D&D (2024) What new jargon do you want to replace "Race"?

[Yaarel]

No doubt, but I dont think D&D is going to ever go that path at this point. There are dozens of <insert character option name here> now, I cannot even possibly name them all off the top of my head.

We wont be going back to just Humans, heck, D&D hasnt been about 'just humans' since forever.

My proposal is four core books:
• Players Handbook
• Forgotten Realms Guide
• DMs Guide
• Monster Manual

So, One D&D will still have many Nonhuman options, organized into one of the core four books. These options will come with specific in-setting flavors, including cosmology, diverse cultures, organizations, beliefs, customs, and so on.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Keeping the Players Handbook setting-neutral and far away from the dangers of Setting flavors is helpful in the long run.

I don't think it is healthy for the hobby, or beneficial to peoples creativity, to be this afraid of setting flavors. Again our bar is probably different, I tend to take an approach of we should trust the audience to read things charitably enough and have enough of a nuanced material that they aren't taking offense at something that merely has the optics of potentially being offensive, versus something that is genuinely offensive. That bar is going to be subjective of course, but I would say it needs to be set at a reasonable place, so designers, writers, etc can still be creative and it doesn't feel like they have trope police looking over their shoulder all the time (I think that is a pretty impossible situation to be truly creative).

Also I don't think shifting those choices away from the core book, if they are still objectionable to people, really does much. If people are going to object to something, they will object to it. In your spelljammer example, which I haven't really followed closely so I am not especially suited for weighing in on the specifics, seems to have gained tremendous traction on forums and on twitter, yet it has nothing to do with he core book.

 

[Yaarel]

I don't think it is healthy for the hobby, or beneficial to peoples creativity, to be this afraid of setting flavors. Again our bar is probably different, I tend to take an approach of we should trust the audience to read things charitably enough and have enough of a nuanced material that they aren't taking offense at something that merely has the optics of potentially being offensive, versus something that is genuinely offensive. That bar is going to be subjective of course, but I would say it needs to be set at a reasonable place, so designers, writers, etc can still be creative and it doesn't feel like they have trope police looking over their shoulder all the time (I think that is a pretty impossible situation to be truly creative).

Also I don't think shifting those choices away from the core book, if they are still objectionable to people, really does much. If people are going to object to something, they will object to it. In your spelljammer example, which I haven't really followed closely so I am not especially suited for weighing in on the specifics, seems to have gained tremendous traction on forums and on twitter, yet it has nothing to do with he core book.

Moving setting content to a separate book, a Setting Guide, creates a safer space for creative authors to play. Because. If the setting gets something important wrong, it is easy to swap out the problematic setting for a different setting without such a problem.

Then, it is easier to update a problematic setting and swap it back in. The bad alternative would be to need to rewrite the entirety of the D&D edition if the problem was baked into the core rules themselves ruining everything everywhere.

 

[AnotherGuy]

My proposal is four core books:
• Players Handbook
• Forgotten Realms Guide
• DMs Guide
• Monster Manual

So, One D&D will still have many Nonhuman options, organized into one of the core four books. These options will come with specific in-setting flavors, including cosmology, diverse cultures, organizations, beliefs, customs, and so on.

Not everyone is invested in FR. Your proposal "forces" non-FR groups (specifically groups with homebrewed settings) to have to purchase an additional book to gain mechanics for non-human options. That is a terrible idea.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Just stop with the childish and silly "acceptable targets for kill-on-sight". You can have some like the mindless undead, but overall the game is better if the antagonists have actual motivations.

Also, it helps if we can accept that a bunch of wandering vigilantes don't necessarily need to be flawless paragons of virtue.

I think, the line is, if they raise children and thus those children can be tought to not be evil.

Most of the dilemmas in oir 2e games arose, when we found goblin noncombat children and women.
Somw of us argued, that we kill them, because they will be monsters when grown up. Some of us argued they could be raised to be good.

So this is the situation I really like to avoid.
Fey don't raise children, gnolls of 5e don't, orcs and uruk-hai of lotr also don't.
Mind flayers also have no children, but they infest other peoples with a tadpole.
A bit more ambiguous, but still in the realm of monsters.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Not everyone is invested in FR. Your proposal "forces" no-FR groups (specifically groups with homebrewed settings) to have to purchase an additional book to gain mechanics for non-human options. That is a terrible idea.

