D&D 5E With the Holy Trinity out, let's take stock of 5E

[Fralex]

So far, my only real disappointment is the spineless, weak-kneed art trying so hard to be inoffensive rather than exciting. As I've said before, when the kobold is drawn more heroically than any PC in the Player's Handbook, you know you've done something wrong. The only thing the art directors felt brave enough to make exciting was the monsters.

But you don't play art. You play the game. And the game is terrific.

Personally, I thought it had some pretty exciting artwork! It is pretty inoffensive, though. I guess that one halfling looked kind of weird? That's sort of offensive, in a sense. But mostly to halflings. Did you... want the art to offend you? I'm sure they didn't mean it personally when they refrained from being offensive, you shouldn't feel bad!

The game is terrific, though. I can confirm.

 

[Salamandyr]

Personally, I thought it had some pretty exciting artwork! It is pretty inoffensive, though. I guess that one halfling looked kind of weird? That's sort of offensive, in a sense. But mostly to halflings. Did you... want the art to offend you? I'm sure they didn't mean it personally when they refrained from being offensive, you shouldn't feel bad!

The game is terrific, though. I can confirm.

That piece was all right; it looks much better as a stand alone piece than it did in the book; there were a couple others that were okay. Of course, in the book, they swallowed up the picture by blurring the edges and adding edge dressing that compressed the look of that picture so much of the power was drained. Seriously, compare the picture in your post to the one in the PHB. It's much more powerful without all the art director fiddling. And again, it proves the point I made that the only thing they were willing to make exciting was the monsters.

The majority of it was largely bland figures posing like they were auditioning for the JC Penney Fall Adventurer line. Just people standing around, doing nothing. Very few pieces of art showed anyone actually engaging in violence, other than spell use; they were usually overshadowed by the monsters (like on the cover, and the picture you posted above). Barely a bicep was to be seen. The men, who were few and far between were largely relegated to ingenue types. Like I said, the kobold has more muscle definition than just about any male character depicted in the Player's Handbook.

I'm a little surprised you've never heard the word "inoffensive" used as a criticism before. Well, now you have. Maybe insipid would be a better choice. The depictions of people in the Player's Handbook are intentionally as bland and uninteresting as they can possibly be, in the hopes that no one will look at them and find something to be offended by. The monsters on the other hand, are drawn as excitingly as the artist knows how. But I daresay the average player is more heroically proportioned than most of the fantasy characters depicted in the PHB.

 

[fuindordm]

As far as the game, D&D hasn't been D&D since 2000. And back then 2e edition designers were so misguided about its design I don't know if they had any actual understanding of its underpinnings at all.
...
What is true is that as a storygame 5e is an enjoyable, D&D reminiscent game. It respects its history and holds a vastly improved attitude to its fan base. I cannot honestly say I would run any game after 2nd ed. unless the original design precepts are brought back...

This was a well written and itneresting post, but I don't understand one thing. What unique design elements from 1e do you think are missing from subsequent editions, and why do they make AD&D superior?

 

[Fralex]

That piece was all right; it looks much better as a stand alone piece than it did in the book; there were a couple others that were okay. Of course, in the book, they swallowed up the picture by blurring the edges and adding edge dressing that compressed the look of that picture so much of the power was drained. Seriously, compare the picture in your post to the one in the PHB. It's much more powerful without all the art director fiddling. And again, it proves the point I made that the only thing they were willing to make exciting was the monsters.

The majority of it was largely bland figures posing like they were auditioning for the JC Penney Fall Adventurer line. Just people standing around, doing nothing. Very few pieces of art showed anyone actually engaging in violence, other than spell use; they were usually overshadowed by the monsters (like on the cover, and the picture you posted above). Barely a bicep was to be seen. The men, who were few and far between were largely relegated to ingenue types. Like I said, the kobold has more muscle definition than just about any male character depicted in the Player's Handbook.

