|
|
Post by asaki on Aug 16, 2020 18:17:34 GMT -6
Are you referring to the current Purge (cancel culture) environment we are living through? No, but the Orion Black thing certainly doesn't paint WotC in a pleasant light. I was talking about the sexual harassment and abuse. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Aug 16, 2020 18:25:44 GMT -6
Are you referring to the current Purge (cancel culture) environment we are living through? No, but the Orion Black thing certainly doesn't paint WotC in a pleasant light. I was talking about the sexual harassment and abuse. Orion Black from Harry Potter? What does that have to do with WotC? |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Aug 16, 2020 19:25:46 GMT -6
Special editions are far worse than the orange spine re-covers. Special editions are more akin to the DSG/WSG- a bunch of tacked on stuff the creators thought we would like but ultimately rejected.
I did the survey but I'm not sure why. I have as much love for 5e or a future 6e as I do for Disney SW- I.e. I'd rather see the property die than continue to be butcher...er... developed.... by the current owners. If someone wants me to watch/play the current version, I'll give in for the sake of the group's entertainment, but you will never hear me suggest it. It's made me appreciate the prequels/TSR even more..warts and all.
|
|
|
|
Post by DungeonDevil on Aug 17, 2020 4:05:00 GMT -6
If they do a new edition they should make it modular in that you have the core game that resembles OD&D 3LLB (d6 damage, two classes, etc.) and present the rest of the rules as optional add ons (variable weapon damage, ability check, etc.). Then you could have the level of crunch be to taste for the player. That is one thing that turned me off 2nd edition. Too much of it was "here's 10* different options for this rule" and it got worse with each book they put out. I prefer the designers do the hard work of designing and balancing the ideal set of rules and present a gold standard. And THEN I house rule for the specifics of my game group. Here is another way to look at it. When building a house you need a cornerstone you can rely on and use to make all your measurements from. Once you've laid the foundation then build whatever house you want on it. Still, I am 100% in support of an ancillary "Unearthed Arcana" book that is a collection of "best of" optional game mechanics and rules. *hyperbole, but not by much.I like Linebeck's concept. How is it any different than say the progressive depth presented by, say, BECMI? |
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Aug 17, 2020 4:33:37 GMT -6
I look at it this way... (1) I like old school games. (2) Editions 2, 3, and 4 were veering away from that trajectory. (3) Edition 5 is the best one since old school, and it gets played a LOT at the game store. (4) If I answer their survey, I may be so much in the minority that they blow me off. However, if I don't answer the survey there is ZERO chance that they will get my feedback. So, yeah questions were repetitive and all but at least I had a chance to put in a word for the Arneson and Gygax stuff. WotC spends a lot of time redoing old stuff (Giants, Ravenloft, Eberron, and so on) and so why not the really old stuff? Blackmoor may be in IP hell for all I know, but WotC must still own Greyhawk so maybe we get some of that. It can't hurt. Agreed 100% across the board. I couldn't have said it better myself. My one and only real gripe is character creation in the PHB. Which, btw, is completely solved by using DnDBeyond.com, I have to hand it to them, they've done a very nice job with character creation and level advancement there. One of the few digital tools I actually use. But there is nothing like getting a blank character sheet, a pencil, some dice, and the Player's Handbook and rolling up a character. It is still as fun as when I discovered the game back in 1981. Wow, like you said, it's astounding that we have such different reactions. I can't STAND D&D Beyond. That character sheet is the most non-userfriendly thing I've ever seen, and having to dig through rules upon rules and modules upon modules to find what I want, only to then lose track of where it is in the horrible organization of that "tabs within tabs" character sheet...ugh. I had to take someone's 5e character