At least they aren't turning Pathfinder into Farmville Starring DND.
I'm at loss to what you're even talking about. Possibly a reference to bastions?
Sigil's inevitable Microtransactions that were leaked during the OGL debacle, due to Hasbro hiring Zynga(the devs of the old Facebook game Farmville) people known for adding excessive monetization relying on overpaying addicts aka whales to support a dying company, and the push for DND to become all-digital with casual consumers by Hasbro investors, rather than slash executive salaries to fulfill domestic legal obligations and making better products to satisfy non-casuals, to make number go up.
At least they aren't turning Pathfinder into Farmville Starring DND.
I'm at loss to what you're even talking about. Possibly a reference to bastions?
Sigil's inevitable Microtransactions that were leaked during the OGL debacle, due to Hasbro hiring Zynga(the devs of the old Facebook game Farmville) people known for adding excessive monetization relying on overpaying addicts aka whales to support a dying company, and the push for DND to become all-digital with casual consumers by Hasbro investors, rather than slash executive salaries to fulfill domestic legal obligations and making better products to satisfy non-casuals, to make number go up.
So basically, it's a complete nonsense claim -- "hiring the studio that did Farmville twenty years ago to work on a product that isn't even D&D (it's a supporting product, like miniatures)" != "Turning D&D into Farmville". In any case, if Paizo decided to develop their own VTT, you can be sure it would have microtransactions.
At least they aren't turning Pathfinder into Farmville Starring DND.
I'm at loss to what you're even talking about. Possibly a reference to bastions?
Sigil's inevitable Microtransactions that were leaked during the OGL debacle, due to Hasbro hiring Zynga(the devs of the old Facebook game Farmville) people known for adding excessive monetization relying on overpaying addicts aka whales to support a dying company, and the push for DND to become all-digital with casual consumers by Hasbro investors, rather than slash executive salaries to fulfill domestic legal obligations and making better products to satisfy non-casuals, to make number go up.
So basically, it's a complete nonsense claim -- "hiring the studio that did Farmville twenty years ago to work on a product that isn't even D&D (it's a supporting product, like miniatures)" != "Turning D&D into Farmville". In any case, if Paizo decided to develop their own VTT, you can be sure it would have microtransactions.
He ain't wrong. There has been a ton of supporting evidence, hiring, dialogue, etc... to back that up. It's easy to find and anyone that has been following things closely would already know this.
At least they aren't turning Pathfinder into Farmville Starring DND.
I'm at loss to what you're even talking about. Possibly a reference to bastions?
Sigil's inevitable Microtransactions that were leaked during the OGL debacle, due to Hasbro hiring Zynga(the devs of the old Facebook game Farmville) people known for adding excessive monetization relying on overpaying addicts aka whales to support a dying company, and the push for DND to become all-digital with casual consumers by Hasbro investors, rather than slash executive salaries to fulfill domestic legal obligations and making better products to satisfy non-casuals, to make number go up.
They partnered with Zynga in 2012 to make board games and toys lmao, this has nothing to do with anything. Y'all are ridiculous.
There has been a ton of supporting evidence, hiring, dialogue, etc... to back that up
No, there isn't. There's a lot of lucrativeclick-driven wild speculation based on bad-faith interpretations of those things, though
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
He ain't wrong. There has been a ton of supporting evidence, hiring, dialogue, etc... to back that up. It's easy to find and anyone that has been following things closely would already know this.
It's a nonsense comment.
Will Project Sigil have microtransactions? Almost certainly. Will Project Sigil have toxic monetization such as lootboxes? Given that this a company that produces MTG and has partnered with WizKids for boxes containing random miniatures (both are physical equivalents to lootboxes), it would not surprise me.... but it's not a transformation, they've been doing that for thirty years.
Does any of that translate to "Turning D&D into Farmville"? No.
Here's the great thing about D&D (and other games), if you don't want to use any of that stuff, you don't have to. There are lots of people that do want that kind off thing. A company has to market to as broad of a market as they can. They will make things for one aspect of the market that doesn't appeal to another. If they do something that doesn't appeal to you, that doesn't mean they are ruining the game for you. Id if you feel it does, then you didn't really like the game to begin with.
I hate Rick & Morty with a fiery passion. When they released the book did i jump online and cry that the game is ruined forever and WotC has destroyed the enjoyment of the game and sold all my stuff? No, I just didn't buy it. If you don't like a product or service a company puts out, just don't buy it.
