For starterFor starters, a game cannot get "bloated". Just because a book of options was released by the "official publisher" doesn't require you to use it., a game cannot get "bloated". Just because a book of options was released by the "official publisher" doesn't require you to use it.
But some of us like exactly what you’re complaining about. I thought WBtW was an amazing adventure. Though tbh I like a little dungeon crawling and treasure in my adventures too. Just not too much. Like spice in cooking.
I was not complaining, I was just illustrating how the current most popular style drives game design. I have a fairly simple capitalist attitude about game books. If I like it I buy it, if I don't, I don't. The last 5e book I bought was Ghost of Saltmarshes and Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, nothing since has interested me. Its not a complaint, just a fact.
Emulation is like when the people at the table try to replicate Critical Role or when a player tries to replicate Drizzt?
But, surely trying to replicate Drizzt or any of the Critical Role PCs is an act of roleplaying? Is it any less acting because a thespian plays King Lear instead of doing improv?
Emulation is not replication, it isn't about playing X character, its about playing in the style of X character, trying to imitate the experience in your own game. But in either case, you're not wrong, it's all just different approaches to role-playing, so I agree, whatever floats your boat.
I understand the claim that 3e got so bloated that it became primarily simulationist, but, with regard to 4e, we did dungeon crawls with no problem. What 4e did a bad job with was roleplay. It simulated a video game. Characters like Illusionists, Summoners, and Enchanters were highly limited in what they could do.
. For starters, a game cannot get "bloated". Just because a book of options was released by the "official publisher" doesn't require you to use it.
But some of us like exactly what you’re complaining about. I thought WBtW was an amazing adventure. Though tbh I like a little dungeon crawling and treasure in my adventures too. Just not too much. Like spice in cooking.
I was not complaining, I was just illustrating how the current most popular style drives game design. I have a fairly simple capitalist attitude about game books. If I like it I buy it, if I don't, I don't. The last 5e book I bought was Ghost of Saltmarshes and Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, nothing since has interested me. Its not a complaint, just a fact.
Emulation is like when the people at the table try to replicate Critical Role or when a player tries to replicate Drizzt?
But, surely trying to replicate Drizzt or any of the Critical Role PCs is an act of roleplaying? Is it any less acting because a thespian plays King Lear instead of doing improv?
Emulation is not replication, it isn't about playing X character, its about playing in the style of X character, trying to imitate the experience in your own game. But in either case, you're not wrong, it's all just different approaches to role-playing, so I agree, whatever floats your boat.
I understand the claim that 3e got so bloated that it became primarily simulationist, but, with regard to 4e, we did dungeon crawls with no problem. What 4e did a bad job with was roleplay. It simulated a video game. Characters like Illusionists, Summoners, and Enchanters were highly limited in what they could do.
Yeah but see this is kind of the problem with the perception. For starters, a game cannot get "bloated". Just because a book of options was released by the "official publisher" doesn't require you to use it. 3e was every bit as good (or bad depending on your opinion) on the day it was released as it was on the day it was shut down. When I say D&D culture, this is one of those things. It was a fad to assume that any officially published books by WotC are cannon, must be owned and must be allowed in your game or you're a terrible DM and no one will want to play with you.... but if those books were bad, then WotC is terrible and 3e is ruined. It was a pretty ridiculous mentality back then.
I have a limited opinion about 4e, I did not play it very long and I ran it for even less time. For me the issue was that the combat was just too involved and too slow. Doing Dungeon Crawls was painfully slow.
I disagree with you. What books are and are not included is ultimately decided by politics.
Just because Wizards tries to put in what fans want, and appeal to wider audiences, doesn't mean "What books are and are not included is ultimately decided by politics." I dont really see any examples of "politics" in Wizards books, unless you qualify being fair to different types of people and treating them equally.
Now. Can we please get back to discussing interesting ways people might change 5e? I stumbled across a very interesting notion in another thread of replacing the almost entirely pointless "Background Features" of most existing backgrounds with feats, a'la some of the new Strixhaven stuff but without all the awfulness that came with Strixhaven. Most DMs worth a damn would just give you what the background feature says anyways, but there might be something to making backgrounds more meaningful. Something like how a Pirate could choose between Athlete (a lifetime spent climbing the rigging and working themselves to death aboard a ship) or Tavern Brawler (because pirate). I very much like the idea and might do something similar in future games, assign starter feats based on background. What do you folks think?
