D&D 5th Edition: Thread #7

[Knaight]

But it's a classic. Even if it is riddled with bad design. And classics are worth experiencing even if they are flawed.

Sure, but if D&D dies off with the purchase, that still leaves a whole host of retro clones, the existing materials, etc. All it removes is the near monopoly of the role playing game industry, which I would contest is doing more harm than good.

[ThiagoMartell]

Sure, but if D&D dies off with the purchase, that still leaves a whole host of retro clones, the existing materials, etc. All it removes is the near monopoly of the role playing game industry, which I would contest is doing more harm than good.

D&D is the main RPG. When it gets weakened, the RPG industry as a whole loses ground. If D&D dies, RPG becomes even more of a niche. Indie games and that's all. I like my indie games, but forget about being a professional in the area. It becomes by gamers, to gamers, for the pleasure of it. Sounds great, doesn't it? Except it isn't. Forget about support, splatbooks, miniatures, maps and excellent art (artists don't work for free). We'd be back in the 70s - do your own maps, paint your own miniatures. If you're not that good of an artist, well, tough luck.
I doubt that will happen, though. D&D was a 25-30 million/year business around the time 4e came out, and that was before the MMO, the Adventure System and Dungeon Command. At most, all Wizards of the Coast brands will be folded under "Wizards of the Coast" to keep them Core brands under Hasbro. And that's if Disney buys Hasbro and if Disney decides to go hardcore on demanding profits. They didn't exactly do that with Marvel, so I don't see why they would do so with Hasbro.

[Tehnar]

D&D is the main RPG. When it gets weakened, the RPG industry as a whole loses ground. If D&D dies, RPG becomes even more of a niche. Indie games and that's all. I like my indie games, but forget about being a professional in the area. It becomes by gamers, to gamers, for the pleasure of it. Sounds great, doesn't it? Except it isn't. Forget about support, splatbooks, miniatures, maps and excellent art (artists don't work for free). We'd be back in the 70s - do your own maps, paint your own miniatures. If you're not that good of an artist, well, tough luck.
I doubt that will happen, though. D&D was a 25-30 million/year business around the time 4e came out, and that was before the MMO, the Adventure System and Dungeon Command. At most, all Wizards of the Coast brands will be folded under "Wizards of the Coast" to keep them Core brands under Hasbro. And that's if Disney buys Hasbro and if Disney decides to go hardcore on demanding profits. They didn't exactly do that with Marvel, so I don't see why they would do so with Hasbro.

I think there is flawed reasoning here; saying that having a flawed game will keep more people in the hobby then a nonexistent one, or actually attract new people. It will just turn people away.

Having no DnD will mean people will turn to other things and try them out, and some of those are actually good.

Besides, I doubt that even if 5E fails, the DnD brand will not be gone for long. Someone will buy the brand, and release a new game under it. Who knows it even might be good.

[Stubbazubba]

I dunno, having a unified tentpole brand, a fairly universal gateway to the whole gaming world, the common lexicon that D&D brings to the hobby is, I think, valuable regardless of whether or not the game plays well. Unless we think PF can safely take over that role, I wouldn't want D&D itself to go away just yet. But I would be very curious to see what Pathfinder 2.0 would look like.

[Yora]

I think there is flawed reasoning here; saying that having a flawed game will keep more people in the hobby then a nonexistent one, or actually attract new people. It will just turn people away.

There are flawed games and there are terrible games. Spoting flawed games is only possible if you aready know a couple of amazing ones.
After all, AD&D 1st Edition was a huge success and it's as flawed as it can get, bordering on terrible with it's Attack Roll tables and saving throws.

[Tehnar]

I dunno, having a unified tentpole brand, a fairly universal gateway to the whole gaming world, the common lexicon that D&D brings to the hobby is, I think, valuable regardless of whether or not the game plays well. Unless we think PF can safely take over that role, I wouldn't want D&D itself to go away just yet. But I would be very curious to see what Pathfinder 2.0 would look like.

DnD is already here, and it will stay in the current lexicon, even if no new books are published in the current iteration. Its just that present. I just claim that it would be worse that we have a bad DnD edition then none at all.

If I was in Paizo management I would be planning to release pathfinder 2.0 at around the same time as 5E.

There are flawed games and there are terrible games. Spoting flawed games is only possible if you aready know a couple of amazing ones.
After all, AD&D 1st Edition was a huge success and it's as flawed as it can get, bordering on terrible with it's Attack Roll tables and saving throws.

