let's start with the well written manual comment shall we? The manuals as they exist are well written. The problem with any TTRPG is the shear volume of data required for even an indy game in this hobby. No one without the assistance of an eidetic memory is going to be able to avoid referencing the manuals. (unless they just do not plainly care about the rules at all.)
The manuals are clearly NOT well written. If it were, there will be no need for SAC to exist and we would not even have half the endless topics on RAW.
A well written manual does not mean you do not need to reference it at all. A well written manual means you do not have to go back to it constantly. I am disputing your claim that a GM that constantly goes back and forth reading the manual is a sign that the GM is good or the manual is well written. If the GM is good, then they clearly should not feel like they need to read the core books constantly. If the manual is well written, then it should empower the user with a sense of clarity and intuition so that they can rely on the manual less in the future.
As to the "enforcing RAW" comment? Players care more about that than the average DM. More specifically Players care about RAW in as far as they able to mutilate and abuse it. (3.x proved this). A Good DM cares about Consistency which can only be attained if there is a common base of rules on which to build. RAW provides that. Now it is not enough that Good DM understand RAW; they also need to be able to grasp the intent of each rule, the RAI as we like to call it. RAW vs RAI is why DMs exist. We act as the arbiters of interpretation when RAW and RAI do not match up. And Good DM will balance the two along with the ROC (Rule Of Cool).
A good GM cares about fun. Consistency is a means to an end, a tool to achieve a result, and that end result should be having a good time. If consistency does not serve that purposes, then there is no reason to employ it.
As to your first comment about writing books so it is easier for players to recall and not reference them... Never under estimate the shear amount of laziness, malice, ignorance, and/or stupidity that any one player is capable of demonstrating. Making something idiot proof only means they will make a better idiot.
If that is how you see your players, then you should get a better group to play with. No one is forcing you to deal with ******** and jerks, so you should not feel obligated to do so.
As to the "enforcing RAW" comment? Players care more about that than the average DM. More specifically Players care about RAW in as far as they able to mutilate and abuse it. (3.x proved this). A Good DM cares about Consistency which can only be attained if there is a common base of rules on which to build. RAW provides that. Now it is not enough that Good DM understand RAW; they also need to be able to grasp the intent of each rule, the RAI as we like to call it. RAW vs RAI is why DMs exist. We act as the arbiters of interpretation when RAW and RAI do not match up. And Good DM will balance the two along with the ROC (Rule Of Cool).
A good GM cares about fun. Consistency is a means to an end, a tool to achieve a result, and that end result should be having a good time. If consistency does not serve that purposes, then there is no reason to employ it.
A Good GM cares about fun for all involved at the table (including themselves); Consistency in the rules interpretations is the only way that will be achieved. Believing anything else is wishful thinking at best or naivete at worst. Otherwise those old backyard games of army/cowboys/cops & robbers make believe would not have inevitably devolved into arguments that ended them prematurely. Like it or not any decent game requires a solid foundation and framework to built upon. The rules are that foundation and framework. How the GM interprets them for the table is the facade that shows off the beauty and craftsmanship of this hobby.
let's start with the well written manual comment shall we? The manuals as they exist are well written. The problem with any TTRPG is the shear volume of data required for even an indy game in this hobby. No one without the assistance of an eidetic memory is going to be able to avoid referencing the manuals. (unless they just do not plainly care about the rules at all.)
The manuals are clearly NOT well written. If it were, there will be no need for SAC to exist and we would not even have half the endless topics on RAW.
A well written manual does not mean you do not need to reference it at all. A well written manual means you do not have to go back to it constantly. I am disputing your claim that a GM that constantly goes back and forth reading the manual is a sign that the GM is good or the manual is well written. If the GM is good, then they clearly should not feel like they need to read the core books constantly. If the manual is well written, then it should empower the user with a sense of clarity and intuition so that they can rely on the manual less in the future.
I disagree the "better" written a manual is the more often a GM will find himself referencing the material. It's Human nature. We are automatically suspicious of anything that comes too easily. And therefore will search for deeper meaning. Even though it does not exist. I am reminded of a fellow hobbyist who has a great closing quote for most of his posts... "As a Genius I am not qualified to say even an idiot will understand this" ... no matter how clear, concise, and easy to follow it is written someone somewhere will still find a way intentionally or not to screw it up.
As to your first comment about writing books so it is easier for players to recall and not reference them... Never under estimate the shear amount of laziness, malice, ignorance, and/or stupidity that any one player is capable of demonstrating. Making something idiot proof only means they will make a better idiot.
If that is how you see your players, then you should get a better group to play with. No one is forcing you to deal with ******** and jerks, so you should not feel obligated to do so.
I admit the view is a tad cynical; but sadly 44 years in the hobby (35 as a GM) for hundreds of players (and nearly as many systems) over that time frame has proven that even the most innocent, nicest, friendliest and experienced of players has their "dumb@$$ or @$$hat" moments.
EG: Just last night I had a discussion with a player over just exactly what the Action Surge ability of a Fighter allows and does not allow. This player has been at my table for over 3 years (playing in 5 different simultaneous campaigns of mine) and is a die hard Fighter player. And despite getting the rule right for 3 years (that is 750 sessions) last night he was dead certain it gave him a second bonus action and an additional reaction. Even with his book sitting on the table in front of him (closed mind you) rather than double check he chose to trust his recall.
