D&D (2024) How did I miss this about the Half races/ancestries

[Horwath]

It's not a bad system per se. But it's going to require a hefty chunk of real estate to implement. Every species in the game will have to be broken down into primary/secondary/tertiary lists. Weight will have to be given to each ability so determine what is considered which type. You would have to do this for all nine PHB species, and realistically for the 30 more in MotM and possibly the dozens more in various supplements, some of which haven't been updated to the new format yet. Then you'd have to look for the broken combos and superior options that clamp down on them. (For example, a hybrid changeling might only be able to shapechange x times per day rather than at will).

Is all that doable? Absolutely. But to be done right, it's going to cost a lot of R&D, playtest and space in the book. I don't think that is feasible for the 24 PHB. That would be awesome in a 25 supplement book though. Markov's Guide to Genetics or something. I just don't want to see such a system rushed out the door in order to have a PHB half-elf replacement. There are too many variables that can break when combining things that weren't designed to be interchangeable.

Have all racial/species features a default cost in PHB.
And have all races/species same budget.

then when you create a hybrid of two, you can pick from both lists, but you need to stay withing budget.
If you have trouble filling the budget, we can always have some cheap "cultural" features as bonus tools, languages or weapons. Maybe one extra free skill.

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Have all racial/species features a default cost in PHB.
And have all races/species same budget.

then when you create a hybrid of two, you can pick from both lists, but you need to stay withing budget.
If you have trouble filling the budget, we can always have some cheap "cultural" features as bonus tools, languages or weapons. Maybe one extra free skill.

I offered a bit of a complex suggestion, but with refining, I see how it could be made simpler.

 

[Xamnam]

The more math / optimization that goes into picking parents, the more ethically weird I personally find it. I was happy when stat increases moved from parents to background, as that took something of fairly significant impact in this game out of that specific consideration, and left the choice at a level where it was interesting, but not something to overly worry about optimizing. The idea of assigning values to specific traits and filling out a certain level of power moves it towards ground I don't care for for this edition of D&D. Happy to leave it to Pathfinder, LevelUp, what have you.

In addition, I'm surprised to hear the strong pushback of "Unless you can (mechanically) take after both parents, it doesn't really count." To me, the idea that "Even if you strongly/mostly take after one side of your family, you still absolutely have the heritage of both" makes a lot of sense. But, I'll admit, I don't have lived experience here, so I wouldn't try and change any strongly settled minds on that.

 

[MGibster]

The more math / optimization that goes into picking parents, the more ethically weird I personally find it. I was happy when stat increases moved from parents to background, as that took something of fairly significant impact in this game out of that specific consideration, and left the choice at a level where it was interesting, but not something to overly worry about optimizing.

I'm thinking maybe character generation can be completely granular. We get rid of classes and species and everyone just builds the type of character they want cafeteria style from a list of abilities. In order to maintain balance, we would assign each of these abilities a number and give each player a certain number of points to build their character with. Perhaps we could also provide a list of negative abilities and taking them would give players more points to spend on abilities?

Did I just reinvent GURPS?

 

[Minigiant]

This may veer away from the topic at hand but I think when they made 5E, they were trying to unite a divided fanbase so they made appeals to old school gamers, gamers who had slipped away in previous editions, but they also had to appeal to young gamers too. 5E struck me as a very successful compromise. I never really adopted it, because I realized I can just play the older editions or retro clones I like. I have played in 5E campaigns and adventures and found it enjoyable. I have been surprised by the number of gamers my age and by the number of gamers I know who are deep into old school stuff who like it, but I also know a lot of gamers who aren't into those things who like it. I think that is a good path forward. I don't want an edition that overlooks the newer fans or the older ones.

5e is successful but it was a poor compromise.

WOTC attempted to make 5e a One Size Fits All for 50 years of D&D and hinged on individual DMs to do the fitting. it didn't happen and most of the old fans didn't adopt 5e and stayed wit their 1e, 2e, OS, and OSR games.

WOTC now recognizes that it's fanbase is diverse but don't design that way.

 

[Guest 85555]

5e is successful but it was a poor compromise.

I am not the biggest 5E fan but I think a game that unified the fanbase like that and was possibly the biggest edition of D&D, certainly seems like a good compromise to me.

