D&D 5th Edition D&D Next Blog: Tone and Edition - Page 5




+ Log in or register to post
Page 5 of 16 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 154
  1. #41
    Registered User
    Spellbinder (Lvl 16)

    Ahnehnois's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    6,708

    Ignore Ahnehnois
    Quote Originally Posted by DEFCON 1 View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    Whereas slicing everything out of the race chapter except for a select four isn't a step forward either.
    Well, no. Race is not a big venue for innovation (unless you start talking about variant racial traits or racial levels or something like that). D&D is not that bad of a game. This is one area where the main thing is to not fix things that aren't broken.
    "Clear Eyes, Full Hearts, Can't Lose"

 

  • #42
    Registered User
    Magsman (Lvl 14)



    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    2,457

    Ignore Minigiant
    As I read topics here and in other places, I am beginning to think DMs are afraid to tell players "No".

    And the more I read these topics, the more I think we need an official campaign sheet for DMs.

    I know many DMs have campaign primers but the amount of variation that can happen between games, players and DMs will need something simple to start conversation between them when finding groups.


    You hand them the sheet that says "Races: Humans, Dwarves, Elves, Halfings. Classes: Clerics, Fighters, Rogues, Wizards."

    You two talk and decide if you will make any changes to accommodate them. Then you two play D&D together or not.
    My beard is hairy.

  • #43
    Registered User
    Spellbinder (Lvl 16)

    Doug McCrae's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Glasgow, Scotland
    Posts
    6,046

    Ignore Doug McCrae
    Quote Originally Posted by Minigiant View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I know many DMs have campaign primers but the amount of variation that can happen between games, players and DMs will need something simple to start conversation between them when finding groups.

    You hand them the sheet that says "Races: Humans, Dwarves, Elves, Halfings. Classes: Clerics, Fighters, Rogues, Wizards."
    Check out this campaign sheet for the superhero game Champions. It's from 4e, which was published in 1989.

  • #44
    Registered User
    Magsman (Lvl 14)

    shidaku's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Cheyenne
    Posts
    2,989

    Ignore shidaku
    Quote Originally Posted by Ahnehnois View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    You mean that patterning a product after things that you bought doesn't attract you? Sheesh.

    Now if you're saying that the game needs to innovate, I agree. But it needs to mechanically innovate. 3e is the same game as 2e, but with better mechanics. The same needs to be done again. If it's not better than 3.5, which is still free online, there is no reason to buy it.

    There also is a need for innovation in tone, but I don't count adding in weird races as innovation. Expanding the range of styles that D&D can own (from comedy to gritty political drama to superhero fantasy) is innovative. Thrusting one of those styles down the reader's throat is not.
    I don't count weird races as innovation either, it's just expansion and including more options. Innovation would be say, adding something to the "Core 4" to make them less boring. Basic should not be associated with "bland".

    Yes, this is certainly true. That's why the monster manuals are filled with these kinds of things. That's why rules for playing monsters are important. That's not a statement that these things are ever going to be the primary PC races. Trying to make them that radically changes the game away from being classic fantasy and away from being grounded in humanity. There is one primary PC race: human. Really, everything else is optional.
    Maybe to you, but I certainly don't consider it fantasy is there's only humans and monsters, it's kinda a dumb duality.
    As for "monstrous PCs" I think this evokes a bit of soft racism, much like "demi human" that I really can stand to live without. Aside from setting books, the "core books" should be written from a perspective neutral view, not from a humanocentric one. Dragonborn and Tieflings are only monstrous if we assume that humanity is not. That's why I argue for racial neutrality, in a setting populated primarily by elves and gnomes(both fey descendants), humans are likely to be the "savage species" and I'm sure many elves would consider dwarves "monstrous" with those short, fat, hairy bodies.

    Perhaps you should try another rpg. There are plenty that don't make this assumption, but D&D is not one of them.
    Is it? Since when? 2nd edition? There hasn't been an edition of D&D I've played that has regarded the "Core four" as generic. In 3e and 4e(the editions I'm most familiar wit and played the most of), they go to pretty great lengths to give each race it's own particular favor and styling. I'd hardly call them "generic".

  • #45
    Registered User
    Magsman (Lvl 14)

    Shemeska's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    27615
    Posts
    5,774

    Ignore Shemeska
    God in Heaven I hope they go with traditional tieflings with variation to their form and a diversity of possible fiendish heritage rather than the homogenous one form fits all "tiefling" from 4e.

    If they kill off the classic tiefling in 5e in favor of only the 4e tiefling, without providing both as options, my interest is going to seriously crater.
    Last edited by Shemeska; Saturday, 28th April, 2012 at 01:14 AM.

