D&D 5E What I want: 17 books or book series (and two boxes) for a Third Golden Age

[Dungeonosophy]

@DnDPhilmont, you seem like a fascinating character

Why thank you!

you're gaining a reputation as "that guy who posts threads making outlandish demands for the future of 5E, as well as suggestions for products that few people seem interested in."

Oh well, they just don't make gamers like they used to.

If more people were like me, then more people would be interested in my product suggestions!

I had to go through you post history, but I was able to confirm that you were the fellow who wanted every gaming group to write, edit, format, and publish a "nigh-professional quality" guidebook to their tabletop campaign world.

Yes, that's me. It'd be easy for each gaming group to write a PDF worldbook. In fact, in my upcoming "My Own Fifth Edition" RPG, I'll show how to do it quick, easy, and free.

Moreover, most of these threads seem to go the same way: first you post your esoteric suggestions, then the conversation turns to a philosophy lecture about the merits of Free Culture,

Well, it takes awhile for people to catch up with me. If there had been a voice for Open Gaming in the 1980s or 1990s, they would've been a lone voice. I prefer I had more peers who were devoted to Free Culture, which is one step beyond Open Gaming. That's why I share my perspective, even if only a few people agree or respond positively. Otherwise, I'd be just like other people.

then you speculate about the mental life of your critics (and sometimes accuse them of being corporate shills to WotC).

Hey, it's not like I speculate about people's mental health--that'd be mean. I simply point out where I perceive a stale philosophy is bending people's mindset. I am genuinely concerned about the affects that a corporatist culture has on its participants.

 

[Mistwell]

The thing is--the splat has begun. There's the Adventurer's Handbook on the way.

Not from WOTC, and tied specifically to a particular adventure. This is not a splat. Splat means you can substitute in a splat for one of the two main words in the title. A splat being an asterisk. There's no splat here. It's not the Druid's Handbook, for instance. A book tied to an adventure is much more an adventure book...hence Adventurer's Handbook.

 

[Mistwell]

That's what I call corporatist-shaped imagination. What a pity the minds of the newer generations of gamers were shaped in such as a way as to express disdain and incredulity at the suggestion of hardwiring a homebrew culture into the game. I prefer that didn't sound insulting. In real life, I'm sure I'd like gaming with you (I recognize that message board posts are a narrow picture), yet I am here to stand against the mindest which you just expressed.

It's insulting. Despite you claiming you prefer it didn't sound insulting, it's hard to see how it was intended otherwise. Someone thinks differently than you, you have no idea at all what their age is, their background and experience, anything about them. But because they think differently than you, you make a series of assumptions about their age (generation) background (corporatist-shaped imagination) and end it with telling them they're expressing disdain when there is no disdain apparent. They just disagree with you - stop being so narrow minded that you automatically assume people who think differently than you fit into some preconceived bigoted notion of ages and backgrounds that match perspectives. Just talk about what they say, not what you think their background is, or their age might be.

And if you are having trouble seeing my argument, substitute race and religion for age and background, and I think you will see what I mean, quick.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

Not from WOTC, and tied specifically to a particular adventure. This is not a splat. Splat means you can substitute in a splat for one of the two main words in the title. A splat being an asterisk. There's no splat here. It's not the Druid's Handbook, for instance. A book tied to an adventure is much more an adventure book...hence Adventurer's Handbook.

Thanks for the definition. That is a very technical definition of the word "splatbook". I'm using splat in a different sense to include any rules additions beyond the 3 core books.

In that sense, the Adventurers Handbook is a splatbook, even if its splat by another name. I'm not saying it's not an improvement or refinement of the splatbook concept, but I'm not yet looking for new classes, spells, and magic items on top of the hundreds of classes, spells, and magic items which already exist in the D&D Multiverse.

 

[Mistwell]

Thanks for the definition. That is a very technical definition of the word "splatbook". I'm using splat in a different sense to include any rules additions beyond the 3 core books.