from one of those sheets and put it into a template for publication in a TLG book. It took me so long to make sure I had all the information in there I could've just made the character myself with a PHB. Twice. Maybe 3 times. That being said, despite our differing experiences with the organization and resources, I do agree with your assessment of 5e in general--it IS the best since OD&D. It can be played OD&D style, AD&D style, 3.x style, you can really model whatever kind of play you like with it. To hit an OD&D style, for example, I'd dump skills, pare it down to just F, C, W, R, and use only the iconic archetype (ie. ALL fighters are Champions, ALL Rogues are Thieves, etc.), dump Inspiration, dump Backgrounds, and run with it. Dungeonesque did a fantastic job, actually, of demonstrating how you can do 5e in an OD&D style. |
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Aug 17, 2020 4:58:58 GMT -6
tdenmark, I'm curious if you know where you get lost in character creation. I know that my first few characters were really slow, but my pace picked up a lot once I got the gist of it. 1. Generate stats. Fast if you roll, slower if you point-buy. 2. Pick a race. Race will give a few abilities, plus modify stats. 3. Pick a class. Class will give a few abilities, plus give skill bonus. At this point you could be done and ready to go. 4. OPTIONAL: Pick a background. Background can give you motivation and such, plus give skill bonus. Now, what slowed me down at first was the back-and-forth part. Maybe you should pick race and class before stats, since the stats are modified by one and their importance is determined by the other. Perhaps the order should be more like this: 1. Pick a class. This tells you what stats should be best. 2. Pick a race, often the one that matches best with the stats you want for your chosen class. 3. Determine your stats, arranged to support your class and modified by your race. 4. OPTIONAL: Pick a background to fill in extra skills missed. Sounds a little min/max in concept, but honestly that's how most everyone plays 5E.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Aug 17, 2020 8:17:13 GMT -6
To hit an OD&D style, for example, I'd dump skills, pare it down to just F, C, W, R, and use only the iconic archetype (ie. ALL fighters are Champions, ALL Rogues are Thieves, etc.), dump Inspiration, dump Backgrounds, and run with it. At this point though, why would anyone bother? You still have a rigid initiative and action system with all the classes baked into and around it- and if you change the initiative system, you mess some things up (which I know from personal experience turns into what the youngsters call "rocket tag") You still have massive numbers inflation for HP, rolling damage , etc. Several class abilities are more complicated/PITA/time consuming than their OD&D counterparts (Turn Undead for example) 5E fans are going to balk that you took away all their customization and cool stuff (which is already an issue for those neutral/opposed to 5E as is) Re-learning spells/spell names Bigger, unwieldy statblocks. Slower combat/gameplay (Better than 3/4e sure, but still slower than O/TSR games) Now requires you to ignore 3/4 of what is presented mechanically in 5E compatible product and requires more "re-balancing" or extra effort by the DM when gauging/prepping said products. I think 5E is a fine rules system- the best WOTC version to just sit down as play as written, but stripping to the absolute core seems counterproductive. Just run C&C or O/TSR games and you have a bazillion compatible products, a more solid framework to build upon(instead of tearing down), still faster gameplay, and player expectation is not a concern. |
|
|
|
Post by Malchor on Aug 17, 2020 9:10:58 GMT -6
Not sure if this indicates WotC is skewing digital or trying to understand what the world of RPGs will look like post-pandemic. Lots of paper and pencil players, even 5e players, went digital.
My local OD&D group went digital and now contains people from Canada and the midwest. Same for a campaign one of my players just started to DM, and same again for the Traveller group I am a player in. Going back to the tabletop would mean cutting those people off—which none of us is interested in doing, even though we'd love to switch back to playing in person.
