D&D (2024) Are you going to buy the new 2024 D&D Core Books

[Scottius]

Good deal. Love DCC!

Yeah, it's been my favorite system since it came out. I have even been running some of the original 3.5 DCC modules as DCC RPG conversions for my current campaign.

 

[Dire Bare]

We'll see how they handle it.

Where I agree is that there are ways they can handle it safely. I think we even broadly agree on what way that is:

A) Have a system in-place, in the PHB, for mixed species, which gives them a mixture of the abilities of their parents.

B) Specifically call out Half-Elves, hopefully without ridiculous beating-about-the-bush, name-wise, and explain how to make them.

C) Have the mixed species rules not result in something which obviously inferior, mechanically, to humans and elves (it's probably fine if it's arguably superior).

If they do all of that, and do it reasonably well, I think they'll be okay on that particular point. I think if they ban purchases of 2014 instantly when 2024 comes out, they will still face fierce backlash, because there will be people who wanted the classes etc. from 2014 (or at least thought they did, it makes no difference). My feeling is that's really 50/50 whether WotC actually understands this, given their incredible number of slip-ups, most of them trivially avoidable, over the last few years.

On the other hand, 67% of people in the thread discussing Half-Elves disagree with you and think WotC won't do that (how did you vote?). They apparently think WotC will just go ahead with the extant "you are only one race really" hybrid rules. If they're right, absolutely this will cause lost sales and incite "riots" in the online sense. Destroy D&D as we know it? No-one has suggested that, but it'll cause a schism. Multiple schisms probably, and give a big boost to any 5E alternative using a less obnoxious/racist system - which is probably all of them (certainly A5E).

I mean, this is ironically a big test of how well WotC understands their actual playerbase, including their most devoted players.

Anyone who knows the broader D&D community know that very special snowflake (I say that with love, having played similar on occasion), unusual-parentage mixed characters are extremely common and popular with a lot of D&D players, especially those who create or pay for fan art of their characters and so on. This has always annoyed the most extreme traditionalists (who basically think everyone should be a Human Fighter or Elf Wizard anyway, or at the most extreme, perhaps a Dwarf Cleric or Halfling Thief), but the half-dragon-half-demon-half-elemental-half-cat people have existed since at least 2E (I can't say further back because the internet didn't exist). WotC, if they understood their audience in the least, should absolutely be embracing these people. They're precisely the sort of people who are highly invested in D&D, both mentally and often financially (you know someone who is willing to drop $200 on a character portrait is buying almost every book that comes out).

But the first thing we saw in 1D&D/2024 was a big middle-finger from WotC pointed exactly at those people (and pretty much everyone on the planet of mixed heritage), with their "Nah just pick one race" approach. How many people approved that? How many people said "Yeah that seems like a smart idea!", because I'm guess it was at least a couple of handfuls, and if WotC was remotely in-touch, that couldn't happen.

You think that, despite all WotC's screw-ups, they will definitely get this right. You might be correct, but you'll well-advised in betting low values of fictional money, not really money, because I don't think the odds are that great. Apparently nobody else does either given the voting in the linked thread (I actually voted that they will have a crunchier set of options, but I'm a bit of an optimist, I guess).

The thread you linked to was interesting, but . . . 67% of folks on one thread on ENWorld isn't really relevant to what the larger fanbase wants or hopes for. I'm actually fine with the "hybrid" species rules found in Tasha's and the playtest, although it could certainly use some refinement. The poll options aren't particularly meaningful, I think.

I don't think the popularity of half-elves on BG3 is going to move the needle. WotC wants to win new fans and keep old fans and also avoid the press it has gotten about the embedded racism in the game. Whatever solution they come up with isn't going to make everyone happy, but they have to move forward in some way.

Again, we'll have to wait and see, but . . . I'm 99% sure that half species as distinct player options are gone. And I'm 100% supportive of that move. An overly crunchy or complicated system for determining mixed ancestry is something I DON'T want to see in the official books, something like Grazilaxx's Guide to Ancestry over on the DM's Guild. It's too much and unnecessary. Having clear guidelines to create a human with elven parents is all I need, even if it's just, "Play an elf and say that you're mom is a human".

Again, no matter which direction WotC goes, there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth on the internet. I'm not worried. Not worried about the company, the game, or my enjoyment of it. Ultimately, if I'm not happy with how WotC handles mixed ancestry, I can house rule my own system or pick something up on DriveThru or DM'sGuild.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Mod Note:

Folks, stop making it personal like this person has done. Disagree with the position, but don’t attack your fellow ENWorlders.

