WotC WotC general D&D survey just went live.

[EzekielRaiden]

No you do not, or at least that is not how I understood it, it says 'choose two Race options', they can come from either race. So just like LU, except that it is more flexible (because there are no two categories where you have to pick one from each race)

So yes, the end result feels like it is very much the same, 6 in one, half a dozen in the other.

Uh...no, I haven't seen a single thing that says you get to actually get mechanics from more than one race. That's why people keep pushing the "well background feats exist!" line, because that's where you're supposed to get your dual-bloodline stuff.

This is the exact paragraph of the original document, which has not yet been changed (the only changes were to Ardling, Dragonborn, and Goliath.) Bolded for emphasis.

If you’d like to play the child of such a wondrous
pairing, choose two Race options that are
Humanoid to represent your parents. Then
determine which of those Race options provides
your game traits: Size, Speed, and special traits.
You can then mix and match visual
characteristics—color, ear shape, and the like—of
the two options. For example, if your character
has a halfling and a gnome parent, you might
choose Halfling for your game traits and then
decide that your character has the pointed ears
that are characteristic of a gnome.
Finally, determine the average of the two
options’ Life Span traits to figure out how long
your character might live. For example, a child of a
halfling and a gnome has an average life span of
288 years.

As you can see, only one of the two you pick has any meaningful effect mechanically. All of your "game traits" come from one, and only one, race/species/origin/whatever. The only calculated thing which actually accounts for the combination is lifespan, which is a flavorful but largely irrelevant number for most player characters (as few campaigns take place over the 60+ years that would be required for someone to actually die of old age.)

So, no, it is not true that you get anything at all mechanical in the "One D&D" playtest, unlike LU. The other species option you "chose," as of the current playtest rules, exclusively gives you the excuse to mix and match roleplay characteristics (height/weight within your mechanically-defined size category, colorations, non-mechanical physical features, etc.) The example given explicitly makes it clear that you choose "game traits" as an entire block, not piecemeal, while the secondary option does nothing but let you have pointy ears and an altered lifespan.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This is a really gross post. If you have a counter-argument to an argument that someone makes, make it, but make it about the argument. Making personal attacks like this is not cool. This poster was not attacking you (or anyone involved in this conversation for that matter). I don't really agree with what their posting, but this tactic of yours is out of bounds.

There was no "argument". Micah insulted the designers of Dungeons & Dragons by calling them virtually not designers at all (the designers of the game they supposedly want to be good so that they can play it, because apparently just playing Level Up isn't enough for them). And then they tried to claim the high road by saying someone else's snark wasn't called for. And I pointed out the irony in that. So there was no "counter-argument" to be made because it wasn't an argument in the first place.

I find it funny how a lot of the posters here feel completely free to call all the designers and workers on D&D and WotC lazy and untalented and expect not a single bit of blowback on that... and yet when they feel slighted there's an expectation that the rest of us should just nod and say "Yeah, poor you"? Nope. Sorry. And pointing out the irony in that belief is not a "personal attack".

I mean at the end of the day it's not that hard. "Treat others as you yourself would like to be treated" still applies even if the person being insulted isn't around to see the insult. Because the rest of us are and we still have to read it. And just because someone is doing something you disagree with, it doesn't mean they are talentless or a shill or any other negative connotation you might think of. It just means they disagree with you on what is important for the game of Dungeons & Dragons. And that's not a fault-- that's just personal opinion.

 

[Lanefan]

I find it funny how a lot of the posters here feel completely free to call all the designers and workers on D&D and WotC lazy and untalented

Personally, I'd never call them lazy. Quite the opposite, in fact: a lot of respect-worthy hard work goes into designing and producing these games, even if the results of that hard work might not always be to everyone's tastes.

But untalented? While I wouldn't call them that either, the fact they get paid to do this work IMO doesn't in itself make them any more (or less) talented than a great many hobbyists and amateur designers; and thus I don't put them or the designs they create on any sort of pedestal.

 

[Parmandur]

Personally, I'd never call them lazy. Quite the opposite, in fact: a lot of respect-worthy hard work goes into designing and producing these games, even if the results of that hard work might not always be to everyone's tastes.

But untalented? While I wouldn't call them that either, the fact they get paid to do this work IMO doesn't in itself make them any more (or less) talented than a great many hobbyists and amateur designers; and thus I don't put them or the designs they create on any sort of pedestal.

I mean, that seems healthy.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, that seems healthy.

I don't think the designers themselves are lazy, and I apologize for suggesting otherwise. I am saying that WotC's policy for the present and future of the game is lazy and bland. That is probably on corporate.

 

[Parmandur]

I don't think the designers themselves are lazy, and I apologize for suggesting otherwise. I am saying that WotC's policy for the present and future of the game is lazy and bland. That is probably on corporate.

The corporate side is pretty hands off and let's the WotC designers do whatever they want, really. Nobody in Rhode Islamd is calling shots on Adventure or Setting design, that was Merla before it was Winninger, and now it is Brink.

