TheRPGSite

Some of the this may be obvious to some but anyway...

Quote@Dropbear_AU hey Mike is it possible to take multiple sub-classes in 5e. Eg Fighter(Eldritch Knight)/Fighter(Battle Master) ?
@mikemearls   - they're not designed to stack up like that
@Dropbear_AU hmm okay. just got a player that enjoyed play Int based Swordmage/Tactical Warlord in 4E. So trying to work out how to do that
@Li_Shenron  It was mentioned that there will be guidelines to "mix" subclasses. If not in the DMG, it'll be easy to DIY!
@mikemearls yes, you can do some kitbashing of them to make new subclasses
@mikemearls  go fighter/battle master and wizard/abjurer

Quote@jsaye  21 uur Is is a bad idea or a good idea to try and write modules for D&D's fifth edition? @mikemearls? It's something I've always wanted to try.
@mikemearls ·  go for it!
 
 
@pukunui81 @mikemearls recently said there would be a 3e -> 5e conversion guide. Will there be some for 1e, 2e, and 4e as well?
@mikemearls · yes
 
 
@christulach @mikemearls and @wotc_rodney excited to talk about feedback, a living ruleset & updating the game. #dnd #origins2014 pic.twitter.com/NNgvftaEJZ
@GX_Sigma  So what does a "living ruleset"
@mikemearls · basically, before we change anything we will make sure it is a problem for most groups
 
 
@mikemearls · we'll also share and public playtest changes *before* adding them to the game
 
 
@mikemearls ·  finally, if we have an idea for an improvement we will share and test before presenting it as an option
 

QuoteMike Mearls Sitting on the #dnd organized play panel with @christulach
 
 
 
Mike Mearls First goal of organized play - persistent story experience, like a big, evolving campaign for thousands of players
 
Mike Mearls Second goal - tie home, con, and story play together. Encounters ties into everything else and vice versa.
Mike Mearls Third goal - cater to people who play a little, people who play a lot, low and high level play
Mike Mearls Cons and stores can order adventures starting the month following the debut
Mike Mearls Expeditions are free, digital releases available to cons and stores.
 
 
 
@Alphastream  Can a public place like a coffee shop, bookstore, library, or even online convention order Expeditions?
@wotc_rodney  Yes. If you are a public venue, you can order the Expeditions adventures just like a store organizer or convention.
 
 
 
@grifta67   this was the big unknown and worry. So to confirm, Expeditions adventures are free (to stores), just like 4e LFR?
@mikemearls · correct
 

Quote@Leonfeder Is a "story bible" an "adventure path"? If so why rename? If no, what is different? #dnd
@mikemearls The story bible is an overview of villains, events, and everything. You'd use it as the basis to then create an adventure path.
@Hutchimus any chance we'll ever get a look at these story bibles, at some point?
@mikemearls Probably not - you'll see the stuff they cover various games. The actual bible is more of a working/technical document.
 
@JJenks3 The starter set comes with 5 pregen PCs. What do we do for 6+ players?
@mikemearls 3 Basic D&D will be available for creating more characters.
‏
@seanbonney Any bonus to prof. with Climbing Tools if I already have Athletics skill? I don't double my prof. bonus, right?
@mikemearls Don't double, correct. The final PHB presents tools that don't overlap with skills.
 
@monstermanual Will MM have PC races (goblin, orc, etc)? Will DMG have changelings, shifters? (I want to run an Eberron game if you can't tell)
@mikemearls DMG will have info for creating monstrous NPCs but stuff isn't aimed at players. A few races from other settings, but not all
‏
@Sword_of_Spirit Does today's L&L mean that the 5e rules will be somehow adapted to the Tyranny of Dragons storyline?
@mikemearls Not specifically - ToD deals in stuff that's pretty core to the game.
‏
@Kynewulf74 The dragon miniature in today's L&L article... Is that one of the new WizKids minis?
@mikemearls Yes
 
@vincetogo My theory for D&D 4's failure and the rise of Pathfinder: D&D 4 broke file compatibility; Pathfinder maintained it.
@mikemearls that's a good way to look at it.

Quote@YetiMoose Anything you can tell us about henchmen, cohorts, followers, hirelings, etc.. in 5e? Tied to your charisma score in any way?
@mikemearls DMG has rules - followers have a loyalty rating influenced by Charisma, determines bond to you, changes depending on treatment
 
@Sword_of_Spirit So core books are still setting agnostic/inclusive, but ToD works with them seamlessly for example?
@mikemearls That's a fair summary. Big adventures like ToD will be usable with just Basic D&D and the campaign appendix to BD&D
 
@Dropbear_AU when will we see the 5e character sheet from starter/basic set or is it the same character sheet as the playtest ?
@mikemearls it's a new one - system changed too much from the playtest. I think you'll see it soon...

QuoteSomething interestng:
 
 Mike Mearls @mikemearls  ·  26m
OK folks, we're nearing the end of the line for the DMG manuscript. If there's an option or rule variant you want to see, let me know. #dnd

Take it with a grain of salt or whatever but that's what the man says currently.

Regarding character sheets:

Quotemikemearls it's a new one - system changed too much from the playtest. I think you'll see it soon...

Hmmmm.

This made me chuckle a bit, at least the 1e and 2e bits

Quote@pukunui81 @mikemearls recently said there would be a 3e -> 5e conversion guide. Will there be some for 1e, 2e, and 4e as well?
@mikemearls · yes

Anyone familar with 1e/2e/5e knows it's super easy to convert.  All you have to do going from 1e/2e to 5e is replace monster stat blocks, convert to ascending AC, and ditch saving throws for the DC ability check system.  It's so easy, that I was doing it on the fly.  It's actually less stuff to look up in 5e since 5e uses the same mechanic for attacks, skill checks, and saving throws.

