D&D General No More "Humans in Funny Hats": Racial Mechanics Should Determine Racial Cultures

[Scribe]

I can say the same about you, because you consistently talk down about other options, saying things like they're bland or have been only done to avoid "offending" others, rather than accepting that the other options have positive benefits you just don't like.

If only they were options, but we can't have that can we?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I can say the same about you, because you consistently talk down about other options, saying things like they're bland or have been only done to avoid "offending" others, rather than accepting that the other options have positive benefits you just don't like.

You know, I agree that the changes have positive benefits I just dont like. But I also think they were done to avoid offending others.

 

[Faolyn]

If only they were options, but we can't have that can we?

Of course they're options. Everything in D&D is an option. Nobody is forcing you to buy the books or use the material as presented. WotC just isn't producing new stuff that you'll like. And that's no different from people who prefer to only play only Basic, or only AD&D, or only 3x or 4e.

 

[Scribe]

Of course they're options. Everything in D&D is an option. Nobody is forcing you to buy the books or use the material as presented. WotC just isn't producing new stuff that you'll like. And that's no different from people who prefer to only play only Basic, or only AD&D, or only 3x or 4e.

Everything is an option.

Unless it's racial ASI, we need to replace that with Tasha's.

 

[Lyxen]

Being successful doesn't mean you made no mistakes nor reached your full potential.

There is no absolute in terms of "full potential", only further growing sales and popularity.

5th is the most edition but there were only 6 of them and 5th is litterally dealing with the largest population any edition had as potential customers. 5e sold classics and old in-house IP. This meant it was limiting itself and thus created a wall for itself in one direction.

Not necessarily, it means that WotC choose to grow in a certain direction and this has proven very beneficial to themselves. But there is no wall here, they did not run into any, nor did they create one for themselves. If I have land in many directions, choosing to exploit one direction (and being successful in it) does not mean that I build walls in the others, just that I choose not to exploit them (possibly for very good reasons).

 

[Lyxen]

Of course they're options. Everything in D&D is an option.

While true, there are some parts which are clearly labelled as optional. This is a simple fact, and the reason for which some people try to influence the community in thinking that they are not options is that they desperately want these options (and in general for powergaming reasons) and that them being clearly labelled as optional gives DMs a very good position to say that they don't want them in their game.

Nobody is forcing you to buy the books or use the material as presented. WotC just isn't producing new stuff that you'll like.

And labelling some parts as optional, which is a good thing for the reason mentioned above. It also avoids an uncontrolled explosion like 3e had where basically players (and in particular powergamers) felt entitled to use every possible combo from every possible published book, and in the end destroying the game.

And that's no different from people who prefer to only play only Basic, or only AD&D, or only 3x or 4e.

Indeed, it is a matter of taste, so while I respect yours, please respect ours when we say that we do NOT like these options and that thankfully WotC has chose to keep them even more optional than the rest of the rules.

 

[Lyxen]

I can say the same about you, because you consistently talk down about other options, saying things like they're bland or have been only done to avoid "offending" others, rather than accepting that the other options have positive benefits you just don't like.

As far as I can see, the only positive thing is allowing powergamers to tweak their build for even greater power, which is something that some people find positive (in particular the aforementioned powergamers who had, for a few weeks, another playing field to create new builds and discuss about them), but that others find negative as it usually creates characters with a lesser link to the races and cultures of the world, more bland (as the differences are not roleplayed, just used a fuel for technical power).

Because, before that, you could just create any character you wanted and if you wanted to play someone with a different lineage than others in your tribe/clan/society/culture, you already could without tweaking the game even in the slightest. What you did not get where as good technical benefits from it, which goes back to prove that it's ONLY for power.

 

[Minigiant]

There is no absolute in terms of "full potential", only further growing sales and popularity.



Not necessarily, it means that WotC choose to grow in a certain direction and this has proven very beneficial to themselves. But there is no wall here, they did not run into any, nor did they create one for themselves. If I have land in many directions, choosing to exploit one direction (and being successful in it) does not mean that I build walls in the others, just that I choose not to exploit them (possibly for very good reasons).

Choosing to discontinue selling a product you use to (new settings) is walling off a potential sales opportunity.

It might be a good idea. It might be a new direction.

But it is literally choosing to not sell something you used to is putting up a wall between you and sales of those products.

And to me, WOTCs constant attempts to poll and adjust old settings with new modern sensibilities and practices proves that it is looking in that direction without moving there.

 

[Lyxen]

Choosing to discontinue selling a product you use to (new settings) is walling off a potential sales opportunity.

No, sorry, it's just choosing not to exploit it (yet). They have never said that they would not. They have just funneled their resources in other directions for now, and it has been really profitable to them. But I'm sure you would have done better...

And to me, WOTCs constant attempts to poll and adjust old settings with new modern sensibilities and practices proves that it is looking in that direction without moving there.

Which goes to prove that there is no wall (since they are looking), and most people agree that they have been savvy about it so far.

 

[Minigiant]

No, sorry, it's just choosing not to exploit it (yet). They have never said that they would not. They have just funneled their resources in other directions for now, and it has been really profitable to them. But I'm sure you would have done better...

My point is that "it's been profitable" doesn't disprove "it could be more profitable".

Not choosing to design a new setting until year 8 of the edition is walling it off.

A pizzeria that takes pasta off the menu can't make pasta sales.

Which goes to prove that there is no wall (since they are looking), and most people agree that they have been savvy about it so far.

No it goes to show that they are realizing the wall was a bad idea and is in the process of its destruction.

Quite frankly I think half these questions, problems, and discussions on race and class could have been avoided if 5th edition got a new setting that matched the game early instead of trying to mold old settings like putty to fit it.

I get many people like there old settings and pine for the update of their old favorites but I have not seen one reasonable explanation for WOTC not having a new setting design for 5th edition right now.