D&D General The Monsters Know What They're Doing ... Are Unsure on 5e24

[dave2008]

I'm not entirely sure I understand why. It seems a clear statement: One of the greatest draws of D&D is that it provides a variety of interests and options. If you're going to cut, then for that to be actually "less is more", you need to actually prove that you are, y'know, covering more ground despite having fewer elements.

Well I never said to cut anything. The closest you get to that is to make an assumptions about narrow settings when I responded to post about narrow settings (that is why I used quotes around "narrow." it wasn't my term). Here is the original quote (by @Minigiant ):
"Ultranarrow settings are best as their own RPGs as people come to the table with the same desires of what will be there and what types and kinds of PCs are allowed."

And here is my original response:
"I think the beauty of a narrow setting can be that it strongly pushes a game you're familiar with in new, different, interesting directions without it being a completely new RPG.

That is actually what I wish WotC had done and used settings as a method to highlight the modularity of 5e by making each setting have a unique set of rules / guidelines that go with it."

If you can't show that, then it's just "less is less". Hence, for it to achieve "more" status, without becoming just straight-up "more is more", you would need to offer replacements for the things cut--so that more is still happening. AKA, "different is more".
Far, far, far, far, far too many people love to just invoke the "less is more" maxim as though it were somehow common knowledge that fewer things could, somehow, inherently be actually more than more things. Which is ludicrous.

If you are going to claim less is more, you have to actually show the "more" part. And if you haven't done that, why on earth would you expect anyone to buy in?

I never said "less is less" or "less is more." This assertion is built on a false foundation. If this is something you want to discuss, I would prefer you respond to someone who was making those claims.

Perhaps. But that entails what I argued above, no? If a setting is "narrow", it must either actually do "more" with its narrowed, less, elements. Or it must accept being a little less "narrow" by instead being a little broader, but in areas that the cut things didn't cover--different is more.

A narrow setting is not automatically more flavorful, more impactful, more consistent, or more well-structured, simply because it is narrow. Likewise, a "broad" setting (if that is the appropriate term) is not automatically less flavorful, impactful, consistent, nor well-structured, simply because it is broad. The work must actually be done to show the difference.

As I noted above, the term narrow setting was quoting another poster. I was generally saying I would want WotC to introduce interesting new rules, ideas, and guidelines with each setting. Basically the modularity they discussed expressed through each setting. I didn't specifically state it, but I intended this to be general approach with all settings.

Interesting. I imagine that was quite an effort on your part!

This was back in 2014 or '15 (I can't remember when we transitioned from 4e). I only had to come up with options for the ones they picked! We ended up with the following PC species:

• two elves (no work)
• 1 halfling (no work)
• 1 lizard folk (custom as it predated WotC version)
• 1 Yuan-ti (custom as it predated WotC version)
• 1 dragon (custom, not a dragonborn - but similar)

 

[mamba]

I agree to that, but I feel brand recognition is part of IP. It's everything from the meta setting (the multiverse stuff like planes and archmage named spells and monsters, along with the settings and exclusive stuff to them.

I am not sure all the planes and stuff are all that relevant to most players, and FR is mostly just 'generic fantasy', so not sure how much can attribute to simply the trademark name vs the IP itself. I tend to ascribe most of it to the trademark alone.

I also read your

So what does WotC have left to sell if not it's IP? The shared world(s) and branding?

'shared world' as not part of 'IP' based on how you phrased it.

On par mechanically with TotV or A5e. Which makes sense since they all share common rules.

yes, but I was not limiting it to that, PF2, DS!, SotWW, 13Age, DH, and others all or not so inferior that it would explain the difference in sales.

I'd call that IP as well, since most are setting oriented and use pretty famous characters or villains.

To me the adventures are not so much about IP but about simply providing content that people can buy / play that is not covered by the SRD at all. They could take place in a 3rd party setting and still sell well, they are all generic enough anyway, maybe in part because FR is generic itself more than a rather specific setting.

 

[Clint_L]

Are we discussing whether story or mechanics are coming first? Or are we talking about our mutual understanding of what the story is in the first place?

I’m talking about story always coming first, and only worrying about creature stat blocks, or any other rule, in that context. So a lot of the concerns cited in the original argue stop being concerns. I’m not sure what you mean about “our” mutual understanding of the story. Yours and mine?

