D&D 5E Should the "core" world be centered around the classic races?

[delericho]

IIRC, Mearls has commented that human characters are by far the most popular, then the "big three" of elves, dwarves, and halflings. Beyond that, the popularity drops off very significantly.

So, whether it 'should' or not, I would expect the core world to focus quite heavily on those top four races. They will almost certainly do so in an 'inclusive' way (that is, there will be space for anything a group wants to include), but those four races will get the lion's share of the attention.

As for my preference: I don't really care. I play Eberron, so I'll be looking for the appropriate races to be supported asap. Beyond that, it really doesn't make much difference to me.

 

[Mercurius]

In response to the OP, absolutely. Humans, elves, dwarves, and halfings at the least, with half-elves, half-orcs, and gnomes optional in the first Player's Handbook as well.

I'd greatly prefer that the core rulebooks have a strongly "classic D&D" flavor, and then later books can bring in the optional races - deva, goliath, tieflings, dragonborn, etc.

I'd do it this way:

Basic Set (4) - humans, elves, dwarves, halflings
Player's Handbook (7+) - as above with sub-races, plus gnomes, half-orcs, half-elves
Player's Handbook 2/Race Book (many) - more sub-races, plus deva, tiefling, dragonborn, goliath, genasi, etc

The same could be said of classes:

Basic Set (4-6) - fighter, rogue, mage, cleric, maybe ranger and paladin
Player's Handbook (~12) - as above, plus bard, druid, sorcerer, warlock, warlord, assassin
Player's Handbook 2/Class Book (6-8 more) - avenger, shaman, warden, etc

 

[Umbran]

"Core" does not exist. Especially when the word gets defined as "whatever appears in the first three books published."

I disagree. As a practical, empirical matter, the game does have a functional core - the standard three books. Other games may use only one book to express their core, but they still have a core, and for good reason.

The thing you may not realize is that a complete toolbox, "we define nothing for you, you must make all choices yourself" is a major barrier to entry to new players. It is a lot of work to make all those choices, and you can really have a bad time if you make them in ignorance. Providing a basic defined set of options, playable in and of itself, which can then be varied by adding and taking away segments, is far more likely to be tractable to folks new to D&D, and really new to 5e itself.

As a corollary to this, I want stricken from the game the ridiculous complaint that something should not appear in one of the three first books published because it means "I'd have to tell my players they can't use it."

This I'll agree with. What you or I, as individuals, would or would not use is not a reasonable measure of what should be in the core.

The whole point of 5E is that you are being given a Home Depot full of tools... and each table will go in and only put into their individual toolbox the tools they want to use.

How many first-time homeowners have royally botched projects because they just walked into Home Depot, and picked up stuff without knowing what they were doing?

The first few books have only so many pages - they don't have room to be the entire Home Depot. The first books are "hammer, screwdriver, drill, wrench and saw", and how to use them. And those basic tools must themselves be playable, as a whole - in the analogy they must be useful for a large swath of the most common household maintenance chores, or folks won't bother with the game.

Later supplements will get you your routers, power-painters, and snowblowers, and how to use them.

 

[1of3]

Like it or not, the core books generally imply the contents of a core world - you need the books to have races and classes and spells and gods, at least as examples. Folks will generally assume they all exist in the same world.

That's a matter of presentation. D&D has for a long time done a bad job of making people actually read stuff. It's not so hard though. Have a chapter "Starting a campaign". In the PHB, not the DMG. Explain that you need to settle on a game world, that you need to settle on a theme for the campaign, that you need a GM, that you need to settle on protagonists. Explain that D&D has several dials like races, classes and magic items.

If you lock away that stuff in the DMG as tips for the GM no one will care about it. It must be the first thing in the first book you read.

 

[Umbran]

That's a matter of presentation. D&D has for a long time done a bad job of making people actually read stuff. It's not so hard though.

Unless you have magic glue that keeps pages together until after they've read your introduction, making them read it will be difficult. More importantly, making them take it to heart would be even more difficult.