I think adding more opportunities to get feats would be an improvement --- actually let people use more of the system, earlier in the game.
I hearby motion we stop blaming "politics" for the content of new D&D books.
Not every D&D player or DDB user has the misfortune of living in a country where basic human rights are considered a divisive political issue, and many of us who do live in that country are sick of our dirty laundry and our shitty inability to be decent people to each other being flapped in everybody else's faces. It has nothing to do with "what change would you make to 5e?", and at this point is nothing more than a button that bitter people upset that other folks exist push whenever they want to torpedo a thread.
Stop. It.
I will say this once, because I strongly feel it needs to be said. There is a world of difference between "I'm not actively excluding people from my game" and "I'm including people in my game." The difference between those two is so vast it's almost beyond comprehension, and yet a great many people believe there is no difference at all. Many of them do so innocently, from positions of well-meaning ignorance, and they do not mean harm. Some of them, however, actively refuse to believe in that difference and stubbornly stick to the idea that "not excluding people" is enough.
It may have been, seventy or so years ago. It no longer is. Don't blame "politics" for that. Politics has nothing to do with it. Blame people for deciding that they could strive to do better than exclusion through ommission, and society for progressing to a point where people were allowed to strive to do better.
Now. Can we please get back to discussing interesting ways people might change 5e? I stumbled across a very interesting notion in another thread of replacing the almost entirely pointless "Background Features" of most existing backgrounds with feats, a'la some of the new Strixhaven stuff but without all the awfulness that came with Strixhaven. Most DMs worth a damn would just give you what the background feature says anyways, but there might be something to making backgrounds more meaningful. Something like how a Pirate could choose between Athlete (a lifetime spent climbing the rigging and working themselves to death aboard a ship) or Tavern Brawler (because pirate). I very much like the idea and might do something similar in future games, assign starter feats based on background. What do you folks think?
Did not see that you got their before me Yurei, good post, I completely agree with your points.
And I think the same thing about backrounds as well. If their not wanderer, their practically useless (not including the Strixhaven ones).
I was actually thinking of making a "Retired Adventurer" background recently that allowed you to choose which type of adventurer you used to be (Warrior, Mage, etc) and give you a feat based on that. (Fighting Initiate for Warriors, Magic Initiate for Mages, Metamagic Adept for Sorcerers, Eldritch Adept for Warlocks, etc). Just an option to give players a way to play a Bertrand Bell-esque character without having to start at a higher level than the rest of the adventuring party.
So, yeah, I really hope that the 2024 versions of the PHB/DMG/MM give all backgrounds a connected feat.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
I hearby motion we stop blaming "politics" for the content of new D&D books.
Not every D&D player or DDB user has the misfortune of living in a country where basic human rights are considered a divisive political issue, and many of us who do live in that country are sick of our dirty laundry and our shitty inability to be decent people to each other being flapped in everybody else's faces. It has nothing to do with "what change would you make to 5e?", and at this point is nothing more than a button that bitter people upset that other folks exist push whenever they want to torpedo a thread.
Stop. It.
I will say this once, because I strongly feel it needs to be said. There is a world of difference between "I'm not actively excluding people from my game" and "I'm including people in my game." The difference between those two is so vast it's almost beyond comprehension, and yet a great many people believe there is no difference at all. Many of them do so innocently, from positions of well-meaning ignorance, and they do not mean harm. Some of them, however, actively refuse to believe in that difference and stubbornly stick to the idea that "not excluding people" is enough.
It may have been, seventy or so years ago. It no longer is. Don't blame "politics" for that. Politics has nothing to do with it. Blame people for deciding that they could strive to do better than exclusion through ommission, and society for progressing to a point where people were allowed to strive to do better.
Now. Can we please get back to discussing interesting ways people might change 5e? I stumbled across a very interesting notion in another thread of replacing the almost entirely pointless "Background Features" of most existing backgrounds with feats, a'la some of the new Strixhaven stuff but without all the awfulness that came with Strixhaven. Most DMs worth a damn would just give you what the background feature says anyways, but there might be something to making backgrounds more meaningful. Something like how a Pirate could choose between Athlete (a lifetime spent climbing the rigging and working themselves to death aboard a ship) or Tavern Brawler (because pirate). I very much like the idea and might do something similar in future games, assign starter feats based on background. What do you folks think?
I assume you are joking when you link politics necessarily to nations ? Please say, “yes.”