  • #46
    Registered User
    Minor Trickster (Lvl 4)

    outsider's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    SASKATOON
    Posts
    333

    Ignore outsider
    Quote Originally Posted by Vael View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I'm still struggling to see the point of introducing a rarity system.
    The point of it is to try to reel back in groups that will absolutely not play with Dragonborn/etc, while not losing the players that like that stuff. I suspect we are going to see alot of "compromises" like this from 5e.

  • #47
    Member SILVER SUBSCRIBER
    Myrmidon (Lvl 10)

    SkidAce's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Hampton, VA
    Posts
    1,406
    D&DI Defended The Walls!

    Ignore SkidAce
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug McCrae View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    Check out this campaign sheet for the superhero game Champions. It's from 4e, which was published in 1989.
    I've used that...works well.
    "If you die first, we're splitting up your gear" - SkidAce
    "Just because you don't like it, don't understand it, and can't explain it, doesn't mean that it doesn't work. "- Celebrim
    "D&D is amazingly flexible, so there is no one well-accepted set of expectations there, and I've seen no evidence that there ever were." - Umbran
    "I usually describe "Record of Lodoss War" as the D&D game you want to run. Whereas Slayers is what actually happens at your table." - Andor


  • #48
    Registered User
    Magsman (Lvl 14)



    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    2,457

    Ignore Minigiant
    Quote Originally Posted by Doug McCrae View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    Check out this campaign sheet for the superhero game Champions. It's from 4e, which was published in 1989.

    Something like that

    Spoiler:

    Campaign Name:

    Campaign Tone:
    Morality
    Realism
    Lethality
    Continuity
    PC Importance
    Magic Rating
    Divine Rating
    Level Range

    Base Modules:
    Races Allowed
    Race Rarity
    Classes Allowed
    Class Rarity
    Backgrounds Allowed
    Background Rarity
    Themes Allowed
    Theme Rarity

    Other Modules:

    Setting Description:
    Notable Locations-
    Notable NPCs-
    Notable Events-
    Notable Artifacts-


    Fill in.
    Hand to potential players.
    My beard is hairy.

  • #49
    Registered User


    am181d's Avatar

    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    1,090

    Ignore am181d
    Eh. This seems harmless, but not particularly useful. Inevitably, I will use some classes and not use others.

    The principle advantage is psychological. I think there are people who would freak out if Dragonborn were core again, who won't freak out if they're "optional, rare".

    But ultimately all races are optional so it doesn't matter to me much either way.

    I'll say this though: I'd be super happy if they added Changeling, Shifter, and Warforged to the set of races they support in the initial set of books. (Maybe in the Monster Manual?) I get more use out of those classes than a bunch of the core/common races.
    Drew Melbourne,
    DrewMelbourne.com

  • #50
    Registered User
    Myrmidon (Lvl 10)



    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    North Akron
    Posts
    1,605

    Ignore Ratskinner
    Quote Originally Posted by shidaku View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    No. Absolutely not. The books do not need to tell me how often races should appear in my game. Put the races in the book, let ME, the DM decide what's going to be in my world, let ME, the DM decide what my players can or cannot play.
    I don't think the are. They are telling you, to a very small extent, how common those races are "in D&D". Your world, of course, remains yours. I think people are reading too much into this categorization thing.

    Of course, I also think they should dump the "common-uncommon-rare" categorization. That just seems to fuel the misunderstanding. I've suggested "Basic - Expert - Advanced" for historical reasons, and because one of the writers suggested that rare and uncommon might be home to more complicated mechanical stuff.

    Of course, I could be wrong.

  • + Log in or register to post
    Page 5 of 16 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415 ... LastLast

    Similar Threads

    1. The Writing Style and Tone of 5E
      By Mark CMG in forum D&D 5th Edition
      Replies: 11
      Last Post: Sunday, 15th January, 2012, 07:55 PM
    2. Tone Artists?
      By JQP in forum Miscellaneous Geek Talk & Media Lounge
      Replies: 1
      Last Post: Tuesday, 11th March, 2008, 03:00 PM
    3. SPELLS of 4th edition - Mearls blog
      By FabioMilitoPagliara in forum Older D&D Editions and OSR Gaming
      Replies: 8
      Last Post: Friday, 16th November, 2007, 09:28 PM
    4. Age of Worms - Campaign tone?
      By The_Fan in forum General RPG Discussion
      Replies: 18
      Last Post: Saturday, 18th June, 2005, 11:39 PM
    5. What's the tone of your campaign?
      By eris404 in forum General RPG Discussion
      Replies: 60
      Last Post: Saturday, 8th May, 2004, 04:13 PM

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •