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

I find WotC's assumptions a bit annoying. I don't use halflings in my game. I don't understand the fascination, really. Their history only goes back as far as Tolkien, and as far as a niche? They're short pastoral humans. That's their entire gimmick. I prefer gnomes for my "small folk"; they actually tread less on the other races' schticks.
That's fine. They only made their choice to stick with their traditions, and those traditions were born straight out of Tolkien. They needed some sort of default, though, and "races that have been there since the first edition" seemed as fair a point as any.

Personally, I hate gnomes, and I love halflings. That's because I prefer a low-magic setting, and gnomes are innately magical, where halflings are the least magical. That's just me, though.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

That's fine. They only made their choice to stick with their traditions, and those traditions were born straight out of Tolkien. They needed some sort of default, though, and "races that have been there since the first edition" seemed as fair a point as any.
I think "races that were in the initial PHB since 1st edition was the actual voiced default, and gnomes were PHB2 in 4e. They were certainly present in 1e, 2e, and 3e. I think it was also justification post de facto. I understand it, but it's slightly annoying. Maybe a 1.3 on a 1-10 scale.

Personally, I hate gnomes, and I love halflings. That's because I prefer a low-magic setting, and gnomes are innately magical, where halflings are the least magical. That's just me, though.
Everyone's got a different take on it. I think you could strip the magic out of gnomes and still have something more distinctive than halflings, but I like seeing other people's takes on it. I've toyed with making halflings "domovoi", and thinking of them as something like "humanity's familiar", but just haven't felt the need to really develop it beyond that.
 

WotC conducted surveys where most of the participants were people who already played D&D and who self-selected themselves for participation. That's not terribly conducive to figuring out what most people think of when they think of fantasy.

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.

My take on this whole thing (which I've been happy with), is that they recognized that D&D itself has a history, feel, and design that is uniquely D&D. Vancian magic, a Tolkienesque standard for the 'generic' game, the focus on the d20 as the core element whether it makes sense or not, AC and hp, etc.

One of the big things that they learned in the 4th edition is that there were a whole lot of people playing earlier editions of D&D, and of course there were also a bunch that switched to Pathfinder. They are in the business of selling a game. Who are your best customers? The ones that already play the game. Getting new customers is much harder.

So, how do you get those old customers to buy a new game? You make them a game they want. You survey them, and you listen. What actually makes D&D D&D?

D&D is based on the fantasy of Tolkien, Vance, Leiber, Howard and others. It was so unique that it spawned a great many modern video games, other RPGs, etc. The concept of fighter, thief, cleric, and wizard, with humans, dwarves, elves, and halflings, were near universal for a long time. Outside of the gaming community, others probably never knew how much of an influence D&D had as the primary source material. Sure, it's derivative itself, but ended up becoming something in and of itself. One thing I've heard a lot of people say is that the 4th edition was a revolution in game design, and a great game, it just wasn't D&D. If they had marketed it as a new game, it would have been praised, although probably wouldn't have sold as much.

There is a sizable group that doesn't want the 'exotics' like dragonborn and tieflings. I'm one of them, in part. I'm fine with them being more subtle and able to integrate in society, but I don't care for them as they've evolved in the game. At least not in the Forgotten Realms.

Outside of the Forgotten Realms (which is the current core campaign), my preference is for something more exotic. I loved Dark Sun and Ravenloft because they had an entirely different feel and approach. One of my complaints about things like the dragonborn as presented as they are essentially humans in a dragon skin. They don't have a unique society, culture, or appearance. I'd love to see a campaign world where they dominate and have evolved in unique and non-human ways.

The starting point for the game is the Starter Set + the free Basic D&D which only has the core races and classes. It's a throwback AD&D and the original basic set. It's also a good starting point because you don't have a lot of options yet.

One advantage of a known world such as Middle Earth, or the Star Wars universe is that people already have a good sense of what to expect, how things work. The D&D of elves, dwarves, humans, and halfling fighter, thief, wizard and cleric is that starting point that people know, even those who haven't played the game.