_Groups_ such as, for example, if a GM doesn’t want to use certain books but are compelled to do so by certain alpha members of the group or people who wear him down by incessant complaining.
Him? Shouldn’t that be them? There are female and nonbinary DMs too. And which books are you talking about?
I hearby motion we stop blaming "politics" for the content of new D&D books.
Not every D&D player or DDB user has the misfortune of living in a country where basic human rights are considered a divisive political issue, and many of us who do live in that country are sick of our dirty laundry and our shitty inability to be decent people to each other being flapped in everybody else's faces. It has nothing to do with "what change would you make to 5e?", and at this point is nothing more than a button that bitter people upset that other folks exist push whenever they want to torpedo a thread.
Stop. It.
I will say this once, because I strongly feel it needs to be said. There is a world of difference between "I'm not actively excluding people from my game" and "I'm including people in my game." The difference between those two is so vast it's almost beyond comprehension, and yet a great many people believe there is no difference at all. Many of them do so innocently, from positions of well-meaning ignorance, and they do not mean harm. Some of them, however, actively refuse to believe in that difference and stubbornly stick to the idea that "not excluding people" is enough.
It may have been, seventy or so years ago. It no longer is. Don't blame "politics" for that. Politics has nothing to do with it. Blame people for deciding that they could strive to do better than exclusion through ommission, and society for progressing to a point where people were allowed to strive to do better.
Now. Can we please get back to discussing interesting ways people might change 5e? I stumbled across a very interesting notion in another thread of replacing the almost entirely pointless "Background Features" of most existing backgrounds with feats, a'la some of the new Strixhaven stuff but without all the awfulness that came with Strixhaven. Most DMs worth a damn would just give you what the background feature says anyways, but there might be something to making backgrounds more meaningful. Something like how a Pirate could choose between Athlete (a lifetime spent climbing the rigging and working themselves to death aboard a ship) or Tavern Brawler (because pirate). I very much like the idea and might do something similar in future games, assign starter feats based on background. What do you folks think?
I assume you are joking when you link politics necessarily to nations ? Please say, “yes.”
_Groups_ such as, for example, if a GM doesn’t want to use certain books but are compelled to do so by certain alpha members of the group or people who wear him down by incessant complaining.
Him? Shouldn’t that be them? There are female and nonbinary DMs too. And which books are you talking about?
“Him” can be used when the antecedent is unknown, but may be female.
The books I am referring to are the books which a table of players are in dispute about whether to include.
I hearby motion we stop blaming "politics" for the content of new D&D books.
Not every D&D player or DDB user has the misfortune of living in a country where basic human rights are considered a divisive political issue, and many of us who do live in that country are sick of our dirty laundry and our shitty inability to be decent people to each other being flapped in everybody else's faces. It has nothing to do with "what change would you make to 5e?", and at this point is nothing more than a button that bitter people upset that other folks exist push whenever they want to torpedo a thread.
Stop. It.
I will say this once, because I strongly feel it needs to be said. There is a world of difference between "I'm not actively excluding people from my game" and "I'm including people in my game." The difference between those two is so vast it's almost beyond comprehension, and yet a great many people believe there is no difference at all. Many of them do so innocently, from positions of well-meaning ignorance, and they do not mean harm. Some of them, however, actively refuse to believe in that difference and stubbornly stick to the idea that "not excluding people" is enough.
It may have been, seventy or so years ago. It no longer is. Don't blame "politics" for that. Politics has nothing to do with it. Blame people for deciding that they could strive to do better than exclusion through ommission, and society for progressing to a point where people were allowed to strive to do better.
Now. Can we please get back to discussing interesting ways people might change 5e? I stumbled across a very interesting notion in another thread of replacing the almost entirely pointless "Background Features" of most existing backgrounds with feats, a'la some of the new Strixhaven stuff but without all the awfulness that came with Strixhaven. Most DMs worth a damn would just give you what the background feature says anyways, but there might be something to making backgrounds more meaningful. Something like how a Pirate could choose between Athlete (a lifetime spent climbing the rigging and working themselves to death aboard a ship) or Tavern Brawler (because pirate). I very much like the idea and might do something similar in future games, assign starter feats based on background. What do you folks think?
I assume you are joking when you link politics necessarily to nations ? Please say, “yes.”
_Groups_ such as, for example, if a GM doesn’t want to use certain books but are compelled to do so by certain alpha members of the group or people who wear him down by incessant complaining.
