Per the latest Unearthed Arcana document (which also basically confirms Ravenloft, but that's for another thread):

Design Note: Changes to Racial Traits
In 2020, the book Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything introduced the option to customize several of your character’s racial traits, specifically the Ability Score Increase trait, the Language trait, and traits that give skill, armor, weapon, or tool proficiencies. Following in that book’s footsteps, the race options in this article and in future D&D books lack the Ability Score Increase trait, the Language trait, the Alignment trait, and any other trait that is purely cultural. Racial traits henceforth reflect only the physical or magical realities of being a player character who’s a member of a particular lineage. Such traits include things like darkvision, a breath weapon (as in the dragonborn), or innate magical ability (as in the forest gnome). Such traits don’t include cultural characteristics, like language or training with a weapon or a tool, and the traits also don’t include an alignment suggestion, since alignment is a choice for each individual, not a characteristic shared by a lineage. Finally, going forward, the term “race” in D&D refers only to the suite of game features used by player characters. Said features don’t have any bearing on monsters and NPCs who are members of the same species or lineage, since monsters and NPCs in D&D don’t rely on race or class to function. Moreover, DMs are empowered to customize the features of the creatures in their game as they wish.

So yeah.  While UA Playtest Content is not official, this is.  Wizards has officially codified their process for "race" moving forward.  Cultural features have been stripped from the species entry entirely, and players are left free to adjudicate their numbers as they see fit.  Tasha's Cauldron wasn't a one-off maybe, but a means of back-hacking these new rules into everything that came before.

This is backed up by the three test lineages on offering, which do not have any language or stat allocations.  Discussing the specifics of those is for another thread, but in this one I'm hoping to go over what this means for the game as a whole.

For one, the idea of a 'Lineage' rather than a set species is a very exciting one.  There's a lot you can do once you decide that "race" as defined in the given sidebar means more than just species.  It opens up a lot of options for supernatural origins which were previously only clumsily covered by Homebrew Species Jank, which furthermore frees up Wizards to put much more interesting character generation options in their books.

For two?  This means the DM is free to assign whatever culture they wish to a given lineage/species/race/whichever in their worlds - and Wizards is free to do the same in official settings.  Eberron critters no longer have to try and conform to the culture of the Faerunian statblocks for their species - they have their physical traits and that's it.  Culture comes from elsewhere.

For three?  I'm hopeful that this means future editions of D&D will expand upon the 'Background' system now that culture has been divorced from species, putting all the cool cultural shit that used to be baked into species statblocks into enhanced, more impactful Backgrounds, instead.  The Class/Species/Background triumverate is one of the more solid moves forward 5e managed (among its myriad steps backwards), and this puts Wizards in a better position to capitalize on that triumverate and make Background a more equivalent leg to Class and Species, rather than just flimsy side fluff that offers very little in the way of mechanical differentiation.

What do you guys think?  Is this as cool as it looks?  Or are we back to "TASHA'S CAULDRON RUINED D&D FOREVER!"?

I think that this is good, but the new racial flexibility does encourage min-maxing, which drives some DMs crazy. The last sentence 'Moreover, DMs are empowered to customize the features of the creatures in their game as they wish.' seems pointless to me, because that's just homebrewing, which everyone already does, as evidenced by the thousands of things in the homebrew lists here.

Moreover, DMs are empowered to customize the features of the creatures in their game as they wish.

Gee, I'm so glad that Wizards of the Coast has empowered me to customize features and creatures in my game as I wish. If they hadn't said this, I'd have felt constrained to use everything as-is and never change a thing!

I mean, fine, whatever. I don't care. They've exhausted me. I'm done. They (you?) win.

But I find it hilarious that as part of this statement, they are implying that now, all of a sudden, this new direction "empowers" me to customize my own game. As if I couldn't do that before. Now that WOTC is changing up the race definitions, I'm allowed to do what I want? I guess it's a good thing they never had a look at any of my notes or files going back to TSR days, because I'm pretty darn sure as DMs both I and my friends did whatever we damn well pleased right from the off. 

This means the DM is free to assign whatever culture they wish to a given lineage/species/race/whichever in their worlds 

I'm pretty sure we already could do that. In fact, I already did it. So have many other DMs. "This" (the statement) doesn't mean we are free to do it...maybe it means WOTC is cheering us on or encouraging us to do it now, but we've always had the power to edit whatever we wanted out of the official rules. Even Gygax told us to do that back in the 70s.

So yeah... whatever. OK. Since I'm free to do what I want, my stats, alignments, etc. for species are going to stay how they are.

