Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 9410181" data-attributes="member: 18">I think this is completely on the money and correct.I don't think it's anything wild or unusual to say either - if you look at just any social media associated with D&D, look at popular D&D podcasts and streams and so on, I think it's very evident that is what most people playing D&D today want (particularly the under-30 crowd, which is like, what the narrow majority of D&D players now according to WotC's figures? Most of whom didn't play any previous edition). Crawford has been consistent in not getting that, both in how he talks in interviews, and what options WotC has presented to people in UAs.Bolded bit particular. WotC currently seems to thinking "Oh let's cut species down to the bare minimum", but I don't think most players really want that - even people concerned with bioessentialism are still usually (apart from a sub-1% ultra-extreme fringe who basically only want free-form RP anyway and don't actually play D&D for the most part) perfectly happy that X race has Y ability, they just don't want it to be ability that smacks of racism (like "being smarter" would, but "having Darkvision" doesn't).The flipside is that D&D is successful not because of rules specifics, but general cultural presence, name-brand-loyalty, availability of people who know how to play it (and are willing to even if it's not their #1 choice), and so on, so Crawford not really getting it doesn't cut into D&D's bottom line significantly - or hasn't in the past. It might cut into it a little more over the next decade, but we shall see. I also honestly expect WotC to replace Crawford in the next decade unless D&D absolutely goes from strength to strength. Also, to be fair, whilst he doesn't get it, he also hasn't made insane missteps like some designers of history have. So safe pair of hands and all that.</blockquote>

Verification