Counterpoint, Sposta: I never played 4e, and do not have a single 4e book to my name. I have absolutely no idea how 4e implemented 'Skill Challenges', and would have to dig those rules out of the graveyard of games past. It's fantastic that you have those resources and can make use of them, but not everyone does.
The other problem is that basically no-one (most likely including Sposta) actually used the 4e skill challenges as written. They were actually somewhat hard to use.
Quite possibly. 🤷♂️ I didn’t actually play 4e, so I could be mistaken.
The way people used skill challenges was "You can use any skill that you can convince the DM is appropriate to the challenge".
The way skill challenges were actually written was "The DM comes up with a list of appropriate skills that are favored for the challenge, the number of times each skill can be used, and the total which can be achieved with that skill; anything that doesn't fit within those limits is still possible, but modified difficulty, and reusing the same skill has additional penalties".
Counterpoint, Sposta: I never played 4e, and do not have a single 4e book to my name. I have absolutely no idea how 4e implemented 'Skill Challenges', and would have to dig those rules out of the graveyard of games past. It's fantastic that you have those resources and can make use of them, but not everyone does.
I mean, I could pull the chase rules out of Savage Worlds and spend a few days adapting their essence to 5e to try and get usable pursuit-and-evasion rules in the game so parties actually stand a freaking chance of successfully fleeing a bad fight, but me doing so wouldn't mean 5e was perfectly fine because I used rules from another game to help patch a weakness in 5e. That just means I had the resources and requisite irritation level to do the work to patch 5e.
Same with mystery games. The fact that rules from another game (even if that game is an older edition of D&D) can make the issue better doesn't help people who don't have access to that game and its rules.
I didn’t actually play 4e either, but I got some handy inspiration from the inter web and said to myself “self, that looks pretty swell, I’ma steal it.” (I always call myself “self” when I make these decisions so I know I’m serious.) Also, I do have several editions of D&D rolling around in my head. So, I can’t be entirely sure I haven’t mixed up some stuff, but here are the three main ways I do group skill challenges. Someone smarter than me can point to whichever one is closest to 4e, if any.
One main person tries to do the thing, but the DC is ridiculously high, like 25+. Other people are also helping them, so each of them makes a skill check and their total successes reduce the DC of the actual attempt. The more successful the others were, the lower the DC gets, the more likely the actual check is to succeed. (This one works like a group variation of the way the help action works, only without advantage or disadvantage. That is because it’s from an edition that predates that mechanic. I believe this is similar to the way Matt Mercer does Resurrection Attempts, or has at some point.) So this would be an example of how I would let a group of PCs all work together to uncover a single clue, or break down a door together, or whatever single goal all together, but specifically when they are all contributing the same way. Like all Athletics for example, or all Investigation.
Basically, everyone can use any skill in which they are proficient, as long as they can explain how it fits, and it isn’t 🐎💩, I’ll take it. Then I set a DC in my head based on what they describe as their action, they roll an ability check just like normal. Each player can only use each skill once, when the group has accumulated 3 failed skill checks, the challenge is over and they can make no further attempts. (This one is similar to/the same way Matt Colville did the chase/escape scene for the Chain of Ackeron if I recall correctly.) So this is a way to let every PC get to utilize any and all skills the players chose for their PCs. It puts them the most in the driver’s seat. Some challenges, like “clue finding” will obviously favor some skills more, but other challenges, like chases/escapes will use other skills more. When applied in various circumstances, all skills will eventually become useful and therefore every PC will eventually get to shine in these. This is a technique I employ when everyone is working together in various different ways to accrue a series of smaller success that all build towards the same goal. Like finding multiple clues in a library, or overcoming various obstacles in a chase in different ways to all succeed as a group.