It is flawed when you compare it from a present day perspective, in a similar way that some old computer games are flawed when compared to some modern titles.

My beef is that 5E is regressing, not evolving. It is bad by todays standards, let alone what the standards will be in a few years. Its flaws are insidious and buried under the pretty wrapping, but will reveal itself when played for a bit. Which is even worse, since it will disappoint people and turn them away from the hobby.

[Yora]

I sure agree that it's a couple of steps backwards, but I think that with 3rd Editions the tracks were set at a wrong direction and that it's a much better idea to go back before that point in game design and attempt to evolve from there, than to try twisting this flawed approach into something better.
Going back to 2nd Edition and reexamining the ideas and goals for 3rd Edition seems like the way to go to me.

[Kerrin]

What if, along with a "Monster Manual", there was also a "Adventure Manual", which had hundreds of different ready-to-go obstacles to put in the player's path, each balanced to give a good challenge to many different skills, so that the DM could browse through, find something that would challenge the players, and plop it into his campaign as needed?

This would relieve the pressure on the DM to come up with all his skill challenges himself, just like he doesn't come up with all of his monsters himself, and would allow the players to more readily expect what they would face. And of course, the DM would be encouraged to tweak, fluff, and re-fluff the encounters, or use them as inspiration and a reference for making his own challenges,

Sort of like the 4th edition's Dungeon Delve book but better and with non-combat items in it too?

I'd go for something like that as I don't have the time I used to have for creating everything from scratch myself.

[Clawhound]

There are lots of places where 3rd, 4th, and Next really have gone forward.

As a DM, 4th was amazing. The work that they produced was astonishingly useful. They are keeping much of what worked. Likewise, the math behind creatures is still being tweaked, but once there, helps them design and price creatures appropriately, which helps DMs create better encounters. Likewise, their full reconsideration of what healing meant helped expand the boundaries of what classes were needed. Next is not returning to cleric-only healing.

They are going backwards in some ways, but not without reason. The latest article in slowing down Level 10+ play harkens back to earlier editions, and it does so for the same reasons. At some point, you can't just keep pumping up the characters like Dragonball. If nothing else, you create huge amounts of work to keep up challenging creatures for those levels. If you limit the power gained in leveling, then you can leverage the more numerous lower level creatures and spend your time creating interesting high level creatures, as opposed to spamming out bland high-level creatures.

Unfortunately, game design is like engineering. Both are exercises in compromise. The game must be flawed in some ways. The game must be weak in some areas. If they are smart, the flaws are in places that most players don't mind and can work around. The game doesn't have to be perfect, but it does need to be fun.

[RedWarlock]

Are we all reading the same article about high-level play? I saw it that they were doing both, having scaled-up high-level play AND having dispersed lords-and-masters style. They seemed to describe being able to pick your form of high-level that suits you.

[Grundy]

About high level play and its complexity- it makes much more sense, from their modular concept, to have streamlined play at all levels. Creating a module that simplifies things is essentially impossible. Creating modules (or splat books) that add options, bells, whistles, and/or ramp up power is simple, time-proven, and wise.
Look at cars. Base models, then with various trim packages.
About the legacy concept- pure genius! I especially like the options- leader, saint, researcher, etc. One of the ideas that rubs me the wrong way is the concept of a 20t level character that nobody has heard of. Especially one who's Wealthy. It fits some character concepts (I'm looking at you, monk), but for the most part it's ridiculous, unbelievable, and breaks suspension of disbelief.

[1337 b4k4]

One of the ideas that rubs me the wrong way is the concept of a 20t level character that nobody has heard of. Especially one who's Wealthy. It fits some character concepts (I'm looking at you, monk), but for the most part it's ridiculous, unbelievable, and breaks suspension of disbelief.

Actually, it's far more common than you would think at first glance. Let's consider say 20th level merchants. Quick, off the top of your head and without looking, who are:

Rex W. Tillerson
Peter Voser
Michael Duke
Su Shulin
Jiang Jiemin
Bob Dudley
Ian Taylor
Liu Zhenya
John Watson
and Ryan M. Lance

If you guessed the CEOs of the top 10 biggest companies in the world by revenue (per wikipedia) you'd be right, but I bet you probably don't recognize more than a couple, even though for at least 6, I would bet you've heard of the company.