I would think 4e is going to be the problem to convert honestly. I am glad it was clarified a bit on the no you can't stack subclasseses deal. Also the character sheet thing is interesting....don't know for good or bad though.

Quote from: Marleycat;758871I would think 4e is going to be the problem to convert honestly.

Me too.  Granted, my play time playing 4e is pretty darn short, but it seems so radically and fundmentally different than the other editions, I have a hard time seeing how you could do it.  I mean, even 3e is very similar, just with the dial turned to 11.  But 4e?  No clue.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;758872Me too.  Granted, my play time playing 4e is pretty darn short, but it seems so radically and fundmentally different than the other editions, I have a hard time seeing how you could do it.  I mean, even 3e is very similar, just with the dial turned to 11.  But 4e?  No clue.

Some 4e people say it can be done. I suppose you would need certain modules to do it but I don't see it actually. Then again I am like you about 4e I just don't have enough experience with it to say either way. Where on the otherhand I easily see how for 1/2/3e.

All looks fine.

VS

I can't find where they said something along the lines that short/long rests aren't necessarily defined units, or that you can ignore one or the other. If that's true you could combine that with a grittier healing module and that by itself may go a long way to achieving any playstyle from 1e to 4e.

For example remove short rests entirely and make long rests 8 hours. Pretty close to classic 1/2e if you reconfigure the healing a bit. Or make short rests something like 5 minutes and long rests an hour and you're almost dead on to 4e I think (maybe).

Quote from: Marleycat;758904I can't find where they said something along the lines that short/long rests aren't necessarily defined units, or that you can ignore one or the other. If that's true you could combine that with a grittier healing module and that by itself may go a long way to achieving any playstyle from 1e to 4e.

For example remove short rests entirely and make long rests 8 hours. Pretty close to classic 1/2e if you reconfigure the healing a bit. Or make short rests something like 5 minutes and long rests an hour and you're almost dead on to 4e I think (maybe).

Early on I implemented a house rule that you didn't heal any HP after a long rest, but you did get your HD back.  Sort of a middle ground that worked well.

Quote from: Endless Flight;758864Regarding character sheets:



Hmmmm.

Yeah, that got my attention too.  On one hand, you've got estar giving his feedback at Origins and his description fits what I know of the playtest to a "T", and you've got Mearls himself saying "go for it" when making modules, but then says it's significantly different?

Hmmmmm indeed.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;758869This made me chuckle a bit, at least the 1e and 2e bits



Anyone familar with 1e/2e/5e knows it's super easy to convert.  All you have to do going from 1e/2e to 5e is replace monster stat blocks, convert to ascending AC, and ditch saving throws for the DC ability check system.  It's so easy, that I was doing it on the fly.  It's actually less stuff to look up in 5e since 5e uses the same mechanic for attacks, skill checks, and saving throws.

See, I don't get why that's touted as an "easy" thing.  "Oh, yeah, just throw out the mechanics (which is exactly what this is saying: "replace monster stat blocks, convert to ascending AC, and ditch saving throws for the DC ability check system"), replace them all with your own mechanics, bam, converted."  That's like saying it's easy to convert Hero System to AD&D 1e.  I mean, yeah, technically it is.  If you want to say "throw out the mechanics, replace them with new mechanics" is "easy" then I can convert between Timeline Games' Close and Destroy and Candyland, or from Monopoly to Battletech, etc.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that approach, but there's a level of conversion that becomes "completely replace everything".  Ship of Theseus and all of that.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;758931See, I don't get why that's touted as an "easy" thing.  "Oh, yeah, just throw out the mechanics (which is exactly what this is saying: "replace monster stat blocks, convert to ascending AC, and ditch saving throws for the DC ability check system"), replace them all with your own mechanics, bam, converted."  That's like saying it's easy to convert Hero System to AD&D 1e.  I mean, yeah, technically it is.  If you want to say "throw out the mechanics, replace them with new mechanics" is "easy" then I can convert between Timeline Games' Close and Destroy and Candyland, or from Monopoly to Battletech, etc.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that approach, but there's a level of conversion that becomes "completely replace everything".  Ship of Theseus and all of that.

I think if you were to do the conversion, you'd see how easy it actually is.  Ie.,  you're typically looking at a monster stat block in 1e anyway right?  You need to quickly see it's AC, HP, attacks, etc.  So look at the 5e stat block instead.  That step is no extra work at all.

Ascending AC is nearly as easy.  It's just basic math.  And saving throws is even easier.  Whenever making a saving throw, instead of looking at a saving throw table, just roll a d20 and use your appropriate ability modifier.  It's actually easier to run in 5e than 1e because of the unified mechanic.  There aren't any unique mechanics like an attack matrix or saving throw table to reference.

Jeff (the guy who played the cleric) had never even seen 5e before and he was in the game after about 3-5 minutes, knowing exactly what to do.

"you got a 5th level cleric in chain +1, shield, and a mace +1?  Ok, here's all you have to do Jeff.  Change your AC from 4 to 17 on your character sheet.  Ignore the attack matrix and saving throw table, you won't need those any more.  When attacking, roll the d20 like normal, but add a +1 for your mace, a +1 for your ability, and a +2 for your level.  So +4 total to your attack roll.  There you go.  You're done."

"What about spells per level and effects?"

"If you want, just use the 1e spell tables and descriptions.  I'm cool with that."

"Ok."

And that's what he did.

I admit that at first I was firmly apathetic but I'm becoming more and more curious and interested. The fact that you can easily convert from 1e to this makes me hopeful about still being able to use lots of OSR material that I've accumulated.