Each player participating in the challenge can make a single attempt. The base DC is 10-15 depending on the thing. A basic pass/fail automatically gains a certain degree of success, higher rolls grant even more success towards the communal goal. Once everyone has rolled, the challenge is over and they can make no further attempts. (This method is adapted from other 5e mechanics that utilize degrees of success.) This technique is very useful for when a few PCs are each making a similar attempt, and I want everyone to succeed to some degree so everyone can contribute, but those who roll well can contribute more. Everyone gets to participate, but good rolls are also rewarded. These can be done with either all PCs using the same Skill like in the first method, or using different skills like in the second method.
My point is, even if you have never seen Matt Colville, I know you have seen CritRole, and so that means you have been exposed to at least 2/3 of these methods. I’m not saying it isn’t a flaw with 5e, just that there are ways to offset the shortcomings of 5e with a minimal amount of work invested by the DM. And if it helps your campaign, use the methods I just listed. And if anyone has any other ways to fix it, I’m open to consider them. And if none of my three are quite like in 4e, then I stand corrected.
Counterpoint, Sposta: I never played 4e, and do not have a single 4e book to my name. I have absolutely no idea how 4e implemented 'Skill Challenges', and would have to dig those rules out of the graveyard of games past. It's fantastic that you have those resources and can make use of them, but not everyone does.
The other problem is that basically no-one (most likely including Sposta) actually used the 4e skill challenges as written. They were actually somewhat hard to use.
Quite possibly. 🤷♂️ I didn’t actually play 4e, so I could be mistaken.
The way people used skill challenges was "You can use any skill that you can convince the DM is appropriate to the challenge".
The way skill challenges were actually written was "The DM comes up with a list of appropriate skills that are favored for the challenge, the number of times each skill can be used, and the total which can be achieved with that skill; anything that doesn't fit within those limits is still possible, but modified difficulty, and reusing the same skill has additional penalties".
Yeah, I totally do it the easy way. It works, it takes a minimum of work invested by me. I can bust that out on the fly if I need to on those occasions we all find ourselves in when we’re straight winging it but don’t want them to know that. Plus, it puts agency in the hands of the players. I heard they like that sorta thing.
Quote from Yurei1453>>Counterpoint: if the DM has to invent absolutely everything about how to run the Mystery Game, from the plot, setting, and mystery itself to all of the extra mechanics and gameplay systems needed to make it work, and gets absolutely no help whatsoever from the game devs or the books to do so...
How is that not "D&D handling Mystery poorly"? The fact that an exceptionally talented DM can do mysteries anyways is not praise of the game, it's praise of that specific DM. Furthermore, the game itself is designed in such a way as to prevent or discourage players from engaging with a mystery properly. Most players will default to throwing dice at the problem until it goes away, or casting "Locate Answer" however they have to. Very little investigation, i.e. examination of the mystery and deductive logic and reasoning concerning what one's search says about it, happens in a typical mystery game.
The DM needs to think differently about building the game, the players need to think differently about playing the game, and in both cases the DMG/PHB actively teach both the DM and the players to do it wrongly/poorly/badly. Primarily because 5e is very little save a combat engine that had some extraneous trappings of noncombat fluffery bolted onto it after the fact, and Wizards bloody well knows that's exactly what they did.
I don’t understand you. You want “Mystery Mechanics” described to you? Skill checks exist. Roleplaying exists. Puzzles exist. *Mystery* exists.
This just reads like someone who wants someone to do all the DM development for them. This is an open ended roleplaying game that purposefully leaves the design of scenarios to the limits of the DM imagination. Mechanics for *any* mystery literally would add zero to any game - what do you want, some magic mystery flow chart that tells you how to design mysteries? A series of dice rolls that randomly generate mysteries? This line of thinking like you can’t invent your mechanics to fit your campaign is just plain wrong - it’s completely up to the DM how to handle mystery.
Run a game like “werewolf”, or “murder mystery evenings”, or just watch a movie and implement elements of that mystery. This constant griping about a game system that literally promotes homebrew and is only limited by your imagination doesn’t seem warranted at all.