Him? Shouldn’t that be them? There are female and nonbinary DMs too. And which books are you talking about?
“Him” can be used when the antecedent is unknown, but may be female.
The books I am referring to are the books which a table of players are in dispute about whether to include.
I hearby motion we stop blaming "politics" for the content of new D&D books.
Not every D&D player or DDB user has the misfortune of living in a country where basic human rights are considered a divisive political issue, and many of us who do live in that country are sick of our dirty laundry and our shitty inability to be decent people to each other being flapped in everybody else's faces. It has nothing to do with "what change would you make to 5e?", and at this point is nothing more than a button that bitter people upset that other folks exist push whenever they want to torpedo a thread.
Stop. It.
I will say this once, because I strongly feel it needs to be said. There is a world of difference between "I'm not actively excluding people from my game" and "I'm including people in my game." The difference between those two is so vast it's almost beyond comprehension, and yet a great many people believe there is no difference at all. Many of them do so innocently, from positions of well-meaning ignorance, and they do not mean harm. Some of them, however, actively refuse to believe in that difference and stubbornly stick to the idea that "not excluding people" is enough.
It may have been, seventy or so years ago. It no longer is. Don't blame "politics" for that. Politics has nothing to do with it. Blame people for deciding that they could strive to do better than exclusion through ommission, and society for progressing to a point where people were allowed to strive to do better.
Now. Can we please get back to discussing interesting ways people might change 5e? I stumbled across a very interesting notion in another thread of replacing the almost entirely pointless "Background Features" of most existing backgrounds with feats, a'la some of the new Strixhaven stuff but without all the awfulness that came with Strixhaven. Most DMs worth a damn would just give you what the background feature says anyways, but there might be something to making backgrounds more meaningful. Something like how a Pirate could choose between Athlete (a lifetime spent climbing the rigging and working themselves to death aboard a ship) or Tavern Brawler (because pirate). I very much like the idea and might do something similar in future games, assign starter feats based on background. What do you folks think?
I assume you are joking when you link politics necessarily to nations ? Please say, “yes.”
_Groups_ such as, for example, if a GM doesn’t want to use certain books but are compelled to do so by certain alpha members of the group or people who wear him down by incessant complaining.
Him? Shouldn’t that be them? There are female and nonbinary DMs too. And which books are you talking about?
“Him” can be used when the antecedent is unknown, but may be female.
The books I am referring to are the books which a table of players are in dispute about whether to include.
I mean, which books? What are the titles?
Do you really believe that every table of players will dispute the exact same books?
I hearby motion we stop blaming "politics" for the content of new D&D books.
Not every D&D player or DDB user has the misfortune of living in a country where basic human rights are considered a divisive political issue, and many of us who do live in that country are sick of our dirty laundry and our shitty inability to be decent people to each other being flapped in everybody else's faces. It has nothing to do with "what change would you make to 5e?", and at this point is nothing more than a button that bitter people upset that other folks exist push whenever they want to torpedo a thread.
Stop. It.
I will say this once, because I strongly feel it needs to be said. There is a world of difference between "I'm not actively excluding people from my game" and "I'm including people in my game." The difference between those two is so vast it's almost beyond comprehension, and yet a great many people believe there is no difference at all. Many of them do so innocently, from positions of well-meaning ignorance, and they do not mean harm. Some of them, however, actively refuse to believe in that difference and stubbornly stick to the idea that "not excluding people" is enough.
It may have been, seventy or so years ago. It no longer is. Don't blame "politics" for that. Politics has nothing to do with it. Blame people for deciding that they could strive to do better than exclusion through ommission, and society for progressing to a point where people were allowed to strive to do better.
Now. Can we please get back to discussing interesting ways people might change 5e? I stumbled across a very interesting notion in another thread of replacing the almost entirely pointless "Background Features" of most existing backgrounds with feats, a'la some of the new Strixhaven stuff but without all the awfulness that came with Strixhaven. Most DMs worth a damn would just give you what the background feature says anyways, but there might be something to making backgrounds more meaningful. Something like how a Pirate could choose between Athlete (a lifetime spent climbing the rigging and working themselves to death aboard a ship) or Tavern Brawler (because pirate). I very much like the idea and might do something similar in future games, assign starter feats based on background. What do you folks think?
I assume you are joking when you link politics necessarily to nations ? Please say, “yes.”
