New evidence that the "2024" (really "2024/2025") D&D is failing.
And this surprises no one.
Depending on how stupid wotc is. They may have even been banking on losing 5e players to fake 5e. Good only for some free outrage marketing as they are discarded.
Claim its compatible with the old version, after a year of insulting your current audience... Should be no surprise most gamers are sticking with what they have. D&D will get enough newcomers that won't know the difference to buy books and they'll claim a victory of sorts after a few years.
If they are smart they'll come up with a new Basic Set that goes from 1-10 levels and has art from older editions to give the retro feel. Make it cheap and they'll sell a lot and have something to crow about while they figure out their VTT.
Quote from: Ruprecht on February 05, 2025, 10:05:27 AMIf they are smart they'll come up with a new Basic Set that goes from 1-10 levels and has art from older editions to give the retro feel. Make it cheap and they'll sell a lot and have something to crow about while they figure out their VTT.
Not necessarily 1-10 levels, but hitting much of the rest: D&D: Heroes of the Borderlands (https://www.enworld.org/events/heroes-of-the-borderlands.34/), coming this September.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on February 05, 2025, 10:58:22 AMNot necessarily 1-10 levels, but hitting much of the rest: D&D: Heroes of the Borderlands (https://www.enworld.org/events/heroes-of-the-borderlands.34/), coming this September.
Given my less than satisfactory sitdown look through of a friend's 2024 PHB a week and a half ago, I don't see myself buying any of the core books (let alone any subsequent supplements). I might check out the starter set though if the components interest me from a research on production/quality/utility standpoint.
Once again "Official" D&D is beginning to level off from a fad (Your point about Stranger things) to a hobby. Like other recreational activities, it must compete with online games and social media as well as the flood of better RPG alternatives. Attempts to appeal to a niche and fickle audience who take insult at the slightest provocation seems to be a losing strategy for them .The sooner we can distance ourselves from WOTC the better, I don't bother to compare 5E or 2024 D&D to OSR, they are completely different games and should be treated as such.
Big Bang Theory also popularized various niche hobbies which arguably hurt them.
Yeah, any decrease is definitely multifactorial. The pandemic lockdown ttrpg bump is long gone, Big Bang Theory is firmly in reruns and not actively popularizing geek chic, Stranger Things isn't even about D&D peripherally any more with the kids split up and is ending this year anyways... and those are just the things off of the top of my head that are NOT under Wotc's control that will negatively affect them. The OGL debacle, harmful and discriminatory messaging by employees and even executives under the guise of regressive ideological talking points alienating their core fanbase, the flopping of the D&D film, sic'ing the Pinkertons on a customer because of a distributor's mistake, the inability to properly plan ahead for a 50th anniversary edition release, and multiple successive AI missteps and coverups... those were under their control. If this edition ends up (relatively speaking) flopping like 4e despite the massive headstart 5e gave it, it'll be justly deserved.
Quote from: Ruprecht on February 05, 2025, 10:05:27 AMIf they are smart they'll come up with a new Basic Set that goes from 1-10 levels and has art from older editions to give the retro feel. Make it cheap and they'll sell a lot and have something to crow about while they figure out their VTT.
All they would have to do is get Mike Mearls to polish the streamlined version of 5e that he is working on, re-use the absolute pile of Larry Elmore and Jeff Easley art that they have = Instant winner.
But they hate money.
Quote from: RNGm on February 05, 2025, 02:13:01 PMYeah, any decrease is definitely multifactorial. The pandemic lockdown ttrpg bump is long gone, Big Bang Theory is firmly in reruns and not actively popularizing geek chic, Stranger Things isn't even about D&D peripherally any more with the kids split up and is ending this year anyways... and those are just the things off of the top of my head that are NOT under Wotc's control that will negatively affect them. The OGL debacle, harmful and discriminatory messaging by employees and even executives under the guise of regressive ideological talking points alienating their core fanbase, the flopping of the D&D film, sic'ing the Pinkertons on a customer because of a distributor's mistake, the inability to properly plan ahead for a 50th anniversary edition release, and multiple successive AI missteps and coverups... those were under their control. If this edition ends up (relatively speaking) flopping like 4e despite the massive headstart 5e gave it, it'll be justly deserved.
Very good summary.
Quote from: Jaeger on February 05, 2025, 02:47:26 PMQuote from: Ruprecht on February 05, 2025, 10:05:27 AMIf they are smart they'll come up with a new Basic Set that goes from 1-10 levels and has art from older editions to give the retro feel. Make it cheap and they'll sell a lot and have something to crow about while they figure out their VTT.
All they would have to do is get Mike Mearls to polish the streamlined version of 5e that he is working on, re-use the absolute pile of Larry Elmore and Jeff Easley art that they have = Instant winner.
But they hate money.
