D&D (2024) I think we are on the cusp of a sea change.

[JEB]

Backgrounds are slightly too simplistic/weak to achieve what they've wanted. Also as initially introduced, with the big-ass tables to roll for traits on, they were a huuuuuuuuuuuge waste of space. Like each background took up 3-4x as much space as it needed because of that. If you cut those tables and wrote in some guidance you could at least double the number of backgrounds.

The trait tables were pretty popular with my group. Saved them the trouble of coming up with the traits completely on their own, served as a starting point for other concepts, and didn't get in the way if they had something completely different in mind.

Some folks like to have inspirational ideas, not just "make it up yourself." So I hope they keep the suggestions in the 2024 version.

Now, stronger, more impactful backgrounds? That would be nice. Maybe they can absorb the cultural traits they're removing from all the PC races...

Natural language - couldn't agree more. It hasn't worked out. Re-write stuff for clarity, and/or use keywords.

Clearer language sounds good, but strong disagree on using keywords. You should be able to use a statblock immediately with as little cross-referencing as possible. Definitely something I don't miss from earlier editions.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Some folks like to have inspirational ideas, not just "make it up yourself." So I hope they keep the suggestions in the 2024 version.

If they do I really hope they make them more compact, because the space they took up was pretty excessive. Also some of them were just boring, so maybe they need to take a look at them. There's no point rolling for random traits if they don't really add anything to the character and some didn't.

 

[Jfdlsjfd]

Is there a reason this mix of population is considered a "good" thing in play? Last time I was in rural Japan, I didn't remember seeing many Europeans, but I wasn't shocked. And the only reason I could be there was because modern jets and trains make that possible (and the reverse is true, rural France has very few Okinawans to be seen). I wouldn't have gone there, probably, if the only means of transportation had been ships and horses, not because the locals would have thrown stones at me but simply because large melting pots are usually the product of things not available to pseudo-medieval societies. Is this just because Melting Pot = Sounds like a country known for its melting pot cities that I won't name it because it would certainly be against real world politics rules = Good? I can see a concern to avoid locking a player into "hey, you're the first human we've ever seen, why are your ears not pointy?!? Should we throw rock at this strange demon-eared creature?" but I don't think GMs would be heavy-handed like that outside the "horror GM" thread...

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Sure, but you have a homebrew.

So you demand is met by your own supply.

We're discussing if there's unmet demand. Would you ditch you homebrew for a 3rd-party setting? If DND2024 is even more different than expected, and a 3rd-party company comes out with a 5E-clone, let's call it "Trailblazer", and it has a dark fantasy setting, which won't be grey (might be gritty) because it's a 5E clone that leans backwards somewhat, and the demand is for alignment, which conflicts with "grey", would you ditch your homebrew and 5E for this 5E clone?

That's the question here.

I'm ditching 5e for A5e because it fills my unmet demand for more crunch laid on the 5e base.

I would not switch my homebrew for a published Trailblazer setting because I have already invested the time into creating it.

If there had been an official "shades of grey" or "kingdom building and politics" setting or Adventure Path I would have purchased them as they would have had elements I could graft into my game.

As it is the only books I have purchased are those that are generic and not setting or adventure paths.

As the adventure paths and settings move more and more away from the "traditional" DnD style they are less and less likely for me to be able to use any part of them for my game.

I think the closest setting DnD has to emulate GoT style political intrigue is probably Planescape which is M.I.A.

 

[J.Quondam]

Is there a reason this mix of population is considered a "good" thing in play? Last time I was in rural Japan, I didn't remember seeing many Europeans, but I wasn't shocked. And the only reason I could be there was because modern jets and trains make that possible (and the reverse is true, rural France has very few Okinawans to be seen). I wouldn't have gone there, probably, if the only means of transportation had been ships and horses, not because the locals would have thrown stones at me but simply because large melting pots are usually the product of things not available to pseudo-medieval societies. Is this just because Melting Pot = Sounds like a country known for its melting pot cities that I won't name it because it would certainly be against real world politics rules = Good?

I don't think it's necessarily to establish a "mixing pot" world, so much as it's for players to have the freedom to create a wide variety of PCs with identities they're familiar with in the real world, without those PCs being by default persecuted in the in-game society, or feeling party to in-game colonialism, or whatever.
I mean, if those issues are part of the stated nature of a particular campaign, cool. But the aim, I think, is for the default to feel broadly inclusive.

tl;dr - It's for sake of players, not the setting.

.

 

[Mordhau]

Just feel the need to point out that Trailblazer already exists.

 

[Mordhau]

I don't think it's necessarily to establish a "mixing pot" world, so much as it's for players to have the freedom to create a wide variety of PCs with identities they're familiar with in the real world, without those PCs being by default persecuted in the in-game society, or feeling party to in-game colonialism, or whatever.
I mean, if those issues are part of the stated nature of a particular campaign, cool. But the aim, I think, is for the default to feel broadly inclusive.

tl;dr - It's for sake of players, not the setting.

.

It does impact on things though.

If my game rule setting is basically 13th century Iceland (or fantasy fascmile) then having characters of most of the world's ethnicities is a real stretch.

Not that think it's necessarily wrong to make a setting based on 13th century Iceland, but you do need to recognise that it's not inherently the most inclusive setting.

This matters because there's more to a setting than just a world. If I divide my setting into China continent and fantasy scandinvaia type continent and put them on opposite sides of the world then technically I've got some level of diversity, but if I haven't built in any ongoing interaction it's again not going to be particularly inclusive.

In order to have a wide variety of different ethicities represented you do have to have some kind of mixing pot set up. You need to have not just different ethnicities, but some kind of set-up that makes interaction plausbile.

 

[guachi]

I think the reason that "Earth culture with the serial numbers filed off" works well in a fantasy setting is because, as Oofta mentions, players don't really care about lore all that much. If a place happens to be similar to Earth in weather/architecture/people/food/clothing/etc. it makes it much easier to describe something. I can give a multi-sentence description of a building or just say "Tudor-style" and be done with it.

 

[Faolyn]

I couldn't, really, in 2021. Not with the degree of separatism he described - specifically the comparison was made to the Mortal Empires map in Total War: Warhammer 2 - I don't know if you're familiar with it, but it features large stretches of terrain and sharp delineations of ownership, and areas are very much only owned/inhabited by one race. Even adding in multi-racial areas, if I go by that comparison, it's just a wee bit creepy honestly.

If it was just a bad comparison and that degree of separatism isn't intended, sure.

Well, maybe not to that degree of separation, but something that's not quite so much. I'm not familiar with Warhammer, but one idea could be less based on ownership and more on "natural terrain." Elves in the woods, dwarfs on the icy mountains, orcs on the plains, tritons in the oceans, etc., but a few areas that have become multicultural, and perhaps with magically-created "artificial terrains." Like Zootopia, if you don't mind a cartoonish comparison.

Or another possible idea for such a setting is where the races had been separated by the (probably Evil) Overlords, who are now gone, or in the process of leaving or being overthrown, and only now are the races starting to meet each other en masse. I played a game like this ages ago in college, although the GM never really explored the ramifications of it.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Cusp of a sea change?

I think we’re on the brink of an abyss.

But one giant leap forward could change everything.