D&D 5E (2024) Fey Video Critique & Alternate Perspective

[GMMichael]

XP for saving me the trouble. Also, elves should be fey now, too.

 

[Micah Sweet]

XP for saving me the trouble. Also, elves should be fey now, too.

If anybody is, it's elves.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Again, this is a top-down designer-originating decision. This is not a player-originating shift.

Yeah this is the key point.

Why does it matter if it’s a designer choice to go back to the fey origin over a player one?

@Quickleaf doesn't really need to answer that.

You should address your question to Crawford and Schneider. Because it's them who have made great efforts to portray this as a change in "the way people play the game", not a top-down change from the designers.

And just generally, it matters quite a lot, and it's kind of silly to ask that question, I'd personally suggest, because it's obvious - an RPG that makes player-lead changes is listening to its players and reflecting how they actually play. And some RPGs do that. And others don't. D&D has made a great fuss of listening to its players, but this isn't something coming from the players. This is pure designer whimsy - and I don't object to that, but I do object to pretending it's "from the players".

They wouldn't make the decision unless they felt it would be popular with their target audience (hint: you may not be their target audience).

We have a great deal of evidence that game designer, particularly WotC game designers are somewhat confused/deluded as to what their audience wants. Nevertheless, it's objectively a different thing to try to provide something that you think your audience maybe wants (which this is) and to reflect something your audience is already doing. And they're portraying this as the latter. Which is weird.

In this case, it reflects the resurgent interest in the Celtic culture that was pretty much obliterated by the shadow of Tolkien for many years.

No it doesn't.

Sorry but you're flatly wrong. There is no particular "resurgent interest in Celtic culture" at this time in history, in 2025. No more than there has been on and off since about 1807. And less than there has been quite recently. Indeed as someone who likes Celtic stuff, I'm kind of disappointed we haven't seen a real revival for a while.

There was a revival in the 1980s, for example, extending into the 1990s a bit. But right now? No. That's... sadly not a thing. And when there was genuine huge "Celtomania" in the 1980s, TSR's only attempt to capitalize on it was the Moonshae Isles, which were forced into the FR.

Labyrinth is not... Celtic in any meaningful mythological sense. Awesome movie and much as I like Eggers I'm sure he's utterly screw up the totally unnecessary remake though. And I think it's funny that you're like "OMG they're remaking Labyrinth, that proves my point!", as if Labyrinth didn't exist in the 1980s...

We did have some Vikingmania about ten years ago which is kind of still going, but that's rather different.

 

[dave2008]

You should address your question to Crawford and Schneider. Because it's them who have made great efforts to portray this as a change in "the way people play the game", not a top-down change from the designers.

Did they say that though? I will have to re-watch the video I guess, but I remember them saying this change was already made in MotM (which it was) and the MM is simply catching up to how they have been represented since that book. I don't remember them pushing that this is player driven as you or @Quickleaf suggest. I could easily be wrong, but I took it as: people have been playing this way because that is how we represent them in MotM, not: people have been playing this way so we followed there lead.

EDIT: Just started re-watching the video and they clearly (starting at 1:43 or so) say the switch of goblins to fey was a move they (as in WotC) started in MotM and they final had a chance to make the Monster Maunal "catch up." They made not claims to this being a player driven idea. Where did you get this idea from, does it come later in the video? I'll keep watching.

EDIT: at about 4:14, they again state it was there idea to look at all the humanoid monsters and see if perhaps they should be a better fit in a different category. Again, this was their choice and made no claims it was plater driven. They stuff like, we decided to "lean into" the whimsy of bullywugs and make them fey.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Right now I am not sure how fey goblins work as pirates... I have to think about that.

Like this?

The Doctor Who 2023 Christmas Special is a good example of how goblins are now seen in our post-Tolkien world.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Sorry but you're flatly wrong. There is no particular "resurgent interest in Celtic culture" at this time in history, in 2025

Try scanning the retail bookshelves. There is a lot of "magic realism" about, not generally marketed as fantasy (and some of it is rather chick-lit-ish). These tend to be dark fairy-tales in the pre-Tolkien tradition. It may not all be directly Celtic, but that influence is there if you dig beneath the surface (some is more Germanic or Slavic). Jonathan Strange & Mr Norrell was probably the first of the trend. Then there are things like The Essex Serpent which is not actually fantasy at all, but is still drawing on older-than-Tolkien folk tales for inspiration.

(Fey) Goblins are the new (sparkly) vampires.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Like this?

The Doctor Who 2023 Christmas Special is a good example of how goblins are now seen in our post-Tolkien world.

That is absolutely perfect.

 

[Corinnguard]

There are also already three playable Fey species in WOTC 5E; Satyrs, Centaurs, and Changelings. There's also a Construct (Autognome) Monstrosity (Thri-Kreen) and an Ooze (Plasmoid) so I'd lean towards believing that Crawford was hinting at something else, such as a Fiend, Celestial, or Aberration playable species

If this was the case, then they could have made the Tieflings into Fiends, the Aasimar into Celestials and brought back the Elan for the playable Aberration species. This would have made the species line-up in the 5.5e PHB more interesting.

Aasimar- Celestial
Dragonborn- Dragon*
Dwarf- Humanoid
Elan- Aberration
Elf- Fey
Goliath- Giant
Halfling- Humanoid
Human-Humanoid
Orc- Humanoid
Tiefling- Fiend

*the mini Dragonborn aka Kobolds should not be the only Dragon playable species in 5.5 IMO

This is what mildly annoys me, a lack of consistency.

Has WoTC ever been consistent about anything that appears in the same edition? The errata has to come from somewhere.

My impression is that for players who start with 5.5 and only own those books, fey goblins will be the only ones that exist.

Until some D&D veteran takes them under their wing and reveals to them that these non-fey goblins exist. New Player: "They do exist..." faints

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Until some D&D veteran takes them under their wing and reveals to them that these non-fey goblins exist. New Player: "They do exist..." faints

Clap your hands if you don't believe in fairies.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Try scanning the retail bookshelves. There is a lot of "magic realism" about, not generally marketed as fantasy (and some of it is rather chick-lit-ish). These tend to be dark fairy-tales in the pre-Tolkien tradition. It may not all be directly Celtic, but that influence is there if you dig beneath the surface (some is more Germanic or Slavic).

I think you're confusing two different trends. There's no Celtic resurgence in general - we're nowhere near 1980s or 1990s levels of Celtomania or interest in Celtic culture/myth. Sure, we're not in the racist-ass 1940s with "No dogs, no Irish" (most of my family are Scots or Irish, to be clear), but we're not anywhere good. There's always been some Celtic myth stuff, particularly once "Anglo-Saxon" stopped being an ideal we were supposed to be keen on, but also before that.

However, the general "Fey" deal, disconnected from Celtic mythology as a whole, and filtered a pop culture lens that owes more to people like Neil Gaiman, Guillermo Del Toro, and yes, Susanna Clarke, is absolutely bigger than it was, say 20-30 years ago, and more commonly a part of SF novels or similar than it once was, even in some horror stuff like Lauren Beukes' Broken Monsters* (2014 note - this has been going on for a while).

* = Terrible book do not read, especially do not read the "interview with the author" some editions have where Beukes reveals basically Nazi ideas about "degenerate" art, not entirely surprising given she grew up in South Africa but jesus, awful, and recontextualizes the book from a slightly boring horror-fantasy novel to "YIKES" (because it's about magically evil art).