No, they hate
you. The money is only an ancillary concern. As long as they are financially comfortable, they don't care about making money for the company. And the top echelons of major entertainment corporations are also indifferent to financial concerns (and least as far as consumers are involved). Did you know that, when Pelt was attempting to get a seat on the board of Disney, he discovered that the entire Disney board held less than 2 million dollars in Disney stock among them? They don't care if the company tanks; they are set for life on their compensation packages (funded by Vanguard and Blackrock).
This is why I can't wait for the inevitable Hasbro collapse. The DEI capital funds are drying up, Trump has pulled the plug on the back channel siphoning of money to the NGOs and media corps that push this crap, and the financial reckoning is coming. And WotC just hired the "female" LARPer who was lead designer on DragonAge Veilguard to head their next software project.
What an interesting time to be alive!
Honestly, my whole view on this is:
your game can contain far-left politics, ideology, social nonsense, whatever, as long as the system and setting are good (one can always replace the nonsense provided the system and setting are good)
the problem with 5e, is that it has all that stuff AND the system is trash: it is a convoluted mess, complicated, and bloated. WOTC's biggest crime isn't all the woke nonsense. Their biggest crime is turning D&D into a bad table-top video game that tries to be all things to all people and fails everywhere.
it is like the crazy car Homer Simpson designed
It's crazy liberating to watch all of this from the sidelines. If I had to pick one word to describe how I felt about it, it would be something like "bemused". :)
I have played 5E-2014 since before 2014, as I was in some playtest sessions with a guy who has WotC connections. I recently picked up all three core books for 5E-2024 (Monster Manual came out yesterday). In my opinion, all three of the 2024 rulebooks are superior to their 2014 equivalents.
(1) The PH is better organized, with spell lists moved to be along with the rest of the class data.
(2) The DMG spends more time explaining how to be a DM, how to build a campaign, and so on.
(3) The MM organizes monster data better, with important combat info easier to find.
Having said all of that, here are some thoughts:
(1) 2024 changes how we get the numbers, but the final numbers are similar to 2014 so old modules still work.
(2) 2024 is a lot better for newer players, but the advantage to veteran players is far less.
(3) It is unclear to me why most groups would want to change to the new edition.
In other words, 2024 is a better system for folks who don't know better but for anyone who has been playing for a while the changes are minimal. Again, details on how to get the numbers are different but the final results aren't that different at all, with the exception of some of the feats (when you can get them) and healing spells (another die thrown in, e.g. 1d8+mod "cure wounds" is now 2d8+mod). Every edition includes mandatory "power creep" and it's clear that 2024 characters get more feats and thus tend to be slightly more powerful than their 2014 equivalent.
The 2024 rules makes the background choice a lot more important, which is sort of a good thing except that some backgrounds are clearly designed to go with certain classes. The trade-off, naturally, is that race becomes a lot less important. My complaint there is the fact that race stereotypes tend to go away, so that dwarves aren't that sturdy or elves that dexterous. For some that doesn't matter, for me I miss the Tolkienized flavor of older editions. The rules are still pretty solid, however.
However, if you hated 5E there isn't anything to make you not hate 2024 5E. I've heard a lot of the complaints about the 5E rules and the new ones are similar enough that they won't address the issues you dislike the most. For example, the "we hate classes" folks will still see classes. The "back to the old days" folks will still see powerful cantrips that never run out, hit point bloat, level charts that go to 20, and so on. The game is still fundamentally 5E, so the folks who didn't like it before certainly won't be pulled in to play it now.
My players used to play old-school D&D before 5E came out. In 2014 they switched over, liking skills and feats and bigger hit point totals and multiple actions per turn and other things I'd rather eliminate from my rules set. They like the new magic system, complete with cantrips and upcasting and other rules that make magic better. (I agree with them on most of the magic rules, by the way.) So they have embraced 2014 5E to the point where they aren't that interested in playing other rules sets. Our intent is to update to 2024 5E, but real life issues have gotten in the way so we haven't had much play time since the new PH came out. It will be interesting to see what they think of the new rules once we get a bunch of sessions under our belts.
D&D has this curse that whenever they try to make things go over to digital, weird stuff in real life starts happening. 4E online never happened because people were killed by the lead developer. I'm not very superstitious but I swear it's a bad omen for the franchise. 5E became so emboldened that they've moved everything over to digital, nearly making owning the books feel like second-rate or something. Then they wonder why people are losing interest and clinging to their old copies. This isn't a silly online card game with massive power creep-- this is an entire system meant to be utilized for years, preferably unplugged. Yes, it's hard to make money with that. Always has been. It would seem that nobody realized how much went into 5E to get it to where it was, even being "the world's most popular roleplaying game" and just assumed that the fan-base would come running for whatever slop they tossed at them. Other markets that really does work, but this is a niche hobby temporarily popularized by television and the boredom of Covid-19. Warner Brothers is struggling right now somehow and they own some of the biggest properties in the world. Has the world forgotten what quality was? What originality was? People used to call Ted Turner a rich 'nobody', but it's quite interesting how quickly his media empire has fallen after it was stolen from him over one bad merger deal he was forced into. This is all relevant because the same kind of people who run Warner and TBS are running WotC. It's all about the quick money now and the customers are just some tiny, insignificant factor in all of it. TBS in the '90s used to have awesome programming blocks, narrations, memorable bumpers, the works. The customer was in the front of everyone's minds there. You could feel that somebody actually gave a damn, even if it was a corporate worldwide channel. That was no excuse to dehumanize the product and inflate the stock value with every dishonest sellout gimmick in the book to please the shareholders first and foremost.
