D&D General The Monsters Know What They're Doing ... Are Unsure on 5e24

[Remathilis]

WotC has been pushing "D&D as its own distinctive genre/game/brand" for a quarter-century now, from the design of 3E to the 'make it more distinctive' redesign of 4E, and even the nostalgia push of early 5E. The toolkit element is a dying older segment at most, IMO.

It's all they have left. It gave away the game for free. Everyone and their uncle can make their own D&D using the SRD (the Real Toolbox). So what does WotC have left to sell if not it's IP? The shared world(s) and branding? Why even bother with the PHB if you're not interested in the D&D setting, grab the SRD or any of the dozens of clones if you want D&D minus D&D...

 

[EzekielRaiden]

As of your four examples (plus the original one).

1. I would probably walk from an all human D&D game, but of a game was not billed as D&D (aka a dedicated Conan RPG) I am less inclined. Put another way: I'm not going to bounce from Cyberpunk Red game due to the lack of aliens and fantasy races, but I would bounce from a Shadowrun game that banned everything but humans.
2. Depending on how it was done. In 3e, i flirted with a psionics only game, a spontaneous casters only game and once ran a one-shot "no PHB" game where every class was from a supplement. But in each of those cases, I had at least 10 or more class options available and tried to find functional equivalent classes for most archetypes (want to be a cleric like? You had ardent (psionic), mystic (spontaneous) and multiple like Favored Soul (no PHB)). But each one would be agreed on before even creating, which is why two never got off played and one was only a one shot.
3. I've always found the All X campaigns kinda boring. I've done games where everyone was part of the crew of a pirate ship or is a paranormal investigator, but I didn't force them to all take the pirate background or the inquisitive background. Likewise, if you want to run an all-dwarves campaign, you better believe I'm angling to play the halfling thief they hired!
4. Pre gens are fine for one shots and tournament play. But if you are going so far as to create my character for me, do me the favor and play him for me too.
5. Now this is the one where I can see the other side far more clearly. If the world is an Arctic wasteland, I'm not sure I would appreciate a character wanting to be a tropical Tarzan like barbarian or desert rider genies paladin. But that's mostly because I tend to run games with a strong theme line for cohesion and if you aren't interested in the theme line, you aren't probably going to like the campaign. My pirate campaign has a lot of nautical characters. My Ravenloft game had character who were somewhat monsters themselves. My upcoming Eberron campaign is set in Quickstone and everyone is going to the gunslinger/Wild West aesthetic. In theory you could play a landlubber, a rational skeptic, or a city-slicker, but you probably aren't going to have as much fun as if you bought into the trope.

I was assuming that none of these were billed up front and instead were, if not a "surprise", then only stated after the start of Session 0. That is, after players would reasonably have begun to build their characters.

I would be unlikely to want to play Conan or CPR or the like. I have D&D and Shadowrun, which allow me to be stuff that isn't human.
Sure, I'm absolutely certain that some folks would love such a game. The only "one source only" game that would interest me would be a divine game, since that's well aligned with my interests. MAAAAYBE an arcane-only game. Other than that, I just don't generally find the other power sources particularly interesting.
Sounds like we're on the same page for #3 and #4. I have no interest in playing pre-gens except--as you say--one-shots.
For me, it's again a matter of it getting sprung on me late. I've played Dark Sun, which is essentially "What if desert-only?" but that was, as said, announced from the beginning. I chose "arctic" specifically because it has something in common with something I like (Narnia), but is not something I'm super excited to play through on its own. (Doubly so because it strongly implies "survival will be a huge challenge" which I find to be extremely dull, frustrating, unrewarding play.)

 

[Alzrius]

3e was designed around the massive toolkit approach. There were so many options and add-on mechanics that you had to be restrictive.

Wizards of the Coast's own website for the 3.5 SRD described it as "a comprehensive toolbox," it should be noted.

