Quote from: Shasarak on February 08, 2021, 06:58:40 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 08, 2021, 03:56:51 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 08, 2021, 02:37:14 PM

Quote from: Pat on February 08, 2021, 01:55:20 PM
More importantly, I think you're talking past each other. The group who are saying exotic races are fine seem to be either new school or very old (0e) old school. Whereas the group who are saying that the most exotic race anyone played was an elf seem to be the post-OD&D crowd. It's worth remembering there was a major shift in tone in between OD&D and AD&D. OD&D told DMs that balrog PCs were fine, while the AD&D DMG has that notorious rant against playing monsters. It shouldn't surprise anyone that there was a strong shift in how people played.

Good point, especially the Gary paraphrase.  The problem isn't whether someone wants to play a game with gonzo races or not.  I could care less.  It's when people argue that gonzo PC races are the norm or the default for D&D.  That hasn't always been true, and therefore doesn't serve as an argument for or against such a policy...

Now we get to the root of the matter. How default is a game that includes such widely different campaign settings as Dark Sun or Spelljammer or Eberron or Ravenloft or Planescape?
I think core D&D expects to be a rather generic system, and so it includes most of the stuff in a disjointed grab-bag of races and classes.

Was I in the only ADnD groups that played using the Reincarnation spell and or the Unearthed Arcana book?

You know, we rarely relied on Ressurection since you could come back as all kinds of crazy shit. We preferred Raise Dead if it was necessary to bring a dead character back.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 08, 2021, 08:49:46 PM

Quote from: Shasarak on February 08, 2021, 06:58:40 PM

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 08, 2021, 03:56:51 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 08, 2021, 02:37:14 PM

Quote from: Pat on February 08, 2021, 01:55:20 PM
More importantly, I think you're talking past each other. The group who are saying exotic races are fine seem to be either new school or very old (0e) old school. Whereas the group who are saying that the most exotic race anyone played was an elf seem to be the post-OD&D crowd. It's worth remembering there was a major shift in tone in between OD&D and AD&D. OD&D told DMs that balrog PCs were fine, while the AD&D DMG has that notorious rant against playing monsters. It shouldn't surprise anyone that there was a strong shift in how people played.

Good point, especially the Gary paraphrase.  The problem isn't whether someone wants to play a game with gonzo races or not.  I could care less.  It's when people argue that gonzo PC races are the norm or the default for D&D.  That hasn't always been true, and therefore doesn't serve as an argument for or against such a policy...

Now we get to the root of the matter. How default is a game that includes such widely different campaign settings as Dark Sun or Spelljammer or Eberron or Ravenloft or Planescape?
I think core D&D expects to be a rather generic system, and so it includes most of the stuff in a disjointed grab-bag of races and classes.

Was I in the only ADnD groups that played using the Reincarnation spell and or the Unearthed Arcana book?

You know, we rarely relied on Ressurection since you could come back as all kinds of crazy shit. We preferred Raise Dead if it was necessary to bring a dead character back.

Sometimes you dont have a Cleric when you need them.

Quote from: Shasarak on February 08, 2021, 06:58:40 PM

Was I in the only ADnD groups that played using the Reincarnation spell and or the Unearthed Arcana book?

Not the only one though we preferred using raise Dead or Resurrection whenever possible.

I still really don't see what the fuss is about beyond Pundit wanting to stir up controversy for shits and giggles. The Chicken Little sky is falling crap is getting old really fast at this point.

Some tables want core only races some don't. Both approaches have merit and neither is wrong imo. I can't see why it can't be both.

Quote from: "Shasarak"Was I in the only ADnD groups that played using the Reincarnation spell and or the Unearthed Arcana book?

It is possible to play unusual characters in AD&D as a result of reincarnation or similar type magic, but there is no entitlement to play such characters from the start. The humanocentrism of AD&D rubs narcissists the wrong way, since playing strange characters is about fulfilling their bizarre fantasies as well as virtue-signaling their supposed moral superiority. They seem to have a fondness for demonic and animal-like creatures and a general distaste for humans in their natural and normal state.

UA came out long after AD&D had jumped the shark. The Golden Era of AD&D was 1977 to 1980, ending with DDG and Gygax's uncompleted Q1/T2 manuscripts, when he was apparently abandoned by his creative muse and TSR began morphing into T$R.