Just because a player has never had a "derp moment" (as we call it in my area) does not mean they cannot or will not in the future.
I admit the view is a tad cynical; but sadly 44 years in the hobby (35 as a GM) for hundreds of players (and nearly as many systems) over that time frame has proven that even the most innocent, nicest, friendliest and experienced of players has their "dumb@$$ or @$$hat" moments.
EG: Just last night I had a discussion with a player over just exactly what the Action Surge ability of a Fighter allows and does not allow. This player has been at my table for over 3 years (playing in 5 different simultaneous campaigns of mine) and is a die hard Fighter player. And despite getting the rule right for 3 years (that is 750 sessions) last night he was dead certain it gave him a second bonus action and an additional reaction. Even with his book sitting on the table in front of him (closed mind you) rather than double check he chose to trust his recall.
Just because a player has never had a "derp moment" (as we call it in my area) does not mean they cannot or will not in the future.
This isn't a player vs. DM thing. People, in general, have dumbass moments. DMs aren't excluded. But in this case, you've gone from talking about general player behaviours to outlier behaviour. It doesn't support your previous statements.
I disagree the "better" written a manual is the more often a GM will find himself referencing the material. It's Human nature. We are automatically suspicious of anything that comes too easily. And therefore will search for deeper meaning. Even though it does not exist. I am reminded of a fellow hobbyist who has a great closing quote for most of his posts...
Wasn't the argument being made that a better manual results in less referencing?
Your assertion on human nature strains credibility. Certainly, there are situations where it may be true. I know if you want to stump my current party with a puzzle in-game, make the solution painfully obvious and we will reject it as too simple. But that's predicated on an expectation that there should be something deeper there. I am not looking to solve a logic puzzle nor stimulate some deep philosophical pondering when trying to parse a poorly articulated aspect of RAW. In terms of UX design, greater ease of use and more intuitive use are typically going to be favourable.
The organization of information is usually expected (or hoped) to be logical, accessible, and concise. Form should match function. If 6e comes about, there are definitely things its PHB should learn from players and DMs alike about how it should be written to function better, and also where the 5e PHB flat out made mistakes in its delivery.
I did admit to being a tad cynical over this... Mostly due my age admittedly. However; after decades in the hobby and countless iterations of just this one system I do not see my examples as outliers but par for the course. At every session from day one of my introduction to role-playing there has been at least one instance of rules confusion, mismatched interpretations, misremembered, or half recalled rules. And yes I am just as guilty of those slips as my players (I am human after all).
The real issue is not what RAW is but what RAI is when the two do not match up. (and in that regard every system has this problem). And I have noticed that as the iterations have become more "clear and concise" (well as clear and concise as 900+ pages of rules can get any way) that the amount of confused Players and GMs has only increased. Now part of that can be attributed to the influx of new players to the hobby but not all of it. The problem lies in who (typically) play tests the iterations. Old/experienced players not newbies. What looks plain and simple to them may not be so plain to new comers. As I said earlier they are not qualified to say "even a newbie will grasp this."
Do "better" (and let's be honest that is a highly subjective term) Manuals make for less referencing? Not in my experience. It is possible to be "too concise" which can lead to more confusion not less.
Should there be a 6e? certainly; but not until 5e has run its course. Which going by the sales numbers at my local shop wont be for some time. (eh, anecdotal at best I know...)
1) Each player need only concern themselves with those bits that revolve about their character.
2) The DM is expected to not only reference those bits but any others bits that might be pertinent.
1) Players are, hopefully, going to keep playing and thus playing more characters - usually different ones.
2) Which bits of the PHB are pertinent that don't revolve around the characters? If they're not applicable to a PC, how can they be pertinent?
Which bits are pertinent? why any that do not directly involve any one player. Your arguments assume all the players are the same class, all the npcs they encounter are of similar class, etc...
For example: a Party consisting of a Rogue, Cleric, Fighter, Sorcerer, and Bard are at the table. They find themselves in an encounter with a Druid, Wizard, Warlock, Ranger, and Paladin. Now which bits are pertinent to the scenario and which are not?
But why, exactly, would any given class learn nothing of other classes, even those in the party? The bard may well be an expert in Arcana, Nature and Religion. Why would they have no clue over other casting classes? One does not have to be a plumber to be able to identify common plumbing fixtures, to be a lawyer to know laws, or have any musical talent whatsoever to have some idea of types of music.
For the answer to that age old question you will have to ask the players... my experiences say the majority of players will not investigate the books beyond what their class is capable of.
I disagree. Players refer to "rules" and live by those "rules" on pages. Dungeon Masters, negotiating players expectations of the "rules", are hamstrung, crippled by game designers and why they need to only accept Dungeon Masters' feedback. Players play....Dungeon Masters have to create within the playerss expectations of the "rules", let it be spamming Detect Magic every time the DM speaks (forcing characters to wait out, else find something to do for 100 rounds while casting Detect Magic as ritual), to allowing nearly every race see in the dim darkness (limited to shadows, but sight nonetheless).... . Devs should only listen to Dungeon Masters for reason mentioned.
