But those options already are covered. When readed the DMG for me was totally natural because came from a skill development based game. The skills in my games are part of the core and actively much used. In DMG we have about partial/near success and total failure checks, socials, and more things. In DMG2 (Xanathar) we have more about integrating tools, using collected materials for crafting, etc.
On the other hand, fortunately they removed those stereotyped roles, like that mandatory Rogue for pick locks and disarm traps, as now with class proficiencies, backgrounds, and feats any character can take other roles. So a any Wis character with Savage background can be a good "Ranger" for tracking/foraging, or any Dex one can be a decent "Rogue" with Thieves' Tools proficiency.
So at the end seems no matter if they cover it or not, as any table will make use of it or not by its own. What we want, specially those who want a more RPG and less simple board tactical combat style game, are options, that can be at DMG or anywhere, but options. I.e. I miss much some real options for deadly combat, in DMG we have some for Injuries and Massive Damage, but are poorly designed very hard to apply in a real game. Then some degree for criticals, taking into account each combatant skill and AC, inflicting injuries temporal or permanent, instant KO, etc.
My prediction is that they're not going to change much at all, mechanically. What they'll end up doing is just re-editing the existing PHB/DMG/MM to bring the changes from the various supplements (Tasha's, Xanathar's, Mordekeinen's, etc.) into the 'main line', and likely completely re-organize the DMG. They're not going to change much, as that would risk a 4e situation, with poor consumer reception and rivals spinning up to take on those customers. Especially with the recent debacles around the OGL, making Hasbro a bit twitchy around one of their biggest P&L line items.
At least, that's what I *thought* before Baldur's Gate came out and got the reception it has. Because it's been successful, there's going to be a pressure from Hasbro to have WotC adopt the changes Larian made in order to make a popular and functional D&D video game. I have to remember that Hasbro, as a corporation, has no long-term memory. They will dive after whatever is the biggest sparkly in visual range. And will *always* go for whatever short-term gains they think they can get away with.
So far, all we've seen is the "easier" stuff to amend: classes, subclasses, origins, & species. We haven't seen any of the next easiest stuff to change or fix: spells. Well, we've seen one or two, here & there. And most of the changes have evoked (yes, I went there) controversy. I say "easy" because player options are what most people look at first and foremost anyway. Also, because player options are a good baseline from which to start, and then you can change other facets of the game to balance and accommodate to that baseline.
But we haven't seen any of the other changes yet:
Monsters and monster abilities. They've said that they won't be changing monster CRs, in the interest of backwards compatibility. So they need to make sure that any CR 1/2 Monsters don't have flesh to stone insta-kills, or something. How difficult monsters actually are will help determine how useful/powerful player combat abilities are.
The DMG. If they do this right, it could help solve the lack of DMs. But it also greatly affects player options, too. If the DMG has more rules about how to integrate setting and exploration, then many non-combat player abilities suddenly become more relevant. More emphasis on food, exploration, foraging, tracking means that everyone will want a Ranger in the party. More emphasis on traps and locks means everyone wants a Rogue. If social interactions are emphasized, then "face" classes and abilities will be coveted. Skill challenges will make Bards, Rogues, Arificers, etc have more useful features. If combat is somehow changed to eliminate the "whack-a-mole" combat style, then healing, damage mitigation, and battlefield control become more relevant.
Basically, how a game is run makes all the difference in how relevant and effective player abilities & features are. I'm not sure how they can codify those things. That's the sort of thing that should be figured out between the players & DM in a session zero- what kind of gameplay do the players enjoy? However, the DMG could help a DM in figuring these things out and have rules- or at least guidelines or ideas- in how to run them. Suggestions on how to make every class' features seem useful and worth having for their players should be included. As a player, nothing sucks worse than taking a class & thinking this feature or that will be awesome, only to have it never really come up (I'm looking at you, Rangers, with your tracking & foraging).
So yeah. Spells. Monsters. Dungeon Masters. There's a lot that still needs to be covered, before we can have a fuller understanding of even the player options they've presented so far.
The lack of DM's is because the DMG is utter s***. There's one brief chapter around chapter 9 about how combat mechanics work and that's it. The rest is in the PHB for the most part.
The DMG should be just that a guide on how to operate the mechanics of the game and the nitty gritty way to use a module and run a game. It spends 100+ pages trying to use incredibly vague and abstract ways of describing cosmology with about 6 different tables to role to pick at random elements and put them together and somehow from that you have a world and a game?
F*** that.