 

[mamba]

It's all they have left. It gave away the game for free. Everyone and their uncle can make their own D&D using the SRD (the Real Toolbox). So what does WotC have left to sell if not it's IP? The shared world(s) and branding? Why even bother with the PHB if you're not interested in the D&D setting, grab the SRD or any of the dozens of clones if you want D&D minus D&D...

They have brand recognition, that probably accounts for 90% of their sales / market share right there, it's not like 5e is so much better than the competition after all... They have their adventures etc., and obviously much of the PHB is not actually in the SRD, which contains only 1 subclass per class.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Which I find a ... bad suggestion.
Levels 1 to 3 feel quite different from the later levels and skipping the first levels make the game feel to samey and removes a lot of the feeling of progress from the game, because the advancements in the first levels feel the strongest.
It's like skipping the fellowship of the rings so you just can go right to the battle of helms deep.

Whereas to me, it's like skipping three math classes you've already taken, and which got re-reviewed in both previous physics courses you've taken, so you can actually get to the classes that interest you.

I find levels 1-3 simultaneously stress-inducing and extremely not fun. Like painfully not fun. The stress isn't exciting, it just makes me...well, stressed. I worry and fret, I feel like naughty word if my character dies, I get disheartened. And of course half the groups I've been in drag these levels out forever and ever and ever, so it doesn't even feel like progress, it just feels like I'm trapped in levels where I'm outright incapable, unbelievably fragile, and spending 99.9% of my attention on Not Dying Today rather than being able to engage with or invest into anything at all.

I genuinely, unreservedly hate the early-game experience of 5e at this point. But of course that's where every goddamn GM wants to start. I didn't mind it with Hussar's group because we're running a module which expects that kind of start, and is actually written to account for it. But in a custom campaign? For God's sake, let me start at LEAST at level 3.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

OK, I find that overly simplistic and not really a reaction to what I said, but again...ok.

I'm not entirely sure I understand why. It seems a clear statement: One of the greatest draws of D&D is that it provides a variety of interests and options. If you're going to cut, then for that to be actually "less is more", you need to actually prove that you are, y'know, covering more ground despite having fewer elements. If you can't show that, then it's just "less is less". Hence, for it to achieve "more" status, without becoming just straight-up "more is more", you would need to offer replacements for the things cut--so that more is still happening. AKA, "different is more".

Far, far, far, far, far too many people love to just invoke the "less is more" maxim as though it were somehow common knowledge that fewer things could, somehow, inherently be actually more than more things. Which is ludicrous.

If you are going to claim less is more, you have to actually show the "more" part. And if you haven't done that, why on earth would you expect anyone to buy in?

I mentioned that I think settings should be a place to introduce new stuff (rules, ideas, etc.). I also said restrictions could be minimal or non-existent. The thrust of a "narrow" setting should be to show off new ways of doing things.

Perhaps. But that entails what I argued above, no? If a setting is "narrow", it must either actually do "more" with its narrowed, less, elements. Or it must accept being a little less "narrow" by instead being a little broader, but in areas that the cut things didn't cover--different is more.

A narrow setting is not automatically more flavorful, more impactful, more consistent, or more well-structured, simply because it is narrow. Likewise, a "broad" setting (if that is the appropriate term) is not automatically less flavorful, impactful, consistent, nor well-structured, simply because it is broad. The work must actually be done to show the difference.

And just an FYI, when we started our last campaign I gave the players the MM and said pick any sentient creature you want and that can be your species!

Interesting. I imagine that was quite an effort on your part!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

For me personally that is ... problematic. When you come to the table, your character concept completely planned out, down to the feats and ASIs you will take up to level 20.

Why do you assume that? It was neither stated nor even implied.

In the good old days a character developed during , which makes them inflexible during play and makes roleplay worse, because they have thise perfect character in mind that they can't change out off, which makes them inflexible during play.

Where are these "perfect character(s)" coming from? Why can't they change? Why are they inflexible?

I've literally never seen this. Ever. Not in 3e, 4e, or 5e. Not once.

