Tweet gleanings

[StarFyre]

i don't think feats has anything to do with simulationist style games (my players are the hardcore actor/simulationist style players)...

For example, my half giant gladiator player can easily swing his 10 ft long sword (he's 12 ft tall) in an arc and cut multiple foes. Since his str is so high, he can do this several times easily in a fight. We just use our own method for doing quick resolution on adhoc attacks like that, even though it makes some feats possibly less useful.

In the end if they have fun by stuff that makes sense, go ahead

I think feats are more for players who play By the Book....for them, they need more options to help diversify a character if they aren't going to adhoc things.

Sanjay

 

[Rechan]

But (and I am really curious about this), isn't that what house rules are for? I mean, DMs have been restricting things since dice were colored in with crayons.

Yes, but from what I understand based on many complaints, some DMs feel like arses if they ban something out of the PHB. Therefore, the PHB should lack anything they have to ban.

It's easier to ignore options you don't like when they're in a separate book you simply don't have to own/allow, then it is to cut things out of the books you use.

 

[Wormwood]

Yes, but from what I understand based on many complaints, some DMs feel like arses if they ban something out of the PHB. Therefore, the PHB should lack anything they have to ban.

Ahhhhh. That almost makes sense. Thanks!

 

[ferratus]

I am definately in favour of the PHB being the most vanilla form of D&D you can possibly imagine. Those that want to experiment with D&D and want extra options will always be willing to pay a little more for options, while those that want a minimalist experience will be turned off of the new edition entirely.

That's not to say that we should bend over backwards to please only those with the fussy tummies, any more than you should hold a dinner party or open a restaurant and only serve what is good for the fussiest eater. There is a limit to how pure you can get with the D&D experience before it becomes a bland gruel.

I think if you are a person who never wants to play other RPG's or plays one edition to the exclusion of all others, then 5e D&D is probably not for you. If you have a favourite edition of D&D, but you like the others well enough to play them... then you'll probably like 5e.

 

[Nivenus]

I think if you are a person who never wants to play other RPG's or plays one edition to the exclusion of all others, then 5e D&D is probably not for you. If you have a favourite edition of D&D, but you like the others well enough to play them... then you'll probably like 5e.

This is a mistake to me. WotC needs to appeal to new players as much as it needs to appeal to old players. That's a difficult proposition but it's necessary if D&D's going to continue to be relevant.

 

[Sammael]

This is a mistake to me. WotC needs to appeal to new players as much as it needs to appeal to old players. That's a difficult proposition but it's necessary if D&D's going to continue to be relevant.

They tried that with 4E. It didn't work out.

What they somehow didn't see is that there are pretty much two ways that young players are brought into the hobby: gaming stores (which WotC didn't really start supporting until late in the 4E game) and older (even lapsed) players who introduce their children/nieces/nephews to the game.

If the older players aren't buying the current edition of D&D, then you have a problem.

 

[Nivenus]

They tried that with 4E. It didn't work out.

What they somehow didn't see is that there are pretty much two ways that young players are brought into the hobby: gaming stores (which WotC didn't really start supporting until late in the 4E game) and older (even lapsed) players who introduce their children/nieces/nephews to the game.

If the older players aren't buying the current edition of D&D, then you have a problem.

No, their mistake with 4e was believing that to appeal to new players they had to get rid of what old players liked. That's entirely different than what I'm saying. I believe you can have your cake and eat it.

There's no reason you can't have dwarves and tieflings, wizards and warlords in the same game. No reason at all.

 

[Raith5]

This is a mistake to me. WotC needs to appeal to new players as much as it needs to appeal to old players. That's a difficult proposition but it's necessary if D&D's going to continue to be relevant.

That didn't work so well for 4the !

They tried things that made the game more dynamic for new folk, but forget existing gamers. Unfortunately.

 

[Nivenus]

That didn't work so well for 4the !

They tried things that made the game more dynamic for new folk, but forget existing gamers. Unfortunately.

As much, not more. I don't see what's difficult about that to understand.

 

[Daztur]

This reminds me of some comments by the guys behind The Game of Thrones TV show. They said that what they did first was make sure that the fans of the books were on board and that only once they were sure they had the book fans enthused about the TV show did they really start reaching out to the people who didn't read the books. When the TV show hit, the majority of the book fan base was on board which did its part in the word of mouth needed to make the show a big hit.

For D&D the equivalent is the best way to go. If you've never played D&D and look it up and the majority of what you see is a howling edition war, you're going to be a bit turned off. However, if you've already got the core fans on board you can reach out to new people without pissing off the old ones since you've already done your work to get the fans on board.

For example, in the last few weeks running up to the airing of The Game of Thrones TV show they had a lot of interviews with statements about how it wasn't really fantasy at all, but really about people and how it was much more like the Tudors than fantasy TV shows etc. etc. etc. This didn't piss off the book fan base since the previous year they'd done a lot of ensure that the book fans knew that they'd be getting (most of) what they wanted thanks to lots of behind the scenes stuff that was focused on catering to the book fans when it was too early for anyone but the book fans to be paying much attention, involving the author in the show's development, having the author write a bunch of stuff about how the TV show was staying true to his vision, etc. etc.

Compare this to the tieflings rock, gnomes suck video or comments comparing 4ed to McDonalds...