D&D General Let's Talk About the Changing Game

[payn]

You say that like these are mutually exclusive things. Elaborate?

During NEXT there was a lot of talk about modularity being able to dial the game in a myriad of ways. Though, once the game took off, there was little need to produce the modules.

 

[Umbran]

Well I didn't say anything about "other stuff to care about" except in the context of how I experienced the positive effects of the changing game. I'm not sure why you want to actively not-engage the premise. Saying one thing answers a specific issue doesn't necessarily say anything about what else might answer that issue.

Because I think the framing of the premise assumes a particular conclusion. It is based in the patterns of a game from the early years of RPGs, which, to be honest, wasn't the epitome of great game design.

You said, "I think the Changing Game is the solution for the woes of high level D&D that so many people experience." (emphasis mine). I'm pushing back on it being a singular good solution. Not to say that there aren't folks that like it, but that as a general approach to long campaigns, it is a very narrow and specific vision.

I know some folks here chafe at the "approved mode of play", but it probably pays to consider that, for maybe several different reasons, this mode was less popular. In that case, adding it back in the core rules may not be the best choice. A more general approach to keeping a campaign fresh and appealing may be in order.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I think the acquisitions incorporated and dice camera action podcasts were good in this regard, as they regularly featured home bases but in a way that fit with the general tone and ethos of 5e.

Absolutely. I love building organizations in Star Wars Saga Edition, but 5 just ain’t gonna be that granular.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Agreed, but once 5E sold like hot cakes, modularity died.

I do not think they had to staff or budget for modularity

 

[Micah Sweet]

I do not think they had to staff or budget for modularity

Well, given the high sales numbers it seems that decision was on them.

 

[Dausuul]

Well, castles cost a lot. And you have to pay followers, or otherwise see to their well-being.

But my question was why can't you have things that the characters care about. The OP seemed to be noting, basically, that after a while, fighting for the sake of fighting gets boring, so give the PCs something else to deal with.

I am questioning why "build a castle and get followers" is really the only "thing they care about" on the table here. It is, honestly, kind of specific, and probably doesn't apply to a lot of PCs.

This presumes that castles and followers are the end rather than the means. AD&D pushed that notion by presenting you with followers but no way to use them -- they were just a status symbol. The OP, however, was talking about the B/X line, which assumed that you would want to lead your followers into battle and provided rules to do so.

If the scope of adventures grows as the PCs level up -- where low-level PCs tackle bandits and marauding orcs, and high-level PCs tackle regional or global threats -- then I would argue it makes perfect sense to incorporate such rules. When the Big Bad is commanding armies and laying waste to kingdoms, PCs should be able to bring more than just their own swords and spells to the table.

I find that DMs often venture into this territory at higher levels anyway, simply because it makes narrative sense. But then the DM has to improvise all the mechanics on the fly.