Mephisto wrote:I will start by saying that I am ignorant on the 5e and 4e rules in general. To me they seemed simplified compared to 3e, maybe I am wrong so if I am please correct me.
.
.
I have no idea how 4e and 5e work but from what I 've read for VRGtR everything i more generic. Maybe PC's are not but NPC's seem to be.
I can't speak for 4E, but pretty much everything is more generalized (often to a fault) in 5E. I've only played a little bit of 3E/PF1, and that involved exponentially more moving parts and numbers to keep track of. The idea for 5E seemed to be to simplify everything they could so that nearly anyone could pick up a book and play. Personally, that was my first real intro to D&D as I'd only kind of half-ass played a 3E campaign about 15 years ago that I don't remember at all. And 5E was good for awhile. But then we upgraded to Pathfinder 2, which is much more rules-heavy (though not as much as 3E/PF1), and it was then that I realized 5E felt like "training wheels," and there was so much more I could do now that our table had taken them off.
But it's more than just mechanic generalizations, though that is the lion's share of it. Even the canonical dates that modules happen—or WHERE they happen—is disputable. I get making details like this a bit more generic so they can fit anywhere, but I'd rather they just print that information and leave DMs to ignore/alter it as they choose.
But yeah. "D&D for everyone!" is pretty much the ethos of 5E.
Mephisto wrote:So how come is this new book seen as diverse in a social way but at the same time not diverse in character game mechanics? How is it possible to have the generic stats for important NPC's while at the same time having the right view that every individual is different and accepted? (if they behave in an acceptable way off course)... What I mean is how diverse and individuals are the characters that have been created when they are given only generic stats? Is everything based on how the DM role plays them? Because in 3e official products every important NPC is different.
I honestly don't know. I can't help but see much of the "diversity" in the new book as pandering, though you already know that from our discussion of a much cooler way to have justified Viktra Mordenheim.
Honestly, there's not a lot of diversity in 5E characters because of how simplistically they're molded. They're easy to learn, which is great for bringing new players to the table. But once you've made a few different characters of the same class (even with different subclasses), they all just kinda start to blend together unless you start going crazy with homebrewed/fan-made materials. Not to plug PF2, but character creation is SUBSTANTIALLY more dynamic. Much of the classes have been distilled into feats that you select frequently throughout the game. Even if you make three boring fighters that are the same subclass, there's enough variety available to make them all unique in their own ways. 5E designers didn't look at options like that from the beginning, so anything they do character-wise is building up onto a much smaller foundation than other versions of D&D as well as competitor systems. There are, by definition, only so many ways 5E character options can expand. PF2, on the other hand, is about to release four new base classes in addition to the 16 they've already released since 2019.
As to why that isn't considered when the whole point of this book is arguably to add more diversity and inclusion: Well, my answer is still that I think it's largely pandering to fans.—or at least the section on the extant domains is. To be absolutely clear, I am a huge proponent of diversity and inclusion in gaming, and my comments here should not be in any way construed to contradict this. That said, I feel that a lot of vocal fans have been pushing for more inclusion (and rightfully so), but are willing to accept even the tiniest of breadcrumbs and praise them as revolutionary, rather than pushing for actual well-designed minority/LGBTQ+ characters.
There's also the consideration of the vocal media today, in which often one of the first messages regarding a game's pros or cons gets blasted so loud that most people simply repeat it. Someone thought what WotC did here was revolutionary, so that's all we're hearing outside this forum. It reminds me of when the Last of Us 2 came out and certain blogs chastised how it depicted trans people and their struggle. I am not trans, but looking into the game further, I honestly don't see what everyone got up in arms about (my wife does LGBTQ studies and she didn't see it either). So that's also a significant factor at least in this day and age.
— onmyoji
