D&D 5E Yes to factionalism. No to racism.

[Ruin Explorer]

I adore 4e to death and would take it any day over 3.5e but they seriously burned long-term fans by changing things those fans didn't want changed. WotC seems to be doing their changes now based on big data surveys and playtests, as opposed to bulldozing through what a few designers wanted, so I THINK their changes will continue to improve the game. But it's definitely a needle that needs to be threaded carefully.

Being "guided by surveys" and so on is an interesting double-edged sword.

I think it lead to 5E initially being only slightly less misguided than 4E - it was saved by being an "apology edition", and the surveys actually guided it off-course somewhat I'd say initially. Surveys gave us 6-8 encounters/day with 2 short rests which it really doesn't seem like is reflected in the mass-play of D&D at all.

It seems like they dropped the "70%" thing at some point and maybe started looking at surveys in a more nuanced way, and since then I feel like 5E maybe has been on a better track. I do think it's kind of funny that when the surveys were pointing to a more "trad" D&D, certain people were all for them, but as the player base massively expands and they maybe don't point that way as much, people are claiming they're being "abandoned" and so on. Live by the sword, die by the sword, honestly.

I suspect a survey-driven 4E wouldn't have looked hugely different (a little more like the later iterations of 4E), to be honest, but I think they might have made much smarter decisions on presentation, marketing, and perhaps class design, and also not been as gung-ho re: digital.

Well, I certainly dont think we need 30+ races in the game, unless they are demonstrably different anyway, but I'm in that 'no funny hats' camp.

I think that's the wrong approach myself, because there's no real problem with there being more races, and every new race stands a chance of like totally being amazing for some specific player, and/or turning out to be a big hit generally. The more the merrier. "No funny hats" always reminds me of the "We only need 4 classes" people, which is like yeah, no. That's not a good way to design an RPG like D&D. D&D is, like World of Warcraft, very much about "the fantasy" - each class and race sort of embodies a specific themed fantasy. There are races which fail because they don't embody a new fantasy, or just embody an existing one worse, or are just a dumb idea, but they're a small minority overall.

I read an interesting thread on Twitter (no, come back, stop running!!!), where it was pointed out that a lot of younger players don't at all mind the "restrictions" of D&D's classes and races, because video games being the first introduction to RPGs for virtually everyone under 30 (and maybe a bit older) means they're really used to the concept. This benefits D&D, which works that way (and doesn't benefit other RPGs, which don't), and D&D can in turn benefit from it by doing stuff like releasing more classes/races ("splats" in general).

 

[Scribe]

a lot of younger players don't at all mind the "restrictions" of D&D's classes and races, because video games being the first introduction to RPGs for virtually everyone under 30 (and maybe a bit older) means they're really used to the concept. This benefits D&D, which works that way (and doesn't benefit other RPGs, which don't), and D&D can in turn benefit from it by doing stuff like releasing more classes/races ("splats" in general).

Restrictions you say? You have piqued my interest...

lol I hear you on both counts. My son grew up a gamer, and he is 100% in that 'well of course there are class/race restrictions, why wouldnt there be' mindset.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The broadening audience of D&D wants all of these goals met: (1) more space to "be me" in the game and not feel rejected or pushed away by offensive text and subtext; and (2) a simple enough game that I can just play with my friends without spending hours building the game; and (3) not have to worry about whether I said something offensive or stereotypical or not and thereby upset someone who isn't at the table.

This is shockingly wise.

Especially 3.

That's something I hadn't really considered. If the game is set up so it's just really unlikely you're going to say/do/engage with something offensive, just by the design of the game, that makes it feel a lot more chill to play for a lot of people. That's going to be a very quiet but potentially significant draw for D&D.

 

[Scribe]

That's something I hadn't really considered. If the game is set up so it's just really unlikely you're going to say/do/engage with something offensive, just by the design of the game, that makes it feel a lot more chill to play for a lot of people. That's going to be a very quiet but potentially significant draw for D&D.

You think so? Its not something I think crosses the majority of players minds at all.

 

[Lyxen]

I don't think they're completely different problems, though you're speaking to another possibility: D&D might not be a game that can adequately address these lineage issues by the very measure that it needs to be accessible to all sorts of players.

That's exactly my point, and this is the part which annoys me with the rabid races-haters around the internet. D&D and in particular 5e aims at being a fairly simple game, and only a game, that is not meant to address deep moral or ethical issues. And it has always done this very well, but now the game is burdened with what seems a very large problem coming not at all from its simple perspective, but from the fact that only a very few races (again, mostly the orc and drows, most of the problems come from this although some cultural issues in some settings are inappropriate as well) create problems with real life stereotypes.