And I expect not to be given any grief for doing this, by the way, from WOTC or any of the other the folks touting our "freedom to assign whatever we want" to these things. That's exactly what I'm doing... the "whatever I want" just happens to be what was originally printed.... I assume that is not a problem since I am "free to assign whatever I wish.

 I wonder if we could consider this to put the game more in '5.5e' territory without it being explicitly said (for fear of splitting the wider community by book or price or such?)

It's going to be interesting to see how other new lineages will be handled compared to the ones in the UA. I know this is going slightly off topic but the UA lineages seem to be compliments rather than fully standalone lineages. I assume that less special new lineages will have a certain amount of suggestions for their cultural aspects, etc.

Unless they're planning not to do anymore standard races, which would make sense. It seems the bases have been covered on that side.

The "DMs are empowered..." line is because Wizards does have to remind both Dms and players - constantly - that it's okay to deviate from the books.  Yeah, forum nerds like the DDB crew who're wallowing in all the out-of-game research as well as all the folks who've been doing this for centuries know that's fine, but a very significant portion of the non-forum, non-Reddit userbase needs constant reminders and prompting that it's okay to do what's cool for you.  J-Craw and the dev team have commented before at how often they're surprised by how often a tableful of newcomers to D&D thinks they'll ruin their game if they stray from the books even a little.

And what I meant by "DMs are free to assign cultural traits as they see fit" is that a DM no longer has to invent random lore that may not suit their world to account for, as an example, Elf Weapon Training.  Or Stonecunning.  Or any of this other baggage attached to Traditional Tolkien Races because it's Traditional, and every last elf, dwarf, or halfling in existence needs to be exactly identical to the ones in Tolkien's books.  Dwarves who've taken to the sea and created a maritime culture and empire, using their more compact bodies to more efficiently crew powerful sailing vessels, no longer have to still be able to identify masonry of any sort with a mere look because reasons.  They can have something else instead - actual, for-real something else, instead of it being random homebrew that everybody rejects.

Nevertheless.  I think it's a big step forward, even for DMs who reject any of the newer lore or alternate settings and play in strictly Tolkienite worlds.  The Lineage system presented in the latest UA document is much more versatile than the PHB "Race" entry, and allows both Wizards and DMs to create Lineages that better fit their story without having to justify entire new species in their game world.  I am quite pleased.

The more I think about this the more I wonder if XGE and TCE were intended at some points to be like PHB1.5 and PHB2 and they didn't call them that for marketing / community reasons. I wonder if WoTC are afraid of the 5E community and don't want the split between 3.5 and 4 to happen again.

In ways for what they give you and the customisation and feature they allow, I think they can be considered that.

It does make me wish again D&D followed Pathfinder's business model, or that at the very least the SRD was expanded to include all the PHB, and the spells and new rules from XGE and TCE.

Yeah, this is basically taking us in a whole new direction. It's essentially turning this edition into 5.25e (combined with TCoE). I'm fine with this. I wish they did a bit of a more in-depth way of getting ASIs, like JoeltheWalrus's amazing solution for this, but a simple, inelegant fix is better than none. 

I way prefer this lineage system over Tasha's similar "Customize your Origin" system, though. This is nice. I like all 3 of the lineages in the UA, and this is taking D&D in the right direction. The grognards and old guard that wants races to stay the same can keep them the same, and those of us who prefer customizability get it. 

This is nice. That's about all I have to say about this. I hope WotC doesn't cave to the inevitable hate they're going to get for doing this, but that seems unlikely. They don't flip-flop a ton with major changes like this. 

@BioWizard, thanks for at least realizing that this doesn't affect you in any way. That's more than I can say for a lot of people that agree with your overall view on this. 
@Lyxen, this isn't for powergamers/munchkins/minmaxers. This is for people who want more customizability with their races. People that want more unique characters, not just a standard, stereotypical member of their race. 

And I can also guarantee that the DMs who tries to "customize the features of the creatures in their game as they wish" will just face the wrath of the minmaxers who will tell them "but I want my darkvision and my +2 to charisma in the race that I want to play, otherwise my build is ruined".

I dare my players to say that. My response will be, 'Fine, someone else can DM. I'd rather play anyway.'

I'm perfectly happy to let someone DM. Even with all the work I have done to create my world. Or wait, *because* of all the work I have done to create my world. I'd rather NOT play in it, than be forced to do it in a way that destroys my vision for how the lore works.

So yeah... you can DM. I'll just play. And I promise, I will just accept whatever the race/stat/etc. rules in your world are, and I will not fight about it just to min-max. Cuz I'm not that way. But have fun negotiating with the rest of the min-maxers.