While DM's do a ton of work as you mentioned above, the players have to play the game, and they need to know what their characters are going to do, how they want them to progress, etc. Any system that does not take into account the needs/desires of both the players and the DMs will fail.
Just as an example, there are lot of things in the PHB that could be reorganized or clarified for the benefit of DMs and Players.
And to elaborate on that, it is the 'Players' Handbook,' not the 'Dungeon Master's Character Creation Supplement'
^^^^ THIS ^^^^
And yet the DM needs and references said book far more often than the Players.
Really..... maybe if there is only one player in the campaign, but combined?
yes more than the players combined. Each player need only concern themselves with those bits that revolve about their character. The DM is expected to not only reference those bits but any others bits that might be pertinent. Additionally if 44 years in the hobby has taught me anything it is that players will misinterpret, misremember, and generally misread abilities if they even bother to reference the book after character creation. There is a reason the PHB, DMG, & MM are referred to as the 3 Cores. A good DM will find themselves referencing them constantly (if not during game play; most certainly during prep time).
So players never ever care or investigate other classes, other possibilities...? A good DM of 44 years will have the books more or less memorized, including often bits of prior editions they preferred and therefore imported into the current edition and be able to prep or outright improvise on the fly when needed.
Misinterpreting, misremembering and misreading are all still using the PHB and the fact you have so many such experiences is actually proof that players need to be taken into account when writing the rules. Again it is the Players' Handbook. Of course it is useful to and used by DM's too, but it is designed to be accessible to players. Again, that is why it is not simply part of the DMG.
And as for the PHB being considered one of the core books, without players, you have no campaign at all. Players are also core to any campaign.
Just the opinion of a fellow DM who has been with the game since near the beginning (although started with 1e, not 0e. Did have a copy of 0e but only after I was already playing 1e).
No, most do not appear to care to do "homework" in order to play the game. As to having the rules memorized? I have the rules from 0th through 5edtition (that is eight iterations of the game, nine if you count the Rules Cyclopedia), The rules to at least another 50 RPG systems, 30 years of OSHA regulations and 30 years of DOT regulations floating about in my head. Recalling the wording of a spell/power/feat/feature/skill for 5e exactly as written is beyond me... hence the need to reference the books. (If for no other reason than to make sure I am not recalling an interpretation or common house rule from an older edition or from some other system which can have some rather game breaking results on the existing iteration.)
Each player need only concern themselves with those bits that revolve about their character.
I don't agree with that (new players aside). Certainly a DM can pick up the slack, but most of the PHB is relevant regardless of the character you created. Even if I play as a Battle Master, while I may be unlikely use spellcasting directly, I still interact with it in other ways. I think the game would run smoother if I know wft is going on instead of having the DM handhold all the time.
I'm not discounting your personal experience about what has happened. I am just saying players should be as concerned with most chapters of the PHB as the DM or close to it. There are some sections players should probably know better (such as your own class features, spells, racial traits), or be able to recall/ reference more quickly.
I agree; all players should be concerned with most if not all of the chapters of the PHB. Sadly; most aren't. The number of experienced players that do not even know of all the options available to them from just the combat section is disheartening. Honestly some days I think many players believe that the character creation section and spell lists/descriptions are the entirety of the PHB.
I think there needs to be a 6e version even if it's just an optimize online version. A VTT way beyond the stuff that's out there now. Something that is sort of a hybrid between a table top RPG and MMO and city builder all in one. Sort of like BG3 with a DM and with players. As a company they could make killing and vastly expand the player base. A world builder module that allows for building a world like a city builder. A workshop for user created models and adventure content so on.
I do believe there is a place for table top, single player RPG, MMO RPG and this type of online RPG.
Doing this in conjunction with physical books would be better. But the VTT element needs roll out at the same time as the physical element for the greatest impact.
As to the "enforcing RAW" comment? Players care more about that than the average DM. More specifically Players care about RAW in as far as they able to mutilate and abuse it. (3.x proved this). A Good DM cares about Consistency which can only be attained if there is a common base of rules on which to build. RAW provides that. Now it is not enough that Good DM understand RAW; they also need to be able to grasp the intent of each rule, the RAI as we like to call it. RAW vs RAI is why DMs exist. We act as the arbiters of interpretation when RAW and RAI do not match up. And Good DM will balance the two along with the ROC (Rule Of Cool).
A good GM cares about fun. Consistency is a means to an end, a tool to achieve a result, and that end result should be having a good time. If consistency does not serve that purposes, then there is no reason to employ it.
A Good GM cares about fun for all involved at the table (including themselves); Consistency in the rules interpretations is the only way that will be achieved. Believing anything else is wishful thinking at best or naivete at worst. Otherwise those old backyard games of army/cowboys/cops & robbers make believe would not have inevitably devolved into arguments that ended them prematurely. Like it or not any decent game requires a solid foundation and framework to built upon. The rules are that foundation and framework. How the GM interprets them for the table is the facade that shows off the beauty and craftsmanship of this hobby.
Like it or not, there are different play styles and expectations out there, consistency is not the only tool to promote fun, and consistency definitely is not the most important one either. Being able to read the room and give players what they want is far more important. Consistency does not matter if people at the people do not care for it. There are players out there who just want to focus on the story and roleplay, they see the mechanics as a means to help tell a story, and they do not care about consistency as long as it does not impact their enjoyment of the story.
let's start with the well written manual comment shall we? The manuals as they exist are well written. The problem with any TTRPG is the shear volume of data required for even an indy game in this hobby. No one without the assistance of an eidetic memory is going to be able to avoid referencing the manuals. (unless they just do not plainly care about the rules at all.)
