D&D 5E 5th Edition and the "true exotic" races ...

[GX.Sigma]

What you say with irony, I say with conviction. Yes, how dare they...without also clearly stating, ANYWHERE in the book, "By the way, you should talk to your DM, because not a single word of this culture stuff has to be true in your world." See below for my response to your PHB example quote.

Your PHB example doesn't cut the mustard. Not memorizing the rules and details =/= "You should check with your DM because the way we describe races, e.g. dwarves, may be completely different from what your DM uses."

Did you miss the other passage I quoted from the PHB? The part where it says to check with your DM because their world might be different from what is described in the book?

Only, as I said above, in a vacuously true sense: "old things are older than newer things, so old things have been used more." And, as I believe I've said to you before, that becomes self-perpetuating.

See, I don't think we can continue this conversation intelligently, because you seem to think this is a bad thing, and I think it's a good thing. If the game was called "Generic Universal Roleplaying System," I'd be inclined to agree with you. But this is Dungeons & Dragons. It's a game that came out in 1974 with elves and dwarves and hobbits. That's the game everyone fell in love with in the first place. I believe every edition has a duty to stay true to that.

That the mechanics are more similar to old editions does not justify putting only the oldest, most traditional options on a plinth above the plebeian rabble of the new options or new cultural ideas.

Not by itself, no. But they also wanted the flavor to be more similar to old editions, and that clearly does justify doing exactly that.

They tried making an edition where Tieflings and Dragonborn were on the same level as the classic races. It didn't do very well. They got feedback that people didn't like it. They took the feedback to heart. They made a new edition where there was a separation. It did very well. It seems clear to me that they made the right decision.

 

[Nickolaidas]

They tried making an edition where Tieflings and Dragonborn were on the same level as the classic races. It didn't do very well. They got feedback that people didn't like it. They took the feedback to heart. They made a new edition where there was a separation. It did very well. It seems clear to me that they made the right decision.

Are we really going to assume that the reason 4th failed was the fact that the Dragonborn and the Tieflings were 'mainstream'? And it wasn't about the rules, the combat, the focus on minis, the tactical aspect?

 

[GX.Sigma]

Are we really going to assume that the reason 4th failed was the fact that the Dragonborn and the Tieflings were 'mainstream'? And it wasn't about the rules, the combat, the focus on minis, the tactical aspect?

There were a lot of reasons many D&D fans didn't like 4e. I'm not sure if you were on the Internet during the 4e era, but Dragonborn and Tieflings (especially with the "everything is core" mentality) were certainly among those reasons. Probably not even close to the top of the list, but it was absolutely a sticking point for a lot of people.

Edit: Oh god, I just realized I mentioned 4e. I guess I deserve all the rage that's about to get thrown at me in 3...2...1...

 

[Nickolaidas]

There were a lot of reasons many D&D fans didn't like 4e. I'm not sure if you were on the Internet during the 4e era, but Dragonborn and Tieflings (especially with the "everything is core" mentality) were certainly among those reasons. Probably not even close to the top of the list, but it was absolutely a sticking point for a lot of people.

Oh I'm not saying there wasn't any displeasure. People hate change and having half-dragons as PCs certainly annoyed quite a few purists. But I doubt that there were players/DMs who would refuse to invest in a new D&D edition simply because a new race was playable along the rest.

Having new combat/character-building/tactical rules that basically change the way you play the game and/or your character though? Whole other thing.

 

[Nickolaidas]

I honestly believe that, had they left out the section on uncommon races and grouped all of the races together in alphabetical order, that absolutely nothing would have changed with 5e's success.

A thousand times this.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I honestly believe that, had they left out the section on uncommon races and grouped all of the races together in alphabetical order, that absolutely nothing would have changed with 5e's success.

You mean with Dragonborn as the first race in the book? I dunno, I think there'd be a few oldschool gamers who'd go "Oh, they're still trying to push these newschool monster races? I don't think this game is for me." Actually, that's probably the exact reason they didn't just put them in alphabetical order.

Oh I'm not saying there wasn't any displeasure. People hate change and having half-dragons as PCs certainly annoyed quite a few purists. But I doubt that there were players/DMs who would refuse to invest in a new D&D edition simply because a new race was playable along the rest.

Exactly, which is why 5e was right to include them.

 

[Zardnaar]

Including trhem as otional is a way to allow DB and Tieflings to be excluded but also allows Gnomes and HAlf Orcs to be excluded for the 4E purists I suppsoe. Had they only put Tieflings and Dragonborn as optional its aimed at 4E in particular.

Nothing in AL is banned from the PHB so its really only for home games and maybe for setting down the track like Darksun.

 

[MechaPilot]

Everyone who remembers the D&D where Humans, Dwarves, Elves and Halflings were the _only_ races you could play, and three of those were actually CLASSES, raise your hand?

*raises hand*

I recall that time as well.

5e is like a love letter to all the editions that came before; the specific calling to these four races hearkens back to the OD&D games in the colored boxes circa late 70's - early 80's.

Not to "all the editions that came before." 5e is like a love letter to traditional D&D, with some concessions made so as not to entirely drive off the fans of nontraditional parts of D&D. It's like a love letter to a girl you like that ends with a post script of "and yes, I suppose I can put up with your widowed mother being around if I have to, as long as she knows her place."

 

[Lanliss]

I like the idea of Tiefling's, and do not see a problem with their inclusion. Half orcs make sense, considering the classic idea of what orcs do for fun. Gnomes are interesting, but have a valid reason for not being seen in most settings (they're shy. They're there, just hidden).

Dragonborn confuse me. Particularly their inclusion in the PHB, when they are basically described as "They were just thrown in.". They don't have a story, a history, or really anything special, aside from the fact that they have a Dragon head. Does anyone know the actual story on dragonborn? Were they in the Sword Coast before 5E, or were they just thrown in after a kind of timeskip between the editions?

 

[MechaPilot]

True. But the purpose of the surveys was to figure out what most people who play D&D think of when they think of D&D.

. . .

I just feel that I should point out that running surveys that way is great if the only people you plan to sell D&D to are the people who already play it. That's not a policy that bodes well for growing one's customer base though, as eventually the existing base will expire over time, and the expired part of the base will need to be replaced for the game to continue to be profitable. If you only find out what the existing players think, that won't help you replace an expiring customer base.