Quote from: Necrozius;758944I admit that at first I was firmly apathetic but I'm becoming more and more curious and interested. The fact that you can easily convert from 1e to this makes me hopeful about still being able to use lots of OSR material that I've accumulated.

Of course I'm just one guy, but I haven't run any 5e adventures in 5e.  All of the adventures I've DM'd include:

A0-5
S2
G1-3
B2
I2
C2

I imagine if I could do it easily enough, any competent DM can.

Quote from: Necrozius;758944I admit that at first I was firmly apathetic but I'm becoming more and more curious and interested. The fact that you can easily convert from 1e to this makes me hopeful about still being able to use lots of OSR material that I've accumulated.

If that's possible then WotC will have succeeded. And from what Estar and Sacro are saying it should be possible without heavy lifting.

Conversion of individual bits is easy. It's the interaction of converted bits that gets challenging.

I run OD&D and in theory, using anything from 2e should be a breeze. It's actually a bit of a hiccup in actual play. Conversion is actually a lot more than transposing numbers because different editions, even 1e vs. 2e are built on different expectations, goals and concepts.

However, if you fully understand the math of a system or an edition, you can do a good job of converting material.

Fortunately, if you are looking to convert 1e/2e/OSR adventures to 5e, you will have an easy time if you (a) just use the maps and concepts of the adventures and (b) replace any 1e/2e/OSR mechanics with 5e mechanics.

AKA, the same way you would convert a RuneQuest adventure to 5e.

@mikemearls recently said there would be a 3e -> 5e conversion guide. Will there be some for 1e, 2e, and 4e as well?
@mikemearls · yes

Pundit, drop a line to Mike and tell him about the Patent Troll.

Well good to see a few clarifications at last.

This bit though was a bit of a quirk. Story BIBLE? Minor quirk. But why give the fruitcakes ammo to shoot at you with? Didn't learn anything did ya Mikey?

Quote@Leonfeder Is a "story bible" an "adventure path"? If so why rename? If no, what is different? #dnd
@mikemearls The story bible is an overview of villains, events, and everything. You'd use it as the basis to then create an adventure path.
@Hutchimus any chance we'll ever get a look at these story bibles, at some point?
@mikemearls Probably not - you'll see the stuff they cover various games. The actual bible is more of a working/technical document.

Quote from: CRKrueger;758969@mikemearls recently said there would be a 3e -> 5e conversion guide. Will there be some for 1e, 2e, and 4e as well?
@mikemearls · yes

Pundit, drop a line to Mike and tell him about the Patent Troll.

Yeah. I read that and thought the same thing.

Quote from: Omega;758976Well good to see a few clarifications at last.

This bit though was a bit of a quirk. Story BIBLE? Minor quirk. But why give the fruitcakes ammo to shoot at you with? Didn't learn anything did ya Mikey?

That's just a developer term it came from MMPO type games.

Quote from: Spinachcat;758952However, if you fully understand the math of a system or an edition, you can do a good job of converting material.

Fortunately, if you are looking to convert 1e/2e/OSR adventures to 5e, you will have an easy time if you (a) just use the maps and concepts of the adventures and (b) replace any 1e/2e/OSR mechanics with 5e mechanics.

AKA, the same way you would convert a RuneQuest adventure to 5e.

Isn't that true of any game to any game?

I'm sure you could run a Shadowrun adventure in The Fantasy Trip.  Or Rifts using GURPS. Or even Keep on the Borderlands in Ars Magica.

Heck, you could play Risk using a Monopoly board.

But completely replacing the mechanics and such with ones from a new one doesn't mean it's compatible.

5E has vastly different attack progressions and hit points for monsters than any previous edition of D&D. Thanks to "bounded accuracy", encounters that would be a cakewalk for a mid-level party (like a bunch of kobolds) are now at least vaguely threatening. So adventure design has to be different.

Beyond that, 5e has to demonstrate a reason for wanting to convert. Why is it better than past editions? That doesn't seem clear at all, other than it being shiny & new...

Quote from: JeremyR;758988Beyond that, 5e has to demonstrate a reason for wanting to convert. Why is it better than past editions? That doesn't seem clear at all, other than it being shiny & new...

I can only speak for myself, but as a guy who stuck with 1e all this time, my reasons are:

* smoother and unified mechanic.  No more looking up tables for a different mechanic for everything (attack matrix, saving throw table, % skill table, etc).  I like the d20+modifier vs. DC rule for most everything without getting into the numbers bloat that was 3e

* plenty of character mechanical customization without the highly detailed skill/feat lists and trees of 3e

* 1st edition since 2e where I felt it lended to my playstyle (rulings not rules, no minis required, no battlemaps , quick combat, etc)

Quote from: Sacrosanct;758996I can only speak for myself, but as a guy who stuck with 1e all this time, my reasons are:

* smoother and unified mechanic.  No more looking up tables for a different mechanic for everything (attack matrix, saving throw table, % skill table, etc).  I like the d20+modifier vs. DC rule for most everything without getting into the numbers bloat that was 3e

* plenty of character mechanical customization without the highly detailed skill/feat lists and trees of 3e

* 1st edition since 2e where I felt it lended to my playstyle (rulings not rules, no minis required, no battlemaps , quick combat, etc)

This. My Dnd background is 2/3e but I prefer a 2/3e mix. For example FantasyCraft does 3e like nobody's business (no grid needed, quick combat, no LFQW) but it's still too heavy for my preferences.

Just give me  2e without the stupid racial caps but with feats/stat bumps and I'm good. I'm still not sure about 5e's multiclassing system but the more I read between the lines the more it sounds like something in between 2e and 3e in practice (not playtest).