 

[ccooke]

I don't think the designers themselves are lazy, and I apologize for suggesting otherwise. I am saying that WotC's policy for the present and future of the game is lazy and bland. That is probably on corporate.

No, it's an understanding of what D&D is and what they're trying to create.

D&D is a mainstream game, and 5e has grown so popular in large part by being "more mainstream" than previous editions. It focuses on appealing to the largest possible playerbase, and a lot of effort goes in to tuning it for that. In part, this is a consequence of its own success - as the audience grew, the need to appeal to that large audience to keep the game popular also grew (because hey, capitalism and the need to make more money this year than last year). That's not something wrong with WotC, mind - any custodian of the D&D brand would have this same issue - sure, they could focus on a less mainstream version of the game, but the consequence of that is turning away from a large segment of your audience, and the public disappointment and annoyance that would cause. D&D can't stop being a mainstream game at this point.

What's more, there's nothing wrong with targeting broad appeal. It's not "lazy" or "bland" - and describing it as such is basically insulting the millions of people who enjoy 5e. It's a game designed for broad appeal - lower complexity, low barriers to entry, no major features that turn off large chunks of the player base, etc. That might mean it's not a great game for you, but it is a conscious design choice that's being taken by creative people with some skill.

Best to face reality and accept that the official release of D&D is and for the foreseeable future is always going to be aimed at the broadest possible playerbase. It's the thing that will pull the vast majority of new players into our hobby, after which we can sell them on more specific games, or variants, or whatever.

I think it's okay for people to like the systems and design concepts they like. I personally don't like Level Up much, but it's great to see how well received it's been. It might not aimed at me, but it's very clearly well aimed at a target audience who love it. From the design process, I think part of that came from knowing who it was made for. That's at the core of good design. I think WotC also knows who their audience are and is designing a game for them. It's a much larger audience, but in many ways that makes good design harder rather than easier.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

There was no "argument". Micah insulted the designers of Dungeons & Dragons by calling them virtually not designers at all (the designers of the game they supposedly want to be good so that they can play it, because apparently just playing Level Up isn't enough for them). And then they tried to claim the high road by saying someone else's snark wasn't called for. And I pointed out the irony in that. So there was no "counter-argument" to be made because it wasn't an argument in the first place.

I find it funny how a lot of the posters here feel completely free to call all the designers and workers on D&D and WotC lazy and untalented and expect not a single bit of blowback on that... and yet when they feel slighted there's an expectation that the rest of us should just nod and say "Yeah, poor you"? Nope. Sorry. And pointing out the irony in that belief is not a "personal attack".

I mean at the end of the day it's not that hard. "Treat others as you yourself would like to be treated" still applies even if the person being insulted isn't around to see the insult. Because the rest of us are and we still have to read it. And just because someone is doing something you disagree with, it doesn't mean they are talentless or a shill or any other negative connotation you might think of. It just means they disagree with you on what is important for the game of Dungeons & Dragons. And that's not a fault-- that's just personal opinion.

All that's true. The context here though is that the poster in question was responding to a somewhat insulting comment from another poster. I don't know that equating that to unrelated (yet, yes, misguided IMO) comments that the poster made about the design team elsewhere. One is a personal attack and the other, although inappropriate, isn't in my view.

 

[ad_hoc]

No, it's an understanding of what D&D is and what they're trying to create.

D&D is a mainstream game, and 5e has grown so popular in large part by being "more mainstream" than previous editions. It focuses on appealing to the largest possible playerbase, and a lot of effort goes in to tuning it for that. In part, this is a consequence of its own success - as the audience grew, the need to appeal to that large audience to keep the game popular also grew (because hey, capitalism and the need to make more money this year than last year). That's not something wrong with WotC, mind - any custodian of the D&D brand would have this same issue - sure, they could focus on a less mainstream version of the game, but the consequence of that is turning away from a large segment of your audience, and the public disappointment and annoyance that would cause. D&D can't stop being a mainstream game at this point.

What's more, there's nothing wrong with targeting broad appeal. It's not "lazy" or "bland" - and describing it as such is basically insulting the millions of people who enjoy 5e. It's a game designed for broad appeal - lower complexity, low barriers to entry, no major features that turn off large chunks of the player base, etc. That might mean it's not a great game for you, but it is a conscious design choice that's being taken by creative people with some skill.

Best to face reality and accept that the official release of D&D is and for the foreseeable future is always going to be aimed at the broadest possible playerbase. It's the thing that will pull the vast majority of new players into our hobby, after which we can sell them on more specific games, or variants, or whatever.

I think it's okay for people to like the systems and design concepts they like. I personally don't like Level Up much, but it's great to see how well received it's been. It might not aimed at me, but it's very clearly well aimed at a target audience who love it. From the design process, I think part of that came from knowing who it was made for. That's at the core of good design. I think WotC also knows who their audience are and is designing a game for them. It's a much larger audience, but in many ways that makes good design harder rather than easier.

It's important to note that it is appealing to the broadest fan base it can while still being a hobby game.

Broad in this context is still a lot more narrow than a movie being made with broad appeal.

It will always be a hobby game which does give it an upper limit on its popularity.