I guess I'm really just venting, but I'm so disappointed in the 2024 background mechanics.
I understand that it's logical to tie ability score increases and origin feats and skill proficiencies to backgrounds. It makes a ton of sense. But after being freed from racial/species pigeonholing (with Tasha's), now I'm back to... wizards are scribes, rogues are criminals, clerics are acolytes, etc. Sure, you can go against that grain; I'm sure plenty will. Whether it has a big impact at your table or not, though, your character will not be as good at their role as those who don't go with the flow.
The larger point I want to make here is this: I was really looking forward making my first new character in the 2024 rules. And suddenly I'm back to fretting as I weigh the plusses and minuses of this background over that background. Same as I used to have to do with species. Back then, I'd wonder what it would be like to play a species and would never quite be able to because the mechanics would have held my character back.
It should have been fun to make the new character. New rules! New abilities! Lots of stuff to inspire character creation! Instead, I got mired in the mechanics. Really wish they had just let players choose the origin feats and ability score increases they wanted, and have the backgrounds just provide the skills. I cannot fathom why they chose to transport the species issue to backgrounds. And I say that as someone who is absolutely going to play in the 2024 rules and happily pays WotC money for their products.
And YES, I'm assuming the DMG will have rules for custom backgrounds (optional or otherwise), but that's definitely not the book they belong in. I just wanted to make a character, guys. Now I've got this bitter experience to kick things off after months upon years of anticipation.
> And YES, I'm assuming the DMG will have rules for custom backgrounds (optional or otherwise)
They do, and they're exactly what everyone expected, and it took zero effort to determine what the rules were by reading the 10 examples. People are panicking like this is a video game and Homebrew isn't the primary way of customising your character.
And I again thinks its a huge miss to have moved the AIS from Races, and even further to make them placeable wherever. All it does is make things generic and the same...so there really its any choice to be made. And that kinda defeats the purpose of having them. They could have simplified it all by saying get pick 2 features, 2 AIS, 2 skills, and a feat. Make the "skin" whatever the hell you want. But is that interesting? Is that REALLY what one thinks of when they think of DnD? I don't think so. I just think its a bunch if whiners not wanting there to be any meat to any choices, whether its this or if it dying or what not....pretty sad really...lol
And I again thinks its a huge miss to have moved the AIS from Races, and even further to make them placeable wherever. All it does is make things generic and the same...so there really its any choice to be made. And that kinda defeats the purpose of having them. They could have simplified it all by saying get pick 2 features, 2 AIS, 2 skills, and a feat. Make the "skin" whatever the hell you want. But is that interesting? Is that REALLY what one thinks of when they think of DnD? I don't think so. I just think its a bunch if whiners not wanting there to be any meat to any choices, whether its this or if it dying or what not....pretty sad really...lol
I sort of agree though I would not phrase it that way in that I find the lack of penalties in 5e kind of off putting. But I',m old and from the generation where penalties built your character more than your strengths did. Unfortunately, what they used as backgrounds in the PH clearly favored certain classes. If it was yo the martials get good choices suck it full casters I'd be okay with it, but wizard gets one of the best background setups. Now if each background had some flexibility with stats/feats etc but each also came with some kind of disadvantage I would like what they presented a bit more. As is given how poorly balanced the options are and like I said favoring the wizard which is if not the best class a contender for that title I feel like custom options start feeling needed.
And I again thinks its a huge miss to have moved the AIS from Races, and even further to make them placeable wherever. All it does is make things generic and the same...so there really its any choice to be made. And that kinda defeats the purpose of having them. They could have simplified it all by saying get pick 2 features, 2 AIS, 2 skills, and a feat. Make the "skin" whatever the hell you want. But is that interesting? Is that REALLY what one thinks of when they think of DnD? I don't think so. I just think its a bunch if whiners not wanting there to be any meat to any choices, whether its this or if it dying or what not....pretty sad really...lol
I actually like the move of ASI, because if I'm a spellcaster elf who spends all my time practicing in a tower or lab, grew up as a sage and has no interest in physical pursuits, why is my Dex score increased? How do I get a buff to Int or Charisma for all my hard work.
> But is that interesting?
