D&D 5E Hasbro's Goldner - D&D up 50%

[Tony Vargas]

I'd say it's more streamlined and effiently put together then simpler,

That'd also be unfamiliar to D&D fans.

it's a refinement of previous editions

particularly the classic editions. A synthesis of the WotC and TSR era might be a way to put it, too. The game itself is very much evocative of the TSR era, the details of the mechanics are more WotC/d20 era.

a handful of new good ideas.

More good ideas than you might think, and fewer of them genuinely new than you might realize. Especially if we don't mean 'new to D&D.'

But 5e is a strong re-boot/re-storation/re-trenchment/re-whatever of the franchise. It goes back it's roots, with modern presentation and promotion, and consolidates it's recently-fractious fanbase. It's a solid foundation for a brand with potential to move into more profitable media.

 

[MechaPilot]

The guerill4 w4 lives on.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, because that's not inviting edition warring or anything.

 

[Remathilis]

Heh. Maybe they should have picked a word other than 'modular,' because 1) 5e is not remotely modular, you can't just snap out one 'module' and pop in another and have it all work seamlessly - they 5e modules are sample 'variants' (in the historic sense it's been used in the hobby) . 2) 'Module' in the game's historic parlance means 'published adventure' (typically 32-64 pgs).

I meant modular in the sense of "changable without breaking other key parts of the system. For example a 5e game can live with extremely low magic item acquisition; 3e and 4e baked in constantly upgrading gear into the default math. Its not a knock to either system, but it shows a certain "flexibility" that the previous WotC Editions lack.

And, 5e's not a simpler system, if it were, it wouldn't have the same appeal.
It's got less material in total, but the underlying system, especially the player-facing system of classes & class abilities, has only gotten more complex and less intuitive. It doesn't matter to long-time players, and it's positively a boon to returning players, because it's familiar. A feeling of familiarity, of 'I already got this down,' is far more important/powerful than a reality of actual (but novel) simplicity, that puts you back at square 1 (of fewer squares in total).

No, the system isn't "simple", but its far better streamlined. There are less option decision points, less overall "trap" options. Some of that is the smaller pool of options, some of that is an attempt to control the numbers inflation and to present options vs. static bonuses. (Xanathar's Guide will be the test point to see if that survives the first real "splat" book of 5e).

 

[darjr]

I think it is far simpler than it's been in a long time. Regardless of the options. That beginners can forget about feats altogether is a profound simplification.

also yea, 50% growth from LAST YEAR!

The two stores I frequent here are growing D&D pretty fast. Soon they will run out of room. And forget about having another event at the same time.

And half the store is dedicated to gaming, each store has a full store bay dedicated to tables.

Dave

 

[fjw70]

Good for D&D. I am happy to see the brand growing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I meant modular in the sense of "changable without breaking other key parts of the system.

Yeah, it's not really that, either. But my quibble was more with the word, because it has meaning for me both in the classic-D&D sense (a published adventure) and the in the tech sense (swappable).

For example a 5e game can live with extremely low magic item acquisition; 3e and 4e baked in constantly upgrading gear into the default math. Its not a knock to either system, but it shows a certain "flexibility" that the previous WotC Editions lack.

Not a knock any system, but: 5e defaults to few/no magic items, and 'breaks' if you add too many (it just makes challenging the party a moving target, which, in past eds might have been characterized as 'breaking,' but you're moving it by giving them items, so it's up to you in the first place, it's not like they can make/buy a bunch of game-breaking items). 3e defaulted to lots of very powerful, highly abusable magic items and was broken prettymuch no matter what. 4e defaulted to lots of fairly unimportant magic items (which was arguably broken in that your reaction to a dragon's horde bursting with gold, jewels and magic items shouldn't be "meh, did I level?"), and 3 item slots critical to 'the math,' that you could replace with a flick of an optional rule.

No, the system isn't "simple", but its far better streamlined.

There's simply less of it. 3.x/d20/Pathfinder product could fill a warehouse, 5e product doesn't fill a bookshelf.