My point is, even if you have never seen Matt Colville, I know you have seen CritRole, and so that means you have been exposed to at least 2/3 of these methods. I’m not saying it isn’t a flaw with 5e, just that there are ways to offset the shortcomings of 5e with a minimal amount of work invested by the DM. And if it helps your campaign, use the methods I just listed. And if anyone has any other ways to fix it, I’m open to consider them. And if none of my three are quite like in 4e, then I stand corrected.
Honestly, you can modify it any way you want - and those ideas can be modified and re-modified over and over. Honestly, I depend less on passing a specific skill check and combining plot points with NPCs and finding items that each provide portions of the clue for the PCs. Higher rolls maybe speed up the investigation, but the beauty of mystery is peeling back the layers one by one organically, not requiring a series of positive checks to figure out.
But whatever floats your boat - you could run a mystery one of a hundred different ways, limited only by imagination.
Well, it looks like the book's going to have stats for a Ghost Dragon that lives in Candlekeep.
Damn, that's cool.
That's something that's probably ported from DMsGuild Candlekeep Companion (which you can read in its entirety in full preview mode).
Technically the ghost dragon lives under Candlekeep as a guardian against subterranean intrusions.
It's one of the neat things in the MT Black Avernus "director's cut" adventure that didn't find a place elsewhere in the DiA hardback adventure. Not sure whether it's part of established Candlekeep lore or something Black invented. But it definitely sounds like their reproducing some if not all of the Candlekeep Companion content.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
This constant griping about a game system that literally promotes homebrew and is only limited by your imagination doesn’t seem warranted at all.
I think that's part of Yurei's point. 5e promotes homebrew. 5e doesn't promote homebrew well. It promotes a handful of variant rules and a few (fairly unhelpful) guidelines on homebrewing monsters and character options, and that's pretty much it. Even in later books, DM support ranges from okay to piss-poor.
I'm fortunate enough to have come from 4e (limited though my experience is) so I have a *little* experience on what other editions can bring to the table, and I happen to like just about anything DM'd by the esteemed Mark "Sherlock" Hulmes, but even then my time for live-plays and podcasts is limited so there's only so much I can learn from other DM's examples. For DM's who've had exposure to neither...good luck to them, 'cause they're gonna need it...
I agree that the current written rules for 5e are pretty sparse when it comes to mystery type adventures (and I also think skill challenges are a nice tool for them).
But perhaps a published book containing 17 mysteries might also contain some rules or guidelines to fill that gap? At the very least, it will provide some examples to steal from.
I don't generally buy adventure content but this book really intrigues me.
Well, it looks like the book's going to have stats for a Ghost Dragon that lives in Candlekeep.
Damn, that's cool.
That's something that's probably ported from DMsGuild Candlekeep Companion (which you can read in its entirety in full preview mode).
Technically the ghost dragon lives under Candlekeep as a guardian against subterranean intrusions.
It's one of the neat things in the MT Black Avernus "director's cut" adventure that didn't find a place elsewhere in the DiA hardback adventure. Not sure whether it's part of established Candlekeep lore or something Black invented. But it definitely sounds like their reproducing some if not all of the Candlekeep Companion content.
I'm not sure how much they'd include from a previously existing 3rd part supplement (I'd hope not much at all), but I have read that they are including more talent from creators on the DM's Guild, including my personal favorite Mark Hulmes, so I am intrigued to see how that goes.
@scatterbraind: I certainly hope so. Other titles have had additional information/guidelines included with them, so it'd be fantastic if they did that here (and especially if they draw on outside talent. Have I mentioned I'm a fan of Mark "Sherlock" Hulmes?)
Well, it looks like the book's going to have stats for a Ghost Dragon that lives in Candlekeep.
Damn, that's cool.
That's something that's probably ported from DMsGuild Candlekeep Companion (which you can read in its entirety in full preview mode).
Technically the ghost dragon lives under Candlekeep as a guardian against subterranean intrusions.
