What doesn't belong in the "core"

[AngryMojo]

There's always a really simple option to stave off any player entitlement or people who refuse to play because there's something that's silly to them.

All races are modules. All classes are modules. When the DM picks his modules, he chooses what races and classes are available in the campaign.

That's pretty much how generic systems like Gurps and Savage Worlds tend to deal with the issue. You want to play an out-of-place robot in my fantasy setting? Not allowed. You want to play a sentient golem in my steampunk/arcanotech based game? Go for it. Want to play a wizard in my no-magic world? No-go. A cleric in my gods-are-dead wasteland?

This way you only bring in what you like, and nothing you dislike. This also allows WotC to put as many races in the game as they want, and stave off complaints.

 

[harlokin]

There's always a really simple option to stave off any player entitlement or people who refuse to play because there's something that's silly to them.

All races are modules. All classes are modules. When the DM picks his modules, he chooses what races and classes are available in the campaign.

That's pretty much how generic systems like Gurps and Savage Worlds tend to deal with the issue. You want to play an out-of-place robot in my fantasy setting? Not allowed. You want to play a sentient golem in my steampunk/arcanotech based game? Go for it. Want to play a wizard in my no-magic world? No-go. A cleric in my gods-are-dead wasteland?

This way you only bring in what you like, and nothing you dislike. This also allows WotC to put as many races in the game as they want, and stave off complaints.

Exactly what I want to see. Let the DM be the arbiter, not hackneyed definitions of what is and is not DnD.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

I think 5e needs to do a better job at being explicit that people should have the confidence to exclude what they don't want. Over and over, repeat it and strengthen a DM's resolve to run their campaign the way they want to.

The earliest of adventures advocated this, I hope 5e makes this vividly explicit over and over.

Here's what the original Keep on the Borderlands by Gary Gygax said on the matter. My copy is from 1981.

Page 3: "If you wish, feel free to limit the classes your players may choose as suits your setting. You might wish not to have elves or halflings in the KEEP, or you might not want any thieves as beginning characters. It is all up to you as DM to decide the shape of your campaign."​

And this advocation to limit was when there was fighter, cleric, magic-user, thief, elf, dwarf, halfling. Period.

Throw in as much as space allows, but pepper the books with reminders to exclude as the DM desires.

 

[AngryMojo]

Exactly what I want to see. Let the DM be the arbiter, not hackneyed definitions of what is and is not DnD.

They're talking about effectively making D&D into a generic fantasy system, with optional add-ons for tone, flavor and style of play. Why not treat it like a generic system from the get go and claim that every option the players can take is only available if it makes sense for the given campaign? I've never once heard a Gurps or Savage Worlds player complain that there are elves, robots and cat people in the same core book, as well as rules for magic, psionics, mad science and automatic firearms right next to each other.

If it doesn't fit the campaign, just don't use it.

If you don't claim it's the default to begin with and state something as simple as playing a human is an option, you've probably hit the most versatile set of races that you can find.

 

[Destil]

Classes which lack a solid fantasy archetype (e.g. mystic theurge, warlord).

I can't look at the warlord and not think of Faramir...

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, honestly I think they've learned their lesson in trying to make D&D a focused "D&D" game. 1e was very focused and had some pretty hard wired stuff in character generation and whatnot that, if you followed the rules, dictated a lot of campaign setting stuff. 2e opened things up considerably and stripped out a number of focused elements (racial relations tables, lightening alignment restrictions) and 3e continued this trend (multiclassing rules, alignment restrictions very relaxed). 4e made a mistake in trying to be focused and broad at the same time. Not a lot of flavour in the mechanics (powers I'm looking at you) which makes them pretty easy to port into various settings, but some pretty strong flavour in the PC races and the presentation of the mechanics - PoL setting and whatnot.

I think that 5e will go back to the trend of a more generic game. Hopefully they'll bring forward 4e's lack of strong archetypes and combine it with the flex you get in the 3e character creation rules.