D&D 5E D&D Next Blog: Tone and Edition

Morrus · Apr 28, 2012

thecasualoblivion said:
Its not so much having a problem with it per se, as much as the appearance of WotC takiing a side in the edition wars by putting a label on something that is unique to a particular edition. If the real goal is making it clear that not every option is going to be available in any given game world, why not just be clear about that? The same goes for new players, as I'd rather WotC and the game itself present diffferent things in a neutral tone, as opposed to a tone that could be mistaken for favoring one thing over another.

What tone are you aware of in the D&D Next text? It hasn't been written; it has no tone. All we have is a couple of concepts from Schwalb's head on his blog; we don't have one iota - not one word, not even a game name - of actual text. It could be in a big bright pink OPTIONAL! sidebar, for all we know. It could be an appendix, a separate leaflet, a chapter, a sentence.

There isn't an intention to be clear about. It's just Rob floating a vague idea.

Greg K · Apr 28, 2012

Morrus said:
Seriously, if folks are that upset about a default setting being included, do they feel that a default pantheon should be left out, also, because wotC is telling which gods you MUST use in your setting?

If they are going to include a setting and pantheon, I would prefer it be in an appendix away from everything else.

thecasualoblivion · Apr 28, 2012

Morrus said:
What tone are you aware of in the D&D Next text? It hasn't been written; it has no tone. All we have is a couple of concepts from Schwalb's head on his blog; we don't have one iota - not one word, not even a game name - of actual text. It could be in a big bright pink OPTIONAL! sidebar, for all we know. It could be an appendix, a separate leaflet, a chapter, a sentence.

There isn't an intention to be clear about. It's just Rob floating a vague idea.

I was taking his labeling of common/uncommon/rare at face value, and wondering at the necessity of putting labels on things as opposed to being clear and simple stating that DMs have the discretion to add and remove races. If clarity isn't enough, then why?

Morrus · Apr 28, 2012

thecasualoblivion said:
I was taking his labeling of common/uncommon/rare at face value, and wondering at the necessity of putting labels on things as opposed to being clear and simple stating that DMs have the discretion to add and remove races. If clarity isn't enough, then why?

But what would make you think it wouldn't be clear, or that the the book won't clearly state that you have discretion to add and remove races?

I feel like you're seeing something there that I'm not. Rob floating a vague concept doesn't mean that that's (a) what it would look like or that (b) it prohibits something else being in the book, such as the clearly worded statement you're after.

I can't see anywhere in that blog post where he says "Oh, and we won't clearly allow you to pick and choose as you wish".

In fact, I'll bet you $10 right now that that clearly worded statement of freedom to pick and choose that you seek will be in the book(s). I see nothing to suggest it wouldn't be, and it seems like an obvious inclusion. I'm willing to throw down $10 on that.

All he's talking about there is a default setup for beginner DMs. And I think that'll be useful for them, just like the "what is an RPG?" bit and the "This is what dice are" bit in the book will do.

There's zero chance that customization for the likes of us won't be clear. It'll say - obviously, it'll say, if this makes it in - "Here's a default setup. feel free to change or ignore it as you wish. Some settings we publish might have different default setups."

Hell, $20. I'll bet as high as you like on that! It's guaranteed!

Steely_Dan · Apr 28, 2012

Morrus said:
Hell, $20. I'll bet as high as you like on that! It's guaranteed!

I bet you one million dollars! *in the voice of Dr Evil*

avin · Apr 28, 2012

I cannot agree that C/U/R is necessery, except for cater some DMs which like to play more traditional games (nothing wrong with that) and want a quick excuse for not allowing different races in his/her game...

Veteran DMs already know what races will be allowed in their games, they do not need this kind of help.

Newcomers should be free to chose what they want without a hint of which "X race" is rare.

IMHO it's a waste of time.

Kaodi · Apr 28, 2012

thecasualoblivion said:
PCs are the exception, not Joe Schmoe off the street or your unwashed masses. PCs are the notable characters in that single book.

When the entire party is made of "exceptions" , it turns out it is nothing exceptional at all. And as far as the Bible goes, there are not many occurences of notable characters meeting and teaming up. If any. The only place really known for that comes from Greek myth, and those guys are usually all famous before they meet each other. They just don't happen to meet in a tavern at level 1.

Sunseeker · Apr 28, 2012

Kaodi said:
Consider this in the context of the wider world, however. The Bible is not a book about the average Joe, or even the average Sir; it is a collection of all of the notable characters in a single book. Of course it is littered with the exceptions; that is what it is about. Throw in a complete list of the great unwashed masses, however, and suddenly they do not look so prevalent. The core presumption of D&D characters, however, is not that they are notable for who or what they are, but for having the right stuff that will allow them to climb the ladder to greatness. That is a different kind of notable than most myths are based on.

I disagree that this is a basic assumption at every table. Like others were talking about in terms of "gritty", "heroic" or "super-powered" D&D, some tables do start off with the assumption that you are Joe Blow. I do it to an extent, but I've also started off with the assumption that even at a measly level 5, you're pretty darn powerful.

At the same time, it's important to remember that in some of these stories, we're only getting the "good parts", the guys in them are already 15th level, but that didn't change their divine/demonic background. The story of Hercules is a particularly good comparison, his 12 labors comparable to a series of adventures over the length of a campaign, the Hercules Animated Series would be what the story looks like if we looked at every natural 1 he rolled in life and all those days he spent not killing the most powerful monsters in the land.

My point is anyway: being high level or low level didn't change the fact that Hercules, and many other characters from classical mythology, was a divinely-spawned human. Some characters powers manifest slowly, others quickly, some not till later in life, some at a young age. But the idea that your origins are not entirely of earthly making is a pretty common concept.

Balesir · Apr 28, 2012

Ahnehnois said:
On the other hand, they're assumed. Everyone has some ideas about them, which means you don't have to establish much. Having to explain things to people is a barrier to getting them in the game. And yes, you have to explain to most people what the word "Tiefling" refers to. Expanding the game doesn't have to be about adding new races front and center, it can be a matter of doing the old ones better. For example, Dragon Age has done pretty well by simply giving us new takes on old tropes, as has Pathfinder.

For a new take on Elves, Dwarves and Trolls, Runequest blows everything else I've seen out of the water with what it came up with in 1978, IIRC...

Sunseeker · Apr 28, 2012

Bedrockgames said:
But you could use that argument to say everything that is in 4e and not other editions has to be core to satisfy the 4e audience. The problem with that is it doesn't meet their goal of creating an edition that is recognizeable as D&D to everyone who plays D&D. THAC0 was part of 2e and second edition is also part of D&D, but including that in core would upset a lot of people. Anything contentious like that (and yes dragonborn and tieflings are contentious) will need to be an optional ad on. They never promised that 5e would reflect all edition styles in the core, they just said the modules would allow us to tailor the core to our prefered playstyle. So I imagine the core game is going to be solid but made up of things common to all editions. After that you can build the edition you want by adding in tiefling or dragonborn.

Thing is: EVERYTHING is contentious if you ask the right people. A lot of people here find generic HP contentious, the converse find wound systems contentious. Some people find anything other than humans contentious, so we can't avoid everything that is contentious for everyone. DDN is NOT the "please everyone" edition, it's the "find common ground" edition. Finding common ground with 4e'rs after remoing healing surges, returning to vancian magic, removing the at will/encounter/daily triad, might just be giving them a couple popular(among 4e'rs) playable races.

No, they didn't say that 4e would reflect our favored playstyle, so why do you assume that it will reflect a more oldschool playstyle? I find this a fairly contradictory assumption.