The manuals are clearly NOT well written. If it were, there will be no need for SAC to exist and we would not even have half the endless topics on RAW.
A well written manual does not mean you do not need to reference it at all. A well written manual means you do not have to go back to it constantly. I am disputing your claim that a GM that constantly goes back and forth reading the manual is a sign that the GM is good or the manual is well written. If the GM is good, then they clearly should not feel like they need to read the core books constantly. If the manual is well written, then it should empower the user with a sense of clarity and intuition so that they can rely on the manual less in the future.
I disagree the "better" written a manual is the more often a GM will find himself referencing the material. It's Human nature. We are automatically suspicious of anything that comes too easily. And therefore will search for deeper meaning. Even though it does not exist. I am reminded of a fellow hobbyist who has a great closing quote for most of his posts... "As a Genius I am not qualified to say even an idiot will understand this" ... no matter how clear, concise, and easy to follow it is written someone somewhere will still find a way intentionally or not to screw it up.
It is also part of human nature to be confident in one's ability and make judgement calls on the spot. I will be quite concerned if I hired an electrician or accountant and they have to go back to their textbooks constantly over the course of their work.
As to your first comment about writing books so it is easier for players to recall and not reference them... Never under estimate the shear amount of laziness, malice, ignorance, and/or stupidity that any one player is capable of demonstrating. Making something idiot proof only means they will make a better idiot.
If that is how you see your players, then you should get a better group to play with. No one is forcing you to deal with ******** and jerks, so you should not feel obligated to do so.
I admit the view is a tad cynical; but sadly 44 years in the hobby (35 as a GM) for hundreds of players (and nearly as many systems) over that time frame has proven that even the most innocent, nicest, friendliest and experienced of players has their "dumb@$$ or @$$hat" moments.
EG: Just last night I had a discussion with a player over just exactly what the Action Surge ability of a Fighter allows and does not allow. This player has been at my table for over 3 years (playing in 5 different simultaneous campaigns of mine) and is a die hard Fighter player. And despite getting the rule right for 3 years (that is 750 sessions) last night he was dead certain it gave him a second bonus action and an additional reaction. Even with his book sitting on the table in front of him (closed mind you) rather than double check he chose to trust his recall.
Just because a player has never had a "derp moment" (as we call it in my area) does not mean they cannot or will not in the future.
People have derp moments, but those are outliers. Just because people have derp moments does not mean the PHB should not be written with players in mind. And it is not difficult to circumvent derp moments by requiring all claims to be backed up by sources and evidence either.
Do "better" (and let's be honest that is a highly subjective term) Manuals make for less referencing? Not in my experience. It is possible to be "too concise" which can lead more confusion not less.
Yes, a well written manual should require less referencing. It should empower the user with clarity and intuition so that they do not have to go back to the manual every single time. I do not need to crack open my accounting textbook every time a transaction pops up since I know by heart how accounts affect each other with each transaction. There are rare cases where I do not know, but that is few and far between.
Conciseness is a desirable quality, but it is separate from and does not equate to clarity. A well written manual should be both concise and clear. The core books of 5e are not concise and are not always clear either.
Not sure I agree with, " If the GM is good, then they clearly should not feel like they need to read the core books constantly. If the manual is well written, then it should empower the user with a sense of clarity and intuition so that they can rely on the manual less in the future."
This depends on the GM's capability to remember the manuals, regardless of how well written they are. I have a pretty good eidetic memory and I read very quickly, but the amount of details in the core guides is pretty large. I doubt I will remember when a proficiency bonus goes from 3-4, or how many XP a player needs to go to level X or the casting time for spell Y, especially when I can look it up as needed.
Does that make me a bad DM? My players don't seem to think so.
I doubt I will remember when a proficiency bonus goes from 3-4, or how many XP a player needs to go to level X or the casting time for spell Y.
These are all things a player should be able to cover just by keeping their character sheet up to date. If it's a spell for an NPC, you'll likely have it in their statblock. As a DM you'll be looking up spells regularly simply because you might want any and all of them for one NPC or other and nobody's going to memorize every spell in the game, but that'll still be done during prep as opposed to in the middle of a session. For the players, if they keep up with their character sheet everything they need to reference will be on it and they'll only need their rulebooks between sessions or during downtime.
DMs will occasionally have to look stuff up - nothing wrong with that either - especially when having to improvise, but on the whole I think referencing the manual during game time is likely fairly limited, and going through your books while preparing a session is not a problem whatsoever.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I doubt I will remember when a proficiency bonus goes from 3-4, or how many XP a player needs to go to level X or the casting time for spell Y.
These are all things a player should be able to cover just by keeping their character sheet up to date. If it's a spell for an NPC, you'll likely have it in their statblock. As a DM you'll be looking up spells regularly simply because you might want any and all of them for one NPC or other and nobody's going to memorize every spell in the game, but that'll still be done during prep as opposed to in the middle of a session. For the players, if they keep up with their character sheet everything they need to reference will be on it and they'll only need their rulebooks between sessions or during downtime.
