D&D (2024) Greyhawk Confirmed. Tell Me Why.

[Remathilis]

Its not wrong but I carefully Curate my games. Its not hard. The only races I have come around to are the Plane touched and Genasi, and Kzinti Race type. When I'm playing fantasy genre I don't like the Mos Eisley panoply.

You're free to do what you want with your game, but I lol a little with the Mos Eisley comparison whenever it gets trotted out. If I crack open the Monster Manual, there are dozens of humanoid monsters, including monstrous humanoids. There are a dozen dragons and half a dozen giants. And that's not counting the various sentient fey, aberrations, and planar beings. There are more monsters in your typical dungeon than were ever in the Cantina scene and monster books are top selling because people desire even more. But people don't think about that because they are monsters that exist to be killed by PCs rather than unique peoples with cultures and ecologies. A D&D world using only the Monster Manual has hundreds of sentient species. If the only PC species you allow was human, you still have more variety than all the Star Wars films combined.

Yet I don't know too many DMs who highly curate the Monster Manual the same way they do player species.

 

[Desdichado]

WotC provided actual demographic data on their players a few years back, not vague at all, and this is not the makeup of D&D players.on the customer of the pandemic, 40% of D&D players were Zoomers under 25, while 11% were over 40. After several years of big sales numbers and marketing aimed at kids, the Gen X share is going to ge way down. It's a kids game, marketed to middle school through college age.

Forty Percent of Dungeons & Dragons Players Are 25 or Younger

Dungeons & Dragons is experiencing a major youth movement right now, with 40% of players being 25 [...]

comicbook.com

Curious that they said that specifically for the European market. But I'll give your data the benefit of the doubt and accept that it might well be true in North America too.

But still, that's not "since forever." That's a fairly recent trend. And it makes some sense; there does seem to have been a change in way products were designed and presented at some point around there.

Then again, that's also where what partial data on title specific sales we can get tells us that sales started dropping off. Percentage of players and percentage of sales are not the same thing, and as a casual glance at any other entertainment medium will tell you, chasing the ephemeral hip, young, "modern audience" has not exactly been a ringing success.

Well, it's neither here nor there. I hope WotC can find a way to be successful marketing D&D as a "kids game" but only in an academic sense. I have no interest in much of anything D&D is producing lately. Maybe because it's a "kids game", or maybe for a complex web of causes.

 

[Mournblade94]

To me, the difference has always been vanilla vs French vanilla. There is a difference in taste and color, but for a lot of people the difference is minimal, and both work equally well for any place vanilla ice cream is called for. Yes, there is a difference, but the difference isn't big enough to make a big deal about unless you are a true ice cream snob.

I have no shame admitting I am a snob for this sort of thing. Lore is the most important thing to me because that's just me. I am well aware its not everyone's primary. But I like to discuss it and there are really not as many places as ENWORLD to do so.

 

[TiQuinn]

Its not wrong but I carefully Curate my games. Its not hard. The only races I have come around to are the Plane touched and Genasi, and Kzinti Race type. When I'm playing fantasy genre I don't like the Mos Eisley panoply.

It’s funny you say that because that’s how I eventually wrapped my head around the D&D universe being a collection of so many different species - it’s just fantasy Star Wars.

 

[Parmandur]

Curious that they said that specifically for the European market. But I'll give your data the benefit of the doubt and accept that it might well be true in North America too.

But still, that's not "since forever." That's a fairly recent trend. And it makes some sense; there does seem to have been a change in way products were designed and presented at some point around there.

Then again, that's also where what partial data on title specific sales we can get tells us that sales started dropping off. Percentage of players and percentage of sales are not the same thing, and as a casual glance at any other entertainment medium will tell you, chasing the ephemeral hip, young, "modern audience" has not exactly been a ringing success.

Well, it's neither here nor there. I hope WotC can find a way to be successful marketing D&D as a "kids game" but only in an academic sense. I have no interest in much of anything D&D is producing lately. Maybe because it's a "kids game", or maybe for a complex web of causes.

Since the 90's (and frankly "since the 90's" is "since forever" for me) WotC strategy has been aimed at middle schoolers and high schoolers: there were some internal marketing documents that leaked a while back detailing that. Part of the marketing to kids is to give it a "cool for ADULTs in COLLEGE" vibe while making sure it is appropaiaye for 12 year olds.