_Groups_ such as, for example, if a GM doesn’t want to use certain books but are compelled to do so by certain alpha members of the group or people who wear him down by incessant complaining.
Him? Shouldn’t that be them? There are female and nonbinary DMs too. And which books are you talking about?
“Him” can be used when the antecedent is unknown, but may be female.
The books I am referring to are the books which a table of players are in dispute about whether to include.
I mean, which books? What are the titles?
Do you really believe that every table of players will dispute the exact same books?
The DM chooses the source material for the table, no one else.
The DM _should_ choose the source material. Sadly, it doesn’t always work that way.
I think the feats could use rebalancing, but after that I'd be okay with having them replace backgrounds I guess? I'd be happier if the aspects of the game that the background features imply will be relevant, would be more relevant. Like, I really dig what most of the background features are implying. They're evocative, they inform you about the world you're in, they're varied and they're non-combat features, which are always nice to have. But they don't tend to come up. The game isn't built around them.
Imagine if every town description named the temples, the healing spells available there, and the prices. (Now imagine if you couldn't just stay the night at an inn and fully heal, also.) Boom, Acolytes are cool now. You'd feel awesome playing an Acolyte. It'd give you this feeling of "man, I wish we were back at the temple instead of this dusty dungeon," which is fully appropriate for an Acolyte. It would put you in regular contact with the types of NPCs your character would interact with. All great stuff. Instead, you get a feature that lets you get something you don't need, at a place your DM hasn't made up. Neato. And a lot of them are like that. Solutions in search of problems.
It is also a political statement to complain about that, too, though. Why, exactly, should medieval or renaissance Europe (or fantasy literature based on the same) be considered the only valid source material?
I don't see how you would take what I said as a complaint, I was making an observation with an example that contradicts the idea that Wizards of the Coast is not politically driven, it most certainly is.
Particularly going by a premise of a setting with portals to entirely other worlds, why should all those worlds have Eurocentric cultures? Why should any of them have Eurocentric cultures? When the book has that kind of premise, how is it not a selling point to have writers from other cultures doing the majority of the writing?
I don't have an opinion on it one way or the other. As far as I'm concerned this is one more setting offering from a wide range of available settings. Your trying to suggest that I have some sort of problem with the book, I do not (other than having no interest in it), but this line of conversation does illustrate how adding politics into an RPG immediately shifts the conversation from what is important, the game, to what is not, the politics behind it. It creates instant conflict where assumptions are made and accusations come next. I do have an opinion about the specific politics, but this forum nor D&D hobby as a whole is a place to discuss such things.
This is a long way from 1e Oriental Adventures, which, although brilliant, seems to have been written by the almost certainly all white staff with input from some Japanese players seemingly being an afterthought (or at least on 'short notice').
Why would a Japanese player in the 21st century have special insight into a fantasy version of Medieval Japanese culture? What exactly about Oriental Adventures makes it seem like it was almost certainly written by an all-white staff?
I could understand seeking out a historian who might be able to provide you with additional details about the period, but realism was not the point of the book, it was to make sure all of the expectations of a player buying the book were met like being able to play Samurai's and Ninja's. This is a game for kids to play out their fantasies, not an opportunity for a history lesson.
It’s both. History and cultural diversity are important in D&D. If I had a choice between two books about the same culture, one of which was authentic and one of which wasn’t, I would definitely choose the former. I’m happy that Journeys Through the Radiant Citadel is being published and I can’t wait to integrate it into my multiverse.
Let's keep things on topic and avoid themes of discussion inappropriate for this forum, especially ones that could be harmful to others. If you are unfamiliar with the site rules, you can refresh yourself here
I'm all for cultural diversity and I don't have a problem with a team made up of X culture to make material for a fantasy version of X culture for D&D. My problem is that Radiant Citadel sounds stupid and the co-leader on the project explaining what it is, sounds to me like a guy who doesn't play D&D at all. Nothing he said about Radiant Citadel sounded even remotely interesting or D&Dish.
It's really simple.. I want the D and D in my D&D game. If you make something that doesn't get that, I have no interest in it, I don't care who made it or why or that it was made to be culturally diverse. All D&D products should be culturally diverse, that should be the default state of things, but they all need to be actually for D&D not some quasi theatre show. Sorry, I know some people like that, but for me this is a hard pass based on what we know about it right now.