Quote from: finarvyn on February 05, 2025, 08:19:17 PMI have played 5E-2014 since before 2014, as I was in some playtest sessions with a guy who has WotC connections. I recently picked up all three core books for 5E-2024 (Monster Manual came out yesterday). In my opinion, all three of the 2024 rulebooks are superior to their 2014 equivalents.
(1) The PH is better organized, with spell lists moved to be along with the rest of the class data.
(2) The DMG spends more time explaining how to be a DM, how to build a campaign, and so on.
(3) The MM organizes monster data better, with important combat info easier to find.
Having said all of that, here are some thoughts:
(1) 2024 changes how we get the numbers, but the final numbers are similar to 2014 so old modules still work.
(2) 2024 is a lot better for newer players, but the advantage to veteran players is far less.
(3) It is unclear to me why most groups would want to change to the new edition.
In other words, 2024 is a better system for folks who don't know better but for anyone who has been playing for a while the changes are minimal. Again, details on how to get the numbers are different but the final results aren't that different at all, with the exception of some of the feats (when you can get them) and healing spells (another die thrown in, e.g. 1d8+mod "cure wounds" is now 2d8+mod). Every edition includes mandatory "power creep" and it's clear that 2024 characters get more feats and thus tend to be slightly more powerful than their 2014 equivalent.
The 2024 rules makes the background choice a lot more important, which is sort of a good thing except that some backgrounds are clearly designed to go with certain classes. The trade-off, naturally, is that race becomes a lot less important. My complaint there is the fact that race stereotypes tend to go away, so that dwarves aren't that sturdy or elves that dexterous. For some that doesn't matter, for me I miss the Tolkienized flavor of older editions. The rules are still pretty solid, however.
However, if you hated 5E there isn't anything to make you not hate 2024 5E. I've heard a lot of the complaints about the 5E rules and the new ones are similar enough that they won't address the issues you dislike the most. For example, the "we hate classes" folks will still see classes. The "back to the old days" folks will still see powerful cantrips that never run out, hit point bloat, level charts that go to 20, and so on. The game is still fundamentally 5E, so the folks who didn't like it before certainly won't be pulled in to play it now.
My players used to play old-school D&D before 5E came out. In 2014 they switched over, liking skills and feats and bigger hit point totals and multiple actions per turn and other things I'd rather eliminate from my rules set. They like the new magic system, complete with cantrips and upcasting and other rules that make magic better. (I agree with them on most of the magic rules, by the way.) So they have embraced 2014 5E to the point where they aren't that interested in playing other rules sets. Our intent is to update to 2024 5E, but real life issues have gotten in the way so we haven't had much play time since the new PH came out. It will be interesting to see what they think of the new rules once we get a bunch of sessions under our belts.
Thank you for adding a well-reasoned perspective to the thread.
Quote from: Jaeger on February 05, 2025, 02:47:26 PMQuote from: Ruprecht on February 05, 2025, 10:05:27 AMIf they are smart they'll come up with a new Basic Set that goes from 1-10 levels and has art from older editions to give the retro feel. Make it cheap and they'll sell a lot and have something to crow about while they figure out their VTT.
All they would have to do is get Mike Mearls to polish the streamlined version of 5e that he is working on, re-use the absolute pile of Larry Elmore and Jeff Easley art that they have = Instant winner.
But they hate money.
Elmore and Easley were declared sexist and are probably non-persons now...
Some very interesting comments in here.
Quote from: MerrillWeathermay on February 05, 2025, 05:57:14 PMHonestly, my whole view on this is:
your game can contain far-left politics, ideology, social nonsense, whatever, as long as the system and setting are good (one can always replace the nonsense provided the system and setting are good)
the problem with 5e, is that it has all that stuff AND the system is trash: it is a convoluted mess, complicated, and bloated. WOTC's biggest crime isn't all the woke nonsense. Their biggest crime is turning D&D into a bad table-top video game that tries to be all things to all people and fails everywhere.
it is like the crazy car Homer Simpson designed
This. I decided to give 5e a chance even after seeing (not playing) the dog's breakfast that was 4e. I thought they'd fixed it, people claimed it was better, et cetera et cetera.
I absolutely hated it after just a couple hours. I'll admit I'm not a fan of level-based games to begin with, but 5e felt like it took the cookie-cutter quality of PCs and cranked it up to 15.
