| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Cards77 |
Posted - 26 Nov 2017 : 01:15:27
I'm very sad that the DMs guild seems to be useless to me.
I can't figure out if I'm totally missing the point, or it's all just 5e centric.
I'm one of those old grumpy nerds that can't get past 3e. All my games are in 1350 to 1370ish.
I thought when the DMs guild came out that our dreams had come true. Here is a platform for all of the old Grognards to release our dream sourcebooks (like Jeremy's High Forest material) and the countless amazing documents that George and others have hidden away.
But, that doesn't appear to have happened at all. Everything is post Sundering and Spellplauge.
I have found ZERO documents of use in the DMs Guild for Forgotten Realms.
Is it just me? What is wrong? Is this DMs guild thing working as intended?
Am I missing the point? I've frustrated by this for some time. |
| 30 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Greymalkin |
Posted - 23 Dec 2017 : 18:25:03
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
yes, 'broken' is definitely the right word. 
Growing up with every edition of D&D (except Chainmail - that was just before my discovery of D&D), I can say with all honesty and perhaps expertise that D&D is/was 'a mess'. In 2e, we had no less than THREE different systems for fatigue... none of them related. Things just kept getting pasted-on without some of the writers even knowing what others had already done (you know, like how we got both Duergar AND Derro, because of different adventures written by different authors). But that was part of its charm - no-one was ever really sure if their group was 'doing it right'. No two games were alike. Half the time, the DM just made crap up as he went along (I sure as heck know I did). Part of the fun was that it was so crazy.
I hadn't been playing D&D for like seven years (later part of the 90's), but when 3e came out I saw it advertised all over the place, and I picked up a copy of the PH and it was AMAZING. It was like a version of D&D I always dreamed about - one mechanic (D20) linking all the systems together, and everything working along similar paths (so no 'negative AC is better' stupidity). You didn't even need a DM's screen with boatloads of tables on them!
Then they realized they had done the worst thing possible - a company had created the 'perfect product'. That means once you've reached 'market saturation', your profits would plummet. So they decided to publish several hundred unnecessary (and mostly redundant) books with tons and tons of 'new rules', PrCs, monsters, races, etc., etc., ad infinitum. And the best part was, they KNEW they were breaking the hell out of the game, and didn't care - they needed to make another edition anyway (look up 'planned obsolescence'). Its kind of like a car company selling you a beautiful new automobile, and then sneaking over your house every night and beating it up with a sledghammer. Except that YOU were handing them the hammer.
The only thing they didn't foresee is people loving the new (now old) 3e system so much that they'd flee to other companies who were still supporting it (so the OGL came back and bit them in the arse... but that may have been planned as well, by people who had crafted a 'lifeboat' just in case the ship started sinking). When they turned on their own system and settings (rather vitriolically, in many cases), fans got angry and went elsewhere. It was simple as that. They had grown to love the system more than the company.
Now Paizo is systematically breaking the system it fixed so brilliantly (3P). I haven't been keeping up; they may have done so already. And just as people are tiring of Pathfinder and Golarion and looking elsewhere, D&D and FR have reemerged from the ashes. I wish I could say the timing was genius, but I think its just more serendipitous. The only downside to all of this is that we've 'lost' many of our luminaries during the 4e era, and right now is when we need them back the most. FR could potentially reach a peak of development and popularity unseen even during the 2e/3e eras, if only we had the right people still steering the ship, and making that happen. And to that end - if any of you are listening right now - it may be time to abandon ship (the one you're on). The captain no longer need go down with it - that's an outdated notion. The simulcrum of The Forgotten Realms has been fashioned - we just need the right people to come back and breath some life into it.
Well met. I'm new here, and this seemed like the perfect place to weigh in for the first time because I just restarted an older campaign set in the realms I'd written 10-15 years back, and just got a chance to dive back into the lore and rules etc for the first time in years.
I think Markustay's post above sums up my feelings perfectly about 3e/3.5e. It felt much more approachable than AD&D/2e for new players (and a new DM at the time like myself). I started before 3e but it was only as the very occasional player. Getting back to it all now, I decided to use 3.5e dice rules because I can't afford a whole new set of books just yet. That said, there is a wealth of information online on sites like this one that one can use to get caught up on all the recent Forgotten Realms history. Lore has nothing to do with rulesets.
Getting back to the OP: There have been non-stop updates to the realms lore, geography, etc. Choosing your preferred dice rules doesn't mean you need to stay stuck in 1350 DR. My revised campaign may use 3.5e dice rules at first, but rest assured it's "present day" 1494 DR by my estimate.
I look forward to reading all Candlekeep has to offer. Thanks for your indulgence.
Regards,
-Greymalkin
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 12 Dec 2017 : 22:28:12
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
EDIT:
Great RW example of this. The 'Pet Rock'. Yes, it was a real thing, and the guy made millions off of it.
At the end of the day, it was't really a very good pet. But that wasn't its purpose, was it? 
I wish I'd gotten the USB Pet Rock when it was available. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 12 Dec 2017 : 20:05:38
I want to design a game that sells well, because, ummmm... I like money. Actually, my bosses like money. Lots of it.
I create game 'A' and it isn't all that popular. Sure, it sells, but my bosses aren't getting any richer. They don't like that. They don't like that a lot of people who used to buy our games are now buying other people's games (which strangely, used to be our games).
