| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
sagechan
Acolyte
USA
33 Posts |
 Posted - 08 Oct 2013 : 03:17:18
|
Asking for opinions on what you think product will look like for 5e sourcebooks/adventures?
Based on what WotC has done recently I think a lot of books will be without ties to any addition or light 5e crunch at most. Elminster's Forgotten Realms and Menzoberranzan City of Intrigue where both books that did not have any 4e mechanics in them but lots of fluff and hooks.
I think adventures will be more like Murder in Baldur's gate, where any crunch will be available online for multiple editions while the product itself is just the adventure narrative.
I think WotC now realizes how split the D&D community can be, while 5e may be an attempt to bring everyone together they know many groups just continue what they already play, having adventures and settings be edition neutral would make products more enticing to those not moving into 5e.
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 08 Oct 2013 : 07:08:33
|
This "all rules online" format is an interesting one. It seems to be part of a strategy to appeal to people across three editions of the rules.
Personally, I don't like it. I appreciate it, but I don't like it.
I don't like it because the front end of the release of a new edition of D&D is all about the rules. The Forgotten Realms lends itself to a product release by being the showcase setting for how the new rules work their very best.
That was the case in 3rd Edition D&D and was a big reason why the early Realms sourcebooks sold so well.
Of course the big focus was on the D&D rules for 3rd Edition. I'd argue for this edition the focus isn't so much on the rules. Yes, I know WotC is trying really hard to gather feedback and build a new edition of D&D, but we don't really need a new edition of D&D.
What we need is a new edition of the Realms.
So I can appreciate the (new) rules taking a back seat to the setting because the new Realms sourcebooks should be beefy on the fluff (i.e. the Realmslore) side of things.
But based on what people have said about the new 5E Realms products, which so far appear to be adventures with a side of sourcebook, we're not going to get the level of detail some would like, nor are we seeing the new rules in the spotlight.
Note: I don't expect adventures to go deep into Realmslore, but if your adventure also includes a guide to the adventure locale, well then there should be some Realmslore in it. There should be calendar dates and the like.
For all I know WotC is still in the testing phase, trying to determine what balance is the right balance.
I can't say for sure what form sourcebooks and adventures will take once the new Realms and new D&D hit the store shelves. I hope WotC puts the new rules in at least the new Campaign Guide (and Player's Guide, if there is one) before deciding whether or not to keep them out of future products (in favor of online downloads). |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
 |
|
|
Derulbaskul
Senior Scribe
Singapore
408 Posts |
Posted - 08 Oct 2013 : 09:00:46
|
I think an adventure should have a map or two.
(I cannot believe that I have to type that.)
Personally, I want to see more books like the Neverwinter Campaign Setting and even Murder in Baldur's Gate, packed with ideas and information but not actually containing adventures.
(I realise MiBG claims to be an adventure - and claims to be suitable for running at D&D Encounters - but I haven't drunk the Kool-Aid enough to subscribe to this Emperor's New Clothes-inspired deception. No map = no adventure.)
I definitely don't want to see a repeat of 3.5E's Mysteries of the Moonsea which contained half-arsed mini-adventures with dodgy stat blocks and linkages so vague you can see where the inspiration for the pseudo-adventure path Scales of War came from.
I would prefer to see adventure support as part of Dungeon or whatever is going to follow its demise. Keep the published books for things that will last.
And while I normally agree with Jeremy Grenemyer on most things, I must admit I prefer the stat blocks being included as a separate document that can be downloaded. It makes correcting the egregious errors that much simpler. :) |
Cheers
D
NB: Please remember: A cannon is a big gun. Canon is what we discuss here. |
Edited by - Derulbaskul on 08 Oct 2013 09:21:01 |
|
|
|
Seravin
Master of Realmslore
Canada
1298 Posts |
Posted - 08 Oct 2013 : 17:37:23
|
| Edition neutral lore, descriptions, maps and adventure hooks would be amazing. The time jump aside, this approach would make everyone happy and you can go online to grab the stats for whatever edition you're playing. The Volo's Guides had stats in an index in the back of the book for key NPCs. This could work too but online would free up page count for more lore/hooks/maps. I am a huge fan of all things Volo. |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 08 Oct 2013 : 23:48:27
|
I‘m of the opinion that multi-edition Realmslore will appease the fans far more than edition-neutral Realmslore ever would. Fans of AD&D 1E/2E, 3E/3.5E, and 4E are likely to stick with rules which most closely resemble those they prefer, going so far as to convert incompatible material, completely reject other-edition canon, or even switch to non-WotC alternatives like OSRIC and Pathfinder/3.75E.