I tried to argue in 5e for random level benefits (in the style I used in my Albion game). Mearls didn't think that would be liked by many gamers.
Quote from: RPGPundit on February 13, 2025, 02:28:09 AMI tried to argue in 5e for random level benefits (in the style I used in my Albion game). Mearls didn't think that would be liked by many gamers.
None of those I've played with in the last decade would have liked that.
Quote from: HappyDaze on February 13, 2025, 03:14:45 AMQuote from: RPGPundit on February 13, 2025, 02:28:09 AMI tried to argue in 5e for random level benefits (in the style I used in my Albion game). Mearls didn't think that would be liked by many gamers.
None of those I've played with in the last decade would have liked that.
I wouldn't have either and I'm not particularly fond of 5e; I just prefer crafting my own character since I'm the one stuck with it! I'm not a fan of the OSR style random ability/talent/power rolls on leveling up in general since I make characters for specific backstories/playstyles initially and then tweak as necessary based on the campaign roleplay/experiences.
Quote from: HappyDaze on February 13, 2025, 03:14:45 AMQuote from: RPGPundit on February 13, 2025, 02:28:09 AMI tried to argue in 5e for random level benefits (in the style I used in my Albion game). Mearls didn't think that would be liked by many gamers.
None of those I've played with in the last decade would have liked that.
Same. The only thing close to that that I've seen that's anywhere close to fixed level benefits in popularity is what I'd call "menu benefits" where leveling up lets you pick one of, say, four benefits.
The main reason for it though seemed to be those systems had few actual classes (fighter, expert, mage) so the menu options allowed for the sort of customization a larger pool of classes (with multiclassing) could offer.
These days randomness in chargen, much less in leveling up, is just not a thing most players are interested in; at as far as I've experienced with players in my circles. Even the 5e crowd prefers point buy or arrays over rolling stats (to be fair, it's more that GMs prefer point buy/arrays... largely because it shuts out any twinks claiming they of course rolled three 18s and their lowest stat is a 14).
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 13, 2025, 10:15:05 AMThese days randomness in chargen, much less in leveling up, is just not a thing most players are interested in; at as far as I've experienced with players in my circles. Even the 5e crowd prefers point buy or arrays over rolling stats (to be fair, it's more that GMs prefer point buy/arrays... largely because it shuts out any twinks claiming they of course rolled three 18s and their lowest stat is a 14).
Lol, that last part exactly describes a friend of mine who always claimed he legimatedly rolled up his characters that had dex-equivalents (PP in the old Robotech RPG) of 19-22. My response to him showing me his three or four characters all with insanely high stat blocks (none of which even for "dump" stats were less than the teens) was to ask how many dozens of times for each character he had to roll dice to get those blocks. :)
FWIW, as someone who isn't personally interested in any randomness for a starting campaign character, I have no issue with games/settings including it as an option for those who choose to use it. I'm also personally ok with randomness for one shots/convention games as well.
Quote from: Chris24601 on February 13, 2025, 10:15:05 AMQuote from: HappyDaze on February 13, 2025, 03:14:45 AMQuote from: RPGPundit on February 13, 2025, 02:28:09 AMI tried to argue in 5e for random level benefits (in the style I used in my Albion game). Mearls didn't think that would be liked by many gamers.
None of those I've played with in the last decade would have liked that.
Same. The only thing close to that that I've seen that's anywhere close to fixed level benefits in popularity is what I'd call "menu benefits" where leveling up lets you pick one of, say, four benefits.
The main reason for it though seemed to be those systems had few actual classes (fighter, expert, mage) so the menu options allowed for the sort of customization a larger pool of classes (with multiclassing) could offer.
These days randomness in chargen, much less in leveling up, is just not a thing most players are interested in; at as far as I've experienced with players in my circles. Even the 5e crowd prefers point buy or arrays over rolling stats (to be fair, it's more that GMs prefer point buy/arrays... largely because it shuts out any twinks claiming they of course rolled three 18s and their lowest stat is a 14).
Ive expirenced the opposite in regards to character creation at least. Most people ive played with like to roll. Ive never played a game with randomized level up advancements other than hit dice so no anecdotes there.
Quote from: RPGPundit on February 13, 2025, 02:28:09 AMI tried to argue in 5e for random level benefits (in the style I used in my Albion game). Mearls didn't think that would be liked by many gamers.
Depends on how random?
I think as an optional system it might have worked. Especially after the near absolute rigidity of 4e. But as a core mechanic probably not.
It worked for AD&D Magic Users as you had a small say in things via your 1 or 2 research spells every level. Fighters though were totally at the mercy of the DM, Module or RNG drops.
Too much random and you might as well rename it Gamma World or...Red Steel! aheh.
And honestly I think Mearls is right in the end. Players have been complaining about the random in RPGs since at least AD&D and various other RPGs have been trying to "Fix" that for nearly as long.
