|
Kai Tave posted:Piling a bunch of supplemental material and house rules on top of a lovely game doesn't actually make it less lovely though. That with years of experience, tons of extra stuff, and having internalized all the bugs and flaws enough to let you weave your way through them you can run 3.X without it imploding isn't really a selling point. House rules no, supplemental material I think yes. If a game has lovely martial classes and the company that makes the game releases a book that adds really good martial classes, does that not make the game better?
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:25 |
|
|
Nihilarian posted:... What? So, D&D is actually at a real risk of being put to pasture for a while. As it stands, I think 5e is getting way fewer resources than 4e.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
IT BEGINS posted:House rules no, supplemental material I think yes. If a game has lovely martial classes and the company that makes the game releases a book that adds really good martial classes, does that not make the game better? What does that have to do with D&D 3.5 though?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:What does that have to do with D&D 3.5 though? I guess I'm trying to say 3.5 isn't that bad because there's a lot of really good material, despite all the bad stuff. I'm not convinced that 5E has really improved on 3.5, though maybe that's because it's hard for me to divorce my extensive experience running that system from the analysis of the system as a whole. I'm trying to make a similar argument to the 4e recommendations - 4e is made a lot better by ignoring stuff like Heroes of Shadow and MM1 & MM2, so can't I do the same for 3.5, and say ignore poo poo like all the T1 and T5-6 classes?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
30.5 Days posted:At LEAST 18 months.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
IT BEGINS posted:House rules no, supplemental material I think yes. If a game has lovely martial classes and the company that makes the game releases a book that adds really good martial classes, does that not make the game better? For a certain value of better, but I don't really consider "the game works great IF you ignore all this stuff from the base game AND go hunting through supplements, guaranteed to be no better on the quality-control end than the baseline they spring from" to be a tremendous improvement, no. I say this acknowledging that later 3.X stuff was, in fact, less dumb and broken than the stuff that came earlier on but even if someone were to pitch to me "hey, let's play 3.X/Pathfinder and we'll only use classes from such-and-such supplements" it would still mean playing 3.X which is still not really a good game. I mean I understand "I'm familiar with this, I don't feel like changing over to something I don't view as a massive improvement," but I think categorically stating that Next is worse than 3.X isn't really something that holds up. At its worst Next is no worse than 3.X...one has a janky CR system that isn't worth poo poo, the other has a janky CR system that isn't worth poo poo...while you can actually point to several things that Next does better than 3.X. Edit: Re: 4E, things like Heroes of Shadow aren't really on the same level as ignoring the core rules and looking to supplements since it is, itself, a supplement. 4E worked a lot stronger out of the corebook than 3.X did despite still having plenty of flaws. The monster thing has a stronger case, 4E's early monster math was bad, but on the other hand they released revised guidelines that let you actually adjust the numbers yourself if you wanted to which means you didn't really have to buy a new book, while at its best 3.X works only if you're basically willing to go through and cherry-pick the good stuff out of all the dross which also includes ignoring, y'know, the stuff that came out in the PHB1. I'm willing to give a pass on errata since that's life, but 3.X's version of errata is "don't use the core rules, use classes X, Y, and Z from these supplements as listed in Document Q, then add a bunch of houserules on top of that." Kai Tave fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Oct 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Part of the issue is that while the monster math is generally hosed up, the game also does seem to be leaning more towards the assumption that low-level play is really lethal and dangerous and you should be wary of direct fights. The ID or Ogre or other CR 2 monsters being able to ice people in two rounds and combat being super swingy seems like a deliberate thing, in response to the "players have it too easy these days" meme and an attempt to avoid 4e's long combats. Of course the game thusfar has been doing a lovely job EXPLAINING this, since the "it's modular! Make it yours!" mentality has discouraged them from suggesting even a default specific playstyle. Which is dumb because without knowing how the game is supposed to play you can't easily see how to change that. The DMG may be some help. I'm not holding my breath.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
It should be noted that 5e is selling really well right now. According to Mearls this has been WotC D&D's most successful launch having outdone both 4e and 3e in launch sales. Though he admits that the upcoming year matters a lot more then a good launch.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
I wonder whether 4e's sales are considered as individual books, or whether the sets that included MM/DMG//PHB are considered as single units...