 

[Guest 85555]

WOTC attempted to make 5e a One Size Fits All for 50 years of D&D and hinged on individual DMs to do the fitting. it didn't happen and most of the old fans didn't adopt 5e and stayed wit their 1e, 2e, OS, and OSR games.

I think this is a very narrow view of 5E. It moved away from some of the innovations of 4E for sure, but it did incorporate plenty of modern design. It was, I thought a nice mix of newer concepts, elements of old school and aspects of 3E. It is true some of the Old fans didn't join in, but plenty did (and even those who still played OSR games or 1E, often play 5E too). I know a lot of people my age (mid-40s, started in the mid-80s) who play 5E. And I am always willing to play it if a GM offers.

Again, they should work to keep newer and older fans. It isn't something where they have to sacrifice one for the other.

 

[Guest 85555]

WOTC now recognizes that it's fanbase is diverse but don't design that way.

Older fans aren't against diversity and older design isn't anti-diverse in my opinion (not that One D&D ought to be based on mostly old design). I think this is a false dichotomy we keep getting sold in threads like this and elsewhere where equating something like a GM making rulings with a lack of diversity is done. That is more of a play style issue. Even the issues people are debating there are often around sensibilities about language and not about whether it is good for the hobby to include more people (I think the hobby is stronger when you have more people playing from different races, ethnicities, cultural backgrounds, newer gamers, older gamers). There seems to be this attitude against older gamers in a lot of these discussions that is kind of venomous at times. Everyone here who is newer to the hobby or younger, will one day be an older gamer.

 

[Scribe]

WOTC now recognizes that it's fanbase is diverse but don't design that way.

Does it recognize that, really?

If it REALLY recognizes that its fanbase is as diverse as some would claim, but DOESNT design that way, whats the answer for that, because if you have 'millions' in your user base, and you 'recognize that its diverse' but you still just cannot seem to bring yourself to design the game that way...?

That makes very little sense.

Or, is it perhaps more likely that there is a vast segment of the player base (indeed a majority?) that is being catered to already, and isnt all that interested in change, because they understand that its an elf game, and nothing more, and that is who Wizards is designing for?

 

[Mirrorrorrim]

Older fans aren't against diversity and older design isn't anti-diverse in my opinion (not that One D&D ought to be based on mostly old design). I think this is a false dichotomy we keep getting sold in threads like this and elsewhere where equating something like a GM making rulings with a lack of diversity is done. That is more of a play style issue. Even the issues people are debating there are often around sensibilities about language and not about whether it is good for the hobby to include more people (I think the hobby is stronger when you have more people playing from different races, ethnicities, cultural backgrounds, newer gamers, older gamers). There seems to be this attitude against older gamers in a lot of these discussions that is kind of venomous at times. Everyone here who is newer to the hobby or younger, will one day be an older gamer.

I am an older player. I am not against older players. I am pro-diversity, pro-inclusion, and I believe that the game should evolve to keep up with the moral and ethical standards of language that respect traditionally marginalized folk. Some words have become negatively charged throughout history, and we should recognize and empathize with concerns about that. Every time someone dismisses such concerns, I look to see their reason for doing so. Tradition is not a good enough reason for something offensive or toxic to be kept. Even if a person has "reclaimed" what has become an inappropriate concept for many, it doesn't make it not inappropriate in the eyes of others that it hurts. Have empathy. And no, I don't think demanding "empathy" for a viewpoint that wants to keep offensive content is a valid demand.

Older design absolutely can be anti-diverse, and so can new design (old and recent hadozee, just for an example), both of which deserved a redesign, IMHO.

D&D is a global game that should be designed as least culturally offensive as possible, to appeal to the largest audience, and people who have no problem with contentious content can keep it in their home games. Want Dark sun with slavery, or want all orcs to be "savage" marauders that are the primary progenitors of "half-orcs" who others despise? Go nuts at your table. Private tables can use any language and play with such uncomfortable themes in their home games, but why be angry that Wizards doesn't want to shine a spotlight on those concepts and themes going forward?

And I agree that people on both sides of the debate should stop saying that the above terms apply to "older gamers." They are not an easy scapegoat. It's not about age. It's about personal values. Yeah, a person's values, and what they advocate for, tell me exactly who they are.