Sure, they could present things differently, maybe word things a little better. But it seems to me that the purpose of this edition was to get back to the core of what D&D is, or at least what the majority of people view as D&D. So it is tailored to the mass market. I prefer that, because I was not happy about how the many, many additions in the 3rd, and especially the 4th edition drastically changed not just the core, but was rolled into the Forgotten Realms in particular. The total overhaul of the deities, the known planes, and insertion of every race and class option as 'core' and largely common dramatically changed the feel of the campaign.

This time they've gotten a little smarter and realized that aside from the game itself, their settings are a valuable asset. Specifically the differences and variations from one to another. Since the initial 'core' campaign is the Forgotten Realms, they've built the rest of the presentation around that concept, which is much closer to what was originally presented. Aside from the surveys and playtesting, I think the continued high sales position of Ed Greenwood Presents Elminster's Forgotten Realms also played a part in how they decided to frame the primary presentation. And that initial presentation is based on the idea that an earlier version of the Forgotten Realms is the closest thing to 'generic' D&D.

Remember that one of the main thrusts of WotC (and really Hasbro) is to build a multi-media brand. With the TTRPG, video games, potential movies, and tons of novels, the Forgotten Realms is the center of building that D&D brand identity. Other settings that are noticeably different like Ravenloft also have their place. But for the core rules, everything is built around what the mass market view of what D&D is, and presented as such.

Ilbranteloth
 

That's fine. They only made their choice to stick with their traditions, and those traditions were born straight out of Tolkien. They needed some sort of default, though, and "races that have been there since the first edition" seemed as fair a point as any.

Personally, I hate gnomes, and I love halflings. That's because I prefer a low-magic setting, and gnomes are innately magical, where halflings are the least magical. That's just me, though.

Did they actually need a default, or did they elect to have one? Because I won't just accept that bald assertion. What is the deep, underlying necessity of "these things must be here, unless you take great pains to remove them"?

The two most popular fantasy settings of the present day:
(1) Don't have halflings
(2) Feature multiple "monstrous" races as playable characters and as the core demographic of major, world-/continent-influencing nations
(3) Prominently feature their equivalent of Drow as "good guys" or at least with radically different reputation from Drow
(4) Have at least one PC race that doesn't properly map to any of the PHB races
(6) Have recorded millions of paying customers

I am, of course, speaking of Azeroth and Nirn/Tamriel. If we're going for ease of recognition and familiarity to the general public, halflings are not where it's at. At very most, you could assert that humans and elves are the only 'common' races--and everything else is up for grabs.

And that's not even touching on the popularity of oeuvres like the Final Fantasy panoply, where elves don't appear in as many games as moogles do. (Elves: I, IV, V, XI, XIV; Moogles: II, III, V, VI, VII, IX, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, Tactics, CC...) The FF series has significant appeal in the United States--arguably more than D&D, though probably not more than all of tabletop gaming combined.

Appeals to tradition don't faze me. Tradition purely for its own sake is no better than novelty for its own sake.
 

1: And now we get the statement. "Uncommon" or "true exotic" races don't exist in every world of D&D, but the "common" races do. Otherwise, why mention that ONLY the exotic races don't exist in every world of D&D?
2: There is never D&D a world where dragonborn, or gnomes, or whatever else are more widespread than any of the common races. Ever. No exceptions (despite the numerous exceptions.)
3: "The common folk" = "members of the common races." So now all those random villages are always populated by dwarves, elves, halflings, or hobbits.
4: "If you play an exotic race, it's okay for the DM to play everyone as racist and terrified of you, even if you never do anything wrong." The following blurbs be damned--because I've literally seen people saying exactly that on this very forum. I can get quotes, if you like.
Look, the rulebooks are full of assumptions. For example:
Kingdoms rich in ancient grandeur, halls carved into the roots of mountains, the echoing of picks and hammers in deep mines and blazing forges, a commitment to clan and tradition, and a burning hatred of goblins and orcs—these common threads unite all dwarves.
...
A dwarf’s name is granted by a clan elder, in accordance with tradition. Every proper dwarven name has been used and reused down through the generations. A dwarf’s name belongs to the clan, not to the individual. A dwarf who misuses or brings shame to a clan name is stripped of the name and forbidden by law to use any dwarven name in its place.
How dare they say that ALL dwarves in ALL worlds MUST follow these rules!

