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

[Nellisir]

I think a "nothing is core" model, while it wouldn't have improved support for the non-standard races, would have been better. I feel like it would have encouraged more DMs (in particular, I'm thinking about new DMs) to make creative choices about the worlds they run. It also would have ingrained in people (in particular, I'm thinking of new players) the supposition that they should check with the DM to see what's allowed instead of just assuming that everything is valid in every game. In a hobby where Homebrew is a big portion of the settings played, I think that encouraging communication between players and DMs would have been a plus.

This is a good thing. As stated above, I don't use halflings (or half-orcs, dragonborn, tieflings, drow, or warforged) and add in new races instead (bridge trolls, roane, jotunkin, leshii). It's a discussion I make sure to have right off the bat with people coming into my games.

 

[MechaPilot]

Everything was core in 4E and in OP everything was allowed. As I understand it on AL they do not allow everything every season so no Genasi in the new season AFAIK.

This also has been brought up before, but that's not an edition problem, that's a problem with the rules surrounding organized play. 5e has clearly illustrated that things can be available for use in an edition while also not being included in organized play. WotC dropped the ball on 4e's organized play. It's not as if it's the first time (or the last) WotC will drop the ball on something.

Also they came up with a better solution with their exotic races being optional thing. I am used to it as the Druid and Mystic(Monk basically) were optional in the BECMI rules cyclopedia.

How is it better and in what way? Do you mean they handle it better in 5e organized play than in 4e organized play? Or, do you mean in the edition in general? Because saying yes to that first one will cause me to agree with you (despite their reasons for banning the flying race not passing muster with me), while saying yes to the second will cause me to disagree with you. To me, labeling something "extra-super-mega-ulta optional" when the entire book is presenting a horde of options that the DM is free to deny as she sees fit smacks of childishness, and it seems like an attempt to say on the sly that one way of playing is more D&D than the other when it absolutely is not.

The Force Awakens doesn't win any awards for originality but it felt like a Star Wars movie and it would be the 2nd or 3rd best movie out of the 7 SW films IMHO.

Sure, TFA was entertaining. However, I'd already seen the original trilogy for free several times on television while I was growing up. Paying theater prices to see what was basically a remake of the original trilogy doesn't sit well with me. I have to keep reminding myself, "hey, you were entertained while you were there." Also, it doesn't make me terribly confident that future installments will be good. Afterall, all they've shown us is that the franchise can repackage the original plot in an entertaining way. They've don'e virtually nothing to make me think they have any good story ideas moving forward.

 

[NotActuallyTim]

I'm not sure which of these you see as the problem. Personally, I'd be reluctant to buy from any writer that's that dependent on some kind of assumed "approval" from WotC. That's a serious lack of creativity and initiative going on.

It's not about 'approval' it's about coloring inside the lines. People don't take a lot of risks. If Half-Orcs look like a risk from an investment stand point, then everybody can say good bye to 3rd content that includes Half-Orcs.

And don't say it's about creativity. Or initiative. There are so many stories and worlds out there with nothing but humans in them that it's clear that the fantasy races found throughout multiple editions of DnD aren't necessary for new content. However, I like Gnomes. I don't want to see them go away. And without reward for writing about Gnomes, nobody is going to write about Gnomes.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You are only one person. The lotR movies for example were mega blockbusters and the reason for that. Most people associate fantasy with Tolkien and similar work...

Not that D&D has ever done Tolkien-esque fantasy at all well - Vancian casting, magic item proliferation, etc, etc, are at odds with high fantasy, in general, and Tolkien's take on it, specifically. Then again, it's not like D&D has ever had mass appeal, so I guess your point stands.

Can we please not play the "most people" card.

"Most people" don't play D&D. There's around 7.4 billion people on earth. Right around 7.4 billion of them don't play D&D.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think a "nothing is core" model, while it wouldn't have improved support for the non-standard races, would have been better. I feel like it would have encouraged more DMs (in particular, I'm thinking about new DMs) to make creative choices about the worlds they run. It also would have ingrained in people (in particular, I'm thinking of new players) the supposition that they should check with the DM to see what's allowed instead of just assuming that everything is valid in every game. In a hobby where Homebrew is a big portion of the settings played, I think that encouraging communication between players and DMs would have been a plus.

