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

Bedrockgames · Apr 28, 2012

Yora said:
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.

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.

Mattachine · Apr 28, 2012

I think this is a great idea. Not every option needs to be a module. Some options can simply be "tagged", so that the players will know the DM might include or exclude those options because of the particular campaign.

Progress.

Yora · Apr 28, 2012

Iosue said:
I think this a great idea, an elegant and useful solution to the gnome problem.

Lol, that was a really useful poll! ^^

Derren · Apr 28, 2012

Radical idea.

Don't have any player races, but have a system where you can apply levels to every monster in the book with guidelines how to balance different power levels. Humans, etc. would then just be "monsters" like all else. Hmm, maybe we shouldn't have a monster manual then but just a Race Compendium...
Problem solves

(I know that this will not happen as such a system is too complicated and a lot of people will rebel as they don't want anything in their games which is not Tolkien approved).

Steely_Dan · Apr 28, 2012

Bedrockgames said:
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.

Yes, a little less player-entitlement (assumption) in this edition would be a good thing.

Not that I am advocating tyrannical DMs.

Morrus · Apr 28, 2012

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.

Bedrockgames · Apr 28, 2012

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.

Actually to be completely honest I would like to see the pantheon left out and left up to the GM (with guidelines of course). This sort of approach worked well for me in 2E, where many of those details were left to the campaign setting. I found it easier to put my setting details on the core than in 3e (because it was built around more setting assumptions--not many but more).

Derren · Apr 28, 2012

Morrus said:
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.

Then they should make a separate "The default setting for beginners" section for this information and not write it into the core rules part of the books.

Morrus · Apr 28, 2012

Derren said:
Then they should make a separate "The default setting for beginners" section for this information and not write it into the core rules part of the books.

I don't think we're at the point where we can quibble about possible layout issues for a game that has not even been written yet. I'm sure layout will become a priority for WotC in a year or so - right now they don't even know what the game is going to be called, let alone the positions of sidebars and chapter names.

HardcoreDandDGirl · Apr 28, 2012

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

Of cource not, but it is easy enough to see people being against some races being presented as rare, but still in the world. I know when I see rare dragonborn, My first thought is "Well if I am the only one in this city, isn't that still rare"

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.

I am not sure that anything is a no-brainer anymore. I agree with the above statement of eladrin and tieflings in Darksun in 4e, when there was no need for it.

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.

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.