So I create game 'B', and folks love it. People are buying it like crazy. The customers we lost over Game 'A' are even starting to come back (in droves). "Yay! I've created a better game! My bosses think I created a better game! A lot of gamers think I've (finally) created a better game!"
But wait... someone on the internet is telling me I didn't create a better game. Despite the fact I still have a job, and that my bosses get to fly their private jets to Paris for lunch, and despite the fact that my sales are so damn successful.. i am a failure. A true and utter failure. I can't seem to please that random person on the internet. Even though - for the first time in almost a decade - my company's game is getting just as much (if not more) play-time at conventions (something that NEVER happened when I made Game 'A'), I feel I created a technically inferior game....
Because someone on the internet insists I did... despite how popular it is. 
That's about the size of it.
EDIT:
Great RW example of this. The 'Pet Rock'. Yes, it was a real thing, and the guy made millions off of it.
At the end of the day, it was't really a very good pet. But that wasn't its purpose, was it? |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 12 Dec 2017 : 18:41:57
Nope, that's all subjective. Because some of us don't think that having all characters do the same damage at all levels is a good thing -- if I want that, I'll play one of the MMOs 4E was drawn from.
Part of the appeal of playing a wizard is those high-power, horde-slaying spells you get at higher levels... And the balance for that is that you're a one-shot squishy character at lower levels.
And my opinion is obviously not a unique one, since the advent of 4E drove enough people to an alternate ruleset that that alternate ruleset was outselling D&D for a while. |
| Arivia |
Posted - 12 Dec 2017 : 17:23:56
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Storyteller Hero
I am seeing the words "objective" and "subjective" being tossed a lot on this thread, and not every use of it seems to be supported appropriately. I'll leave this here just in case.
Objective (adjective): (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
"historians try to be objective and impartial"
Subjective (adjective): based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
"his views are highly subjective"
My personal take on 5e: It streamlines a lot of mechanics based on lessons learned from previous editions. There are a number of sacred cows that I felt could be done away with, like AC, but all in all it's not bad. It's not as hard to master/break as 3e, is more open to creative design work than the more rigid structures of 4e, and tries to keep a lot of things open to narrative like 1e/2e. The edition is an attempt at balance, for the sake of making as many people satisfied as possible; for the most part it seems to be successful, since books are selling well and the third party design community is growing.
That's a pretty impartial review of the system, and I largely agree with your assessment. The thing is, a Role-Playing Game system can't really be "objectively" bad because "Bad" is in and of itself a subjective term. What's "bad" for some people (I'll throw out 4th Edition here) was "great" for other people (such as myself).
One could say that it was "Bad" at keeping D&D at the top in sales. One could say that it was "bad" for the Forgotten Realms community at large (due to the split and arguments, etc.) and one could even say that it was "Bad" at emulating some of the editions prior to it. Those all have factual evidence that sustain the notion of "bad".
Was the game actually good? Well yes, the design principals were exceptional. It helped create balance across classes that was pretty unparalleled without direct and constant modulation from a DM to "fix" it. It helped keep characters doing fun things throughout combat, had a pretty substantial option-base, continued to support Fantasy and the allowance of both Classic and Unorthodox characters. There's really nothing you can do in a previous Edition that 4E also can do in most capacities (with the end-all product mind you). Still, didn't change the fact that after 6 years they went with 5th Edition and a slight overhaul of the game (not a bad thing).
This is misleading. Sure, the personal opinion about whether a system is fun to play or preferable is a personal, subjective choice.
As you point out, we can talk about design decisions in context of game design as an objective discipline. 4e's rules were objectively better designed because they were well-balanced, with clear options, well-written language, and facilitated play (with clear choices in the game state for all participants.) 5e deciding to return spellcaster primacy, use "natural" (unclear) language in rules text, and deliberately leaving rules interactions opaque (under Mearls' "ask your DM" philosophy
) makes it an objectively worse game in terms of game design.
Sales or public opinion have nothing to do with a judgment of 5e from a game design perspective. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 07 Dec 2017 : 21:24:35
I don't think I've ever considered 3E the 'perfect product'. Sure compared to AD&D 2E, an edition that I don't have too many good things to say about, it was more streamlined and had less problems in terms of resolution but it's showing it's age more and more the further I get away from it. At first I was like "Ah, cool these Feats are pretty darn awesome!" then... with System Master taking over and the inclusion of White-Room Analysis it was starting to become abundantly clear that even without tons of Supplements, the game was a total broken mess past 7th level.
I agree that people didn't want 4E's changes. That was apparent with the flight to Paizo. However it's a tad naive to think that there weren't people, in droves, complaining about just how bloated and broken 3.5 was and getting worse with each additional supplement that was put out. WotC painted themselves into a corner with 1) making 3.0 so terrible (yea, I think it's pretty terrible) then coming out with a revision just 3 years later and 2) the OGL basically allowing anyone to rip them off of their IP.
People wanted something different but it really couldn't be WotC to do it, lest they'd have ANOTHER backlash of people cursing them for money grabs. Had 3.5 went the Pathfinder route (rules and all) and been labled D&D by WotC, I'm just not sure how it would've fared? I think it would've lasted a few more years but then ultimately died. Why re-buy a system that's 95% the same damn thing? I haven't bought ONE Paizo product since 3.5 was disbanded. 1) because the vast majority of it is free on their SRD and 2) I'm not buying someone's Revised 3rd Edition for a 3rd time in a row. I think people had a choice (stick their finger in "Evil Empire's" eye and go with Paizo or don't play D&D at all because 4E wasn't to their fancy. |
| Markustay |
Posted - 07 Dec 2017 : 20:25:06
yes, 'broken' is definitely the right word.
