> A similar process applies to elements of the game that might be too good. Are too many players choosing a particular option? Do people who choose that option like it and find it balanced? Do DMs hate some particular rule or game element even as players love it? We’re likely to change something only if players report that it’s too good, if it’s a popular option with players, and if DMs have issues with it.
ok, so it sounds vaguely like they'll release larger-scale errata. Fighter sucks? We'll release... (unclear, either updates for Fighter class to make it not suck, or a class that is like Fighter but doesn't suck)
@JonathanHobbs From what I gather, it will be a new book called, "Classes that don't Suck", and it will include a new fighter, and other unsucky things.
@Magician It's a funny thing about surveys. You can actually ask people and find out if 20% find it sucky or 80%.
Ok. So. We have two separate things here which I thought were interrelated. (a) D&D 5e wanted to be All The Things. One of its major stated goals from before the playtest even came out was that it would have a core system, and then a suite of stuff you could unplug from it and plug into it. From this, you could turn D&D into basically anything, and play any kind of thing. No sight of that yet. I was dismayed when it didn't really even surface in the playtest, like they'd forgotten about it.
(b) Living Rules, which just means: we'll release errata to fix things, and new material, including possibly classes which supercede and improve upon bad classes by doing the same thing but better. This is what they've always done, though, so it doesn't need a fancy name.
@GMNoob The majority of players don't have an understanding or interest in game design and so wouldn't have the first clue whether or not a given element of the game has negative impact on it. Surveys can only take you so far.
@Magician D&D does not care if something fits into some ivory tower game design ideal. It cares if people are having fun and enjoy the game. That's sort of the whole point. Only a small minority of people care if the rule is ideal, and more care about how the game feels and is fun. This is part of the pushback I get whenever I tried to get numbers behind the game.
@JonathanHobbs Right
@JonathanHobbs It seems you have a different view of what modularity is than me. Read the interview I posted just after the oracle linked the question.
@GMNoob That's not an ivory tower game design ideal. That's a practical, reasonable thing to expect from a game. Lots of games achieve it quite well, and it's bad not to. Consider 3e: the game rules allowed you to put a fighter, a monk, and a cleric in the same party. Those same rules mean the cleric will out-fighter the fighter, and the monk might be crap depending on the encounters you face. The DM needs to put in extra work to make sure people maintain having fun. This is bad.
A well-designed game would make everyone feel useful and have fun, and the DM won't have to spend significant amounts of effort to make players not feel worthless compared to that guy gating small armies into the battlefield.
@GMNoob The point here is: there is a better ideal than "people are having fun." Sure they are, but you also need to have a game design goal of things being fun and good.
4e achieved that goal reasonably well. The classes were pretty close in power levels. (Some sucked.)
Classes shouldn't be shitty. If they're well-designed, that just makes it even easier for people to have fun.
@GMNoob Start phrasing your argument in a coherent way, then. Yes, people do know if they're having fun. You yourself have said recently that "fun" is a useless game design metric as it's different for everyone. See, for instance, 8 kinds of fun.
Well, there might be a lot of opinions and theories thrown around, but there's an awful lot of games, and limited theories about what makes good game design.
I'm saying that what one person thinks is perfect game design another person thinks is the worst idea in gaming ever. There is no consensus on what good game design is. Though we can know what sells more products and what people enjoy.
@GMNoob You're mixing up two things. There are games designed to elicit different kinds of fun, and they'd meet different reception in different people, according to their preference. And there are games that are designed to elicit same kinds of fun, but do it with a different degree of proficiency.
Okay, I want to try and defuse something I've been noticing.
In this chat: we complain about 5e a lot. When 5e was not the hot topic, we also complained about 4e silliness, and we complained about 3e's outrageousness, and we will return to doing that when 5e ceases to be such a hot topic.
Some of us complain about Paizo, and so on.
We also criticise and analyse the hell out of games. We pick them apart. We find faults. We analyse and seek benefits. We discuss the results of what thing X did when we poked it with a stick.