The pre-written campaigns are the only thing written worse than the DMG. There's absolutely no rhyme or reason as to how to actually figure things out and run one from page one. You have to read the whole convoluted s***show and then try and figure out the overarching way things work and fit together.
DM's, especially new ones, generally want to be a tell a story to their friends. And they want to play host. And the DMG and source books just give them a bunch of vomited up tables and rules and never tell them how it all works.
And by that, using the hosting analogy, it's like telling someone "here's stuff you can put on the menu, and here's a GIGANTIC list of staff, And here's a list of entertainers. Good Luck!
They don't tell DM's that you need to set it up so you have appetizers before dinner, followed by dessert, much less where the cheese and fruit course is and does it come before or after a soup course? What silverware are you going to require.. How do these piece fit together? How much food should you prepare? What's your budget in time and materials?
Similarly, A DM needs to know different ways of organizing notes. They need characters and plot points reduced to bullet points that they can organize either on a spreadsheet, on note cards or on a piece of paper.
they need a cheat sheet for the rules that they AREN'T used to knowing from being a player one or two times, Then after that, they need to know OPTIONAL rules, and OPTIONAL needs to be bolded and explain why some DM's find these optional rather than strictly enforced (like survival games, and how they're for people who enjoy a challenge, but not all groups do, or spell points because some groups find it preferable for added flexibility in caster classes)
They need to understand how to plot out maps, and they need to know how dungeon shape can affect tactics (thin hallways into small rooms lead to cramped fighting), or how to scale up encounters for different sized groups, ( going tall versus going wide, or in other words, making monsters tougher versus more monsters).
They need to understand magic items and how it affects the balance of gameplay.
All this sort of stuff is just left out for a "well... Here's a piece of fluff to use for worldbuilding and 5 pages on mechanics. Good luck!"
I have yet to see a DM who's stuck for creativity, and many, including myself, who fumble in the dark on the best way to work the mechanics the way they want.
Secondly, this PHB doesn't address the DM shortage problem, but only exacerbates it with more nitpicky mechanics. Like I really have the time and energy to devote to learning what cute little bonus your weapon does and whether or not you remembered to switch your masteries during the last long rest.
I got 500 plus damned spells to parse and remember, and half of them do the same damned thing, just SLIGHTLY different, meaning either a different shape of damage or a different type, or it does a d12 instead of a d10.
And the DM shortage issue is something that feeds into itself because there's not enough DM's to give feedback on even the PHB compared to the overwhelming number of players who want overpowered BS so they can play god for 5 levels before dropping the game because it got "boring".
My prediction is that they're not going to change much at all, mechanically. What they'll end up doing is just re-editing the existing PHB/DMG/MM to bring the changes from the various supplements (Tasha's, Xanathar's, Mordekeinen's, etc.) into the 'main line', and likely completely re-organize the DMG. They're not going to change much, as that would risk a 4e situation, with poor consumer reception and rivals spinning up to take on those customers. Especially with the recent debacles around the OGL, making Hasbro a bit twitchy around one of their biggest P&L line items.
At least, that's what I *thought* before Baldur's Gate came out and got the reception it has. Because it's been successful, there's going to be a pressure from Hasbro to have WotC adopt the changes Larian made in order to make a popular and functional D&D video game. I have to remember that Hasbro, as a corporation, has no long-term memory. They will dive after whatever is the biggest sparkly in visual range. And will *always* go for whatever short-term gains they think they can get away with.
I think you pretty much nailed it.
From what I have seen in the whole beta test is that they change stuff, everyone craps all over it, and they try again... and after a while they just go back to a slightly altered version of the original.
I think the biggest challenge going forward for the next edition is the upcoming competition. There are some serious contenders en route and some of them have proven their metal. Flee Mortals, the monster manual by MCDM has shown just how completely incompetent and out of touch Wizards of the Coast designers are when it comes to game design and how far ahead their competition is. MCDM's upcoming system is going to make a big splash. Then you have Critical Role putting out their own system with a built-in audience which will no doubt mean all future critical role shows are going to be using their new system. I think its going to bring a lot of competition. Then you have the OSR which is like a slow 1d4-2 bleeding wound in WotC side but its consistently growing. Games like Dolmenwood for example by Necrotic game kickstarted with a million dollars in a millisecond flat. PF2 is getting a revamp edition and that is just tip of the iceberg stuff.