You want to do cultural diversity right in D&D.. make sure it actually has something to do with D&D. For example, I use the World of Mystara as my campaign setting, it is dripping with cultural diversity and D&Dishness. You can play everything from an American Indian Shamani, to a Mongolian Horse Archer, from a Scandinavian Viking to a Polonysian Koa Warrior. Each Gazatteer for that setting dives deep into every aspect of every unique fantasy version of each culture all of which are unquestionably built around real-world cultures. It's all geared towards running D&D adventures with content for creating and playing classes dedicated to those cultures with awesome background information and locations. It's freaking awesome, it's D&D done right.
I'm actually really surprised that WotC hasn't remade the Mystara setting given that the primary focus of the entire world is the diversity of unique fantasy versions of real-world cultures.
Are you completely unfamiliar with Planescape? The Radiant Citadel setting sounds very much like a new take on Sigil, the City of Doors. No clue what is not D&D-ish about something emulating one of the most popular D&D settings of all time...
I don’t agree. Something intrinsic and characteristic of Sigil was that it’s doors could that you anywhere, not just to some small number of planes that the player can read all about.
I'm all for cultural diversity and I don't have a problem with a team made up of X culture to make material for a fantasy version of X culture for D&D. My problem is that Radiant Citadel sounds stupid and the co-leader on the project explaining what it is, sounds to me like a guy who doesn't play D&D at all. Nothing he said about Radiant Citadel sounded even remotely interesting or D&Dish.
It's really simple.. I want the D and D in my D&D game. If you make something that doesn't get that, I have no interest in it, I don't care who made it or why or that it was made to be culturally diverse. All D&D products should be culturally diverse, that should be the default state of things, but they all need to be actually for D&D not some quasi theatre show. Sorry, I know some people like that, but for me this is a hard pass based on what we know about it right now.
You want to do cultural diversity right in D&D.. make sure it actually has something to do with D&D. For example, I use the World of Mystara as my campaign setting, it is dripping with cultural diversity and D&Dishness. You can play everything from an American Indian Shamani, to a Mongolian Horse Archer, from a Scandinavian Viking to a Polonysian Koa Warrior. Each Gazatteer for that setting dives deep into every aspect of every unique fantasy version of each culture all of which are unquestionably built around real-world cultures. It's all geared towards running D&D adventures with content for creating and playing classes dedicated to those cultures with awesome background information and locations. It's freaking awesome, it's D&D done right.
I'm actually really surprised that WotC hasn't remade the Mystara setting given that the primary focus of the entire world is the diversity of unique fantasy versions of real-world cultures.
Planescape as a setting was written in a format built for adventuring, it was an attempt to create a brooding, dark underbelly in the multiverse and the subject matter of Planescape was political, brutal and adult. Most importantly it was a setting, not an adventure. From what we know about The Radiant Citadel is that its first and foremost a series of adventures and the tone is very much "let's have fun exploring cultural diversity together" like a Saturday morning cartoon.
I wasn't a fan of Planescape either so I wouldn't necessarily feel any obligation to defend it, but The Radiant Citadel looks more like The Small World ride at Disneyland.
It's definitely not for me nor does it meet my requirements or desires for a D&D campaign setting.
Apparently, in every culture depicted in that new book, violence is simply not available as an option to settle disputes, and maybe never was. Yeah, that seems very D&D-like.....
That's not at all what was said. Where are you getting your information from?
In the central hub, the Radiant Citadel itself, the so-called Shield Bearers are bound by their code to stay neutral and not get directly involved in conflicts. The early look indicates that this isn't a perfect system. Some mention was made on stream about how this code can leave people vulnerable and might necessitate the intervention of adventurers.
But sure, go off I guess. Modern adventures don't even have fighting because they're all aimed at children, who famously hate the idea of fighting, which is why stuff like the Power Rangers, Ninja Turtles, Steven Universe, Transformers, Call of Duty, Halo, Marvel, and dare I say D&D have all historically failed to land with kids. None of these properties have had any success in recent years, because young people just hate violence.
Folks, again, this thread is about what you would change in 5e not argue misunderstandings about a book none of us have actually seen. But to correct that misunderstanding, there's a lot of ranting about it being a pacifist book or whatever. From what I can tell that outrage is making a universal out of a detail. There's a faction in the game that does sort of work as a peacekeeping/rescue force the players _may_ join, among many other things they can do. The ShieldBearers aren't pacifists they just have strict rules of engagements. The outrage is sort of like negging Highlander because Immortals have a code where they don't fight on Holy Ground.
