cool, aren't suitable to every D&D game, so ask first."

I'm not sure what's supposed to be 'uncommon' about half-elves or half-orcs or gnomes, except they weren't in the 4e PH1. So the tripartite list is throwing a bone to 4e players as well as players of earlier editions.