There is so much stuff coming down the pipe right now and the RPG community is not the inflexible D&D stone it once was, more and more people are branching out and the direction of these games is to get back to the table, not try to figure out how to play online. I personally think that WotC is making a big mistake by joining the battle for supremacy in the VTT space, its already crowded as hell and VTT's like Talespire have already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that while an interesting gimmick, it is just too much prep and work to use. People want mini's on the table, not on their computer and they sure as shit don't want AI's running their game. I mean Balders Gate 3 is a fun little distraction, I put 60 hours into it and now Im done with it, probably forever. A PC game can't replace a hobby I have been dedicated to for nearly 4 decades, they are fun, but digital stuff is just a fun thing to take for a spin and then delete it to save hardrive space.
But who knows, its all just speculation. The most important thing for WotC to do is to make sure they have a solid game design that can compete with the evolutions of RPG games and that evolution is moving at a neck-breaking pace, from what I have seen of the planned changes to the game, they are trapped in a design box that they can't talk their way out of. I think as has been the case with all in-between editions, this is the begining of the 5e era decline.
They started out with some really interesting possible changes. Some were just good to help keep things consistent. (Standardizing subclass progression.) Some were good for making mechanics actually get used. (Various systems to make sure Inspiration showed up at the table.) Some are interesting ideas, but still need a lot of work so you don't lose the cool part about a feature. (Druid wildshape stuff.) Some were good just for playability. (More people being able to prepare spells daily, while wizards became the "when you need it, I have it" class.)
But the drive for backwards compatibility is killing any chance of improvements. This is ending up being a series of unimpressive tweaks. Some are useful and good still. But it's not inspiring and it's not the kind of thing that will make someone think the whole thing was worthwhile.
Honestly, they should have committed to making a new edition that was the best they could make it, with backwards compatibility being a minor point. Because here's the thing: the people who are really worried about backwards compatibility aren't likely to jump onboard anyways. The only way to bring people over is to make such compelling improvements that people can't help but want to pick up the new books. I'm afraid they are frittering that away.
On the plus side, my D&D campaigns are going to have a *ton* more homebrew than before. Just because they're giving up on good ideas doesn't mean I have to.
I think they probably intended to go more heavily on the changes but the experiences from 3.5e to 4e, plus the backlash with the OSR shenanigans at the beginning of this process, have caused them to become a lot more hesitant. Annoyingly I reckon that, like you say, a lot of the better more ambitious changes won't survive and we'll see only small tepid changes.
Instead, I think the bolder ideas and majority of this playtest work is going to be used towards 6e after they properly prepare the audience (and 3rd parties) for the big changes.
Still incredibly frustrating but as you say, it's given us a taste and driven some brilliant discussions and design ideas on the forums for homebrew and houserule.
I think they probably intended to go more heavily on the changes but the experiences from 3.5e to 4e, plus the backlash with the OSR shenanigans at the beginning of this process, have caused them to become a lot more hesitant. Annoyingly I reckon that, like you say, a lot of the better more ambitious changes won't survive and we'll see only small tepid changes.
Instead, I think the bolder ideas and majority of this playtest work is going to be used towards 6e after they properly prepare the audience (and 3rd parties) for the big changes.
Still incredibly frustrating but as you say, it's given us a taste and driven some brilliant discussions and design ideas on the forums for homebrew and houserule.
if they learned their publicity lesson, i bet that 6e play tests won't be all that surprising. they'll decide it ahead of time, workshop the changes internally, drop a video to set expectations ahead, tie in youtube talking heads, and then drop the play test. it'll be a cozy hype train, a showcase of features leading up to release. an adventure on rails.
on the other hand, I bet there won't be nearly as much time between drops if they're not relying on surveys, right? (ugh, I hope they drop ua this Tues...)
if they learned their publicity lesson, i bet that 6e play tests won't be all that surprising. they'll decide it ahead of time, workshop the changes internally, drop a video to set expectations ahead, tie in youtube talking heads, and then drop the play test. it'll be a cozy hype train, a showcase of features leading up to release. an adventure on rails.
on the other hand, I bet there won't be nearly as much time between drops if they're not relying on surveys, right? (ugh, I hope they drop ua this Tues...)
I said it before, I'll say it again.
I don't like the new rules.
It's not horrible.
I could workshop some of the stuff around, give some of the dance bard stuff to the swashbuckler, the swashbuckler's stuff to the fighter, and tweak weapon masteries to apply only to fighters, and give everyone a unique spell list (for the most part) back, though a LOT of the spells would be tweaked, probably not to make players happy, but to make a lot of DM's happy (Well, a mix of unhappy and happy, and really, with a bit of a spell nerf and some more fun with upcasting and damage on spells, I think happier casters in the long run), but this is all digression.