Quote from: "Ratman_tf"You know, we rarely relied on Ressurection since you could come back as all kinds of crazy shit. We preferred Raise Dead if it was necessary to bring a dead character back.

Raise dead may not be readily available. It is a 5th level cleric spell, and as per the PHB, spells of 5th level and above are granted to clerics directly by their deity, and the cleric requesting such spells may be judged at that time. This was changed in the DMG for some reason, such that 6th level spells and above are granted directly by their deity, but this means that 5th level spells in the PHB were written with the intent that they were only granted conditionally.

If one goes by the PHB, as one should in my opinion, in most cases good clerics will not be so willing to raise non-good characters, and well-played evil clerics will not raise anyone without an exorbitant fee. Clerics who misuse spells that promote weal or spells that are baneful should be castigated by their deity, but that is entirely up to the DM.

This makes sense historically, since reincarnation was a pagan belief. That is why magic-users and druids can reincarnate, while only clerics can raise.

Quote from: "sureshot"...Some tables want core only races some don't. Both approaches have merit and neither is wrong imo. I can't see why it can't be both.

The game isn't the problem, it's a symptom of an increasingly malignant situation. Co-existence with radical liberalism, an ideology formed and promulgated by those with cluster B personality disorders, is impossible since they believe they have the moral right to impose tyranny on and commit crimes against others. Anyone who refuses to submit to them are condemned as "domestic terrorists", a phrase which can be and has been used to justify acts of violence against innocent people.

True narcissists are quite noxious and their disorder insinuates itself into everything they do. Dealing with them in any capacity for any length of time is always unpleasant. It is useful to know the warning signs.

Some of the characteristics of a narcissist are:

-Being preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate
-Expecting to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it
-Having a sense of entitlement
-Expecting special favors and unquestioning compliance with their expectations
-Believing that they are superior and can only be understood by or associate with equally special people

Dealing with people who have cluster B personality disorders (antisocial, borderline, histrionic, narcissistic) leave normal people feeling emotionally drained, hence they can be called "emotional vampires". Woke leaders are generally "narcopaths", which means they suffer from both narcissistic and antisocial personality disorder; they intentionally manipulate those with mental disorders in order to harm others. Many politicians, big-tech and Hollywood executives fall into this category.

QuoteHowever, a more recent study published in the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry in 2008 (Stinson et al) puts the figure at a much higher rate. This study found that the prevalence of NPD was 6.2% in the general population. As expected, the rates were higher for males (7.7%) than for females (4.8%). This research looked at other variables as well and found that NPD was significantly more prevalent among Black men and women, Hispanic women, younger adults, and separated/divorced/widowed or never married adults. NPD was associated with mental disability among men but not women, supporting the notion that the more severe forms of NPD tend to be in males. This nationwide study in the United States demonstrated data that suggested Narcissistic Personality Disorder was more prevalent among younger adults and may support the idea that Narcissistic Personality Disorder is on the rise. It was hypothesized that this may be due to "social and economic conditions that support more extreme versions of self-focused individualism" (Bender, 2012).

In 2009, Twenge and Campbell conducted studies that supported the above figures. Their data suggested that the incidence of NPD had more than doubled in the U.S. in the prior 10 years, and that 1 in 16 of the general population had experienced NPD in their lifetime.

– https://thenarcissisticlife.com/what-is-the-prevalence-of-narcissism/

Quote from: Cloyer Bulse on February 09, 2021, 12:11:51 AM
It is possible to play unusual characters in AD&D as a result of reincarnation or similar type magic, but there is no entitlement to play such characters from the start. The humanocentrism of AD&D rubs narcissists the wrong way, since playing strange characters is about fulfilling their bizarre fantasies as well as virtue-signaling their supposed moral superiority. They seem to have a fondness for demonic and animal-like creatures and a general distaste for humans in their natural and normal state.

I'm a big fan of constrained form. No, you can't play everything. Only certain races, certain professions, and certain character concepts, make sense in certain worlds. The tone and feel of a world are often defined more by what is excluded, than what is included. The limited B/X race as classes with level limits work very well at establishing a humanocentric world, where races like halfings, elves, and dwarves are relegated to the fringes of the world, and are treated as exotic and alien.

I also have a problem with anyone who says they can't come up with a character concept for a human fighter -- don't they realize that almost every single hero in myth, legend, and history was a human fighter? Human culture and human variation presents an unfathomable range of inspirations.