DMs will occasionally have to look stuff up - nothing wrong with that either - especially when having to improvise, but on the whole I think referencing the manual during game time is likely fairly limited, and going through your books while preparing a session is not a problem whatsoever.
My players are on D&D Beyond during the game. I usually am not. I have modules in front of me and usually no laptop.
I doubt I will remember when a proficiency bonus goes from 3-4, or how many XP a player needs to go to level X or the casting time for spell Y.
These are all things a player should be able to cover just by keeping their character sheet up to date. If it's a spell for an NPC, you'll likely have it in their statblock. As a DM you'll be looking up spells regularly simply because you might want any and all of them for one NPC or other and nobody's going to memorize every spell in the game, but that'll still be done during prep as opposed to in the middle of a session. For the players, if they keep up with their character sheet everything they need to reference will be on it and they'll only need their rulebooks between sessions or during downtime.
DMs will occasionally have to look stuff up - nothing wrong with that either - especially when having to improvise, but on the whole I think referencing the manual during game time is likely fairly limited, and going through your books while preparing a session is not a problem whatsoever.
My players are on D&D Beyond during the game. I usually am not. I have modules in front of me and usually no laptop.
Same, though I usually have a laptop and/or tablet behind my screen - just not for DDB. Anything to do with the players' character sheets is for them to handle, I don't need to spell those things out for them and I have no interest whatsoever in checking they're doing everything right. I trust that if anything is done incorrectly, it's a) by accident and b) rare. If they're confused they'll ask, and I'll tell them where to look; I don't look anything up for them.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
What's so funny about this post is that you guys predicted 5.5 edition which is likely actually coming out next year, and you predicted it with insane accuracy two years ago. Bravo.
This would be my official guess if I had to put a timeframe on it....like Q4 2024 is when the next edition PHB and DMG will be published.
I think the timing makes some sense, if not for the 50th. I don't think what we'll see in 2024 will be a 6e. Some may call it a 5.5, I still think it will be more a "consolidated edition" celebrating the game, maybe call it D&D Gold (actually, don't do that). But I could see "5e will be D&D at 50" as part of the hype for what they put out.
FWIW I'm not against a 6e. I like reading new rules. I just see in this particular timeframe, I see WotC more doubling down on what they got to capitalize on the anniversary than break out a new rules set, unless they start hyping D&D Gold (which would work for a sort of developmental title like D&D Next) early next year.
For anyone wondering, I'm talking about this post. Yes, we are getting essentially D&D 5.5 in 2024 as you guys predicted multiple years ago.
For anyone wondering, I'm talking about this post. Yes, we are getting essentially D&D 5.5 in 2024 as you guys predicted multiple years ago.
I am not sure I can agree with that, sure the core mechanics of the system are very similar, but One D&D is a bigger change than 3e to 3.5e ever was and looks like it will go even further. WotC are also incentivised now to make the mechanics more distinct.
Heck OneD&D looks like it is going to be a bigger mechanical jump than 3e to PF1e was... And certainly a bigger jump than AD&D1e to AD&D2e.
It is looking to be 6e in all but name, and even then I wouldn't be surprised if they call it 6e to help solidify whatever their new license will be for the system. Most gaming systems don't completely upend their design like D&D has done in the last 3 editions.
Call me cynical, but after seeing what was originally planned for the OGL changes marketing it as a 5e evolution was more of a legal ownership move rather than a notable design decision. And as I said before, now there is an incentive for the business and legal teams to tell the design team to differentiate it more because of them moving the 5e SRD into creative commons licensing. (To be clear, I don't think the new license will overreach and the primary issue with OGL 1.1 was it's trying to revoke the 1.03a while claiming dominion over people who had published udner 1.03a. WotC having some restrictions and control is healthy, but there are degrees to everything)
I am not sure I can agree with that, sure the core mechanics of the system are very similar, but One D&D is a bigger change than 3e to 3.5e ever was and looks like it will go even further. WotC are also incentivised now to make the mechanics more distinct.
Heck OneD&D looks like it is going to be a bigger mechanical jump than 3e to PF1e was... And certainly a bigger jump than AD&D1e to AD&D2e.
It is looking to be 6e in all but name, and even then I wouldn't be surprised if they call it 6e to help solidify whatever their new license will be for the system. Most gaming systems don't completely upend their design like D&D has done in the last 3 editions.
Call me cynical, but after seeing what was originally planned for the OGL changes marketing it as a 5e evolution was more of a legal ownership move rather than a notable design decision. And as I said before, now there is an incentive for the business and legal teams to tell the design team to differentiate it more because of them moving the 5e SRD into creative commons licensing. (To be clear, I don't think the new license will overreach and the primary issue with OGL 1.1 was it's trying to revoke the 1.03a while claiming dominion over people who had published udner 1.03a. WotC having some restrictions and control is healthy, but there are degrees to everything)
It will be players and not WotC who will ultimately decide if it is to be referred to as 5.5e or 6e no matter how much Wizards protest.
You're spot on about those "jumps."