And a 2/3e mix of multiclassing is EXACTLY what I want. Go for whatever combination you want but there will be tradeoffs, big ones.

Quote from: JeremyR;758988Beyond that, 5e has to demonstrate a reason for wanting to convert. Why is it better than past editions? That doesn't seem clear at all, other than it being shiny & new...

How 5e stacks vs. anyone's favorite edition is going to be more of a personal tastes than one based on game mechanic. Whether it will be worth your time or my time to convert stuff is unknown.

But for many online forum posters "shiny & new" is all they need to justify discussing conversions.

Quote from: Omega;758976This bit though was a bit of a quirk. Story BIBLE? Minor quirk. But why give the fruitcakes ammo to shoot at you with? Didn't learn anything did ya Mikey?

Story Bible is a Hollywood term. Every series has one. It basically breaks down the characters, motivations, backgrounds and the big Dos and Do Nots for the show. It is given to all the staff writers and agents who have freelancer writers who may work for the show.

I've had several story bibles over the years. For example, the Star Trek Next Generation bible had as Do Not stuff like not have the Enterprise break down and IIRC something about no xenophobia and no technophobia by the leads.

Type Star Trek Story Bible into eBay and you'll see a few for sale.

Quote from: JeremyR;7589885E has vastly different attack progressions and hit points for monsters than any previous edition of D&D. Thanks to "bounded accuracy", encounters that would be a cakewalk for a mid-level party (like a bunch of kobolds) are now at least vaguely threatening. So adventure design has to be different.

Beyond that, 5e has to demonstrate a reason for wanting to convert. Why is it better than past editions? That doesn't seem clear at all, other than it being shiny & new...

On top of what Sacrosanct and Marley said, the first bolded part answers the second bolded part for me.

The idea that low level threats in numbers can be genuine threats is a huge plus to me.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;759004On top of what Sacrosanct and Marley said, the first bolded part answers the second bolded part for me.

The idea that low level threats in numbers can be genuine threats is a huge plus to me.

that is something I found as a pleasant surprise, because I feel I'm really getting a bang for my buck re: monsters, so to speak.  Orcs are no longer fodder for mid to high level characters.  Monsters have a lot more feasible utility for a longer period.

for me, the positives outweigh the negatives.  I've houseruled every RPG I've played, so I don't mind that.  And honestly, there aren't a whole lot of houserules I do with 5e.  I tone down healing, ignore a lot of tactical stuff, and just threw out the death stabilization mechanic.  Too clunky IMO.  Go below 0 HP? You get one shot to stabilize, and if you're attacked while KO'D, end of story for you.

Quote from: Emperor Norton;759004On top of what Sacrosanct and Marley said, the first bolded part answers the second bolded part for me.

The idea that low level threats in numbers can be genuine threats is a huge plus to me.

Groups of low level monsters being dangerous is a feature not a bug to me. Think about the tactics and strategy you can introduce without going all 4e?

Also like Sacrosanct the healing and death mechanic are automatically houseruled without saying.

Quote from: JeremyR;758988Beyond that, 5e has to demonstrate a reason for wanting to convert. Why is it better than past editions? That doesn't seem clear at all, other than it being shiny & new...

There are people who enjoyed the unified attribute bonuses and mechanics of 3E but dislike complex char top. Who like skills and feats, but dislike bloat and dependencies. Who want the option for combat to involve more than 'I swing', but still want to play theatre of the mind without minis and a grid. In short, people who find B/X too basic, AD&D too baroque and wonky, 3E too hard to run, and 4E too focused on miniatures. 5E is the first rules-medium of D&D that can run old-school type play using streamlined modern mechanics.

Quote from: Haffrung;759104There are people who enjoyed the unified attribute bonuses and mechanics of 3E but dislike complex char top. Who like skills and feats, but dislike bloat and dependencies. Who want the option for combat to involve more than 'I swing', but still want to play theatre of the mind without minis and a grid. In short, people who find B/X too basic, AD&D too baroque and wonky, 3E too hard to run, and 4E too focused on miniatures. 5E is the first rules-medium of D&D that can run old-school type play using streamlined modern mechanics.

This is me, too.  Hopefully, anyway.

It'd be a kick if the system runs non-fantasy well, too.

Imagine a single rules-medium ruleset known (at least peripherally) by every gamer in the world.  Wouldn't that be a utopia...  :)

Quote from: mcbobbo;759126This is me, too.  Hopefully, anyway.

It'd be a kick if the system runs non-fantasy well, too.

Imagine a single rules-medium ruleset known (at least peripherally) by every gamer in the world.  Wouldn't that be a utopia...  :)

People have been asking are they going to do a suppliment or two on that very thing down the line. Like Modern or Sci-fi or even Horror.

Quote from: Omega;758976Well good to see a few clarifications at last.

This bit though was a bit of a quirk. Story BIBLE? Minor quirk. But why give the fruitcakes ammo to shoot at you with? Didn't learn anything did ya Mikey?

Dude, that's been standard TV/comic/gaming parlance for a couple of decades now. It's pretty thoroughly uncontroversial.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_(writing)

Quote from: Spinachcat;759003Story Bible is a Hollywood term. Every series has one. It basically breaks down the characters, motivations, backgrounds and the big Dos and Do Nots for the show. It is given to all the staff writers and agents who have freelancer writers who may work for the show.

I've had several story bibles over the years. For example, the Star Trek Next Generation bible had as Do Not stuff like not have the Enterprise break down and IIRC something about no xenophobia and no technophobia by the leads.

Type Star Trek Story Bible into eBay and you'll see a few for sale.

I am aware.
It was just openly calling it that with a D&D product that raises ye eyebrow.

Quote from: Omega;759284I am aware.
It was just openly calling it that with a D&D product that raises ye eyebrow.

