Guildmaster's Guide = Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes 2.0?!

[MENTION=83242]dave2008[/MENTION]: I’ve never played M:tG and know virtually nothing about any of its settings. Nevertheless, I’ve found myself wanting more details about Ravnica than the book provides. I know I am not alone in this either, given how many reviews complain of the book being scant on detail, especially when it comes to the other districts and beyond.

dave2008 said:

What more support would you like to see. Personally I kinda wish they would stop making material and just let it rest a bit. I feel like they are verging on to much "support" at this point.

Click to expand...

I want them to actually focus on quality over quantity like they claim to be doing. I’m really not seeing it.

I also don’t want more books (and am not happy that they are increasing production). I want fewer but better books. Books with more detail in them. I don’t like these broad strokes books. I don’t have time to fill in all the details myself.

Barring that, I would like to see them go back to putting out web enhancements to cover details they couldn’t fit into the books. I’d even be willing to pay for these if they want to put them on the DMs Guild. (I don’t count the Guild Adept stuff as it’s not official - and it shows.)

I’d also like more guidance and transparency in adventure and monster design. It’s pretty obvious the WotC designers don’t follow their own guidelines (the ones in the DMG), so it would be nice if they’d let us peer behind the screen a bit more so we can see what they were thinking.

dave2008 said:

Maybe since I am not familiar with Ravnica I don't share this feeling. I have only gotten through about 1/4 of the book so far and I feel I've gotten more than enough of the setting to a run campaign in it. And that is just from reading the monster and NPC entries! I see no need for another book.

Click to expand...

The other book in question is the forthcoming "Art of Magic" book, which per the previous books in that series is going to be a fluff heavy system neutral campaign guide, basically. The previous Planeshift documents were basically rules supplements for the fluff in the equivalent Art books.

dave2008 said:

What more support would you like to see. Personally I kinda wish they would stop making material and just let it rest a bit. I feel like they are verging on to much "support" at this point.

Click to expand...

You know what I would love to see? An Unearthed Arcana book in the style of 3e's UA, where it was different variant rules and systems that you could plug in, or not, to your own campaign. There's some stuff like this in the DMG, but not nearly enough IMHO. A 5e version could have systems for running a game more like, or more compatible with, earlier editions; it might have things like 1e-style multiclassing (starts at first level and locked in), wild talent psionics, options for class/race limitations, variations on the skill system (including a fiddly point-based system, secondary skills like in 1e, and narrative), 4e monster mechanics (minions, elite/solo monsters, monster roles), prestige class, paragon path, and epic destiny systems, etc- all kinds of options to tweak the game in whatever direction you want it to go.

pukunui said:

[MENTION=83242]dave2008[/MENTION]: I’ve never played M:tG and know virtually nothing about any of its settings. Nevertheless, I’ve found myself wanting more details about Ravnica than the book provides. I know I am not alone in this either, given how many reviews complain of the book being scant on detail, especially when it comes to the other districts and beyond.

I want them to actually focus on quality over quantity like they claim to be doing. I’m really not seeing it. I also don’t want more products (and am not happy that they are increasing production). I want better ones. Ones with more detail in them. I don’t like these broad strokes books. I don’t have time to fill in all the details myself.

Click to expand...

A big part of that scanty detail is the nature of the setting, as the background for the card game. There isn't more detail already made beyond the Tenth District, really, and there wasn't room for much more. Focusing on the real important details, the Guilds proper, and leaving the DM the choice of using the Tenth District or making up stuff is smart.

I see the quality over quantity in spades: I've used XGtE a huge amount, and MToF has become a go-to book for the Elf/Dwarf details alone.

pukunui said:

[MENTION=83242]dave2008[/MENTION]I want them to actually focus on quality over quantity like they claim to be doing. I’m really not seeing it. I also don’t want more products (and am not happy that they are increasing production). I want better ones. Ones with more detail in them. I don’t like these broad strokes books. I don’t have time to fill in all the details myself.

Click to expand...

Hmm. It seems you want more depth, but that doesn't necessarily equate to more quality. So to clarify: you think the current slate is lacking and depth and poor quality; or sufficient quality, but lacking in depth? And you want more depth and quality; or the quality has been sufficient, but there has not been enough depth in the products?