There are other games that more closely resemble earlier editions of the game than do 3e, 4e, or 5e.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
INSPIRATIONS:Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
I don't know that I'd go so far as to say there never needs to be a 6th Edition. I don't think phantom prospects of whatever a 6th Edition might look like are worth wasting effort on right now. 5th Edition is still going strong and doesn't show any signs of dropping off anytime soon. I'd argue that right now 5E is well-defined and succeeding in a market filled with many other distinct choices; there isn't much need to make fundamental changes to chase people who are looking for a different game when the market is full of different games people can play. Eventually market conditions will change and the designers at WotC will be inspired to try something different, and a new edition will be born.
I don't know that I'd go so far as to say there never needs to be a 6th Edition. I don't think phantom prospects of whatever a 6th Edition might look like are worth wasting effort on right now. 5th Edition is still going strong and doesn't show any signs of dropping off anytime soon. I'd argue that right now 5E is well-defined and succeeding in a market filled with many other distinct choices; there isn't much need to make fundamental changes to chase people who are looking for a different game when the market is full of different games people can play. Eventually market conditions will change and the designers at WotC will be inspired to try something different, and a new edition will be born.
Exactly! Complete new editions come around when sales are slumping year over year. Edition updates (the x.5) happen when an edition is still doing well but needs some mechanical clean up to keep it going strong. So far 5e has only grown year-over-year. No edition has had a period of continual growth for this long. Sure, someday that will change, but it sure isn't now!
Which is why we're getting more of a 50th anniversary commemorative update to the edition rather than a whole new 6e. Myself and others I know playtesting the OneD&D changes have been incorporating them into the current 5e games quite smoothly and easily. Can't say the same for converting THAC0 to BAB or Rod/Staff/Wand saving throws to Fort/Ref/Will on the fly! Or trying to use that 27th level 4e character in our 5e game! LOL!! But we have 5e and OneD&D characters side-by-side with no issues whatsoever. So between the mechanical changes that have been completely on par with all of the past half-edition updates, and the simple business fact that 5e is still growing, the new core rulebooks are meant to fix up the mechanics and cater to the new players who keep joining the game each year.
Exactly! Complete new editions come around when sales are slumping year over year. Edition updates (the x.5) happen when an edition is still doing well but needs some mechanical clean up to keep it going strong. So far 5e has only grown year-over-year. No edition has had a period of continual growth for this long. Sure, someday that will change, but it sure isn't now!
Which is why we're getting more of a 50th anniversary commemorative update to the edition rather than a whole new 6e. Myself and others I know playtesting the OneD&D changes have been incorporating them into the current 5e games quite smoothly and easily. Can't say the same for converting THAC0 to BAB or Rod/Staff/Wand saving throws to Fort/Ref/Will on the fly! Or trying to use that 27th level 4e character in our 5e game! LOL!! But we have 5e and OneD&D characters side-by-side with no issues whatsoever. So between the mechanical changes that have been completely on par with all of the past half-edition updates, and the simple business fact that 5e is still growing, the new core rulebooks are meant to fix up the mechanics and cater to the new players who keep joining the game each year.
Your examples of moving from THAC0 to BAB and from D, W, P, B, and S to F, R, and W come from when we saw the giant leap from 2e to 3e and is hardly the fairest of comparisons.
Every edition including when we had AD&D and HolmesBasic/B/X/BECMI running parallel released between 0e and 2e were much more compatible with one another than 2e and 3e were and much more than anything since 3e has been.
As someone else pointed out the changes being made are much more drastic than those made to switch from 1e to 2e.
3.5e was essentially errata. It didn't overhaul classes and races like "One D&D" is doing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
INSPIRATIONS:Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
SYSTEMS: ShadowDark, C&C, AD&D.
GEAR: pencils, graph paper, dice.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The manuals are clearly NOT well written. If it were, there will be no need for SAC to exist and we would not even have half the endless topics on RAW.
A well written manual does not mean you do not need to reference it at all. A well written manual means you do not have to go back to it constantly. I am disputing your claim that a GM that constantly goes back and forth reading the manual is a sign that the GM is good or the manual is well written. If the GM is good, then they clearly should not feel like they need to read the core books constantly. If the manual is well written, then it should empower the user with a sense of clarity and intuition so that they can rely on the manual less in the future.
A good GM cares about fun. Consistency is a means to an end, a tool to achieve a result, and that end result should be having a good time. If consistency does not serve that purposes, then there is no reason to employ it.
If that is how you see your players, then you should get a better group to play with. No one is forcing you to deal with ******** and jerks, so you should not feel obligated to do so.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
A Good GM cares about fun for all involved at the table (including themselves); Consistency in the rules interpretations is the only way that will be achieved. Believing anything else is wishful thinking at best or naivete at worst. Otherwise those old backyard games of army/cowboys/cops & robbers make believe would not have inevitably devolved into arguments that ended them prematurely.
Like it or not any decent game requires a solid foundation and framework to built upon. The rules are that foundation and framework. How the GM interprets them for the table is the facade that shows off the beauty and craftsmanship of this hobby.
I disagree the "better" written a manual is the more often a GM will find himself referencing the material. It's Human nature. We are automatically suspicious of anything that comes too easily. And therefore will search for deeper meaning. Even though it does not exist. I am reminded of a fellow hobbyist who has a great closing quote for most of his posts...
"As a Genius I am not qualified to say even an idiot will understand this" ... no matter how clear, concise, and easy to follow it is written someone somewhere will still find a way intentionally or not to screw it up.