Remember that old-school players may vehemently reject, for example, RSEs which dramatically crater the Realms they know and love, or may reject “new“ things like, for example, sorcerers, Eladrin, or Asmodean tieflings. But on the flipside, new players who were introduced circa 3E or 4E are inclined to think the game (and the Realms setting) is rather lame without, say, unlimited multiclassing, powerful character builds, dragonborn, and epic psionics. Doesn‘t matter if you‘re talking 4E Spellplague, difficult 2E magical item construction, or 3E Shadovar, you won‘t find any two fans (let alone find them playing at the same table) who can reach agreeable consensus about what is good and what is not. The “World of Warcraft“ and “munchkin“ new lore should have the same inclusion as the “stuffy“ and “convoluted“ High Gygaxian old lore.
Edition-neutral may not be completely bland and generic, but it is certainly more bland and generic than edition-specific.
A logical approach is to divide Realmslore into “edition eras“, allowing stories and characters to engage players of any edition. Non-gamers will probably continue to be attracted to FR fiction regardless of which “era“ it is set within.
I very much hope that “obsolete“ lore, such as Planescape and Spelljammer, is given proper treatment right from the outset. A few haphazard mentions or a late-rushed addon approach always shows in the final product and, it breeds inconsistencies and canon schisms. Much better to draw the line at inception and - no matter what market trends/demands are perceived - remain steadfast throughout the product life cycle. In the case of Realmslore, many things have already been long-asserted elements of canon, so excluding them now demands some very careful explanations.
Having said all that, I think it‘s vital that newcomers to the Realms should feel welcome and comfortable without dogmatic adherence to mountains of archaic published lore.
And foremost above all else: keep any promises made to the fans. Changes in ownership, franchise (mis)management, corporate identity, the entire staff ... none of these are readily forgotten or forgiven when promises are broken. A double gutshot when combined with calculated gambles like making a new edition more kewl and “kid-friendly“ while scorning the adults/parents who are expected to pay for books they think wrecked their hobby ... ‘nuff said. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 09 Oct 2013 03:41:53 |
|
|
|
sagechan
Acolyte
USA
33 Posts |
Posted - 09 Oct 2013 : 04:13:58
|
Jeremy Grenemyer - what 5e products have you heard about? While i used MiBG as an example for the crunch being online, I don't think its design is quite what we will be seeing upon launch. By design they are mini-sourcebook/adventure, which is needed for the transition period.
Derulbaskul - I agree that MiBG does not fit the Encouters format that well (I don't have a local place to play encounters but understand its goals), but I've been running it and its a good adventure, I'd like more maps and agree with you overall, but the way its written its neither bad nor difficult for me to create maps as needed.
Seravin - I'm basically in agreement with you.
Ayrik - I'm not sure where you see the difference between edition neutral and multi-edition where the crunch is available for multi-editions separately from the product. If your idea of "edition eras" is releasing product based on the timeline that each edition covered (thereby ignoring the future changes the group may not like) I totally agree that some product should be released in that style, but for a multitude of reasons the majority of product will be "current" and allowing the crunch in those products to be made available for multiple editions would open up those sources more.
I do agree that there are players out there like you describe, and I think as far as new product goes they aren't a concern, they do what they want (which is totally fine) but aren't really the market for the product anymore. |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4694 Posts |
Posted - 09 Oct 2013 : 04:27:25
|
I still would like to know where any are seeing of 5th Edition, there again have not purchased 3rd or 4th so do not know what direction the content has gone to. What I have seen are the reviews and statements about what 5th will be (as much as I saw the claims, that 4th was so adjustable that there would never be a 5th).
I did say before that the concept of 5th will allow for players to use any edition clearly was not workable, however that was a stated plan.