And most exotic races are nothing more than humans with bumpy foreheads, or a new set of horns, anyway. If there's anything fundamentally different about a new race, it's usually that they represent a narrow, stereotypical slice of the human experience. Elves are nature-loving humans (with pointy ears), dwarves are gruff humans (who happen to be stocky), and on and on. That's not presenting new options, it's restricting them.

But fuck everything you just said. You just turned a highly defensible position into a bigoted, irrational rant that's more concerned with attacking everyone who likes thing you don't than explaining why the things you like are worthwhile.

Quote from: Cloyer Bulse on February 09, 2021, 12:11:51 AM
It is possible to play unusual characters in AD&D as a result of reincarnation or similar type magic, but there is no entitlement to play such characters from the start. The humanocentrism of AD&D rubs narcissists the wrong way, since playing strange characters is about fulfilling their bizarre fantasies as well as virtue-signaling their supposed moral superiority. They seem to have a fondness for demonic and animal-like creatures and a general distaste for humans in their natural and normal state.

I don't cut off my nose to spite my face. And I won't exclude a race or class just to be contrary to the wokescolds out there.

QuoteIt is possible to play unusual characters in AD&D as a result of reincarnation or similar type magic, but there is no entitlement to play such characters from the start. The humanocentrism of AD&D rubs narcissists the wrong way, since playing strange characters is about fulfilling their bizarre fantasies as well as virtue-signaling their supposed moral superiority. They seem to have a fondness for demonic and animal-like creatures and a general distaste for humans in their natural and normal state.

Well to certain degree it;s a problem - but also - in most of fantasy games humans are sort most boring and most bland race, without any specific ups and downs. That's important part what makes them sort of meh for many players. Especially considering other races are mostly short/slim humans with weird ears or noses, and more interesting racial abilities.
That tendency bring start to making new races to avoid boring humans, more and more with every game and edition - modern tiefling furry maniacs jumped on this train when it was already going with full speed.

QuoteAnd most exotic races are nothing more than humans with bumpy foreheads, or a new set of horns, anyway. If there's anything fundamentally different about a new race, it's usually that they represent a narrow, stereotypical slice of the human experience. Elves are nature-loving humans (with pointy ears), dwarves are gruff humans (who happen to be stocky), and on and on. That's not presenting new options, it's restricting them.

It's quite funny considering how considerably different from humans were either faerie elves and dwarves or Tolkienian ones.

QuoteI'm a big fan of constrained form. No, you can't play everything. Only certain races, certain professions, and certain character concepts, make sense in certain worlds. The tone and feel of a world are often defined more by what is excluded, than what is included. The limited B/X race as classes with level limits work very well at establishing a humanocentric world, where races like halfings, elves, and dwarves are relegated to the fringes of the world, and are treated as exotic and alien.

I also have a problem with anyone who says they can't come up with a character concept for a human fighter -- don't they realize that almost every single hero in myth, legend, and history was a human fighter? Human culture and human variation presents an unfathomable range of inspirations.

Yes. But again both Human and Fighter despite having this great cultural potential were bit bland and meh, in basic engine. Maybe because authors decided - well everybody gets it.
But when you read those entries - they will be less inspired and so on.

We must make Human Fighter cool again - and that means making them Cool on Game Level not Flaunting grand examples of our ancestors withing mechanics that doesn't really support your claims to be Heracles.

Quote from: Cloyer Bulse on February 09, 2021, 12:11:51 AM
One True Wayist Bullcrap

And yet people wonder why even conservatives and libertarians consider the OSR a bunch of wannabe tyrants with their heads stuck up their asses... and why I want nothing to do with the toxic soup that is the OSR.

THIS is precisely the attitude my experiences have taught me is the norm in the OSR and what almost drove me out of the hobby entirely if I hadn't discovered Palladium Books and been able to recruit my friends to play those instead of AD&D.

Mr. Bulse, I suggest you revisit your list of traits you assign to narcissists; you'll find that in your rant alone you demonstrate several; expecting to be recognized as superior without achievements of your own, having a sense of entitlement and believing that because of your superior position those who disagree with you and any ideas they might have should be excluded from the hobby.

Projection is a hell of a thing...