Well that includes an awful lot of the books you mentioned. It includes any book with even one new rule. For instance, if the starter boxed set had, say, a monster not found in the MM, then it's a splat book? Seems like an overly broad definition to me.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

It's insulting. Despite you claiming you prefer it didn't sound insulting, it's hard to see how it was intended otherwise. Someone thinks differently than you, you have no idea at all what their age is, their background and experience, anything about them. But because they think differently than you, you make a series of assumptions about their age (generation) background (corporatist-shaped imagination) and end it with telling them they're expressing disdain when there is no disdain apparent. They just disagree with you - stop being so narrow minded that you automatically assume people who think differently than you fit into some preconceived bigoted notion of ages and backgrounds that match perspectives. Just talk about what they say, not what you think their background is, or their age might be.

And if you are having trouble seeing my argument, substitute race and religion for age and background, and I think you will see what I mean, quick.

Actually you're right that it's a mistake to assume what generation a poster is from. That's my bad.

You say prosfilaes just disagrees with me. That's fine. When others disagree with me, is it only a "criticism" or "disagreement"? But when I disagree, I'm "insulting" them? It's not an insult to disagree with a thought, and to state my perception of the source of why I disagree. I don't have to know the biography of a person to address what I perceive in the thoughts which they express. Otherwise no one could share and discuss any thought or idea with knowing the biography of the person who shared.

In regard to hygenic communication, it can also sometimes (though not always) be unhygenic for another person to try to speak for someone else. You say what I said "is insulting"--to you? or to prosfilaes?

I'm not saying prosfilaes is a corporatist, or that his or her imagination is totally shaped by corporatism. I'm only saying that the prevalence of pre-published campaign settings in D&D culture has a corporatist aspect to it. Regardless of the biography of who said it, the thought that "where's the audience?" for homebrew and mix-and-match worldbuilding, is an expression of that culture.

Still, I apologize to the community, and to prosfilaes, for characterizing the generations, and for assuming the poster's generational/age. That was disrespectful, and I'm sorry about that. Mistwell, I thank you for bringing that to light. I will practice more care around that in the future.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

Well that includes an awful lot of the books you mentioned.

As I said earlier in the thread (not that I expect a poster to have read the whole thread), I am for lovingly gathering and digesting every single bit of splat which has ever existed in the D&D Multiverse, and re-presenting it in a series of very concise compendiums.

I don't want new splat until the heaps and heaps of old splat (which still theoretically exists somewhere in the D&D Multiverse) have been digested.

It includes any book with even one new rule. For instance, if the starter boxed set had, say, a monster not found in the MM, then it's a splat book? Seems like an overly broad definition to me.

Okay, I see what you're saying. Yet the Starter Set is basically an adventure. Of course D&D adventures will have a few new monsters or spells or magic items.

Though I don't know the planned contents for the Adventurers Handbook, it looks like it's a sort of "Players Handbook II", but thematically tied into the Princes of the Apocalypse, in a similar way that Paizo synchronizes its character customization expansions with its adventure path releases. Even if that's an improvement in product strategy, that's not what I myself am looking for.

 

[Mirtek]

Yet WotC took that risk, and opened up the rules IP...which made that IP more valuable than it was during the waning days of TSR.

Did it? It's highly debatable how much of that truly came from the OGL. Even if WotC actually made extra profit from the OGL in the 3.x era, it's overall a big fat minus since Pathfinder appeared as a final consequence.

In hinsight reading some later interviews with former WotC staff from that time responsible for the OGL, it seems more and more as if it was never ended as being a good business decision but rather passionate gamer employees working against their own employer to "save D&D" even if it means going against their employers financial interests

That sounds like someone from the 1980s saying "if everybody and their dog could publish his own rules material using the AD&D rules, it would confuse too many laymen-fans would will get a major headache from the difference between the canon AD&D rules and the third-party rules."

And that's exactly what happened. While a lot of brands switched to D20, the additional profit for WotC from that was much lower than expected. And the market was flooded with D20 products that were 90% crap to the point it collapsed because even die hard D20 fans wouldn't buy any more third party products due to being burned way too often.