But that's the term for what it is. Calling it something else just because it's for D&D would be stupid.

If anything Mearls should be begging for the fruitcakes to make a fuss. You can't buy that sort of publicity.

But they probably won't, because most of the hardline fundamentalist traditionalists (I won't grace them with the term "Christian" because I'm fairly sure Jesus wouldn't recognise them as having anything to do with his teaching) are focusing their attention on trying to turn back the clock on gay rights these days. Even those who like to wig out about media have plenty of videogames, movies and musical acts to point at before they even get to tabletop games, and understanding of how D&D actually works is too widespread these days for the same sort of panic to propagate as it did back in the 1980s, when for all most people knew your average D&D session wasn't complete without a black mass and a goetic summoning.

And even if they did protest, they wouldn't research the subject deeply enough to see "story bible" anyway.

Quote from: Warthur;759296If anything Mearls should be begging for the fruitcakes to make a fuss. You can't buy that sort of publicity.

I think the fruitcake references were more about people who flip out at the first sign of anyone mentioning the S-word in relation to roleplaying.

Quote from: Ladybird;759294But that's the term for what it is. Calling it something else just because it's for D&D would be stupid.

No. Thats being aware of your potential problem spots and heading it off.

As said though. Just a minor quirk moment. Mearls loves his little buzzwords so it wasnt a surprise really.

Will be interesting though to see how they implement it though in practice. Could be usefull for gaining better cohesion. They should really apply that idea when they are doing the book tie-ins sometimes.

Quote from: Ladybird;759302I think the fruitcake references were more about people who flip out at the first sign of anyone mentioning the S-word in relation to roleplaying.

Do you mean Satan?!?

VS

Quote from: Warthur;759296If anything Mearls should be begging for the fruitcakes to make a fuss. You can't buy that sort of publicity.

Yeah, D&D isn't even on the radar of parent-aged hand-wringers these days. It has about 2 per cent the profile of videogames that feature far more violent and 'occult' material.

Quote from: Warthur;759296... back in the 1980s, when for all most people knew your average D&D session wasn't complete without a black mass and a goetic summoning.

Which would be worse though, the idea of their being Satanists or closeted Nazi's? Because there were a whole lot more of one than the other, even Marc Miller, designer of Traveller, talked about it around 1980 or so in an interview in a gaming magazine. I've seen it here on this site where, American soldiers are cast as cowardly losers, and their victory over the Germans was some sort of fluke.

Quote from: dragoner;759384Which would be worse though, the idea of their being Satanists or closeted Nazi's? Because there were a whole lot more of one than the other, even Marc Miller, designer of Traveller, talked about it around 1980 or so in an interview in a gaming magazine. I've seen it here on this site where, American soldiers are cast as cowardly losers, and their victory over the Germans was some sort of fluke.

When was this again?

Quote from: dragoner;759384Which would be worse though, the idea of their being Satanists or closeted Nazi's? Because there were a whole lot more of one than the other, even Marc Miller, designer of Traveller, talked about it around 1980 or so in an interview in a gaming magazine. I've seen it here on this site where, American soldiers are cast as cowardly losers, and their victory over the Germans was some sort of fluke.

I wonder if this is a legacy of RPG's wargaming roots. In my experience, a sizable fraction of military history buffs tends towards a weirdly uncritical Germanophilia. Their version of WWII seems to have the Nazis kicking everyone's asses all the time.

One occasionally has to remind them "Umm...you do realize that they lost, right?"

Quote from: Dimitrios;759397I wonder if this is a legacy of RPG's wargaming roots. In my experience, a sizable fraction of military history buffs tends towards a weirdly uncritical Germanophilia. Their version of WWII seems to have the Nazis kicking everyone's asses all the time.

One occasionally has to remind them "Umm...you do realize that they lost, right?"

Yes, I remember it being addressed in Avalon Hill's gaming magazine The General, or maybe in the designer notes of Panzer Blitz where when talking about tactics and before sneering too loudly about the Soviet military's deficiencies that there were plenty of Slavic Sampson's to upend the German military's dependency on artillery.

Quote from: Warthur;759393When was this again?

When was what?

Quote from: dragoner;759401When was what?

This:

Quote from: dragoner;759384I've seen it here on this site where, American soldiers are cast as cowardly losers, and their victory over the Germans was some sort of fluke.

Quote from: Ladybird;759479This:

In a discussion about Shermans.

You know, the Nazi's-as-champions in wargames thing...I've seen that before, too, going way back.  There always seemed to be one guy per weekend at the big FLGS here (Enterprise 1701, a once-grand game store here in central FL) wearing some variation on the "3rd Reich On Tour!" "concert tee" with the dates of the various battles the Wehrmacht won listed like concert tour dates.  I think it's fucking skeevy and should make anyone with a sense of history's skin crawl.

And, yeah, that whole "Well the allies only won, because - " thing, too, that's bullshit.  There was some gomer on rec.aviation.military who constantly played the "Given six to eighteen more months, the Luftwaffe would've been flying jet bombers equipped with RADAR and precision guided missiles over Chicago!" card - it was pretty fucking clear dude was a straight up little hitlerite.  That "If the war had lasted just xyz longer, then the 3rd reich could've...!" "argument" is horseshit and anyone trying to use it to defend German military superiority needs to have their head examined.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;759484You know, the Nazi's-as-champions in wargames thing...I've seen that before, too, going way back.

RPG's dodged a huge bullet; better to be thought of as a Satanist than a Nazi.

Quote from: dragoner;759485RPG's dodged a huge bullet; better to be thought of as a Satanist than a Nazi.

In hindsight? You better believe it.

