delericho
Legend
Well, except for OD&D, Holmes, B/X, BECMI, and 4e Essentials.
D&D 5E What size (thickness) book are you hoping the PHB, DMG, and MM will be and how much fluff do you expect?
- Thread starter ForeverSlayer
- Start date
Well, except for OD&D, Holmes, B/X, BECMI, and 4e Essentials.
seregil
First Post
I agree with the idea that 3E had it right. 4E's description of powers was like reading a math book. You might have a bit of description (in a word problem) but the emphasis was obviously on the math. There was no reason to read the fluff, it was an after-thought.
Heck, in 2E, I used to read the spells just for the imagery.
So, yeah, bring back the fluff, it's important to a game that is supposed to rotate around storytelling.
Heck, in 2E, I used to read the spells just for the imagery.
So, yeah, bring back the fluff, it's important to a game that is supposed to rotate around storytelling.
Majoru Oakheart
Adventurer
True, but Essentials wasn't a new edition. They were all expansion books to 4e with alternate versions of all the core classes. However, even then they followed a similar pattern. There was a DMG like book, a MM like book and 2 PHB like books. They just seemed to have split the PHB into two books. Likely so they could keep the page count down and therefore keep the price down to make it easier for new players to buy them.
As for the rest of those. I don't mean to demean their importance, but it's been so long since they came out and so few people played the game when they were released that their model is unlikely to be followed. It's telling that the same model has been followed by every edition since.
It's likely they'll follow the trinity model if only because it's tradition at this point.
delericho
Legend
That's all fair enough. I was merely disputing the "every edition" statement.
Tradition is a terrible reason for them to stick with the trinity. The three books are either the right way to present the game, or they're not. If it is, then they should certainly continue to use it. If not, they really must stop.
That said, there is a role for tradition to play in the decision process - but only as a tie-breaker if everything else comes out equal.
128 pg core game. Big 4 classes and races. Moldvay/Cook/Marsh in one book.
The rest split out into the big 3 for those who want all the extra baggage
That would be my preference as well.
Btw I really liked how the 4e core books were done in a more encyclopedia-like fashion. I hate reading RPG books and want to get the info out of it as quickly as possible, but it realize I in the minority here.
A very good point. I remember getting the Red book (Norwegian translation) http://www.acaeum.com/ddindexes/setpages/setscans/basic12th.html for Christmas, it was awesome. It had this short single player dungeon, a short adventure starting with an old castle where the first level was described and you were supposed to do the rest your self. It also had the monsters and a DM section.
I think D&DN could do really well with a similar approach, but if they do, they need to have the "rest" of the game ready at launch as well. The smart thing with the above approach is that somebody that's completely new to the game gets really sucked into it. It's a way to get new DM's, which again is a way to get a lot of new players into the game. It also shows that D&DN is a relatively rules light game, with focus on playing instead of the rules.
What they REALLY need together with the rules is good premade adventures showing of different types of gameplay. Maybe three different 3-module adventure paths. One doing mainly dungeon crawls, one going the intrigue filled city adventure type and the last one more of a small borderlands settlement style hexcrawl game. The 4e way, with a single low level module that only did dungeon crawl was a terrible way to launch a new game.
Last edited:
delericho
Legend
That sounds a lot like the Mentzer Red Box, which was also the set I started with. And you're right: it was indeed awesome.
WotC could also do a lot worse than look very closely at the Pathfinder Beginner Box. I have some issues with Pathfinder itself, but that box blows WotC's own recent (4e) Red Box out of the water.
I fear 5e's problem won't be having the 'rest' of the game ready on time - rather, I expect that (like 4e) they'll release the 'real' game first, and then do the starter set as an afterthought. Or (like 3e), they'll release a starter set that is little more than a joke. In both cases, they later produced starter sets that were better (if not actually good), but they should have had them available at launch, IMO.
Jester David
Hero
I'm expecting 300+ pages for each book. I was fairly happy with the size of the 2e and 3e core books. I was a little disappointed by the 4e DMG and found that rather anemic for a book that was priced the same as the other reasonably sized book.
If the monster book could be akin to the Monsterous Manual from 2e.
If the monster book could be akin to the Monsterous Manual from 2e.
No, please. A player should need one, and only one, book to play the core game. Requiring two books falls into "barrier to entry" territory.
If you want to have a "basic" version, and then an "advanced" version with three books, I'm okay with that. But the advanced version should still be just one book for the base player.
