Though I've been drifting away from #DND5e for a while now, it's still feels really weird to be completely uninterested in the latest releases. I mean, not even a twinge of FOMO.
@Tim_Eagon Yeah. Right now, I’ve only been interested if the #dnd product has a story premise which interests me. Journey Through the Radiant Citadel was the last which interested me. #ttrpg
@Tim_Eagon
That might be because the upcoming 5E variants are not that inspired.
I think DC20 is the only one in the bunch that is actually trying to bring something new to the table. Not sure it's for me, but at least they're rally trying to do their own thing with the 5E SRD.
@Tim_Eagon
Oh!! And also Core20. Again, not quite my cup of tea, but some good ideas in there and at least it's trying to be something other than a 5E clone.
@dragoncrown I’m just done with high fantasy with lots of character options in general. Character building was never all that fun for me. I prefer the choices at the table to outweigh those I make away from it. Give me the rules light game where I can create a character in a few minutes and get to playing.
@Tim_Eagon@dragoncrown I’ll admit character generation for fantasy does little for me… but superhero generation is a different story. If a superhero game doesn’t let me have fun creating a dozen or so characters for everyone I “play” - then it’s not a good superhero game.
@bedirthan@Tim_Eagon@dragoncrown Hmm, I'm going to take an alternate position - I feel you are drawing a false distinction. Character generation is part of play - it's not a separate activity.
That being said, I do think ones enjoyment of character generation as play is dependent on where one falls on the simulationist to narrative axis of TTRPGs. Which is going to be different for everyone.
Of for one person within genres (Superheroes vs Fantasy for me).
@Da_Gut@bedirthan@Tim_Eagon@dragoncrown This is why I think overemphasis on prestige classes was one of the big mistakes of D&D 3.x, and why I like lots of base classes and and alternate class abilities and/or archetypes better. Most prestige classes demand a strict build plan for entry that must not be deviated from, while with other forms of customization you can more easily make choices on the fly — which is to say, choices that actually reflect the events of the campaign — more easily.
@pteryx Wasn't it always up to the DM to define such things? I think it's totally possible to just award a prestige class for specific actions or discuss alternate prerequisites. This is always possible.
@Da_Gut@bedirthan@Tim_Eagon@dragoncrown It's also that even aside from "advancement", the start of the game shouldn't set the character in stone. You should be able to change things on your character sheet that don't boil down to advancement, as your character evolves and changes. I'm very much for, "I'm not going to decide [trait] now, I want to give this character some time to settle".
@Da_Gut@bedirthan@Tim_Eagon@dragoncrown A great example of this are relationship and value statements in Cortex games. They're brief phrases that define the trait. You can question those statements, getting additional dice for a roll, but have to reduce the trait after. When you get to downtime/growth/whatever, you have a choice to make. Rewrite the statement and restore the trait rating, or leave the statement and the reduced trait (typically in exchange for increasing another one).
@bedirthan@Tim_Eagon@Da_Gut@dragoncrown I found that really started with 3.x, which has "character creation as a losable mini-game." Because of the complex sets of prereqs, getting from point A to point B meant needing to plan it well in advance; getting from point A to point C, even if it made more sense, might be impossible, because you didn't have the various requirements. To make matters worse, there were the "trap feats"... things that might make sense, but didn't give results.
@libraryogre@bedirthan@Tim_Eagon@dragoncrown 3.5 was the worst. Though at one time, you could die in Travellers character generation. Which is the most extreme example of losing character generation
@Da_Gut@libraryogre@Tim_Eagon@dragoncrown I think the original Twilight: 2000 random generation could lead you to starting with zero supplies and nearly max raditiation, essentially a session one death
Feats were both new and a victim of fear that Fighters would be as strong as they were in 2e. I consider the "feat taxes" to be a bigger sin than most so-called "trap" feats.
Prestige classes as a major emphasis of the game were, IMO, a mistake. The fact that such shiny-looking mechanics had such strict entry requirements frankly distorted the game.
@Da_Gut@libraryogre@bedirthan@Tim_Eagon@dragoncrown Yeah, PrCs were definitely very popular in 3.5's heyday, and I remember being in groups that tended to focus on them. But I can't say I was a huge fan of "you only get to be the kind of character you imagined once you're halfway through the game", which was why I ended up liking 3.5's (and eventually PF1's) large numbers of base classes, and those games' means of customizing those base classes, better.