Another example:
In the worlds of Dungeons & Dragons, practitioners of magic are rare, set apart from the masses of people by their extraordinary talent.
Isn't that untrue in Eberron and Planescape?

But the rulebooks also tell you it's okay to change the assumptions. Appropriately, most of this is in the Dungeon Master's Guide:

DMG said:
[p.4] The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game....
Even if you're using an established world such as the Forgotten Realms, your campaign takes place in a sort of mirror universe of the official setting where Forgotten Realms novels, game products, and digital
games are assumed to take place. The world is yours to change as you see fit...

[p.9] This book, the Player's Handbook, and the Monster Manual present the default assumptions for how the worlds of D&D work. Among the established settings of D&D, the Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Dragonlance, and Mystara don't stray very far from those assumptions. Settings such as Dark Sun, Eberron, Ravenloft, Spelljammer, and Planescape venture further away from that baseline. As you create your own world, it's up to you to decide where on the spectrum you want your world to fall.
[this is followed by an entire chapter on creating your own world.]

Here's some from the other books:

PHB said:
[p.4] To play D&D, and to play it well, you don’t need to read all the rules, memorize every detail...None of those things have any bearing on what’s best about the game.

[p.6] Your DM might set the campaign on one of these [officially published] worlds or on one that he or she created. Because there is so much diversity among the worlds of D&D, you should check with your DM about any house rules that will affect your play of the game. Ultimately, the Dun­geon Master is the authority on the campaign and its setting, even if the setting is a published world.


MM p.4 said:
Nothing we say here is intended to curtail your creativity. If the minotaurs in your world are shipbuilders and pirates, who are we to argue with you? It's your world, after all.

But really, there are two reasons why the "common" races are separate from the "true exotics." One of them has been brought up multiple times already. The other one is that they are the only 4 that have been in every edition and almost every setting that has ever borne the D&D logo. Within the context of officially published D&D worlds, the phrase "They don't exist in every world of D&D, and even where they are found, they are less widespread than dwarves, elves, halflings, and humans" is simply a true statement.
Did they actually need a default, or did they elect to have one? Because I won't just accept that bald assertion. What is the deep, underlying necessity of "these things must be here, unless you take great pains to remove them"?


The two most popular fantasy settings of the present day:
(1) Don't have halflings
(2) Feature multiple "monstrous" races as playable characters and as the core demographic of major, world-/continent-influencing nations
(3) Prominently feature their equivalent of Drow as "good guys" or at least with radically different reputation from Drow
(4) Have at least one PC race that doesn't properly map to any of the PHB races
(6) Have recorded millions of paying customers


I am, of course, speaking of Azeroth and Nirn/Tamriel. If we're going for ease of recognition and familiarity to the general public, halflings are not where it's at. At very most, you could assert that humans and elves are the only 'common' races--and everything else is up for grabs.


And that's not even touching on the popularity of oeuvres like the Final Fantasy panoply...
Those are not "worlds of D&D," which is what the D&D books are focused on. I'm sure a book about Azeroth would have Azeroth-specific assumptions.

And yes, they do need a default. One of the major goals of 5e was returning to old-school D&D traditions, and I think the success of that strategy speaks for itself.
 
Last edited:

Did they actually need a default, or did they elect to have one? Because I won't just accept that bald assertion.

Yes. Because like it or not, they are a building a brand. To you and I, D&D can be anything. But to the general public, the uninitiated, and the potential new gamer, the best bang for their buck is something recognizable as D&D.

A big part of that is what has been D&D. What do the bulk of the players consider core? What's recognizable to the outside world?

Tradition in the business world isn't for its own sake, it's too make money. Consolidating into a coordinated presentation makes good business sense. Asking longtime players also makes sense.

