It feels a lot of the discussion and controversy over this comes from managing player expectations on what people can and cannot do with their characters and the fear of arguments between players and DMs over game balance.

These are valid concerns (though I think the new rules are good and I think there are bigger balance issues not tied to ability score improvements). What experience drives these concerns is what I am interested in, because I am inexperienced and it seems relatively common that rules are abused by some and DMs aren't respected when they say no.

I think another factor for some might be what newer vs older players focus on. While this obviously doesn't apply to individuals, from watching the likes of Matt Conville and others speak about older editions, there is decidedly more focus on 'the characters and individuals and their place in the narrative and world' for people now, whereas in the past more emphasis was placed on 'the world and its people and its mechanics'.

Am I correct on that? I think it does help explain the difference in how people approach it.

One thing that has been interesting for me when it comes to this debate has been reading the rules of Cyberpunk Red and planning to run it as a GM as my first time 'GMing'. It is a very different system, and one thing that caught me off-guard was how the 'roles' don't prescribe how you will building your character out as much as they do in D&D. Sure, Solos will generally be combat based and Execs not, but there is nothing stopping you from making your Execs much more combat focused depending on your campaign.  And while Roles are more comparable to classes rather than Lineages / Races etc., I think the new rules are kinda aiming towards the general 'cultural background / upbringing' the Roles in Cyberpunk give you.

Quote from Lyxen >>

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.

 I've got to say, that attitude seems like the opposite of the direction the culture is going.

Min-maxers tend to have very gamist leanings, and the objections to rule-enforced stereotypes typically come from your more narrativist players. It's part of the gamist approach to have things spelled out in the rules, because a gamist approach needs to lean on overt rules to create that level playing field for competition. That's also why your gamist player is hesitant about UA content and homebrew. If it isn't well-vetted in threatens the 'leveled' quality of that playing field. The narrativist wants exploration, and is less concerned for that 'leveled' quality because it's only instrumental to competition, which is not their concern.  

Looking at the race/culture or class/race/background thing more, I'm surprised that people don't look at other rpgs for comparison. Look at the progression of White Wolf / Onyx Path. Most of their games involve characters having two splats, one the character chose and one they didn't. You might consider that roughly analogous to race and class. As time went on through the editions you saw that the 'race' equivalent had less and less to do with the bespoke mechanics. That's what we are seeing here, but in a community who is a lot more contentious about it.

Quote from pangurjan >>

 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. 

 
1.) The options it opens up are things exactly like portrayed in the Gothic Lineages UA document - a player can opt to substitute an Eldritch Background of some sort for typical species traits.  Something the original PHB rules made very clunky, as shown by the number of ponderous and very clunky homebrew "Races" that try to address things like dhampirs, hexbloods/hag spawn, or various forms of non-vampiric undead.  It simply broadens the term "lineage" beyond "what species are you?"

2.) Critters in Eberron, or Exandria, or anywhere else in pre-this-document D&D 5e, needed to be able to explain every last single trait in their PHB stat block.  An Eberron dwarf still had to come from an underground culture that venerated/fetishized stonework, because all dwarves everywhere FOREVER absolutely MUST have Stonecunning.  Which automatically disqualifies any homebrew setting, or any official alternate 5e setting, from creating dwarves that don't live in underground stone fortresses.  To put it politely and respectfully: **** that noise.  When I build a world to run a game in, I decide how cultures work in that world, not some dickhead dead for decades now.

3.) Someone who wants to be a Tolkienite dwarf right now has no need of the Background system.  All of the "Background" stuff they want - Stonecunning, dwarven martial training, "dwarfy" tool proficiencies, and the like - is baked into their species.  Somebody who wants to be a dwarf from their homebrew world's dwarven culture, where dwarves are woodworkers and shipwrights rather than stonemasons and live in a coastal empire dominated by maritime trade, gets to be a Tolkienite dwarf instead whether they bloody want to or not.  

All those traits are properly the domain of a Background, not a Species.  Someone who wants to be the dwarfiest dwarf who ever dwarfed a dwarf can select the "Dwarf' species and then the 'Faerun: Dwarven Clannholder' background, and end up doing exactly that.  Someone who's playing a dwarf exiled from their home, or a dwarf who fell in with traveling merchants or entertainers, or a dwarf other than J.R.R. Tolkien's specific, hyper-narrow vision of what Gimli Axefacer in particular should be, can make the character they want to make instead.

Everybody wins.  Ne?

I want this for Genasi, Aasimar, Tieflings, Half-Dragons, and at least one generic Fey-Touched race. I want to play a Half-Goblin, Half-Efreeti Fire Genasi, goddammit! Or a Half-Tortle, Half-Dragon as a Dragon Tortle!

We would probably need a PHB 2.0 or massive errata to the PHB to get that (which isn't happening), but that doesn't stop me from wanting it. 