So if using the same name is confusing, then just designate that names "Forgotten Realms", "Toril", "Drizzt" and "Elminster" (and other key proper names) can't be used, but that the storylines and maps can be used, but all proper names have to be spelled differently, to ensure that everyone knows it's an alternate Toril. So we'd have the Other Realms (published by Goodman Games), the Lost Realms (by Green Ronin), and the Unknown Realms (by Sean K. Reynolds) set on the world of Doril, Boril, and Noril. One aficionado's confusion is another's Golden Age.

And a sure way to bankruptcy for all those publishers, since each campaign world has a smaller and smaller subset of pontential customers. TSR broke it's back to due supporting to many campaign settings and thus publishing each expensive to make supplement for only a small subset of their overall customers. And these were even official campaign settings.

There's a reason most D20 publishers were companies people were running as semi-professional hobby beside their real jobs, as they never made enough to pay even one full time employee (with only very few exceptions).

Well said. I'm not opposed to a My Little Pony 5E RPG.

I am only opposed due to my feat it would kill the real D&D due to selling that many more copies

For those saying the coins are silly, they already exist for games.

And are made by a garage start up that couldn't even get 1,000 backers for them on kickstarter (even though the money was sufficient in the end to found the project).

 

[Mistwell]

Actually you're right that it's a mistake to assume what generation a poster is from. That's my bad. You say prosfilaes just disagrees with me. That's fine. When others disagree with me, is it only a "criticism" or "disagreement"? But when I disagree, I'm "insulting" them? It's not an insult to disagree with a thought, and to state my perception of the source of why I disagree. I don't have to know the biography of a person to address what I perceive in the thoughts which they express. Otherwise no one could share and discuss any thought or idea with knowing the biography of the person who shared.

No the thing you just apologized for was the insulting part. I don't find your views on the game insulting, I found your assumptions and implied personal attack about age and background to be insulting. There is a big difference. You were doing more than just disagreeing with his views, you were bashing him, on a personal level.

In regard to hygenic communication, it can also sometimes (though not always) be unhygenic for another person to try to speak for someone else. You say what I said "is insulting"--to you? or to prosfilaes?

It's insulting to the community when a user behaves in a bigoted manner towards another user. So it bothers me. Again, if you substitute race or religion for age and background, you'll see my point.

I'm not saying prosfilaes is a corporatist, or that his or her imagination is totally shaped by corporatism. I'm only saying that the prevalence of pre-published campaign settings in D&D culture has a corporatist aspect to it. Regardless of the biography of who said it, the thought that "where's the audience?" for homebrew and mix-and-match worldbuilding, is an expression of that culture.

You said his view was the result of a "corporatist-shaped imagination. What a pity the minds of the newer generations of gamers were shaped in such as a way..." That is pretty clearly saying, to me, that you think his imagination is shaped by corporatism, that you think he cannot hold that opinion without having had mind shaped by a corporation. That he could not have come to that opinion free of such a background.

Still, I apologize to the community, and to prosfilaes, for characterizing the generations, and for assuming the poster's generational/age. That was disrespectful, and I'm sorry about that. Mistwell, I thank you for bringing that to light. I will practice more care around that in the future.

Good on you for apologizing, and thank you.

 

[prosfilaes]

That's what I call corporatist-shaped imagination. What a pity the minds of the newer generations of gamers were shaped in such as a way as to express disdain and incredulity at the suggestion of hardwiring a homebrew culture into the game.

I express disdain and incredulity at the suggestion that DMs should spend time create half-assed worlds when what's there is better and saves the DM time to worry about other parts of the game. I could express the same pity that you actually play D&D instead of making up rules for what you need on the fly.

I understand you use "generic" to mean "medieval fantasy".

No, I don't. I don't know what medieval fantasy is, but I'm hard pressed to recall a truly medieval fantasy world for D&D. Generic as in Forgotten Realms, Greyhawk, Golarion, Harn, and Dragonlance.

