D&D 5E Free 60+ page Guide to Sword & Sorcery for 5E D&D

[CapnZapp]

I just put up a new version (v1.5) of the Player's Guide, with a few minor changes: added the "words to the wise" disclaimer, did a few edits (adjusted the conqueror's battle cry, removed rapier from courtier, etc).

Perhaps you didn't intend to reply to me? I don't see any changes that merits any further commentary.

 

[CapnZapp]

Perhaps you didn't intend to reply to me? I don't see any changes that merits any further commentary.

Returning to this half a year later: You replied to me saying you had put up a new version. Because of the recent rpg.net thread I had reason to check out your latest version (called "1.6 playtest").

But I'm afraid I can't immediately see any further changes to anything we have discussed. Frankly, by now you come across as "I see your feedback, and acknowledge the validity, but won't change my mind, and can't be bothered to argue further for my position". I could be wrong or misremember - if so, I would much appreciate you pointing out any specific progress, ideally acknowledging which poster that made you change your mind (definitely does not have to be me).

Me and others have provided excellent feedback where you can push S&S tropes much further while not making significant (or even any!) changes to the 5th Edition core, and furthermore you have gotten several instances pointed out to you where your take on 5th edition concepts is still colored by old-edition-itis. In some instances we've also provided feedback that says "we suggest taking out this or that subsystem entirely, relying on 5E core is better and simpler!" You have AFAIK responded by saying the subsystem is optional. That still fails to acknowledge our point. Merely having a subsystem in a product brings implict recommendation; our point is that taking it out is the improvement we suggest, something marking it as optional fails to achieve. Please argue for keeping it in, so we can see your side of it!

While I like your product very much, and the idea of it even more, don't expect me to provide further feedback until you show yourself willing to not only discuss, but also change. You're starting to come off as somebody unable to kill your darlings here, Xoth.

Also, I noticed you still post your PDF link without regards to how others react to its cover nudity, even after extensive discussion as well as moderator action, which comes off as just sloppy by now.

I wish you good luck with your game, Xoth, but at this time you need to actively work to regain trust if you want the feedback implied by calling your public version a "playtest" version. Does that mean you must make changes you don't want to make just because of a random anon or three? Certainly not. But you should be able to make us see your point. That point, I'm afraid, can't and shouldn't be "because it was in my PF version" or somesuch. 5E is a decidedly different game.

There's value in you putting your reasons for sticking to your guns into words.

Best Regards,
Zapp

 

[gyor]

I love the Cultist Class, very well done.

 

[xoth.publishing]

But I'm afraid I can't immediately see any further changes to anything we have discussed. Frankly, by now you come across as "I see your feedback, and acknowledge the validity, but won't change my mind, and can't be bothered to argue further for my position". I could be wrong or misremember - if so, I would much appreciate you pointing out any specific progress, ideally acknowledging which poster that made you change your mind (definitely does not have to be me).

I went back and re-read the full thread. You and others have provided feedback; I've responded with my own thoughts, which range from "you're right, I will rephrase/adjust/remove that" to "I think it's fine as it is". It would be redundant for me to repeat the discussion and progress here; the thread provides an excellent log as-is.

Me and others have provided excellent feedback where you can push S&S tropes much further while not making significant (or even any!) changes to the 5th Edition core, and furthermore you have gotten several instances pointed out to you where your take on 5th edition concepts is still colored by old-edition-itis.

And what are those "several instances"? I'm not aware of anything that hasn't already been rephrased or removed if it erroneously referenced a Pathfinderism.

In some instances we've also provided feedback that says "we suggest taking out this or that subsystem entirely, relying on 5E core is better and simpler!" You have AFAIK responded by saying the subsystem is optional. That still fails to acknowledge our point. Merely having a subsystem in a product brings implict recommendation; our point is that taking it out is the improvement we suggest, something marking it as optional fails to achieve. Please argue for keeping it in, so we can see your side of it!

Not really sure what "subsystems" you are talking about here? I've suggested (as an optional rule) a small tweak to the Instant Death rule, and Instant Death is part of core 5E.

While I like your product very much, and the idea of it even more, don't expect me to provide further feedback until you show yourself willing to not only discuss, but also change. You're starting to come off as somebody unable to kill your darlings here, Xoth.

As mentioned above, I've responded to all feedback with my own thoughts, which range from "you're right, I will rephrase/adjust/remove that" to "I think it's fine as it is". I appreciate all feedback, that's why I put the book out there for review, and you've provided a number of good and useful points. Some of it has led to changes, some of it has not. As the author of said book it is ultimately up to me to have the final say. Of course people have different tastes and not everyone is going to like everything. Fortunately, it you like, say, 80% of the work it is easy to apply your own house rules on top of it. I'm sure most people do that with the core rulebooks, too.

Also, I noticed you still post your PDF link without regards to how others react to its cover nudity, even after extensive discussion as well as moderator action, which comes off as just sloppy by now.

My bad. The last "nipplegate" was six months ago, so I had forgotten the strange fact that many people in the New World are more easily offended by nipples than by blood, gore and violence.

I wish you good luck with your game, Xoth, but at this time you need to actively work to regain trust if you want the feedback implied by calling your public version a "playtest" version. Does that mean you must make changes you don't want to make just because of a random anon or three? Certainly not. But you should be able to make us see your point. That point, I'm afraid, can't and shouldn't be "because it was in my PF version" or somesuch. 5E is a decidedly different game.

Again, after re-reading this full thread today, I feel that I've responded to all feedback so far, incorporating changes if they make sense to me (even if in some cases it's only slightly rephrasing a sentence). I'm certainly not trying to hang onto Pathfinder, please point out any specific PF-isms that are still left, if any.