That's a lot like what I was saying about how race becomes less a part of the rules as time goes on.

Charles the Plant has the right of it - to do this properly , we'd need a massive overhaul of the Background system, as well.  To include the option for lopsided backgrounds - not every background needs to offer the exact same interchangeable options.  That's honestly almost more important than refitting Lineage back into the PHB.  Backgrounds as the third major leg of character creation is an excellent idea, but as per freaking usual, Wizards half-assed it.  Gott get the other half of the Background ass working before we can overhaul the 'Species/Lineage' ass.

Some features will continue to stay relevant. And if too much is left up to the whims of players, then the fantasy begins to break down. Ostensibly, that is what we're all playing.

But as far as ability score increases go, that'll probably get shuffled off to the class and backgrounds. Pathfinder 2e did something similar, but I believe they split the bonuses up between all three with their ABCs. It's been a while since I last looked at the playtest, and I haven't played the release edition.

I'm probably going to stick with set ASIs, since I usually DM for new or newer players. However, if someone has a specific idea that doesn't fit those ASIs, then I'll let them be modified to support that idea.

I'd actually split the Background into two different categories, your Culture and your Occupation. Your Culture would be like the weapon/armor proficiencies that Dwarves, Elves, and Hobgoblins get, while your Occupation would give you skills, tools, and other proficiencies that you got from your former job (basically 5e's current Background but expanded a bit). High Elven Warrior and Mountain Dwarf could be Cultures, and any race and any character could choose it as long as they were raised amongst the right community. A Dragonborn could have Mountain Dwarf Training and get specific armor/weapon proficiencies, while a Half-Elf raised by Orcs should get proficiencies related to their upbringing. 

Who you are genetically, who you are culturally, who you were occupationally, and who you are class-wise should all affect your character in different ways. 

Sadly, this will have to wait till the next edition if we are ever to get it. 

Nah. I'm just going to have all these races (if it applies) to have predetermined ASIs, languages, etc like an actual race.

Lot's of people here needlessly hating on min/maxing :/ The ones that are mostly happy about this are the twitterites who decided that cancel culture was their new favorite thing. Bleh.

 Nobody is going to be 'cancelled' for using predetermined ASIs / the current rules / PHB rules etc.

There might be criticism of that system though, since in the vast majority of cases that's what the accusation of 'cancel culture' means.

I won't get any more political than this so as not to break form rules or make the conversation worse, but these rules have nothing to do with the 'twitterites' and any of those so called people would probably focus on some questionable business practices of WoTC or others in RPGs rather than... ASIs.

We really need to stop having this inane and irrelevant argument brought up in these threads. They contribute nothing.

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. 

And me, dropping an existing player from a game because we now disagree over this optional rule -- this would fall under your category of how I am "not affected by this change"? 

Seems like a pretty BIG effect to me.

And me, dropping an existing player from a game because we now disagree over this optional rule -- this would fall under your category of how I am "not affected by this change"? 

Seems like a pretty BIG effect to me.

From the way you described it in the original post, it seemed that it was less an argument over one specific rule and rather literally every optional rule or UA brought up.

Obviously I can only speak outside looking in, and you are a lot more experienced than I am. But if an argument over one optional rule is getting that intense or awful, it sounds like there is more too it than just the rule.

But this is probably not something to talk about publicly out of respect for you and your campaign.

Quote from BunniRabbi >>

That's a lot like what I was saying about how race becomes less a part of the rules as time goes on.

 Which is my main objection. The player’s choice of race should be significant to the PC. Being an Elf or being a Dwarf should matter.

Quote from Yurei1453 >>

Quote from pangurjan >>

 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. 

 
1.) The options it opens up are things exactly like portrayed in the Gothic Lineages UA document - a player can opt to substitute an Eldritch Background of some sort for typical species traits.  Something the original PHB rules made very clunky, as shown by the number of ponderous and very clunky homebrew "Races" that try to address things like dhampirs, hexbloods/hag spawn, or various forms of non-vampiric undead.  It simply broadens the term "lineage" beyond "what species are you?"

2.) Critters in Eberron, or Exandria, or anywhere else in pre-this-document D&D 5e, needed to be able to explain every last single trait in their PHB stat block.  An Eberron dwarf still had to come from an underground culture that venerated/fetishized stonework, because all dwarves everywhere FOREVER absolutely MUST have Stonecunning.  Which automatically disqualifies any homebrew setting, or any official alternate 5e setting, from creating dwarves that don't live in underground stone fortresses.  To put it politely and respectfully: **** that noise.  When I build a world to run a game in, I decide how cultures work in that world, not some dickhead dead for decades now.