I'm fond of that myself (I've gone on and on about the Default Effect as it applies to RPG game design long enough!), but I don't really blame WotC for looking at their data and saying, "Well, people really LOVE these four races, and we have them in our game all over the place, lets make them part of our brand identity here since folks expect 'em anyway and then we can define our development goals more precisely and shepherd the experience a bit more."

 

[Sunseeker]

The honest answer is this was their way of catering to people who felt that their soup would be spoiled if anything outside LOTR every made an appearance at their D&D table. There was many-a-thread on the subject back before 5E launched and people were looking at the playtest material. Some folks even took offense to the idea of players asking for it.

But that's why I made a Dragonborn-only game and universally banned dwarves!
-because the former was cool and the latter I got tired of wanna-be Irish/Scott-impersonators. My first DM was the worst at it, so I guess it set me off on a bad foot. But never fear! I have compromised! My Dwarves are, when included, now dark-skinned, island dwelling and Jamacian parodies instead!

 

[Nellisir]

It's not about 'approval' it's about coloring inside the lines. People don't take a lot of risks. If Half-Orcs look like a risk from an investment stand point, then everybody can say good bye to 3rd content that includes Half-Orcs.

And don't say it's about creativity. Or initiative. There are so many stories and worlds out there with nothing but humans in them that it's clear that the fantasy races found throughout multiple editions of DnD aren't necessary for new content. However, I like Gnomes. I don't want to see them go away. And without reward for writing about Gnomes, nobody is going to write about Gnomes.

You're overemphasizing the effect those sentences in the PHB are going to have on the marketplace. I'm a fan of gnomes, but the blunt fact is that the perception of them is so fragmented (tinker gnomes? spy gnomes? animal-friend gnomes?) that they've just never garnered much support. That's a different problem than a few lines in the 5e PHB.

MAYBE "people don't take a lot of risks", but writers aren't most people. If you're pursuing 3rd-party publishing for a fantasy rpg you're more concerned about standing out and making something interesting. As far as campaign settings in particular, I love them, but a) not many people actually write them, b) not many people who write them write good ones, and c) not many of the good ones are mainstream enough to suit my tastes. I like traditional high fantasy, but when you get into 3rd-party material you're going to see a lot more "alternative" stuff. The people serious about pursuing 3rd-party publishing aren't the ones concerned about coloring inside the lines - they're more likely to throw the whole coloring book out and draw on the walls.

There will be more supplements for elves and dwarves, but gnomes will do OK. Don't stress about it.

 

[Demetrios1453]

Can't seem to find any of the PHB exotic races in Out of the Abyss, though.

There's a half-elf among the faction leaders the characters can interact with in Gauntlgrym. And there are plenty of gnomes in the adventure, they're just deep gnomes so they aren't among the PHB variants (but they are a SCAG variant).

Granted, OotA is going to be a bit of an outlier among adventures as 90% of it is set in the Underdark, which is hardly a "normal" setting.

 

[pukunui]

There's a half-elf among the faction leaders the characters can interact with in Gauntlgrym.

Ah right. I thought there was one but couldn't find where I'd seen it.

And there are plenty of gnomes in the adventure, they're just deep gnomes so they aren't among the PHB variants (but they are a SCAG variant).

Yeah, I didn't mention them because the OP was specifically talking about non-deep gnomes. FWIW, the only gnomes that have shown up in official content so far have either been deep gnomes or rock gnomes. We've seen no forest gnomes yet.

Granted, OotA is going to be a bit of an outlier among adventures as 90% of it is set in the Underdark, which is hardly a "normal" setting.

Exactly.

 

[Nellisir]

We've seen no forest gnomes yet.

The concept of a forest gnome/rock gnome divide was articulated later in 2e, but didn't really become core until late in 3e at best. So forest gnomes are relatively new in the scheme of things.