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West
Yes. But again both Human and Fighter despite having this great cultural potential were bit bland and meh, in basic engine. Maybe because authors decided - well everybody gets it. But when you read those entries - they will be less inspired and so on.

We must make Human Fighter cool again - and that means making them Cool on Game Level not Flaunting grand examples of our ancestors withing mechanics that doesn't really support your claims to be Heracles.

I found a lot more potential in Palladium Fantasy than I ever did in AD&D at the time precisely because there was no Fighter class, but an entire group of Men-At-Arms classes like soldier, mercenary, longbowman and knight with different fighting styles and skills. It also kept the upper levels of magic constrained relative to the advancement of the warrior classes without needing to turn them into fragile weaklings at low levels.

I didn't find that sort of thinking inside D&D until 4E.

Frankly, if you want the majority of your players to be non-magic types, then DON'T cram every non-spellcaster option onto half-a-dozen pages while devoting half the player book to magic spells.

That's one of the reasons fighters in my system have nine combos of fighting style and focus and eight paths that define them while the spellcasting types have just 3-4 options and six paths. It's also why only two of the ten backgrounds are magic focused... because when you can combine those fighter options with aristocrat, artisan, barbarian, commoner, entertainer, military, outlaw and traveler you get some mechanical support for a broad range of warrior types that don't all feel identical save for their level and equipment... even if using them in a setting devoid of magic (there are also enough non-magic options in the religious background you could use it too... so arcanist is the only background you'd need to dump entirely for a non-magic setting).

Quote from: Cloyer Bulse on February 09, 2021, 12:11:51 AM
It is possible to play unusual characters in AD&D as a result of reincarnation or similar type magic, but there is no entitlement to play such characters from the start. The humanocentrism of AD&D rubs narcissists the wrong way, since playing strange characters is about fulfilling their bizarre fantasies as well as virtue-signaling their supposed moral superiority. They seem to have a fondness for demonic and animal-like creatures and a general distaste for humans in their natural and normal state.

In some cases yes most of the time though it's wanting to play something new and different. I have been playing standard core races of D&D since I started in the hobby way back in mid to late 1980s. My wanting to play something different is not due to my so called "bizarre fantasies, virtue-signaling or moral superiority" in any form. After awhile the core races do become boring to play. Do some SJWs and non engage in such behavior sure they are the exception than the norm. If someone in my group wants to play a Lizardfolk it's because they are cool not for anything else. Again not seeing anything wrong with changing up the races every now and then as long the player is not being a jerk about it

Quote from: Cloyer Bulse on February 09, 2021, 12:11:51 AM
The game isn't the problem, it's a symptom of an increasingly malignant situation. Co-existence with radical liberalism, an ideology formed and promulgated by those with cluster B personality disorders, is impossible since they believe they have the moral right to impose tyranny on and commit crimes against others. Anyone who refuses to submit to them are condemned as "domestic terrorists", a phrase which can be and has been used to justify acts of violence against innocent people.

True narcissists are quite noxious and their disorder insinuates itself into everything they do. Dealing with them in any capacity for any length of time is always unpleasant. It is useful to know the warning signs.

Some of the characteristics of a narcissist are:

-Being preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate
-Expecting to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it
-Having a sense of entitlement
-Expecting special favors and unquestioning compliance with their expectations
-Believing that they are superior and can only be understood by or associate with equally special people

Dealing with people who have cluster B personality disorders (antisocial, borderline, histrionic, narcissistic) leave normal people feeling emotionally drained, hence they can be called "emotional vampires". Woke leaders are generally "narcopaths", which means they suffer from both narcissistic and antisocial personality disorder; they intentionally manipulate those with mental disorders in order to harm others. Many politicians, big-tech and Hollywood executives fall into this category.

Maybe I have been lucky and have only dealt personally with one annoying SJW that not even the hardcore Liberal in the group wants to have anything to do with anymore yet I think your reading too much into it.

Of course jerks and other people who behave badly will always be in the hobby yet you and to lesser extent Pundit make it seem like the entire Hobby is riddled with gamers suffering from the above in your post. That is just not the case imo. Again some tables play differently from mine and yours and I do not think anything is wrong with that. IF i am not or will not enjoy running or playing I walk away.