But I do not think we really hit full resistance till the rise of the more stringent storygamer and eurogamer factions. Especially the infestations of eurogamers who despise random anything and alot of storygamers are just as nasty about it.
The system in my games is that each class has a level benefits table. When you level, you can either roll on the table twice, or pick any single item on the table once. So you can choose to select your benefit, but then you miss out on the second benefit.
A lot of my players will always roll twice, but there's some that engage in a variety between rolling and choosing, particularly once they've gone up a few levels and there's specific things they want to get.
I built my character randomness so that it was still there for 80% of the good effects but somewhat mitigated by the math of the system. Specifically, most things that are random happen often enough that it evens out, which means anyone stuck with something they don't exactly like right now have a good prospect of seeing it improve over time.
- There's the venerable idea of rerolling the "hit dice" in total, taking the new number if higher, which I put on overdrive by having it occur more frequently (roughly 3 shorter levels to get 2 levels of power compared to most D&D progressions). Also, only some of the health component is random, with the fixed part providing most of the difference. Has the ancillary side effect that everyone uses d6s for the rolls, important when you need to roll a lot of them at higher levels. For example, my warrior gets +1d6 every odd level and +3 every even level.
- There's an element of gambling. Ability scores start usually pretty puny (3d6, in order, swap any 2). However, any starting character gets at least 2 attempts to improve a score, and based on options taking later, will get around 6-8 more as they level. Each improvement can move a score up 1 to 4 points, with 2 the most likely. The math is set for diminishing returns, meaning that the lower the score, the more likely you are to get more points. And the math of the score/modifier chart is not even, instead making it take more and more score to get another +1. You can gamble and put all your efforts into maxing out 1 score, or you can go after weaknesses and likely get a lot more improvement.
- There's a fair amount of semi-optional randomness. Places where you can roll if you want with a main PC or simply choose. However, when making a "companion" PC (think henchmen and backup character) you must roll. This teaches the players slowly that sometimes what they get random is pretty enjoyable and not something they would do themselves. Plus, since it is multiple different things, if they want that in a main, they can pick and choose where they use it.
- Hardly any penalties, very low baseline: Character's start almost incompetent but with lots of ways to improve quickly. Where you focus your efforts, you do get notably better. The "background" system is almost entirely random, but all it does is give you your childhood goodies. Might not be exactly what you wanted, but it hasn't locked your character into anything, and it is useful.
Quote from: RPGPundit on February 14, 2025, 06:42:24 AMThe system in my games is that each class has a level benefits table. When you level, you can either roll on the table twice, or pick any single item on the table once. So you can choose to select your benefit, but then you miss out on the second benefit.
A lot of my players will always roll twice, but there's some that engage in a variety between rolling and choosing, particularly once they've gone up a few levels and there's specific things they want to get.
I actually do like the unique idea of leveling up having a random factor to it, but given that Adventurer's League banned
rolling for stats, I can see why they wouldn't embrace this. I'm actually shocked that many of the console games I'm familiar with actually have very straightforward, non-randomized leveling systems, to the point of upgrade trees you select from. I suppose the random factor could lead to a gatcha feeling at extreme levels, but sometimes after beating a boss you just want a reward and frankly aren't in the best mindset to choose from an upgrade tree right at that moment. It's an interesting topic.
I confess, I -hate- randomized character advancement and creation. I feel it results in me playing -a- character rather than -my- idea for -my- character.
But, I'm grown up enough to acknowledge that other people hate fixed advances and creation. I can see how such things can result in characters seeming very samey unless there's a multitude of equally valid options to choose from. And it's that exact reason why I'm pretty burned out on 5ed (I feel I've seen it all) while still appreciating HERO, M&M, and other effects based points-buy systems.
Skimmed through the 2024 PHB, was somewhat impressed with the layout & organization. But the art was so off-putting I would never consider running it. Yes, it was that bad. I don't know what game the artists thought they were illustrating, but it wasn't D&D.
Quote from: Horace on February 17, 2025, 11:39:46 AMSkimmed through the 2024 PHB, was somewhat impressed with the layout & organization. But the art was so off-putting I would never consider running it. Yes, it was that bad. I don't know what game the artists thought they were illustrating, but it wasn't D&D.
This is a big one for me. I don't really care how well organized it is, the art is just too whack for me to even care about cracking the PHB open again after my initial read through.
Focused posturing on "body positivity", gay dwarf baristas, Mexican orcs, wheelchair wizards, and mastectomy scars do not instill a desire to use even the tightest rules set.
Quote from: Horace on February 17, 2025, 11:39:46 AMSkimmed through the 2024 PHB, was somewhat impressed with the layout & organization. But the art was so off-putting I would never consider running it. Yes, it was that bad. I don't know what game the artists thought they were illustrating, but it wasn't D&D.