Growing up with every edition of D&D (except Chainmail - that was just before my discovery of D&D), I can say with all honesty and perhaps expertise that D&D is/was 'a mess'. In 2e, we had no less than THREE different systems for fatigue... none of them related. Things just kept getting pasted-on without some of the writers even knowing what others had already done (you know, like how we got both Duergar AND Derro, because of different adventures written by different authors). But that was part of its charm - no-one was ever really sure if their group was 'doing it right'. No two games were alike. Half the time, the DM just made crap up as he went along (I sure as heck know I did). Part of the fun was that it was so crazy.
I hadn't been playing D&D for like seven years (later part of the 90's), but when 3e came out I saw it advertised all over the place, and I picked up a copy of the PH and it was AMAZING. It was like a version of D&D I always dreamed about - one mechanic (D20) linking all the systems together, and everything working along similar paths (so no 'negative AC is better' stupidity). You didn't even need a DM's screen with boatloads of tables on them!
Then they realized they had done the worst thing possible - a company had created the 'perfect product'. That means once you've reached 'market saturation', your profits would plummet. So they decided to publish several hundred unnecessary (and mostly redundant) books with tons and tons of 'new rules', PrCs, monsters, races, etc., etc., ad infinitum. And the best part was, they KNEW they were breaking the hell out of the game, and didn't care - they needed to make another edition anyway (look up 'planned obsolescence'). Its kind of like a car company selling you a beautiful new automobile, and then sneaking over your house every night and beating it up with a sledghammer. Except that YOU were handing them the hammer.
The only thing they didn't foresee is people loving the new (now old) 3e system so much that they'd flee to other companies who were still supporting it (so the OGL came back and bit them in the arse... but that may have been planned as well, by people who had crafted a 'lifeboat' just in case the ship started sinking). When they turned on their own system and settings (rather vitriolically, in many cases), fans got angry and went elsewhere. It was simple as that. They had grown to love the system more than the company.
Now Paizo is systematically breaking the system it fixed so brilliantly (3P). I haven't been keeping up; they may have done so already. And just as people are tiring of Pathfinder and Golarion and looking elsewhere, D&D and FR have reemerged from the ashes. I wish I could say the timing was genius, but I think its just more serendipitous. The only downside to all of this is that we've 'lost' many of our luminaries during the 4e era, and right now is when we need them back the most. FR could potentially reach a peak of development and popularity unseen even during the 2e/3e eras, if only we had the right people still steering the ship, and making that happen. And to that end - if any of you are listening right now - it may be time to abandon ship (the one you're on). The captain no longer need go down with it - that's an outdated notion. The simulcrum of The Forgotten Realms has been fashioned - we just need the right people to come back and breath some life into it. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 07 Dec 2017 : 16:34:11
quote:
Originally posted by sleyvas
I'll somewhat mirror what Markustay is saying here. The only edition I've had a problem with was 4e, and that was mainly because they broke the classes and gameplay IMO. Secondarily, what they did to the realms itself was too vastly sweeping.
I dunno if "broke" is the right word? 4e was tasked with fixing the myriad of problems and issues with 3rd edition. I'm not sure the avenue they took was necessarily wrong, without the pleasure of hindsight. The designers listened to all the problems people had with 3e: huge class disparities, god-casters, limited magical scope early levels, healing being the sole responsibility of casters, fighters and other "mundanes" having little to add late-game and overall poor class design ( subjectivity speaking) etc. Its not difficult to see why and how they came to make it the way they did. |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 07 Dec 2017 : 14:00:53
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
D&D started out as a wargame (miniatures rules) that evolved into a squad-based game with options into what was (supposedly) the first RPG. Of course, I could argue kids were playing 'lets pretend' since the dawn of time. Gygax & co. simply added rules to that (or rather, added the 'pretend' part to rules).
In 4e you could say D&D "went back to its roots", and you'd probably be fairly accurate. I don't know - I never got to play with the old Chainmail rules. But it seems to have come from 'little bits of dramatic play' between encounters, and that's what 4e felt like... TO ME (I realize everyone is going to have different opinions here). So when you argue that '5e took a big step backwards', I could further argue that 4e took a humongous step backwards. Part of D&D's flavor (unfortunately?) is that 'broken' feeling. The rules were slapped together over the years, with various systems having nothing in common. 3e fixed most of that... and then proceeded to hit us with gobs and gobs of bloat (thus breaking what I thought was 'perfect' in the beginning... once again, just IMO). I see Paizo, sadly, heading down the same path. When you spend more time studying the game and using it as a 'mental exercise' then actually playing it, well then, you have........ Candlekeep.
5e isn't supposed to be gobs and gobs of intricate rules - its supposed to be what it is - a set of fairly easy rules for a group of friends to get together and have a good time. If you are a 'power-gamer', then play a previous edition, or some other game - no-one is stopping you. But you can't expect the Nissan Sentra to be the tricked-out Ferrari (or whatever) with all the precise options you like. And you can easily add-in any options you like (but power-gamers don't like that, because that puts ALL the control in the DMs hands, and they can't rules-lawyer themselves into a godlike, broken PC).
