D&D 5th Edition D&D Next Blog: Tone and Edition - Page 8

+ Log in or register to post
Page 8 of 16 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 154
  1. #71
    So not worth panty bunching over; in the end the DM will decide what is and is not included in his campaign, like if I run a Ravenloft campaign set in the domain of Borca, Human would be the only option, and in my Planescape campaign, anything goes, with Aasimar, Bauriars and Tieflings being common.


  • #72
    Community Supporter COPPER SUBSCRIBER
    Guide (Lvl 11)

    Iosue's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Nagoya, Japan

    Ignore Iosue
    I think this a great idea, an elegant and useful solution to the gnome problem. For many groups, all of the races and classes will be fair game, so the rarity label will just be an unused line, like encumbrance rules. Other groups will have playstyles where the group trusts the DM to allow or disallow races/classes as he sees fit. The common/uncommon/rare designations, if nothing else, can at least be a useful shorthand for those DMs, even if they don't use the default settings. So it's an unintrusive, unused setting for those who don't need it. But for those groups who can use it, where a DM may not feel confident banning races or classes that are in the PHB, or for novice DMs just starting out making their own world, it can be a default that makes it easier for them to manage all the options in the PHB, or a system that lets them adjust the setting that has rulebook backing, so they don't have to go all Viking hat.

    People often say, "How can WotC provide a game when one group wants A, and another group wants Z, the exact opposite?" Some folks want dragonborn, tieflings, and warlords in the PHB. Others just want the classic races and the classic classes. This system gives them both what they want -- and gives us in the excluded middle a bunch of options as well. We are excluded no more!

  • #73
    Scout (Lvl 6)

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Annapolis, Maryland, United States
    I Defended The Walls!

    Ignore sheadunne
    And they continue to make the same mistakes all over again.
    Thinking about what I want out of a game

  • #74
    Am I the only here to think that this post created a division out of nowhere? I think it offered another subject for the edition war...
    But maybe it's only my imagination...

  • #75
    Registered User
    Enchanter (Lvl 12)

    Bluenose's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2007

    Ignore Bluenose
    Quote Originally Posted by outsider View Post
    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.
    It doesn't look like anything more than that to me. Tell people that their preferred races are good, and other peoples are bad, and hope they'll accept it more.

    Of course in my opinion if Sword and Sorcery is a genre that D&D is going to try and do, then weird-humans like tieflings belong far more than the Tolkien knock-off elves/dwarves/halflings that we're getting. So one more sign that 5e is going a direction I won't like.

  • #76
    Registered User
    Guide (Lvl 11)

    Yora's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2011

    Ignore Yora
    Edit: Ah now I get it! Then weird humans belong far more into generic 5th Edition worlds than standard fantasy races do.

    Well, I disagree anyway. The theme and style of stories is mostly independetnt from the parts that make the setting the story takes place in. Dark Sun is very S&S, but has all the standard races. Wheel of Time has more Hyborian-style races, but is still High Fantasy.
    It's what you make of it.
    Last edited by Yora; Saturday, 28th April, 2012 at 01:10 PM.
    http://spriggans-den.com My site for the Ancient Lands setting and everything RPG related.

  • #77
    Registered User
    Waghalter (Lvl 7)

    Gold Roger's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Beautiful Bonn in Germany.
    Blog Entries

    Ignore Gold Roger
    Rarity for races is plain simply not necessary. Just say the DM (or the campaign setting or the group as whole, depending on playstyles) decides what races are readily available.

    But if they do this, I'll still have halforcs and gnomes, but no halfelves in my setting, despite both being "uncommon". And halforcs will be a common sight and gnomes a rarity in world.

    I'd much rather see a common, uncommon, rare system for vancian spells.

    If stuff like teleport and scry are rare spells, those who love their scry-buff-teleport can say rare spells are readily available and I can say rare spells are really hard to aquire and they might never appear in the game.

