Mercurius
Legend
One thread of "The Great Debate" that I haven't followed all that closely pertains to racial ability bonuses, but I think it highlights an underlying issue that filters into a lot of the other threads of the discussion, such as how to depict orcs, drow, etc.
With regards to the core rules, it seems WotC is in a bit of a pickle, a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation. If they present these ideas too generally, they lose a lot of flavor and everything becomes homogenized (e.g. orcs can be anything humans can, but just have pointy teeth); if they present things too specifically, they run the risk of depicting things in such a way that some will find offensive.
So what to do? I have argued for a "Big Tent" approach that provides general guidelines and many specific types and examples. The problem with this is mostly logistical: if you give orcs such a treatment, you're talking about quite a few pages, and thus less monsters and races. It also may lead to some degree of choice overload, which is problematic for new players. "Wait, which orc should I use?" At least as far as a starter set is concerned, some base assumptions are useful for starting players and DMs.
Another approach that I'd advocate for, and the main point of this thread, is a "general rules, specific worlds" approach. The way I see it working is like so:
Starter Sets: Keep it simple. Provide limited races and monsters, with some suggestion that they can exist in greater variation than as depicted in this product, as explored in the...
Core Rules: Broaden things up. Provide general descriptions, with numerous examples of specific treatments, from D&D history, literature, cinema, video games, etc. Emphasize (again and again) customization, that D&D is a game that is whatever you want it to be. Diminish canonical lore, making it specific to...
Worlds: This is where WotC can be more specific. The key is to highlight the uniqueness of each setting, and emphasize the contextual nature of each setting. In Eberron, orcs are this way; in the Forgotten Realms, this is the drow origin story.
Problems will arise, but easily addressed through clarifying the "general core, specific worlds" approach, and through emphasizing the customizable nature of D&D.
Another issue, mentioned above, is the page-count required to provide a wide range of possibilities. This can be done with some degree of moderation, though. For instance, the monster entry for Orc can include a paragraph discussing the wide ranging depictions of orcs in various media, and then offer fuller treatments of only a handful. A later product--perhaps digest-sized, like the Pathfinder pocket editions--could be printed that include only short descriptions and stat blocks of all monsters printed in the last few years.
But again, the approach I'm advocating is for a more general core rules, with specific and unique worlds. Some may dislike certain worlds, but they can always be customized ("I want Eberron orcs in Faerun") or, if not, there are other worlds to explore ("Faerun doesn't work for me, but Wildemount is interesting...").
With regards to the core rules, it seems WotC is in a bit of a pickle, a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't situation. If they present these ideas too generally, they lose a lot of flavor and everything becomes homogenized (e.g. orcs can be anything humans can, but just have pointy teeth); if they present things too specifically, they run the risk of depicting things in such a way that some will find offensive.
So what to do? I have argued for a "Big Tent" approach that provides general guidelines and many specific types and examples. The problem with this is mostly logistical: if you give orcs such a treatment, you're talking about quite a few pages, and thus less monsters and races. It also may lead to some degree of choice overload, which is problematic for new players. "Wait, which orc should I use?" At least as far as a starter set is concerned, some base assumptions are useful for starting players and DMs.
Another approach that I'd advocate for, and the main point of this thread, is a "general rules, specific worlds" approach. The way I see it working is like so:
Starter Sets: Keep it simple. Provide limited races and monsters, with some suggestion that they can exist in greater variation than as depicted in this product, as explored in the...
Core Rules: Broaden things up. Provide general descriptions, with numerous examples of specific treatments, from D&D history, literature, cinema, video games, etc. Emphasize (again and again) customization, that D&D is a game that is whatever you want it to be. Diminish canonical lore, making it specific to...
Worlds: This is where WotC can be more specific. The key is to highlight the uniqueness of each setting, and emphasize the contextual nature of each setting. In Eberron, orcs are this way; in the Forgotten Realms, this is the drow origin story.
Problems will arise, but easily addressed through clarifying the "general core, specific worlds" approach, and through emphasizing the customizable nature of D&D.
Another issue, mentioned above, is the page-count required to provide a wide range of possibilities. This can be done with some degree of moderation, though. For instance, the monster entry for Orc can include a paragraph discussing the wide ranging depictions of orcs in various media, and then offer fuller treatments of only a handful. A later product--perhaps digest-sized, like the Pathfinder pocket editions--could be printed that include only short descriptions and stat blocks of all monsters printed in the last few years.
But again, the approach I'm advocating is for a more general core rules, with specific and unique worlds. Some may dislike certain worlds, but they can always be customized ("I want Eberron orcs in Faerun") or, if not, there are other worlds to explore ("Faerun doesn't work for me, but Wildemount is interesting...").
