That's what D&D is about--at least according to 5e, remember? Rulings not rules? I thought the whole POINT was being able to build what you wanted out of it.
No, it's not the
whole point. The "rulings not rules" is part of the concept of simplifying the rules. That too many options, and a rules system that is too complex, pushes out potential players. Recognizing that since the middle of 2e, and really as far back as AD&D, that they split their potential customer base with a great many groups still playing the older editions, or switching to an alternate option (primarily Pathfinder), in part because the rules were more complex.
How do we get those people to buy the new game? Make it one that they want. Simplify. Focus on the core of what D&D is, rather than what it has evolved into. Allow anything, but build a standard, a base, that the majority will play with anyway.
I doubt they lost many players because half-orcs were uncommon. Not to start an edition war, it's just a simple fact that veering too far from the earlier editions in 4e drove a lot of players away. Many to Pathfinder, many just stopped buying new stuff and used what they had. Others just stopped playing. This isn't really new, 2e and 3e had a similar effect, if smaller. Some people just stuck with what they liked.
So the point of this edition wasn't to build what you want out of it. The point was to find the common ground that players of OD&D through 4e, along with Pathfinder players, and those no longer playing. The point was to build a game that would satisfy all of those groups enough to buy the new edition. And to bring in new players. There is no way to satisfy all of those groups 100%. So they found the things that would satisfy all of those groups 80% or whatever. That's what's common. Everything else is optional.
Frankly, I'm surprised that they kept the warlock as a core/common class. I think that was a nod to the group that wanted spellcasters to be able to cast more than a fixed number of spells a day.
I second Nellsir's response, but there's another side to this. The stuff presented in the PHB isn't a guideline. It's a set of flat statements: this IS how the world is. It's presented as matters of universal fact--when it is neither, except in a uselessly tautological sense (old things are old and have therefore been used for a long time; new things are new and therefore have not been used in as many works as old things have).
Actual guidelines would be chucking all this "common" and "exotic" nonsense, and using the leftover page-space to talk about how different worlds make use of these things. Yes, even in the PHB: a sidebar saying, "Many worlds feature D/E/Ha/Hu--which have had a presence in fantasy literature for 60 years or more. But there are also many worlds where one or more of them are absent entirely, whether because they were never there, or because they died out for one reason or another. Because D&D has been around for many years, it has added new options over time. Some players and DMs place a lot of value in the most traditional options, typically D/E/Ha/Hu, while others prefer newer additions, and some accept them all the same. Talk to your DM while thinking about your character. Not every campaign will feature every race, not even humans. Further, there may be specific tweaks or flourishes that you'll want to consider before making your choice--this book presents only one perspective on these races, not the infinite amount of possible alternatives."
That would directly communicate the idea that all of these things, even the nigh-universal humans, are options that the DM may or may not provide, that the player needs to communicate with the DM rather than make assumptions based on the text of the book, and that even if the book does make strident claims (as it very frustratingly does), they may or may not hold for any campaign you join. Instead of overwhelming the player (though, again, see Nellsir's response on that), it directs them to the person who should know how to answer their questions, questions that should be asked. And it would be a guideline, in that it would guide the player, rather than presenting this information as factual and unquestioned when it is neither. Then, there could be (as I had suggested during the playtest) a couple of pages spent in the DMG talking about how you can cultivate different kinds of fantasy "feel" through curating the list of available races (and classes, for that matter). THAT would be a guideline--and dramatically more useful.
Dramatically more useful to who? This presumes that most people who play D&D should know better, and that the core concept as presented is not the way it should be played. And that the designers' goal is to promote that "anything is OK" design rather than a baseline that describes a majority of D&D campaigns, as well as one that narrows down to what makes the generic D&D world unique to other fantasy pastimes.
It is factual that most of the time when you sit down at a D&D table, that humans, elves, etc are common, and dragonborn and half-orcs are not. Self-fulfilling or not, that's what most people think of when they think of D&D. They are more heavily weighted in part because those people playing OD&D through 2e won't even have dragonborn or tieflings available as an option when asked what they play or like to play.