Are you sagechan a market researcher? |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
sagechan
Acolyte
USA
33 Posts |
Posted - 09 Oct 2013 : 05:15:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
I still would like to know where any are seeing of 5th Edition, there again have not purchased 3rd or 4th so do not know what direction the content has gone to. What I have seen are the reviews and statements about what 5th will be (as much as I saw the claims, that 4th was so adjustable that there would never be a 5th).
I did say before that the concept of 5th will allow for players to use any edition clearly was not workable, however that was a stated plan.
Are you sagechan a market researcher?
No, not a market researcher, though I did have a minor in marketing as an undergrad!
What I've gotten from 5th relates to the playtests, comments by folks at WotC in columns, conventions, and social media, and looking at the Sundering products that are being released in transition. They've stated the goal of DnDNext is to attempt to create a rules set that focuses on the essence of what D&D is. (How successful they are is of course a matter of opinion, I happen to like the direction they are headed if not every detail)
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Grenemyer
Great Reader
USA
2717 Posts |
Posted - 09 Oct 2013 : 18:29:17
|
quote:
Originally posted by sagechan
Jeremy Grenemyer - what 5e products have you heard about?
When I wrote "But based on what people have said about the new 5E Realms products, which so far appear to be adventures with a side of sourcebook," I was referring to the products that are bridging the gap between editions, i.e. transition products.
Obviously 5E hasn't been released yet in its final form, but adventures like Murder in Baldur's Gate do take advantage of at least a version of the 5E rules, so I think it's appropriate to call MiBG a 5E product. |
Look for me and my content at EN World (user name: sanishiver). |
|
|
|
SirUrza
Master of Realmslore
USA
1283 Posts |
Posted - 10 Oct 2013 : 18:40:42
|
I'd prefer they just had 2 separate eras of product, something for 5e and something that covers pre-spellplague. D20, whether it's 3e/4e/5e feels a lot easier to convert between then AD&D does to d20.
I know I won't get that though and most of what they put out won't be useful to me since I won't likely play in any post-spellplague campaign. Any lore in any book that's set post spellplague is pretty much wasted pages to me. |
"Evil prevails when good men fail to act."
The original and unapologetic Arilyn, Aribeth, Seoni Fanboy. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 10 Oct 2013 : 19:02:52
|
Lore in the books, and a 'pick-your rules' style of downloads for each product?
Where do I sign up? 
I would guesstimate that at least half of all 'Realms fans' do not play D&D, so that style of presentation I think is perfect. In this day and age, we need to figure out new ways of playing this old game, and the 'piecemeal' approach seems best, to me (considering the nearly negligible cost-factors involved in online publishing). I will miss my old sourcebooks, but I did not like the direction books started to take back in 3e (lore for crunch sake), and I am glad they are trying something different now.
I wonder how well GHotR sold? There were no rules in that. Or Ed's Elminster's Forgotten Realms. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 10 Oct 2013 19:05:01 |
|
|
|
The Madmage
Acolyte
26 Posts |
Posted - 10 Nov 2013 : 21:56:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by sagechan
Asking for opinions on what you think product will look like for 5e sourcebooks/adventures?
Based on what WotC has done recently I think a lot of books will be without ties to any addition or light 5e crunch at most. Elminster's Forgotten Realms and Menzoberranzan City of Intrigue where both books that did not have any 4e mechanics in them but lots of fluff and hooks.
I think adventures will be more like Murder in Baldur's gate, where any crunch will be available online for multiple editions while the product itself is just the adventure narrative.
To be fair, WotC is currently trying to reach out to older edition fans to return and purchase books. Including 4E rules content would be of less value to them and might turn many away. Much like how numerous people complained about L5R content including D20 mechanics (instead of focusing on the terrible story and fluff content being produced). With D&DNext likely a year away there's a strong likelihood that rules and mechanics will be changed in the gap so publishing stats would be problematic.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
This "all rules online" format is an interesting one. It seems to be part of a strategy to appeal to people across three editions of the rules.
Personally, I don't like it. I appreciate it, but I don't like it.
I don't like it because the front end of the release of a new edition of D&D is all about the rules. The Forgotten Realms lends itself to a product release by being the showcase setting for how the new rules work their very best.