I'm a little surprised you've never heard the word "inoffensive" used as a criticism before. Well, now you have. Maybe insipid would be a better choice. The depictions of people in the Player's Handbook are intentionally as bland and uninteresting as they can possibly be, in the hopes that no one will look at them and find something to be offended by. The monsters on the other hand, are drawn as excitingly as the artist knows how. But I daresay the average player is more heroically proportioned than most of the fantasy characters depicted in the PHB.

I wanted to look at the art in the book directly, but unfortunately I had to mail it back to be replaced. Incidentally, that is my biggest complaint about this edition so far. A book shouldn't lose all its pages within two months of its purchase. BUT! I was sneaky about this. I only mailed back most of the book! When my replacement arrives, I'll have both a full PHB and a smaller book containing just the spell lists for quick reference. I just need to find a cheap way to bind the loose pages back together into a little magazine-type deal.

But anyway, right now I can only look at the art that was posted online. It would make sense if I didn't see the more bland-looking pieces from it. I'm sure there were some in the book, but since they were less memorable it's harder for me to recall very many right now, I guess. If you've got the book with you, you're probably better-qualified to judge the art as a whole than me.

I just didn't understand your assertion that there weren't many people bearing muscles because the artists were trying too hard not to be offensive. Are there really that many people who take offense to athletic body types? I just figured it was because the people you'd expect to be muscular were all wearing heavy armor and thick clothing. Kobolds aren't as rich or civilized as adventurers, so it made sense to me that you'd see more bear skin on them than a human. Now that you point it out though, it is a little weird how muscular that kobold is considering its Strength is negative. Maybe those are the sorts of muscles you develop if you're more focused on agility and dexterity when you fight? I don't know a lot about the different builds a person can have. And it's got a very heroic sort of pose. It's kind of cute, in a grumpy sort of way, isn't it?

 

[Grimstaff]

I have to say I found the play test largely uninspiring, and basically quit bothering with it after the 2nd or 3rd round. As a fan of older edition games (bx, 1e specifically) it was unlikely I ever would have tried the final product. Except, it's so hard to find older edition groups that I had been playing Pathfinder for over a year, and was getting anxious to try something else. So I suggested a play test of the new rules, the
Group agreed. The week before that session, I played a 5e game with my old high school gaming group, and we had a blast. So I went into the session with my PF group with more than a little trepidation - if old school players had so much fun, there's no way PF fans will like it, right?
So imAgine my surprise when we had what was probably the most dynamic and exciting session ever. By the end, the test drive had turned into "let's keep playing 5e for the foreseeable future". So, ime, WotC certainly achieved their goal of producing a game that appeals to both oldschool fans and fans of more modern design.
What really interests me now is exploring high level play - that for me is one of the things I miss most from older editions - fast paced exciting adventure at level 12+. With 3x/PF, higher level play became a chore of maths and bookkeeping, and 4e was like a power card game, despite them both being perfectly fun at lower levels. Do will 5e pass this final test for me? My group will likely hit level 6-7 tomorrow during our third session of Rise of the Runelords, so it's likely we'll be seeing those higher levels by late Jan or early Feb.
Can't wait!

 

[Nebulous]

I'm also curious as to how 5e plays out at levels 12+. Historically, i quit running games soon after that level. I have never made it to 20. The closest was when we ran a one-shot with 18th level Arcana Evolved, characters, and it was a nightmare of too much information.

 

[howandwhy99]

This was a well written and itneresting post, but I don't understand one thing. What unique design elements from 1e do you think are missing from subsequent editions, and why do they make AD&D superior?

D&D isn't superior. It's simply wholly different in both its design precepts and act of play. D&D was like every other non-storygame is designed as. It is about deciphering the code of the rules in order to attain objectives within it. This includes the rules manifested in the gameboard or "field of play". The rules generate the mazes in D&D and all monsters and treasure and so on are based on these rules as well. They are all mazes so to speak, games to be explored, discovered, remembered, and leveraged to the player's advantage to achieve goals in the game. Sounds like most any D&D clone videogame from as early as the 80s.

How this was done was making the rules and their manifestations, monsters, treasure, spells, items, everything, hidden behind a screen so players could learn them as they verbally attempted actions in the game via the referee. The referee doesn't play. They simply enable players to play the game by keeping the information to be remembered and mastered hidden from play.

