|
Froghammer posted:Is there anything even approaching 4e's encounter building rules in 5e or am I just going to have to wing it? This is unlike 4e, where 1 PC of level X = 1 monster of Level X.
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 06:05 |
|
|
People have issues with 13th Age (the ones that stick in my head are about making classes 'traditional' when the tradition was boring or bad) but as a GM who came from 4e I love the encounter and monster building guides.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
A very insightful rant about WotC marketing and why the RPG community isn't growing any faster than it is. http://angrydm.com/2014/09/dear-wotc-why-do-you-suck-at-selling-games/
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:A very insightful rant about WotC marketing and why the RPG community isn't growing any faster than it is. quote:When the 5E open playtest thing started up, I got to have a short conversation with Mike Mearls, who is the co-lead designer of Dungeons and Dragons for Wizards of the Coast (along with Jeremy Crawford). The conversation was public. It was on Twitter. If you care to dig back through the feed, you can find it. It was about two years ago. But I’m going to give you the short, paraphrased version so you understand why I was really hoping not to be pissed off right now. And here I thought the narrative was that 4E was a terrible failure of an edition that nearly killed D&D off until Next swooped in to save it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:And here I thought the narrative was that 4E was a terrible failure of an edition that nearly killed D&D off until Next swooped in to save it. Well, there's the narrative, and then there's what actually happened.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:A very insightful rant about WotC marketing and why the RPG community isn't growing any faster than it is. Cool, that was a good read, thanks for linking it. Also, small thing, but I'm really glad he said that Mike Mearls AND Jeremy Crawford were the lead designers for D&D5. That's a weird thing I've noticed is nobody ever seems to mention the "other" lead designer, who is also gay (and just got married!  ). I could be cynically critical of that, but I'm going to assume it's because Mearls is the name that people are paying attention to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 18:45
|
|
|
Spincut posted:Cool, that was a good read, thanks for linking it. Yeah, this is the first time I've ever heard of him to be honest. Evil Mastermind posted:Well, there's the narrative, and then there's what actually happened. I guess I'm just surprised that Mearls would, in any context, just straight-up say "yeah, 4E succeeded, had steady growth, more people were playing D&D every year, we just scrapped it because we wanted more bigger faster." Seriously though, that article's a pretty pro read, and the comments aren't terrible either.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:And here I thought the narrative was that 4E was a terrible failure of an edition that nearly killed D&D off until Next swooped in to save it. WotC never actually pushed that narrative. They always said, "4E was a success, but..."
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:WotC never actually pushed that narrative. They always said, "4E was a success, but..." We have to keep remembering that around the time of 4E's release, Paizo controlled the narrative. I mean, ARB's overview in F&F basically demonstrates how Paizo framed Pathfinder as a giant big wet nappy for the 3.5E crowd and is filled with disingenuous phrases that frame 4E as a failure/betrayal.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
LuiCypher posted:We have to keep remembering that around the time of 4E's release, Paizo controlled the narrative. I mean, ARB's overview in F&F basically demonstrates how Paizo framed Pathfinder as a giant big wet nappy for the 3.5E crowd and is filled with disingenuous phrases that frame 4E as a failure/betrayal. Well, it was also a case of Paizo telling people what they wanted to hear. That and WotC not going "oh grow the gently caress up" at cries of BETRAYAL!!!.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
While I agree more could be done to teach people the game, there's another issue that he almost hits on but kind of skirts by without acknowledging, and that's that it's not just the books that are steeped in nostalgia, but also the game itself. For instance, how would you even do a CYOA tutorial thing for alignments that wasn't completely hackneyed? And how would you explain why the hell there are two numbers for each ability score? He also argues that there shouldn't be a battlemat in the box (and I'm pretty sure the actual starter set doesn't come with one), but writing a true tutorial fight for D&D without one sounds like a mess. FFG Star Wars actually isn't really a battlemat game, and their starter sets include maps and pogs and it's great. I mean, I know people do bring new players in with D&D, but you couldn't pay me to do it anymore. I still love 4e, but it is hell to teach to total novices.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
ImpactVector posted:While I agree more could be done to teach people the game, there's another issue that he almost hits on but kind of skirts by without acknowledging, and that's that it's not just the books that are steeped in nostalgia, but also the game itself. Yeah, that's the thing...at no point was Next billed as a game made to get new people playing D&D, it was billed as a D&D for D&D players. That much I very clearly remember, the entire raison d'etre for D&D Next was that it was supposed to be a game that brought D&D players of all editions together at the table (and brought lapsed D&D players who'd gone on to Paizo or various OSR publications back into the fold buying official D&D-brand elfgames). Now they never said "ugh, newbies can gently caress off" or anything, clearly they also want new people picking it up too, but nothing about Next from the early stages of "I like to call it Passive Perception" to the final product is centered around bringing new blood into the hobby and if you were to tell me that was the main focus of Next's development I'd probably call you a liar.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
