D&D 5E Blog Post by Robert J. Schwalb

[Mistwell]

I am reading a full 180 turn in your argument from paragraph one to paragraph two, since you already want to house rule something from the PHB, or maybe even basic rules.

Nope. Multiclassing is called out as an optional rule, and not even in Basic edition.

 

[pemerton]

Instead he attacks the designers for not totally ignoring their customer base and making a 4.5e.

I've never understood this thing whereby 4e players - who are actually spending money on WotC products - aren't part of the WotC customer base, whereas players of PF and OSR games - who are spending money on other companies' products - constitute the WotC customer base.

 

[Umbran]

But if it puts people like you guys off the edition, that's not such a big loss.

Don't make it personal.

It is that simple. One warning - don't make it personal.

'Nuff said.

 

[pemerton]

I agree that play is more important than PC building. But I haven't had the experience that Schwalb and others describe, of having PC building be more important than actual player decisions at the table in determining what happens.

The following list of encounters is still, I think, the busiest "day" the PCs ever had in my 4e campaign (ie activities undertaken without an extended rest):

*Comp 2 L14 skill challenge (as a result of which each PC lost one encounter power until their next extended rest);

*L17 combat;

*L15 combat;

*L7 combat;

*L13 combat;

*L15 combat;

*Comp 1 L14 skill challenge;

*L16 combat;

*L14 combat;

*L13 combat;

*Comp 1 L15 skill challenge;

*L16 combat (the L15 solo was defeated by being pushed over a bridge down a waterfall);

*L15 combat (the solo returned later in the night, having survived the fall and climbed back up).​

The PCs started this day at 14th level, and finished it at 15th.

And the action was all about playing the game, not just mechanically deriving mathematical consequences of PC-build choices.

Also, the idea that 1st ed AD&D was all about play and not PC building doesn't fit with my experience at all - one of the most important determinants of success in AD&D is caster spell load out, and what is that if not a PC build decision? (The fact that it's flavoured as an in-character choice doesn't mean it is actually part of engaging with ingame situations at the table!)

 

[The Hitcher]

From what I've seen, when people think back on the fun they had playing prior editions (especially 1e/2e), at the heart of the fun was their heroes in the context of an adventure. The adventure is where the rubber meets the road in D&D. The adventure is the soul of the game. The rules exist to run an adventure, and it the interaction between players and DM that gives the game life. A role-playing game is a narrative experience supported by a rule set.

Indeed. The trouble is when people treat it as the reverse. And when the rules are as strongly emphasised as they are in 3E and 4E, that's tacit support for that approach.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I've never understood this thing whereby 4e players - who are actually spending money on WotC products - aren't part of the WotC customer base, whereas players of PF and OSR games - who are spending money on other companies' products - constitute the WotC customer base.

As I tried to explain in another post - for the same reason that Star Trek fans aren't the target audience for the Star Trek movies (especially the new ones). It translates as "we've already got your money - now we want theirs too".

 

[MechaPilot]

The blog post feels weird to me because it seems to take the track that optimization and creating builds is how people have fun playing D&D in recent years. While this may be true for some players, I don't think there's any accuracy at all in painting it as an across-the-board characterization of recent editions. Additionally, while I appreciate hyperbole for the sake of making a point no edition has ever required ten books to play it or required a character building tool.

 

[MechaPilot]

As I tried to explain in another post - for the same reason that Star Trek fans aren't the target audience for the Star Trek movies (especially the new ones). It translates as "we've already got your money - now we want theirs too".

Maybe I'm the odd girl out. I fell in love with the original Star Trek series when I was a kid and I love the new movies.

 

[Falling Icicle]

I got an "everyone who has been playing the last two editions has been doing it WRONG!" vibe from the article. That, and the typical "true roleplayer" making thinly veiled attacks against char op people from atop his lofty perch.

 

[Emerikol]

I've never understood this thing whereby 4e players - who are actually spending money on WotC products - aren't part of the WotC customer base, whereas players of PF and OSR games - who are spending money on other companies' products - constitute the WotC customer base.

I didn't mean to imply that 4e players were not part of the playerbase. I did mean to imply that the playerbase is a lot bigger than just that group. Thus they need to expand beyond a narrowly focused 4.5e

Maybe once the cat is out of the bag you can never go back but I'm sure WOTC would love to return to their market dominance when they had the 4e players and the PF/OSR players. They all likely used to be wotc customers or most anyway.

I'm not sure 5e is going to do that if the typical 4e fan is the one I typically meet online. Perhaps just like I'm supposedly an extreme niche element these are too. I wouldn't want to bet on it though.