The art in the DMG is considerably better. The art in the MM is mostly better, with a few exceptions (the Sphinx is particularly bad).
Quote from: Horace on February 17, 2025, 11:39:46 AMSkimmed through the 2024 PHB, was somewhat impressed with the layout & organization. But the art was so off-putting I would never consider running it. Yes, it was that bad. I don't know what game the artists thought they were illustrating, but it wasn't D&D.
Clearly, if whimsical Harry Potter Prequel (not even the good films) Cosplay O-face art isn't your thing they you are an istaphobe! :)
Quote from: Dropbear on February 17, 2025, 12:10:04 PMFocused posturing on "body positivity", gay dwarf baristas, Mexican orcs, wheelchair wizards, and mastectomy scars do not instill a desire to use even the tightest rules set.
What page/section is that (the mastectomy scars) on? I'm not doubting you but I'm surprised I missed that personally.
It occurs to me that many in the purple haired newbie gamer crowd are probably experiencing their first edition war as the books they just bought are rendered obsolete for the first time.
Quote from: David Johansen on February 17, 2025, 01:16:50 PMIt occurs to me that many in the purple haired newbie gamer crowd are probably experiencing their first edition war as the books they just bought are rendered obsolete for the first time.
Eh. A full decade is more than enough time to get utility out of an edition if they got in early; most aren't good and/or lucky enough to get half that before being invalidated.
Quote from: RNGm on February 17, 2025, 01:04:03 PMQuote from: Dropbear on February 17, 2025, 12:10:04 PMFocused posturing on "body positivity", gay dwarf baristas, Mexican orcs, wheelchair wizards, and mastectomy scars do not instill a desire to use even the tightest rules set.
What page/section is that (the mastectomy scars) on? I'm not doubting you but I'm surprised I missed that personally.
Draconic sorcerer art. An example of the claim can be found here. (https://gatecrashers.fan/2024/08/01/dungeons-dragonss-new-players-handbook-improves-on-the-best-of-the-tabletop-roleplaying-game/)
EDIT: And confirmed by the artist on Twitter here (https://twitter.com/LaurenWalshArt/status/1810734307297652942).
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on February 17, 2025, 02:20:35 PMQuote from: RNGm on February 17, 2025, 01:04:03 PMQuote from: Dropbear on February 17, 2025, 12:10:04 PMFocused posturing on "body positivity", gay dwarf baristas, Mexican orcs, wheelchair wizards, and mastectomy scars do not instill a desire to use even the tightest rules set.
What page/section is that (the mastectomy scars) on? I'm not doubting you but I'm surprised I missed that personally.
Draconic sorcerer art. An example of the claim can be found here. (https://gatecrashers.fan/2024/08/01/dungeons-dragonss-new-players-handbook-improves-on-the-best-of-the-tabletop-roleplaying-game/)
EDIT: And confirmed by the artist on Twitter here (https://twitter.com/LaurenWalshArt/status/1810734307297652942).
Greetings!
ARRGGHHH! All of this degenerate, Tranny BS needs to be ruthlessly expunged from the game. Ah well. Fuck gay WOTC in the ass. Let them choke on their diapers and mentally brain-fucked ideas. They are nothing more than a Commie factory pumping out Feminism, racism, and Tranny degeneracy. They have become absolutely disgusting.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on February 17, 2025, 02:20:35 PMQuote from: RNGm on February 17, 2025, 01:04:03 PMQuote from: Dropbear on February 17, 2025, 12:10:04 PMFocused posturing on "body positivity", gay dwarf baristas, Mexican orcs, wheelchair wizards, and mastectomy scars do not instill a desire to use even the tightest rules set.
What page/section is that (the mastectomy scars) on? I'm not doubting you but I'm surprised I missed that personally.
Draconic sorcerer art. An example of the claim can be found here. (https://gatecrashers.fan/2024/08/01/dungeons-dragonss-new-players-handbook-improves-on-the-best-of-the-tabletop-roleplaying-game/)
EDIT: And confirmed by the artist on Twitter here (https://twitter.com/LaurenWalshArt/status/1810734307297652942).
Thanks for the confirmation and the receipts. That's disgusting. My mother had breast cancer and I had to take care of her in the aftermath of the intial surgery as well as multiple failed reconstruction attempts after the fact. The pain and suffering of people who are forced to go through that horrible situation isn't a fashion statement.
Quote from: RNGm on February 17, 2025, 02:48:28 PMMexican orcs,
"How do you know they're Mexican?"
"Well they have sombreros."
"That's a stereotype."
"Not if the artist is a Mexican!"
"Is the artist Mexican?"
"Does it matter?"
"Well, wouldn't you say it's cultural appropriation if they aren't?"
"Only if the artist is rich and successful, or white, because everyone knows white people are automatically privileged."
"Fair enough. I'll fire you and hire a sane Latino to do orc pics from now on."
"Now now wait a minute!"