But because it's the internet and people like to sound scandalised and make scenes, they blow this completely out of proportion and generalise the problem, in an environment which is simply not created to deal with this.

I'd like to believe that it's a needle that can be thread but that is a grave concern: how do you complexify and broaden the cultural subjectivity of the game's fiction and metafiction while simultaneously simplifying the game's mechanics?

I'm not sure that's possible, the two aims seem to be really at odds.

The broadening audience of D&D wants all of these goals met: (1) more space to "be me" in the game and not feel rejected or pushed away by offensive text and subtext; and (2) a simple enough game that I can just play with my friends without spending hours building the game; and (3) not have to worry about whether I said something offensive or stereotypical or not and thereby upset someone who isn't at the table.

The game needs to be enthusiastically inclusive, simple to pick up and go, but have the dials readily available to modify things I don't want to use without getting accused "You're MinMaxing because you're not using the default assumption!" The game needs to encourage DMs to create a plethora of different fantasy cultures without forcing them to do so. It needs to give you all the tools to inspire without forcing them down your throat, essentially, and without making the book so big that you won't read it and instead will go play Pathfinder 3 or something.

Add to this the fact that, today, it's really hard to create something that does not offend at least someone somewhere and I think you see how the equation starts to become really unsolvable.

Honestly, my feeling is that there are very few real issues, that WotC is addressing most of them by surgical changes and that hopefully this will blow over like the satanic craze of the past, leaving us with a game that can still be played simply and cleaned enough to feel inclusive (and honestly, it might be because I'm European and have different perspectives, but I've never met a player that felt actually offended by the game itself, and this in 40+ years of hard playing over 4 continents) for a huge majority of people.

 

[Marandahir]

This is shockingly wise.

Especially 3.

That's something I hadn't really considered. If the game is set up so it's just really unlikely you're going to say/do/engage with something offensive, just by the design of the game, that makes it feel a lot more chill to play for a lot of people. That's going to be a very quiet but potentially significant draw for D&D.

Thanks! I actually didn't even think of the ramifications of the way you took my statement.

I was initially considering the backlash of people feeling like they're being cautious because they could be "canceled" for liking what they like. I find that problematic and we have to be enthusiastically supportive of all people, but it's also a thorny issue that I don't really want to get into further lest we stray into the domain of politics.

But you're totally right: the way you make the game less "walking on egg-shells" is by removing as many of the eggshells as possible. Then people have less to argue about - at least in ways that could end up with someone seriously offended. We can stick to ruleslawyering and whether the Rogue Player with all 18s in their Abilities is using loaded dice or not.

 

[Marandahir]

Add to this the fact that, today, it's really hard to create something that does not offend at least someone somewhere and I think you see how the equation starts to become really unsolvable.

Honestly, my feeling is that there are very few real issues, that WotC is addressing most of them by surgical changes and that hopefully this will blow over like the satanic craze of the past, leaving us with a game that can still be played simply and cleaned enough to feel inclusive (and honestly, it might be because I'm European and have different perspectives, but I've never met a player that felt actually offended by the game itself, and this in 40+ years of hard playing over 4 continents) for a huge majority of people.

I have, but I'm more than a decade younger than you, and American, so maybe our spheres of social and gameplay interaction are just not diagramming before now.

 

[Scribe]

I have, but I'm more than a decade younger than you, and American, so maybe our spheres of social and gameplay interaction are just not diagramming before now.

Yeah I think could be understood better by everyone. 40ish Canadian, and this simply is not an issue with the groups I'm around, or have gamed with for over a decade.

 

[Faolyn]

I think it's just easier if you have default assumptions so that you can add or subvert them as needed. I don't need to give a whole lot of details on dwarves because outside of individual clan details they're pretty standard. On the other hand, most gnomes lean pretty hard into the steampunk-like gnomes and excel at gadgets and inventions which have a tendency to not always work as expected. On the other hand, one of their main cities is kind of a steampunk Las Vegas and is quite the tourist attraction if you're brave enough.

But then you get into the whole "all <race> are evil/good, except for these few exceptions" problem, unless the writers take the care to deliberately subvert that. Which currently the D&D writers haven't.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah I think could be understood better by everyone. 40ish Canadian, and this simply is not an issue with the groups I'm around, or have gamed with for over a decade.

Yeah, I've been gaming for over 30 years, and, not discounting the experiences of others, none of the issues that have become so high profile recently have happened to or around me. Everything I know about it is second or third hand.