I admit the view is a tad cynical; but sadly 44 years in the hobby (35 as a GM) for hundreds of players (and nearly as many systems) over that time frame has proven that even the most innocent, nicest, friendliest and experienced of players has their "dumb@$$ or @$$hat" moments.
EG: Just last night I had a discussion with a player over just exactly what the Action Surge ability of a Fighter allows and does not allow.
This player has been at my table for over 3 years (playing in 5 different simultaneous campaigns of mine) and is a die hard Fighter player. And despite getting the rule right for 3 years (that is 750 sessions) last night he was dead certain it gave him a second bonus action and an additional reaction. Even with his book sitting on the table in front of him (closed mind you) rather than double check he chose to trust his recall.
Just because a player has never had a "derp moment" (as we call it in my area) does not mean they cannot or will not in the future.
I did admit to being a tad cynical over this... Mostly due my age admittedly.
However; after decades in the hobby and countless iterations of just this one system I do not see my examples as outliers but par for the course. At every session from day one of my introduction to role-playing there has been at least one instance of rules confusion, mismatched interpretations, misremembered, or half recalled rules. And yes I am just as guilty of those slips as my players (I am human after all).
The real issue is not what RAW is but what RAI is when the two do not match up. (and in that regard every system has this problem). And I have noticed that as the iterations have become more "clear and concise" (well as clear and concise as 900+ pages of rules can get any way) that the amount of confused Players and GMs has only increased. Now part of that can be attributed to the influx of new players to the hobby but not all of it. The problem lies in who (typically) play tests the iterations. Old/experienced players not newbies. What looks plain and simple to them may not be so plain to new comers. As I said earlier they are not qualified to say "even a newbie will grasp this."
Do "better" (and let's be honest that is a highly subjective term) Manuals make for less referencing? Not in my experience. It is possible to be "too concise" which can lead to more confusion not less.
Should there be a 6e? certainly; but not until 5e has run its course. Which going by the sales numbers at my local shop wont be for some time. (eh, anecdotal at best I know...)
For the answer to that age old question you will have to ask the players... my experiences say the majority of players will not investigate the books beyond what their class is capable of.
No, most do not appear to care to do "homework" in order to play the game.
As to having the rules memorized? I have the rules from 0th through 5edtition (that is eight iterations of the game, nine if you count the Rules Cyclopedia), The rules to at least another 50 RPG systems, 30 years of OSHA regulations and 30 years of DOT regulations floating about in my head.
Recalling the wording of a spell/power/feat/feature/skill for 5e exactly as written is beyond me... hence the need to reference the books. (If for no other reason than to make sure I am not recalling an interpretation or common house rule from an older edition or from some other system which can have some rather game breaking results on the existing iteration.)
I agree; all players should be concerned with most if not all of the chapters of the PHB.
Sadly; most aren't.
The number of experienced players that do not even know of all the options available to them from just the combat section is disheartening.
Honestly some days I think many players believe that the character creation section and spell lists/descriptions are the entirety of the PHB.
Doing this in conjunction with physical books would be better.
But the VTT element needs roll out at the same time as the physical element for the greatest impact.
Like it or not, there are different play styles and expectations out there, consistency is not the only tool to promote fun, and consistency definitely is not the most important one either. Being able to read the room and give players what they want is far more important. Consistency does not matter if people at the people do not care for it. There are players out there who just want to focus on the story and roleplay, they see the mechanics as a means to help tell a story, and they do not care about consistency as long as it does not impact their enjoyment of the story.
It is also part of human nature to be confident in one's ability and make judgement calls on the spot. I will be quite concerned if I hired an electrician or accountant and they have to go back to their textbooks constantly over the course of their work.
People have derp moments, but those are outliers. Just because people have derp moments does not mean the PHB should not be written with players in mind. And it is not difficult to circumvent derp moments by requiring all claims to be backed up by sources and evidence either.
Yes, a well written manual should require less referencing. It should empower the user with clarity and intuition so that they do not have to go back to the manual every single time. I do not need to crack open my accounting textbook every time a transaction pops up since I know by heart how accounts affect each other with each transaction. There are rare cases where I do not know, but that is few and far between.
Conciseness is a desirable quality, but it is separate from and does not equate to clarity. A well written manual should be both concise and clear. The core books of 5e are not concise and are not always clear either.
Check Licenses and Resync Entitlements: < https://www.dndbeyond.com/account/licenses >
Running the Game by Matt Colville; Introduction: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-YZvLUXcR8 >
D&D with High School Students by Bill Allen; Season 1 Episode 1: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52NJTUDokyk&t >
Not sure I agree with, " If the GM is good, then they clearly should not feel like they need to read the core books constantly. If the manual is well written, then it should empower the user with a sense of clarity and intuition so that they can rely on the manual less in the future."
This depends on the GM's capability to remember the manuals, regardless of how well written they are. I have a pretty good eidetic memory and I read very quickly, but the amount of details in the core guides is pretty large. I doubt I will remember when a proficiency bonus goes from 3-4, or how many XP a player needs to go to level X or the casting time for spell Y, especially when I can look it up as needed.
Does that make me a bad DM? My players don't seem to think so.
