D&D 5E (2024) WotC Should Make 5.5E Specific Setting

[Paul Farquhar]

well, they are core player options, so if you were gonna make a 2024 setting it'd definitely make sense to make sure they were well integrated into it (as opposed to kind of just being an addon). that doesn't necessarily need to be making them super common though

Adventurers are those individuals who are not well integrated into society. That's what makes them adventurers. But playable species are added to the game all the time (e.g. dhampir). You can't change the setting every time that happens. You just have to assume that some species are rare and obscure. And most game worlds have abundant sentient species who are not playable, such as goblinoids or true giants.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Adventurers are those individuals who are not well integrated into society. That's what makes them adventurers.

...that's not...what? i mean you can definitely play an adventurer who isn't well integrated in society but that's...that's not the DEFINITION.

But playable species are added to the game all the time (e.g. dhampir). You can't change the setting every time that happens.

nobody's saying you do? @Hussar was thinking about a hypothetical new setting designed specifically to leverage 5.5e.

You just have to assume that some species are rare and obscure.

you can have something be rare and obscure but still well integrated into the setting. these are not diametrically opposed. i don't think so, anyway.

And most game worlds have abundant sentient species who are not playable, such as goblinoids or true giants.

...that matters...why?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

...that matters...why?

Trying to base world demographics on the composition of adventuring parties is a lost cause, and always will be, in any setting.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Trying to base world demographics on the composition of adventuring parties is a lost cause, and always will be, in any setting.

...uh...tell that to @Hussar, i guess?

 

[Hussar]

Trying to base world demographics on the composition of adventuring parties is a lost cause, and always will be, in any setting.

And yet, every single D&D setting does EXACTLY that. Oh, look, Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, on and on... we have a majority of humans, then elves, then dwarves, then halfings and gnomes. Gee, almost directly pulled from the PHB. Yup, you have the odd "monstrous" states like Pomarj or various parts of Forgotten Realms, but, overall? Pulled straight from the PHB.

Good grief, Candlekeep Mysteries gives me an entire village of frog people but can't give me so much as a farm with dragonborn in it? No one is saying that the base demographics have to follow adventuring parties, but, it would be kinda nice if, upon deciding to play a dragonborn or an Aasimar, you weren't immediately forced to be from "far away parts" because there simply isn't anywhere local for you to be from.

I mean, if I play a halfling in Phandelver, no one so much as bats an eye. Heck, there IS a halfling family in Phandalin. But a dragon born? Naw, you have to be born half a world away.

I agree, we don't need to add in every single race from every single book. But, the PHB? Considering just about every single setting out there is based on the PHB races? Not really a huge ask.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

And yet, every single D&D setting does EXACTLY that. Oh, look, Greyhawk, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, on and on... we have a majority of humans, then elves, then dwarves, then halfings and gnomes

Pretty much every D&D setting is well over 99% human, so by your argument, the only core species available should be human. Gygax tried to make that so back in 1st edition, by nerfing the other species into oblivion, but that didn’t stick.

And in most D&D settings, elves and dwarves are massively outnumbered by goblins and orcs. As for gnomes and halflings, they are probably outnumbered by giants and dragons.

You are also supposing that players are in effect choosing at random from the available PHB options, so everything is about equally represented, when we know that is far from the case, and some options are far more or less popular than others.

Then you are assuming players are only choosing options from the core rules, when few people actually play that way, and non-core species are both common and intended to be part of the game by the designers.

 

[AnotherGuy]

well, they are core player options, so if you were gonna make a 2024 setting it'd definitely make sense to make sure they were well integrated into it (as opposed to kind of just being an addon). that doesn't necessarily need to be making them super common though

Disparity and limitations play a role in value or worth.
It is the same for backgrounds, class options, proficiencies and I would expect species/races.

A good setting usually reflects conflict and rarity, a turbulent history, with preconceptions, class struggles, species divide and mistrust, minorities battling, natural and unnatural forces, many unknowns, theological battles...etc - which provides a rich tapestry to give life to unfolding surprising and exciting stories.

Integration is an utterly BORING requirement in all of that!

 

[Hussar]

Pretty much every D&D setting is well over 99% human, so by your argument, the only core species available should be human. Gygax tried to make that so back in 1st edition, by nerfing the other species into oblivion, but that didn’t stick.

And in most D&D settings, elves and dwarves are massively outnumbered by goblins and orcs. As for gnomes and halflings, they are probably outnumbered by giants and dragons.

You are also supposing that players are in effect choosing at random from the available PHB options, so everything is about equally represented, when we know that is far from the case, and some options are far more or less popular than others.

Then you are assuming players are only choosing options from the core rules, when few people actually play that way, and non-core species are both common and intended to be part of the game by the designers.

I'm sorry. I honestly have no idea how to parse this. This is in now way actually related to anything I said. I really have no idea what you are trying to say here.

I'm saying that every D&D setting is based on the PHB. When you look at communities where the PC's are likely to either start from, or go to, they are pretty much comprised of the PHB races. The settings are built on the PHB races. Since we now have a couple more PHB races than we did before, then a 2024 D&D setting should incorporate those new races, in the same way that all the other settings have incorporated the PHB races.

At no point am I talking about players. I must have missed something here and I'm very confused.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I do not think 5e24 needs a setting book.
Forgotten Realms works well enough, however I would not be averse to a Book of Settings where one could compile and expand on those interesting MtG settings (or make new ones) that came out early on in 5e's history.
Those were pretty cool and unique (not every race was represented in each setting) and there was great art.
As someone who does not play and follow MtG I absolutely loved those.

 

[Maxperson]

Good grief, Candlekeep Mysteries gives me an entire village of frog people but can't give me so much as a farm with dragonborn in it? No one is saying that the base demographics have to follow adventuring parties, but, it would be kinda nice if, upon deciding to play a dragonborn or an Aasimar, you weren't immediately forced to be from "far away parts" because there simply isn't anywhere local for you to be from.

In Candlekeep Mysteries(Page 10) the First Reader of Candlekeep is a Green Dragonborn. One of the Great Readers is a Bronze Dragonborn.

I haven't run any of the adventures from that book yet, but I did remember those from when my players went to Candlekeep for some research of their own.