Someone else wanna DM because they don't like my world's rules... Great. To quote Clint: "Go ahead, make my day."

@BioWizard, thanks for at least realizing that this doesn't affect you in any way. That's more than I can say for a lot of people that agree with your overall view on this. 

Welllll... it doesn't affect me until the person in my group who is addicted to optional rules and constantly trying to re-build or re-optimize his character (and who also wants to marry every single UA ever produced and have its babies, just because of the fact that it IS a UA) starts giving me a hard time and whining about the fact that I don't use it. Then it DOES affect me, and quite possibly in a major way if it leads to monthly, weekly, or daily arguments.

But hey, as I said above, if it leads to someone else taking over as DM so I can play, I'll happily praise it as the greatest D&D rule to have ever been written. Except that literally no one else in the group wants to do the work and even if they did, I doubt they'd be able to consistently DM a session without a gap, without fail, without missing a beat, month in and month out for a year or more like we're about to finish having done (anniversary of session zero is in < 1 month).

That's exactly my position as well, but we are strong DMs with years of experience behind our belts. My worry is more about the fledgeling DMs who come to these forums complaining about rule-lawyers and powergamers walking all over them with RAW in their backpacks...

According to the current design philosophy and its apparent supporters, you're not supposed to care about something that "doesn't affect you in any way". Didn't you get the memo?

So, as long as I can opt out of this, and it doesn't affect me personally in any way, I don't think I'm supposed to be worrying about how it will affect newcomers to the hobby or any of that. At least according to this thread.

MY group is OK, and that should be all that matters. Right? 

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

Dwarves who've taken to the sea and created a maritime culture and empire, using their more compact bodies to more efficiently crew powerful sailing vessels, no longer have to still be able to identify masonry of any sort with a mere look because reasons.

This is a big reason for why I really like the new system. I couldn't care less about the ability scores. It's the fluff extra features that make no sense when you take the character out of their stereotype - but they have to have them because - as you say - "reasons".

One of my characters is a Hill Dwarf raised near a glacier - who up until they started adventuring had never seen a building made of stone before - and yet - apparently - she's still got Stone Cunning - because you can't replace it RAW.
That kind of thing doesn't promote RP - it stifles it.

Well, my abject loathing for Tasha’s Cauldron of shinola, and this lineage system specifically is no secret. Honestly, if this really is the new direction of D&D then then I’ll likely be getting off the bus pretty soon.

Quote from Lyxen >>

Quote from Third_Sundering >>

@Lyxen, this isn't for powergamers/munchkins/minmaxers. This is for people who want more customizability with their races. People that want more unique characters, not just a standard, stereotypical member of their race. 

 
Listen, nothing in the official rules prevents you from doing that. Absolutely nothing. I have played for 30+ years with rulesets that had these "stereotypes" and no one complained, because we knew that we could roleplay around them. And that if specific settings like Dark Sun gave us other standards we would play by them to better enjoy the setting.

The only people who complain about these limits are people who think that, if they go over them, it will make a technically weaker character. So sorry, no, it's all about powergamers/munchkins/minmaxers.

The official rules did prevent me from doing that. Before Tasha's, it was strictly against the Rules as Written to allow an Orc get a +2 to INT instead of STR. That has changed now. If you want to keep Orcs as they were before, do so. However, don't come on threads like these whining about how other characters with a different playstyle got their own way to have fun in the RAW. 

It will make a technically weaker character to use Point Buy on a Monk and maximize your STR, INT, and CHA scores, putting 8's in DEX, CON, and WIS than if you had just chosen more optimal stats for those ability scores. Wanting to be a functional character doesn't make you a minmaxer. Stop gatekeeping, Lyxen. 

Maybe "newcomers to the hobby" came in from Critical Role, or Silver and Steel, or Death and Debts, or another modern D&D stream without any Tolkienite baggage.

Or they came in because somebody bought a shiny Eberron book at their local game store and their play group doesn't even know Faerun exists save in a generic "this isn't 'normal' D&D" sense.

Or they decided to play D&D because they didn't know other game systems exist and they're hoping to follow along with a Game of Thrones plot, or even their favorite anime.

Forcing players to rigidly adhere to Tolkienite lore for their own PCs is not helping "fledgling new DMs".  The DMs you're supposedly concerned about are not being walked over because optional rules exist, they're being walked over because a more experienced player is using their inexperience to dragoon them into making decisions they don't want to make, and that will happen regardless of how many rules Wizards does or does not print, or which kinds of rules.