I think the intention is that the good species will still be in the PH, but the FR-specific junk goes in the FR book and is more fleshed out there because there's room.

And hopefully the good settings will also have setting books again.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I think the intention is that the good species will still be in the PH, but the FR-specific junk goes in the FR book and is more fleshed out there because there's room.

That was already being done.
And no that is not what the poster was proposing. They proposed a PHB for with humans only.

 

[Yaarel]

Yeah, I do mean, the Players Handbook is Human-only.

Not everyone is invested in FR. Your proposal "forces" non-FR groups (specifically groups with homebrewed settings) to have to purchase an additional book to gain mechanics for non-human options. That is a terrible idea.

"Forcing" gamers "to have to purchase an additional book":

Heh, I can picture the Hasbro board of directors wringing their hands in delight.



At the same time, I assume the following will be true:

1. Gamers can purchase the 2024 Forgotten Realms Guide for the Nonhumans options according to FR flavor.
2. Gamers can still use the species that are in the 2014 Players Handbook.
3. Gamers can also download a free update for the 2014 PH species with the new rules for Ability Scores and Backgrounds.
4. Possibly, the 2024 DMs Guide will list several Nonhuman species as samples for homebrew worldbuilding.
5. The Town of Blackmoor and the City of Greyhawk might be an additional 50th Anniversary Setting Guide with updated 1e flavor.
6. There might also be a different Setting Guide with a different selection of Nonhuman options, such as MtG.
7. Gamers can download the free 2024 SRD with a number of Nonhuman species without flavor, to flavor themselves.
8. Probably, gamers can download a free 2024 Basic D&D game with simple Nonhuman options.
9. Indy publishers will have other Setting Guides ready for the 2024 Anniversary Edition launch.
10. DnDBeyond online will continue to have its list of Nonhuman species, with SRD ones for free, like it currently does now.
11. All of the above will be accessible via DnDBeyond.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yeah, I do mean, the Players Handbook is Human-only.


"Forcing" gamers "to have to purchase an additional book":

Heh, I can picture the Hasbro board of directors wringing their hands in delight.



At the same time, I assume the following will be true:

1. Gamers can purchase the 2024 Forgotten Realms Guide for the Nonhumans options according to FR flavor.
2. Gamers can still use the species that are in the 2014 Players Handbook.
3. Gamers can also download a free update for the 2014 PH species if wanting them with the new rules for Ability Scores and Backgrounds.
4. Possibly, the 2024 DMs Guide will list several Nonhuman species as samples for homebrew worldbuilding.
5. The Town of Blackmoor and the City of Greyhawk might be an additional 50th Anniversary Setting Guide with updated 1e flavor.
6. There might also be a different Setting Guide with a different selection of Nonhuman options, such as MtG.
7. Gamers can download the free 2024 SRD with a number of Nonhuman species without flavor, to flavor themselves.
8. Probably, gamers can download a free 2024 Basic D&D game with simple Nonhuman options.
9. Indy publishers will have other Setting Guides ready for the 2024 Anniversary Edition launch.
10. DnDBeyond online will continue to have its list of Nonhuman species, with SRD ones for free, like it currently does now.
11. All of the above will be accessible via DnDBeyond.

I just don't understand why you would make the PHB human only. It seems like players want options like dwarves, elves, etc. And especially if you move that material to the FR book, people would get resentful because a lot of people have no interest in FR and don't plan on buying the FR book (not a knock on the setting but I would imagine a sizable portion of the hobby doesn't buy forgotten realms books).

D&D is already asking a lot from consumers with three core books (even when I started I had to slowly buy the three core books over like a year or two). That is a big investment for a lot of people, especially if you are in say highschool or college (which I am sure a lot of people are). So putting portions of the game in other books seems like a move that would potentially be off-putting to anyone who has to save for these books.

 

[Vaalingrade]

That was already being done.
And no that is not what the poster was proposing. They proposed a PHB for humans only.

Oh. That would be a non-starter if you want anyone new to play this game ever.