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

Maybe we solve the problem by bringing back racial preferences and reaction modifiers.

If the book explicitly says that human NPC societies will react to elves with tolerance, but to dragonborn with fear and uncertainty, that will give players the sense of what to expect walking into a human village.

You could even modify it to talk about the "traveling zoo" party. Say, each party member of an "antipathy" reaction causes a cumulative -1 penalty to social checks for any party member, not just the unusual one.

Savage Wombat said:

If the book explicitly says that human NPC societies will react to elves with tolerance, but to dragonborn with fear and uncertainty, that will give players the sense of what to expect walking into a human village.

Click to expand...

Careful, now. There's a certain mindset that cries out "But the game should not assume stipulate that I run a human-centric world!"

Personally, I think it's fine to put some sort of trope warning in. Maybe it should be a gold star by "Tolkienesque" races, a blue star by "Talislanta-esque" races, and a mopy purple star by "emo/dark" races. Even that would be arbitrary, though. I like my fantasy pretty traditional/Tolkien-esque, but the dragonborn really grew on me and I hate halflings.

Whether you want to read rarity as "how many GMs will allow the race" or "how likely it is to pass through a grognard's sphincter" doesn't really matter. It's as good of a measure as any. Maybe the better way to read it is "how often the race will be played as just a human with pointy ears and a personality disorder".

I think the rare/common/etc tags should be determined by campaign setting. I've fallen off the wagon of keeping track of D&D Durango a bit, so I cannot remember if it has a default setting. I think it's Forgotten Realms, right? If so, it will be interesting to see how the Realms are rewritten to unify the influences from different eras.

One of the things I disliked about 4E was that the game assumed every product was core to every setting. By all means, groups should feel free to mix and match things as they please, but I think it somewhat hampers the writers when they are required to assume that everything exists everywhere. I like the way 3rd Edition's Monster Manual 3* handled new creatures. They were each given a small blurb about how to fit them into a setting where they were not assumed to exist. Racial entries could do the same thing, and such a thing could also be the basis for a lot of DDi magazine articles (i.e. "Warforged in Dragonlance"; "Kender Steal Dark Sun".)





*my memory is a bit fuzzy, so forgive me if I've called out the wrong book.

The rarity thing (common, uncommon, rare) is one of the few things I've heard about 5e so far that I really dislike. It sets up pre-baked expectations in an arbitrary way. Let DM's decide what exist in their world, without handing out expectations about what should exist or not. I would be much, much happier with a note in the text saying the DM can decide what classes and races are allowed based on their campaign, check with them.

The rarity thing (common, uncommon, rare) is one of the few things I've heard about 5e so far that I really dislike. It sets up pre-baked expectations in an arbitrary way. Let DM's decide what exist in their world, without handing out exceptions about what should exist or not. I would be much, much happier with a note in the text saying the DM can decide what classes and races are allowed based on their campaign, check with them.

Click to expand...

Yeah on a fundamental level the rarity system is just to appease people whose preconceived knowledge of fantasy abruptly stops at Tolkein. One of the greatest wizards in all of fantasy was a Tiefling.

I don't find this idea very helpful. It seems like a recipe for conflict at the table - and in both directions: a player wants to play a dragonborn PC, and the GM says "No, you can't, no rare races in this campaign"; a GM want to set up a campaign with no halflings, and a player says "No, you can't, every D&D campaign has common races."

What would serve the game better would be a frank discussion somewhere upfront that different players have differing preferences for the races in their fantasy worlds, and that those at the table need to reach some agreement on this (with the GM having, perhaps, the loudest but not the only voice). If they want to crib the text from somewhere else, they could have a look at the Burning Wheel books, which are clear and upfront in this respect.

technoextreme said:

One of the greatest wizards in all of fantasy was a Tiefling.

Click to expand...

1st Ed Deities & Demigods' Merlin's father was an incubus?

Thaumaturge said:

Definitely. Part of the cause of Gamers: Rise of the Ruleslawyers was the dwindling amount of text devoted to reinforcing the basic fact the the DM is the ultimate arbiter.

Click to expand...