It's one of the neat things in the MT Black Avernus "director's cut" adventure that didn't find a place elsewhere in the DiA hardback adventure. Not sure whether it's part of established Candlekeep lore or something Black invented. But it definitely sounds like their reproducing some if not all of the Candlekeep Companion content.
I'm not sure how much they'd include from a previously existing 3rd part supplement (I'd hope not much at all), but I have read that they are including more talent from creators on the DM's Guild, including my personal favorite Mark Hulmes, so I am intrigued to see how that goes.
I see that logic, though the relationship between DMsGuild and WotC is not exactly third party. Moreover, it would be strange for a DMsGuild project to have a pretty well done map of Candlekeep, and 5e stats for Miirym (the ghost dragon), and Ed Greenwood's name credited as a designer on the dang book ... and then WotC producing an official product utilizing the same location with a conflicting map and ghost dragon stat ... released a few months later.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
DM's Guild is a weird space that has official sanction, but not necessarily endorsement, so *shrug*. I imagine the map will probably be the same, especially if it's based on prior ones. Ghost dragon...maybe? I could see WotC going either way on that one. My main gripe would be if they tried reprinting any of the adventures, or just ever so slightly tweaking them; now THAT would be shitty...
DM's Guild is a weird space that has official sanction, but not necessarily endorsement, so *shrug*. I imagine the map will probably be the same, especially if it's based on prior ones. Ghost dragon...maybe? I could see WotC going either way on that one. My main gripe would be if they tried reprinting any of the adventures, or just ever so slightly tweaking them; now THAT would be shitty...
Yeah, fortunately there's only one adventure in Candlekeep Companion and it was an alternate (earlier draft take) on an event in Descent Into Avernus, so there isn't really adventure content to reproduce. I thought I read in a review somewhere that Candlekeep Companion had the first full map of Candlekeep, but not certain. As for the Ghost Dragon, the character is interesting, but stat block and creature features ... I wouldn't be opposed to seeing something different.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I know a lot of people are getting real grumpy, but I am super into everything about this new book, more after reading more (there's a great io9 interview that touches on more than the announcement or Beyond articles have) about it, I just went ahead and preordered the sucker.
I know a lot of people are getting real grumpy, but I am super into everything about this new book, more after reading more (there's a great io9 interview that touches on more than the announcement or Beyond articles have) about it, I just went ahead and preordered the sucker.
on youtube? i don't find it when i search 'io9 D&D'
This constant griping about a game system that literally promotes homebrew and is only limited by your imagination doesn’t seem warranted at all.
I think that's part of Yurei's point. 5e promotes homebrew. 5e doesn't promote homebrew well. It promotes a handful of variant rules and a few (fairly unhelpful) guidelines on homebrewing monsters and character options, and that's pretty much it. Even in later books, DM support ranges from okay to piss-poor.
I'm fortunate enough to have come from 4e (limited though my experience is) so I have a *little* experience on what other editions can bring to the table, and I happen to like just about anything DM'd by the esteemed Mark "Sherlock" Hulmes, but even then my time for live-plays and podcasts is limited so there's only so much I can learn from other DM's examples. For DM's who've had exposure to neither...good luck to them, 'cause they're gonna need it...
Nail? Meet headache. Y'know, from being hit on the...never mind.
There is a difference between allowing something and promoting something. 5e allows homebrew (provided you're not trapped in the living Hell that is Adventurer's League). It does not really promote homebrew. It does not arm the DM to create their own content, outside of a handful of dubious charts, an even smaller handful of semi-helpful charts, and a few pithy guidelines that mostly amount to "try reflavoring other stuff instead of building new stuff". Many of the Rules of Homebrew are in material other than the books - if they're codified at all.
The 5e development team explicitly went out of its way to avoid telling players anything about how the guts of the system work, what assumptions the designers of the game made and predicated the system on, and how the underlying engine is supposed to function. One fantastic example? I don't think the words "action economy" appear in any D&D 5e book even once. People 'In The Know' are deeply familiar with action economy and the idea that More Actions = More Winning, but the DMG itself only says "be careful before letting characters do more things in a turn than we built them to do." It doesn't explain why that's so fraught and so liable to break your game, it just says "try not to do it" and moves on.