|
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Aug 17, 2020 9:31:22 GMT -6
To hit an OD&D style, for example, I'd dump skills, pare it down to just F, C, W, R, and use only the iconic archetype (ie. ALL fighters are Champions, ALL Rogues are Thieves, etc.), dump Inspiration, dump Backgrounds, and run with it. At this point though, why would anyone bother? You still have a rigid initiative and action system with all the classes baked into and around it- and if you change the initiative system, you mess some things up (which I know from personal experience turns into what the youngsters call "rocket tag") You still have massive numbers inflation for HP, rolling damage , etc. Several class abilities are more complicated/PITA/time consuming than their OD&D counterparts (Turn Undead for example) 5E fans are going to balk that you took away all their customization and cool stuff (which is already an issue for those neutral/opposed to 5E as is) Re-learning spells/spell names Bigger, unwieldy statblocks. Slower combat/gameplay (Better than 3/4e sure, but still slower than O/TSR games) Now requires you to ignore 3/4 of what is presented mechanically in 5E compatible product and requires more "re-balancing" or extra effort by the DM when gauging/prepping said products. I think 5E is a fine rules system- the best WOTC version to just sit down as play as written, but stripping to the absolute core seems counterproductive. Just run C&C or O/TSR games and you have a bazillion compatible products, a more solid framework to build upon(instead of tearing down), still faster gameplay, and player expectation is not a concern. I mean, your personal preference aside, that was the stated goal of 5e during development--the ability to dump and add mechanics, which they referred to at the time as "modules"--and run it as you liked, to appeal to a broader range of styles of gaming. 3.x ONLY applied to wargamers after a certain point, as did 4e, because of their intensive focus on incremental bonuses and tactical movement. 5e played in an OD&D style gives you a streamlined, unified mechanic that makes play, quite simply, FAR less arcane, FAR more understandable, and just as open and freeform as OD&D. And you'd be surprised how many 5e fans are QUITE open to just that sort of streamlining. Also, in our 5e line, Troll Lord Games has proven just how easy it is to streamline those stat blocks and still have everything you need to run a combat. An orc, for example, looks like this: Orc (CE Medium Humanoid) HP 15 (HD 2d8+6), AC 13, Spd 30. Str 16 Dex 12 Con 16 Int 7 Wis 11 Cha 10. Perception 10. Intimidation +2. Scimitar +5 (1d8+2) or Heavy crossbow +5 (1d10; 100ft/400ft). SA Darkvision 60ft; Double move as bonus action. The truth is, the majority of 5e monster stat blocks are extraneous. I've been running the AD&D A-series with my Friday group and converting on the fly, very rarely needing to crack a book. A basic knowledge of the system allows me to assign proficiency bonus and ability bonuses without a second thought, and knowing how saves, advantage and disadvantage works enables one to quickly invent or mimic monstrous abilities. And speaking as someone who owns and ran Dungeonesque, who also runs a stripped-back version of 5e every other week, NO re-balancing or extra effort is required on the DM's part whatsoever. Spells? MOST of the spells in 5e have the same or similar names as they've always had. It's really not as difficult or "Why would you bother?" as you seem to think it is. I may be misreading you on this, but tbh, the majority of your complaints seem to be coming from a place of not interesting YOU PERSONALLY because YOU prefer a true old school game, than an actual place of why would ANYONE bother. |
|
Dohojar
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 119 
|
Post by Dohojar on Aug 17, 2020 9:43:31 GMT -6
I took the survey just so my voice gets heard. As far as the 5e rules go, I like them. My only wish is that they produce more stuff for the Greyhawk setting. I think that if the limit the number of setting they publish, I would be happy. Focus on those 3 and be done with it. Forgotten Realms isn't going anywhere and is their default setting. They also have books out for Eberon which I have 0 interest in but I don't see that one going anywhere either. They started something with Greyhawk when they release Ghosts of Saltmarsh but not enough IMO. I would like to see a new campaign setting for it and it would give me an excuse to buy a new source book  I hardly doubt that 5e is going anywhere anytime soon. I think it has been their most successful game to date other than possibly when 3rd edition first came out. I can see some changes they might make but the rules as a whole are pretty solid. I am hoping that the backlash they got for 3.5 and 4th edition made them realize that if something works, then don't change it. I wasn't a fan of 3rd or 4th edition to begin with but something about 5e works for me. Could be that it is the simplest system to run since Basic. |
|
|
|
Post by thegreyelf on Aug 17, 2020 9:59:25 GMT -6
