Titansgrave and why 5E needs a setting (or two) (and another take on a suggested product lineup)

I thought Fiasco and Dragon Age were more entertaining than Titansgrave - perhaps because Wil was a player in those, not a GM. But I'm sort of hoping that these first two episodes are just introductory stuff, and that we'll get to the real meat soon. I also think part of the problem is that Wil... I guess you could say that he describes what his NPCs do and say, rather than just do and say it. It's more "The Beer Baron thanks you for a job well done, and gives you the 5 gold you agreed on. He then asks you if you would join him for the evening's celebrations." than "Thank you, you have done a wonderful job getting me and my goods home safely. As we agreed, here is the 5 gold I owe you for a job well done. I'm throwing a party tonight to celebrate my return, would you care to join me?"

The editing, I'm not convinced it's doing the show any favors. Notably, I don't really like the way they cut out almost anything that smells of a rule more advanced than "roll and tell me what you got". When the PCs use a special ability, I want to know what that special ability does. I don't want to hear "I'm using pin-point shot", I want "I'm using pin-point shot so I'll be doing an extra d6 damage." I also don't want to hear "And I get a three-point stunt", I want "I get three stunt points, so I'm spending them on making a knockdown attack."

I'm also not convinced Titansgrave is going to be more successful in creating new players - the Twitter feeds for Critical Role are fairly full of people saying "Hey, love your show, and here's my new Starter Set!" And a few weeks ago, when a bunch of the players were unavailable, Mercer had something of a workshop on playing and running the game, and ran a short (and very weird) adventure for some of the G&S Twitch crew. I loved the workshop by the way, and his world-building advice reminded me of nothing so much as Bob Ross.

I agree with your assessment. I have no idea how to play the game because I have no idea what skills or anything they are using. For all I know, Wil could be just randomly assigning what hits or not and what does or doesn't do damage.

Also I feel like the lighting in Titansgrave and Dread was a bit dim. It could just be me, but I thought it only added to the darker more somber feel of the game.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I first heard about Titansgrave a few weeks ago but didn't really look into it - I thought, "Why do I want to watch an RPG show starring Wesley Crusher?" But I just watched the prologue video to Titansgrave and am impressed - I'm a fan of science fantasy and found the setting to be interesting and evocative and look forward to picking up the setting book, The Ashes of Valkana.

Anyhow, this got me thinking about 5E and namely what is missing from 5E. I've started a couple threads about adventures, suggesting that there's a glaring hole in 5E where one-shot adventures should be, and specifically that 5E really needs more "movable pieces" - short adventures, encounter scenarios, sites, etc, that can be plugged into a campaign. In the past I have been a huge advocate for the centrality of setting for an RPG, but have kind of given up on WotC, dating back to when they cancelled the Nentir Vale Gazetteer and more so with the lack of setting in 5E, now a year into the cycle. But watching the Titansgrave video, and observing my reaction to it, I feel more strongly than ever that setting is central an RPG.

This should be made clear: A setting is a story, or rather it is the embodiment of a story. When Mr. Wheaton was telling the back-story of Valkana, I was transported to another time and place, a mythic mindscape that tickled my imagination. This "tickling of the imagination" is perhaps the jewel of why I love RPGs and fantasy/science fiction in general. It isn't the only reason I play - I'd have to include hanging out with friends, the fun of combat and adventure, and so forth - but it is the most precious element of it. In a way, it is the only part of the RPG experience (and other forms of engaging imaginary worlds, namely reading and creating) that cannot be found easily in other forms of activity.

I was reminded of how important setting and story is to the RPG experience. I think WotC knows this, at least the story part. But what they seem to be missing is that a story without a setting is paper-thin. A rich setting provides a context for story, a shared imaginative experience for the community and, perhaps most importantly, brings the game to life in a way otherwise not possible. Now of course their story arcs have been set in the Forgotten Realms, which is anything if not densely detailed. But what I'm talking about is a sense of place, a sense of the RPG arising out of mythic worlds that is lacking so far with 5E, and the feeling that only a living world can bring to an RPG.

Paizo seems to understand this, as it supports and develops Golarion as a living world. Not all Pathfinder players use Golarion - my guess is that most do not - but all can participate in the ongoing story of the world, the feeling of connection, of shared experience. I personally have never used a published setting, but I buy and enjoy setting products because they inspire me and bring the game to life by way of example.

I don't expect my measly little post here to change the direction WotC is taking with 5E. And, to be honest, we don't really know what that direction is. We're a year in and we have the core rules, two story arcs, with a third story arc coming later this year and some kind of psionics product in the works, possibly for 2016. But what we don't know yet is what WotC plans to do about settings, if anything at all. There have been rumors of Chris Perkins' campaign setting going to publishing, but I'm not sure whether this is true or not.

The bottom line is that, in my opinion, 5E really needs setting. I personally would advocate for a two-pronged approach: Some kind of resuscitation of classic settings, but also the development and ongoing support of a new world to explore.

If anything, in the spirit of RPGs I'm whimsically playing make-believe. I don't really expect this to happen, but one can hope...



Addendum: Suggested Product Lineup
Speaking of groundless hope, as a related aside here's how I'd suggest they implement this plan, with a suggested product lineup:

*Splats: Minimize splats to strongly thematic books - like Psionics, the Planes, the Underdark, Horror, etc - and perhaps only one per year. A new Monster Manual no more than every 2-3 years.
*Story Arcs: Continue two story arcs per year, with one being in the classic setting and one in the new setting. Both should be customizable to homebrews.
*Classic Settings: Once per year do a full treatment of a classic D&D setting, and then perhaps license it out to a 3PP to support more fully.
*New Setting: A couple setting supplements per year, plus the story arc and maybe two or three adventures. Perhaps after a few years, create a new setting, with continued but lessened ongoing support for the prior setting (assuming it is well received).
*Dungeon: Bring back Dungeon, with adventures in a variety of settings. New adventures could be published twice a month or so, with a PODable PDF quarterly.
*Surprise!: Every so often, even once a year, a surprise product - maybe a sandbox setting in box set form.

The various products can be linked together, even combined. For instance, an Underdark product could actually be a box set that includes a sandbox setting with countless adventure ideas, a monster booklet, and a story arc all in one. Oh yeah, plus maps. This could be a "mega-event" - a $60-70 box set released at GenCon, and of coursed tied into whatever video game they have going on. Better yet, there could be a big budget television series about an adventuring party for which each season focuses on the "theme of the year." But I'm getting way ahead of myself...

Anyhow, looking at the above, that's maybe 8-10 products a year, plus the Dungeon PDFs, so hardly gluttony.
Titansgrave is Wheaton's creation, his home-brew campaign world that is getting published and produced as a v-blog. Its clever, creative, inventive. Many DM's create their home brew campaigns and this is an example of what can be done. You seem to suggest that you feel that 5e has a 'hole' and is missing something?? PF has Golarion, D&D has the Multiverse, I see no holes in 5e, in fact, for the first time I see more people creating their own home brew campaign worlds, we can do so now with alot more ease than previous editions.

I happen to LOVE the Forgotten Realms, it is to me the quintessential D&D world, but I accept that some players prefer a different style of gaming.

Wheaton is not the only one producing a vastly popular TV show, right on Geek & Sundry Matt Mercer is running his incredibly awesome D&D 5e campaign Critical Role. He uses his own home brew world (and borrows heavily from PF). It is incredibly fun to watch and I tune in every week.

I think Wizards is giving 5e time to grow, find its strong player base, develop the brand better than before. I think we'll get campaign settings, it would be foolish for Wizards not to capitalize on their incredibly successful campaign worlds, but as has been hinted, they'll do so in a different way, not the assembly line of product releases they have done before. I hear people want the return to the 'good old days' but those days are gone. The success of 5e, its continued sales and rankings, and its awards are proof of this. People want to play D&D, not 'read' D&D.
 
Last edited:

To the original topic, personally I don't need setting material. I make my own setting. If I wanted to build and run a game in 5e, I'd want more game rules to lean on though (things like missing cleric domains, psionics, and so on come to mind)... OR an OGL so someone else could do this in lieu of WotC.

On Titansgrave, I can't decide how I feel about it yet. Like others mentioned, the setting and the sessions thus far seem to be at odds thematically. Now, this could be because there are some dark sessions ahead so Wil wanted to start with something nice and light to balance it a bit.