@pteryx@Da_Gut@bedirthan@Tim_Eagon@dragoncrown I've moved more towards 5e's "subclasses", myself (though 5e was far from the first to do it; Rules Cyclopedia had a version, and Flying Swordsmen is practically what 5e eventually did). You have your base idea; you get a tweak on that base idea. Throw in feats to tweak your tweaks, and it works to give some range, without the problems of dead ends and synergy that 3.x had.
@libraryogre@pteryx@Da_Gut@bedirthan@dragoncrown Yeah, the Folk Magic and Fighting Folk of the Haven Isles books for the Midderlands setting, which is based on Swords & Wizardry, are basically collections of OD&D subclasses.
So, I see D&D as having a few different concepts running around regarding alternate classes... kits being distinct from subclasses being distinct from "advanced classes" being distinct from prestige classes.
Kits: Change to the class that happens at 1st level. Can be as minor as the "Noble Warrior" class giving you a couple social things and proficiencies, or as big as bards, where 4 class features became modular between the different kits.
Subclasses: a change made to a class at a later level, often one of several options. A subclass leaves the original class intact, just adds new things. Includes the RC paladin & the 5e subclasses
Prestige classes: A new class you can enter when meeting certain requirements. I'd include the RC druid, the 1e Bard and Thief-Acrobat, and all that d20 mess.
"Advanced Classes" is a new name for the old idea... AD&D defined clerics, fighters, mages, and thieves as the basic classes, with druids, rangers, etc., etc. as "subclasses". They're brand new classes, just related to the other.
@pteryx@Da_Gut@libraryogre@bedirthan@Tim_Eagon@dragoncrown Sorry for chiming in late. I liked PrCs. They added more mechanical weight to RP class concepts over kits. E.g. "blade-singers are powerful," and then we all laugh when the 1st level character is dropped in round 1. I felt the minimum requirements and higher entry level meant those classes better matched their rep. That said, they could be OP or be so tedious to qualify that it didn't feel like an organic decision for the character.
@Craig@pteryx@Da_Gut@libraryogre@bedirthan@dragoncrown Conceptually, I thought they were fine, but the sheer number of them, the often onerous requirements, and the wide variability of power levels made them less ideal in practice IMO.
@Tim_Eagon@pteryx@Da_Gut@libraryogre@bedirthan@dragoncrown I agree with all of that. Some of the requirements were weird, too. Almost as if WotC said this PrC is overpowered, let's add these 3 random feats as an entry requirement to balance it out. I think all of that takes away from some wonderful PrCs that were well-designed both mechanically and from a RP perspective.
@Tim_Eagon@dragoncrown Prioritizing "choices at the table" pretty much always makes for better play, but unfortunately its a lot easier sell product around "choices away from the table."
@E_T_Smith@Tim_Eagon@dragoncrown
As I understand it the current professional game book economy requires a lot of page count. Filling those pages means a lot of fiddly player rules and a big old setting. Neither of which really work for me.
@Tim_Eagon@dragoncrown@E_T_Smith
Swords of the Serpentine is 380 pages of glorious full color illustration on heavy paper with a complete setting and lots of player-driven powers for $60.
It’s a hella fun game, but 30 years ago it would have been 1/2 that size with less complexity and a City of Eversink paperback supplement and splat books for each of the 13 factions in the city.
@Tim_Eagon I have ZERO interest in them. My own homebrew rules are far more interesting to me and I'm perfectly happy playing 2nd edition and maybe exploring other games for the foreseeable future.
@Tim_Eagon I'm the worst RPG customer in the world. I have all of the AD&D/1e books, I have the retroclones (S&W 3rd print, OSRIC) that I enjoy, I have my copies of Traveller 1977 and 1981, OD&D + supplements and Chainmail books. And I'm good. I just don't drop money anymore on RPG books because... well... I'm set.
The only new RPG book I've bought in the past year is the Pendragon Starter set that I keep meaning to play w/my wife.
@chgowiz@Tim_Eagon You're not alone. My friends and I have been discussing that we have so much old material we still really want to play. Not to sound grim, but we realize that we're not going to be able to play it all before we die. We're more focused on playing all the old things we want to finish rather than getting new things. That said, I don't hate a lot of the new ideas that a lot of old timers seem to bemoan. It's not "I hate the new stuff, so I'm not playing."
@chgowiz@Tim_Eagon I'll add that there are lots of things I prefer about older editions, too. I also want to support game developers, so I still occasionally back things. The truth is I don't have big expectations of playing them.
@Tim_Eagon it's really freeing, honestly, especially since those latest releases are usually overpriced too. Feels great to not have to spend $50 on another flimsy glue-bound hardcover
Add comment