I took the survey just so my voice gets heard. As far as the 5e rules go, I like them. My only wish is that they produce more stuff for the Greyhawk setting. I think that if the limit the number of setting they publish, I would be happy. Focus on those 3 and be done with it. Forgotten Realms isn't going anywhere and is their default setting. They also have books out for Eberon which I have 0 interest in but I don't see that one going anywhere either. They started something with Greyhawk when they release Ghosts of Saltmarsh but not enough IMO. I would like to see a new campaign setting for it and it would give me an excuse to buy a new source book I hardly doubt that 5e is going anywhere anytime soon. I think it has been their most successful game to date other than possibly when 3rd edition first came out. I can see some changes they might make but the rules as a whole are pretty solid. I am hoping that the backlash they got for 3.5 and 4th edition made them realize that if something works, then don't change it. I wasn't a fan of 3rd or 4th edition to begin with but something about 5e works for me. Could be that it is the simplest system to run since Basic. Agreed all around, but the strong scuttlebutt in the industry is that they are, in fact, developing 6e in house. 5e has been around for 5 years now, third party sales are slumping big time, and even regular sales are starting to slag with fewer people buying each new campaign book they put out. A 6th edition would revitalize those sales with an orgy of spending. So far as what it'll look like, they've been testing the waters with things like pushing digital initiatives, introducing more social awareness with things like no more evil orcs, dumping the use of the word "race," etc. BUT, mechanically? I'd expect it to be no more different than 5e than 3.5 was to 3.0--that is, enough to notice, but not enough to alienate the 5e fanbase. That being said, you're 100% right that they need to bring Greyhawk back to the forefront. I expect what's stopping them is that Greyhawk has never been quite as "Shiny" or ripe for metaplot as Forgotten Realms. That makes it tougher to develop as an in-house world from the standpoint of the company. It is, and always has been, very much a campaign setting with a gritty DIY mentality to it, and the more plot you force into that, the more it loses what makes it special. |
|
|
|
Post by jeffb on Aug 17, 2020 11:42:57 GMT -6
At this point though, why would anyone bother? You still have a rigid initiative and action system with all the classes baked into and around it- and if you change the initiative system, you mess some things up (which I know from personal experience turns into what the youngsters call "rocket tag") You still have massive numbers inflation for HP, rolling damage , etc. Several class abilities are more complicated/PITA/time consuming than their OD&D counterparts (Turn Undead for example) 5E fans are going to balk that you took away all their customization and cool stuff (which is already an issue for those neutral/opposed to 5E as is) Re-learning spells/spell names Bigger, unwieldy statblocks. Slower combat/gameplay (Better than 3/4e sure, but still slower than O/TSR games) Now requires you to ignore 3/4 of what is presented mechanically in 5E compatible product and requires more "re-balancing" or extra effort by the DM when gauging/prepping said products. I think 5E is a fine rules system- the best WOTC version to just sit down as play as written, but stripping to the absolute core seems counterproductive. Just run C&C or O/TSR games and you have a bazillion compatible products, a more solid framework to build upon(instead of tearing down), still faster gameplay, and player expectation is not a concern. I mean, your personal preference aside, that was the stated goal of 5e during development--the ability to dump and add mechanics, which they referred to at the time as "modules"--and run it as you liked, to appeal to a broader range of styles of gaming. 3.x ONLY applied to wargamers after a certain point, as did 4e, because of their intensive focus on incremental bonuses and tactical movement. 5e played in an OD&D style gives you a streamlined, unified mechanic that makes play, quite simply, FAR less arcane, FAR more understandable, and just as open and freeform as OD&D. And you'd be surprised how many 5e fans are QUITE open to just that sort of streamlining. Also, in our 5e line, Troll Lord Games has proven just how easy it is to streamline those stat blocks and still have everything you need to run a combat. An orc, for example, looks like this: Orc (CE Medium Humanoid) HP 15 (HD 2d8+6), AC 13, Spd 30. Str 16 Dex 12 Con 16 Int 7 Wis 11 Cha 10. Perception 10. Intimidation +2. Scimitar +5 (1d8+2) or Heavy crossbow +5 (1d10; 100ft/400ft). SA Darkvision 60ft; Double move as bonus action. The truth is, the majority of 5e monster stat blocks are extraneous. I've been running the AD&D A-series with my Friday group and converting on the fly, very rarely needing to crack a book. A basic knowledge of the system allows me to assign proficiency bonus and ability bonuses without a second thought, and knowing how saves, advantage and disadvantage works enables one to quickly invent or mimic monstrous abilities. And speaking as someone who owns and ran Dungeonesque, who also runs a stripped-back version of 5e every other