One D&D

[TJS]

Same here. I was skeptical bringing someone from Microsoft to run a tabletop game company was going to work out, but I'm surprised to see the CEO leaving right before the release of the new edition.

Perfect timing if you don't expect it to be successful.

(Although what success means for someone in her position and what the rpg community would consider to be success or failure are likely not the same thing).

 

[Ladybird]

Possibly important news : Larian won't make more BG content, WoTC in shambles

https://www.pcgamer.com/games/rpg/h...certainly-hope-that-its-not-another-25-years/

I don't think anyone else has what it takes to make a major seller CRPG out of D&D right now.

Owlcat, and then... hmm. Most of the dev houses with "big RPG" talent have been eaten up by Microsoft, and Bioware lost the knack decades ago. Bioware's talent went to Beamdog, but I'm not sure how well they survived the Embracer cuts last year, and even then their talents lie more in the technical side of development than the artistic side. There's also the issue of there not being that many independent studios who can afford to spend six years working on and refining the game.

That said, the biggest thing to get right is the characters; the mechanics were certainly good, but mechanics don't get you the insane level of popularity that BG3 has. To get that you need players to deeply care about their digital friends, and that gets you back to where's the talent, who can spend the time.

 

[Baulderstone]

Perfect timing if you don't expect it to be successful.

(Although what success means for someone in her position and what the rpg community would consider to be success or failure are likely not the same thing).

I have to wonder what the future of their online plans is, especially as she is departing without a clear successor. Is this going to be another 4E situation where it just never happens?

 

[TJS]

I would probably ditch the subclasses and just add talents and get rid of feats entirely if I were doing 6e.

You'd have a better game, but it would need more careful balancing and it also wouldn't be as popular.

People like the subclasses for some reason.

 

[Voros]

The background and inspiration systems are extremely weak to the point of irrelevance. The proper response is to either drop them or tie them more tightly into the game. A person's opinion of the perfect level of rule crunchy will be reflected in if they consider such systems are pointless or undercooked.

I prefer the optional skill/backgrounds option in the 5e DMG that nicks the system from 13th Age where the PC's background gives them a proficency bonus on actions their background suggests they would have. So a PC with a sailor background would know how to sail, etc. Simple and clean although I'm sure would find it too 'vague' and it relies on not having a prick for a DM (or player for that matter).

 

[Voros]

You'd have a better game, but it would need more careful balancing and it also wouldn't be as popular.

People like the subclasses for some reason.

I like the subclasses in 5e. Much better than multi-classing imo or the nightmare of prestige classes and the like.

 

[Self Saboteur]

Owlcat, and then... hmm. Most of the dev houses with "big RPG" talent have been eaten up by Microsoft, and Bioware lost the knack decades ago. Bioware's talent went to Beamdog, but I'm not sure how well they survived the Embracer cuts last year, and even then their talents lie more in the technical side of development than the artistic side. There's also the issue of there not being that many independent studios who can afford to spend six years working on and refining the game.

That said, the biggest thing to get right is the characters; the mechanics were certainly good, but mechanics don't get you the insane level of popularity that BG3 has. To get that you need players to deeply care about their digital friends, and that gets you back to where's the talent, who can spend the time.

Owlcat is definitely the future for RPG games I think.

 

[Lunar Ronin]

Bob Chapek is experienced with stepping in to take the blame when a company's missteps start to catch up with it. I believe he is available.

Bobby Kotick is available as well.

 

[EmperorNorton]

Bobby Kotick is available as well.

 

[Mosker]

(Maybe I should have started a differnt thread...admins?)

 

[TristramEvans]

(Maybe I should have started a differnt thread...admins?)

sure, go for it if you like. Did you want me to move some posts over to a new thread, or just continue the tangent there?

 

[Raleel]

I'm ambivalent on most of the subclasses. I think they did wizards dirty as fuck and I doubt I'll ever forgive them for it.

 

[T. Foster]

The 5E subclasses are weird to me because some of the topline classes should really be subclasses (ranger and paladin for sure, possibly bard and monk) and because for at least some of the classes there isn’t really a subclass option to just keep doing what you’ve already been doing and remain a broad-archetype generalist. That said, the subclasses that are de facto multiclasses (adding spell casting to fighter or thief classes) are better than actual multiclassing.