From that, a lot of us learn about RPGs, the good parts, the bad parts, what effects various mechanics have, and so on. We learn what we can do to be better as players and as GMs. We learn what we like about RPGs, we learn about RPGs doing the things we like.
Consistently, when I have seen 5e criticism come up, I have also found you, @GMNoob, seem to slide into a position of defending it from that criticism. You don't need to do this.
D&D 5e is a big thing, it can handle the criticism, Wizards can take it, the game won't be hurt, people will continue to play it.
You will continue to enjoy 5e, because you like it, and that's a great thing, and we're happy about that and will celebrate it. I like Fate, I don't like GURPS, but I have friends who feel opposite, and I'm happy for them and will discuss either system with them.
And importantly we don't think less of people for enjoying games which we don't enjoy, much less playing games which can be criticised (all games can be criticised).
D&D gets a lot of attention here because (a) it's full of faults and always has been, which makes it SUCH an easy target, (b) it's the thing we all know and everyone plays or has played, and (c) Wizards of the Coast is the biggest developer in the industry, and yet they CONSISTENTLY make SO MANY bad decisions where their competitors - all the little niche games now edging them out - have learned!
I personally REALLY WANT D&D to turn out really well, but I see the developers, for better or worse, keep displaying some disconnect from everything everyone else is learning about games, as well as their own game, to a degree.
They seem to have become complacent, in some regards, as if they feel they don't need to strive for better quality. They do! And we'll poke the material they release with sticks.
(Same as we do for any other game.)
I felt like I had something else to say here, and briefly remembered it. I hope it comes back in a minute. Something about Fate and other small authors.
Ok. But uniquely, as a phenomenon I often don't see, I see you very passionately defending it from criticism we lob at it. I have not been on chat very often recently, or not paid much attention, which makes it stand out to me all the more that I notice this so consistently and regularly.
@JonathanHobbs was it that smaller games don't strive or claim to be the ultimate rpg experience capable of everything, ever? I'm much more willing to forgive quirky and raw rules of a small system.
@GMNoob What's Pathfinder got to do with anything being discussed today?
Speaking of small systems, I just GM'd Apocalypse World for the first time yesterday. It was a tad tricky because I'm new to mastering the system and two out of three of the other players were new roleplayers.
Here's my suggestion: Don't defend 5e from us big nasty grumps. You seem to get emotionally activated by it, as if you have something to lose if you don't defend us from dismantling it. However, this is unhealthy and turns it into a kind of ugly affair. We could briefly complain about something, and we could also constructively dismantle it and analyse it. However, when you step in as defender, it turns into an extended argument over whether things are good or bad and about how we're wrong.
@GMNoob I'm not sure how to define what you do, but you do more than that, since I see these 5e discussions where you are involved take a HUGELY different path to the ones you are not involved in, and pretty much all the conversations I've seen historically where we grump about a mechanic or pry it apart to see how it ticks.
And I repeat: I've been inactive compared to usual. I have a lot going on at work and at home. The fact I've been noticing it regularly means it has been happening often enough it happens even those times I'm here. So it's common, lasts a while, and is noticeable.
Early promises said that. However, looking at that Mearls' interview where fighters taking feats or stat advances is praised as the example of the system modularity, well... It's clear those early promises are dead and buried.
@Adeptus from what i gathered, it was also about being able to do things like social-heavy stuff PROPERLY, with not just a minimum amount of supporting mechanics.
@GMNoob right, well, then we saw a bunch of stuff you didn't.
Also, apparently short rests now take an hour not because that turns them into an interesting tactical decision, but because they wanted people to hoard encounter powers.
Even in that interview you linked earlier today, there's a strong sense of trying to please as many people as possible, smooth over edition wars with a universal system, and arrive at design goals via groupthink rather than the developers' own vision.