Also, I am not understanding why people need the setting and rules to be on the same page - you can run any setting with any set of rules, just about. FR is FR, and D&D is D&D, and although they are more closely connected now than ever before (like GH used to be), you can still separate them. You can still play with 5e rules in the 1e/2e/3e era, or vice-versa. Do whatever makes YOUR group happy. But don't expect the rest of the world to be on the same page as you.
And that last sentence just described everything that is wrong with the world right now... people expecting others to agree with everything they say. That means you have the assumption you are always right, and that's ... well... this isn't the place for this type of conversation. Lets just say everyone should do what makes them happy, and stop worrying about what others are doing, or how they feel about what you're doing. Because is none of their business... and their business is none of yours.
Now I have to go out the rest of the day, and that's probably a good thing, considering the mood I am in.
Ado
Seriously, are you sure you aren't my brother... or cousin... or clone... |
| sleyvas |
Posted - 07 Dec 2017 : 13:51:43
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I hated 4e, because it didn't feel like D&D to me. However, 5e feels much more like (old school) D&D than 3e did, to me.
I guess people who are stuck in 3e like the world-juggling, 37-PrC, "I can do anything an NPC can" powerPCs. AS a DM, I am glad that monumental overhead of purposeless design is gone (NO, you are NOT allowed to create your own artifacts, etc, and I don't have to write-up a 3 page NPC baddie for a 10-minute encounter). 5e is more about the play, then the encounters, which 4e went way too heavy on, IMO. Like I said, it seems like the perfect mix, and it put most of the control back into the DMs hands, as it should be (and as it was, in OD&D, 1e, & 2e).
I want to tell a story, and I want my players to be able live-through and affect that story. As Gygax himself is credited with saying, "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." 3e got away from that vision... ran amok, actually. 4e hacked a lot of the excessiveness out, but in the wrong direction (once again, IMO). Just give me a stage (my players are the actors), and I can write my own script. The dice rolling is just to give the players something physical they can hold on to*... we've never really needed it, and I've played in games where there wasn't ANY.
*the dice-rolling is a sham. Always was. I know thats going to annoy a lot of people, but NOTHING happens in a D&D game that a DM doesn't want to happen. Its a parlor trick - like what a magician does when he is trying to distract you from what he is really doing.
I'll somewhat mirror what Markustay is saying here. The only edition I've had a problem with was 4e, and that was mainly because they broke the classes and gameplay IMO. Secondarily, what they did to the realms itself was too vastly sweeping.
In 5e, they've got a good base... the problem is the development is too slow. Thus, DM's Guild. The one thing I do like about DM's Guild is that if you reference someone else's work, you can use it. So, if I want to put in certain monsters, I can pull their name from a previous edition and use it.... and I may or may not be able to reference someone on DM's Guild who has already done a conversion of said monster. Similar things with spells, magic items, class variations, etc.... Unfortunately, this means when I get my product complete I'm going to have a ton of references to other DM's Guild content. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 07 Dec 2017 : 04:50:35
quote:
Originally posted by Storyteller Hero
I am seeing the words "objective" and "subjective" being tossed a lot on this thread, and not every use of it seems to be supported appropriately. I'll leave this here just in case.
Objective (adjective): (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
"historians try to be objective and impartial"
Subjective (adjective): based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
"his views are highly subjective"
My personal take on 5e: It streamlines a lot of mechanics based on lessons learned from previous editions. There are a number of sacred cows that I felt could be done away with, like AC, but all in all it's not bad. It's not as hard to master/break as 3e, is more open to creative design work than the more rigid structures of 4e, and tries to keep a lot of things open to narrative like 1e/2e. The edition is an attempt at balance, for the sake of making as many people satisfied as possible; for the most part it seems to be successful, since books are selling well and the third party design community is growing.
That's a pretty impartial review of the system, and I largely agree with your assessment. The thing is, a Role-Playing Game system can't really be "objectively" bad because "Bad" is in and of itself a subjective term. What's "bad" for some people (I'll throw out 4th Edition here) was "great" for other people (such as myself).
One could say that it was "Bad" at keeping D&D at the top in sales. One could say that it was "bad" for the Forgotten Realms community at large (due to the split and arguments, etc.) and one could even say that it was "Bad" at emulating some of the editions prior to it. Those all have factual evidence that sustain the notion of "bad".
Was the game actually good? Well yes, the design principals were exceptional. It helped create balance across classes that was pretty unparalleled without direct and constant modulation from a DM to "fix" it. It helped keep characters doing fun things throughout combat, had a pretty substantial option-base, continued to support Fantasy and the allowance of both Classic and Unorthodox characters. There's really nothing you can do in a previous Edition that 4E also can do in most capacities (with the end-all product mind you). Still, didn't change the fact that after 6 years they went with 5th Edition and a slight overhaul of the game (not a bad thing). |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 07 Dec 2017 : 04:29:19
To be fair, the third party design community has been going strong since 3E came out and gave us the OGL. That was a huge boost to the gaming world, and the gaming landscape would be very different today, if not for the OGL. |
| Storyteller Hero |
Posted - 07 Dec 2017 : 04:09:56
I am seeing the words "objective" and "subjective" being tossed a lot on this thread, and not every use of it seems to be supported appropriately. I'll leave this here just in case.