 

[Mankcam]

I prefer the optional skill/backgrounds option in the 5e DMG that nicks the system from 13th Age where the PC's background gives them a proficency bonus on actions their background suggests they would have. So a PC with a sailor background would know how to sail, etc. Simple and clean although I'm sure would find it too 'vague' and it relies on not having a prick for a DM (or player for that matter).

My favourite versions of D&D are not anything WotC has come up with - it's Shadowdark and 13th Age - this is the way forward for D&D as far as I'm concerned.

I think a toned down version of 13th Age would be great, so that Level 1 characters are Dirtcrawlers and not already Heroes.

13th Age is really good - the simplicity of the core mechanics, the wide choice of Talents, and especially replacing Skill Lists with Backgrounds - all of this is pretty much spot on I reckon.

13th Age ends up making colourful and unique characters, and even if all the group has the same character Class, all the characters feel quite different - something almost unheard of in most versions of D&D.

(Not sure anything can be done about Prick DMs though, heh heh)

 

[EmperorNorton]

some of the classes there isn’t really a subclass option to just keep doing what you’ve already been doing and remain a broad-archetype generalist.

Fighter: Champion
Barbarian: Path of the Berserker
Bard: Valor or Lore depending on if you were going more weapon based or more caster.
Cleric: (This one I'm going to ignore becuase you just always choose a domain based on your god, so there is no "generic" cleric)
Druid: Land or Moon depending on if you are going more caster or shapeshifting
Monk: Way of the Open Hand
Paladin: Devotion is the standard Paladin
Ranger: Hunter
Rogue: Thief
Sorcerer (same situation as Cleric, in that origin matters so there is no default)
Warlock (again, origin of powers matters, so there is no default)
Wizard: The one time you might have a bit of a point just cause Universalists mages didn't exist in 5e.

Idk, I feel like most of the classes have very default options if you don't want to think too hard.

 

[arjunstc]

I'm curious if you are talking about first-time players or the kind of people who talk about "builds" on the Internet.

The people who talk about builds on the Internet probably haven't actually played RPGs before.

 

[Bunch]

The people who talk about builds on the Internet probably haven't actually played RPGs before.

I think that's incorrect and unfair.

Honestly for anything of the 3.X/5e land of complexity I look at the builds to shorten how much I need to read/research when making a character.
My group recently started a PF2 campaign. If I had to dig through everything to figure out how to make a reasonable Alchemist goblin I'd probably just not. I'm glad everyone has all these dials to twist and levers to pull but most of the time I just want to get a functional guy and play. Since there are clearly non combat optimal builds for characters and combat often takes up a large amount of my groups play time, I appreciate being given a shortened learning curve.

The conversations often discuss what the tradeoffs are for various builds and ways to make different compromises based on play or campaign style

 

[hawkeyefan]

Except that barring like, a couple of classes, subclass isn't chosen until level 3. Your "get started out the door" choices are background, race, class (and spells if you are picking a caster).

And backgrounds are so un-important (and background features were just garbage design), that it really doesn't matter what anyone picks.

I just switched it to "take two skills your character would know based on their background + a combination of two languages/tool proficiencies" and that was better than dealing with their dumbass background system.

Also, Soldier for Fighter and Sage for Wizard were perfectly fine and didn't give redundant bonuses. If you already had one of the skills, then you just got to pick a different skill. Nothing was ever wasted.

On one hand, I agree. Backgrounds have amounted to very little.

But on the other hand, I totally disagree. The Background Features had a lot of potential. Thematic bits that gave players a lot of agency. Giving players the ability to declare truths about the game world… just really good stuff.

Unfortunately, viewed as “optional” due to the natural language approach of 5e. And sadly, they look like they’ll be removed entirely from the new edition.

 

[EmperorNorton]

On one hand, I agree. Backgrounds have amounted to very little.

But on the other hand, I totally disagree. The Background Features had a lot of potential. Thematic bits that gave players a lot of agency. Giving players the ability to declare truths about the game world… just really good stuff.

Unfortunately, viewed as “optional” due to the natural language approach of 5e. And sadly, they look like they’ll be removed entirely from the new edition.

They had potential as a mechanic, but the actual features that they wrote were very bad and/or very uneven, with most of them basically boiling down to "You never need to rent a room".

Also, they were completely unusable in several cases, such as one of their own adventure paths, Curse of Strahd. Most of them relied on your social standing, or your reputation in the world... which would make no sense to work when you've been whisked away to a pocket dimension.