I don't think there's much doubt that the Germans were superior tactically and operationally to the allies. They had better trained officers, and higher morale among the soldiers. But that's because they were a totalitarian, militarized society. They showed levels of obedience and self-sacrifice that were rare in soldiers from the democracies. And that's only to be expected. Fascism is fucking nasty. It makes for good soldiers, but that's about it.

The Soviets also endured hardships that would be unthinkable to the soldiers of the Western democracies. Again, because they were brutalized cogs in a totalitarian state. They would be shot if they balked at the kind of risks that Allied soldiers routinely balked at.

And of course, there's much more to war than the morale and tactics of the men in the field. The Allies were far better at strategy, intelligence, and logistics than the Germans.

We shouldn't be ashamed that the men who fought for the cause of democracy were typically worse soldiers, but much better people, than the Nazis and Soviets.

Max Hastings, from Armageddon: The Battle For Germany 1944-45 (http://www.maxhastings.com/2011/arma-speech/)

QuoteThe Western allies to the very end displayed the limitations and inhibitions of citizen armies.    These were not professional warriors, but store clerks and truck drivers, schoolteachers and factory workers, masquerading for an unwelcome season in uniform to do a job they knew had to be done for the cause of democracy.  But most, who now knew that the allies were sure of final victory, were pathetically eager to live to see the end and come home to resume the ordinary lives among their loved ones, which had been so pathetically interrupted...

In many ways, one of the most admirable things about them was that amid total war, they preserved most of the inhibitions and decencies of democratic citizens at war.  Their soldiers didn’t like killing people, razing towns, massacring innocents.   By the time I finished writing Armageddon,  I found myself concluding:  if the Americans and British had been as good soldiers as the Waffen SS, as suicidally brave as some men of the Red Army, they would have needed to be people like them, imbued with their ethos of tyranny and savagery.  And if that had been so, the very purposes for which the war was being fought would have been set at naught.   The British and American armies in 1944-45 did as well as could have been expected, given the sort of people they were, and we should be very grateful for the sort of people they were.

Quote from: Haffrung;759492I don't think there's much doubt that the Germans were superior tactically and operationally to the allies.

Enormous amounts of doubt, because the Germans had tactical superiority in some situations, and never operational superiority.

QuoteWe shouldn't be ashamed that the men who fought for the cause of democracy were typically worse soldiers, but much better people, than the Nazis and Soviets.

Except they weren't, my family who fought on the German side were forced to do so, there was no draft dodging when it meant your entire family would be arrested and sent to a camp. One relative of mine who lay dying on the Russian front, after a mine had ripped shrapnel through his legs, his thought he told me was "Thank God it is over". Other guys would lay down in the snow and just die. One friend, his grandfather poisoned himself with pesticide, and died a horrible drawn out death, best guess is due to the guilt he felt.

The Nazis were good at propaganda though, those black uniforms were tailored by Hugo Boss; and that is because the Germans had felt they had lost the propaganda war in WW1.

Edit: Bringing it back full circle, I think it is that propaganda trap that some wargamers fall into; this is not a crusade.

Quote from: dragoner;759496Except they weren't, my family who fought on the German side were forced to do so, there was no draft dodging when it meant your entire family would be arrested and sent to a camp. One relative of mine who lay dying on the Russian front, after a mine had ripped shrapnel through his legs, his thought he told me was "Thank God it is over". Other guys would lay down in the snow and just die. One friend, his grandfather poisoned himself with pesticide, and died a horrible drawn out death, best guess is due to the guilt he felt.

The Nazis were good at propaganda though, those black uniforms were tailored by Hugo Boss; and that is because the Germans had felt they had lost the propaganda war in WW1.

Edit: Bringing it back full circle, I think it is that propaganda trap that some wargamers fall into; this is not a crusade.

At the same time, can we stop pretending that Germans were victims of World War II, on par with all the nations that they conquered, and all of said Germans were either on vacations or drafted by a few "Mad, Devoid of Nationality Nazis?" Yes, Wehrmacht wasn't all bloodthirsty monsters, there were good people there stuck in a horrible situation, just like the other side of the trenches. But for the past 10 years, I see more and more spin how Germans were just on the sidelines, really, up to the point of shifting blame on Holocaust on the nations the Ger- excuse me, "Nazis" were raping and pillaging - because recruiting overseers from prisoners means that all our hands are just as bloodied, right guys? Right?

We may talk how Hitler only had "at best 42/48% support", but actually - if you think about it, this means that almost one in two Germans supported a bloodthirsty dictator, and the rest just stayed at the sidelines. Look at any modern president support, and suddenly you realise getting a support of 42% of your nation is a tremendous success, not an idle thing.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;759484You know, the Nazi's-as-champions in wargames thing...I've seen that before, too, going way back.  There always seemed to be one guy per weekend at the big FLGS here (Enterprise 1701, a once-grand game store here in central FL) wearing some variation on the "3rd Reich On Tour!" "concert tee" with the dates of the various battles the Wehrmacht won listed like concert tour dates.  I think it's fucking skeevy and should make anyone with a sense of history's skin crawl.

And, yeah, that whole "Well the allies only won, because - " thing, too, that's bullshit.  There was some gomer on rec.aviation.military who constantly played the "Given six to eighteen more months, the Luftwaffe would've been flying jet bombers equipped with RADAR and precision guided missiles over Chicago!" card - it was pretty fucking clear dude was a straight up little hitlerite.  That "If the war had lasted just xyz longer, then the 3rd reich could've...!" "argument" is horseshit and anyone trying to use it to defend German military superiority needs to have their head examined.