I liked that article because, well... It's pretty much spot on. The fact that there are three core rulebooks whose sole purpose of existing as three separate books is to milk money from the player base is not helpful at all. Also the fact that, I don't know, the three core rulebooks for 5e are all being released separately is a really, really stupid business decision. If we assume the article is correct and D&D's core problem is the "older cousin" model, then the fact that they're not giving players all of the tools they need out of the starting gate to convert people to DMs is boneheaded. This is not to mention the fact that from a DMing perspective, 4e was a dream (compared to previous editions). I had poorly DM'd games of 3e and 3.5e before, and 4e was a total blast to work with because the math was simple, it made sense, and monsters basically were self-contained entities where you didn't need to cross-reference anything to understand how they worked. 5e goes back to the 3e/3.5e nightmare model where a ton of the work is basically contingent on how 'good' the DM is and it's not really nice/easy for new DMs. You're back to the confusing-as-hell logic of CR, you're back to having to cross-reference the PHB list of spells, you're back to templates, and you're back to the bad math of yesteryear. Essentially, if you wanted to make an edition of D&D that could engage a lot of new players, replicating the design of 14 years ago isn't exactly the path that I would have taken. Maybe it makes sense from a perspective of getting the old grogs on board who will want to run adventures, but it still won't get past the bottleneck of initiating new DMs. LuiCypher fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Sep 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
LuiCypher posted:We have to keep remembering that around the time of 4E's release, Paizo controlled the narrative. I mean, ARB's overview in F&F basically demonstrates how Paizo framed Pathfinder as a giant big wet nappy for the 3.5E crowd and is filled with disingenuous phrases that frame 4E as a failure/betrayal. Having just looked at my review for the first time in a long time, I also asserted that Paizo is better that marketing their game than WotC, just on a basic level. The Beginner Box isn't a silver bullet, but it's a lot better than anything WotC or TSR has done since the "Red Box", IMO. The core dilemma with starter boxes is that, if starting gamers are like I was at age 13, I didn't want a learning experience - I wanted the whole mess of the AD&D experience. Of course, the easier solution would be to not have the hobby fronted by a game that doesn't require three hardcover books of material to comprehend in the first place, but it'd be up to WotC or Paizo to change course in that regard, and both they're desperately trying to chase glory days that didn't actually exist, trying to fight over same tiny nostalgia market (along with dozens upon dozens of smaller publishers). The metaphor of chasing the dragon is so apt it hurts to type it. You don't want sell to only gamers who played in 1980 or 1990 or even 2000, because it's always going to be a smaller number than you could have by looking outward.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
By contrast, when 4E was released, there was a box set with the three core books retailing for $50-60 available pretty much from the getgo from major book retailers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
Alien Rope Burn posted:Having just looked at my review for the first time in a long time, I also asserted that Paizo is better that marketing their game than WotC, just on a basic level. The Beginner Box isn't a silver bullet, but it's a lot better than anything WotC or TSR has done since the "Red Box", IMO. The core dilemma with starter boxes is that, if starting gamers are like I was at age 13, I didn't want a learning experience - I wanted the whole mess of the AD&D experience. I have vague memories of a starter set for 2nd edition AD&D, because that's how I got into D&D (specifically, having been tooling around with Dungeoneer and WFRP for a while already). It had three adventures, introducing increasing complexity as they went along, and topped out around 5th level for your pregens. Having played that to exhaustion I was plenty prepared to dive into the full PHB/DMG/MM combo and start doing my own stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Well, it bears remembering that D&D 3e was sold at an introductory price of $20 for each of the core three books early on as a promotion, and that the Players Handbook came with a CD-based character creator and an introductory adventure in the back. It's not like they didn't try, by no means was the 3rd Edition Player's Handbook a newbie-friendly book. It was better than the books that came before it in terms of comprehension and clarity, notably so, and that was part of its success, but it didn't do much to broaden the appeal of the game. I think, mostly, it broadened the appeal of D&D to people already familiar with RPGs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
mllaneza posted:A very insightful rant about WotC marketing and why the RPG community isn't growing any faster than it is. See, there's a part of this which doesn't sit right with me. quote:Mearls said that, even though the growth of D&D had been steady, something else had changed. In the prior five or ten years (remember, this was two years ago), there had been an explosion of people in geeky hobbies. More people than ever before were playing video games and MMOs, reading comics, watching comic and sci-fi and fantasy movies, watching anime, playing card games, playing board games, doing cosplay, attending conventions, and all that other crap that we gamers do aside from playing games. If Mearls really wanted to grab all those new players, why the gently caress is 5e a regressive piece of garbage that caters purely to grogs? If there's a whole new market showing up that you want to tap into, the first step in your big plan shouldn't be "ok first off let's punish them for not having played the game before".
