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

Sunseeker · Apr 29, 2012

Janaxstrus said:
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.

Speculating on what Hasbro suits think is a pointless endevor. I may not be a fan of many big businesses, but I don't think they're all evil villains.

And the amount of money is important. One guy who spends $1000 on product is a more valuable customer than the 2000 who spend 50c. 5 minutes in any business environment will quickly tell you that.

Assuming "bad" means "cheap", sure I agree. But again, speculating on the agendas of Hasbros suits is a waste of time.

I'm A Banana · Apr 29, 2012

I don't really understand why they can't just plop them all down in the PHB without this "rarity" stuff and just put a big honkin' sign at the beginning of the PHB that says:

"NOTE: DMs may allow or forbid any player option they desire, so check with them when you're making your character."

And then dedicate a good couple of paragraphs in the DMG to deciding what is allowed and what isn't for what reasons, including "I just don't like it."

There, you can talk about things like players who really like Option X (which you hate), and how to accommodate them, or at least lessen the blow of your banishment.

So, like, you can tell a player like shidaku that this is a Tolkeinesque game and that he can either suck it up and have some fun with the group and not play a monstrous character, and maybe get his jollies elsewhere (or not). And then shidaku can turn around as a DM and tell you that this is a cosmopolitan game and that he does not want to see another dwarf, elf, or halfling, period, but you can play anything you've never played before, and you can get your jollies elsewhere (or not).

And you can both play at the same table, assuming you're not intractable dogmatic maniacs about your preferred way of pretending to be a magical barbarian princess, with only some clear communication about what is allowed and not required.

Andor · Apr 29, 2012

Kamikaze Midget said:
I don't really understand why they can't just plop them all down in the PHB without this "rarity" stuff and just put a big honkin' sign at the beginning of the PHB that says:

"NOTE: DMs may allow or forbid any player option they desire, so check with them when you're making your character."

Of course they can. They can also (and I pray they will) include Rule 0 right at the front of the DMG and PHB. And you know what? A few people even complained about rule. Some thought it was so obvious it didn't bear mentioning, and a few others thought the GM shouldn't have that much control.

SSDY.

Yes, they can cover it with Rule 0, but it's better if they reinforce the notion that 5e supports many different campaign and playstyle options repeatedly throughout the book and in various ways both overt and subtle. Like by assigning relatively meaningless labels to the races/classes/feats/spells and then saying "See your GM to find out what these labels mean."

Why would you be against that? Because it's wasting word count that could be spent on the exotic double-ended Bohemian Ear-Spork?

Balesir · Apr 29, 2012

Bedrockgames said:
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.

That's the edition, yeah - and it still does hold up remarkably well. I have the printing in hardback done by Games Workshop here in the UK, so I got added durability into the bargain!

Kamikaze Midget said:
I don't really understand why they can't just plop them all down in the PHB without this "rarity" stuff and just put a big honkin' sign at the beginning of the PHB that says:

"NOTE: DMs may allow or forbid any player option they desire, so check with them when you're making your character."

I would really prefer neutral language that doesn't assume the "DM is god" BS, but, yeah - "You don't have to have all the playable races in your game if you don't want them. If you don't, though, it's a good idea to circulate a list of inclusions/exceptions ahead of character creation time." could work.

Bluenose · Apr 29, 2012

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

I don't mind it when the setting material is included in examples. Character creation, say, where it can say that in this setting things work like this, but you need to check with your GM how things work in their setting.

Bedrockgames said:
Runequest does a great job. I like it, but definitely has a feel that isn't D&D.

Which edition of runequest do you prefer?

Runequest is too dangerous for PCs to act like D&D characters. There's far more risk of a lucky critical impale for a powerful PC/NPC to feel safe the way a high-level D&D character can. And the magic system makes a big difference.

Personally, and off-topic, I'd go with Mongoose 2nd edition. It's not that different from the earlier ones, but I think they finally found a take on sorcery that works well alongside the other types of magic.

Crazy Jerome · Apr 29, 2012

Bluenose said:
Personally, and off-topic, I'd go with Mongoose 2nd edition. It's not that different from the earlier ones, but I think they finally found a take on sorcery that works well alongside the other types of magic.

Now "Legends". That would be my choice, too. It's not quite as deadly, on average, as earlier versions of RQ, but close enough that from the D&D perspective, all the editions might as well be the same, in that regard. It appears to be a bit more forgiving once a character gains some experience (compared to foes that are relatively weak). Tone is subtle that way.

I'm A Banana · Apr 29, 2012

Andor said:
Why would you be against that? Because it's wasting word count that could be spent on the exotic double-ended Bohemian Ear-Spork?

I...never said I was against reinforcing the idea?

"Rarity" ain't the way to do it, but it probably doesn't hurt to do it somehow.

Thaumaturge · Apr 29, 2012

Andor said:
Yes, they can cover it with Rule 0, but it's better if they reinforce the notion that 5e supports many different campaign and playstyle options repeatedly throughout the book and in various ways both overt and subtle. Like by assigning relatively meaningless labels to the races/classes/feats/spells and then saying "See your GM to find out what these labels mean."

Definitely. Part of the cause of Gamers: Rise of the Ruleslawyers was the dwindling amount of text devoted to reinforcing the basic fact the the DM is the ultimate arbiter.

Rule 0, stuck in the DMG feels like more of an afterthought than a consistent message in every chapter that the mechanics being presented are options. I don't think we need to be beat about the head and shoulders, but there should be signposts all along the way directing us to check in with our DMs.

Thaumaturge.

Doug McCrae · Apr 29, 2012

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

Tieflings are punk, drow are goth, wood elves are hippies, high elves/eladrin are glam rockers, dwarves are 70s heavy metal, halflings are folk.

But that still leaves greasers, mods, rockabillies, skaters, and hipsters. Gnomes might be the best fit for hipsters, weirdly.