5e does not teach DMs how to homebrew. It barely teaches DMs how to DM. It doesn't even do a great job of teaching players how to play. We're a bunch of hungry people who've been given a few fish in the form of prebaked adventure books, and only the ambitious folks among us have taught ourselves how to fish. At no point in any official 5e book has Wizards made anything more than the most token attempt to teach their players how to fish, instead.
Possibly so they can, y'know, keep drip-feeding people fish in the form of big, flashy, costly Adventure Books instead of letting us build our own games.
I was legitimately surprised by the announcement of an adventure, I thought a setting was more likely. I don't know, the book might be really nice, and I do like the shorter adventures. I don't think all of them will be good. Maybe one or two will be great, and some others will be OK. I did really like Tales from the Yawning Portal and Ghosts of Saltmarsh, so something along those lines is pretty cool. The fact that this is an adventure makes me think it will be 2 adventures and 2 settings this year, which kind of sucks. I hope some of the adventures are really good.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew and give me feedback!
Am I seriously the only person who thought Ghosts of Saltmarsh was crushingly disappointing? I get the book, I start running a campaign based on the promises of ghosts, pirates, ghost pirates, and High Seas Rollicking Adventure(!!!). What I get is smugglers pulling a scam, swamp people, lizard politics, exactly one scene involving any sort of piratical adventure or seaborne fun, and exactly one scene involving any sort of ghosts.
The way people used skill challenges was "You can use any skill that you can convince the DM is appropriate to the challenge".
The way skill challenges were actually written was "The DM comes up with a list of appropriate skills that are favored for the challenge, the number of times each skill can be used, and the total which can be achieved with that skill; anything that doesn't fit within those limits is still possible, but modified difficulty, and reusing the same skill has additional penalties".
I didn’t actually play 4e either, but I got some handy inspiration from the inter web and said to myself “self, that looks pretty swell, I’ma steal it.” (I always call myself “self” when I make these decisions so I know I’m serious.) Also, I do have several editions of D&D rolling around in my head. So, I can’t be entirely sure I haven’t mixed up some stuff, but here are the three main ways I do group skill challenges. Someone smarter than me can point to whichever one is closest to 4e, if any.
(This one works like a group variation of the way the help action works, only without advantage or disadvantage. That is because it’s from an edition that predates that mechanic. I believe this is similar to the way Matt Mercer does Resurrection Attempts, or has at some point.)
So this would be an example of how I would let a group of PCs all work together to uncover a single clue, or break down a door together, or whatever single goal all together, but specifically when they are all contributing the same way. Like all Athletics for example, or all Investigation.
(This one is similar to/the same way Matt Colville did the chase/escape scene for the Chain of Ackeron if I recall correctly.)
So this is a way to let every PC get to utilize any and all skills the players chose for their PCs. It puts them the most in the driver’s seat. Some challenges, like “clue finding” will obviously favor some skills more, but other challenges, like chases/escapes will use other skills more. When applied in various circumstances, all skills will eventually become useful and therefore every PC will eventually get to shine in these. This is a technique I employ when everyone is working together in various different ways to accrue a series of smaller success that all build towards the same goal. Like finding multiple clues in a library, or overcoming various obstacles in a chase in different ways to all succeed as a group.
(This method is adapted from other 5e mechanics that utilize degrees of success.)
This technique is very useful for when a few PCs are each making a similar attempt, and I want everyone to succeed to some degree so everyone can contribute, but those who roll well can contribute more. Everyone gets to participate, but good rolls are also rewarded. These can be done with either all PCs using the same Skill like in the first method, or using different skills like in the second method.