As much as nowadays you'll find Soviet apologetics everywhere talking how WW2 was actually won by Stalin and Private Ryan is a joke, one of the most important factors is the sheer industrial capacity of United States, that at the time, outshined Germany, Soviet Russia, and probably mainland Britain (the entire Empire - not so sure). Of course, from a strictly historical perspective, we may need to give some "props" for Axis to manage to actually hold on to that war for so many years, seeing how it wasn't an even fight from the start.

And despite some saying that Russians won the WW2, so did the US actually (the great loser being the Eastern allies and Britain, the last one paying India with independence for their fight), since it achieved the strategic goal it wanted since WW1 - domination on the Pacific.

Quote from: Dimitrios;759397I wonder if this is a legacy of RPG's wargaming roots. In my experience, a sizable fraction of military history buffs tends towards a weirdly uncritical Germanophilia. Their version of WWII seems to have the Nazis kicking everyone's asses all the time.

One occasionally has to remind them "Umm...you do realize that they lost, right?"

I think it has to do with this weird underdog vibe Nazi Germany has.

Quote from: Rincewind1;759504But for the past 10 years, I see more and more spin how Germans were just on the sidelines, really, up to the point of shifting blame on Holocaust on the nations the Ger- excuse me, "Nazis" were raping and pillaging.

True, I am in agreement, I have seen that as well. At the same time, Hitler had plenty of support across the continent, both before and during the war, which shouldn't be ignored.

IMO, the good German idea is born postwar by the British and Americans to create a basis for a new German army (built by von Manstein ne Lewinski).

Now that we are completely off piste. lol

Quote from: dragoner;759507True, I am in agreement, I have seen that as well. At the same time, Hitler had plenty of support across the continent, both before and during the war, which shouldn't be ignored.

IMO, the good German idea is born postwar by the British and Americans to create a basis for a new German army (built by von Manstein ne Lewinski).

Now that we are completely off piste. lol

No argument there - even in modern Poland, you'll find those who say we should've allied with Germany against Soviet Union, or try to buy neutrality with Gdańsk/Danzig Corridor.

Quote from: Rincewind1;759510No argument there - even in modern Poland, you'll find those who say we should've allied with Germany against Soviet Union, or try to buy neutrality with Gdańsk/Danzig Corridor.

I have a friend who grew up in Poland, and he said that people had told him before that things were better under the Nazis rather than the communists. Parsing hyperbole can be a real trick, it is all over the place, an Aktion T4 monument was smashed outside the government offices in Salzburg, my cousin sent me the link to the news story. Orban, Jobbik and the Magyar Guard, etc.; it is all over the place. Yes the beast may have been killed ...

Quote from: Haffrung;759492I don't think there's much doubt that the Germans were superior tactically and operationally to the allies.

If you read Speer, who is hardly without bias but had some pretty firsthand insight, it hits you just how inept the Germans really were in terms of their war effort seen from the whole perspective.

Quote from: RPGPundit;759883If you read Speer, who is hardly without bias but had some pretty firsthand insight, it hits you just how inept the Germans really were in terms of their war effort seen from the whole perspective.

Yea. The Wehrmacht demonstrating their tactical brilliance while the strategic disaster unfolds around them is sort of a leitmotif of WWII.

Quote from: Dimitrios;759887Yea. The Wehrmacht demonstrating their tactical brilliance while the strategic disaster unfolds around them is sort of a leitmotif of WWII.

Reading Manstein and Guderian, even they were surprised that the tactics in France worked. But the German master plan, on a plane, had crashed behind the British and French lines; nor who could suppose Gamelin and Gort would be so inept? It could be argued that the German brilliance was just competence, vs allied incompetence; Guderian states that they had all had to have read the same stuff from Fuller.

Quote from: RPGPundit;759883If you read Speer, who is hardly without bias but had some pretty firsthand insight, it hits you just how inept the Germans really were in terms of their war effort seen from the whole perspective.

Read Ryan, or even Ambrose.  Hell, I think Shrier's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich should be required reading for all high school students.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;759900Read Ryan, or even Ambrose.  Hell, I think Shrier's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich should be required reading for all high school students.

Shirer's book is amazing--probably one of the best books I've ever read on any subject. Speer is instructive to see just how much waste there really was, in contrast to the super-efficiency myth that we always hear about.

Quote from: Zachary The First;759905Shirer's book is amazing--probably one of the best books I've ever read on any subject. Speer is instructive to see just how much waste there really was, in contrast to the super-efficiency myth that we always hear about.

Oh the breadth and depth of Rise and Fall of the Third Reich can't be overstated.  Everyone should read it.  I'm going to try and get Berlin Diary read in the next couple of years.

But, I mean, if one just skims RaFotTR, at least one should read the section covering Hitler's "election" (note: it will knock away people's notions of "Hitler was democratically elected!" - no such thing happened), and the anschluss.

I'm a HS English teacher. The only thing my students know about WWII is the Holocaust, and they don't know much about that. I'm not entirely sure what the history teachers are teaching, but even basic stuff about WWII seems to elude the typical HS senior (to include the fact that there were two vastly different theaters). In all fairness, though, I graduated with some stupid ass douche bags, too, so this generation most likely doesn't have a monopoly on cluelessness.

Quote from: cranebump;759931I'm a HS English teacher. The only thing my students know about WWII is the Holocaust, and they don't know much about that. I'm not entirely sure what the history teachers are teaching, but even basic stuff about WWII seems to elude the typical HS senior (to include the fact that there were two vastly different theaters). In all fairness, though, I graduated with some stupid ass douche bags, too, so this generation most likely doesn't have a monopoly on cluelessness.

I would make a bet that its more that they aren't paying attention than they aren't being taught it. 10:1 odds they don't remember the stuff you teach the moment they leave your class, either.