Objective (adjective): (of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
"historians try to be objective and impartial"
Subjective (adjective): based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
"his views are highly subjective"
My personal take on 5e: It streamlines a lot of mechanics based on lessons learned from previous editions. There are a number of sacred cows that I felt could be done away with, like AC, but all in all it's not bad. It's not as hard to master/break as 3e, is more open to creative design work than the more rigid structures of 4e, and tries to keep a lot of things open to narrative like 1e/2e. The edition is an attempt at balance, for the sake of making as many people satisfied as possible; for the most part it seems to be successful, since books are selling well and the third party design community is growing.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 06 Dec 2017 : 19:57:51
Some truth, there... Rule sets and eras of Realmslore share that common characteristic: what works for some does not work for others, and we should all respect that.  |
| Markustay |
Posted - 06 Dec 2017 : 16:56:05
D&D started out as a wargame (miniatures rules) that evolved into a squad-based game with options into what was (supposedly) the first RPG. Of course, I could argue kids were playing 'lets pretend' since the dawn of time. Gygax & co. simply added rules to that (or rather, added the 'pretend' part to rules).
In 4e you could say D&D "went back to its roots", and you'd probably be fairly accurate. I don't know - I never got to play with the old Chainmail rules. But it seems to have come from 'little bits of dramatic play' between encounters, and that's what 4e felt like... TO ME (I realize everyone is going to have different opinions here). So when you argue that '5e took a big step backwards', I could further argue that 4e took a humongous step backwards. Part of D&D's flavor (unfortunately?) is that 'broken' feeling. The rules were slapped together over the years, with various systems having nothing in common. 3e fixed most of that... and then proceeded to hit us with gobs and gobs of bloat (thus breaking what I thought was 'perfect' in the beginning... once again, just IMO). I see Paizo, sadly, heading down the same path. When you spend more time studying the game and using it as a 'mental exercise' then actually playing it, well then, you have........ Candlekeep.
5e isn't supposed to be gobs and gobs of intricate rules - its supposed to be what it is - a set of fairly easy rules for a group of friends to get together and have a good time. If you are a 'power-gamer', then play a previous edition, or some other game - no-one is stopping you. But you can't expect the Nissan Sentra to be the tricked-out Ferrari (or whatever) with all the precise options you like. And you can easily add-in any options you like (but power-gamers don't like that, because that puts ALL the control in the DMs hands, and they can't rules-lawyer themselves into a godlike, broken PC).
Also, I am not understanding why people need the setting and rules to be on the same page - you can run any setting with any set of rules, just about. FR is FR, and D&D is D&D, and although they are more closely connected now than ever before (like GH used to be), you can still separate them. You can still play with 5e rules in the 1e/2e/3e era, or vice-versa. Do whatever makes YOUR group happy. But don't expect the rest of the world to be on the same page as you.
And that last sentence just described everything that is wrong with the world right now... people expecting others to agree with everything they say. That means you have the assumption you are always right, and that's ... well... this isn't the place for this type of conversation. Lets just say everyone should do what makes them happy, and stop worrying about what others are doing, or how they feel about what you're doing. Because it is none of their business... and their business is none of yours.
Now I have to go out the rest of the day, and that's probably a good thing, considering the mood I am in.
Ado |
| Diffan |
Posted - 06 Dec 2017 : 15:23:37
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
No, it's really not. Class design, the core math of the game, and the general design of the game are postively retrograde. It's a really, really sad step back from 4e and a lot of evolutions in RPG design since like 2003.
It's easier to play than 3e for new players, but that's honestly about all it has going for it. Mearls and his design group were postively lazy and pretty much phoned the entire edition in on shallow ideas of what "feels" like D&D.
Because 3e and 5e are objectively as bad from a game design perspective, I'll play 3e since that's what I'm used to and know already. That's where the subjectivity comes in.
 so please do tell, what isn't "objectively" bad from a game design perspective? What's the basis of your comparison. Because frankly, if the game sells exceptionally well and lots of people are buying it, enjoying it, making things from it, and sharing it then I'm gonna have to say that "objectively" IS pretty damn good. From a factual standpoint and all... |
| Arivia |
Posted - 06 Dec 2017 : 14:26:15
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
I'm most comfortable and familiar with the 3e Realms and ruleset there, so I'm not really interested in 5e stuff for 5e's sake. 5e is a really bad system, from an objective design
 ah....no. Subjective til the cows come home through, sure we can work with that.
No, it's really not. Class design, the core math of the game, and the general design of the game are postively retrograde. It's a really, really sad step back from 4e and a lot of evolutions in RPG design since like 2003.
It's easier to play than 3e for new players, but that's honestly about all it has going for it. Mearls and his design group were postively lazy and pretty much phoned the entire edition in on shallow ideas of what "feels" like D&D.
Because 3e and 5e are objectively as bad from a game design perspective, I'll play 3e since that's what I'm used to and know already. That's where the subjectivity comes in. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 06 Dec 2017 : 14:13:31
I don't think I'd ever be comfortable with comparing an RPG to a car with a $100,000 MSRP price tag |
| R P Davis |
Posted - 06 Dec 2017 : 13:55:18
quote:
Originally posted by Diffan
5e is like the new, safe family vehicle. It has bells and whistles and 4 other families in your neighborhood drive one. It has fun but family oriented features and has the capacity to be "tricked" out if you want or can be just the base model with no crazy variation. The biggest detractor is that they're all a 4-door sedan with features.