My point is, even if you have never seen Matt Colville, I know you have seen CritRole, and so that means you have been exposed to at least 2/3 of these methods. I’m not saying it isn’t a flaw with 5e, just that there are ways to offset the shortcomings of 5e with a minimal amount of work invested by the DM. And if it helps your campaign, use the methods I just listed. And if anyone has any other ways to fix it, I’m open to consider them. And if none of my three are quite like in 4e, then I stand corrected.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Yeah, I totally do it the easy way. It works, it takes a minimum of work invested by me. I can bust that out on the fly if I need to on those occasions we all find ourselves in when we’re straight winging it but don’t want them to know that. Plus, it puts agency in the hands of the players. I heard they like that sorta thing.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I don’t understand you. You want “Mystery Mechanics” described to you? Skill checks exist. Roleplaying exists. Puzzles exist. *Mystery* exists.
This just reads like someone who wants someone to do all the DM development for them. This is an open ended roleplaying game that purposefully leaves the design of scenarios to the limits of the DM imagination. Mechanics for *any* mystery literally would add zero to any game - what do you want, some magic mystery flow chart that tells you how to design mysteries? A series of dice rolls that randomly generate mysteries? This line of thinking like you can’t invent your mechanics to fit your campaign is just plain wrong - it’s completely up to the DM how to handle mystery.
Run a game like “werewolf”, or “murder mystery evenings”, or just watch a movie and implement elements of that mystery. This constant griping about a game system that literally promotes homebrew and is only limited by your imagination doesn’t seem warranted at all.
Honestly, you can modify it any way you want - and those ideas can be modified and re-modified over and over. Honestly, I depend less on passing a specific skill check and combining plot points with NPCs and finding items that each provide portions of the clue for the PCs. Higher rolls maybe speed up the investigation, but the beauty of mystery is peeling back the layers one by one organically, not requiring a series of positive checks to figure out.
But whatever floats your boat - you could run a mystery one of a hundred different ways, limited only by imagination.
That's something that's probably ported from DMsGuild Candlekeep Companion (which you can read in its entirety in full preview mode).
Technically the ghost dragon lives under Candlekeep as a guardian against subterranean intrusions.
It's one of the neat things in the MT Black Avernus "director's cut" adventure that didn't find a place elsewhere in the DiA hardback adventure. Not sure whether it's part of established Candlekeep lore or something Black invented. But it definitely sounds like their reproducing some if not all of the Candlekeep Companion content.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I think that's part of Yurei's point. 5e promotes homebrew. 5e doesn't promote homebrew well. It promotes a handful of variant rules and a few (fairly unhelpful) guidelines on homebrewing monsters and character options, and that's pretty much it. Even in later books, DM support ranges from okay to piss-poor.
I'm fortunate enough to have come from 4e (limited though my experience is) so I have a *little* experience on what other editions can bring to the table, and I happen to like just about anything DM'd by the esteemed Mark "Sherlock" Hulmes, but even then my time for live-plays and podcasts is limited so there's only so much I can learn from other DM's examples. For DM's who've had exposure to neither...good luck to them, 'cause they're gonna need it...
I agree that the current written rules for 5e are pretty sparse when it comes to mystery type adventures (and I also think skill challenges are a nice tool for them).
But perhaps a published book containing 17 mysteries might also contain some rules or guidelines to fill that gap? At the very least, it will provide some examples to steal from.
I don't generally buy adventure content but this book really intrigues me.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I'm not sure how much they'd include from a previously existing 3rd part supplement (I'd hope not much at all), but I have read that they are including more talent from creators on the DM's Guild, including my personal favorite Mark Hulmes, so I am intrigued to see how that goes.
@scatterbraind: I certainly hope so. Other titles have had additional information/guidelines included with them, so it'd be fantastic if they did that here (and especially if they draw on outside talent. Have I mentioned I'm a fan of Mark "Sherlock" Hulmes?)
