D&D 5E Do you find alignment useful in any way?

[transmission89]

But 5e is already quite far away from TSR-era dnd? Hence the entire OS movement.


They are making something new, which is why we have new editions and changes to the game. Whatever style of play critical role is, as well as the whole idea of streaming an rpg game, that's new. New "Appendix N"-style influences are being added, including anime and videogame rpg conventions (that were themselves inspired by dnd)


TSR was going bankrupt. The game is also something that (someone) needs to sell. Though, tbh, 5e is, if anything, overly nostalgic and self-referential at this point. I assume that's the main reason they kept alignment in at all.


As you know, the hobby isn't constrained by wotc or any other one company

TSR going bankrupt had little to do with the edition in and of itself and more their poor management.

And indeed they are making something new. To which I feel shouldn’t have the Dungeons and Dragons name because I feel it is not Dungeons and Dragons. Which is what I was saying. It’s an entirely subjective thing and I totally understand and respect that others’ opinions are different and are equally as valid. Continuing to go in the wrong direction, In my opinion. And of course, others may differ in their opinion. I will always argue along the traditionalist lines for D&D because that is what I think is good for the game, and so will voice that when given the chance by wotc surveys. I will also argue for things that I think are intrinsically part of D&D, so that whatever the next version that bears the name can at least have some resemblance to its namesake, to me. Of course, others will differ and argue for what they want in the next edition. Such is the way of things and such has it ever been. And maybe, just maybe, 6th edition will just be a cleaned up 2nd edition, tis a fool’s dream, but I can but live in hope. I have 2nd edition and B/X to keep me going and to promote until the wider gaming community see the light

 

[Helldritch]

I imagine that every major product, including changes like leaving out alignment etc, is viewed from a perspective of brand management. They seemed to have made the calculation that making alignment an optional add-in and/or not applying it in new books is a net gain for their brand and business. Perhaps they've done some amount of market research to support this calculation.

I never saw a survey on that one element and the last one they did was not even addressing this topic. So it looks a lot like the co.pany made it's own decision base on a vocal part of their audience and not based on actual preferences of their customers' base.

 

[Maxperson]

I imagine that every major product, including changes like leaving out alignment etc, is viewed from a perspective of brand management. They seemed to have made the calculation that making alignment an optional add-in and/or not applying it in new books is a net gain for their brand and business. Perhaps they've done some amount of market research to support this calculation.

They went from 0 to 60 with this change once voices got loud. I doubt they spent a lot of time calculating, which is par for the course for a company with a history of knee-jerk reactions. They overreacted here.

 

[Scribe]

I've been thinking of this blog post from a few months back: Some Thoughts on The D&D and Wizards of the Coast Problem

Interesting piece, but I think you grabbed the wrong part of it.

To me, the most important part is the call out that there is something, or a segment of D&D players who are utterly reactionary against change.

Not because they are racist, or sexist, or whatever -ist one wishes to label them with, but because they cling to D&D-isms, and refuse to have those removed.

I could dig up recent posts on this forum that the article may as well have quoted.

That's, quite interesting to me.

 

[Malmuria]

Interesting piece, but I think you grabbed the wrong part of it.

To me, the most important part is the call out that there is something, or a segment of D&D players who are utterly reactionary against change.

Not because they are racist, or sexist, or whatever -ist one wishes to label them with, but because they cling to D&D-isms, and refuse to have those removed.

I could dig up recent posts on this forum that the article may as well have quoted.

That's, quite interesting to me.

Yes, and I think the point of the blog post and the article to which it refers is that, actually, wotc and this edition specifically is much more deferential to those players than the so-called "vocal minority" because they remember what happened with 4e. It is striking to me that even when they release a backward-looking campaign setting (Ravenloft), there's still massive complaint about it not being backward-looking enough.

