WotC WotC general D&D survey just went live.

[Micah Sweet]

Well, yes: out of curiosity, how many of the recent D&D books have you read, because they have been taking plenty of risks...?

Last one I read was Witchlight, and while I suppose there was "risk" in not presenting much combat, I have never cared for Fey-related stuff anyway. Not interested in anthologies, didn't find Fizban's interesting compared to earlier editions takes on dragons, and decided to pass on Dragonlance (but bought several products on the setting from the Guild, so I'm glad they released it). As has been suggested in another thread, I've been largely unhappy with WotC's output since the new Ravenloft.

 

[Maxperson]

It seems that complaints that D&D isn't "risky" enough are similar to complaint about the tone and consistency of Marvel.

I haven't heard that, but I'll take you word for it.

 

[mamba]

What ickyness?

my main concern with having actual half-X where one half is not human is that if you have 10 races, that means you have 45 mixes between them, so that is just not feasible. Not an answer to the ickyness, I know

 

[Maxperson]

Really, because I've seen several just in this thread thar get nipped in the bud.

Name one that can't happen with hybrid?

 

[mamba]

Everything without a mechanical expression is equally "viable", yes. The viability of meaninglessness in the game.

not everything that is meaningful needs to be expressed by some mechanic

 

[Maxperson]

my main concern with having actual half-X where the other half is not human is that if you have 10 races, that means you have 45 mixes between them, so that is just not feasible. Not an answer to the ickyness, I know

That's a reasonable concern. They can't make them all mechanically distinct.

 

[BrokenTwin]

Flavour-wise, D&D has definitely been trying new things. Nothing to the scope of Eberron in 3E, but stuff like the Radiant Citadel is bringing in new voices and worldviews that I find interesting.

Mechanics-wise, I wouldn't say they've been very exploratory at all. We haven't had anything like the 4E Essentials or late 3.5 era books (Book of Nine Swords / Magic of Incarnum) where they pushed at the limits of what the system was capable of. Instead it feels like they're just kinda spinning their wheels. Even the playtests feels more like minor house rules than anything interesting or new.

 

[Micah Sweet]

not everything that is meaningful needs to be expressed by some mechanic

Fair enough. But that doesn't mean that things that did have an appreciated mechanical expression shouldn't anymore.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That's a reasonable concern. They can't make them all mechanically distinct.

They could if they did it like Level Up.

 

[mamba]

Fair enough. But that doesn't mean that things that did have an appreciated mechanical expression shouldn't anymore.

not unless there is a reason to. Just keeping mechanics for the sake of keeping them does not sound like design either.

Concerning races, if WotC wants half-anything rather than two or three specific ones, then they would have to come up with 45 mechanical distinct options that also match their base races. Seems a lot of work for little gain. This was feasible with 2 or 3, but at 45 it falls apart.