D&D 5E D&D Next Blog: Tone and Edition
- Thread starter Elodan
- Start date
S
Sunseeker
Guest
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 do not want to have a little "Mythic Rare" symbol next to ANY race that says "these races are rare, you have to pay $50 to buy them on ebay." No really, D&D does not need a rarity system, it lends NOTHING to a game. Tell the DMs that THEY can control what is in THEIR game. End of story, we don't need to go any further than that.
You cannot on one hand put the DM in charge, and then run around telling them what they should or should not be doing. Especially if it's some abstract designer decision of "oh, Dragonborn are rare in Mearls mind, so they must be rare in the books and everyone else's campaign."
The whole article is about accepting other people's views of differing ideas of fantasy, except when it comes down to it, they really haven't accepted other people's views, and are acting like they are by foisting their views on everyone. How is that a solution?
If all races are default "0", then DM's can assign their own rarities to them. There is absolutely no need to attach rarities to races, it will be the first thing any DM with any kahones will ignore. Tell the DM they're in charge, give the DM options, and leave it at that. If people are offended by the fact that players can, and want to play more than the "core four", well tough beans! There's a lot of definitions of fantasy, if that DM doesn't want to allow those races, they can do so without the books telling players that their racial choices are less valid.
I do not want to have a little "Mythic Rare" symbol next to ANY race that says "these races are rare, you have to pay $50 to buy them on ebay." No really, D&D does not need a rarity system, it lends NOTHING to a game. Tell the DMs that THEY can control what is in THEIR game. End of story, we don't need to go any further than that.
You cannot on one hand put the DM in charge, and then run around telling them what they should or should not be doing. Especially if it's some abstract designer decision of "oh, Dragonborn are rare in Mearls mind, so they must be rare in the books and everyone else's campaign."
The whole article is about accepting other people's views of differing ideas of fantasy, except when it comes down to it, they really haven't accepted other people's views, and are acting like they are by foisting their views on everyone. How is that a solution?
If all races are default "0", then DM's can assign their own rarities to them. There is absolutely no need to attach rarities to races, it will be the first thing any DM with any kahones will ignore. Tell the DM they're in charge, give the DM options, and leave it at that. If people are offended by the fact that players can, and want to play more than the "core four", well tough beans! There's a lot of definitions of fantasy, if that DM doesn't want to allow those races, they can do so without the books telling players that their racial choices are less valid.
Ahnehnois
First Post
Is it D&D without Dragonborn/Tieflings/etc.? Yes.
Is it D&D with those things? Maybe.
Tieflings have been around a while; there's nothing wrong with a player being able to play one. Putting them in a race chapter in the beginning of the PHB sends the wrong message. It distances the game from the base races that are generic fantasy assumptions now (humans, elves, dwarves, and halflings, principally). It tritely says that "we're cool and dark and gritty" without actually being any of those things. It pushes a style that includes extraplanar beings as everyday things.
Dragonborn present much the same issues. Dragon people in dragon supplements can be kind of fun and interesting, but they aren't at the core of D&D.
So with both, the answer is that the sine qua non races, classes, etc. need to be presented upfront and they set the tone for the game, while the weirder options should be out there for those who care to look. The 4e treatment of eladrin, dragonborn, and tieflings is a perfect example of how the way information is presented can completely misrepresent that information. They aren't bad concepts (except maybe the eladrin), but they are fringe-y, and they were done poorly and they were waved in everyone's faces from day 1. Bad idea.
There really should be a nice treatment for the core four races, and a separate section of brief treatments for a set of alternative races, to be expanded on in supplements (the same for many other rules).
Is it D&D with those things? Maybe.
Tieflings have been around a while; there's nothing wrong with a player being able to play one. Putting them in a race chapter in the beginning of the PHB sends the wrong message. It distances the game from the base races that are generic fantasy assumptions now (humans, elves, dwarves, and halflings, principally). It tritely says that "we're cool and dark and gritty" without actually being any of those things. It pushes a style that includes extraplanar beings as everyday things.
Dragonborn present much the same issues. Dragon people in dragon supplements can be kind of fun and interesting, but they aren't at the core of D&D.
So with both, the answer is that the sine qua non races, classes, etc. need to be presented upfront and they set the tone for the game, while the weirder options should be out there for those who care to look. The 4e treatment of eladrin, dragonborn, and tieflings is a perfect example of how the way information is presented can completely misrepresent that information. They aren't bad concepts (except maybe the eladrin), but they are fringe-y, and they were done poorly and they were waved in everyone's faces from day 1. Bad idea.
There really should be a nice treatment for the core four races, and a separate section of brief treatments for a set of alternative races, to be expanded on in supplements (the same for many other rules).
CM
Adventurer
Instead of races, classes, and rule modules being categorized by an artificial construct like rarity, they should be instead rated by degree of sphincter-puckering induced in grognards. This will likely produce more accurate categories and does not make undesirable assumptions on the default game world. 
S
Sunseeker
Guest
Why on earth should D&D be under any obligation to be "generic"? I don't play D&D to be generic, I've got a 9-5 where I play a generic human being who does generic things all day long. Why on earth would I have any desire to have a "generic" fantasy experience? I can rewatch LOTR if I want that. I should think that after some 40 years of existence, D&D has grown beyond "generic".
Pyromantic
First Post
Totally disagree. I see absolutely no need for the default assumption of an option in the book to be that you can't play it.
It is entirely sufficient to say that the DM decides the setting of your campaign, and in that setting some races (or whatever other options you decide) do not exist.
Chris_Nightwing
First Post
I have to agree with the sentiments on labelling. Don't use rarity, instead a keyword like 'Classic' or an actual campaign setting would be sensible for races and classes.
Edit: a good example of this is Trail of Cthulhu, with Traditional and Pulp labels for everything from character types to gun rules.
Edit: a good example of this is Trail of Cthulhu, with Traditional and Pulp labels for everything from character types to gun rules.
Ahnehnois
First Post
Did I say that? I didn't say that. There's a core, which is generic. Then you build on that. If you add fifty elven subraces and high magic, you get FR. If you add warforged and dinosaurs, you get Eberron. If you add tieflings and warlords, you get 4e (or, more specifically, its default setting and style, whatever that's called).
However, it's important to note that more is not better. Humans, elves, and dwarves are where it's at. Partially because of LotR but for a lot of other reasons as well. Making a race chapter with 10 races, some of the unrecognizable, some of them offensive to some people's sensibilities, is not a step forward.
If D&D is going to be played by any significant number of people, it has to be pretty generic to start, and then allow you to do what you want with a plethora of options, which is the substance of the suggestions I made.
Similar Threads
AD6_gamerati_skyscraper
Upcoming Releases
-
April 16 2024 -
May 31 2024 -
June 3 2024 -
June 4 2024 -
June 18 2024 -
July 16 2024 -
September 17 2024 -
October 1 2024 -
November 12 2024 -
February 18 2025