I find it far less interesting to say "Every Elf gets a Dex bonus because they're homegenous creatures with no variety". I'd actually prefer every character to make a unique backstory, and then get to pick elements of gameplay that support that backstory. The backgrounds are far better at giving interesting variety because they aren't the old essentially "our-world" racist model of "Everyone from there is like this" when we know for a fact every one of that race is different.
More choices is good. You're asking for boring generic homogeneity.
And I again thinks its a huge miss to have moved the AIS from Races, and even further to make them placeable wherever. All it does is make things generic and the same...so there really its any choice to be made. And that kinda defeats the purpose of having them. They could have simplified it all by saying get pick 2 features, 2 AIS, 2 skills, and a feat. Make the "skin" whatever the hell you want. But is that interesting? Is that REALLY what one thinks of when they think of DnD? I don't think so. I just think its a bunch if whiners not wanting there to be any meat to any choices, whether its this or if it dying or what not....pretty sad really...lol
I actually like the move of ASI, because if I'm a spellcaster elf who spends all my time practicing in a tower or lab, grew up as a sage and has no interest in physical pursuits, why is my Dex score increased? How do I get a buff to Int or Charisma for all my hard work.
> But is that interesting?
I find it far less interesting to say "Every Elf gets a Dex bonus because they're homegenous creatures with no variety". I'd actually prefer every character to make a unique backstory, and then get to pick elements of gameplay that support that backstory. The backgrounds are far better at giving interesting variety because they aren't the old essentially "our-world" racist model of "Everyone from there is like this" when we know for a fact every one of that race is different.
More choices is good. You're asking for boring generic homogeneity.
All elves having low light makes the same amount of sense as all elves have a bonus in dex. I don't think either route is inherently more interesting. I think a stronger combination of both would have been more interesting than just splitting parts of races off into backgrounds.
The appropriate metaphor is gumballs vs. kool-aid. if races are treated like kool-aid, then mixing them together won’t increase diversity. Pour fruit punch into lemonade and you’ll get a single color and a single flavor. You’ll lose diversity.
Races should be treated like gumballs. When mixed together, they become a rainbow of color. They do that _only_ if each gumball is kept distinct. Having each race have its own attribute bonuses was one way to keep them distinct.
The appropriate metaphor is gumballs vs. kool-aid. if races are treated like kool-aid, then mixing them together won’t increase diversity. Pour fruit punch into lemonade and you’ll get a single color and a single flavor. You’ll lose diversity.
Races should be treated like gumballs. When mixed together, they become a rainbow of color. They do that _only_ if each gumball is kept distinct. Having each race have its own attribute bonuses was one way to keep them distinct.
Your metaphor requires monocultures and has uncomfortable bioessentialist overtones.
Is a trans woman AMAB required to live life as a cis het man because that's what this type of thought says they MUST do?
Is an intersex person required to pick from the gender binary because of societal expectations in the player's culture?
Is a male Japanese painter required to be a salaryman because that's the default in Japan as pop culture depicts it as?
The appropriate metaphor is gumballs vs. kool-aid. if races are treated like kool-aid, then mixing them together won’t increase diversity. Pour fruit punch into lemonade and you’ll get a single color and a single flavor. You’ll lose diversity.
Races should be treated like gumballs. When mixed together, they become a rainbow of color. They do that _only_ if each gumball is kept distinct. Having each race have its own attribute bonuses was one way to keep them distinct.
The appropriate metaphor is gumballs vs. kool-aid. if races are treated like kool-aid, then mixing them together won’t increase diversity. Pour fruit punch into lemonade and you’ll get a single color and a single flavor. You’ll lose diversity.
Races should be treated like gumballs. When mixed together, they become a rainbow of color. They do that _only_ if each gumball is kept distinct. Having each race have its own attribute bonuses was one way to keep them distinct.
But within that race it's a single color.
Is it?
Different members of that race have different classes, different skills, different backgrounds, etc.
Races should be treated like gumballs. When mixed together, they become a rainbow of color. They do that _only_ if each gumball is kept distinct. Having each race have its own attribute bonuses was one way to keep them distinct.
The more this discussion goes on the more I'm in favor of races being cosmetic skins with no mechanical effects whatsoever.