I see this picture aging very badly.
Quote from: RNGm on February 17, 2025, 02:48:28 PMwheelchair wizards, and mastectomy scars
"What's your fantasy?"
"I want to play an elven wizard in a wheelchair!"
"Why?"
"Because I love my irl wheelchair, and how it gives me mobility and helps me move around."
"No, I mean, 'why not just have your character walk'?"
"That's abelist!"
"Okay, but why not have an animated platform with legs or a cloak of levitation or something?"
"(sigh) Again, I love my irl wheelchair!"
"Fine, you have a plain old wheelchair."
"No! My wheelchair can levitate me up stairs and shrink down when I need to crawl through tunnels and-"
"Next!"
"My turn?"
"Yes. Please. What do you want?"
"I want to play a transman with surgical scars."
"..."
"What?"
"Do I have to say it?"
"Say what?"
"Why not just play a man? And if you have to play a transman, why do you need scars?"
"Don't question my fantasy play!!1!"
Quote from: Habitual Gamer on February 17, 2025, 10:48:22 AMI confess, I -hate- randomized character advancement and creation. I feel it results in me playing -a- character rather than -my- idea for -my- character.
But, I'm grown up enough to acknowledge that other people hate fixed advances and creation. I can see how such things can result in characters seeming very samey unless there's a multitude of equally valid options to choose from. And it's that exact reason why I'm pretty burned out on 5ed (I feel I've seen it all) while still appreciating HERO, M&M, and other effects based points-buy systems.
I can understand that some people have a very specific idea of the type of character they want to play, and that isn't always bad (except that in many games with specific settings, a new player might not know enough of the setting to create a character that will actually be credible for the game setting).
But the benefit of random rolls (and in my games, by default at least, you roll randomly for ability scores, social background, and a past event, and there's even medieval-authentic name tables) is that what you roll up will likely NOT be something you could have come up with, and provides an opportunity to fit together a new character that you would not have imagined on your own otherwise.
Quote from: RPGPundit on February 18, 2025, 09:59:41 AMBut the benefit of random rolls (and in my games, by default at least, you roll randomly for ability scores, social background, and a past event, and there's even medieval-authentic name tables) is that what you roll up will likely NOT be something you could have come up with, and provides an opportunity to fit together a new character that you would not have imagined on your own otherwise.
So the person that came up with the tables is presumed to be smarter and/or more imaginative than any player could be?
Quote from: HappyDaze on February 18, 2025, 11:31:40 AMQuote from: RPGPundit on February 18, 2025, 09:59:41 AMBut the benefit of random rolls (and in my games, by default at least, you roll randomly for ability scores, social background, and a past event, and there's even medieval-authentic name tables) is that what you roll up will likely NOT be something you could have come up with, and provides an opportunity to fit together a new character that you would not have imagined on your own otherwise.
So the person that came up with the tables is presumed to be smarter and/or more imaginative than any player could be?
I think the benefit of random rolls isn't that you
couldn't come up with that combination. The choices are easy to think of, generally.
It's that the randomness can push the player outside of their default preferences or tendencies.
As a GM, I sometimes use randomness for NPCs that way. I roll randomly for the race and/or sex and/or social class of an NPC.
Quote from: HappyDaze on February 18, 2025, 11:31:40 AMSo the person that came up with the tables is presumed to be smarter and/or more imaginative than any player could be?
That's not at all what's being said. I hate random tables and never push them on my PCs. Here's the upside: a player with a vision of what they want to be can be it, and be at least above average at it. Here's the downside: no one is embracing creativity with a set of down-from-on-high givens. Yes, it's "within the rules", but you'd be a fool to roll on a table when everyone else is picking stuff.
It's not about who created the table, but a good table has a lot of options that a given player wouldn't consider. If the table gives you dramatic start, you aren't picking one to be dramatic, you are just drama history guy that game.
There's lots of great arguments for random tables, and it's a time-honored part of old school gaming. Time has also taught us that it's better if you are going through characters faster versus having the same dude for a ten year campaign, and I personally hate the entire idea because on the off chance I get to play I always want it to be a specific thing I pick, which also flavors how I run games.
But I won't pretend there's no benefit to the random background generation table and the on-the-spot creativity it generates.
From a practical perspective of supporting as many people as possible, if you only do one, then random is the better choice. Because it's easier to house rule random into picking than it is the opposite. That's true even when the random way is not so well designed, and thus harder to house rule into picks than it should be. If nothing else, you can always do the quick and dirty version of "instead of rolling, pick one of the options on the random chart."
Of course, once you get into something like Hero or GURPs, that doesn't work so well, because of the sheer scope of the options. However, that's also because those are half tool kits instead of games. Make a particular setting for a campaign, it's not that hard to come up with some random tables to speed up making characters for players that don't want to control every little thing. (I've done it a couple of different ways in Hero System.)