There are a lot of factors at play, but the fact that 5e seems to appeal to players of nearly all prior editions along with new players and especially players would indicate they are on to something.

Ilbranteloth
 

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.

My take on this whole thing (which I've been happy with), is that they recognized that D&D itself has a history, feel, and design that is uniquely D&D. Vancian magic, a Tolkienesque standard for the 'generic' game, the focus on the d20 as the core element whether it makes sense or not, AC and hp, etc.

One of the big things that they learned in the 4th edition is that there were a whole lot of people playing earlier editions of D&D, and of course there were also a bunch that switched to Pathfinder. They are in the business of selling a game. Who are your best customers? The ones that already play the game. Getting new customers is much harder.

So, how do you get those old customers to buy a new game? You make them a game they want. You survey them, and you listen. What actually makes D&D D&D?

D&D is based on the fantasy of Tolkien, Vance, Leiber, Howard and others. It was so unique that it spawned a great many modern video games, other RPGs, etc. The concept of fighter, thief, cleric, and wizard, with humans, dwarves, elves, and halflings, were near universal for a long time. Outside of the gaming community, others probably never knew how much of an influence D&D had as the primary source material. Sure, it's derivative itself, but ended up becoming something in and of itself. One thing I've heard a lot of people say is that the 4th edition was a revolution in game design, and a great game, it just wasn't D&D. If they had marketed it as a new game, it would have been praised, although probably wouldn't have sold as much.

There is a sizable group that doesn't want the 'exotics' like dragonborn and tieflings. I'm one of them, in part. I'm fine with them being more subtle and able to integrate in society, but I don't care for them as they've evolved in the game. At least not in the Forgotten Realms.

Outside of the Forgotten Realms (which is the current core campaign), my preference is for something more exotic. I loved Dark Sun and Ravenloft because they had an entirely different feel and approach. One of my complaints about things like the dragonborn as presented as they are essentially humans in a dragon skin. They don't have a unique society, culture, or appearance. I'd love to see a campaign world where they dominate and have evolved in unique and non-human ways.

The starting point for the game is the Starter Set + the free Basic D&D which only has the core races and classes. It's a throwback AD&D and the original basic set. It's also a good starting point because you don't have a lot of options yet.

One advantage of a known world such as Middle Earth, or the Star Wars universe is that people already have a good sense of what to expect, how things work. The D&D of elves, dwarves, humans, and halfling fighter, thief, wizard and cleric is that starting point that people know, even those who haven't played the game.

Sure, they could present things differently, maybe word things a little better. But it seems to me that the purpose of this edition was to get back to the core of what D&D is, or at least what the majority of people view as D&D. So it is tailored to the mass market. I prefer that, because I was not happy about how the many, many additions in the 3rd, and especially the 4th edition drastically changed not just the core, but was rolled into the Forgotten Realms in particular. The total overhaul of the deities, the known planes, and insertion of every race and class option as 'core' and largely common dramatically changed the feel of the campaign.

This time they've gotten a little smarter and realized that aside from the game itself, their settings are a valuable asset. Specifically the differences and variations from one to another. Since the initial 'core' campaign is the Forgotten Realms, they've built the rest of the presentation around that concept, which is much closer to what was originally presented. Aside from the surveys and playtesting, I think the continued high sales position of Ed Greenwood Presents Elminster's Forgotten Realms also played a part in how they decided to frame the primary presentation. And that initial presentation is based on the idea that an earlier version of the Forgotten Realms is the closest thing to 'generic' D&D.

Remember that one of the main thrusts of WotC (and really Hasbro) is to build a multi-media brand. With the TTRPG, video games, potential movies, and tons of novels, the Forgotten Realms is the center of building that D&D brand identity. Other settings that are noticeably different like Ravenloft also have their place. But for the core rules, everything is built around what the mass market view of what D&D is, and presented as such.

Ilbranteloth

In general, I agree with you.

In specific, there are a few places where I either disagree, or where I feel some differentiation is warranted.