Ya, absolutely NOT. My preference would have been to give some AIS bonus due to Race to reflect the general tendencies, strengths and possible weaknesses inherent in that race. You know, like all the editions prior to 5. THEN I would have added additional ASI to the Backgrounds that made sense, more defined than what they have currently. Yes, this still could lead one to a "most optimized" set for a given class, BUT that is in fact perfectly fine. If people want to optimize, and are willing to accept the limitations that come with doing so, go for it. But for those who wanted a little more flexibility and /or not be so hedged in (or feeling that way anyway) well this would have allowed that. Yes, this could lead to a slight raising of the power curve, but not enough to matter. And yes, I DO think its good for the Races to have a basic general theme that the characters are a part of of. Sure if you want to custom homebrew races, cool too, but in almost all lore Elves ARE Dexterous as a Race and Beautiful and maybe you do knock em with a negative to Con like the old days.
My pt is, making the Races, Backgrounds, and even a lot of Class features just interchangeable skins is boring, lazy, and unnecessary. Imbalance is actually good. Though there is a good argument about HOW much, I firmly think that martials lagging casters in raw power is fine, the question is how much and what can be done to make the martials still feel cool....which is where WoTC keeps falling down on again and again and again unwilling or unable to actually give cool, powerful features to martials, hell they have gone out of their way to nerf or attemtped to nerf some in the playtest, lest we forget what they tried to do to Rogue sneak attack or what they DID do to Monks stunning strike and Open Hand capstone.
Races should be treated like gumballs. When mixed together, they become a rainbow of color. They do that _only_ if each gumball is kept distinct. Having each race have its own attribute bonuses was one way to keep them distinct.
The more this discussion goes on the more I'm in favor of races being cosmetic skins with no mechanical effects whatsoever.
You are certainly welcome to your opinion, but if you are going to do that, then you might as well get rid of race completely.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm at loss to what you're even talking about. Possibly a reference to bastions?
Sigil's inevitable Microtransactions that were leaked during the OGL debacle, due to Hasbro hiring Zynga(the devs of the old Facebook game Farmville) people known for adding excessive monetization relying on overpaying addicts aka whales to support a dying company, and the push for DND to become all-digital with casual consumers by Hasbro investors, rather than slash executive salaries to fulfill domestic legal obligations and making better products to satisfy non-casuals, to make number go up.
So basically, it's a complete nonsense claim -- "hiring the studio that did Farmville twenty years ago to work on a product that isn't even D&D (it's a supporting product, like miniatures)" != "Turning D&D into Farmville". In any case, if Paizo decided to develop their own VTT, you can be sure it would have microtransactions.
He ain't wrong. There has been a ton of supporting evidence, hiring, dialogue, etc... to back that up. It's easy to find and anyone that has been following things closely would already know this.
They partnered with Zynga in 2012 to make board games and toys lmao, this has nothing to do with anything. Y'all are ridiculous.
No, there isn't. There's a lot of
lucrativeclick-drivenwild speculation based on bad-faith interpretations of those things, thoughActive characters:
Green Hill Sunrise, jaded tabaxi mercenary trapped in the Dark Domains (Battle Master fighter)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It's a nonsense comment.
Will Project Sigil have microtransactions? Almost certainly. Will Project Sigil have toxic monetization such as lootboxes? Given that this a company that produces MTG and has partnered with WizKids for boxes containing random miniatures (both are physical equivalents to lootboxes), it would not surprise me.... but it's not a transformation, they've been doing that for thirty years.
Does any of that translate to "Turning D&D into Farmville"? No.
Here's the great thing about D&D (and other games), if you don't want to use any of that stuff, you don't have to. There are lots of people that do want that kind off thing. A company has to market to as broad of a market as they can. They will make things for one aspect of the market that doesn't appeal to another. If they do something that doesn't appeal to you, that doesn't mean they are ruining the game for you. Id if you feel it does, then you didn't really like the game to begin with.
I hate Rick & Morty with a fiery passion. When they released the book did i jump online and cry that the game is ruined forever and WotC has destroyed the enjoyment of the game and sold all my stuff? No, I just didn't buy it. If you don't like a product or service a company puts out, just don't buy it.
> And YES, I'm assuming the DMG will have rules for custom backgrounds (optional or otherwise)
They do, and they're exactly what everyone expected, and it took zero effort to determine what the rules were by reading the 10 examples. People are panicking like this is a video game and Homebrew isn't the primary way of customising your character.