As long as my players and I are on the same page, it’s all good. I do not have players who worry about why the guard rolls 2d8 for longsword damage, or whatever. If I’m a player, I don’t worry about that either. I only worry if things stop making narrative sense.

I wouldn’t play with players who got fussy about stuff like that. I don’t think they’d be very fun.

 

[Remathilis]

I am not sure all the planes and stuff are all that relevant to most players, and FR is mostly just 'generic fantasy', so not sure how much can attribute to simply the trademark name vs the IP itself. I tend to ascribe most of it to the trademark alone.

I also read your 'shared world' as not part of 'IP' based on how you phrased it..

If that was true, you could sell the SRD as under the name Dungeons and Dragons and it would sell as well as the PHB. (Assuming it had equal options, something they did in 3e). I just don't think that's as true as this board wants to believe. There are people who would be satisfied with a bare bones D&D devoid of any hint of IP, but I think most people would still want the D&Disms of their settings and such. Any developer with the SRD can give me generic fantasy, but only WotC can sell me the Forgotten Realms.

 

[Minigiant]

Well I never said to cut anything. The closest you get to that is to make an assumptions about narrow settings when I responded to post about narrow settings (that is why I used quotes around "narrow." it wasn't my term). Here is the original quote (by @Minigiant ):
"Ultranarrow settings are best as their own RPGs as people come to the table with the same desires of what will be there and what types and kinds of PCs are allowed."

And here is my original response:
"I think the beauty of a narrow setting can be that it strongly pushes a game you're familiar with in new, different, interesting directions without it being a completely new RPG.

That is actually what I wish WotC had done and used settings as a method to highlight the modularity of 5e by making each setting have a unique set of rules / guidelines that go with it."

D&D, due to in easy onboarding and big tent strategy, is not the best RPG for restrictive bans without complementary adds of modules and rules.

Very restrictive settings without adds can be seen as very boring or stale to many.

 

[Tigris]

I love levels 1-3 as a player and DM. I like the types of starting adventures. I love the feeling of vulnerability and adventure. It feels more real and exciting.

DMs always speak as DMs even "as players". Because most of the time they are way more often DM and behave as a player the way they wish their players would be. Thats why I only consider feedback from non DMs as real player feedback.

 

[Belen]

DMs always speak as DMs even "as players". Because most of the time they are way more often DM and behave as a player the way they wish their players would be. Thats why I only consider feedback from non DMs as real player feedback.

Since we’re gaming tonight, I just polled my players. Not a single one has an issue with levels 1-2; however, discounting the experience of the most active and dedicated part of the hobby is weird.

I do not get the constant us vs them mentality.

 

[Scribe]

Very restrictive settings without adds can be seen as very boring or stale to many.

Considering the vast majority of supposed 'new fans' have little to no exposure to those other settings, this seems nonsensical.

Unless the only way D&D is D&D is if its a kitchen sink, which is...ok I guess, but a bit of a narrow and limited view.

 

[el-remmen]

Getting to Level 3 takes two whole sessions if you are counting XP.

Yeah level 1 was one session, but getting from two to three was like 3 sessions.

This doesn't really have anything to do with the topic at hand, except an example of how I must play D&D so differently from what I hear is the baseline experience for others. Because as far as I know, I am running very tough fights and other kinds of encounters, awarding XP based on what they face, plus bonus XP for other kinds of situations and I still have very slow advancement.

I have run 3 campaigns in 5E so far (2 still ongoing). The first got to 2nd level in the 4th session and 3rd level in the 9th. The second got to 2nd in session 5, and 3rd in session 14 , and the third campaign hit 2nd level in the 4th session and 3rd level in the 12th.



Anyway, just ignore this.

 

[mamba]

If that was true, you could sell the SRD as under the name Dungeons and Dragons and it would sell as well as the PHB. (Assuming it had equal options, something they did in 3e)

Except that you cannot call it D&D and do not have WotC behind you with their marketing and distribution channels, apart from that, yes. Pretty sure WotC could push a different version of D&D and be successful, it's not like they haven't done that a few times already

I think most people would still want the D&Disms of their settings and such.

I do not think the planes are a relevant part of that. FR, Dragionlance, Ravenloft, etc. sure, those are important. The plane of Fire? I don't think so. And FR is basically generic fantasy, I would have to think whether I would have any issues running an FR adventure in Midgard, Golarion, or a dozen other settings.

Given that about half of players do not play in an official setting, WotC would shoot themselves in the foot if their adventures could not be run outside of, say, FR