D&D General The Tyranny of Rarity

[Maxperson]

I somehow have read some of those books.

true but when you saw a new take of dwarves or halflings? I have once and that was by making the halflings evil otherwise they are quite bland, a new take can get you to care again.

Dark Sun dwarves
Gully Dwarves
Midgard Dwarves
There might be more. Those were the three that I could think of off of the top of my head.

 

[Oofta]

Just like I said pages ago.

Just because something works doesn't mean it's perfect or near perfect.

Trust me. I work in customer side of big corporate. And I used to work for a corporation with worst product with bigger profits. You can make a lot of money with average products or a decent core if other things support you

Well, since we'll never know I don't see the point of arguing. It exceeded all expectations in spite of the fact that you think you know better. I'm just happy I have no problem attracting players.

 

[Mind of tempest]

True.

But a fresh concept is not inherently better than a copy.

also true a well build new idea tends to beat out a copy however but that is easier spoken of than done.

They'd have to be brain dead for that to be true. In 3e they went with the traditional core and then expanded after. In 4e they went with a mostly traditional core(realized in a non-traditional manner) and then expanded afterward. In 5e...

WotC didn't realize after they designed the traditional core that people like new ideas. They planned it out that way as that's how D&D has been done since 1e. There's the core(what is traditional) and then splat books and Dragon articles to expand with new ideas later. And the tried and true method worked. 5e is hugely successful.

Can't happen unless the DM is just bad at innovating. What you can do for your PC I can do for an NPC. That right there is equal innovation. Only I also have all of the other NPCs to innovate with, world lore, monsters(old and newly innovated by me), geography, magical ideas, and more. There's far more opportunity for me and it's far easier for me to realize it.

with the core races, it is hard to innovate as they have been done so often for five decades minimum discounting all the similar but never called a dwarf or elf I doubt most DMs are innovate there.

Dark Sun dwarves
Gully Dwarves
Midgard Dwarves
There might be more. Those were the three that I could think of off of the top of my head.

you really want to call a caricature of the people I am a member of an innovation? and one of those is third party.
you right on the money for darksun, dragonlance having each different clan of dwarves copying a different model was a good idea.

 

[Maxperson]

with the core races, it is hard to innovate as they have been done so often for five decades minimum discounting all the similar but never called a dwarf or elf I doubt most DMs are innovate there.

Not really. I could make a setting tomorrow where dwarves aren't dour miners, but are happy and helpful subterranean farmers that supply food to the surface world, and has since the great spelltastrophy 10,000 years ago made it impossible to grow food on the surface. Bam! Innovation. Took me about 5 seconds to come up with that and I could come up with 10 more ideas if I spent a few minutes trying.

Edit: And I not only innovated dwarves with that, but also a significant part of the setting as well.

you really want to call a caricature of the people I am a member of an innovation? and one of those is third party.
you right on the money for darksun, dragonlance having each different clan of dwarves copying a different model was a good idea.

None of those was third party. Midgard dwarves were in the 3e Frostburn book, just not as a PC race. Gully Dwarves were in Dragonlance. Dark Sun dwarves go without saying.

 

[Mind of tempest]

Not really. I could make a setting tomorrow where dwarves aren't dour miners, but are happy and helpful subterranean farmers that supply food to the surface world, and has since the great spelltastrophy 10,000 years ago made it impossible to grow food on the surface. Bam! Innovation. Took me about 5 seconds to come up with that and I could come up with 10 more ideas if I spent a few minutes trying.

None of those was third party. Midgard dwarves were in the 3e Frostburn book, just not as a PC race. Gully Dwarves were in Dragonlance. Dark Sun dwarves go without saying.

sorry, I am not familiar with frostburn, gully dwarves are plain offensive.
we agree on darksun dwarves.

what other races would be different in this proposed setting?

 

[Minigiant]

However they did it, wouldn't the core game have a limited number of races, just like limited number of classes. Traditionally this would then expand later with splat books, that eventually get collected? (We have a race expansion book coming out in a collector set this month, right?).

It would. The choices of what the core races, class, subclasses, and their features are my criticism.

As well as the poor guidance to create setting, races, classes, and subclasses in the DMG

 

[Maxperson]

sorry, I am not familiar with frostburn, gully dwarves are plain offensive.
we agree on darksun dwarves.

what other races would be different in this proposed setting?

Even offensive, they still qualify as innovative.

Well, halflings would no longer be farmers or foodies, as the surface world isn't able to grow food. If they want food, they're going to have to switch over to hunters, perhaps nomadic hunters. That also serves to remove the whole hearth and home aspect of halflings, since there won't be any, so those gods go away and are replaced by hunter and/or ranger gods.

Elves we could change from being a generally CG race to xenophobic protectors of wildlife, since animals would be hunted in far greater numbers now that no crops grow. We could switch them to LN and they become a generally "bad guy" race known for killing those who hunt or kill animals, and even those who stray into their protected lands.

I mean, that one 5 second idea easily grows into an extremely innovative campaign setting.

 

[Cadence]

It would. The choices of what the core races, class, subclasses, and their features are my criticism.

As well as the poor guidance to create setting, races, classes, and subclasses in the DMG

I think starting a new edition that didn't cater to the base would be a hard sell (and thought it was great they had the classics and Tieflings and Dragonborn in 5e, even if I've still never played the later two). Given the base is now different, for the next edition...

As for the DMG, I haven't particularly liked any since 1e (and hardly hold that up as a paragon).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I'm claimed WOTC was too conservative and traditionalist and realized the desire for new things after they design the core of them game.

WOTC and many fans dismissed the popularity of nontraditionalist ideas and now D&Dis trying to work backwards to fix that error.

I mean they need to make new something in order to justify selling new books.

I clearly stated it is a player issue AND a DM issue many times.

What exactly is the issue? That some people you don't play with play in settings that are boring to you?

What I've also said is that since D&D give the DM the power and final say, the majority of the blame of lack of communication and consideration also goes to them.

It's the power and responsibility dynamic.

Sure. GMs should properly communicate what their game is about.

what?
What?
Wait. What?
I can create an innovative PC 100 times easier than a setting or adventure, copied or innovative.

You can create any sort of character hundred times easier than any kind of setting. And of course with a setting there is far more stuff to be innovative with.

of course.
I was never for that. I was always for teaching worldbuilding.

To me the solution was never adding races but asking "why those races?"

In my Six Kindoms setting, every single race has a inworld and narrative purpose. Each race had to earn their inclusion on its own right. Does every DM do that?

No. But if the GM is restricting races it indicates that they at least might have. I fully agree with you that every races should earn and justify its inclusion into the setting. That's why I support the GM's right to exclude those races which do not meet that bar for that particular setting.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Just like I said pages ago.

Just because something works doesn't mean it's perfect or near perfect.

Trust me. I work in customer side of big corporate. And I used to work for a corporation with worst product with bigger profits. You can make a lot of money with average products or a decent core if other things support you

I dunno. McDonalds is the most popular fast food in the world. Those dorks with Michelin Stars should just pack up and leave because thier food can't compare..