Lets try an easier list:

Carlos Slim
Bill Gates
Warren Buffet
Bernard Arnault
Larry Ellison
Lakshmi Mittal
Amancio Ortega
Eike Batista
Mukesh Ambani
and Christy Walton

That would be the top 10 richest people in the world (per Forbes, 2011). How many of those names do you recognize? More than the last list I'm sure, but still probably less than 50%?

If real life had levels, would you deny that these people are 20th level business people?

Let's try some scientists (http://www.superscholar.org/features...s-alive-today/)

Tim Berners-Lee
Noam Chomsky
Richard Dawkins
Persi Diaconis
Jane Goodall
Alan Guth
Stephen Hawking
Donald Knuth
Lynn Margulis
Gordon Moore

Probably an easier list for this crowd than the first two, but even there, I bet you don't know them all.

To take the point even further, how many of them, even of the ones you know, would you be able to identify walking down the street? How likely are you to believe any random stranger coming up to you and claiming to be one of these people? And this is in the modern age, with 24/7 tv everywhere, instant on communication with the internet at most people's fingertips.

Now lets unwind all the technology to medieval times, where the fastest long distance communication available to you is measured in days not seconds (or if you happen to know a wizard or cleric, in 20 word chunks...), and where most people are honestly too busy worrying about their next meal than what the crazy old hermit at the wizardanarium the next country over is doing or even who he is.

So 20th level characters who are relative unknowns throughout the world, yeah I can buy that.

[AgentPaper]

[List of many people]

So 20th level characters who are relative unknowns throughout the world, yeah I can buy that.

Yeah, but let's look at a different list:

Georgy Zhukov
Attila the Hun
William the Conqueror
Adolf Hitler
Ghengis Khan
Hannibal Barca
Napoleon Bonaparte
Julius Caesar
Alexander the Great
Cyrus the Great

This is a list of the top 10 most successful military commanders.

Probably recognize most of those, don't you?

It'd be pretty normal for a high level wizard (scientist) to be relatively unknown, since they tend to keep to themselves and not do anything all that inspiring. (though there are certainly exceptions: Einstein, Newton, Hawking, etc) More martial characters, however, tend to become very popular. Sure, there was no internet or phones back then, but stories still got around. Odysseus, Robin Hood, King Arthur, Gilgamesh...on and on and on.

If you kill a dragon that was terrorizing a town, you can bet that those townfolk are going to be telling stories about you for a long time to come. Even if you only ever venture into dungeons and kill stuff for gold, you think the villagers aren't going to recognize when you come back out with wagons full of gold and powerful magic weapons and armor? Even if they don't know what you did, they'll make things up to tell the story if they need to.

That said, I wouldn't mind Legacy stuff being part of a module, as long as it doesn't take too long to get released. If nothing else, it should be easy to ignore for those who just want to hack and slash, or who want a more gritty campaign where the heroes never get the praise they deserve.

[Yora]

This is a list of the top 10 most successful military commanders.

Probably recognize most of those, don't you?

And all of them are dead, many even for centuries.

Who are the current highest ranking military officers in the American, Russian, and Chinese armed forces?
That we almost never hear of them hasn't anything to do with their capability, but because unlike the others, they didn't happen to be at the right places at the right time to become famous in world history.

[Kurald Galain]

Okay, how about the ten most successful bards of the moment? Or athletes, for that matter

Anyway, the point is that there exist people in the world that almost everybody (within a certain country/culture) has heard of, and that many people would recognize at sight. Therefore, I would like my 20th level character to be one of them, or at least have the option to be one of them.

[1337 b4k4]

And all of them are dead, many even for centuries.

This, and everything else Yora said.

Okay, how about the ten most successful bards of the moment? Or athletes, for that matter

Depends on how you define success. Most popular, richest, most hit songs, best musical talent? Same with athletes, are you going by popularity, riches, awards?

Another thing to consider with both musicians and athletes is that they often achieve fame as part of an ensemble (much like your party would) and that not everyone in a top performing ensemble is going to be famous, even though without them, the ensemble would not be where it is. Consider Queen. Unquestionably one of the greatest rock bands, all Level 20 yes? Good. Now you probably would recognize Freddie Mercury (were he still alive) and Brian May, but what are the chances even if you know the names, you'd recognize Roger Taylor or John Deacon?

Anyway, the point is that there exist people in the world that almost everybody (within a certain country/culture) has heard of, and that many people would recognize at sight. Therefore, I would like my 20th level character to be one of them, or at least have the option to be one of them.