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:I wonder whether 4e's sales are considered as individual books, or whether the sets that included MM/DMG//PHB are considered as single units... Also the subscription.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
Are they going to be doing a subscription thing for DnDNext? That was massively profitable, right? Actually, are they still doing that for 4e?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
DDI is still going, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 22:07
|
|
|
Nihilarian posted:Are they going to be doing a subscription thing for DnDNext? That was massively profitable, right? Afaik the DungeonScape app itself will be free, but you'll have to pay to access content that isn't in the Basic rules. Whether that means a subscription or a flat fee, I don't know. And yeah D&D Insider for 4E is still going, for now. They're claiming it will stay for as long as there's enough demand, so hopefully that'll be a good while because it's still got to be an easy money spinner considering it takes no effort besides just hosting it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
Lord of Bore posted:Whether that means a subscription or a flat fee, I don't know. Can you imagine them getting on the micropayment train?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:It should be noted that 5e is selling really well right now. According to Mearls this has been WotC D&D's most successful launch having outdone both 4e and 3e in launch sales. Though he admits that the upcoming year matters a lot more then a good launch. Really this probably has nothing to do with 5th Edition as a product and everything to do with the more recent success of The Big Bang Theory, Game of Thrones, Skyrim, and comic book movies. People are far more likely to become interested in RPGs now then they have ever been since I've been involved in the hobby.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:It should be noted that 5e is selling really well right now. According to Mearls this has been WotC D&D's most successful launch having outdone both 4e and 3e in launch sales. Though he admits that the upcoming year matters a lot more then a good launch. Are there actual figures or do we take his word for it and assume he's not talking out of his rear end?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
Misandu posted:Really this probably has nothing to do with 5th Edition as a product and everything to do with the more recent success of The Big Bang Theory, Game of Thrones, Skyrim, and comic book movies. People are far more likely to become interested in RPGs now then they have ever been since I've been involved in the hobby.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
Daetrin posted:Can you imagine them getting on the micropayment train? Yeah they're probably doing this, at least to some extent. Blog posts talk about being able to buy books/sections piecemeal so that you don't need to pay for what you aren't using. AFAIK it's still unclear if you'd need to buy the entire psuedo-India book to play as a half breed djinn or if you can just buy the djinn section by itself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
ascendance posted:there's also a major gap between people buying the book and actually learning to play over the long term. True. The telling thing will be sales when the edition's not getting shilled by every vaguely-related blogger and articles in forbes. And splat sales. I genuinely hope it does well. I wish it had been a better game, but for the good of the hobby and the industry, I hope it does well. I heard a rumour that the whole movie licensing shitpile might finally be sorted, so just maybe we might finally get a good D&D movie? Just look at what X-Men did for superhero films...
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
What happened to the offer of running real encounters to see how busted they were? I'd love to read the trip report.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 23:12
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:It should be noted that 5e is selling really well right now. According to Mearls this has been WotC D&D's most successful launch having outdone both 4e and 3e in launch sales. Though he admits that the upcoming year matters a lot more then a good launch. True, Mearls has said that every new core edition under Wizards (3.0e, 4.0e, 5e) has outsold its predecessor at launch, but that's no guarantee that 5e will ever be able to live up to Hasbro corporate's impossible sales expectations. Hasbro wants all their product lines to bring in $50 million annually or else they'll get shelved, and there's never been any edition of D&D that came close to bringing that in - not even during the game's peak sales, i.e. the first year of each new edition. It's entirely possible that the entire tabletop roleplaying "industry" combined doesn't even bring in $50M annually in its current state. The question isn't if 5e will end (whether it's iterated into a new edition, outsourced to a third-party developer or publisher, or cancelled outright), but how long it'll take for that to happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:True. On the other hand, I think its more apparent than ever that Hasbro is exactly the wrong company to manage D&D and doesn't really know what to do with the property. There is no loving way that D&D is ever going to be a $100 million brand. Yet, D&D is too big by probably an order of magnitude for even the top dog companies, like FFG and Paizo, to license and produce stuff for. Hasbro isn't even great at media licensing, because they keep churning out movies like Transformers and GI Joe. They aren't actively involved in the creative side the way Marvel does.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
gtrmp posted:Hasbro wants all their product lines to bring in $50 million annually or else they'll get shelved, and there's never been any edition of D&D that came close to bringing that in - not even during the game's peak sales, i.e. the first year of each new edition. Maybe Disney could buy the brand.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
Trouble is, I can't really think that there's anyone at all with the props to manage D&D as a big budget brand. Seriously, who is there? Marvel are doing amazing work with the films and TV, but they're a mature brand with 70-odd years of momentum behind them, and they STILL managed to gently caress up their licensing and farm out their IP in thirds to different production houses before finally getting it right relatively recently. Who's got the chops to make D&D great without just turning it into a film franchise?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
ascendance posted:Hasbro isn't even great at media licensing, because they keep churning out movies like Transformers and GI Joe. They aren't actively involved in the creative side the way Marvel does. The Transformers movies may be dumb as a box of smashed rats but they make serious bank. Transformers 4 has an 18% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and has made over $1 billion worldwide. Other companies wish they could be "not that great" with their licenses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Trouble is, I can't really think that there's anyone at all with the props to manage D&D as a big budget brand. Seriously, who is there? Marvel are doing amazing work with the films and TV, but they're a mature brand with 70-odd years of momentum behind them, and they STILL managed to gently caress up their licensing and farm out their IP in thirds to different production houses before finally getting it right relatively recently. I just want a company who can do a reasonable job with the video game licensing, who should, smartly, not license out exclusive licenses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:The Transformers movies may be dumb as a box of smashed rats but they make serious bank. Transformers 4 has an 18% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and has made over $1 billion worldwide. Other companies wish they could be "not that great" with their licenses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
ascendance posted:D&D isn't and shouldn't be a big budget brand. It's a niche brand... Up there with say, Judge Dredd or Captain Marvel. Not up there with Superman or X-Men or Lord of the Rings. It's a niche brand. Just like Guardians of the Galaxy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
ascendance posted:But the value in the license is with Michael Bay and the studio, not with the brand itself. GI Joe, Battleship, etc. Shows that Hasbro licenses are not the magic pass to making movie money.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
Andrast posted:It's a niche brand. Just like Guardians of the Galaxy. People were predicting Guardians of the Galaxy was going to flop last year, given that it was pretty much an unknown title. Edit: the success of Guardians is an amazing exception, and proof of Marvel's ability to leverage its lesser known properties because of the enormous goodwill it has from its popular and successful films. ascendance fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Oct 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 23:47
|
|
|
ascendance posted:But the value in the license is with Michael Bay and the studio, not with the brand itself. GI Joe, Battleship, etc. Shows that Hasbro licenses are not the magic pass to making movie money. You could make the same argument about Marvel's movies. Iron Man wasn't a huge, pop-culture icon on par with Superman and Batman until the first movie was a smash success. Iron Man wasn't a hot brand waiting for the right moment to shine, it took a good script and a good director to make it happen, just like with Transformers (only without the good director and script part, but if it's stupid and it makes a billion dollars then it apparently isn't that stupid after all).