Why does having to endure the tortuous slog of level 1 and 2 inure the player to these things? It's two bloody levels! Ones that are meant to take no more than three sessions TOTAL to complete! (Of course, I have seen far far far far FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR too many GMs who stretch out those first two levels into six+ sessions, which drives me up the bloody WALL.)

 

[Tigris]

Which I find a ... bad suggestion.
Levels 1 to 3 feel quite different from the later levels and skipping the first levels make the game feel to samey and removes a lot of the feeling of progress from the game, because the advancements in the first levels feel the strongest.
It's like skipping the fellowship of the rings so you just can go right to the battle of helms deep.

I guess you are a GM?

Well feeling different because it feels for most players bad. And yes its "more progress" because power level from level 1 to 3 doubles. (And then from level 3 to 5 doubles and then from 5 to 9 or so doubles again). The progression is way more extreme than later mathematically.

Also its more like skipping the 200 pages of the dudes traveling through forests in lord of the rings, which any editor would skip and any modern book with such a boring section in it would not be bought.


Its just a relic from the past which today can be done better.

if there is no sense of progress without levels 1 to 3, then the GM just does a bad job showing progress through the story.

D&D is known for being heroic fantasy. Thats what the movie shows, the computer and boardgames show. Its what 95% of the rpg game is (level 2 and 3 take by design way less xp to reach!)


So people sign up to play that, not "get tortured for 2 levels by a sadistic GM".

If I go to a boardgame night, I would be pissed if I would be forced to first play for 1 houe chess before we can actually play modern boardgames.



So the suggestion from WotC to start at level 3 is really a good and reasonable one. Acceptibg that modern gamedesign is bettet than outdated 30+ year old one, and start at the power level 4E started for the exact same reasons using modern gamedesign.

 

[Belen]

I guess you are a GM?

Well feeling different because it feels for most players bad. And yes its "more progress" because power level from level 1 to 3 doubles. (And then from level 3 to 5 doubles and then from 5 to 9 or so doubles again). The progression is way more extreme than later mathematically.

Also its more like skipping the 200 pages of the dudes traveling through forests in lord of the rings, which any editor would skip and any modern book with such a boring section in it would not be bought.


Its just a relic from the past which today can be done better.

if there is no sense of progress without levels 1 to 3, then the GM just does a bad job showing progress through the story.

D&D is known for being heroic fantasy. Thats what the movie shows, the computer and boardgames show. Its what 95% of the rpg game is (level 2 and 3 take by design way less xp to reach!)


So people sign up to play that, not "get tortured for 2 levels by a sadistic GM".

If I go to a boardgame night, I would be pissed if I would be forced to first play for 1 houe chess before we can actually play modern boardgames.



So the suggestion from WotC to start at level 3 is really a good and reasonable one. Acceptibg that modern gamedesign is bettet than outdated 30+ year old one, and start at the power level 4E started for the exact same reasons using modern gamedesign.

I love levels 1-3 as a player and DM. I like the types of starting adventures. I love the feeling of vulnerability and adventure. It feels more real and exciting.

Later levels tend to lack any sense of risk and as a DM, I feel like it would be a jerk move to attack a player that falls to zero even if an NPC would take that action.

Also, as a DM, I usually follow a formula of 1-2 sessions at level 1 and 2, 3-4 sessions at 3. Players seem to enjoy the chance for quick level ups in the early sessions.

As a player, I enjoy that it lets me get a feel for how I want to play the character.

 

[Remathilis]

They have brand recognition, that probably accounts for 90% of their sales / market share right there,

I agree to that, but I feel brand recognition is part of IP. It's everything from the meta setting (the multiverse stuff like planes and archmage named spells and monsters, along with the settings and exclusive stuff to them.

it's not like 5e is so much better than the competition after all...

On par mechanically with TotV or A5e. Which makes sense since they all share common rules.

They have their adventures etc.,

I'd call that IP as well, since most are setting oriented and use pretty famous characters or villains.

and obviously much of the PHB is not actually in the SRD, which contains only 1 subclass per class.

Consider it a "carefully considered a focused vision" then.