Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8486848" data-attributes="member: 18">I agree that it wasn't the intent, but it was manifestly the effect.And that's the problem for me. I don't think we're seeing some conscious, considered decision to draw back like a snail into it's shell re monocultures. I think it's just "what WotC has done", repeatedly, and without considering. There are number of elements retained through editions like that - not intentional sacred cows, just things they keep doing.I suspect DND2024 may be the first edition where they don't do that.I don't think so myself, because 3E is 2000 and Fellowship is 2001. So causally that doesn't work.And the solution is not to revert to tedious monocultures, imho, but to offer more choice, and to offer choices that aren't race-tied even if they're race-associated. Like you want to be an Elf from the big city, you pick the Big City faction or whatever. You want to be an Elf from the Elvendark Forest, you pick the Elvendark Forest faction. You want to be a gnome raised by the elves of the Elvendark Forest, you do likewise. Sure 90% of the population of the Elvendark Forest is elves, but you're choosing to have an unusual PC. The player who hates unusual PCs can pick his Human Fighter with the Big City background or whatever.  You don't need that many factions as generic/default either. Maybe you have a Riverboat faction, and 75% of Riverboat folk are hobbits, but obviously other people could be part of that. Or there's the Ravaging Horde faction, and maybe most of the people in that are Orcs, or maybe in a different setting they're Elves, or whatever.Y'know, like in Taladas, back in 1989, when the great horde of rampaging Steppe tribes was primarily Elves and Half-Elves.</blockquote>

Verification