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
Kai Tave posted:You could make the same argument about Marvel's movies. Iron Man wasn't a huge, pop-culture icon on par with Superman and Batman until the first movie was a smash success. Iron Man wasn't a hot brand waiting for the right moment to shine, it took a good script and a good director to make it happen, just like with Transformers (only without the good director and script part, but if it's stupid and it makes a billion dollars then it apparently isn't that stupid after all). Edit: does any Hasbro exec have a producer credit?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
Also Guardians of the Galaxy and Iron Man were pretty great movies.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:Trouble is, I can't really think that there's anyone at all with the props to manage D&D as a big budget brand. Seriously, who is there? Marvel are doing amazing work with the films and TV, but they're a mature brand with 70-odd years of momentum behind them, and they STILL managed to gently caress up their licensing and farm out their IP in thirds to different production houses before finally getting it right relatively recently. D&D might be able to cement itself as a $50M brand with a series of successful video game adaptations; SSI's Gold Box games and Interplay's Infinity Engine games all did pretty well for themselves. There's no way that tabletop publishing would ever hit that mark by itself, though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
gtrmp posted:D&D might be able to cement itself as a $50M brand with a series of successful video game adaptations; SSI's Gold Box games and Interplay's Infinity Engine games all did pretty well for themselves. There's no way that tabletop publishing would ever hit that mark by itself, though. This is why I think D&D is in trouble enough to start a death thread. Edit: A death pool. Also, WoTC should have bought their own software development house when they had money to burn. Too bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 00:04
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:Are there actual figures or do we take his word for it and assume he's not talking out of his rear end? There was I just can't remember were it was nor remember the number. Still it is currently selling well as it's books tend to rank high on sites like amazon and the like. And they plan to do something completely different then their stratagy with endless splats with 3.5 and 4e.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:There was I just can't remember were it was nor remember the number.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:There was I just can't remember were it was nor remember the number. Mike Mearls and MonsterEnvy Two names you can trust when it come to D&D Next.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 00:32
|
|
|
ritorix posted:And it just showed that I was doing XP guidelines wrong. I thought the website was wrong, but nope, 5e uses the XP values as the upper threshold of that range. So a medium encounter for level 13 is 4401XP to 8800XP, not 8800XP to 13599XP. Deadly is 13601XP to 20400XP, and anything above that isn't rated. That's... really unclear from the PDF, but yeah, you're obviously right. This pushes the 4-orc 2nd level encounter from "just into Deadly" to "One xp from being >deadly". MonsterEnvy posted:Ok here is a question. While some monsters may be better or worse then others in the same CR. Are they better then the ones in the CR above them. If they are not then their CR is fine. (Don't bring up the ID.) That's not the problem. CR works pretty much fine (with some exceptions, but there have been exceptions is every edition) as a "very roughly this dangerous" guide. The problem is that XP is now inextricably tied directly to CR so the encounter building math is still based on "very roughly this dangerous" instead of the more accurate version you'd get if monster had different XP values within their CR and those XP values reflected how dangerous the thing was. For example: the difference between a CR 2 (450xp) and CR 3 (700xp) monster is 350xp. If CR 2 monsters were worth 450-699xp depending on their abilities (and obviously if those numbers actually worked properly), my complaint would be totally irrelevant. To clarify, it seems fine that CR as "a 4-PC party of level = CR should be pretty much fine" exists. The problem is taking that and using it to build encounters out of monsters of differing abilities. Even if nothing in CR 2 is better than anything in CR 3, the encounter building math can't differentiate between a monster that's barely CR 2 and a monster that's nearly CR 3, which should be a significant difference in encounter difficulty.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 15:25 |
|
|
I think it would just add a whole pile more complexity to give monsters varying XP levels within each CR band. We have always had monsters worth the same amount, with some more difficult than others. And I mean, player optimization matters a lot too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2014 00:45
|
|