I don't think that had one iota of influence in the "Rise of the Rules Lawyers". I think that was entirely cause by the lack of acknowledgement that there is more than one "correct" way to play RPGs, and most game systems (most definitely including D&D) were at best vague and at worst confused about stating what style(s) were assumed/expected/supported by that specific system. "Rules Lawyers" arise either (i) when someone innocently expects the game to be focussed one way but finds themselves in a game that has a very different focus, or (ii) wants the game to focus a different way to that in which it is, and tries to use dysfunctional forcing tactics to drive the game in that direction.

The best way around this is not to preach the old "DM is god, so you play his way and do as he says, period" BS but to raise awareness that there are several valid ways to play, and many/most of them are fun. If the way you want isn't supported by the game you are in or in the area where you game, the fair and functional thing to do is to raise it in conversation outside the game and be prepared to GM something yourself by way of demonstration of what you mean, not to try to hijack a group who are already happy with the style they are playing with.

Savage Wombat said:

Maybe we solve the problem by bringing back racial preferences and reaction modifiers.

If the book explicitly says that human NPC societies will react to elves with tolerance, but to dragonborn with fear and uncertainty, that will give players the sense of what to expect walking into a human village.

Click to expand...

While I think the idea of a "racial interaction matrix" can be useful for a campaign, I think setting one up as the default for all D&D games everywhere would be a mistake. Put some guidelines on it in the DMG, would be my choice of route.

My biggest issue with 4e was that it felt like the sell of books overshadowed everything else. Of course, this didn't really curb my enthusaism in buying most of them. Still, I really hated that popular monsters and classes were pulled from the orginal core books and placed in later books. While I don't care for gnomes much I feel like they should have been in the first PHB. Dragonborn and Tieflings in my opinion should have been in another book.

It also seemed like half the classes that were in the 3.5 book were pulled from the 4e PHB and put in later books. What was really strange is the fact that the Bard's mechanics was actually talked about before 4e was released. And then we find out that the Bard was not in the PHB. I think this was a bad move for WotC since it meant for anyone who wanted to convert characters had a good chance of not being able to. I think these decisions were done so that players had to purchase other books beyond the first phb and I do not think that is good for customer satisfaction. If they want players to buy more books then create new content that is both new and stands on it's own merit.

I really hope that they stand by their statement that they will not have to do such strategies because they have other income sources like the boardgames and miniatures .

Balesir said:

"Rules Lawyers" arise either (i) when someone innocently expects the game to be focussed one way but finds themselves in a game that has a very different focus, or (ii) wants the game to focus a different way to that in which it is, and tries to use dysfunctional forcing tactics to drive the game in that direction.

Click to expand...

That's an interesting theory, but for me, it puts too much intention into the acts of those who have Lawyered Rules.

You know, I actually think a significant part of the Rise of the Ruleslawyers, at least in my circles, is how the books changed. They went from often contradictory and vague tomes with an almost mystical feel about them to very clear and concise college textbooks style books. When we played with the first type of books, it was easier, often, to just left the DM say how it was than to search for a particular rule. In 3e and then 4e, the rule referencing was just so danged easy.

Also, I was an adult with a degree while reading the most recent two editions, as opposed to a youth with low attention span and middling reading skills. Still, I say lets blame or praise the books and, by proxy, the writers for my failings.

To circle back to what you disagree with me about, though, I think the rules-vaguery I mentioned, with my groups, was a reminder the DM was arbiter. He had to be. As the rules become easier to reference, perhaps some additional reminders in the player-facing text would have pushed back against the Rise. Perhaps not.

As to those who are upset about the classification of races- this is how rules modularity looks. There will be things you don't like presented beside things you do. If you don't like some things, ignore them. Others will gain utility from such a rule or presentation, which is good for them. Know their eyes will occasionally have to have actual, visual contact with rules or presentations they dislike, but you prefer.

If really necessary, have an eyedropper of bleach near your rulebooks at all time, so the pain of seeing a racial rarity that doesn't align with your homebrew is short.

Thaumaturge.

Also, don't do the eyedropper thing.