Now, ideally, the system would support both fixed and random at least somewhat cleanly. The WotC design problem(s) are that they keep trying to change this, change that, tweak here, mangle there. In the process, they lose sight of what widget X is supposed to support, and then they take out the parts that would have any value in a random selection system. They've deconstructed their own game so much they've reduced things to useless vestiges (e.g. 5E encumbrance).
In theory, I have no beef with designing a system as fixed first, then layering the random on top--as long as the second part happens and gets tested. If you can't build the random layer on top, then that's a design smell that the underlying fixed part likely has issues.
Quote from: Venka on February 18, 2025, 01:21:39 PMQuote from: HappyDaze on February 18, 2025, 11:31:40 AMSo the person that came up with the tables is presumed to be smarter and/or more imaginative than any player could be?
That's not at all what's being said. I hate random tables and never push them on my PCs. Here's the upside: a player with a vision of what they want to be can be it, and be at least above average at it. Here's the downside: no one is embracing creativity with a set of down-from-on-high givens. Yes, it's "within the rules", but you'd be a fool to roll on a table when everyone else is picking stuff.
It's not about who created the table, but a good table has a lot of options that a given player wouldn't consider. If the table gives you dramatic start, you aren't picking one to be dramatic, you are just drama history guy that game.
There's lots of great arguments for random tables, and it's a time-honored part of old school gaming. Time has also taught us that it's better if you are going through characters faster versus having the same dude for a ten year campaign, and I personally hate the entire idea because on the off chance I get to play I always want it to be a specific thing I pick, which also flavors how I run games.
But I won't pretend there's no benefit to the random background generation table and the on-the-spot creativity it generates.
Greetings!
Well said, Venka! I agree. I generally enjoy random tables, though I can appreciate menu-picking, point-buy and so on.
HappyDaze and Mistwell are essentially trolls that routinely enjoy being snarky, acidic, and rude towards Pundit. Everything or anything he says, it doesn't matter. HappyDaze and Mistwell always have something negative and critical to say about it.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: HappyDaze on February 18, 2025, 11:31:40 AMQuote from: RPGPundit on February 18, 2025, 09:59:41 AMBut the benefit of random rolls (and in my games, by default at least, you roll randomly for ability scores, social background, and a past event, and there's even medieval-authentic name tables) is that what you roll up will likely NOT be something you could have come up with, and provides an opportunity to fit together a new character that you would not have imagined on your own otherwise.
So the person that came up with the tables is presumed to be smarter and/or more imaginative than any player could be?
It seems like you don't understand the mathematics between combining multiple random generators.
But actually, a child could make a table of 12 choices, and there's a good chance that you might not have considered any one of them for a character detail. Most people will only have a reference based on their own creativity (which is different degrees of limited) and pop culture references they may have watched.
It's not so much that the person is smarter than you, its that they're not you.
Quote from: RPGPundit on February 19, 2025, 04:13:58 AMQuote from: HappyDaze on February 18, 2025, 11:31:40 AMQuote from: RPGPundit on February 18, 2025, 09:59:41 AMBut the benefit of random rolls (and in my games, by default at least, you roll randomly for ability scores, social background, and a past event, and there's even medieval-authentic name tables) is that what you roll up will likely NOT be something you could have come up with, and provides an opportunity to fit together a new character that you would not have imagined on your own otherwise.
So the person that came up with the tables is presumed to be smarter and/or more imaginative than any player could be?
It seems like you don't understand the mathematics between combining multiple random generators.
But actually, a child could make a table of 12 choices, and there's a good chance that you might not have considered any one of them for a character detail. Most people will only have a reference based on their own creativity (which is different degrees of limited) and pop culture references they may have watched.
It's not so much that the person is smarter than you, its that they're not you.
Your theory is correct, but your example is slightly flawed. Based on available evidence, any random child is almost certainly smarter than HappyDaze...
Quote from: Steven Mitchell on February 18, 2025, 01:53:20 PMFrom a practical perspective of supporting as many people as possible, if you only do one, then random is the better choice. Because it's easier to house rule random into picking than it is the opposite.
I didn't think of this, but I agree with this as well. And I'll go further- it's good to have such restrictions baked into any number of things ("dwarves can't be wizards", "paladins must be lawful good"), because tables who want fewer restrictions will waive them no matter how much Gygax tells you to not allow demihuman level limits to be removed or whatever. By contrast, it's much more hassle as a DM to add a meaningful restriction like this, and leaving them out of the hard rules implies that no table should have any restriction, versus the much better "here's the default restrictions, but try your hand at whatever you like for your own worldbuilding".
Quote from: SHARK on February 18, 2025, 01:59:50 PMtrolls that routinely enjoy being snarky, acidic, and rude towards Pundit
Yea I should be more aware of that.
Quote from: RPGPundit on February 08, 2025, 01:46:33 AMSome very interesting comments in here.
i second that.
@here: very good thread guys, thank you <3