D&D (2024) No Appendix N Equivalent?

[Ralif Redhammer]

I would love to see a blog post or some such from game designers going over their personal recommendations.

Same. Rime of the Frostmaiden had a section that talked about its inspirations, and I'd love to see more of that in modules.

The original Eberron Campaign Guide's had a list that really helps sell the tone (or more accurately, tones) of the setting in a way that doesn't always come off the page otherwise.

Oh yeah. I should go take a look at that again. Eberron definitely had a plethora of tones. Arguably, too many in my opinion, but it's clearly worked for people.

I know for my campaigns I generally say as a DM I go for a tone of pulpy action with some humor and horror at a general PG-13 level and use Army of Darkness as my exemplar for the tone and feel I try for. I know I've used that as a specific reference in the session zero beginning of at least the last two campaigns I started (two different groups) running 5e versions of the Pathfinder Carrion Crown and Iron Gods adventure paths.

Nice. Army of Darkness is a good model for mixing humor and horror. In general, I find having that sort of lodestone to guide a campaign really does help.

Late to the party (though I did read the whole thread) and I have to say, like many others, I get why they didn't do it, but it's still kind of sad.

It was fun to compare Appendix E (the 2014 one) and the original Appendix N and see what they added. Even used it as a resource to 'catch up' on fantasy after I quit in the late 90s due to college getting in the way.

Appendix E is a fascinating blend of old and new.

Similar to the original Appendix N, just say 'these were our inspirations'. If nothing else, D&D is famous for people doing their own stuff with it, so just because they didn't have Outlaws of the Water Margin, Neuromancer, or Uprooted on their list doesn't mean you can't use them to inspire your own setting.

We all have our own Appendix N's, don't we? I have fond memories of a D&D campaign inspired by Hamlet.

 

[Gradine]

Oh yeah. I should go take a look at that again. Eberron definitely had a plethora of tones. Arguably, too many in my opinion, but it's clearly worked for people.

Eberron I think really embraced the D20 system ethos of "all things to all people". There's a space for every imaginable style of pulp genre, outside of maybe sci-fi (though I always got strong Protoss, "YOU MUST CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL PYLONS" vibes from Riedra.) You like noir? What do you want, mobsters, detectives, spies? We've got it all. You want to go full Indiana Jones and uncover relics and punch nazis? Let us introduce you to the Emerald Claw. Or the Lords of Dust. Fan of westerns? We've got the wild west... with lizardmen!

Damn I love Eberron.

 

[TwoSix]

Eberron I think really embraced the D20 system ethos of "all things to all people". There's a space for every imaginable style of pulp genre, outside of maybe sci-fi (though I always got strong Protoss, "YOU MUST CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL PYLONS" vibes from Riedra.) You like noir? What do you want, mobsters, detectives, spies? We've got it all. You want to go full Indiana Jones and uncover relics and punch nazis? Let us introduce you to the Emerald Claw. Or the Lords of Dust. Fan of westerns? We've got the wild west... with lizardmen!

Damn I love Eberron.

I love that Eberron has so many elements that are descriptive, not prescriptive. Between dragonshards, chaos from the Mourning, draconic Prophecy influence, corrupted dragonmarks, and manifest zones you can add pretty much anything and have an easy story hook behind it.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Taking away something in case it might offend someone is the 5E way. That's why there's no Warlord.

 

[Morrus]

Taking away something in case it might offend someone is the 5E way. That's why there's no Warlord.

Explain, in detail, without being offensive or denigrating others yourself, how the warlord class was removed because it might "offend someone".

I wait with baited breath. I'm literally fascinated. Tell me.

And don't just make stuff up; back it up with evidence.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Explain, in detail, without being offensive or denigrating others yourself, how the warlord class was removed because it might "offend someone".

I wait with baited breath. I'm literally fascinated. Tell me.

And don't just make stuff up; back it up with evidence.

Remember the Warlord sub forum??

 

[Morrus]

Remember the Warlord sub forum??

That’s a question, not an answer. Assume, for the same of argument, that I do not. Return to question.

 

[Parmandur]

I thought the Warlord didn't show up un 5E because it was rooted in specific aspects of 4E's combat system...

 

[Hussar]

That’s a question, not an answer. Assume, for the same of argument, that I do not. Return to question.

Oh, come on @Morrus. That's a bit disengenious don't you think? The reason we had a warlord sub-forum is every time someone tried to talk about warlords on this board, a very vocal group of posters would do nothing but threadcrap endlessly and turn every conversation into a giant argument that had nothing to do with the warlord itself but was constant proxy edition warring, making sure that anything overtly 4e was excised from the game.

@Parmandur - I'd kinda agree with you except for the fact that every single warlord mechanic actually appears in 5e, just not gathered under a single class. But all the mechanics are there. Plus the fact that if you go on something like DM's guild, there are fifteen warlords ready to go. If 5e couldn't handle the warlord mechanically, we could show that. But, the reverse is true and has been proven repeatedly.

The primary reason we don't have a warlord in 5e is because it would demonstrate that 5e is mechanically not that far from 4e, and that cannot possibly be allowed.

 

[Parmandur]

Oh, come on @Morrus. That's a bit disengenious don't you think? The reason we had a warlord sub-forum is every time someone tried to talk about warlords on this board, a very vocal group of posters would do nothing but threadcrap endlessly and turn every conversation into a giant argument that had nothing to do with the warlord itself but was constant proxy edition warring, making sure that anything overtly 4e was excised from the game.

@Parmandur - I'd kinda agree with you except for the fact that every single warlord mechanic actually appears in 5e, just not gathered under a single class. But all the mechanics are there. Plus the fact that if you go on something like DM's guild, there are fifteen warlords ready to go. If 5e couldn't handle the warlord mechanically, we could show that. But, the reverse is true and has been proven repeatedly.

The primary reason we don't have a warlord in 5e is because it would demonstrate that 5e is mechanically not that far from 4e, and that cannot possibly be allowed.

I mean, I have nothing against the Warlord as such (my 4E character was a Warlord! It was fun!), but it does feel very...combat grid oriented?