That mystery, that magic of the game being a cooperative (not collaborative) endeavor, that beating back of the game to become great - both with improved characters and stronger via mental exercise players - that stuff isn't in the game. The rules are mistakenly in front of the screen and known to players. The exercise is of gameplay is mistaken to be expressive, not about impressions and calculations. The mechanics are no longer maze design, but narrative authority resolvers. And so much more.

You have to take the entirety of contemporary "RPG" design and chuck it out the window and dig up how wargames Gygax and Arneson played everyday were designed. Then, perhaps, the philosophical understanding will allow for different schools of thought, design mechanics, and play assumptions by fans.

 

[Parmandur]

That piece was all right; it looks much better as a stand alone piece than it did in the book; there were a couple others that were okay. Of course, in the book, they swallowed up the picture by blurring the edges and adding edge dressing that compressed the look of that picture so much of the power was drained. Seriously, compare the picture in your post to the one in the PHB. It's much more powerful without all the art director fiddling. And again, it proves the point I made that the only thing they were willing to make exciting was the monsters.

The majority of it was largely bland figures posing like they were auditioning for the JC Penney Fall Adventurer line. Just people standing around, doing nothing. Very few pieces of art showed anyone actually engaging in violence, other than spell use; they were usually overshadowed by the monsters (like on the cover, and the picture you posted above). Barely a bicep was to be seen. The men, who were few and far between were largely relegated to ingenue types. Like I said, the kobold has more muscle definition than just about any male character depicted in the Player's Handbook.

I'm a little surprised you've never heard the word "inoffensive" used as a criticism before. Well, now you have. Maybe insipid would be a better choice. The depictions of people in the Player's Handbook are intentionally as bland and uninteresting as they can possibly be, in the hopes that no one will look at them and find something to be offended by. The monsters on the other hand, are drawn as excitingly as the artist knows how. But I daresay the average player is more heroically proportioned than most of the fantasy characters depicted in the PHB.

Interesting how different reactions can be; love the art in all the books so far. Best art D&D has had since WOTC bought TSR, in my opinion.

 

[Truename]

How this was done was making the rules and their manifestations, monsters, treasure, spells, items, everything, hidden behind a screen so players could learn them as they verbally attempted actions in the game via the referee. The referee doesn't play. They simply enable players to play the game by keeping the information to be remembered and mastered hidden from play.

That's an interesting perspective. On reflection, I think you're right. The cloaker/lurker/trapper, gas spore, wolf-in-sheep's-clothing, Temple of Elemental Evil, that example of play with the ghouls... they all evoke the game as a puzzle to be solved.

I doubt such a game could exist today, to be honest. Information is too readily available. Sure, individual groups could choose to play that way, with the help of a lot of customization by the GM, but a mass-market game? I don't think it could be done... at least, not be done and still be D&D. Too much history, too many well-known tropes, too much easily-accessible information on the Internet. And I don't think the mass market is looking for that style of game any more, either.

But you're right. It's a very different style of game than AD&D. And yet, when I play 5e, I think, "this is how I remember D&D, but better."

 

[Emerikol]

That's an interesting perspective. On reflection, I think you're right. The cloaker/lurker/trapper, gas spore, wolf-in-sheep's-clothing, Temple of Elemental Evil, that example of play with the ghouls... they all evoke the game as a puzzle to be solved.

I doubt such a game could exist today, to be honest. Information is too readily available. Sure, individual groups could choose to play that way, with the help of a lot of customization by the GM, but a mass-market game? I don't think it could be done... at least, not be done and still be D&D. Too much history, too many well-known tropes, too much easily-accessible information on the Internet. And I don't think the mass market is looking for that style of game any more, either.

But you're right. It's a very different style of game than AD&D. And yet, when I play 5e, I think, "this is how I remember D&D, but better."

I think howandwhy99 helped me understand myself a little bit better. For me, D&D is very much a challenge game about exploring and conquering the unknown. As DM I maintain this style of game by doing that extra work you mentioned. It's worth it but I realize in today's society not many would consider it so.