1) Making use of whatever RPG books we already happen to own, regardless of which edition, and which company, and which world they're set. For example, besides the 5e Basic Rules, my entire game library consists of the Pathfinder Beginner Box, a True20 book, two Blue Rose books, a One Ring book, Dragon Age, and DCC RPG. That's plenty.

So in other words, you aren't the market for the products you demand. Frankly, that's an awful collection; virtually nothing there strongly backs up the 5e Basic Rules. You mentioned pushing someone to buy 60+ books for Forgotten Realms, but instead of what you bought, you could have bought a main campaign setting and a close look at one area and its surroundings.

I started a new 5E campaign last week which begins in Sandpoint (from Golarion)...but the rest of the map is not going to be Golarion.

Why? I could knock out a small town like Sandpoint in 15 minutes. Maybe I'd steal the map, but just copying it wholescale separate from the rest of the universe seems incredibly derivative without the advantages of that derivativeness.

2) If one sees a product that one really likes, but which isn't set in the same world, then it'd make sense to just stitch its map to your world map. For example, sticking Freeport in the ocean west of the Sword Coast.

And instead of ending up with a coherent world, you end up with a mess; what are gnomes like? why do we have completely redundant gods? why did we travel west to fight the orc invasion when west is Glantri?

I suggest four options to be included in the DMG:

1) Invent an entire world from scratch, with in-depth pantheons, world map, and one or more unique themes, so that the geography of the world and the trajectory of the campaign are more-or-less laid out from the start.

The World Builder's Guide comes to mind; it's a shame it wasn't released in PDF. It's an ambitious goal, that really needs to be a goal in and of itself; it's unlikely to be worth in-game the effort it took to make it out of game.

2) The same, but randomly generated by rolling on worldbuilding tables. (Like how scif-fi rpgs often have a planetary generator.) Roll for campaign setting themes too. ("Roll d% three times: Okay, our world is a gothic horror theme, with a Roman Empire-style civilization, where gnomes are the primary race). Roll for world names ("Jarth", "Grynn", "Aveir"). Roll for continent names ("Maerun", "Yoerik", "Ferilia"). Roll for campaign setting names. ("Bluehawk", "The Forgotten Sun", "Azure Realms")

No. Just no. It has all the disadvantages of playing with a DM whose wild ideas have exceeded his ability to make them concrete and playable, without the advantages of the DM actually having some vision. Taking a DM who doesn't know what he wants to play and handing him "a gothic horror theme, with a Roman Empire-style civilization, where gnomes are the primary race" is a sick joke that nobody who has to play with him is going to take seriously.

4) Piece together a world which is gradually stitched together from whatever adventures one happens to own, and which are only stitched together in the course of actual play (instead of being layed out ahead of time.) This is method I'm most interested in.

Okay. I don't think it profits players or WotC to encourage this too much.

They decided to use the Celtic pantheon for the gods of this world. Then the 5E War of the Lance adventure path came out, which included an appendix for converting all of the adventure to each of the published worlds

So you're taking a story centered around a certain set of gods, around a certain history, and think you can wave your hand and substitute a whole new set of gods and new history, it won't seem weird at all? How do you adapt an adventure path that depends on nobody getting spells from the gods for 300 years to Faerun anyway?

B) Invent an entire world whole-cloth, with its own pantheon, all new names--even to the extent that one is writing as if one were a copyright lawyer, making sure that no name or concept could be the basis for being accused of plagarism (which is how professionalized authors have to be in our corporatist culture). Don't use any published adventures either. Hand-write all adventures from scratch.

That's a heck of a strawman. You're welcome to invent whatever world you want, and drop whatever adventures in you want. But worldbuilding is more then just tossing a bunch of disparate parts together.

I don't think that hacking together preexisting pieces makes a more fun world for players and DM then playing in a world that is in some sense a coherent whole. I'm pretty sure history backs me up in saying that the time and effort spent building a generic D&D world does not pay back at the table, though it may be fun as a thing in and of itself.