The Fighter class at least in early editions was never the issue. Humans as a race being boring was an issue imo. Not to mention too many rpg companies fantasy settings did and still suffer from Humanity being at the top of the food chain. With nothing special about them beyond being able to bred like rabbits and ambition. As no other race in said fantasy setting is ambitious. Later editions with not giving the fighter much beyond " I swing and I hit " at least in 3.5/PF did not help the situation for the class. Pre third edition Fighters could get a Keep and Weapon Specilization. Humans just received no level limits yay I guess.

Quote from: sureshot on February 09, 2021, 10:05:25 AM
Pre third edition Fighters could get a Keep and Weapon Specilization. Humans just received no level limits yay I guess.

Also worth noting is that level limits (if they were even enforced) mattered only if your campaigns ever got to those levels. In my experience 75% of campaigns peter out within five levels of start (so by level 6 if you start at level 1). A level limit of 8 in that situation is what games like the HERO System would call a non-limiting limitations (and thus worth no points) because the odds of it ever mattering are less than 25% (less because the odds of an ongoing campaign go up the longer it goes so even one that makes it to 6 may not make it to 8 and also, in my experience, any group that could keep a campaign going long enough to reach the level limits was also incredibly likely to drop those limits to keep the campaign going).

The ironic thing to me is that 4E, far from being some menagerie of weirdos, was one of the first editions where Human was considered by the CharOps community to be almost always the BEST race to pair with any class (and was, at worst, just one of the best). The +2 to any ability score, the bonus at-will attack power, the bonus trained skill (i.e. +5 to one of choice instead of +2 to two pre-selected skills), the bonus feat and the improved defenses made Humans exceptional for just about anything.

Outside of very specific concepts, Human PCs were almost ubiquitous in 4E. Out of the last four 4E campaigns I've been in the racial breakdowns were... 1) four humans and a half-elf, 2) three humans and a kobold, 3) four humans, an elf and a pixie (played by another player's 11 year old daughter), 4) four humans.

In my experience, weird PC races only really turn up in play when they offer a distinct mechanical advantage over thd more common ones.

QuoteThe Fighter class at least in early editions was never the issue. Humans as a race being boring was an issue imo. Not to mention too many rpg companies fantasy settings did and still suffer from Humanity being at the top of the food chain. With nothing special about them beyond being able to bred like rabbits and ambition. As no other race in said fantasy setting is ambitious. Later editions with not giving the fighter much beyond " I swing and I hit " at least in 3.5/PF did not help the situation for the class. Pre third edition Fighters could get a Keep and Weapon Specilization. Humans just received no level limits yay I guess.

Weapon specialisation is very cool thing, and it definitely should be kept, though I get why Keep was dropped - as classes were centred around character itself, not resources.
(PF helped things a bit with extra-feats, and extra talents for archetypes - but it's all kinda passive elements). I think what fighter needs is sort of having lot of tacical option in form of various maneuvers - sort of what Nine Swords but less wuxia).

But yeah humans were meh. But then to some degree other races were often bit meh as well - I mean I think I like Eberron because most races have several cultures, vastly different from each other - and if it was my take - it would be even bigger clusterfuck of those than real Earth.

QuoteI found a lot more potential in Palladium Fantasy than I ever did in AD&D at the time precisely because there was no Fighter class, but an entire group of Men-At-Arms classes like soldier, mercenary, longbowman and knight with different fighting styles and skills. It also kept the upper levels of magic constrained relative to the advancement of the warrior classes without needing to turn them into fragile weaklings at low levels.

Agree. I mean at least in old D&D wizards were fragile often even on top levels - after 3,5 and especially Pathfinder - they are quite sturdy.
But TBH my favourite model of magic is probably Warhammer magic - which to mean - yes it's powerful, much more than equivalent options of fighter - but it's risky to use, and consequences can be calamity.

I sort of like idea of sorcerer as someone who's military value is 75% intimidation factor - do you really wanna attack sorcerer and risk him failing to curse you.

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 09, 2021, 08:58:17 AM

Projection is a hell of a thing...

Agreed. From what I've read, ideological zealotry of all (lately both) types is a huge predictor of Dark Triad personality types, of which narcissism is only one.

Regarding Dragonlance ruining everything, that does have some merit. I'd say its success definitely led to the huge glut of mostly mediocre (at best!) TSR novels that followed. They tried another multi module story in Ravenloft that I attempted to run, and the later parts were a giant mess. They had book tie ins for some of the Dark Sun stuff too although I never tried them.