These are all things a player should be able to cover just by keeping their character sheet up to date. If it's a spell for an NPC, you'll likely have it in their statblock. As a DM you'll be looking up spells regularly simply because you might want any and all of them for one NPC or other and nobody's going to memorize every spell in the game, but that'll still be done during prep as opposed to in the middle of a session. For the players, if they keep up with their character sheet everything they need to reference will be on it and they'll only need their rulebooks between sessions or during downtime.
DMs will occasionally have to look stuff up - nothing wrong with that either - especially when having to improvise, but on the whole I think referencing the manual during game time is likely fairly limited, and going through your books while preparing a session is not a problem whatsoever.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
My players are on D&D Beyond during the game. I usually am not. I have modules in front of me and usually no laptop.
Same, though I usually have a laptop and/or tablet behind my screen - just not for DDB. Anything to do with the players' character sheets is for them to handle, I don't need to spell those things out for them and I have no interest whatsoever in checking they're doing everything right. I trust that if anything is done incorrectly, it's a) by accident and b) rare. If they're confused they'll ask, and I'll tell them where to look; I don't look anything up for them.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
What's so funny about this post is that you guys predicted 5.5 edition which is likely actually coming out next year, and you predicted it with insane accuracy two years ago. Bravo.
For anyone wondering, I'm talking about this post. Yes, we are getting essentially D&D 5.5 in 2024 as you guys predicted multiple years ago.
I am not sure I can agree with that, sure the core mechanics of the system are very similar, but One D&D is a bigger change than 3e to 3.5e ever was and looks like it will go even further. WotC are also incentivised now to make the mechanics more distinct.
Heck OneD&D looks like it is going to be a bigger mechanical jump than 3e to PF1e was... And certainly a bigger jump than AD&D1e to AD&D2e.
It is looking to be 6e in all but name, and even then I wouldn't be surprised if they call it 6e to help solidify whatever their new license will be for the system. Most gaming systems don't completely upend their design like D&D has done in the last 3 editions.
Call me cynical, but after seeing what was originally planned for the OGL changes marketing it as a 5e evolution was more of a legal ownership move rather than a notable design decision. And as I said before, now there is an incentive for the business and legal teams to tell the design team to differentiate it more because of them moving the 5e SRD into creative commons licensing. (To be clear, I don't think the new license will overreach and the primary issue with OGL 1.1 was it's trying to revoke the 1.03a while claiming dominion over people who had published udner 1.03a. WotC having some restrictions and control is healthy, but there are degrees to everything)
It will be players and not WotC who will ultimately decide if it is to be referred to as 5.5e or 6e no matter how much Wizards protest.
You're spot on about those "jumps."
There are other games that more closely resemble earlier editions of the game than do 3e, 4e, or 5e.
INSPIRATIONS: Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
SYSTEMS: ShadowDark, C&C, AD&D.
GEAR: pencils, graph paper, dice.
I don't know that I'd go so far as to say there never needs to be a 6th Edition. I don't think phantom prospects of whatever a 6th Edition might look like are worth wasting effort on right now. 5th Edition is still going strong and doesn't show any signs of dropping off anytime soon. I'd argue that right now 5E is well-defined and succeeding in a market filled with many other distinct choices; there isn't much need to make fundamental changes to chase people who are looking for a different game when the market is full of different games people can play. Eventually market conditions will change and the designers at WotC will be inspired to try something different, and a new edition will be born.
192.168.1.1
panoramacharter.ltd
Exactly! Complete new editions come around when sales are slumping year over year. Edition updates (the x.5) happen when an edition is still doing well but needs some mechanical clean up to keep it going strong. So far 5e has only grown year-over-year. No edition has had a period of continual growth for this long. Sure, someday that will change, but it sure isn't now!
Which is why we're getting more of a 50th anniversary commemorative update to the edition rather than a whole new 6e. Myself and others I know playtesting the OneD&D changes have been incorporating them into the current 5e games quite smoothly and easily. Can't say the same for converting THAC0 to BAB or Rod/Staff/Wand saving throws to Fort/Ref/Will on the fly! Or trying to use that 27th level 4e character in our 5e game! LOL!! But we have 5e and OneD&D characters side-by-side with no issues whatsoever. So between the mechanical changes that have been completely on par with all of the past half-edition updates, and the simple business fact that 5e is still growing, the new core rulebooks are meant to fix up the mechanics and cater to the new players who keep joining the game each year.
Your examples of moving from THAC0 to BAB and from D, W, P, B, and S to F, R, and W come from when we saw the giant leap from 2e to 3e and is hardly the fairest of comparisons.
Every edition including when we had AD&D and Holmes Basic/B/X/BECMI running parallel released between 0e and 2e were much more compatible with one another than 2e and 3e were and much more than anything since 3e has been.
As someone else pointed out the changes being made are much more drastic than those made to switch from 1e to 2e.
3.5e was essentially errata. It didn't overhaul classes and races like "One D&D" is doing.
INSPIRATIONS: Clark Ashton Smith, Mervyn Peake, Jack Vance, Michael Moorcock, Fritz Leiber, M. John Harrison, Gene Wolfe, Steven Brust, Terry Pratchett, China Miéville.
SYSTEMS: ShadowDark, C&C, AD&D.
GEAR: pencils, graph paper, dice.