Empowering DMs and players both to make their own decisions about the kinds of games they want to play is good for D&D.  If a table wants to use these rules to indulge in rampant munchkinism?  Great.  Cool.  Go for it, enjoy.  But man.  We've already had a hundred threads having this same argument over "BUT MUH LOREZ!  MUH LOOOREZ DX".  Can we skip it this time?  Sure, comment on 'the hobby as a whole', but you two are no more spokespeople for "The new Fledgling DM" than I am.  You're spokespeople for your specific tables, which are not "The Hobby As A Whole" last time I looked, ne?

Quote from BioWizard >>

@BioWizard, thanks for at least realizing that this doesn't affect you in any way. That's more than I can say for a lot of people that agree with your overall view on this. 

Welllll... it doesn't affect me until the person in my group who is addicted to optional rules and constantly trying to re-build or re-optimize his character (and who also wants to marry every single UA ever produced and have its babies, just because of the fact that it IS a UA) starts giving me a hard time and whining about the fact that I don't use it. Then it DOES affect me, and quite possibly in a major way if it leads to monthly, weekly, or daily arguments.

But hey, as I said above, if it leads to someone else taking over as DM so I can play, I'll happily praise it as the greatest D&D rule to have ever been written. Except that literally no one else in the group wants to do the work and even if they did, I doubt they'd be able to consistently DM a session without a gap, without fail, without missing a beat, month in and month out for a year or more like we're about to finish having done (anniversary of session zero is in < 1 month).

Drop the player. I'm all for playing the game how you want, but if a player is being a jerk or not taking no for an answer, drop them. If I had a player that's playstyle was messing with the campaign, I'd drop them and tell them to find a new DM. 

I would guess that had there been an internet back in the 70's that there would have been people complaining about AD&D and "Elves are a class!" non-sense.  The world moves forward and it is up to everyone to either move with it or lag behind.  Expecting for things not to change is just silly.

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

1) For one, the idea of a 'Lineage' rather than a set species is a very exciting one.  There's a lot you can do once you decide that "race" as defined in the given sidebar means more than just species.  It opens up a lot of options for supernatural origins which were previously only clumsily covered by Homebrew Species Jank, which furthermore frees up Wizards to put much more interesting character generation options in their books.

2) For two?  This means the DM is free to assign whatever culture they wish to a given lineage/species/race/whichever in their worlds - and Wizards is free to do the same in official settings.  Eberron critters no longer have to try and conform to the culture of the Faerunian statblocks for their species - they have their physical traits and that's it.  Culture comes from elsewhere.

3) For three?  I'm hopeful that this means future editions of D&D will expand upon the 'Background' system now that culture has been divorced from species, putting all the cool cultural shit that used to be baked into species statblocks into enhanced, more impactful Backgrounds, instead.  The Class/Species/Background triumverate is one of the more solid moves forward 5e managed (among its myriad steps backwards), and this puts Wizards in a better position to capitalize on that triumverate and make Background a more equivalent leg to Class and Species, rather than just flimsy side fluff that offers very little in the way of mechanical differentiation.

 Ugh. To each their own, I guess, but it appears I have some slightly different views here.

1) Does it open up options? What options are those?

2) Eberron critters already didn't conform to the culture of their FR counterparts. What are you seeing here that I don't? 

3) Species *have* a culture, or more than one. If not, culture would be an empty term. Individual members of a given species don't have to share that culture, but by and large they already didn't in D&D and the whenever there is some sort of cultural pigeonholing it's not hard to change. On the other hand, the designers now apparently put ASIs on the same level as cultural traits - which is, no offense to anyone who thinks otherwise, just dumb. 

Im just curious about how the ability score distribution is going to work now. Before you could move the things that were affiliated, so if you have a +2 and a +1 you could put them anywhere. Same with 3 +1's or 2 +2's. So what is the distribution going to be for these new races? 3+1's, a +1 and a +2, 2+2? 2+1's and a +2? What is the total extra points going to be? Is it up to the DM? How will that work in Adventurer's League? (Not that I play it, but it is the only example of a truly unified ruleset for character creation where having ambiguity causes problems)

Harkening back to the op, I think a book on (or with) expanded backgrounds that include cultural lore and stuff would be great, they could even expand on existing phb backgrounds (though I suspect they might not want to since they seem to want the original phb to stand on its own for as long as they can let it).

I think with moving the focus away from "races" over to "lineage", which I'm all for, Backgrounds have to become a lot more robust with more options available to make the switch really work.

I like the default ASIs that each race comes with. They don't make you superior, not really. Everyone has the same upper limit of 20. That leg up just reflects what your culture values, IMO. Where you grew up. That said, someone who grew up in another culture may have different bonuses. There probably should be some give and take. At the very least, a list of suggested bonuses. But not just putting them wherever you want.