As much as I don't like the proposed changes to the ability bonuses, it is commonly incorrectly assumed that the lesson from 4e was 'don't ever change anything' whereas it more likely was 'don't change everything at once.' Small changes here and there are generally well tolerated. (I just wish that change this time would be getting rid of the alignment rather than the racial ability bonuses.)
I don’t think it is game breaking to get rid of differences per se, just boring. I am not interested in engaging in a non offensive but boring game play experience.
I know others have a different calculus and that is fine. I just think for the long term brand (not sales now but the long term quality and distinctive as of the brand) diluting the tropes and differences is a bad idea. it’s part of why D&D remains the choice of fantasy RPG for most. It’s also the mistake 4e made (not judging anyone’s personal preferences!). We all get the same toys with different names.
it was high quality for what it was. But 5e brought some differentiation back and it flourished, due in part to this.
there has been a lot said about “new players” and younger players. When they did play testing, they had a cross section. For a reason. it’s important to note that sameness did not sell. And ultimately it’s a hobby. Sanitizing it to a “non problematic sheen” might help a few people feel better? But does it help the game?
I do not want to see the brand throw out too much of what D&D to maybe change some sort of subconscious messaging that is not intended nor demonstrably impactful.
research on games (both rpg and video games) has failed to yield any clear connection to real world behavior. Just as pretending to use a Morningstar on someone’s head in game is not breeding real life murder Hobos, there is zero evidence that racism flows from traditional orcs.
it’s a TOTAL leap of faith. Until I can evidence see otherwise, my question is only about what is a more entertaining game.
I can appreciate that others seem to think a lack of alignment or racial modifiers is better, but I cannot see it in terms of absolute imperatives as some do. people flocked to a game with traditional elements. Play testing seemed to suggest better overall appeal of some of these things.
as a result, proposed changes are largely due to an assumption not supported by any research In social sciences or of a consumer nature aside from a biased sample of twitter outragers. So in answer to “what is an orc” I would refer someone to the tropes.
Gygax had some great things to say about the game as a “game.” He also noted the forces of evil were presented as obstacles for heroes to “strive against and to crush.”
it probably depends on the person’s intent. If you want high drama and soul searching, sure. Make alignment totally individual. Not the game for me or most I have played with. But it’s cool. Some people even avoid combat. if people want to fight monsters and save the village with less moral complexity I think the current set up works.
I also think it’s good to note that there have ALWAYS been creatures that break the mold and it’s part of what makes encounters interesting: novelty and surprise. A Drow ally is intriguing when unexpected.
i do not think that racial modifiers or behavioral tendency is going to breed any future eugenicists. Other than citing someone somewhere as being upset with orcs being orcish, is there anything that can support this assumption?
you know what orcs are. They have changed some but from the start they were the archetypal enemy at the gates, unknown fears about the night. this stuff flows from myth. while stamping out myth and many thousands of years of storytelling might be someone’s choice of avocation, it’s surely not mine. I am in it for the game and I think the game is served very well with orcs as they have been.