week, NO re-balancing or extra effort is required on the DM's part whatsoever. Spells? MOST of the spells in 5e have the same or similar names as they've always had. It's really not as difficult or "Why would you bother?" as you seem to think it is. I may be misreading you on this, but tbh, the majority of your complaints seem to be coming from a place of not interesting YOU PERSONALLY because YOU prefer a true old school game, than an actual place of why would ANYONE bother. Sure it's it's my opinion- based on experience- because I did exactly that (stripping a bunch of stuff out) with one of my groups years ago. The only tangible in game benefit you mentioned is the universal mechanic (for those who have issues with O/AD&D's quirks). Of course C&C already has that covered. For players, you still have more complicated ways of things- again, turning undead (Have fun rolling all those saves against that mob of zombies/skeletons), working with/tracking higher level spell slots, more daily/encounter tracking of abilities and spells (and more of them on the character sheet) A more rigid action economy with actions/reactions/bonus actions, etc.By getting rid of class choices, skills, backgrounds it definitely makes for a cleaner character sheet- but- because class abilities and internal rules consistency/logic/design remain- those things that actually define 5E- You are not really getting close to an "OD&D" experience, AFAIC. Gameplay-wise- stripping 5E to it's core doesn't make the system better-it just waters it down somewhat. And sure we can handwave a bunch of stuff like the action economy and spellcasting details to make things run faster, but we can do that with O/TSR D&D too, and make everything run on ascending AC, and a single ST system like Whitebox- which is FAR simpler to run/play than any version of D&D proper (thanks Fin!) Don't misunderstand this as "grognardism", I love and play systems like 13th Age, FFG Star Wars, and Dungeon World. I just cannot agree that 5E becomes an "old school substitute" or that gameplay is fundamentally improved by removing the elements of skills, backgrounds, class choices, inspiration, etc. Now if you are just trying to tap into the broad 5E player base and that's the motivation, then fine! Go for it. But that's a completely different subject. Re: Dungeonesque. I had some LGS owner trying to convince me to buy it a few weeks ago- I had never heard of it (or perhaps forgot about it?), but the box intrigued me. I told him I'd like to take a look inside the box first- he showed me his personal copy. It is essentially the basic 5E rules with some stuff stripped out. Pretty, but WAYYYYY overpriced @ $50 retail, IMO. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2020 14:46:11 GMT -6
I took the survey, but more to see what WoTC is interested in these days than to communicate my interests to it. I'm more excited about the current Old-School Essentials kickstarter than I am about any current or future WoTC products. And that's true of any number of OSR-related offerings. That's where my limited gaming dollars are going now and that's been the case for years. I don't expect that to change.
|
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Aug 17, 2020 16:04:05 GMT -6
At this point though, why would anyone bother? I find 5e quite playable in an "OSR" style. Advantage and Disadvantage alone are worth the price of admission, such a brilliant and simple mechanic. I'll have to look into this Rocket Tag, because I'm pretty loose with initiative preferring the feel of the moment over the particulars of the rules. (which is probably why I didn't mesh well with 4e) |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Aug 17, 2020 16:07:53 GMT -6
tdenmark, I'm curious if you know where you get lost in character creation. I know that my first few characters were really slow, but my pace picked up a lot once I got the gist of it. 1. Generate stats. Fast if you roll, slower if you point-buy. 2. Pick a race. Race will give a few abilities, plus modify stats. 3. Pick a class. Class will give a few abilities, plus give skill bonus. At this point you could be done and ready to go. 4. OPTIONAL: Pick a background. Background can give you motivation and such, plus give skill bonus. Now, what slowed me down at first was the back-and-forth part. Maybe you should pick race and class before stats, since the stats are modified by one and their importance is determined by the other. Perhaps the order should be more like this: 1. Pick a class. This tells you what stats should be best. 2. Pick a race, often the one that matches best with the stats you want for your chosen class. 3. Determine your stats, arranged to support your class and modified by your race. 4. OPTIONAL: Pick a background to fill in extra skills missed. Sounds a little min/max in concept, but honestly that's how most everyone plays 5E. Flipping back and forth. All the modifiers, Yeah, the background thing is too much. I don't min/max anymore, ok maybe once in a while I'll indulge just for fun. |
|
|
|
Post by tdenmark on Aug 17, 2020 16:09:11 GMT -6
I like Linebeck's concept. How is it any different than say the progressive depth presented by, say, BECMI? Meh. I prefer B/X. |
|