There are less option decision points, less overall "trap" options. Some of that is the smaller pool of options,

Warehouse, bookshelf, yes.
Fewer decision points is a double-edged penknife, it means less customization on the player side. But the class designs, in particular, are not streamlined - streamlined would be only 3 classes (Mage, Priest, Hero, perhaps) or all classes use one progression table. But, that's the point, again: many of them will be quite familiar to a returning D&D player from the TSR era, the spell progression tables seem particularly important in that regard. Levels from 1-9? from a few 1st level spells to many of all levels? check, this is D&D.

some of that is an attempt to control the numbers inflation and to present options vs. static bonuses.

Yeah, BA is nice, in the sense that it's fairly tightly-progressing scaling. The magnitude of the numbers being tiny is not really a meaningful part of that. If everyone can contribute at 20th level with bonuses ranging from +9 to +26, that's not meaningfully different than everyone contributing at the same level with bonuses from -1 to +17. But it is a huge improvement from the 20+ point swings between maxxed and untrained skills in 3.x, or between full BAB, +5 weapons & massive STR vs half BAB, and that crossbow you've been carrying since 1st level. The key benefit of bounded accuracy is not that the numbers are small, but that the spread in the numbers between the worst and best members of the party at a task don't completely overwhelm the d20. That was a huge issue in 3.x, and I suppose it might still be in PF. :shrug:

(Xanathar's Guide will be the test point to see if that survives the first real "splat" book of 5e).

That will be interesting. I'm optimistic.
Plus, it's all necessarily optional, so if any of it is a problem. *flick*

also yea, 50% growth from LAST YEAR!

The two stores I frequent here are growing D&D pretty fast. Soon they will run out of room. And forget about having another event at the same time.

And half the store is dedicated to gaming, each store has a full store bay dedicated to tables.

Woot! I'm pleased with the news precisely because I've stopped seeing literal 'growth' in D&D here at our FLGS. IMHO, because there's no room, we have D&D bumping magic tables on Wed night, we even have a table out front this summer! - but I couldn't have 'proved' that it hadn't 'plateaued.'

 

[Valetudo]

I wish some of dat growth was a good videogame.

 

[Charles Rampant]

Not a knock any system, but: 5e defaults to few/no magic items, and 'breaks' if you add too many (it just makes challenging the party a moving target, which, in past eds might have been characterized as 'breaking,' but you're moving it by giving them items, so it's up to you in the first place, it's not like they can make/buy a bunch of game-breaking items). 3e defaulted to lots of very powerful, highly abusable magic items and was broken prettymuch no matter what. 4e defaulted to lots of fairly unimportant magic items (which was arguably broken in that your reaction to a dragon's horde bursting with gold, jewels and magic items shouldn't be "meh, did I level?"), and 3 item slots critical to 'the math,' that you could replace with a flick of an optional rule.

On this front, it's probably easier at the table to give out more items and adjust, than to give out fewer and adjust, because of player reactions. So we might call that a modest simplification for the DM.

Yeah, BA is nice, in the sense that it's fairly tightly-progressing scaling. The magnitude of the numbers being tiny is not really a meaningful part of that. If everyone can contribute at 20th level with bonuses ranging from +9 to +26, that's not meaningfully different than everyone contributing at the same level with bonuses from -1 to +17. But it is a huge improvement from the 20+ point swings between maxxed and untrained skills in 3.x, or between full BAB, +5 weapons & massive STR vs half BAB, and that crossbow you've been carrying since 1st level. The key benefit of bounded accuracy is not that the numbers are small, but that the spread in the numbers between the worst and best members of the party at a task don't completely overwhelm the d20. That was a huge issue in 3.x, and I suppose it might still be in PF. :shrug:

Apparently a surprisingly important part of this change is the fact that people find it easier to add 1d20+1-7 than 1d20+11-17. So they took the 4e numbers and cut them in half for a clean and easy simplification. 5e isn't the simplest system ever, but it is a hell of a lot simpler than most big RPGs because of this kind of low key, small scale, streamlining.

 

[mflayermonk]

Also Monopoly and Magic the Gathering movies are currently in production.

"How to Make a Movie Out of Anything — Even a Mindless Phone Game" from the NY Times Magazine

 

[robus]

You'd almost think WotC knows what's its doing...
.
.
.
Perhaps we'll be in a good place whenever they get that frakkin movie made.

Why did you have to remind them of the movie?! And things were going so well...