#1 Non-traditional races and preference
My preference differs significantly from yours in this respect. Neither yours or mine is wrong, because we're doing it right as long as we're having fun, but I also have to say that I don't believe that mine is any "less D&D" than the traditional preference. As non-human fantastical creatures that are sometimes statted up as having inherent magical abilities (I'm thinking in particular of the race as class days here), elves and dwarves are creatures that are significantly alien from humans. Sure, they follow the Star Trek "rubber-forehead" alien trope of looking almost identical to humans, and so they appear to be less different on a physical level, they are still rather alien to us. I see the non-traditional races as simply an extension of the willingness to allow people to play creatures that are alien to them.

#2 Fourth edition
4e could have certainly done things differently than it did. I have been round and round with edition warriors and have no desire to open that can of worms. I will say that I think a lot of traditional preferences could have been accommodated by the 4e system without throwing away the new things that 4e added if the designers were as options focused as some of 4e's fans were (I am a 4e fan, and "options for everyone" is practically my motto). If there had been specific variant sections in the PHB/DMG or in the online articles for things such as halving HPs for faster fights, different rates of healing, surgeless play, and a daily-only option for casters (all of which can be accommodated by the 4e system if someone wanted to create the appropriate subsystems to plug-in) they would have introduced new while preserving the old.

#3 Published Settings
Aside from Ravenloft, Planescape, ans Spelljammer, I don't really use published settings. I know, from what I've read, that they tend to get shaken up every so often (most likely just for the sake of generating sales). I don't think any one edition is the only culprit in this regard, it just seems to be the way the business works in general. Like you, I think that the D&D settings are a valuable resource, especially with them being able to license the movie rights to people who will hopefully do them more justice than the movies have until now. However, I don't care for the default setting conceit. A large percentage of games are set in homebrew settings where the default generally means diddly unless it appeals to the sensibilities of the homebrewer.

#4 Presentation of options
I do think 5e could have done this better. As it is, people tend to expect that what's in the books, except for the races labeled as optional, are valid for use by default. Actually, the default is check with your DM because you never know what's allowed until you do. Even if we are assuming the game takes place in FR, each DM is going to run FR differently: the character of the FR setting in games that I run in FR is most likely going to differ from the character of the setting in the ones you might run. Presenting things one way (i.e. only the stuff labeled optional is optional and everything else is default) when it's actually another way (DM allows or disallows whatever) is not the best idea as it expands potential for misunderstanding and miscommunication rather than limiting it or encouraging communication.
 

Did they actually need a default, or did they elect to have one? Because I won't just accept that bald assertion. What is the deep, underlying necessity of "these things must be here, unless you take great pains to remove them"?
If you don't have defaults, then you don't have a game; you just have a set of parts that could be used to build a game.

Defaults primarily exist for the benefit of new players, who aren't comfortable creating their own worlds yet. If you just had a bunch of races and said that they all might exist in a world - without any guideline for where to start - new players could get overwhelmed.

A more relevant question might be, why would anyone care if there's a default setting, once you're advanced enough to create your own?
 
Last edited:

Also, in regards to the most popular fantasy worlds, I'm not sure how you even measure that. The number of novels sold in the Forgotten Realms alone would put it near the top of any published world. Combine that with the video games, Dragonlance, comics and all of the D&D worlds, books and media it's got to be in the top 10, if not much higher.

Ilbranteloth
 

Also, in regards to the most popular fantasy worlds, I'm not sure how you even measure that. The number of novels sold in the Forgotten Realms alone would put it near the top of any published world. Combine that with the video games, Dragonlance, comics and all of the D&D worlds, books and media it's got to be in the top 10, if not much higher.

Ilbranteloth

There's also the question of whether that's a self-fulfilling prophesy, i.e. FR sells more because more FR material is produced and promoted. If I have a choice of setting, I won't pick FR. However, I picked up the Baldur's Gate game for Xbox because I wanted a D&D game to play. Some of the sales are just people settling.
 

Remove ads

Top