I dunno. You're describing 5e as if it's a Camry or Altima or something.
If 5e is a car, it's more like a Maserati Quattroporte. You can bimble around in it, treat it like a Camry, doing basic driving like the shopping and the school run. It does all that just fine. Safely, with good fuel economy. Looks pretty, too. Just put the shifter in Drive and roll. If that's all you ever do with it, nobody will ever blame you. And you'll enjoy yourself.
But there's So. Much. More. under the hood, built in at the factory. An enthusiast can really get it moving without modifying anything at all. There's twin turbos blowing 424bhp out of a 2.9L V6. Flappy paddles control the gearbox. The gearbox sends power to the back through a limited-slip diff. There's intelligent all-wheel-drive, to feel when the rear wheels need some help from the front wheels. Switch from Normal Auto to ICE mode and let 'er rip.
If you decide to use none of that, it's there. You can purr. Or you can roar. Whichever suits your fancy.
That's something no previous edition has been able to say, in my opinion.
From the beginning to 3e, there was precious little built into the game to make it scream; you had to completely customize it to get it race-ready. And then it'd break half the time, because you didn't realize that boring out the block to accept bigger pistons would put too much stress on the driveshaft splines, or some other unanticipated interaction of modification and framework (or modification and modification).
Everything changed with 3e. 3e, PF, and 4e are immensely powerful, like insane Italian supercars, Lamborghini or something: you have to have a certain mastery of the game to even get the engine to turn over, as it were. You have to pay close attention to everything that's happening, or the car will actively try to flip over and kill you. There is no simple bimble to the shops, not without abject terror. But if you get a handle on controlling them, you can scream around the Nürburgring like Sebastian Vettel.
Anyway, I'm stretching the metaphor, but there it is. |
| Gary Dallison |
Posted - 06 Dec 2017 : 12:54:02
quote:
Originally posted by George Krashos
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
And then there's us - Candlekeep. Krash still participates here, but not as much as he used to.
This is a sophisticated bunch of FR fans so there's very few queries that need my input.
I hate talking about gods, pantheons and cosmologies so that cuts out about 50% of the active threads here!
And no one asks me questions anymore, so not all that much to do in terms of specific participation.
Just saying ...
-- George Krashos
When i get north to impiltur i will have buckets of questiond for you. I would be there right now asking questions about Damara so i could develop it more, but i know you have your own plans for the area and i dont want to play in your sandbox until you have finished with it. |
| Diffan |
Posted - 06 Dec 2017 : 10:47:51
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
[bbr
Oh, and you should start playing 5e. 3e has had its heyday, and its finally on the decline. People are realizing how inefficient, bloated, and broken the rules truly are. Yessss, let the anger flow through you... come over to the Dark Side. 
I've always enjoyed the car metaphor:
3e was like my first car. It was MY car, I bought it and made it mine. I enjoyed many a rides in that car, loved the color, loved the times spent there and the freedom it came with. Went to lots of parties in it, rode the gf in it. Ahh such great memories. But a closer inspection revealed terrible gas mileage, flaky upholstery, poor wiring (literally had no dash board lights for 5 months), and the odometer didn't work. Not to mention I had to replace the water (i think?) Pump and put in a new steering column. Nostalgia is a crazy thing.
4e, for me, is my dream vehicle. It's the car I modded and built up in the garage. Has my favorite color. Its the car I drive in summer with the top down and cruise in. Its my baby. But it has particulars others won't like. I get that.
5e is like the new, safe family vehicle. It has bells and whistles and 4 other families in your neighborhood drive one. It has fun but family oriented features and has the capacity to be "tricked" out if you want or can be just the base model with no crazy variation. The biggest detractor is that they're all a 4-door sedan with features. |
| George Krashos |
Posted - 06 Dec 2017 : 09:11:42
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
And then there's us - Candlekeep. Krash still participates here, but not as much as he used to.
This is a sophisticated bunch of FR fans so there's very few queries that need my input.
I hate talking about gods, pantheons and cosmologies so that cuts out about 50% of the active threads here!
And no one asks me questions anymore, so not all that much to do in terms of specific participation.
Just saying ...
-- George Krashos |
| Markustay |
Posted - 06 Dec 2017 : 05:19:54
quote:
Originally posted by Cards77
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I hated 4e, because it didn't feel like D&D to me. However, 5e feels much more like (old school) D&D than 3e did, to me. <snip>
That was a pretty above average troll. You almost got me to bite. 
I wasn't intednding to be 'trollish'; I was merely relating my personal feelings - in retrospect - about certain editions. I LOVED 3e when it first came out, but then it became one huge cash-grab, with splat after splat of redundant, unoriginal content and steaming piles of *meh* monsters and NPCs. I ran 3e games, for several years, And when 4e came out, I switched to Pathfinder. Pathfinder... which is made by PAIZO... a completely different company than Hasbro...