I can understand the complaints about what isn't being shown from a rules perspective, but that's because I'm a gamer. If the intent of this show is to try to get more people to play RPGs, I don't see any reason to bog the episodes down with game mechanics. Ultimately (to me at least) the heard of a good game is the interaction between everyone at the game table, not the dice being rolled, so I'm glad that's the focus of the show even if that makes it a little less interesting to me.

I think Wizards is giving 5e time to grow, find its strong player base, develop the brand better than before. I think we'll get campaign settings, it would be foolish for Wizards not to capitalize on their incredibly successful campaign worlds, but as has been hinted, they'll do so in a different way, not the assembly line of product releases they have done before. I hear people want the return to the 'good old days' but those days are gone. The success of 5e, its continued sales and rankings, and its awards are proof of this. People want to play D&D, not 'read' D&D.
What does your first sentence mean to you?
What is "time to grow" and how is Wizards cultivating it?
How does the game find a "strong player base" and what is a strong player base for the game in the first place?
How is Wizards developing the brand "better than before"?

I ask because I've seen a lot of anecdotal statements on forums, assorted quotes from WotC/Hasbro staff, and yet I don't feel I really understand what any of that first sentence means.

Also, I'd say the continued sales of 5e tells us that it is a success, but I don't follow how that lets us draw the conclusion that people want to play D&D and not read D&D.
 

>People want to play D&D, not 'read' D&D.

I'm with you on this 100% and I love WotC's current approach with 5e but there are lots of folks out there who don't get a chance to play or they don't have a group or simply approach rpg settings as novel-like experiences and those folks all love to read setting books with signature characters they can follow across supplements. I'm not saying WotC should cater to that group with endless sourcebooks but from someone who has been gaming for close to 40 years, I gotta say it's a legitimate part of the hobby fan base.
 

To the original topic, personally I don't need setting material. I make my own setting. If I wanted to build and run a game in 5e, I'd want more game rules to lean on though (things like missing cleric domains, psionics, and so on come to mind)... OR an OGL so someone else could do this in lieu of WotC.

Would it be fair to characterize this as you wanting 5e to be a bit more of a toolkit for you? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth here, just wanting to clarify this for myself.
 

Would it be fair to characterize this as you wanting 5e to be a bit more of a toolkit for you? I'm not trying to put words in your mouth here, just wanting to clarify this for myself.

Very fair. I've only used published settings twice (Earthdawn and Star*Drive) and published adventures once (Earthdawn). Everything else I've ever run has been homebrew, so my needs are specifically for tools to facilitate me doing this.
 

If only 5e removed all of its baked-in setting assumptions, and removed all of its rules with setting requirements, and consolidated this setting description in a separate proper Setting Guide.
 
Last edited:

If only 5e removed all of its baked-in setting assumptions, and removed all of its rules with setting requirements, and consolidated this setting description in a separate proper Setting Guide.
I'm curious what you mean.
There's the names in the race section, but other than that I can't think of many baked-in setting assumptions that cannot easily be changed.
 


I first heard about Titansgrave a few weeks ago but didn't really look into it - I thought, "Why do I want to watch an RPG show starring Wesley Crusher?" But I just watched the prologue video to Titansgrave and am impressed - I'm a fan of science fantasy and found the setting to be interesting and evocative and look forward to picking up the setting book, The Ashes of Valkana.

Anyhow, this got me thinking about 5E and namely what is missing from 5E. I've started a couple threads about adventures, suggesting that there's a glaring hole in 5E where one-shot adventures should be, and specifically that 5E really needs more "movable pieces" - short adventures, encounter scenarios, sites, etc, that can be plugged into a campaign. In the past I have been a huge advocate for the centrality of setting for an RPG, but have kind of given up on WotC, dating back to when they cancelled the Nentir Vale Gazetteer and more so with the lack of setting in 5E, now a year into the cycle. But watching the Titansgrave video, and observing my reaction to it, I feel more strongly than ever that setting is central an RPG.