The key words there being within a certain country or culture. But I'm not sure anyone has or is suggesting that all 20th level characters would be obscure, just that obscure level 20 characters would not be an uncommon or unrealistic thing.

[Morty]

A 20th level character noone recognizes is perfectly viable if said character purposefully obfuscates and erases information and records about their exploits for whatever reason. Or maybe someone else does that, with their consent or without it. Or maybe people know that some mighty warrior killed the great orc warlord and his entire elite guard, but they have no idea who that is and what he - or she, accounts vary - looks like. I really think people should be less hasty to write something off as impossible.

[AgentPaper]

And all of them are dead, many even for centuries.

Who are the current highest ranking military officers in the American, Russian, and Chinese armed forces?
That we almost never hear of them hasn't anything to do with their capability, but because unlike the others, they didn't happen to be at the right places at the right time to become famous in world history.

So wait, your point is that you only become well-known after you've been dead for a few hundred years? That doesn't really make any sense. The reason we haven't heard about those high-ranking officers is because they haven't done anything impressive, since there haven't been any big wars recently.

The whole point of DnD is that your characters ARE there in the right places at the right time to do big, important things, especially as you get to later levels.

I'm not saying that it's impossible for a character to go unrecognized, just that it's highly unlikely that a group of adventurers doing normal adventurer things, killing big evil stuff like dragons and liches and demons, is going to be anything but a super-star to the people he's saved.

That doesn't mean that he HAS to become a noble, build a castle, and raise armies, but it means that he certainly can. it also means he's likely made enemies of several nearby nobles and kings who see him as a threat to their power, and could easily launch an attack to put him down. Others might seek to gain your favor, and come to your defense. Suddenly, there's a war on, and you're smack in the middle of it.

[Anderlith]

If Hasbro sold out to Disney what does that mean for the Dungeons and Dragons brand? Can anyone even begin to think of the consequences? I think it would be a very bad thing, but I have no idea how bad.

Hasbro owns Wizards which owns DnD.

Starwars directly in our D&D. Not having to deal with OGL

[TuggyNE]

Actually, it's far more common than you would think at first glance. Let's consider say 20th level merchants.

I wouldn't consider any of these examples 20th-level, actually. 5th, 6th, 7th maybe? Possibly lower than that. (Real life does not have WBL at all, at all.)

[wadledo]

I wouldn't consider any of these examples 20th-level, actually. 5th, 6th, 7th maybe? Possibly lower than that. (Real life does not have WBL at all, at all.)

Hey, Rupert Murdoch is most certainly a level 20 multiclass rogue/expert/beguiler.

[AgentPaper]

Hey, [scrub] is most certainly a level 20 multiclass rogue/expert/beguiler.

Please remove political stuff. That's the last thing we need in a thread already filled with heated debate.

[wadledo]

Please remove political stuff. That's the last thing we need in a thread already filled with heated debate.

How is that political?

[Knaight]

How is that political?

The way he got famous was by running a media empire with a decidedly political slant. It's enough to make him a political figure at this point.

[wadledo]

The way he got famous was by running a media empire with a decidedly political slant. It's enough to make him a political figure at this point.

So the mention of several other political figures in previous posts is not political?

So, how about them halflings.

[AgentPaper]

So the mention of several other political figures in previous posts is not political?

So, how about them halflings.

It's less the mention, and more the implications you made of his character.

[wadledo]

It's less the mention, and more the implications you made of his character.

I called him a rogue/expert/beguiler. How is that making any implication about his character, except for the fact that he is obviously a skillmonkey?

Please, explain to me how I implied anything with my discussion of how Rupert Murdoch is a high level D&D character.

[noparlpf]

I called him a rogue/expert/beguiler. How is that making any implication about his character, except for the fact that he is obviously a skillmonkey?

Please, explain to me how I implied anything with my discussion of how Rupert Murdoch is a high level D&D character.

Or, just drop it, because it's not a big enough deal to keep arguing about. Also it's not on-topic anymore.

[AgentPaper]

I called him a rogue/expert/beguiler. How is that making any implication about his character, except for the fact that he is obviously a skillmonkey?

Please, explain to me how I implied anything with my discussion of how Rupert Murdoch is a high level D&D character.

Perhaps you didn't intend it, but I read it as him using shady tactics (rogue), and illusions/lies (beguiler).

But yes, this is off topic, so...how 'bout them wizards?

[noparlpf]

They're OP, duh. Crazy guys in pointy hats shooting Magic Missile all day.