Part of the goal was to make a game that you can sit down with a group of friends for the first time, and be playing in an hour or so. A baseline makes this much more possible. When you go to a store and say "let's play D&D", that baseline makes it easier. It puts the onus on the DM to say "hey, in my world we don't have halflings, but we have gnomes" instead of all of the players having to ask "so which races, classes, and rules did you choose from column A and column B?"
Basically, with a baseline, you can assume that things are as presented unless told otherwise.
Two reasons. (1) The "rubber-stamp" effect on new players creates a self-fulfilling prophecy; anyone that gets inducted to the hobby gets told that dragonborn should be rarely (if ever) seen, while dwarves and elves have to be there for it to be "a world of D&D," so future expectations are shaped not by what's actually interesting or creative or challenging, but primarily by received notions. (2) It contributes to ongoing division and hostility within the medium, privileging one specific strain of imaginative thought as better, truer, more right, when there is not and cannot be such a thing.
Again, the assumption that a "rubber-stamp" effect is bad. While D&D has had a lot of published game worlds, only two have been the core world in the actual core books. Grayhawk and Forgotten Realms. Again, self-fulfilling or not, this is the base that they went with. Again, this sets a useful baseline.
But my experience is the opposite. I generally DM in the Forgotten Realms now, and I admit that I play in an older version of it where tieflings are difficult to detect, and dragonborn don't exist. I do provide a booklet that details the races, classes, optional rules, and house rules that are acceptable. Basically the common races plus half-elves and gnomes. It specifically states these are the races available, and that dragonborn are not. In the initial group for the last campaign I started it included two dragonborn and a warforged.
I've never run into anybody outside of this thread that takes the descriptions in the PHB and assumes that they aren't acceptable. In my experience it's been one of two things, either they are playing a dragonborn, drow, tiefling, etc.
because they are rare and exotic, or they don't think they are rare at all.
There's an entire thread on dragonborn in the Forgotten Realms and apparently I'm the only one who thinks that, as published, they are rare and exotic.
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." Both of the others are purely DM-facing, and so cannot be expected to avert the rubber-stamp effect.
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. That which has been used before is set above that which has not been used before. It's the employment catch-22: you can't get hired if you don't have experience, and you can't get experience if you can't get hired. That which has not been used as much is painted as
less or
worse (e.g. has strings attached) compared to that which has been used more...which means it will continue to be used less, and thus continue to be less and worse forever. You could also liken it to the sci-fi ghetto: science fiction is always pulpy trash so it can't be good literature; good literature can't be sci-fi because it isn't pulpy trash.
Yes it's self-perpetuating. But also by design. Like it or not, other game systems, other game worlds, etc. have come and gone. In D&D the majority (whether self-perpetuating or not) has remained consistent, with lots of other things thrown on top. Part of the design is to make a statement that
this is D&D, at least in regards to generic D&D.
Actually, there was a licensed D&D version (two, in fact) of World of Warcraft; the first came out in July 2003 (same time as the 3.5e revised PHB, more or less), and it
bore the D&D logo on the cover...so, in fact, Azeroth
is a world of D&D. Nearly 13 years as one, in fact!
Licensed worlds are irrelevant, other than to point out that a 3rd party publisher is free to diverge from the generic D&D approach. And this is called out specifically in the PHB on pg 6,
"...but each world is set apart by it's own history and cultures, monsters and races..."
"Some races have unusual traits in different worlds. The halflings of the Dark Sun setting, for example, are jungle-dwelling cannibals..."
And goes on to say that the DM is the authority, even in published campaigns, so check to make sure that options you want are OK.
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. More on that later.
Unless you (or they) consider the races, classes, and magic system as important as the rules in identifying what D&D is.
So, what percentage of the general public do you think even knows that "campaign settings" are a thing at all, let alone that D&D has a specific one as its "brand" (to say nothing of what that setting is)? I guarantee you that my mom is aware of D&D, even that there are other similar games that aren't D&D, but she wouldn't have the first clue what a "Forgotten Realm" is, let alone why there would be a group of them. The plural of anecdote is not data, but you are again resorting to unproven (and I'd argue unprovable) assertions about what the general public knows or thinks or can do...and assertions that WotC wouldn't have the first idea about, since all their surveys and reports were from people already in the hobby.