This should be made clear: A setting is a story, or rather it is the embodiment of a story. When Mr. Wheaton was telling the back-story of Valkana, I was transported to another time and place, a mythic mindscape that tickled my imagination. This "tickling of the imagination" is perhaps the jewel of why I love RPGs and fantasy/science fiction in general. It isn't the only reason I play - I'd have to include hanging out with friends, the fun of combat and adventure, and so forth - but it is the most precious element of it. In a way, it is the only part of the RPG experience (and other forms of engaging imaginary worlds, namely reading and creating) that cannot be found easily in other forms of activity.

I was reminded of how important setting and story is to the RPG experience. I think WotC knows this, at least the story part. But what they seem to be missing is that a story without a setting is paper-thin. A rich setting provides a context for story, a shared imaginative experience for the community and, perhaps most importantly, brings the game to life in a way otherwise not possible. Now of course their story arcs have been set in the Forgotten Realms, which is anything if not densely detailed. But what I'm talking about is a sense of place, a sense of the RPG arising out of mythic worlds that is lacking so far with 5E, and the feeling that only a living world can bring to an RPG.

Paizo seems to understand this, as it supports and develops Golarion as a living world. Not all Pathfinder players use Golarion - my guess is that most do not - but all can participate in the ongoing story of the world, the feeling of connection, of shared experience. I personally have never used a published setting, but I buy and enjoy setting products because they inspire me and bring the game to life by way of example.

I don't expect my measly little post here to change the direction WotC is taking with 5E. And, to be honest, we don't really know what that direction is. We're a year in and we have the core rules, two story arcs, with a third story arc coming later this year and some kind of psionics product in the works, possibly for 2016. But what we don't know yet is what WotC plans to do about settings, if anything at all. There have been rumors of Chris Perkins' campaign setting going to publishing, but I'm not sure whether this is true or not.

The bottom line is that, in my opinion, 5E really needs setting. I personally would advocate for a two-pronged approach: Some kind of resuscitation of classic settings, but also the development and ongoing support of a new world to explore.

If anything, in the spirit of RPGs I'm whimsically playing make-believe. I don't really expect this to happen, but one can hope...



Addendum: Suggested Product Lineup
Speaking of groundless hope, as a related aside here's how I'd suggest they implement this plan, with a suggested product lineup:

*Splats: Minimize splats to strongly thematic books - like Psionics, the Planes, the Underdark, Horror, etc - and perhaps only one per year. A new Monster Manual no more than every 2-3 years.
*Story Arcs: Continue two story arcs per year, with one being in the classic setting and one in the new setting. Both should be customizable to homebrews.
*Classic Settings: Once per year do a full treatment of a classic D&D setting, and then perhaps license it out to a 3PP to support more fully.
*New Setting: A couple setting supplements per year, plus the story arc and maybe two or three adventures. Perhaps after a few years, create a new setting, with continued but lessened ongoing support for the prior setting (assuming it is well received).
*Dungeon: Bring back Dungeon, with adventures in a variety of settings. New adventures could be published twice a month or so, with a PODable PDF quarterly.
*Surprise!: Every so often, even once a year, a surprise product - maybe a sandbox setting in box set form.

The various products can be linked together, even combined. For instance, an Underdark product could actually be a box set that includes a sandbox setting with countless adventure ideas, a monster booklet, and a story arc all in one. Oh yeah, plus maps. This could be a "mega-event" - a $60-70 box set released at GenCon, and of coursed tied into whatever video game they have going on. Better yet, there could be a big budget television series about an adventuring party for which each season focuses on the "theme of the year." But I'm getting way ahead of myself...

Anyhow, looking at the above, that's maybe 8-10 products a year, plus the Dungeon PDFs, so hardly gluttony.

Man, while I do sympathize with your post and I wholly advocate new settings, TSR and WotC has done this so many times. All of us old fans just want a regurgitation of what has come in the past because we loved it. As much as I love the Realms, I only use it for the maps. Older players love knowing where such and such city is off map, like reading a George RR Martin novel. In 5e...bring me a boxed set of maps for Planescape. Build on that whole world(s) they detailed a decade ago. Bring back Dark Sun and that setting. t

I guess my point is, if you don't like what 5e has offered so far, then just go back to 2e AND USE THAT and it still works, it ain't broken my friends. Story is story and setting is setting and the way the dice roll out doesn't really matter in the long run.

EDIT- I've had wine as of this post so it might not be fully coherent so don't argue with me :)
 

Remove ads

Top