I guess I am the opposite (in terms of depth). I am happy with the depth, but I would like to see more variant mechanics (which is what I will call quality for this argument).

the Jester said:

You know what I would love to see? An Unearthed Arcana book in the style of 3e's UA, where it was different variant rules and systems that you could plug in, or not, to your own campaign. There's some stuff like this in the DMG, but not nearly enough IMHO. A 5e version could have systems for running a game more like, or more compatible with, earlier editions; it might have things like 1e-style multiclassing (starts at first level and locked in), wild talent psionics, options for class/race limitations, variations on the skill system (including a fiddly point-based system, secondary skills like in 1e, and narrative), 4e monster mechanics (minions, elite/solo monsters, monster roles), prestige class, paragon path, and epic destiny systems, etc- all kinds of options to tweak the game in whatever direction you want it to go.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is the one type of expansion book I would like to see. I kinda thought we were going to get the with XGtE, but that was not the case.

dave2008 said:

What more support would you like to see. Personally I kinda wish they would stop making material and just let it rest a bit. I feel like they are verging on to much "support" at this point.

Click to expand...

Once I get psionics, I'm onboard with your suggestion.

dave2008 said:

Hmm. It seems you want more depth, but that doesn't necessarily equate to more quality. So to clarify: you think the current slate is lacking and depth and poor quality; or sufficient quality, but lacking in depth? And you want more depth and quality; or the quality has been sufficient, but there has not been enough depth in the products?

Click to expand...

Lacking in both depth and quality. And by quality, I don’t just mean the content. I’m also talking about the physical quality of the books, which have been plagued with printing problems that previous editions didn’t seem to suffer from (cheap bindings that fall apart, poor printing controls that result in blurry headings, low quality paper and ink that easily smudges, and so on).

In terms of content, I regard the SCAG and Volo’s as the edition’s best supplements, and neither of those is without its problems (the SCAG could/should have had more crunch in it, including more FR-specific stuff, more spells, and maybe even some magic items; Volo's was fine except for the PC race options, most of which needed more playtesting -- as an alpha playtester, I was disappointed to see that WotC felt the draft versions were good enough to publish virtually unchanged; it's like they just couldn't be bothered to try and balance them and decided to make us DMs do all the hard work*).

XGE was a big disappointment for me as the content is not just a random grab bag thematically but also in terms of quality. The subclass options are very hit-or-miss. So are things like the expanded rules for tools and the revised downtime activities. There’s so much in that book that clearly could have done with more refinement than it got. But again, WotC deemed the content good enough to publish, knowing that we long-suffering DMs would iron out the kinks for them.

I think my main issue with MToF is the choice of content: what they included vs what they didn't include comes across as somewhat nonsensical and seemingly random to me. For instance, there are PC stats for sea elves but no fluff to go with them. And the chapter on gnomes and halflings, while nice, really doesn’t belong in this book, even as a so-called "constrast" to all the other chapters about long-running feuds and the like. And did we really need the deep gnome a third time?! I think “Tome of Foes” was a poor choice for this book’s title, given its content.

And so on and so forth.



*Something else I'd like to touch on is that, when I was younger, I would houserule and homebrew the game to my heart's content. These days, though, I just feel like I don't have the time and/or energy to do all that. I want to be able to pick up these books and use the contents more or less as written, but I feel like, in many cases, I just can't do that. I could go on, but I think what it all boils down to is this: I am worried that I am no longer in WotC's target market. I don't enjoy watching all the streaming shows. I don't enjoy the "wide but shallow" / "do it yourself" approach to the game's support.

pukunui said:

Lacking in both depth and quality. And by quality, I don’t just mean the content. I’m also talking about the physical quality of the books, which have been plagued with printing problems that previous editions didn’t seem to suffer from (cheap bindings that fall apart, poor printing controls that result in blurry headings, low quality paper and ink that easily smudges, and so on).

In terms of content, I regard the SCAG and Volo’s as the edition’s best supplements, and neither of those is without its problems (the SCAG could/should have had more crunch in it, including more FR-specific stuff, more spells, and maybe even some magic items; the PC race options in Volo’s needed more playtesting - as an alpha play tester, I was disappointed to see the monstrous race options were virtually unchanged between draft and final).

XGE was a big disappointment for me as the content is not just a random grab bag thematically but also in quality. The subclass options are very hit-or-miss. So are things like the expanded tool uses and the revised downtime activities. There’s so much in that book that clearly could have done with more refinement than it got.

I think my main issue with MToF is the choice of content. The things they chose to include vs the things they chose not to include feels random. For instance, there are PC stats for sea elves but no fluff to go with them. And the chapter on gnomes and halflings, while nice, really doesn’t belong in this book. And did we really need the deep gnome a third time?! I think “Tome of Foes” was a poor choice for this book’s title, given its content.

And so on and so forth.

Click to expand...

The Sea Elf thing might be fixed in the near future, methinks.

Parmandur said:

The Sea Elf thing might be fixed in the near future, methinks.

Click to expand...

The tar baby ain’t sayin’ nothin’.