And I stopped using Pathfinder a couple of years back. I'd like to say its because I started to see some of the 'bloat' I saw with 3e/3.5, and I had a feeling Paizo was going to make the same mistakes... eventually. But the truth is, my two older sons got TOO old, and they and their friends 'moved on' (they suddenly noticed girls were much more fun to play with than 'dear old dad'). My two younger boys were still too young at the time (I have played 5e with them since), so I simply stopped playing. However, I have heard some of my projections about Paizo's future came to pass (they had a couple of 'bombs' - I guess their 'rabid fanbois' weren't as rabid as they had assumed). History does tend to repeat itself. {sigh}
But you come here asking the question, "why isn't Hasbro allowing people to produce material for their competitor's system using THEIR IP?", and then accuse ME of trolling. Well, for that matter why isn't Walmart carrying some of Target's products? That's kinda unfair too. You may as well be going into an Apple store and asking if you can buy a computer with Windows on it.
As for 'old edition content', I haven't really used the DMsGuild (which is funny, because I actually have 'credits' on a couple of products there). I have no idea whats available, but from the stuff I've personally seen and worked on, it all looked edition-neutral (lore wise). If you want pre-5e lore you CAN get that, but you really can't expect most folks to produce mechanics for multiple editions (a few have - the Ixinos project I helped with has duel mechanics for 3e and 5e, and was originally set in 3e).
And then there's us - Candlekeep. Krash still participates here, but not as much as he used to. Eric is on hiatus - life made him busy. I see Tom Costa responding to you here, and Jeff Grubb has been working on a few things. Ed's insanely busy, poor guy. Between RW and (probably regrettable) prior commitments, he has no time for FR anymore. I haven't see Steven Schend on these boards in awhile - last I heard he was doing something with/for Ed, but I have no idea about any of that now. Hopefully we'll see something in that regard, eventually.
The sad things is, all of those guys were posting more stuff on here during the 4e era (about the previous era) than they are now. I feel The Forgotten Realms is in a renaissance, and for whatever reason, those luminaries aren't here to enjoy it, and for us to enjoy them. Had 5e and the DMsGuild happened just 3-5 years sooner, I feel like we'd be seeing a whole different ballgame right now. But it was too long, and/or too late. Its like trying to fix an old relationship. You've already moved on, so just keep walking. Thats what I think is happening here. A damn shame, because as I've just said, had this 'resurgence' occurred just a few years earlier, it would be like a new 'golden age'. IMO, of course.
Oh, and you should start playing 5e. 3e has had its heyday, and its finally on the decline. People are realizing how inefficient, bloated, and broken the rules truly are. Yessss, let the anger flow through you... come over to the Dark Side.
|
| Diffan |
Posted - 06 Dec 2017 : 04:32:34
quote:
Originally posted by Arivia
I'm most comfortable and familiar with the 3e Realms and ruleset there, so I'm not really interested in 5e stuff for 5e's sake. 5e is a really bad system, from an objective design
ah....no. Subjective til the cows come home through, sure we can work with that. |
| Storyteller Hero |
Posted - 06 Dec 2017 : 04:19:42
A lot of what I'm making on my channel is fluff-heavy, so there are parts of my projects that can be used for editions other than 5th.
For example, in my Bahamut lore pamphlet, I included gap-filling details about the seven dragons that serve directly under the deity, which can be useful lore for any era of Forgotten Realms in which Bahamut exists as a deity.
Even if the DMsGuild rules options aren't useful to your non-5e campaign, the projects with lore might be.
|
| idilippy |
Posted - 05 Dec 2017 : 16:59:02
quote:
Originally posted by R P Davis
quote:
Originally posted by idilippy
Also presumably their older edition official material sells but I have no idea how well.
I do okay with AD&D to 5e conversions. In fact, I do as well with those as I do adventures of my own creation and the conversions take far less work!
I’ve bought a fair number of AD&D to 5e conversions, so glad to hear others are too! I was talking specifically about how well WotC does selling their own old edition material but it’s good to hear the classic module conversions are popular. |
| R P Davis |
Posted - 05 Dec 2017 : 15:59:33
quote:
Originally posted by idilippy
Also presumably their older edition official material sells but I have no idea how well.
I do okay with AD&D to 5e conversions. In fact, I do as well with those as I do adventures of my own creation and the conversions take far less work! |
| idilippy |
Posted - 05 Dec 2017 : 15:40:59
One thing to make sure is that you get your websites right Cards, so you have your expectations correct.
One Book Shelf is the overall company that runs 8 different but related online stores that sell ebooks, comics, RPG, and Wargame material.
DriveThruRPG sells pdf and sometimes hard copy material from close enough to every RPG company and 3pp that makes digital goods. This includes a variety of 3rd party and small publishers who make material using the OGL for all the 3.5e and older editions of D&D, GSL for 4e, and 5e. It also includes all sorts of retro-clones, non-D&D games, and game neutral supplemental material like maps or random tables.
DM’s Guild is a separate website which has two purposes. First, it is the venue WotC uses to sell digital and print copies of older edition material. You can buy official old edition rules, modules, campaign guides, and more. Second, and relevant to this topic, it is a venue where fans can sell their own creations using some intellectual property that WotC retains the rights to, with two main restrictions. The material must contain 5th edition rules and the only currently allowed settings to use IP from are Ravenloft and the Forgotten Realms.
If you’re looking for a place where official fan 3.5e rules material set in the Forgotten Realms can be published, it doesn’t exist. There are edition neutral lore mixed in with 5e rules in the DMs Guild materials, and there are not-FR setting 3.5e materials available on DriveThruRPG from 3pps but there’s no combo of the two. What seems to sell best in DMs Guild is more mechanics and tie ins to whatever the current official adventure is. Also presumably their older edition official material sells but I have no idea how well.