That was the case in 3rd Edition D&D and was a big reason why the early Realms sourcebooks sold so well.
My guess is that WotC will change their efforts once D&DNext is finally rolled out. The books themselves will contain the "5th edition" rule set while providing a link to the WotC website to obtain converted stats for previous editions for those interested.
quote:
Originally posted by Jeremy Grenemyer
Of course the big focus was on the D&D rules for 3rd Edition. I'd argue for this edition the focus isn't so much on the rules. Yes, I know WotC is trying really hard to gather feedback and build a new edition of D&D, but we don't really need a new edition of D&D.
What we need is a new edition of the Realms.
So I can appreciate the (new) rules taking a back seat to the setting because the new Realms sourcebooks should be beefy on the fluff (i.e. the Realmslore) side of things.
As a consumer, I'd tentatively agree with you but seeing as WotC is trailing Paizo following 4th edition D&D release, I'd say from a corporate standpoint a new edition is required. 4th edition really doesn't convert very well to previous editions and turned away a lot of older players. Additionally, the changes in the main PHB drove changes to the Realms (dragonborn for example). I like that the Forgotten Realms will be going back to the original themes and atmosphere but to do so, the rules have to also help reflect that.
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I‘m of the opinion that multi-edition Realmslore will appease the fans far more than edition-neutral Realmslore ever would. Fans of AD&D 1E/2E, 3E/3.5E, and 4E are likely to stick with rules which most closely resemble those they prefer, going so far as to convert incompatible material, completely reject other-edition canon, or even switch to non-WotC alternatives like OSRIC and Pathfinder/3.75E.
Both "Multi-edition" and "edition neutral" Realmslore is problematic when the philosophy of the designers is that the Forgotten Realms is a living, breathing and evolving entity that will change over the course of time. The former leads to giving a watered down product that people will only use half of, while the other goes against the idea of the setting moving forward and new stories being told.
While some plot hooks can stand the test of time, (I.e. these long lost ruins were found, go in and loot the place) you can only use them so often before it gets stale. I think the best approach is to give some background on the adventure area that could extend up to or beyond previous edition settings so that DMs so inclined can make adaptations on their own with a little effort. Abandoned ruins can be altered to become the adventuring locale against the original occupants for example.
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Remember that old-school players may vehemently reject, for example, RSEs which dramatically crater the Realms they know and love, or may reject “new“ things like, for example, sorcerers, Eladrin, or Asmodean tieflings. But on the flipside, new players who were introduced circa 3E or 4E are inclined to think the game (and the Realms setting) is rather lame without, say, unlimited multiclassing, powerful character builds, dragonborn, and epic psionics. Doesn‘t matter if you‘re talking 4E Spellplague, difficult 2E magical item construction, or 3E Shadovar, you won‘t find any two fans (let alone find them playing at the same table) who can reach agreeable consensus about what is good and what is not. The “World of Warcraft“ and “munchkin“ new lore should have the same inclusion as the “stuffy“ and “convoluted“ High Gygaxian old lore.
Edition-neutral may not be completely bland and generic, but it is certainly more bland and generic than edition-specific.
A logical approach is to divide Realmslore into “edition eras“, allowing stories and characters to engage players of any edition. Non-gamers will probably continue to be attracted to FR fiction regardless of which “era“ it is set within.
I very much hope that “obsolete“ lore, such as Planescape and Spelljammer, is given proper treatment right from the outset. A few haphazard mentions or a late-rushed addon approach always shows in the final product and, it breeds inconsistencies and canon schisms. Much better to draw the line at inception and - no matter what market trends/demands are perceived - remain steadfast throughout the product life cycle. In the case of Realmslore, many things have already been long-asserted elements of canon, so excluding them now demands some very careful explanations.
Personally, I was somewhat disappointed there wasn't going to be a "reboot" of the setting and WotC was going forward with trying to conspire to keep everything. I am wary that the final product will displease everyone unless they cater each region to a different play style. But the pitfall with that is the risk of a setting without any real coherence. It works for a setting like Planescape or Spelljammer because in theory you are traveling across the cosmos/planes of existence. When the village a day's ride from you is as alien as Mechanis is to Limbo... you got problems.
