D&D (2024) Revised 6E prediction thread

[Guest 6801328]

I know there are exceptions, but that doesn't take away the problem issues, which is the point I'm trying (perhaps badly) to make.

Very much agree with this. There's too much history (in the sense of decades of D&D products) to unwind to believe that a smattering of counterexamples solves the problem.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Ok. So they are not more popular than before as PC options? That’s what I meant.

is there not a lot more fan art than before?

aside from unpopular 4e is not their inclusion in PHB indicative of more use and popularity?

the fact that they existed and some people liked them is not synonymous with the widespread popularity they enjoy now.

how many tables have them now compared to the 10 years ago (much less 94)?

I don't think there has been much change in the popularity of tieflings over the last 20 years. Even when they where not a core race they where one of the most popular non-core races. And if you look at D&D CRPGs, their is a tiefling companion in Planescape: Torment (1999), Baldur's Gate 2 (2000), and NWN2 (2006).

 

[TwoSix]

I think you are strangely conflating @EzekielRaiden's discussion of "character concept" with "character power level," because they are not synonymous. For example, there may be people who want to start playing their character at level 1 so they can be "simple and weak" and then grow "more complex and powerful," but they probably want to be able to play that character concept at level 1 instead of having to wait 2-4 levels just to have a rudimentary version of the character concept, especially since most D&D play rarely gets above 8-10th level.

This. Specifically, you can put all the character defining decisions and necessary mechanics right up front at level 1. Your maneuvers, your smites, your rages, any mechanical trick that drives the baseline utility of the character concept. (Spells would be an outlier here, but they always are in D&D.) Then simply let them grow in potency with level.

Ironically, this would be even more like 1E and (especially) 2E, where all your character building choices (race, class and multiclass, kits, and class options with Skills and Powers) were done at character creation, and leveling simply granted you the options you had already preselected.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I don't think there has been much change in the popularity of tieflings over the last 20 years. Even when they where not a core race they where one of the most popular non-core races. And if you look at D&D CRPGs, their is a tiefling companion in Planescape: Torment (1999), Baldur's Gate 2 (2000), and NWN2 (2006).

I've seen it noted that the reason tieflings are in the 4e PHB is they were consistently found to be the most popular non-phb race in 3e. (form the 4e preview book Wizards Presents: Races and Classes)

 

[Sacrosanct]

Understood. I won’t rehash them whole species vs culture argument!

I am ok with there being generally evil creature personally.

I am too. Mostly abhorrent monsters, undead, fiends, etc.

we play old school in that regard. We generally assume goblins are wicked unless proven otherwise. I understand why the game and many players want to move away from it.

I also have no problems with people making goblins evil as a default in their games. For me, it's a table preference thing, and I think that as presented at a game rules level (i.e., to every player, not just those at my table), it's problematic because there are a lot of messy tie-ins to real world cultures, and one thing I don't want to do is make other players who don't look like me feel uncomfortable about picking up and playing the game I love.

I am a CIS white guy who loves old school D&D. So I totally get how it may feel uncomfortable with people saying, "Hey man, the game you love has some issues. Particularly with how it's presented because there are elements of racism and sexism and bigotry there." Most people assume that criticisms like that are an indictment on them personally, for enjoying the game. However, if we step back, that's not what's being said. It doesn't make you or me a bad person for enjoying old school D&D because for the most part, we weren't even aware of these issues (part of the privilege for being a white male and thus the target demographic for those old versions). We weren't the ones being objectified, or not having representation, or having pejorative aspects of our culture represented.

So yes, it can be hard pill to swallow, but here's the thing. IMO, worrying about offending me for telling me that the game I love has issues is far less important than taking into account the feelings of those who have been offended for decades. So it's a pill I need to accept without complaint, and work to do better and be more aware of my fellow gamers who are the ones who have been offended by these issues that have existed for a long time. What would make me a bad person is if I tell someone who has been affected by these issues that their feelings matter less than mine because I don't want to feel uncomfortable to admit there were issues in the early games I love. I tend to think that the people who are targets or the victims of sexism/racism/bigotry, even if unintentional, should be listened to and not kept quite for fear of making a white guy feel uncomfortable.

 

[see]

As someone who prefers tactical combat, a fair amount of crunch, not being forced to wait until level 3-5 before I get to start making good on my character concept, and not being afraid of losing my character in the early game, what exactly do you recommend?

My recommendation is that you accept reality; 6th edition is not going to recapitulate 4th edition. Hasbro wants to make money, not satisfy your desires, and they've got the relative sales numbers for 4th and 5th to look at.

 

[see]

I think you are strangely conflating @EzekielRaiden's discussion of "character concept" with "character power level," because they are not synonymous. For example, there may be people who want to start playing their character at level 1 so they can be "simple and weak" and then grow "more complex and powerful," but they probably want to be able to play that character concept at level 1 instead of having to wait 2-4 levels just to have a rudimentary version of the character concept, especially since most D&D play rarely gets above 8-10th level.

Go look at EzekielRaiden's post again, particularly the lines "not being afraid of losing my character in the early game" and "being able to play at essentially any table (whether it starts at 1st level or 10th or anywhere in-between) without having to be paranoid that I'd lose my character".

Noboody's doing any conflating, EzekielRaiden explicitly said he doesn't want vulnerable characters.

 

[Aldarc]

Go look at EzekielRaiden's post again, particularly the lines "not being afraid of losing my character in the early game" and "being able to play at essentially any table (whether it starts at 1st level or 10th or anywhere in-between) without having to be paranoid that I'd lose my character".

Noboody's doing any conflating, EzekielRaiden explicitly said he doesn't want vulnerable characters.

He also talks about being able to play his character concept from the get-go. Just because he also discusses character vulnerability - as it is one factor among a handful - does not mean that "character concept" and "character power level" are synonymous.

 

[Guest 6801328]

I do have a preference for RPGs in which new characters can adventure with very experienced characters. It's ok if it's riskier, and you feel like can't contribute as much, and the veterans have to actively protect the newbies, as long as the delta isn't too great.

D&D isn't that game, though, nor do I ever expect it to be. A first level character, if it doesn't get one-shot by a monster, is going to die to a breath weapon or fireball...even if they make their saving throw.

That's ok, though. D&D can't be everything.

 

[TwoSix]

That's ok, though. D&D can't be everything.

Any D&D game, like most things in life, is much more fun when you accept it as it is rather than regretting what it could have been.