@GMNoob The modular system wasn't about replacing d20 with d6's. It was about being able to take this game that's usually be combat-heavy, and make it suddenly have a high level of mechanical support for courtly intrigue, or stealth, or whatever. If I'm remembering correctly.
5e publicity material, interviews, articles, etc, never gave me the impression it would exceed the bounds of "D&D." I do think Wizards' vision of D&D is much broader than I feel is realistic, but that's not really the point.
@Magician This is why I brought up pathfinder. Bad rules, lots of fun for more people than any other rpg currently. (Judging by convention game tables)
@BESW Ofcourse it modifies the rules in some way. That's what the modular rules do. And the playtest and even basic, have examples of rule changes that change play style.
Past editions of D&D have given a minor level of support to non-combat stuff. Most of the rules have been about fighting. D&D games generally are not about purely courtly intrigue or stealth, and if they are, they barely scrape the surface of the rules, which indicates how much of it is about fighting. From the many other niche games, we know what a game that is all about social intrigue or stealth is like, and we know D&D is Not That.
So the idea of the modular rules was to give high levels of support to doing... other things with D&D, that people were trying to do, and let them do it well.
@GMNoob But you just said "not rule for rule replacement," so.... again, I have no idea what you're talking about. I'm trying to understand but it all sounds so contradictory that my head's spinning.
There was going to be an abstract, agnostic core to which you could plug in bits to support various kinds of campaigns. We don't have that, we have a pretty combat-heavy core again.
@BESW Yes, there is unlikely to be a module that gives you a +2 bonus for flanking. There is unlikely to be a rule that gives you Aspects to resolve combat.
@GMNoob If it's not, then why are you bringing it up? You said you view this as "correcting misconceptions," but if you don't think I'm confused about that... [throws up hands] I got nothin'.
@GMNoob Ok. One more thing to point out about the defending thing: This is something you do a lot during this. You make statements to the effect of I Think You Are Wrong. This adds nothing, and is unhealthy to the entire conversation. If you think we are wrong, instead of telling us we are wrong or telling us what you think, instead, put things forward to contribute to the discussion.
@BESW Did my comment respond to something you wrote, or something Jonathan wrote, because I'm pretty sure it was something jonathan wrote. I thought you were trying to understand what I was saying in regards to Jonathan's expectations.
@BESW Yes, there is unlikely to be a module that gives you a +2 bonus for flanking. There is unlikely to be a rule that gives you Aspects to resolve combat.
I would also prefer you did not state simply that I am wrong or that I have said some unjustified things (with no further comment added to explain). I tend to get that from you a lot, and it's kind of a mark at which point the conversation dies.
@JonathanHobbs Let's back up a minute. You said that "So the idea of the modular rules was to give high levels of support to doing... other things with D&D, that people were trying to do, and let them do it well." And I think adding the modifiers "high levels" and "do well" are unwarrented modifiers
@GMNoob They didn't need to do it better. But the idea was to do it well, and add a high level of supportive mechanics. (This does not have anything to do with doing it better than niche games.)
@JonathanHobbs It isn't what they were saying. They were saying all things in the context of people who play D&D. Not in the context of people who play other RPGs
@JonathanHobbs I think only once I heard some comment about other game systems, and it was in response somebody asking if D&D will steal mechanics from other game systems. And the answer was "we might be inspired by them, but no"
@JonathanHobbs Everything they have said, has been in the context of D&D. Different editions at the same table. Not, Players of Fate and Shadworun at the same table.
@JonathanHobbs You seem to be saying that D&D was advertised as allowing players to play in a game style from outside previous D&D experiences.
@JonathanHobbs But what I heard them saying is that if you had house rules, or RAW for a certain type of D&D style game, those house rules, and previous edition styles will likely become new modular rules.
@BESW i haven't thrown the dice in a bit thou.. too much drama and work to have any time for that. plus no one plays around here anymore too lazy lol..
@GMNoob Sake of argument; what's the point of a new edition if it doesn't change the game style? Individually players certainly can and have "fixed" broken rules systems without official input before, so it's probably not that.