 

[Bunch]

Backgrounds were a good idea in search of an actual problem. They didn't find one.

 

[hawkeyefan]

They had potential as a mechanic, but the actual features that they wrote were very bad and/or very uneven, with most of them basically boiling down to "You never need to rent a room".

Also, they were completely unusable in several cases, such as one of their own adventure paths, Curse of Strahd. Most of them relied on your social standing, or your reputation in the world... which would make no sense to work when you've been whisked away to a pocket dimension.

Oh some were awful. And they were a mixed bunch. But certain ones… the Criminal’s contact, the Folk Hero’s rustic hospitality, the Noble’s position of privilege… a few others. Just nice bits of world building given to the players.

I don’t know why they wouldn’t work in something like Curse of Strahd. Something like “The people of Barovia have seen their share of folk heroes, and they realize you’re one; they will provide you with shelter and will not turn you over to the baron’s men.”

That kind of thing. It should have been more strongly worded that they simply work if invoked in the right situation. Exactly how can be worked out, if not obvious.

 

[EmperorNorton]

I honestly prefer PF2e style backgrounds.

An example one:


Gives you 2 of your attribute boosts, one of which must be one of two thematic stats, 1 regular skill, 1 lore skill (which covers "anything you can think of that is part of doing this thing", so is very much like the generic "you have a background as x, so you know about x"), and then 1 skill feat that gives you a small bonus in some area.

In addition, each Adventure Path came with a number of backgrounds to fit you into the area/things going on in the area that you could choose from. Which I always thought was a good choice.

They have enough going on to be useful, while being simple enough to make up custom ones on the fly.

 

[Raleel]

My favourite versions of D&D are not anything WotC has come up with - it's Shadowdark and 13th Age - this is the way forward for D&D as far as I'm concerned.

I think a toned down version of 13th Age would be great, so that Level 1 characters are Dirtcrawlers and not already Heros.

13th Age is really good - the simplicity of the core mechanics, the wide choice of Talents, and especially replacing Skill Lists with Backgrounds - all of this is pretty much spot on I reckon.

13th Age ends up making colourful and unique characters, and even if all the group has the same character Class, all the characters feel quite different - something almost unheard of in most versions of D&D.

(Not sure anything can be done about Prick DMs though, heh heh)

you and I apparently have the same game tastes. Your completely accurate real world picture icon also is the reverse color palette from my completely accurate real world picture icon and they look similar. Is that because you are my mirror, down under there?

 

[Mankcam]

you and I apparently have the same game tastes. Your completely accurate real world picture icon also is the reverse color palette from my completely accurate real world picture icon and they look similar. Is that because you are my mirror, down under there?

It's because I'm in the Mirrorverse of Down Under -
We are a reflection of all your Northern Hemisphere hopes, dreams, ...and nightmares, heh heh

 

[hawkeyefan]

I honestly prefer PF2e style backgrounds.

An example one:
View attachment 80986

Gives you 2 of your attribute boosts, one of which must be one of two thematic stats, 1 regular skill, 1 lore skill (which covers "anything you can think of that is part of doing this thing", so is very much like the generic "you have a background as x, so you know about x"), and then 1 skill feat that gives you a small bonus in some area.

In addition, each Adventure Path came with a number of backgrounds to fit you into the area/things going on in the area that you could choose from. Which I always thought was a good choice.

They have enough going on to be useful, while being simple enough to make up custom ones on the fly.

I don’t know Pathfinder 2e at all. I bear too many scars from 1e to even consider it.

But, having said that, yeah there are plenty of games where background or some similar character component is more meaningful than in 5e.

I just thought that it was one of the areas of 5e’s design that was both original for this edition, and also full of potential.

 

[arjunstc]

I think that's incorrect and unfair.

Yes.

 

[Mankcam]

Having Backgrounds in D&D 5E presented as 'add -ons' is probably why they aren't meaningful

I would prefer D&D characters to be portrayed as Background first, Class second

Basically akin to the prominence of Cultures from games like RuneQuest

For example, you could have four different Outlanders with a shared origin story from the same frontier village, yet all have different Classes:

One is a Fighter, one is a Ranger, another is considered a Barbarian, and the final one could be a Druid.

Thinking of their Backgrounds first already adds a level of richness to portraying them that wasn't there before.

Backgrounds should be further expanded upon in the next edition of D&D, rather than remain an after-thought or completely dropped.