D&D 5E GAMA Trade Show and Game Developer Conference start Monday - announcement Tomorrow?

[Ruin Explorer]

"In summary, the main focus is on story, not mechanics."

At first glance, I think that's cool.

However, upon second thought, I'm a bit cautious. I'm cautious because, thus far, the design mentality has used language I liked, but with apparently different meanings to the words than I thought they meant. With that in mind, I question what exactly is meant by the quote above. I do like a focus on story; however, I also believe that some mechanics lend themselves toward certain types of story and stories better than others. If the thought toward D&D's future is that mechanics don't matter at all, then I feel as though the game will be far different than what I want... despite multiple editions being supported. I feel that way because I believe certain editions of D&D do better at some types of stories than others; as such, an edition agnostic approach to adventure design and story is something I question.

This is very true and different editions of D&D, particularly 2E, 3E and 4E illustrate it very well. All three gently push the DM towards different styles of play - one can always resist it, but the result of that isn't always great. DM advice which conflicts with the way the game actually plays out has always been a problem in D&D, too, particularly prior to 4E (which seems like the first edition where most of the advice was written by people who actually took the rules into account... even then though...). So I certainly hope that 5E's DM advice is written with the particular game in mind.

 

[mhensley]

Original Poster?

 

[Mistwell]

Unless otherwise specified, OP to me always meas the Original Post or the Original Poster, IE the first post of the thread.

 

[Agamon]

Normally, OP on a message board means the original post or original poster, but in this case it's as Hussar says, Organized Play, like Pathfinder Society, Living Forgotten Realms and D&D Encounters.

Most of the DDN adventures we have right now are a result of organized play, so while things could certainly change in regards to how it works in the future, it's an odd thing to expect them to talk about when it's currently happening right now.

 

[JeffB]

Beholder on cover= Branding Iron.

FR stories, instead of generic= Branding Iron

Tiamat= Branding Iron

Etc.

They will push IP to the limit in an effort to pound the brand into everyone's brain. Drow. FR. MIND flayers. Beholders. Named Monsters/deities/NPCs will be done to death.This will be status quo for everything 5e in print/pdf.

Understandable, but the old ways of generic materials, and different campaign settings is over.

 

[gweinel]

Beholder on cover= Branding Iron.

FR stories, instead of generic= Branding Iron

Tiamat= Branding Iron

Etc.

They will push IP to the limit in an effort to pound the brand into everyone's brain. Drow. FR. MIND flayers. Beholders. Named Monsters/deities/NPCs will be done to death.This will be status quo for everything 5e in print/pdf.

Understandable, but the old ways of generic materials, and different campaign settings is over.

How I would hate an approach like this.

 

[Li Shenron]

They will push IP to the limit in an effort to pound the brand into everyone's brain. Drow. FR. MIND flayers. Beholders. Named Monsters/deities/NPCs will be done to death.This will be status quo for everything 5e in print/pdf.

Understandable, but the old ways of generic materials, and different campaign settings is over.

Let's not overreact... I prefer "no default setting" but this IP approach does not invalidate other settings. Beholders, drow, illithids etc. are in the majority of TSR/WotC settings and homebrews anyway. The difference is that they are not in 3rd-party settings. What's the problem? If you love a 3rd-party setting, you are going to buy its campaign setting book and use its monsters anyway.

At least the IP approach is based on monsters that have a long and wide history, to me that it vastly superior to use e.g. Eberron as default as some suggested. Monsters that anyway were included in all previous editions MM.

 

[Morrus]

TSR and WotC never really treated their IP has a brand before. It's like they decided that they need to actively leverage the things they own - drow, beholders, etc as part of the overall brand. They want people to think Drizzt and beholders and FR when they think D&D, not d20s and Cheetos. They're actual identifiable elements.

 

[JeffB]

Let's not overreact... I prefer "no default setting" but this IP approach does not invalidate other settings. Beholders, drow, illithids etc. are in the majority of TSR/WotC settings and homebrews anyway. The difference is that they are not in 3rd-party settings. What's the problem? If you love a 3rd-party setting, you are going to buy its campaign setting book and use its monsters anyway.

At least the IP approach is based on monsters that have a long and wide history, to me that it vastly superior to use e.g. Eberron as default as some suggested. Monsters that anyway were included in all previous editions MM.

Not overreacting, just calling it the way I see it coming. Nor did I say it invalidates anything previous. See Morrus' post below as to what I am talking about. Plays right into the emphasis on story and not mechanics. They are not going to bother with story that does not make them money. Generic products, GH, Mystara, whatever. If people need their fix for that old stuff, pull out the plastic and head over to DnDclassics.com

TSR and WotC never really treated their IP has a brand before. It's like they decided that they need to actively leverage the things they own - drow, beholders, etc as part of the overall brand. They want people to think Drizzt and beholders and FR when they think D&D, not d20s and Cheetos. They're actual identifiable elements.

 

[Mistwell]

I am starting to wonder if they plan on publishing the same adventure with conversion notes for all editions. Perhaps even the same setting books with notes for all editions too.