@WesleyObenshain The purpose of the new edition seems to be a backtrack from the position that 4e is the only version of D&D still supported. With a means of letting people who enjoyed 2e, 3e, and 4e, all play the same game at conventions.
@WesleyObenshain Yes, the hazard of Play by post. I've had a 30% success rate in forums in general.
@WesleyObenshain Sadly in response, I've started engaging in more than one play by post game at a time, which inevitably leads me to stagnate in one of them, thus adding to the trend :(
@GMNoob I don't mean "slow". I mean, "the site is a novelty for a lot of players and they simply disappear entirely after a few posts".
@BESW Sadly, I've had several games that didn't really get much past a single scene's worth. I have yet to complete two chapters and my longest running game has lost half its players.
@WesleyObenshain I mean the same thing. "Sorry, going on vacation will be back in a week.." (4 weeks later) "Oh, sorry I completely forgot about this game, can someone NPC me?"
@WesleyObenshain Two different issues. I'm aware that not all players attend conventions, I've never gone to a convention in my life. But it's very clear that WoTC is focused on that convention experience.
Although conventions are an easy way to evaluate a game's health and position in the community, I'm not sure they're a particularly accurate method and focusing on them may wind up being a shot in the foot for Wizards. We'll see.
@WesleyObenshain "Continued support" is dndclassics.com, and new book material that is mostly fluff and low on crunch. "rewriting the material" is, I believe, needed because of their convention focus. But I could be missreading that.
@Adeptus I'm currently sadly not DMing a game I should be DMing because there are co-DMs :( I took on more than I could chew.
@GMNoob That reminds me, the local (small) RPG con has merged with a (small, local) card&boardgame con. I've never been to one before, but this sounds tempting
@BESW Honestly, I would have thought that conventions were a response to to a game's long term fan base, but from what I've read lately, it looks to be more like a reason that many people start playing D&D in the first place. Not an experience I can relate to, but so many companies put thier money and efforts there.
@GMNoob My impression is that it doesn't break into the wider potential audience, nor does it effectively reflect the true scope of players. "People who go to conventions" is a very small subset of existing and potential players.
But then, I live on a tiny island with a single FLGS run by a guy who knows nothing about any of the RPGs and TCGs he sells, where local TRPG players are isolated existing groups and the people looking for new games are transient.
Let's get this one out for a poll: if you were playing in game set in magical, post-Black Death medieval Europe, what sort of stories do you think you would like to see?
@lisardggY Inventor (read davinci) gone mad with crazy inventions, Inventor/Artist reveals secret plot to control the world, Corrupt Religious leadership tries to gain control of a kingdom and/or exploit natives, Stop a civil war, Start a civil war, Save a town from the threat of a new black death, Save a family from being accused of trying to start a new black-death.
@BrianBallsun-Stanton In the interest of providing some sort of outlet for the pressure, would a dedicated and carefully labelled sideroom be acceptable?
and note well, I'm not banning "Squee, wizards just announced X" from here. link sharing is fine. Just the endless navel-gazing and discussion seems like it's contributing to the shit questions.
@GMNoob Yeah. The idea was to turn our over-civilized corner of Europe (Bretagne, specifically) into a post-apocalyptic wasteland where we would be free of the campaign's previous focus on local politics.
@BESW My character's backstory (which will now be relegated to an NPC) had the plague as a large part of his backstory, and I incorporated it as a meaningful part of the world's cosmology (the Plague as a fifth axis in the current four-axis Magic/Faerie/Infernal/Divine cosmology), and the retiring StoryGuide used that to create Plague-powered monsters roaming around.
@lisardggY Nobles scheming behind each others' backs, some wealthy but lowborn burgher trying to replace feudalism with capitalism, heretic sects clashing over whose misbeliefs caused the plague.
@kviiri We actually had something similar a few years back during my previous stint at the helm - a city kicked out its baron and instituted a guild-run syndicalistic commune.
