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

The Little Raven · Apr 28, 2012

There should a big section in the introduction to the PHB about how not all options (rules/races/classes/feats/items/skills/whatever) will be available to them depending on the tone of the DM's games. Then talk about a few examples... a DM wants a humans-only game for a more authentic S&S feel... the DM wants to run a Greyhawk game, so Dragonborn and Tieflings are out... a Good only campaign, so no warlocks... and so forth. Then, in the DMG, put a similar section about communicating with players about restrictions related to campaign themes and such. Discuss the pros and cons of limitations, as well as what happens when you go too far and make your players unhappy or even leave the game. Encourage both sides to be reasonable and communicative.

That is far better use of wordcount than slapping a rather arbitrary label that has no real teeth on various classes/races that will make people complain about how they're being dictated to and "who is WotC to be dictating to me what is common or uncommon in my game?"

Balesir · Apr 28, 2012

I must say I'm somewhat surprised that some folk are actually getting wadded up about this. I really like both Dragonborn and Tieflings, but at the end of the day that's not what makes 4e great, for me. The "key elements" of 4e are the tight, complete and coherent rules system chassis and the philosophy of rules describing and defining what has to be shared across the whole group while leaving the imagining of the detailed "how" to the individual players.

If the 4e races were "modularised" for DDN it wouldn't honestly be a big deal for me. The rules system being a stodgy, vague, incomplete mess, on the other hand, would drive me off faster than silage on a sitting room carpet.

Oh, and for the "category words", I have a suggestion: how about "Generic", "Interesting" and "Cool"?

:devil:

Crazy Jerome · Apr 29, 2012

Balesir said:
Oh, and for the "category words", I have a suggestion: how about "Generic", "Interesting" and "Cool"?

You left out "Emo". :angel:

Balesir · Apr 29, 2012

Crazy Jerome said:
You left out "Emo".

Oh, if we're allowed more than three, I'll add Goth, Glam Elf and Punk, just for starters!

thecasualoblivion · Apr 29, 2012

Balesir said:
I must say I'm somewhat surprised that some folk are actually getting wadded up about this.

I don't think its anything specific to do with the concept, so much as irritated about the appearance of 5E being the "We're sorry for 4E" edition of D&D that WotC's 5E marketing has had the bad habit of implying.

Janaxstrus · Apr 29, 2012

thecasualoblivion said:
I don't think its anything specific to do with the concept, so much as irritated about the appearance of 5E being the "We're sorry for 4E" edition of D&D that WotC's 5E marketing has had the bad habit of implying.

More like "we are sorry we lost so many customers who have money"

SkidAce · Apr 29, 2012

I'm a very forgiving and tolerant person, who always tries to see others point of view.

This thread and the reactions to that "idea" for the first time actually make me see and feel like there is a cavernous gulf between camps of RPG players and that we are all just going to argue and burn it down.... :.-(

Sunseeker · Apr 29, 2012

Janaxstrus said:
More like "we are sorry we lost so many customers who have money"

Having money and being willing to spend that money are two totally different things.

If WOTC's goal was to target the folks with the most money, D&D would me marketed at Mitt Romeny and the Saudi Prince.

I may only have $100, but I'll spend every last dollar on D&D if I like what I see.

Janaxstrus · Apr 29, 2012

shidaku said:
Having money and being willing to spend that money are two totally different things.

If WOTC's goal was to target the folks with the most money, D&D would me marketed at Mitt Romeny and the Saudi Prince.

I may only have $100, but I'll spend every last dollar on D&D if I like what I see.

I'm sorry you completely missed my point.

I don't think the higher ups in Hasbro could give two squats if they have a good game. They care that they see former customers spending their money elsewhere. Whether that is $1000 or 50 cents is immaterial.

If they could make money with a terrible game, again, they would be happy to. The designers and those closely associated with the final product may care, but the suits likely couldn't care less.

Bedrockgames · Apr 29, 2012

Balesir said:
Sure - it was originally built tailored to Glorantha and even the AH "fantasy earth" stuff didn't really undo that link completely. Add to that the fact that it eschews levels, classes, hit points and xps and it's clearly a very different game. If I want a gritty, world-situation centred game, though, I find the differences more cosmetic than real. For that type of game I want to reduce these factors (levels, classes, etc.) anyway; RQ and similar systems just do that job for me right up front.

I actually like the Avalon Hill edition, mechanically. I think they neatened things up well. I haven't played the Mongoose versions, though.

I still use the '92 (pretty sure that is the year) Avalon Runequest delux book. You have everything you need in one book. Very solid and has held up well over the years.

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

The Little Raven

First Post

Balesir

Adventurer

Crazy Jerome

First Post

Balesir

Adventurer

thecasualoblivion

First Post

Janaxstrus

First Post

SkidAce

Legend

Sunseeker

Guest

Janaxstrus

First Post

Bedrockgames

Legend

Similar Threads