Also, work on the Player's Guide has been on the back-burner because I've been DMing 5E and working on the "Trials of Ngura" adventure, which is the first Xoth Publishing module written for 5E. So it's been a learning process on many fronts, but I still think that 5E is an excellent chassis for swords & sorcery (as lightly re-skinned D&D, not the hardcore S&S that would require a different rule system).

 

[cbwjm]

This is still one of the coolest swttings/supplements for 5e I've seen. It really seems to capture the old sword and sorcery feel.

 

[miggyG777]

Saw the cover page, pressed like. Thanks for sharing this, always fond of reading other peoples well considered design thoughts. Especially if this goes where I think it will.

 

[CapnZapp]

I went back and re-read the full thread.

I hope you don't expect me to put too much time into this reply, since you're by now trying to make the discussion to be about "I've done what I can and what, what more do you expect" instead of engaging with specific issues. Instead of taking my post as evidence of "maybe I haven't been so open as I think I have been", you're doubling down on your openmindedness and responsiveness. That's defensive, not constructive. (I wouldn't have written my reply if I had thought everything was alright.)

Just as a ultra-quick reminder, let me bring up a few points - trying to focus on things brought up by others, not merely by me.

You still include the advice about removing alignment despite being told many times that from the perspective of a 5E gamer it comes across as simply outdated and unnecessary. Please trust your audience: the best approach is to remove it altogether; 5E alignment ALREADY is where S&S needs it to be.

Instant Death: please remove the rule altogether. As FXR wrote: "it adds nothing to the game and actually goes against some of the usual themes of S&S".

More alarmingly, responding "it has been discussed before in this thread; it has been made clear the rule is optional" completely misses the point. Please don't miss the point!

Wounds Heal Quickly: About the only reason to even have this section, is because you have had it in your rules for other game systems. But since it now amounts to exactly nothing, the natural thing is to remove it. (You're saying natural healing should be accelerated, but that assumes acceleration from a previous-edition baseline. You then say there's no need for special rules. All of this reveal an author still writing from a point of view that isn't 5E)

Just to mix in a little good into this message:

Treasure Should Be Spent: I see you have responded here, removing the decidedly Pathfindery xp and gold amounts, and for that you deserve acknowledgement. Kudos!

I still think it would be more natural to first choose Culture, then Race (since your options for race are informed by your culture). There should totally be a cross-reference list "which races have Nomad members"? More importantly, it would put the emphasis on Culture. After all, whether you're Jairanian or, I dunno, Khazrajite matters much less (for everybody else than yourself) than the fact you're a Nomad. Everyone not from either of those two nations/areas likely won't know the difference unless the adventure is set in that particular corner of the world, they would just see a Nomad.

Just a final note to say I won't regurgitate our discussions on gender politics. I should also say I haven't looked at your class design. I see people say great things about your Cultist class!

 

[Weiley31]

Huh. I didn't post any pictures, just a link to the book. I'm always surprised by the fact that monsters, blood and violence seems to be OK in movies, comics and games; but some nipples must be censored like the plague. Anyway, if you just google "world of xoth", you should be able to find the website and the book (and lots of other free downloads) within a couple of clicks.

I mean, EVERYBODY knows that Boobs/Nips are the Path to the Darkside.

Hmm, are those the supposed "cookies" that it has?

 

[S'mon]

I hope you don't expect me to put too much time into this reply, since you're by now trying to make the discussion to be about "I've done what I can and what, what more do you expect" instead of engaging with specific issues. Instead of taking my post as evidence of "maybe I haven't been so open as I think I have been", you're doubling down on your openmindedness and responsiveness. That's defensive, not constructive. (I wouldn't have written my reply if I had thought everything was alright.)

Just as a ultra-quick reminder, let me bring up a few points - trying to focus on things brought up by others, not merely by me.

You still include the advice about removing alignment despite being told many times that from the perspective of a 5E gamer it comes across as simply outdated and unnecessary. Please trust your audience: the best approach is to remove it altogether; 5E alignment ALREADY is where S&S needs it to be.

Instant Death: please remove the rule altogether. As FXR wrote: "it adds nothing to the game and actually goes against some of the usual themes of S&S".

More alarmingly, responding "it has been discussed before in this thread; it has been made clear the rule is optional" completely misses the point. Please don't miss the point!

Wounds Heal Quickly: About the only reason to even have this section, is because you have had it in your rules for other game systems. But since it now amounts to exactly nothing, the natural thing is to remove it. (You're saying natural healing should be accelerated, but that assumes acceleration from a previous-edition baseline. You then say there's no need for special rules. All of this reveal an author still writing from a point of view that isn't 5E)

Just to mix in a little good into this message:

Treasure Should Be Spent: I see you have responded here, removing the decidedly Pathfindery xp and gold amounts, and for that you deserve acknowledgement. Kudos!

I still think it would be more natural to first choose Culture, then Race (since your options for race are informed by your culture). There should totally be a cross-reference list "which races have Nomad members"? More importantly, it would put the emphasis on Culture. After all, whether you're Jairanian or, I dunno, Khazrajite matters much less (for everybody else than yourself) than the fact you're a Nomad. Everyone not from either of those two nations/areas likely won't know the difference unless the adventure is set in that particular corner of the world, they would just see a Nomad.

Despite Zappy's obnoxious tone, I think the advice is good. 5e is a much bigger departure from 3e than appears at first sight, and much better suited to a lower magic sword and sorcery style.

 

[Weiley31]

So I can make a Seducer bard basically in regular dnd.

I mean the Bard does that already, but now it can be kinda official now.