There are lots of folks on these boards that are, for lack of a better term, hardcore gearheads. They love playing with the knobs and switches. They have lots of experience playing with knobs and switches. Some of them can, without actual play experience, make some pretty drastic choices with a system, and have it turn out okay.

I do not believe the majority of players out there are hardcore gearheads, though. Most are far more causal. And there's another big swath that are decent with knobs and switches, but who ought to have a little experience with the system before they start to play with them. And, last of all, not everyone's going to be interested in doing a lot of prep-work before trying the system out. They want to *play*, not engage in game design themselves before doing anything else.

For these people - who I personally expect together make up the majority of players - the "you must engage in gearheadedness before playing" is a significant barrier to entry. So, I'm sorry, but I don't believe such a presentation would serve the game well. Presenting a core experience, and noting where the dials and switches and plug-ins are along the way for those who want them, would likely be a more successful approach.

 

[The Human Target]

I like the core 4 and all, but fantasy in general has if not moved on from then added to those concepts a lot over the years.

The Cadillac of RPGs should follow suit..

 

[howandwhy99]

The whole game is Human-centric. The weapons, armor, spells for Persons, deities for human communities, and all those miscellaneous items. Not being human-ish in D&D is the real drawback.

Beyond human anything's fair game. Play a wookie if you want. It'll be tons easier than a giant tortoise.

 

[howandwhy99]

2nd Ed had a major problem with this making every setting they published full of humans, elves, dwarfs, gnomes, and hobbits. Often monsters like orcs, goblins, and ogres were brought in too. In some cases, like Darksun, there was some rather interesting integration. In other places, like Al Qadim, having European fantasy creatures populating the setting made it very undesirable.

My Al Qadim setting uses Humans, Divs, Peris, and a small-sized variant of Genasi and draws their backgrounds from Persian mythology.

 

[Mallus]

I think D&D has *always* resembled the Mos Eisley Cantina, at least when you compare D&D to any one of its individual inspirational texts. This, I find, is a plus.

I think the Core Four of "human", "elf", "dwarf", and "halfing/hobbit" are required in the base books.

However, I'm perfectly fine with adding "dragon-person", "demon-ish", "angel-ish", and "robot". Or whatever, really, short of Pokemon Trainer -- which, of course, should be a class and not a race, ie I'm okay with admitting the last 30 years of popular culture have a) occurred and b) have relevance.

If you don't like something, turn the page. I'll bet there will be something else on it!

For the record, I don't think the concept of "core" should have much relevance. It kinda flies in the face of the DIY, campaign-centered take on gaming that I find is the soul of the hobby. Presence in the PHB shouldn't determine whether or not an element belongs in a campaign. That decision belongs to the DM (and, ultimately, the players as well). What rule book it's in is irrelevant.

Sure, there's a limited amount of space in the core books. Material will have to be cut. But races don't take up much space. And there's plenty of other fat to trim...

Besides, these discussions aren't (usually) about editing for space, they're about having people's personal preferences validated by the official core books, ie what I like is essential, what you like is less than that.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I disagree. As a practical, empirical matter, the game does have a functional core - the standard three books. Other games may use only one book to express their core, but they still have a core, and for good reason.

The problem though... is that the word "Core" is a loaded term. And people have been using it to whine to high heaven about what appears in the books and what they do and don't want to see and use for years now. Using the word "Core" serves no function other than to make some people demand that things they want should appear in the first set of books, or things they don't want should not.

Now yes, the first three books absolutely give us the first group of rules we will use to play the game. I have no problem with that. But by calling those rules "Core"... it makes anything that appears after them "not Core"... and thus people will use those definitions as a bludgeon to try and get their way.

Screw "Core". Rules are rules, regardless of which book they come from. Stuff from Book 1 is no more important than stuff from Book 3, and the sooner we start accepting that, the better off we'll all be. And maybe then we'll stop hearing the ridiculous complaints that the dragonborn don't belong in Book 1 for example. That race has just as much right to be in Book 1 as any other.