I say this because people I went to school with will bitch about how terrible the school we went to was and are all "We didn't learn this in school!" and every time I'm just like... yes we did...

People just don't care.

Quote from: cranebump;759931I'm a HS English teacher. The only thing my students know about WWII is the Holocaust, and they don't know much about that. I'm not entirely sure what the history teachers are teaching, but even basic stuff about WWII seems to elude the typical HS senior (to include the fact that there were two vastly different theaters). In all fairness, though, I graduated with some stupid ass douche bags, too, so this generation most likely doesn't have a monopoly on cluelessness.

I'd chalk it up to a generational thing. When I was a teenager, there was a show about WW2 on The History Channel at least three times a day. Now it's all reality shows and aliens. ;)

Back on topic.

This bit is interesting.

Quote@YetiMoose Anything you can tell us about henchmen, cohorts, followers, hirelings, etc.. in 5e? Tied to your charisma score in any way?
@mikemearls DMG has rules - followers have a loyalty rating influenced by Charisma, determines bond to you, changes depending on treatment

The rules in the playtest were fairly interesting and usefull for creating NPC dynamics on the fly. Hopefully stuff like this will be retained into the final version.

Quote from: Omega;760062Back on topic.

This bit is interesting.



The rules in the playtest were fairly interesting and usefull for creating NPC dynamics on the fly. Hopefully stuff like this will be retained into the final version.

If that's how it works I can see the reason they changed the Noble background because previously it would have given them henchmen automatically which doesn't work for me at all.

Quote from: Marleycat;760082If that's how it works I can see the reason they changed the Noble background because previously it would have given them henchmen automatically which doesn't work for me at all.

3 non-com retainers that would leave if endangered too much. So no battle butler for you. Sorry.

Quote from: Omega;7600843 non-com retainers that would leave if endangered too much. So no battle butler for you. Sorry.

I just think Henchmen and the like shouldn't be free out of the gate is all. I know a big reason for me as far as 5e goes is that I see 1st level adventurers as 16-17 years old. They haven't made any life defining choices yet so why would you get 3 followers?

Obviously it's a playstyle difference not much else. And I see no reason that a person couldn't make backgrounds suitable for their setting anyway.

Quote from: Marleycat;760094I just think Henchmen and the like shouldn't be free out of the gate is all. I know a big reason for me as far as 5e goes is that I see 1st level adventurers as 16-17 years old. They haven't made any life defining choices yet so why would you get 3 followers?

Because you are a noble.  This is not rocket science.

Quote from: Marleycat;760082If that's how it works I can see the reason they changed the Noble background because previously it would have given them henchmen automatically which doesn't work for me at all.

  My guess would be that it was determined to be overly cumbersome, especially for newer players--having to manage 3 semi-PCs in addition to your PC? Better to stick it as an option in the DMG.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;760102My guess would be that it was determined to be overly cumbersome, especially for newer players--having to manage 3 semi-PCs in addition to your PC? Better to stick it as an option in the DMG.

Probably and also just because you're a Noble doesn't mean you get servants or henchmen free. Look at Warhammer for instance. Being able to have an "in" or contacts/reputation with/within the upper class? Sure.

Quote from: Marleycat;760094I just think Henchmen and the like shouldn't be free out of the gate is all. I know a big reason for me as far as 5e goes is that I see 1st level adventurers as 16-17 years old. They haven't made any life defining choices yet so why would you get 3 followers?

Obviously it's a playstyle difference not much else. And I see no reason that a person couldn't make backgrounds suitable for their setting anyway.

Well take note that these guys were retainers. Not Henchmen. It read like they dont even go on adventures with the noble. They tend the camp or the family grounds or somesuch.

I think they dropped them because for the Starter, handing some NPCs to the players would have added more complexity that they didnt want in the Starter.

Also you could lay bets that someone would try to argue that these three are not henchmen and thus do not count against your henchmen limit, and try to weasel in some excuse to make them combat effective.

Quote from: Omega;760156Well take note that these guys were retainers. Not Henchmen. It read like they dont even go on adventures with the noble. They tend the camp or the family grounds or somesuch.

I think they dropped them because for the Starter, handing some NPCs to the players would have added more complexity that they didnt want in the Starter.

Also you could lay bets that someone would try to argue that these three are not henchmen and thus do not count against your henchmen limit, and try to weasel in some excuse to make them combat effective.

It's basically the KISS principal is all. You could put the other version in or whatever floats your boat simple Simon. Look my mindset for Dnd is casual so it works for me.

If I want to get all hardcore I have other games for that.

Quote from: Marleycat;760160It's basically the KISS principal is all. You could put the other version in or whatever floats your boat simple Simon. Look my mindset for Dnd is casual so it works for me.

If I want to get all hardcore I have other games for that.

Tonight! Hardcore Retainers in THE PIT! Jarvis vs Alfred!

Quote from: Omega;760163Tonight! Hardcore Retainers in THE PIT! Jarvis vs Alfred!

I have Wellington and Jeeves coming out of their groups, but I think Rutledge is undefeatable this year.

I pick Harley vs Ivy.:)

Quote from: CRKrueger;760167I have Wellington and Jeeves coming out of their groups, but I think Rutledge is undefeatable this year.

I think Willikins has him beat. Guy is a monster.

(http://aldenschoeneberg.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/lurch1.jpg)

Quote from: dragoner;760200(http://aldenschoeneberg.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/lurch1.jpg)

Crap, they brought in a ringer!

Yar! Roll deep. :D

If it was sci-fi I'd take Robby from Forbidden Planet.

Quote from: dragoner;760216Yar! Roll deep. :D

If it was sci-fi I'd take Robby from Forbidden Planet.

He got his own TV series as Sherlock Holmes!