I think a discussion on "what you would fix about 5e" when it's most healthy is to discuss mechanics in the game. Trying to show horn what you think of as political or culture matters are matters of presentation and play style, and just lead to clashes of nonconstructive comments where all that's really being done is folks hoisting their ideology flags.
I'd be curious to see backgrounds and race/lineage merged more to allow more options. A player can choose a physical race/lineage, an environment, and an upbringing or occupation and that trifecta gets merged with a class decision.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I'd be curious to see backgrounds and race/lineage merged more to allow more options. A player can choose a physical race/lineage, an environment, and an upbringing or occupation and that trifecta gets merged with a class decision.
One of the things I really like about early D&D like 1e B/X is that there was no concept of race, but there was a heavy dose of cultural identity which was driven by the settings. An Elf, Dwarf and Halfling were all classes and you weren't defined by your race short of genetic traits like Darkvision or better hearing.
Your identity came from the location of your birth or upbringing so if you were playing in Mystara you might be an Elf from Alfheim, in which case you would be from that Elven culture but you could just as well be an Elf from The Atruaghin Clans in which you would be presumed adopted into that culture somehow instead. Backgrounds were also mainly narrative concepts which again created a lot of flexibility without added rules weight.
To me this approach is a lot healthier for the premise of the game for a number of reasons. First and foremost it puts the narrative first in character creation, which I think is really key to kicking off a campaign in a meaningful way. When players are tempted by mechanical choices, there is not only a tendency to optimize but a routine to doing it and it's contagious. If one player does it, it catches on and spreads.
Secondly, you are naturally indoctrinated into the gameworld when culture selection rather than creation becomes part of the process. Your options of culture selection is based on the setting so you choose from things that exist in the world. This again helps to keep the game from derailing into an anything-goes fantasy with every character being a white elephant and the brainchild of a player you have to try to figure out how to squeeze and connect into the game in a meaningful way.
Finally and perhaps more importantly, when choosing backgrounds or creating backgrounds, there is a more naturally specific depiction of the character when you're doing it from the perspective of a selected culture. If you are a folk hero and you are from The Artuaghin Clans, you are something very different than a folk hero from Alfheim, the story of cultures creates far more vivid and defined imagery which in turn makes backgrounds actually far broader things which in my opinion is a good thing.
I agree with you. Unless I’m missing something, your approach doesn’t sound bad at all.
I'd be curious to see backgrounds and race/lineage merged more to allow more options. A player can choose a physical race/lineage, an environment, and an upbringing or occupation and that trifecta gets merged with a class decision.
One of the things I really like about early D&D like 1e B/X is that there was no concept of race, but there was a heavy dose of cultural identity which was driven by the settings. An Elf, Dwarf and Halfling were all classes and you weren't defined by your race short of genetic traits like Darkvision or better hearing.
Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling were most certainly races. It just happened that if you were one of those races you didn't have any choice about class.
They should just call Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, etc."species" since some people get their noses twisted ot of joint over the traditional fantasy name of "race."
They should just call Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, etc."species" since some people get their noses twisted ot of joint over the traditional fantasy name of "race."
I was actually hoping the Gothic Lineages was announcing a system wide shift from race to lineage. Not sure why it didn't. Especially when, if you think about it the Gothic lineages Hexblood, Damper and Reborn aren't at least in two cases more made than born. Lineages actually seems more appropriate to everything else in the game currently organized under "race." I guess it could still happen.
Just because Wizards tries to put in what fans want, and appeal to wider audiences, doesn't mean "What books are and are not included is ultimately decided by politics." I dont really see any examples of "politics" in Wizards books, unless you qualify being fair to different types of people and treating them equally.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I think adding more opportunities to get feats would be an improvement --- actually let people use more of the system, earlier in the game.
Did not see that you got their before me Yurei, good post, I completely agree with your points.
And I think the same thing about backrounds as well. If their not wanderer, their practically useless (not including the Strixhaven ones).
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.I was actually thinking of making a "Retired Adventurer" background recently that allowed you to choose which type of adventurer you used to be (Warrior, Mage, etc) and give you a feat based on that. (Fighting Initiate for Warriors, Magic Initiate for Mages, Metamagic Adept for Sorcerers, Eldritch Adept for Warlocks, etc). Just an option to give players a way to play a Bertrand Bell-esque character without having to start at a higher level than the rest of the adventuring party.