Mod Note:

Y’all, I missed the context of joking, so, while the point about making things personal stands, that DID NOT happen in this case.

Apologies, Mistwell!

 

[mamba]

Enworld may be an outlier, but if anywhere near 40% of active 5e players purchase the 2024 core next year, that would make it an absolute smash hit. I'm of the belief that 2024 is about maintaining the general yearly sales numbers from the past 8 years rather than an attempt to get current players to immediately switch.

oh, they definitely expect people to switch, as to what percentage they expect to do that, no idea.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The thread you linked to was interesting, but . . . 67% of folks on one thread on ENWorld isn't really relevant to what the larger fanbase wants or hopes for.

I agree, but the larger fanbase isn't what's driving that design, WotC's own deeply confused attempts to come up with something that fits modern attitudes to mixed-background people is.

I'm actually fine with the "hybrid" species rules found in Tasha's and the playtest, although it could certainly use some refinement.

You're illustrating my point completely - you're saying you're fine with them taking an "You're only one race" attitude (I'm not suggesting you share the view, merely that apparently don't care very much either way). In the US, especially among white people, and even some minorities, especially older people, this is sadly not an uncommon attitude - very much because of the US' specific and peculiar history of racism and treatment of race which is too broad to discuss here in detail. The danger is very much that WotC thinks their approach fine, because D&D is not product solely for the US, and not solely for people over a certain age.

Your previous post proposed a totally different and unrelated system that would be more acceptable to pretty much everyone than "You're only one race", but I think the issue we're going to see is that, because of the people who answered the survey biasing hard towards being older, white, Americans, WotC might not realize how much trouble they're walking into. A younger, more diverse company absolutely would - but WotC isn't that - even with new hires, contractors and so on, they've repeatedly walked into rakes on precisely these kind of issues.

So you're helping to illustrate why I think I'm right to be concerned here, and why dismissing it as "Oh they'll definitely fix it and no-one will care!" is a very OGL 1.1 kind of attitude to me.

Ultimately, if I'm not happy with how WotC handles mixed ancestry, I can house rule my own system or pick something up on DriveThru or DM'sGuild.

Sure, but the vast majority of people who play D&D have never heard of either DriveThru or DM's Guild, and don't really use 3PP products at all, and further, as dismissive as you are over this, this is WotC potentially choosing to step on another rake that could damage the popularity of the game in a very serious way. The foolishness they have is seeing half-races as a bigger threat than screwing this up. They're not - WotC could continue with those and the waves made would be genuinely very small (extant, but small), but to eliminate them in favour of deeply-racist concept like "You're only really one race"? That is not going to play well.

 

[Dire Bare]

You're illustrating my point completely - you're saying you're fine with them taking an "You're only one race" attitude

No.

I mean, mechanically, sure. Choose the elf race but in your backstory, some of your ancestors or parents are human Boom, you're a half-elf! Mechanics are different, but story is the same. I would be okay with that. The custom lineage rules in Tasha's handles that well, IMO. I don't remember which playtest packet has playtest species/race/lineage rules, but I remember them being similar to the rules in Tasha's.

How folks of mixed ancestry in the real world view how it should be represented in a game . . . differs. In past discussions on this very board, there wasn't much consistency (that I observed).

If WotC created a simple, but more robust system than the above . . . I'd be good with that too. Something like Arcanist Press "Ancestry & Culture" is simple but more in depth. Something like "Grazilaxx's Guide to Ancestry" on the DM's Guild is too complex, IMO. I'm glad the options there for folks who like that level of crunch, but the core rules don't need more complexity, IMO.

Your previous post proposed a totally different and unrelated system that would be more acceptable to pretty much everyone than "You're only one race" . . .

"Pretty much everyone" huh? I doubt it.

. . . but I think the issue we're going to see is that, because of the people who answered the survey biasing hard towards being older, white, Americans, WotC might not realize how much trouble they're walking into. A younger, more diverse company absolutely would - but WotC isn't that - even with new hires, contractors and so on, they've repeatedly walked into rakes on precisely these kind of issues.

Please don't put old, white people on the "not respecting diversity" side of your diagram and younger, more diverse people on the "of course they respect diversity" side. Don't even assume those of mixed ancestry IRL view this the same way you do, because not all do.

The challenge for any system WotC might use, is that race, culture, and ethnicity are complex in the real world. Existing D&D rules address this abysmally. The extremely open-ended rules in Tasha's allow players to create any kind of origin, although it is lacking in options that the more defined species choices enjoy.

Just because I disagree with YOU does not make me dismissive of attempts to represent race and culture better in the game, including for those of mixed ancestry themselves.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Please don't put old, white people on the "not respecting diversity" side of your diagram and younger, more diverse people on the "of course they respect diversity" side.

So don't be realistic about this because it offends you? I'm sorry, but this sort of attitude drastically undermines your entire position.

The reality is, that the approach WotC's designers took in the "Origins" playtest UA is one that is extremely bizarre, and really requires a quite specific background to even see as possibly acceptable. It's simply factual to suggest that sort of attitude is almost exclusive to Americans, and particularly to older generations. That doesn't mean any individual has to hold that view, but it does impact on the broader acceptance of that view, particularly as D&D skews vastly younger and more diverse (not just in ethnicity, but in cultural origins too) than the people make designing it are.

The custom lineage rules in Tasha's handles that well, IMO. I don't remember which playtest packet has playtest species/race/lineage rules, but I remember them being similar to the rules in Tasha's.

I see.

Your memory has failed you.

The rules are not similar.

In Tasha's, you've given some rules to essentially "make up" race. They're not particularly compelling rules, but they're not even arguably racist or anything of the sort.

Here they are:

"CUSTOM LINEAGE
Instead of choosing one of the game’s races for your character at 1st level, you can use the following traits to represent your character’s lineage, giving you full control over how your character’s origin shaped them:

Creature Type. You are a humanoid. You determine your appearance and whether you resemble any of your kin.
Size. You are Small or Medium (your choice).
Speed. Your base walking speed is 30 feet.
Ability Score Increase. One ability score of your choice increases by 2.
Feat. You gain one feat of your choice for which you qualify.
Variable Trait. You gain one of the following options of your choice: (a) darkvision with a range of 60 feet or (b) proficiency in one skill of your choice.
Languages. You can speak, read, and write Common and one other language that you and your DM agree is appropriate for your character.

Your race is considered to be a Custom Lineage for any game feature that requires a certain race, such as elf or dwarf."

In the Origins UA playtest packet, the rules are:

1) Pick two races
2) Pick one of those races - you have 100% of the gameplay characteristics of that race
3) Average the lifespan between the two

You're done.

These are not in any way similar.

So this is the crux of the problem - you totally misremembered, so have been arguing with me assuming my argument was something completely different from what it was. If they had something like the custom race rules for mixed species, sure, it'd be lame, and people would be mad because it's inferior, so assigning that to "mixed race" is a bit spicy, but that'd be easy for WotC to fix mechanically, and would be largely seen as a mechanical screw-up, not a weird political statement.

But that's not what they have in the 2024 UA. The rules there are are "Pick 1 race, in all mechanical ways, that's what you are". That is what I'm talking about as a peculiarly American and older sentiment. It's redolent of the one-drop rule and similar sentiments. That's why I'm saying that.

So yeah again, rules different to the ones in the Origins UA, and more similar to the custom race rules, would make "everyone" (as in "the vast majority of people) happier, I will comfortably assert. Perhaps you agree, now that's cleared up?

 

[Mistwell]

I tend to agree eliminating half-elves specifically is going to be an unpopular change and we are likely to see some means of creating a half-elf that isn't just picking an elf or human and crossing it out and saying half-elf.

I am unsure on half-orc. I don't know if that particular choice was so much more popular than just orc than they will need to solve for it.

 

[Yaarel]

I am unsure on half-orc. I don't know if that particular choice was so much more popular than just orc than they will need to solve for it.

I have the impression most people are fine with using a 2024 Orc in place of a 2014 Half-Orc?

The difference is probably, people now view the Orc as humanlike anyway.

Tolkien made the Orc monstrous. But popculture has been humanizing (and sexifying) the Orc for decades since. In Warhammer video games, the Orc is a normal player option. Like the "domesticated" Vampire (Spawn), this "domesticated" Orc is the new normal.

There will obviously continue to be Human-Orc characters who descend from both Humans and Orcs. But having Orc in the 2024 Players Handbook as a core player species is desirable.

As a rule of thumb, any species with the "Humanoid" creature type is, by definition, humanlike and playable. So, a Humanoid Orc is a normal choice for a character.

 

[Dausuul]

I mean, obviously you can do what you like, but I think if you acknowledge a meaningful possibility that you might not buy it, then yes isn’t really an accurate answer.

If you don't intend to base your decision on reviews, and also have not absolutely decided one way or the other, then no accurate answer is possible and you're left with picking the least-wrong option.

I wish people would stop inserting unnecessary qualifiers/explanations into poll options. It almost always results in a poll that excludes a big swath of possibilities.