I do get wanting dnd to 'feel like' dnd, but what this is changes depending on what edition you started on (and is why I am early awaiting my OSE books to arrive)

 

[Mistwell]

I never saw a survey on that one element and the last one they did was not even addressing this topic. So it looks a lot like the co.pany made it's own decision base on a vocal part of their audience and not based on actual preferences of their customers' base.

I agree, I have never seen a survey on this topic. My read of Candlekeep is it likely was in there in an older draft and then wholesale removed without considering potential problems that caused. I pointed one out earlier, where the stat block of an undead dragon makes it look aggressive and evil, while the small descriptive text says it's non-aggressive and friendly and chatty, buried in the middle of several paragraphs of text. An alignment indicator was likely helpful in that instance, and removing it was sloppy.

 

[Scribe]

Yes, and I think the point of the blog post and the article to which it refers is that, actually, wotc and this edition specifically is much more deferential to those players than the so-called "vocal minority" because they remember what happened with 4e. It is striking to me that even when they release a backward-looking campaign setting (Ravenloft), there's still massive complaint about it not being backward-looking enough.

I do get wanting dnd to 'feel like' dnd, but what this is changes depending on what edition you started on (and is why I am early awaiting my OSE books to arrive)

At the onset of 5th? Absolutely.

Post Tasha's? No, vocal minority.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Do you even pay attention to what people say? Alignment is one part of the picture. It answers questions other things do not. It gives insight into general behavior and reaction.

Except you just failed to get general behavior and reaction that matched the CE and instead asked for more information.

The entire point of the current pro-alignment argument (such as it sprung fully formed out of the muck a few years or so ago after 'TRADITION' and 'But the players will run wild' failed to strike home) is that it is a useful tool for figuring out how a monster will behave without having to 'waste time' on actually reading the description and getting real actual information about the monster.

Adding an alignment to this creature caused you to think they had a cruel, murderous society ruled by the strong with personal honor when they're solitary tortured creatures who kill not for greed, but out of twisted envy toward others they can't fathom. It didn't provide you anything useful about the monster at all, which is supposed to the point, right?

So here's the follow-up question:

What is even added to this specific creature to tag two letters to the end of it?

 

[Oofta]

Except you just failed to get general behavior and reaction that matched the CE and instead asked for more information.

The entire point of the current pro-alignment argument (such as it sprung fully formed out of the muck a few years or so ago after 'TRADITION' and 'But the players will run wild' failed to strike home) is that it is a useful tool for figuring out how a monster will behave without having to 'waste time' on actually reading the description and getting real actual information about the monster.

Adding an alignment to this creature caused you to think they had a cruel, murderous society ruled by the strong with personal honor when they're solitary tortured creatures who kill not for greed, but out of twisted envy toward others they can't fathom. It didn't provide you anything useful about the monster at all, which is supposed to the point, right?

So here's the follow-up question:

What is even added to this specific creature to tag two letters to the end of it?

Since you don't believe in alignment, does it really matter? This is your custom monster, it can be anything you want. As far as your concerned, you could give them all the attributes and moral compass of LG and then claim that my default behavior is "wrong".

It has very little to do with tradition and I'm done answering questions about pointless strawman argument.

 

[Lanefan]

I'm in favour of combining gnomes and halflings.

Or Gnomes and Dwarves? I've always seen those two as being far closer both genetically and culturally than either are to Hobbits.

Also remove all subraces.

Let's go a much-needed step further and knock out all PC species other than Human, Elf, Dwarf and Hobbit (and Part-Elf, and Part-Orc, and Gnome, as options). Leave what were monsters as monsters.

Yes, sorcerers should be removed. I already did that in my game. They really do not have enough mechanical or thematic uniqueness to warrant their inclusion, their stuff can be divided between warlocks and wizards.

I went the other way around and in effect took out Wizards, porting them over to 3e-like Sorcerer mechanics; mostly because I don't like futzing around with spell pre-memorization either as player or DM.

I've yet to see the point of Warlocks.