I don't think they have any idea at all. While nothing of this nature is "probable", the movies, comics, novels, and the core books themselves have all found their way into pop-culture enough that the concept of elves, dwarves, wizards, dungeons and dragons are "known" parts of the game and brand.
More importantly it doesn't really matter what the general public knows or not. Most people don't have any idea what D&D players use polyhedral dice for, but they know they use them. Most don't have any idea that there are other RPGs outside of D&D. To most people if you said "I play Pathfinder" and they asked what that was, it would basically sum up as "D&D."
It matters what the designers perceive as what the brand is or should be. The evidence of what they determined, based on surveys and play-testing, along with looking at the history, is plainly visible in the results - that is the books they published. In other words, what the designers have published is their statement as to what they feel D&D is. They are entitled to do that, since it's their game.
I don't give a rat's ass what the bulk of players think--in part because of the rubber-stamp effect. As for the outside world? "I wanna cast a SPELLLL! I cast...MAGIC MISSILE." *That's* what's recognizable to the outside world. And *extremely* popular video games--that aren't courting the "traditionalist" parts of the D&D community--have used numerous races that are much further afield than elves and dwarves or even dragonborn, have even said, "Nope, sorry, in this universe there are no dwarves. Play a Nord if that's what you're into, but you'll be human." Or games like Guild Wars 2, with huge horned-lion-bear people and (in-setting) brand-new plant people and weird sorta-alien-looking magitech pseudognomes, that are all equally as numerous and influential as humans or half-giants Norns.
People are a LOT more able to process the weird, unusual, and fantastic than you give them credit for.
Which is fine. You don't have to care what the bulk of the players think. But WotC do. That was made very clear with the reaction to 4e. What other games have done is also irrelevant. Other Sci-fi settings have gone way beyond what Star Trek did. But if you want to talk about, watch, or even play a Star Trek game you expect that you'll get Star Trek races and such.
Again, this seems to be what they are trying to do with D&D. Put a stake in the ground and say this is the core of what is D&D. You can take it any direction you'd like to go from here, and we (and others) will publish materials that will help you go that direction. But if you're just playing D&D, generic pick up a PHB and an adventure (plus the free supplements for the DM) that's all you'll need and this is what you can expect. A DM doesn't even need a MM or DMG anymore.
Sure. But the language they used also acts counter to their exceptionally important goal of empowering DMs to act as they see fit, and counter to the (IMO far, far more important goal) of fostering player imagination rather than imprinting the new and impressionable with the cookie-cutter, rubber-stamped Approved Traditional Choices (oh hey and also there are these other things but they have lots of problems and may not even be available).
What makes it "exceptionally important"? They are publishing a game. That's it. This is the game we designed, and the DM is in charge of making sure things run smoothly. If you have a question, ask them. If everybody acknowledges the DM is responsible for making a ruling when something is unclear, or for letting you know what races are available, then it makes the game work better.
Your opinion as to what a "far more important goal" is irrelevant again. Their goal, their #1 above all else goal, is to sell more books. Period. They design the game in a way that they think will do that. They have (wisely) chosen to look through D&D's history and try to distill the essence of D&D into what they think best represents the game, and design a rule system that makes it easy for new people to pick up and play.
They are not in the business of fostering player imagination. They are selling a game. To as many people as possible. That includes roping in as many past players, and players playing earlier editions or competing games.
Sales figures have nothing to do with whether it was better, or wiser, to use slightly different wording that supports the diversity of choice for both players and DMs. The PHB has trans-supportive wording, even though that's never been a part of Traditional D&D, and people were happy about that. (Note, I am not even in the LEAST trying to say that the issues faced by trans individuals is the same as my desire for a different presentation of the races; they're actually oppressed, I'm just mildly annoyed. I am only citing that as an example of something with precisely 0 specific note in prior editions' books, yet which is generally considered a good choice on the writers' part.)