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Fuego Fish posted:See, there's a part of this which doesn't sit right with me. Because Mearls isn't a good enough designer for "What he wants to do" to have anything to do with "What the rules produce." cf everything Mearls has ever had a hand in
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
Do not forget the cacophony of grogs (and likely Mearls' pet consultants as well) shouting down anything slightly
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
5E is regressive as poo poo but this may be exactly why the designers think it'll bring new players in. Because it really seems like 5E was designed for the designers and it can be hard to admit that not everyone has your tastes.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
ImpactVector posted:And how would you explain why the hell there are two numbers for each ability score? It's kind of ironic looking back on it now but my interest in TTRPGs was piqued a month back when I clicked on the GURPS thread and the game system was described as "roll 3d6 and hit below your stat/skill". I mean, yeah GURPS can be ridiculously complex, but that baseline system is just really comprehensible compared to ability scores, never mind fractional ability scores.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
In case someone doesn't know it, it's because D&D used to have a "roll under your ability score on a d20" sort of mechanic for boring not-combat rolls for a long-rear end while.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
Darwinism posted:5E is regressive as poo poo but this may be exactly why the designers think it'll bring new players in. Because it really seems like 5E was designed for the designers and it can be hard to admit that not everyone has your tastes. So kinda like how comic book writers and editors bring back their childhood favorites because since -they- grew up with them they're obviously more accessible to new readers than the newer characters (or old characters with new characterization)? Mike Mearls wanted to draw in new players so he made it all retro; Joe Quesada wanted to draw in new readers so he rebooted Peter Parker into being a poor nerd who worked at the Bugle and lived with his aunt. The parallels are a little disturbing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 21:34
|
|
|
KirbyJ posted:The parallels are a little disturbing. It's a pretty perfect fit though, the idea of The Comic Book Guytm is kind of the original strain grog. Just look at this fuckin guy 
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
Ugh, worst chat thread ever!
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
I agree that they might literally not know how to make a new player friendly edition. 5e is created by and for AD&D fans - not Basic fans. Don't forget that Basic vs AD&D was the first "edition war" and plenty of AD&D fans are still sour about it. Even though Basic overwhelmingly outside AD&D, especially amongst new players. People keep talking about Mearls being constrained by grogs or consultants or whatever. No, he wasn't. This is 100% the game he wanted to make. It isn't built for new players because Mearls wants to remake AD&D first and foremost. And hey, if AD&D was good enough for him, surely it's good enough for everyone else?
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 22:06
|
|
|
I mean, this is the guy who took an interview over the phone while eating string cheese.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
The issue is that 5e seemed to use the playtest to find out what people were opposed to, when the general purpose of playtesting should be to highlight flaws in the game. Playtesting-as-marketing seems to be the wrong way to go about things; fans often don't understand what makes a game successful. That's not say designers should ignore fan opinions, but often why they have those opinions is a lot more valuable than the opinions themselves.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
I had to check and of course ENWorld immediately begins complaining not only that he unfairly besmirched the fair name of 5e and that Mearls was clearly lying about 4e selling well, but that simultaniously of course the "teacher/mentor" (as they liked to use) model was the best because otherwise you'd be dumbing down the hobby or trying to cater to outside the true fanbase.