  • #78
    Quote Originally Posted by patrick y. View Post
    Conversely, I think putting races like tieflings, dragonborn, and the like sends the message that D&D isn't just a poor man's Tolkien (and Tolkien-knockoff) simulator. Which I think is the right message to send in a modern system. The boundaries of what is considered generic fantasy have expanded a lot in the last couple of decades, and I don't think you'd find a whole lot of younger fantasy fans, especially, who would consider dragonfolk or half-demons to be anything out of the ordinary. If races like tiefling were ever "cool and dark and gritty", it was a long time ago. At this point, I think distancing D&D from the idea that "generic fantasy" means human, dwarf, elf, halfling is a good thing, because the larger culture has long since done so.
    I can see what you're saying. (You seem to be assuming that I am not a "younger fantasy fan", though, which is debatable; I don't know what was going on two decades ago). The problem with elves and dwarves is that they've been done before.

    On the other hand, they're assumed. Everyone has some ideas about them, which means you don't have to establish much. Having to explain things to people is a barrier to getting them in the game. And yes, you have to explain to most people what the word "Tiefling" refers to. Expanding the game doesn't have to be about adding new races front and center, it can be a matter of doing the old ones better. For example, Dragon Age has done pretty well by simply giving us new takes on old tropes, as has Pathfinder.

    Proliferation is also a problem. If you keep the basic races and start adding on to them, things just get confusing. A new player does not need to see ten or fifteen races to choose, and new races can't really be inserted in place of the old ones. It's really best to have a few standards on page 1 and then let people add a selection of other ones on later to spice things up.

    And, for whatever discussion one wants to have about race options, it's important to remember that they are really icing on the cake. The majority of all D&D characters are probably humans, which somehow never get old.
    "Clear Eyes, Full Hearts, Can't Lose"

  • #79
    Registered User
    Guide (Lvl 11)

    Yora's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2011

    Ignore Yora
    Please people! Make sure you're writing complete sentences. You can't just leave out a couple of words and hope people still understand what you mean. Saw it happening three or four times on this forum just today.
    http://spriggans-den.com My site for the Ancient Lands setting and everything RPG related.

  • #80
    Registered User
    Enchanter (Lvl 12)

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Napanee, Ontario
    Blog Entries

    Ignore Kaodi
    Quote Originally Posted by shidaku View Post
    Classical Mythology is positively littered with the offspring of gods and demons. D&D draws from that IMO a lot more than it does merely from Tolkein. Where is my Hercules? My 22 str plane-touched human? What about my Achilles? Judeo-Christian theology is filled with the idea of evil beings attempting to procreate with humans. These are NOT uncommon ideas.
    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.

    Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,
    Is the immediate jewel of their souls.
    Who steals my purse steals trash; 'tis something, nothing;
    'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
    But he that filches from me my good name
    Robs me of that which not enriches him
    And makes me poor indeed.

    -Iago, Shakespeare's Othello, Act III. Scene III. Lines 180-186.

  • + Log in or register to post
    Page 8 of 16 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 LastLast

    Similar Threads

    1. The Writing Style and Tone of 5E
      By Mark CMG in forum D&D and Pathfinder
      Replies: 11
      Last Post: Sunday, 15th January, 2012, 07:55 PM
    2. Tone Artists?
      By JQP in forum Miscellaneous Geek Talk & Media Lounge
      Replies: 1
      Last Post: Tuesday, 11th March, 2008, 03:00 PM
    3. SPELLS of 4th edition - Mearls blog
      By FabioMilitoPagliara in forum D&D and Pathfinder
      Replies: 8
      Last Post: Friday, 16th November, 2007, 09:28 PM
    4. Age of Worms - Campaign tone?
      By The_Fan in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming Discussion
      Replies: 18
      Last Post: Saturday, 18th June, 2005, 11:39 PM
    5. What's the tone of your campaign?
      By eris404 in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming Discussion
      Replies: 60
      Last Post: Saturday, 8th May, 2004, 04:13 PM

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts