D&D (2024) D&D species article

[Ruin Explorer]

I don’t disagree, but like… it is what it is, at this point. You’re either onboard for the world 5e D&D’s system implies or you’re not, and while it’s lame of WotC to try to pretend the system is more general and adaptable than it is, it’s not like there’s any incentive for them to do otherwise.

I wish the bolded bit were true, but I don't think it is. I think actually an proportion of D&D players would not be onboard with D&D if they really processed this.

But of course that ties in to "not any incentive", which is true - they have a counter-incentive - if they were more honest about what D&D was "about", they'd maybe lose 5-10% of groups (tops, maybe not even that much), but that's still reduced $$$.

On the flipside, I think the actions of WotC over the last few years, especially the OGL deal, burned so many streamers, YouTubers, podcasters, 3PPs, and so on who used to be a real part of the "D&D is all things to all men!" propaganda movement (sorry, crude term, not quite right) are just... not that anymore, and are promoting other TTRPGs for other things. It's possible 2024 will be so wonderful it'll flip them back, but... I'd be surprised and I think the staggered release will actually hurt 2024 here. So I do think we may see more people come to this realization over time, which will likely boost modern-design OSRs like Shadowdark and so on.

(As an aside, long-term I think D&D would gain from a real "shared understanding" approach to the world rather than an "all things to all men" one, because it would let them into some design spaces they have to sort of edge around like they're pit-traps and make the game better because of that, but WotC are nothing if not conservative in terms of their game design choices in 5E, possibly because they scared themselves so much with 4E, even though it's impossible to distinguish how much negativity to 4E was rules-based and how much based on other factors, not least the GSL.)

 

[Scribe]

The lie of the Big Tent doesnt really hold, hasn't for some time.

 

[Clint_L]

I feel like whenever I suggest that players might want to make a dwarf or elf or whatever that doesn't fit the Tolkien mode, I am confronted by this guy:

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The lie of the Big Tent doesnt really hold, hasn't for some time.

It's still a pretty big tent, but I'd argue D&D hasn't really ever been as big a tent as TSR and then WotC promoted it to be, and certainly what that tent covers well has moved over time (as one would expect).

I think questions can be asked about the audience of D&D and how well the tent covers them. I think it's fair to say of the 30-50m people allegedly playing D&D right now, the tent covers the vast majority of them fairly well, with only a little rain blowing in from the side. But both WotC and D&D evangelists from social media promoted D&D as being a somewhat larger tent than that.

Like I said, I think it's at most 5-10% of people who would realize the tent just didn't cover them here AND care enough to play a different game, and it's largely people who played older editions, so it's convenient for WotC and was convenient for D&D evangelists (now a dying breed on social media, where once they roamed like passenger pigeons in the 1600s so er I guess like passenger pigeons in the late 1800s!) to maintain this approach. I do think the convenience masks a longer-term issue but addressing longer-term issues is not something that publicly-owned corporations tend to be very interested in and I don't think it's reasonable to expect that to change.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't think that's how players see it - because "social justice" stuff isn't the primary concern - most players just prefer race and class to be separate selection, where one doesn't really drive the other. This isn't new to 2024, note - Tasha's showed a lot of groups preferred this for a long time

I'd put this more alongside the standardization of Feats, previously an optional element. However, as noted, WotC have ballsed it up by tying it to background, which is going to annoy basically exactly the same people basing it on race did. It even still has problematic "social justice" elements being tied to background but let's not re-do that discussion beyond acknowledging that WotC hasn't actually addressed the problem on a fundamental level, because it just moved the problem. Even though had deleted the problem from both angles with Tasha's! Very silly! I think that this decision was taking basically without external playtesting speaks volumes about how out-of-touch and groupthink-y Crawford et al can be.

Not being ageist but

WOTC's species and background design hints of an old timer who wants their preferences in the game and misunderstood the criticism of the original plan.

My guess is that the majority of 5e fans want

1. Significantly gameplay altering species features
2. Every species to be playable with every class without detriment and hopefully a species feature synergizing with each class type or a subclass in each class.