So in the end you had a mistaken impression of what DMs Guild was, misunderstandings happen and if you are looking for mostly lore it does exist, just have to sift through all the other stuff to find it which isn’t always the easiest thing on an OBS site’s search engine. George Krashos has some really cool and free Impultir stuff, also a pay what you want and $1/$2 books which are great. I happily made the switch to 5e from Pathfinder though so the mechanics and lore are both useful to me, but the pure lore is nice too even without the rules. The Impultir timeline is great, and the Layla Maurshanta was a pure lore write up of an Elven organization as of 1372 DR. |
| R P Davis |
Posted - 05 Dec 2017 : 12:10:05
quote:
Originally posted by Cards77
That's why I posted here duh. Obviously the Guid wasn't what I thought it was. No I didn't dig into the T&Cs, why would I?
Never said you should.
quote:
It's interesting you said it can only be 5e content on there, but that's false. There's tons of 3e content on there (reprints), and plenty of fan generated 3e rules content, it's just not Realms specific.
The Guild allows community-created content to be either
1. rules-agnostic Realms information -or-
2. setting-agnostic content with 5e mechanics which can be dropped into the Realms.
Any non-5e, setting-agnostic material is uploaded in defiance of the creator T&C.
While there is non-5e, non-Realms content on the Guild, it's not community-created or "fan-generated" content. It's WotC property, digital "reprints" of old material.
quote:
1) If what you say is true that only 5e is allowed...why? What is the threat of people continuing to make 3e lore?
It's not a matter of threat. Grognards aren't a threat to Wizards. If they were, Wizards would never have released an OGL in the first place, and would be aggressively pursuing those who use their IP without permission. They'd be attempting to suppress the OSR. They're not doing that. At all.
No, it's a matter of being specific. The Guild community is restricted to 5e and Realms/Ravenloft. That's the tradeoff for having such easy, unfettered access to really valuable IP. It's a massive community of talented individuals making content for a game they love.
As I pointed out, there are other sites - run by the same company which runs the Guild - which have oodles of OSR D&D material released under the pre-5e OGLs.
quote:
2) Because b) as you claim only a few of us nerds on here care right?
It wasn't my claim. It was George Krashos's. I agreed with it. Hell, I'm one of the few people who actually bought George's Guild offerings.
quote:
You say this is what DTRPG is for? Any examples you could share? I'd love to be able to find what I'm looking for. All I've been able to find on there is reprints and a few fan generated maps. I'm not finding any Pathfinder or OGL content or any lore really specific to the Realms.
I said DTRPG is for OGL content. And there's plenty of it:
http://www.drivethrurpg.com/browse.php?filters=1120_0_0_0_0
You're not going to find Realmslore there, though, because the OGLs only cover the game engine IP, not setting IP.
quote:
I feel like we're talking past each other a bit. You seem to be talking about WotC branded material, while I'm talking about ..I guess fan generated lore? Not sure what the proper term is.
If I'm understanding you, you want new Realms material specifically for your preferred ruleset. As the licensing currently exists, I don't think it's possible. The OGL does not release Realms IP for use by a third party, and Wizards (who own the Realms IP) aren't going to be releasing any new 3e content ever again. Such material is outside the special agreement available to Guild creators.
You might also be talking about new Realmslore written by third parties on the Guild. As far as I know, that's perfectly acceptable. There's no category specifically for "lore," so what's there is probably poorly organized, and the OBS search engine isn't the most robust. For all I know, there's a 200-page treatise on the history of the Crown Wars on the Guild and nobody can find it. Maybe George can tell us how he categorized his lore offerings so we can refine some keywords.
There are plenty of gray areas, too. It's worth pointing out that my best-selling item on the Guild is neither edition-specific nor Realms-specific, but rather a collection of advice for DMs. 
http://www.dmsguild.com/product/190786/
One thing you will not find anywhere is a new Forgotten Realms adventure using the 3e ruleset. Not for legal sale, at least. |
| Cards77 |
Posted - 05 Dec 2017 : 03:57:39
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I hated 4e, because it didn't feel like D&D to me. However, 5e feels much more like (old school) D&D than 3e did, to me.
I guess people who are stuck in 3e like the world-juggling, 37-PrC, "I can do anything an NPC can" powerPCs. AS a DM, I am glad that monumental overhead of purposeless design is gone (NO, you are NOT allowed to create your own artifacts, etc, and I don't have to write-up a 3 page NPC baddie for a 10-minute encounter). 5e is more about the play, then the encounters, which 4e went way too heavy on, IMO. Like I said, it seems like the perfect mix, and it put most of the control back into the DMs hands, as it should be (and as it was, in OD&D, 1e, & 2e).
I want to tell a story, and I want my players to be able live-through and affect that story. As Gygax himself is credited with saying, "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules." 3e got away from that vision... ran amok, actually. 4e hacked a lot of the excessiveness out, but in the wrong direction (once again, IMO). Just give me a stage (my players are the actors), and I can write my own script. The dice rolling is just to give the players something physical they can hold on to*... we've never really needed it, and I've played in games where there wasn't ANY.
*the dice-rolling is a sham. Always was. I know thats going to annoy a lot of people, but NOTHING happens in a D&D game that a DM doesn't want to happen. Its a parlor trick - like what a magician does when he is trying to distract you from what he is really doing.
That was a pretty above average troll. You almost got me to bite. |
|
|