So, yeah, I really hope that the 2024 versions of the PHB/DMG/MM give all backgrounds a connected feat.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Him? Shouldn’t that be them? There are female and nonbinary DMs too. And which books are you talking about?
“Him” can be used when the antecedent is unknown, but may be female.
The books I am referring to are the books which a table of players are in dispute about whether to include.
I mean, which books? What are the titles?
Do you really believe that every table of players will dispute the exact same books?
The DM _should_ choose the source material. Sadly, it doesn’t always work that way.
I think the feats could use rebalancing, but after that I'd be okay with having them replace backgrounds I guess? I'd be happier if the aspects of the game that the background features imply will be relevant, would be more relevant. Like, I really dig what most of the background features are implying. They're evocative, they inform you about the world you're in, they're varied and they're non-combat features, which are always nice to have. But they don't tend to come up. The game isn't built around them.
Imagine if every town description named the temples, the healing spells available there, and the prices. (Now imagine if you couldn't just stay the night at an inn and fully heal, also.) Boom, Acolytes are cool now. You'd feel awesome playing an Acolyte. It'd give you this feeling of "man, I wish we were back at the temple instead of this dusty dungeon," which is fully appropriate for an Acolyte. It would put you in regular contact with the types of NPCs your character would interact with. All great stuff. Instead, you get a feature that lets you get something you don't need, at a place your DM hasn't made up. Neato. And a lot of them are like that. Solutions in search of problems.
It’s both. History and cultural diversity are important in D&D. If I had a choice between two books about the same culture, one of which was authentic and one of which wasn’t, I would definitely choose the former. I’m happy that Journeys Through the Radiant Citadel is being published and I can’t wait to integrate it into my multiverse.
Let's keep things on topic and avoid themes of discussion inappropriate for this forum, especially ones that could be harmful to others. If you are unfamiliar with the site rules, you can refresh yourself here
Find my D&D Beyond articles here
I don’t agree. Something intrinsic and characteristic of Sigil was that it’s doors could that you anywhere, not just to some small number of planes that the player can read all about.
I do like Mystara.
That's not at all what was said. Where are you getting your information from?
In the central hub, the Radiant Citadel itself, the so-called Shield Bearers are bound by their code to stay neutral and not get directly involved in conflicts. The early look indicates that this isn't a perfect system. Some mention was made on stream about how this code can leave people vulnerable and might necessitate the intervention of adventurers.
But sure, go off I guess. Modern adventures don't even have fighting because they're all aimed at children, who famously hate the idea of fighting, which is why stuff like the Power Rangers, Ninja Turtles, Steven Universe, Transformers, Call of Duty, Halo, Marvel, and dare I say D&D have all historically failed to land with kids. None of these properties have had any success in recent years, because young people just hate violence.
Folks, again, this thread is about what you would change in 5e not argue misunderstandings about a book none of us have actually seen. But to correct that misunderstanding, there's a lot of ranting about it being a pacifist book or whatever. From what I can tell that outrage is making a universal out of a detail. There's a faction in the game that does sort of work as a peacekeeping/rescue force the players _may_ join, among many other things they can do. The ShieldBearers aren't pacifists they just have strict rules of engagements. The outrage is sort of like negging Highlander because Immortals have a code where they don't fight on Holy Ground.
I think a discussion on "what you would fix about 5e" when it's most healthy is to discuss mechanics in the game. Trying to show horn what you think of as political or culture matters are matters of presentation and play style, and just lead to clashes of nonconstructive comments where all that's really being done is folks hoisting their ideology flags.
I'd be curious to see backgrounds and race/lineage merged more to allow more options. A player can choose a physical race/lineage, an environment, and an upbringing or occupation and that trifecta gets merged with a class decision.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I agree with you. Unless I’m missing something, your approach doesn’t sound bad at all.
Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling were most certainly races. It just happened that if you were one of those races you didn't have any choice about class.
They should just call Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, etc."species" since some people get their noses twisted ot of joint over the traditional fantasy name of "race."
I was actually hoping the Gothic Lineages was announcing a system wide shift from race to lineage. Not sure why it didn't. Especially when, if you think about it the Gothic lineages Hexblood, Damper and Reborn aren't at least in two cases more made than born. Lineages actually seems more appropriate to everything else in the game currently organized under "race." I guess it could still happen.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.