D&D (2024) D&D Survey Results and The Future of Playtest | Unearthed Arcana

[Branduil]

"People didn't like the thing I liked which makes WOTC bad" is a poor argument. Branduil, people didn't like it, after multiple attempts at it. Why would they support stuff people don't like at the expense of pages devoted to what people like?

Well, in earlier surveys their support was still high enough to keep them, so I think something did change there. It's quite obvious some people didn't like them, it's not like the Aardling opponents were shy to express their opposition. So yes, my supposition is that what changed is that as a response to the OGL disaster, the design team is going conservative to preserve the most widespread support.

As for why they should support stuff people don't like, well, designing a game to always please the least-common denominator and never taking any interesting design risks is how you end up with a game as generic and bare-bones as 5e in the first place. Obviously I'm not going to argue it's an unsuccessful tactic, but it's just not interesting to me any more, and signals to me they don't want to take any risks at all in their design.

 

[Mistwell]

Well, in earlier surveys their support was still high enough to keep them, so I think something did change there. It's quite obvious some people didn't like them, it's not like the Aardling opponents were shy to express their opposition. So yes, my supposition is that what changed is that as a response to the OGL disaster, the design team is going conservative to preserve the most widespread support.

That's wildly speculative and unsupported. The first run at Ardent, before everything happened, did not have widespread support. It had ENOUGH support for them to try again. That's it. And it's widely held the second attempt was worse than the first. None of this has anything to do with the OGL. It fits the pattern of prior playtests - you fail twice and it's usually time to move on.

As for why they should support stuff people don't like, well, designing a game to always please the least-common denominator and never taking any interesting design risks is how you end up with a game as generic and bare-bones as 5e in the first place. Obviously I'm not going to argue it's an unsuccessful tactic, but it's just not interesting to me any more, and signals to me they don't want to take any risks at all in their design.

Oh hey if you don't like 5e to begin with, not sure what this is about then? This isn't some indie experimental game, they are unquestionably attempting to create a popular game which lots of people want to buy, which is an evolution of 5e and not a total new design.

 

[Scribe]

Well, in earlier surveys their support was still high enough to keep them, so I think something did change there. It's quite obvious some people didn't like them, it's not like the Aardling opponents were shy to express their opposition. So yes, my supposition is that what changed is that as a response to the OGL disaster, the design team is going conservative to preserve the most widespread support.

As for why they should support stuff people don't like, well, designing a game to always please the least-common denominator and never taking any interesting design risks is how you end up with a game as generic and bare-bones as 5e in the first place. Obviously I'm not going to argue it's an unsuccessful tactic, but it's just not interesting to me any more, and signals to me they don't want to take any risks at all in their design.

I think this is a reach honestly. The first swing at them was not great, and the follow up was even worse. With Brink's various comments, he's not exactly winning back the conservative folks (Dark Sun, etc) so...

We certainly agree on the view of 5e and Wizards desire to take risks (or any kind of stand).

 

[Branduil]

I think this is a reach honestly. The first swing at them was not great, and the follow up was even worse. With Brink's various comments, he's not exactly winning back the conservative folks (Dark Sun, etc) so...

We certainly agree on the view of 5e and Wizards desire to take risks (or any kind of stand).

I mean I think there's a spectrum of conservatism. Obviously WotC is not going to try to appeal to the kind of toxic, extreme people who think that different skin tones existing is "woke" or anything like that. But there is a kind of "mushy middle" where people are fine with "inclusive gaming" as long as it doesn't go too far, in their opinion.

I'm certainly not going to try and say the Aardlings were amazing design or anything, but I do think there was an undercurrent in the criticism of them that isn't present in something like the Goliaths. Like I'm not really a fan of their current design, but I'm not upset by them existing in the game, and neither it seems are most people. So I think with Aardlings, it was not just their design, but all the fact that they would appeal to, you know, furries that set a lot of people off. There's an antagonism to even the concept of them, where they would appeal to a lot of loudly queer people, that doesn't exist with "big muscle people who can get even bigger."

 

[Scribe]

Ah ok. I understand what you are saying then.

 

[hectorse]

Aardlings just felt too anime for me.
No furro hate at all.

 

[Azzy]

So I think with Aardlings, it was not just their design, but all the fact that they would appeal to, you know, furries that set a lot of people off. There's an antagonism to even the concept of them, where they would appeal to a lot of loudly queer people, that doesn't exist with "big muscle people who can get even bigger."

Quite the contrary, much of the criticism (including mine) of the ardlings was that they were too watered down to be a good anthropomorphic animal species. Heck, given that they only had animal heads, they were barely "furries" at all, and then the whole celestial bit just weakened things thematically. I'd rather they made a proper furry species.

 

[James Gasik]

Quite the contrary, much of the criticism (including mine) of the ardlings was that they were too watered down to be a good anthropomorphic animal species. Heck, given that they only had animal heads, they were barely "furries" at all, and then the whole celestial bit just weakened things thematically. I'd rather they made a proper furry species.

Honestly, I saw the Ardlings more like the new Hengeyokai with the serial numbers filed off to not offend anyone. Sure, I'm aware of their Guardinal origins, but most players have no idea what a Guardinal is. So you have these supernatural animal folk who may be part spirit. Yeah, Hengeyokai, we've had them in every edition, no big deal.

But somehow, the Ardlings got a really cool reception, which, as I said upthread, really makes me wonder about the fates of the other planar races (though as we are slated to get a new Planescape, maybe I don't need to worry).

 

[Veltharis ap Rylix]

I think where the Ardlings need the most work is honing the core question of whether they are primarily celestial planetouched or primarily animal people? Different people seem to want different things from them, and trying to do both at the same time is what's causing them to feel incoherent. Personally, I have no real interest in a one-size-fits-all "animal person" species, but I really liked them (conceptually, at least) as a celestial planetouched species alongside Aasimar.

One of the very few things about the 4e cosmology rework that I found interesting was the decision to change "Angels" to be the servants of the gods, irrespective of alignment - letting the Ardlings pick up the broader "celestial planetouched" role opposite of Tieflings would allow Aasimar and Angels to lean more heavily into the children/servants of the divine angle.

 

[Horwath]

Axe 'wizard, but hot' from the PHB. Add warlord instead.

Sorcerer can come later.

Axe the wizard, keep the sorcerer.

Might as well ax all full casters except sorcerer and make them a subclass of the sorcerer.

Fewer spells known/prepared, every subclass gives extra 2 cantrips and 2 spells known from spell levels 1-5 appropriate for it's theme/mechanics.