ProfessorCirno fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Sep 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 22:17
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:I agree that they might literally not know how to make a new player friendly edition. 5e is created by and for AD&D fans - not Basic fans. Don't forget that Basic vs AD&D was the first "edition war" and plenty of AD&D fans are still sour about it. Even though Basic overwhelmingly outside AD&D, especially amongst new players. Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Sep 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
ProfessorCirno posted:I had to check and of course ENWorld immediately begins complaining not only that he unfairly besmirched the fair name of 5e and that Mearls was clearly lying about 4e selling well, but that simultaniously of course the "teacher/mentor" (as they liked to use) model was the best because otherwise you'd be dumbing down the hobby or trying to cater to outside the true fanbase.  Seriously, grogs.txt right there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
Fuego Fish posted:See, there's a part of this which doesn't sit right with me. in 4e, the community feeling was toxic. few older counsins, and less chance of one 'graduating' to a more functional promoter-player. so half the older cousins were bitching up a storm. in pathfinder, and, they're hoping, 5e, at least they have that reserve of dedicated players, running clubs, ect, even if they're running clubs around laughably archaic rules systems*. the alternative is that the Groggy Cousins basically sabotage the process, as they did with 4e. *Again to be fair, it's much simpler up front, which counts for a lot in design terms. But i'm confident in saying its road blocks will burn out new players pretty fast. A Catastrophe fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Sep 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
That could have been solved with a simple "rules pressure release." Instead of including a universal last resort roll for things not covered by the rules, they let "the DM decides" fill that void. So gently caress 4e, 5e, pathfinder fragmenting the game, every DM is going to run it differently and no one will "graduate." There isn't much point in this laughable mentor program if there is nothing to teach. Hell, we're still supposed to be operating under the illusion that the game does not require tracking tactical movement, or magic weapons. Could you imagine if some poor soul took 5e at face value? At the least, there needs to be a big disclaimer that CR is hosed, or this game is unlearnable. It's pure cargo cult. From a "buy these books to learn to play this game" standpoint, they are offering nothing. You make the rules, you explain how it works, you figure out which parts are the game and which parts are lies thrown in to placate toxic customers. You'd be better off not reading it to be honest.
Babylon Astronaut fucked around with this message at 00:22 on Sep 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
The thing that drives me crazy about WotC (and Games Workshop for similar reasons) is that they're squandering their potential to make this hobby huge by continuing to target the market that they already have captured. 4e had it's problems mechanically, but thematically it was spot on for the type of consumer that they need to be attracting, young geeks who've grown up reading Harry Potter, playing WoW and watching anime. 5e appears to go back to aiming at the old geeks who grew up watching Conan movies and reading Xanth, those guys already have an edition of DnD that they like. Somebody brought up the comparison to comics, but I think that's wrong. Marvel and DC both figured out a long time ago that as their worlds grow the barrier of entry gets higher and higher. So they've both come up with ways to reinvent/reboot their characters and give new younger readers an entry point, a place where they can say "This is my world" those methods aren't always successful (cough New 52 cough) but often times they are. I'm not likely to play DnD of any version in the future, but for my own selfish reasons I want the hobby to grow, and to many people Role-Playing=D&D, if WotC fails to bring in fresh blood the hobby is only going to stagnate and shrink.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
Well, if DnD fans want to slowly strangle their marketshare in order to remain "pure" and for the "true fan base", then I wish them luck in their endevour, cause the sooner D&D is knocked off its perch as "number one", the better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
Galaga Galaxian posted:Well, if DnD fans want to slowly strangle their marketshare in order to remain "pure" and for the "true fan base", then I wish them luck in their endevour, cause the sooner D&D is knocked off its perch as "number one", the better. I've said it before, but I do wish that D&D itself would just...go away for a while. Yes, it's the cornerstone and foundation of the hobby, but nowadays it feels more like a weight around the hobby's neck.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
Had another dude in the store tonight that said 4e was garbage because it was just WoW. As annoying as it is to hear on the internet, hearing it in person is worse.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
So pospysyl didn't contact me or anything to collect his reward for my little contest. So i'll just post the Plat code here for him to claim and going to trust people here to not get it themselves  4892E7E-178C242013-28F22 Plutonis fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Sep 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 06:05 |
|
|
My character is chaotic good so I'm not sure if my character would take it. I need to consult the Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and the supplement I got my prestige class from to see if I would suffer any penalty for stealing it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2014 04:27
|
|