@lisardggY I role-played the rise of a medieval republic myself some time ago in Crusader Kings II, starting as Venice and winding up controlling Europe from Italy to the Black sea.
Despite and in part because of D&D 5e's faults, I am keen on discussing D&D 5e. This room is a Gallery because that's the only way to moderate who can participate, and I will not attempt to make a secret of why that is the case. But I intend for it to be inclusive, so: poke me if you want an invitation and permission to speak there.
I hope it is not like that. But I am not sure how else to deal with this situation. The nuclear options have already been engaged. So I am just going with something utilitarian.
@GMNoob Put it this way, rather: if you've got something about 5e you'd like to talk to me about, tell me and I'll be more than glad to have a conversation about it. But I didn't like having every conversation about 5e turning into the same conversation, and it clearly upset more people than just me.
This is not casually done, and it was not before its time.
@GMNoob As per my comment on one of the meta questions, you do realise that 15 of the last 50 questions with the 5e tag have been closed for various reasons? It really isn't just about you, however much you might believe it
@Phil For background: 5e just got booted out of chat, and into its own room: D&D 5e Discussion Goes Here. I have expressed to GMNoob I find his methods of participating in 5e conversations has had an unhealthy effect, yet I am still enthusiastic about 5e discussion, so for the time being, I am taking the option of discussing it in D&D 5e Deconstruction.
@BESW It's hit or miss to be honest. Don't judge the experience based on your first time.
I have a weekly game where generally atleast one player comes over skype. Sometimes the line is clear and everything works, sometimes it's a nightmare and they can't play.
And ofcourse, sometimes they can play but we have to repeat everything 3 times.
A friend of mine's participated in a few sessions of Skype-powered D&D 3.5e, and I ran some of my sessions of D&D 4e over Roll20, which is a videoconference + extras.
I have a friend who runs most of his games via Roll20, though Google Hangouts, but voice only. He's very pleased with the sound quality, and though the level of engagement isn't as high as it would be for a face-to-face game, he says it's more than workable.
Commentary on a book allows us to quote portions of that book. Commentary on rules allows us to quote portions of those rules. If the rules are a power, we can quote the power.
I've omitted the Movement technique sections of the power, since those aren't necessary, but for most powers I'm pretty sure it'd be fair use to quote all of it bar the flavour text (which isn't necessary). After all, details become important to D&D 4e questions, so keywords and such are also important.
@kviiri According to WotC's SRD for D&D 4e, we could only quote power names, then the onus would be on each one of us to own the book, crack it open and see what the power does. Which is ridiculously impairing but nonetheless it's what they wrote.
Ironically or not, we can still quote as much from the books as Fair Use permits, SRD license aside.
And Fair Use generally says: go ahead, if you're making commentary, this enhances your commentary, and it won't damage the book's sales. (It won't. I surely couldn't hope to collate even the entirety of everything quoted on this site and hope to have something even vaguely resembling half-complete rules.)
@BESW I tried giving my father some of that as a birthday gift, as he's a self-proclaimed tea lover. However, his idea of "loving tea" means always having the same old Earl Grey so I kept the oolong for myself.
Alternatively, I've been using skype videocalls and a "let the other people see what's on this portion of my screen where I have an open map, made in maptools (that they didn't intstall)". They were in the same room at that time and I was the GM
Cannabis tea (also known as weed tea, pot tea, or "green" tea) is an infusion of cannabis—usually the leaves of the plant- in hot water. Cannabis tea is an herbal tea, rather than a true tea. Without proper decarboxylation and preparation of the glandular material, this method of ingesting cannabis yields low psychoactive effects, as tetrahydrocannabinol, the primary psychoactive agent in cannabis, is not a water-soluble compound. Dissolving the active ingredient THC in lipids (for example vegetable oil or butter) or alcohol (as in Green Dragon) is more effective for psychoactive purposes. While...
But it is bad, becuase it makes the question less likely to get a actual answer, as people feel bad about using content someone else posted as a comment