 

[SkidAce]

You're free to do what you want with your game, but I lol a little with the Mos Eisley comparison whenever it gets trotted out. If I crack open the Monster Manual, there are dozens of humanoid monsters, including monstrous humanoids. There are a dozen dragons and half a dozen giants. And that's not counting the various sentient fey, aberrations, and planar beings. There are more monsters in your typical dungeon than were ever in the Cantina scene and monster books are top selling because people desire even more. But people don't think about that because they are monsters that exist to be killed by PCs rather than unique peoples with cultures and ecologies. A D&D world using only the Monster Manual has hundreds of sentient species. If the only PC species you allow was human, you still have more variety than all the Star Wars films combined.

Yet I don't know too many DMs who highly curate the Monster Manual the same way they do player species.

I view that wide selection as options, not necessarily (though could be) used in all campaigns.

 

[Vaalingrade]

You're free to do what you want with your game, but I lol a little with the Mos Eisley comparison whenever it gets trotted out. If I crack open the Monster Manual, there are dozens of humanoid monsters, including monstrous humanoids. There are a dozen dragons and half a dozen giants. And that's not counting the various sentient fey, aberrations, and planar beings. There are more monsters in your typical dungeon than were ever in the Cantina scene and monster books are top selling because people desire even more. But people don't think about that because they are monsters that exist to be killed by PCs rather than unique peoples with cultures and ecologies. A D&D world using only the Monster Manual has hundreds of sentient species. If the only PC species you allow was human, you still have more variety than all the Star Wars films combined.

Yet I don't know too many DMs who highly curate the Monster Manual the same way they do player species.

Yeah, but the assumption is that the Pretty Folk from the PH will eventually drive those guys to extinction for the crimes of not being pretty, not being in the PH, and for thinking all their wealth and land belong to them and not the Pretty PH squad.

 

[Mournblade94]

You're free to do what you want with your game, but I lol a little with the Mos Eisley comparison whenever it gets trotted out. If I crack open the Monster Manual, there are dozens of humanoid monsters, including monstrous humanoids. There are a dozen dragons and half a dozen giants. And that's not counting the various sentient fey, aberrations, and planar beings. There are more monsters in your typical dungeon than were ever in the Cantina scene and monster books are top selling because people desire even more. But people don't think about that because they are monsters that exist to be killed by PCs rather than unique peoples with cultures and ecologies. A D&D world using only the Monster Manual has hundreds of sentient species. If the only PC species you allow was human, you still have more variety than all the Star Wars films combined.

Yet I don't know too many DMs who highly curate the Monster Manual the same way they do player species.

THe Mos Eisley is meant as a Tavern analog. WHo would be in Water deep.

I am a curator. Like I put museums to shame. I do not Curate the Monster Manual. They all have their societies, but even in Forgotten Realms at least in my game, Humans are now the primary society. So in SIgil, Mos Eisley would be expected and indeed supported by the Source Material. But in Water deep? or any Human Nation I would say the Mos Eisley shorthand is a good thing to avoid.

Its World Building. I think Ed Greenwood Realms is a primarily anthrocentric world. Eves are fading, Dwarves are slowly reproducing less and less. Out in the unclaimed Wilds are those other sentient species. So if I set out from Moseisley with all my green and furry friends, it should take a lot of convincing that we are not the monsters.

So I've never let Orcs and Goblinkind, Giantkind, or any moster races except under unique circumstances like my player with a Wemic. My last party for the last chapter I did had no humans, but a Earth Genasi, A dwarf, A shadarkai, a gnome, and 2 Tabaxi. (They made these characters while snickering about me). That is still in my realm of believable functionality. I really have no problem with Tieflings, I just don't treat them as all having common features we see now a days.

 

[Mournblade94]

Yeah, but the assumption is that the Pretty Folk from the PH will eventually drive those guys to extinction for the crimes of not being pretty, not being in the PH, and for thinking all their wealth and land belong to them and not the Pretty PH squad.

No. its simply if you are running a classic D&D campaign world that is anthrocentric it is extremely unlikely monster races could function as an adventuring group that needs to interact with wider society.

A MOS EISLEY game is the assumption that all these sentient races are integrated. Maybe FR in 2020's is that, and Planescape certainly is, but Greyhawk I don't think ever had anything but an Anthrocentric world build. For me a Mos Eisley adventuring party would break the versimiltude.

 

[Mournblade94]

Actually, I liked the idea of making eladrin, elf, and drow all distinct races which were related rather than using the same elf race and using subrace/lineage/whatever to make them different. It reminds me the altmer/bosmer/dunmer split in Elder Scrolls.

Which also all branch of the Aldmer. I have extended it further to the Aldmer being the PRIMAL ELVES that complete Elves and MordenkainenToF refer to. Emigrators due to Corellon's disappointment and he's not even in generational memory anymore.