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
Having said all that, I think it‘s vital that newcomers to the Realms should feel welcome and comfortable without dogmatic adherence to mountains of archaic published lore.
Honestly, the easiest way to go about it is to make a more distinct divide between players and DM only products. Players only stuff should really present the setting as it is in the current format with some slight references to the past. DM books should cover the breadth of history, society and secrets. I was mildly irked with the 3.X line of books containing rules on the Shadow Weave or antagonists like the Red Wizards of Thay mixed in with player targeted content because it exposed these things to players and removed their mystery.
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
I still would like to know where any are seeing of 5th Edition, there again have not purchased 3rd or 4th so do not know what direction the content has gone to. What I have seen are the reviews and statements about what 5th will be (as much as I saw the claims, that 4th was so adjustable that there would never be a 5th).
I did say before that the concept of 5th will allow for players to use any edition clearly was not workable, however that was a stated plan.
While I can't speak for 4th edition Essentials, 4th edition itself feels and works incredibly differently than previous editions. Nor does it adapt itself well at all to different genres or campaign types. It's very good for dungeon crawling and that's about it.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I would guesstimate that at least half of all 'Realms fans' do not play D&D, so that style of presentation I think is perfect.
And what are you basing this guess upon? I can understand if you are using novel readers vs "game" players but then, creating setting books for solely novel readers is pointless because they are not inclined to buy such books. A well written story should not require abundant prior knowledge or ancillary reading. Such things should only be a bonus for inquisitive readers to enhance their appreciation rather than be a requirement. |
|
|
|
The Masked Mage
Great Reader
USA
2420 Posts |
Posted - 10 Nov 2013 : 22:59:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
Lore in the books, and a 'pick-your rules' style of downloads for each product?
Where do I sign up?
I would guesstimate that at least half of all 'Realms fans' do not play D&D, so that style of presentation I think is perfect. In this day and age, we need to figure out new ways of playing this old game, and the 'piecemeal' approach seems best, to me (considering the nearly negligible cost-factors involved in online publishing). I will miss my old sourcebooks, but I did not like the direction books started to take back in 3e (lore for crunch sake), and I am glad they are trying something different now.
I wonder how well GHotR sold? There were no rules in that. Or Ed's Elminster's Forgotten Realms.
I'd be a fan of that style IF one of the rules formats was 2nd E |
|
|
|
Elsenrail
Seeker
Poland
72 Posts |
Posted - 24 Nov 2013 : 15:20:27
|
| All I want is a FRCS 5e in the style of the FRCS 3e. The old 2001 is just fantastic. I hope they can recreate it in the new post-Sundering Realms. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 04 Dec 2013 : 13:27:10
|
Yeah, the differences between the 3e guide and the 4e one were astronomical. The 3e FRCS was a real page-turner, just like a great novel. Even the the PF Inner Sea World Guide falls short of that mark (and that is a damn good product as well).
I also like the Iron Kingdoms setting guide(s) - the way they presented the different regional (human) races was excellent - I'd love to see that kind of 'sweeping grand-tour' treatment in 5e. Its great to SEE what folks look like from each region as you read along.
No more sterile, laundry-list of disjointed facts, please. Lets get some entertaining writing again. Hopefully we'll see guys like EG (I'm sure), SS, & EB on this one. Maybe even a couple of those guys who did the 3e guide as well.
And once again, I am not knocking the 4e lore (most of it is salvageable), I am knocking the presentation. The early 4e sources were abysmal in this regard (later books took a turn for the better, but it was kinda too late at that point - the damage had been done). It may have just been a case of piss-poor editing that shot 4e in the foot. The campaign guide just didn't 'flow' cohesively.
I understand why they put that adventure right at the beginning - it was an interesting experiment. I wouldn't recommend doing that again, though. While catering to newbs, it alienated the old guard. Maybe do an adventure in a separate product - either included (shrink-wrapped together) with the campaign guide for the initial release, and/or available as a free download online. That way, people can "get their FR fix" without having to wade-through that first, or loosing page-count to some starter-adventure that a lot of folks won't even use. |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 04 Dec 2013 13:29:45 |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
5e Product Style