3.) Someone who wants to be a Tolkienite dwarf right now has no need of the Background system.  All of the "Background" stuff they want - Stonecunning, dwarven martial training, "dwarfy" tool proficiencies, and the like - is baked into their species.  Somebody who wants to be a dwarf from their homebrew world's dwarven culture, where dwarves are woodworkers and shipwrights rather than stonemasons and live in a coastal empire dominated by maritime trade, gets to be a Tolkienite dwarf instead whether they bloody want to or not.  

1) Those gothic lineages would be homebrew as well, until WotC releases them. So we're really still in the same position as before: WotC releases what you want, or you homebrew it. I assume WotC's strategy is to release more stuff over time, not remove stuff, so I don't see any big shift here. 

2) Eberron has Dragonmarked variants of several races. Wildemount has a number of new subraces based on racial groups with different cultures from their PHB counterparts'. Setting books can and do have racial variants with traits differing from the PHB's, based on culture and/or circumstances. We can discuss whether that should be opened up more (though that really goes to point 1 above), but I think it's indisputable that critters in setting books do NOT have to adhere to and explain every trait in their PHB statblock.

3) It's unfortunate for dwarf players they don't have an equally broad range of cultural options as elves (who have had an advantage in that regard for decades - that's not a D&D thing, but devsign bias), but that is more of an issue for dwarves than for races in general. And it doesn't explain floating ASIs.

What I like about these new lineages is that they emphasize the bonus features rather than the ASI's. Even if they did get fixed ASI's, the features really stand out. This is much more interesting than just adding numbers. 

I'm just going to chime in that I sometimes wonder of TCoE was introduced because people think it must be printed to be valid despite that a good number of people consider Chapter 9 of the DMG to be invalid despite being printed. It's almost like WotC is saying what we should have already known.

What TCoE is also good for, though, is ideas - things to consider that maybe someone hadn't considered prior.

As for the announcement in the original post, it feels like WotC doesn't think they've gotten their point across even still. So now, they're altering the verbiage to words that have had less usage in D&D to open things up for wider interpretation. I suppose it's necessary when we've used specific words in specific ways for so long that changing them to lesser-used synonyms helps break past the strict definitions we're used to applying.

Meh. You still play your way regardless what's printed as WotC seems to have been trying to tell us. What people might be missing based on my observations is that you still play your way but you don't get tell someone else how to play their way and they don't get to tell you how to play your way.

Some part of me wonders if people are afraid that they won't be able to justify the rules they want to use if WotC keeps proposing other options. I don't see it as removing any parameters that a GM wants to set or adding any that a GM doesn't want. This includes which versions of terminology a GM wants to use for the campaign. I get that there will be players and GMs out there who insist that a campaign should be played a specific way, but that falls into the prior paragraph. I don't see people who do that as people to fear, just people not to play with. There is enough variety in people playing D&D that I believe everyone can find a campaign that suits what they seek in D&D - without having to demand it from people who don't want it.

Heh.  Ye know?

What this all boils down to is people denigrating other tables.  Bunch of guys saying "you can ignore Forgotten Realms lore and the Tolkienite baggage of fifty years of D&D if you want, but you should have to work extra hard for it.  You should have to rewrite all the rules, rewrite all the species, invent special exemptions for your players to play in your world instead of the Forgotten Realms, and you should do it all without the benefit of official support and with a bunch of grognards telling you that your fun is wrong and you're a terrible person for trying to have your specific brand of fun the whole entire time."  It's simply another way of telling people their D&D is wrong - if you're not a Faerun lore hound following fifty years of terrible, contradictory, constantly-rebooted Official Fluff, then you have no business playing the game at all.

There's respecting the history of the game, and then there's gatekeeping and using the history of the game as a garrote to choke out new ideas and new people with.  Weaponizing the awful impenetrability of Faerunian lore to ensure that nobody who hasn't Paid Their Dues(TM) and been playing D&D since the eighties dares to sit at one's table.  One of these things is fine and commendable.  The other is deplorable.  No points for guessing which is which.

Which is my main objection. The player’s choice of race should be significant to the PC. Being an Elf or being a Dwarf should matter.

And what's more, there are tons of game systems in which choice of species doesn't matter. Champions, for example... you can be whatever race you want with whatever stats you want, including alien, cyborg, or mutant human. Your species, race, etc, is just cosmetic.

Why does this have to be the case in EVERY game or else. It's like people want to run these games through the meat-grinder and have them all come out the same.

Thinking on it more:

Perhaps because DDB can officially support only what's printed (apparently excluding Chapter 9 of the DMG) makes people think that it's all that's allowed, and on the flip side, thinking that what's officially supported is required.

I do not believe either are true. I do not see where DDB gets to dictate which features we are required to use or not use. (They get to say what we can't do on their service by simply not being able to do it - unsupported etc., but that's not the same thing as telling players they're simply not allowed to play their way by other means.) DDB's a handy tool, but I believe that interpreting DDB's official support of a feature as "The Rules" is not the intent of WotC or DDB.

That's just like my opinion, though.