And I again thinks its a huge miss to have moved the AIS from Races, and even further to make them placeable wherever. All it does is make things generic and the same...so there really its any choice to be made. And that kinda defeats the purpose of having them. They could have simplified it all by saying get pick 2 features, 2 AIS, 2 skills, and a feat. Make the "skin" whatever the hell you want. But is that interesting? Is that REALLY what one thinks of when they think of DnD? I don't think so. I just think its a bunch if whiners not wanting there to be any meat to any choices, whether its this or if it dying or what not....pretty sad really...lol
I sort of agree though I would not phrase it that way in that I find the lack of penalties in 5e kind of off putting. But I',m old and from the generation where penalties built your character more than your strengths did. Unfortunately, what they used as backgrounds in the PH clearly favored certain classes. If it was yo the martials get good choices suck it full casters I'd be okay with it, but wizard gets one of the best background setups. Now if each background had some flexibility with stats/feats etc but each also came with some kind of disadvantage I would like what they presented a bit more. As is given how poorly balanced the options are and like I said favoring the wizard which is if not the best class a contender for that title I feel like custom options start feeling needed.
I actually like the move of ASI, because if I'm a spellcaster elf who spends all my time practicing in a tower or lab, grew up as a sage and has no interest in physical pursuits, why is my Dex score increased? How do I get a buff to Int or Charisma for all my hard work.
> But is that interesting?
I find it far less interesting to say "Every Elf gets a Dex bonus because they're homegenous creatures with no variety". I'd actually prefer every character to make a unique backstory, and then get to pick elements of gameplay that support that backstory. The backgrounds are far better at giving interesting variety because they aren't the old essentially "our-world" racist model of "Everyone from there is like this" when we know for a fact every one of that race is different.
More choices is good. You're asking for boring generic homogeneity.
All elves having low light makes the same amount of sense as all elves have a bonus in dex. I don't think either route is inherently more interesting. I think a stronger combination of both would have been more interesting than just splitting parts of races off into backgrounds.
The appropriate metaphor is gumballs vs. kool-aid.
if races are treated like kool-aid, then mixing them together won’t increase diversity. Pour fruit punch into lemonade and you’ll get a single color and a single flavor. You’ll lose diversity.
Races should be treated like gumballs. When mixed together, they become a rainbow of color. They do that _only_ if each gumball is kept distinct. Having each race have its own attribute bonuses was one way to keep them distinct.
Your metaphor requires monocultures and has uncomfortable bioessentialist overtones.
Is a trans woman AMAB required to live life as a cis het man because that's what this type of thought says they MUST do?
Is an intersex person required to pick from the gender binary because of societal expectations in the player's culture?
Is a male Japanese painter required to be a salaryman because that's the default in Japan as pop culture depicts it as?
But within that race it's a single color.
Is it?
Different members of that race have different classes, different skills, different backgrounds, etc.
The more this discussion goes on the more I'm in favor of races being cosmetic skins with no mechanical effects whatsoever.
Ya, absolutely NOT. My preference would have been to give some AIS bonus due to Race to reflect the general tendencies, strengths and possible weaknesses inherent in that race. You know, like all the editions prior to 5. THEN I would have added additional ASI to the Backgrounds that made sense, more defined than what they have currently. Yes, this still could lead one to a "most optimized" set for a given class, BUT that is in fact perfectly fine. If people want to optimize, and are willing to accept the limitations that come with doing so, go for it. But for those who wanted a little more flexibility and /or not be so hedged in (or feeling that way anyway) well this would have allowed that. Yes, this could lead to a slight raising of the power curve, but not enough to matter. And yes, I DO think its good for the Races to have a basic general theme that the characters are a part of of. Sure if you want to custom homebrew races, cool too, but in almost all lore Elves ARE Dexterous as a Race and Beautiful and maybe you do knock em with a negative to Con like the old days.
My pt is, making the Races, Backgrounds, and even a lot of Class features just interchangeable skins is boring, lazy, and unnecessary. Imbalance is actually good. Though there is a good argument about HOW much, I firmly think that martials lagging casters in raw power is fine, the question is how much and what can be done to make the martials still feel cool....which is where WoTC keeps falling down on again and again and again unwilling or unable to actually give cool, powerful features to martials, hell they have gone out of their way to nerf or attemtped to nerf some in the playtest, lest we forget what they tried to do to Rogue sneak attack or what they DID do to Monks stunning strike and Open Hand capstone.
You are certainly welcome to your opinion, but if you are going to do that, then you might as well get rid of race completely.