I see that logic, though the relationship between DMsGuild and WotC is not exactly third party. Moreover, it would be strange for a DMsGuild project to have a pretty well done map of Candlekeep, and 5e stats for Miirym (the ghost dragon), and Ed Greenwood's name credited as a designer on the dang book ... and then WotC producing an official product utilizing the same location with a conflicting map and ghost dragon stat ... released a few months later.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
DM's Guild is a weird space that has official sanction, but not necessarily endorsement, so *shrug*. I imagine the map will probably be the same, especially if it's based on prior ones. Ghost dragon...maybe? I could see WotC going either way on that one. My main gripe would be if they tried reprinting any of the adventures, or just ever so slightly tweaking them; now THAT would be shitty...
Yeah, fortunately there's only one adventure in Candlekeep Companion and it was an alternate (earlier draft take) on an event in Descent Into Avernus, so there isn't really adventure content to reproduce. I thought I read in a review somewhere that Candlekeep Companion had the first full map of Candlekeep, but not certain. As for the Ghost Dragon, the character is interesting, but stat block and creature features ... I wouldn't be opposed to seeing something different.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I know a lot of people are getting real grumpy, but I am super into everything about this new book, more after reading more (there's a great io9 interview that touches on more than the announcement or Beyond articles have) about it, I just went ahead and preordered the sucker.
on youtube? i don't find it when i search 'io9 D&D'
Guide to the Five Factions (PWYW)
Deck of Decks
https://io9.gizmodo.com/dungeons-dragons-new-adventure-book-brings-fresh-voic-1846037449
Nail? Meet headache. Y'know, from being hit on the...never mind.
There is a difference between allowing something and promoting something. 5e allows homebrew (provided you're not trapped in the living Hell that is Adventurer's League). It does not really promote homebrew. It does not arm the DM to create their own content, outside of a handful of dubious charts, an even smaller handful of semi-helpful charts, and a few pithy guidelines that mostly amount to "try reflavoring other stuff instead of building new stuff". Many of the Rules of Homebrew are in material other than the books - if they're codified at all.
The 5e development team explicitly went out of its way to avoid telling players anything about how the guts of the system work, what assumptions the designers of the game made and predicated the system on, and how the underlying engine is supposed to function. One fantastic example? I don't think the words "action economy" appear in any D&D 5e book even once. People 'In The Know' are deeply familiar with action economy and the idea that More Actions = More Winning, but the DMG itself only says "be careful before letting characters do more things in a turn than we built them to do." It doesn't explain why that's so fraught and so liable to break your game, it just says "try not to do it" and moves on.
5e does not teach DMs how to homebrew. It barely teaches DMs how to DM. It doesn't even do a great job of teaching players how to play. We're a bunch of hungry people who've been given a few fish in the form of prebaked adventure books, and only the ambitious folks among us have taught ourselves how to fish. At no point in any official 5e book has Wizards made anything more than the most token attempt to teach their players how to fish, instead.
Possibly so they can, y'know, keep drip-feeding people fish in the form of big, flashy, costly Adventure Books instead of letting us build our own games.
Oh well.
Please do not contact or message me.
I got it. I gave the nail some aspirin.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I was legitimately surprised by the announcement of an adventure, I thought a setting was more likely. I don't know, the book might be really nice, and I do like the shorter adventures. I don't think all of them will be good. Maybe one or two will be great, and some others will be OK. I did really like Tales from the Yawning Portal and Ghosts of Saltmarsh, so something along those lines is pretty cool. The fact that this is an adventure makes me think it will be 2 adventures and 2 settings this year, which kind of sucks. I hope some of the adventures are really good.
Please check out my homebrew and give me feedback!
Subclasses | Races | Spells | Magic Items | Monsters | Feats | Backgrounds
Am I seriously the only person who thought Ghosts of Saltmarsh was crushingly disappointing? I get the book, I start running a campaign based on the promises of ghosts, pirates, ghost pirates, and High Seas Rollicking Adventure(!!!). What I get is smugglers pulling a scam, swamp people, lizard politics, exactly one scene involving any sort of piratical adventure or seaborne fun, and exactly one scene involving any sort of ghosts.
Ugh. Screw that book.
Please do not contact or message me.