D&D (2024) How did I miss this about the Half races/ancestries

[Irlo]

There seem to be a lot of foundational aspects of D&D as it was envisioned that, at least according to this and similar threads, a number of folks have a real problem with. I am forced to ask: what exactly do these folks want D&D to be? What's in the books? Specifically, because there's a lot of "I don't want/think this is boring/we could do without" this or that thing. I want to know what the actual game of D&D is supposed to be like, if all the people who have problems with this stuff get their way.

Serious question.

I want the core D&D books to be more explicitly designed to be tool box, with the base classes and lineages divorced as much as possible from setting-specific context. The risk would be that the flavor that sparks the imagination would be gone. I'd mitigate that by including three or more examples for each class, lineage, and even monster of how it might fit into various settings. Some guidance on what to include, exclude, and reskin to support various playstyles and fantasy genres. Building a campaign would involve making deliberate, thoughtful decisions about what to include.

A benefit of that approach would be the opportunity to critically exam the old reflexive assumptions that D&D tends to import from previous incarnations and from popular culture as a whole.

That's what I want, but it wouldn't sell. As it stands, part of the popularity of D&D is that aspects of an unspecified default setting are baked into the core descriptors and makes it easier to start playing and easier for both players and DMs to have a fantasy world that they can sink their teeth into. I think that WotC could do a better job supporting the tool-box options without completely sacrificing the benefits of the implied, assumed default setting.

As for published settings, I want to see new and imaginative stuff, and,if old settings are updated to a new edition, I want interesting changes to those settings that make them worth revisiting. I have plenty of old settings that I can overlay new rules myself. I don't need them republished faithfully.

 

[Frozen_Heart]

I'm 100% comfortable with people only ever seeing D&D as an inclusive thing where people don't have to deal with racism at the table. Nothing is lost if horrible history becomes something you have to research instead of experience.

DnD should have settings for both those wanting fully inclusive content, and for those wanting darker and more gritty settings.

The people playing using the 'happiness and gumdrops' setting guide aren't forced to buy the 'everything is suffering' setting guide.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

I want the core D&D books to be more explicitly designed to be tool box, with the base classes and lineages divorced as much as possible from setting-specific context. The risk would be that the flavor that sparks the imagination would be gone. I'd mitigate that by including three or more examples for each class, lineage, and even monster of how it might fit into various settings. Some guidance on what to include, exclude, and reskin to support various playstyles and fantasy genres. Building a campaign would involve making deliberate, thoughtful decisions about what to include.

A benefit of that approach would be the opportunity to critically exam the old reflexive assumptions that D&D tends to import from previous incarnations and from popular culture as a whole.

That's what I want, but it wouldn't sell. As it stands, part of the popularity of D&D is that aspects of an unspecified default setting are baked into the core descriptors and makes it easier to start playing and easier for both players and DMs to have a fantasy world that they can sink their teeth into. I think that WotC could do a better job supporting the tool-box options without completely sacrificing the benefits of the implied, assumed default setting.

As for published settings, I want to see new and imaginative stuff, and,if old settings are updated to a new edition, I want interesting changes to those settings that make them worth revisiting. I have plenty of old settings that I can overlay new rules myself. I don't need them republished faithfully.

My 2 cp, D&D should never be a generic toolbox system like GURPS. It never has been and never should be. I want Wizards to lean into what makes D&D, D&D. I want D&D magic. I want D&D lore. I want D&D's multiversal cosmology with a variety of worlds within it. Now they may make some tweaks as they go, but if they tweak something I don't like I will just use some older lore that I do like. No skin off my nose.

However, the SRD can be more of a generic system that other games can be built off of. That's fine, and would be a good balance.

 

[Incenjucar]

DnD should have settings for both those wanting fully inclusive content, and for those wanting darker and more gritty settings.

The people playing using the 'happiness and gumdrops' setting guide aren't forced to buy the 'everything is suffering' setting guide.

Settings, sure. The core books can stick to the gumdrops of flesh-eating ghouls, soul-destroying fiends, bandits razing the dwellings of their neighbors, wizards using people in experiments, royalty turning their guards into automatons so they can better tax the peasants into oblivion, and priests sacrificing war captives to their abomination deity so that it can consume the dreams of all who sleep.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, GoT isn't a DnD setting and has to be manually converted.

Imo the core books should be setting neutral, and outright not deal with the hard topics. And then the initial setting book should also be inclusive as well.

But I also think that there should be an official setting like Dark Sun which is willing to cover more controversial topics which not every player will enjoy. And that will be fine as they're not forced to buy that setting book.

And if there were any indication that WotC had plans to present D&D, in any product, as anything like what you're saying, I would drop my objections to the safer style they clearly plan to take with the new corebooks.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure. How does making a setting more inclusive for both players and characters prevent games from being played in many different ways.


So basically, you want D&D to die off like a dinosaur, unable or unwilling to adapt.

How does making a new setting equal D&D dying off? In what way does that follow?

 

[Micah Sweet]

This seems to assume that new players have no imagination.

People follow their experience.

 

[Micah Sweet]

DnD should have settings for both those wanting fully inclusive content, and for those wanting darker and more gritty settings.

The people playing using the 'happiness and gumdrops' setting guide aren't forced to buy the 'everything is suffering' setting guide.

And vice versa.

 

[Hussar]

But why does WotC need to promote and sell the “grim and racist” option? People keep trying to soft peddle the opposite of inclusive settings as “gritty” but let’s not shy away from what people are asking for shall we?

There are a thousand different sources for setting books. Why are we insisting that WotC must be the ones to promote a setting where racism and bigotry and xenophobia is the baseline?

 

[Faolyn]

People follow their experience.

So new players will come to the table with their own experiences.

Unless you are saying that only the older experiences are worth bringing into the game.

How does making a new setting equal D&D dying off? In what way does that follow?

Because you know that even if they make a new setting, they're going to focus on the old ones. And, if you were to get your way, those older settings wouldn't change.

So either the system as a whole would die, or all the old settings would die, when in reality none of them need to die--they can continue to thrive. They just need to adapt.