D&D 5E Mearls Interviews: Hints at the new model

[TerraDave]

Actually,if you want to get technical, that means it is very much not a splatbook. You could call it a supplement (though, what other "supplements" also contain the fullness of the base rules?), but it isn't a splatbook.

Let us remember the origin of the term, "splatbook". It was used to describe the supplements for White Wolf's original World of Darkness games - each book was focused on a particular faction or character type. There was an Uktena-tribe book, a Tremere-clan book, A Euthanatos-tradition book, and so on. Online, these were referred to collectively as *books, as the asterisk was common notation for a wildcard. And, the asterisk is also known as a "splat".

Thus, a splatbook is a supplement that focuses on a particular class, group, or faction of character. Since the PHB is broad and unfocused, it isn't a splatbook.

Which goes to show you - do not start with the phrase, "if you want to get technical...," if you aren't actually technically correct, as some goober like me will point it out!

Actually, what was first? The 2E fighter book, factions books from a semi-rpg like battletech or warhammer, or something else?

That fighter book was early. Part of late 1e/2es ability to be both pioneering and outdated at the same time.

 

[ephemeron]

Actually, what was first? The 2E fighter book, factions books from a semi-rpg like battletech or warhammer, or something else?

I'm jumping into the middle of a discussion here, but the earliest things I'm aware of that I'd consider splatbooks were for Traveller.

Starting with "Book 4: Mercenary" in 1978, GDW put out a series of volumes that each expanded the character-creation options for one type of character (ground-forces soldiers, space navy, Scouts, merchants...). Which also produced much more capable characters than the standard rules, thus producing the classic splatbook problem of power creep.

(Traveller also had metaplot controversy ahead of just about everybody else, and edition wars that rival D&D's. I find it all kind of fascinating and have spent more time studying the culture/history around the games than on the actual games. )

 

[TerraDave]

I'm jumping into the middle of a discussion here, but the earliest things I'm aware of that I'd consider splatbooks were for Traveller.

Starting with "Book 4: Mercenary" in 1978, GDW put out a series of volumes that each expanded the character-creation options for one type of character (ground-forces soldiers, space navy, Scouts, merchants...). Which also produced much more capable characters than the standard rules, thus producing the classic splatbook problem of power creep.

(Traveller also had metaplot controversy ahead of just about everybody else, and edition wars that rival D&D's. I find it all kind of fascinating and have spent more time studying the culture/history around the games than on the actual games. )

Blame Traveller.

I can accept that.

 

[Mistwell]

Of course with all that, they will anounce the first splat tomorrow.

So, did they announce one like you predicted? Did I miss it?

 

[TerraDave]

So, did they announce one like you predicted? Did I miss it?

I think all we have got so far is a DMG screen in Jan and will probably do a FR setting at some point but not until they are ready and it will probably be different somehow.

Otherwise, very quite. I can only assume that if a big announcement was made (and any player oriented book beyond the PHB would count) we would have heard.

 

[77IM]

Gestalt was useful if you had few PCs. A group of 3 gestalts was roughly balanced with 5 regular PCs, and could cover all party roles, so you could play published adventures without much modification.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Online, these were referred to collectively as *books, as the asterisk was common notation for a wildcard. And, the asterisk is also known as a "splat".

I had always wondered why splatbooks were called splatbooks, but that makes sense.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Gestalt was useful if you had few PCs. A group of 3 gestalts was roughly balanced with 5 regular PCs, and could cover all party roles, so you could play published adventures without much modification.

I'm sure that would probably work. But the problem is that those who are looking for AD&D multiclassing (and hoping that is what Mike is referring to in short-hand as "gestalt") are looking to recreate the experience where the game supported those characters right alongside traditional single-classed characters.