I'd consider those adventure attempts to be failures. Do you think the current adventure paths and hardcover story modules are an attempt to recreate the Dragonlance magic? The Salvatore books were also a huge success where they might have tried the same multi module approach with the set pregen PCs, but didn't, to my knowledge.

The move to a more heroic approach isn't something I'd pin on Dragonlance specifically. Tolkien has always been a major influence and I think that would have happened at some point regardless.

Quote from: Wicked Woodpecker of West on February 09, 2021, 11:24:36 AM
I sort of like idea of sorcerer as someone who's military value is 75% intimidation factor - do you really wanna attack sorcerer and risk him failing to curse you.

My preference is more towards the Princess Ariel (Thundarr not Disney) variety which I find makes it easier to judge performance between "warriors" and "wizards" in a game where there is no set plot outcome or end point.

This is because the variance is easier to manage in a way that can be judged. For an extreme example, how much extra power on a given spell is "1% chance the world is destroyed" worth in evaluating things? or "1% chance the caster explodes like a nuclear bomb?"

Throw in the hard feelings that your character (who isn't even the caster) can be killed because of some other player's bad dice roll and it's just not a great mechanic outside of war games (i.e. where you have no particular attachment to individual game pieces).

Which pretty much means that any wild magic effects basically need to be confined to the caster and NPCs at which point it's basically just a very random casting limit mechanic (which, as stated above, makes it very hard to judge potency relative to non-wild options).

Wild magic running out of control works better in fiction where the author can control when and how it runs out of control... or in war games where there's nothing beyond a one-off contest to be disrupted when it runs awry.

This is also why you just don't see it much in rpgs (or video games as a player-side mechanic).

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 08, 2021, 02:37:14 PM

Quote from: Pat on February 08, 2021, 01:55:20 PM
More importantly, I think you're talking past each other. The group who are saying exotic races are fine seem to be either new school or very old (0e) old school. Whereas the group who are saying that the most exotic race anyone played was an elf seem to be the post-OD&D crowd. It's worth remembering there was a major shift in tone in between OD&D and AD&D. OD&D told DMs that balrog PCs were fine, while the AD&D DMG has that notorious rant against playing monsters. It shouldn't surprise anyone that there was a strong shift in how people played.

Good point, especially the Gary paraphrase.  The problem isn't whether someone wants to play a game with gonzo races or not.  I could care less.  It's when people argue that gonzo PC races are the norm or the default for D&D.  That hasn't always been true, and therefore doesn't serve as an argument for or against such a policy...

I think that the prevalence of "monster" races becoming standard has a lot to do with a cultural shift in the game from 3.x on...


[/quote]

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 08, 2021, 03:56:51 PM
Now we get to the root of the matter. How default is a game that includes such widely different campaign settings as Dark Sun or Spelljammer or Eberron or Ravenloft or Planescape?
I think core D&D expects to be a rather generic system, and so it includes most of the stuff in a disjointed grab-bag of races and classes.

I think the better word here might be Expected to be a rather generic system.

I don't think I'm gonna be totally clear here so bear with.

IMHO there was a tonal shift when WOTC got D&D and put out 3e. Some of the unwritten cultural assumptions about the game got lost in translation. And the effect has snowballed over time.

Especially since it was viewed that having all those competing settings was somehow a drag on the "core D&D" game. OK fair enough, and with the exception of Eberron which was designed from the ground up to accommodate all existing D&D lore, D&D has basically become a one setting game.

A one setting game that has gotten more and more self-referential in its worldbuilding and lore. It is now being influenced by videogames and anime, with WOTC piling it on to everything else that was there before.

D&D has always been it's own genre of fantasy, where Gygax and co. threw stuff in the game because they thought it was cool. A little disjointed, but the playing culture around the game tended to be a bit more DiY and focused on homebrew rules and campaigns. Which is why it worked really well IMHO.

The trend I see post WOTC is that DiY homebrew rules and campaigns are OUT.

RAW rules and Adventure Paths are IN.

And the expectation is that all the "...disjointed grab-bag of races and classes." are on the table all the time. "Because they were part of the D&D Lore"...

So even if you are running a home campaign, RAW is expected with all WOTC approved races and classes available.

And if you don't want to accommodate that, then you "Lack Creativity"...

This is what I see the 5e "new player" trends of cultural expectations leaning into.