Doing this and reworking or ignoring old problematic art fixes these.

But they HAD TO make everything spells and HAD TO lock background ASIs.


Question
Why doesn't any species get the much promoted Weapon Mastery?
A free/extra weapon mastery from species seem tailor made for elf, orc, the half races, and hobgobbo.

 

[Scribe]

Why doesn't any species get the much promoted Weapon Mastery?
A free/extra weapon mastery from species seem tailor made for elf, orc, the half races, and hobgobbo.

"Why does my Elf get X when he didnt grow up with Elves, but instead lived happily among the Goblins? This reeks of bioessentialism and is racist."

Thats why.

 

[Minigiant]

"Why does my Elf get X when he didnt grow up with Elves, but instead lived happily among the Goblins? This reeks of bioessentialism and is racist."

Thats why.

Again that's lazy design.

Let a Elf get mastery with any finesse or ranged weapon.
Let an Orc get mastery with any heavy or versatile weapon.

That's why I seem saying it feels like "old man forcing their preferences and unable to think of new ideas".

 

[Scribe]

Again that's lazy design.

Let a Elf get mastery with any finesse or ranged weapon.
Let an Orc get mastery with any heavy or versatile weapon.

That's why I seem saying it feels like "old man forcing their preferences and unable to think of new ideas".

Why would either of those cases be true? Why wouldnt an Elf raised among the Goliaths have mastery of a Heavy Weapon?

We know the answer, we have seen this play out a thousand times.

 

[Minigiant]

Why would either of those cases be true? Why wouldnt an Elf raised among the Goliaths have mastery of a Heavy Weapon?

We know the answer, we have seen this play out a thousand times.

It hasn't played out a thousand times.

It was always never a choice, the cultural aspects were forced onto specific elements.

It was NEVER "Elves have good eyes and graceful movement. They can master a finesse or ranged weapon that matches their culture"

It was always "ALL Elves are good with these specific bows and swords because all elves are the same."

I am sure that if Elves got a free weapon mastery in a DEX weapon (many of which could be still used with STR), no one would be upset.

I don't believe the thin 300 year old elf mastering a weapon upsets anyone. In a Hammer nation, he's choose a light hammer. In the axe loving nation, he's choose a hand axe.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Not being ageist but

WOTC's species and background design hints of an old timer who wants their preferences in the game and misunderstood the criticism of the original plan.

My guess is that the majority of 5e fans want

1. Significantly gameplay altering species features
2. Every species to be playable with every class without detriment and hopefully a species feature synergizing with each class type or a subclass in each class.

Doing this and reworking or ignoring old problematic art fixes these.

But they HAD TO make everything spells and HAD TO lock background ASIs.

I think this is completely on the money and correct.

I don't think it's anything wild or unusual to say either - if you look at just any social media associated with D&D, look at popular D&D podcasts and streams and so on, I think it's very evident that is what most people playing D&D today want (particularly the under-30 crowd, which is like, what the narrow majority of D&D players now according to WotC's figures? Most of whom didn't play any previous edition). Crawford has been consistent in not getting that, both in how he talks in interviews, and what options WotC has presented to people in UAs.

Bolded bit particular. WotC currently seems to thinking "Oh let's cut species down to the bare minimum", but I don't think most players really want that - even people concerned with bioessentialism are still usually (apart from a sub-1% ultra-extreme fringe who basically only want free-form RP anyway and don't actually play D&D for the most part) perfectly happy that X race has Y ability, they just don't want it to be ability that smacks of racism (like "being smarter" would, but "having Darkvision" doesn't).

The flipside is that D&D is successful not because of rules specifics, but general cultural presence, name-brand-loyalty, availability of people who know how to play it (and are willing to even if it's not their #1 choice), and so on, so Crawford not really getting it doesn't cut into D&D's bottom line significantly - or hasn't in the past. It might cut into it a little more over the next decade, but we shall see. I also honestly expect WotC to replace Crawford in the next decade unless D&D absolutely goes from strength to strength. Also, to be fair, whilst he doesn't get it, he also hasn't made insane missteps like some designers of history have. So safe pair of hands and all that.