Sales figures have everything to do with it. They obviously designed a game that people want to play and buy. Older editions of D&D were much worse in wording when it comes to things. Anything written by Gygax in AD&D was full of "musts" and "shall" and a great many negatives. It became part of the quirky charm of the rules while everybody ignored them. Until 3e not only were numerous races presented as more or less common, but it was codified into the rules. The same thing with classes. Level limits, minimum and maximum ability requirements. Actually 3e even complicated the issue with racial level modifiers.
To me it's a simple situation of the developers identifying what the majority agreed is part of D&D, and then allowing the other popular options to remain as, well, options. Because of the way D&D has been presented since the beginning, in terms of generic adventures, the core books, and the most popular campaign worlds (Grayhawk and Forgotten Realms), what is presented as common and uncommon
is a fact. It's no more or less self-perpetuating than the presence of jedi and sith in Star Wars. It's what is expected in a general presentation about D&D.
Mostly I was going off a few facts I am aware of:
WoW had 11 million active subscriptions at the time Cataclysm launched, and is popular enough to secure a movie deal and appearances in numerous TV shows. As much as D&D is the "face" of tabletop roleplaying across the US, WoW is the "face" of MMOs.
According to
Steamspy, there are over 11 million owners of Skyrim on PC (which requires Steam, that's their DRM solution) as of February 2016, and according to
this Polygon article it has sold 22.7 million copies total in all forms as of November, 2015. And it, too, has been referenced in a handful of other games and media platforms--it may not be the "face" of single-player games (that's probably Mario or maaaaaybe Halo), but it's definitely a Known Thing.
Even if only 5 million of those actually went to distinct people, and even if we assume it was the
same 5 million people (fantastically conservative estimates), that's still an incredible number of customers compared to the entire TTRPG community, to say nothing of one single segment of it (no matter how large). Warcraft also has books and comics, plus numerous prior and concurrent games in its series. I don't have hard numbers for the Final Fantasy games (far too many titles spread over too much time), but given that it's been around since the NES, and was also big enough to land a movie deal (even if it flopped in the box office), I'd say it's up there too. Were any of the D&D movies set in FR? I know they've all been terrible, but if none have referenced the Realms, that would certainly reduce my wholly informal estimations of how well-known or popular the Realms are.
And Salvatore's FR novels alone have sold 15 million copies. That's just one series of novels. The various editions of PHB have sold millions, in dozens of languages around the world. D&D spawned an entire industry, and arguably WoW wouldn't exist without it. I would guess that if you stopped people on the street, and asked them what D&D is and what WoW is, D&D would be more known.
Well, if you allow well-
publicized but un
published examples, then I can do you one better. Chris Perkins' Iomandra. The dragonborn didn't need to "conquer" any prior empire, as I understand it. So even the (incredibly tired) assumption of human superiority is dispensed with right from the beginning: it's a world that is, and has been, ruled by dragons and dragonborn. (Here's
an unofficial summary, if you're interested.)
I don't. Not for this discussion. Other than to say that once again you are free to do anything you want with the D&D rules, and so are they. They will undoubtedly publish or license many worlds that are different from the "standard" D&D world(s). That is explicitly stated in the PHB. The PHB is just setting a baseline for the most common type of D&D world, whether published or home-grown. That a great many people are playing earlier editions, and that the sales of splat books (all the way to the beginning, including things like the 1e Unearthed Arcana), are to a much smaller percentage of players, the core, common races remain the same. Gnomes, half-elves, and half-orcs have been 'demoted' in a sense. But I'm sure that is, at least in part, the results of their surveys and the number of people actually playing those races. I think that from the beginning they had already decided that things like dragonborn were optional or uncommon because the farther things veered from the traditional in D&D, the more it split the player base.
I totally support your dislike of the core concept. That's a beautiful thing about D&D, that it is so malleable. But it's also a mass market game, and is presented as such. This is D&D, but you can make it anything you want. If you aren't going to go any deeper than the PHB or maybe the three core books, then this is what D&D is like. It's what it was originally designed to be like. That brand continuity is very important to them because it's what sells books.
Ilbranteloth