What pisses me off about the above though is that it's right. pay off a handful of youtubers and the player base will eat it up. I don't think I heard an honest opinion about the movie. I MAY have, but every single person who had anything to say about it parroted the youtubers, in most cases, lifting full phrases. (it was to polished. the 2000 movie was better. Not that it was good, it was a TERRIBLE movie, but it at least had a damned soul to it...)
I hate bashing community, but I feel like that's just where the community is at generally. Whomever hasn't ditched already probably will just follow along with the next release, (although there will be some who drop because it's going to just get more and more difficult and the paywalls are going to simply be higher than their already stretched budgets will accommodate), and people will just keep going along with what they're told.
if they learned their publicity lesson, i bet that 6e play tests won't be all that surprising. they'll decide it ahead of time, workshop the changes internally, drop a video to set expectations ahead, tie in youtube talking heads, and then drop the play test. it'll be a cozy hype train, a showcase of features leading up to release. an adventure on rails.
on the other hand, I bet there won't be nearly as much time between drops if they're not relying on surveys, right? (ugh, I hope they drop ua this Tues...)
I said it before, I'll say it again.
I don't like the new rules.
It's not horrible.
I could workshop some of the stuff around, give some of the dance bard stuff to the swashbuckler, the swashbuckler's stuff to the fighter, and tweak weapon masteries to apply only to fighters, and give everyone a unique spell list (for the most part) back, though a LOT of the spells would be tweaked, probably not to make players happy, but to make a lot of DM's happy (Well, a mix of unhappy and happy, and really, with a bit of a spell nerf and some more fun with upcasting and damage on spells, I think happier casters in the long run), but this is all digression.
What pisses me off about the above though is that it's right. pay off a handful of youtubers and the player base will eat it up. I don't think I heard an honest opinion about the movie. I MAY have, but every single person who had anything to say about it parroted the youtubers, in most cases, lifting full phrases. (it was to polished. the 2000 movie was better. Not that it was good, it was a TERRIBLE movie, but it at least had a damned soul to it...)
I hate bashing community, but I feel like that's just where the community is at generally. Whomever hasn't ditched already probably will just follow along with the next release, (although there will be some who drop because it's going to just get more and more difficult and the paywalls are going to simply be higher than their already stretched budgets will accommodate), and people will just keep going along with what they're told.
just to say, I'm not claiming they'll seek to control the media. I'm saying they'll seek to control the product. in years to come they're more likely to provide a finished product to be "tested" and lay a narrative for how they expect feedback to go. no more messy moving targets and changing direction. managed expectations all the way. it'll seem faster on our end: no waiting after a survey because those will just be for satisfaction metrics, not combed for feedback.
just to say, I'm not claiming they'll seek to control the media. I'm saying they'll seek to control the product. in years to come they're more likely to provide a finished product to be "tested" and lay a narrative for how they expect feedback to go. no more messy moving targets and changing direction. managed expectations all the way. it'll seem faster on our end: no waiting after a survey because those will just be for satisfaction metrics, not combed for feedback.
Fair enough, but we live in a world of paid sponsorships and "advertorials" where spin is king. I also know hollywood has been VERY adept ad blaming "fans" when something goes south, and curiously, the fan blaming often hits before the actual product does.
And I don't think it's going to go the way they want.
I don't see hasbro or WotC as being particularly evil, but I do see them being just as any other corporate entity wishes to be these days.... It's just that those days are either over or not nearly as feasible as they may hope. (which is basically own something, do little to nothing, and collect money).
Write a campaign where the Big Bad is a corporate entity that only values profit and views people as mere assets to be manipulated in pursuit of that profit. The BBCE (Big Bad Corporate Entity) is not evil, merely amoral. It employs Illusionists and Bards and everything it can to manipulate public opinion, until the people are actually convinced to voluntarily make their own lives worse by ceding more and more wealth, power, and authority to the BBEC.
Just an aberrant campaign idea I had. Wait- what were we talking about?
Flee Mortals, the monster manual by MCDM has shown just how completely incompetent and out of touch Wizards of the Coast designers are when it comes to game design and how far ahead their competition is. MCDM's upcoming system is going to make a big splash. Then you have Critical Role putting out their own system with a built-in audience which will no doubt mean all future critical role shows are going to be using their new system. I think its going to bring a lot of competition. Then you have the OSR which is like a slow 1d4-2 bleeding wound in WotC side but its consistently growing. Games like Dolmenwood for example by Necrotic game kickstarted with a million dollars in a millisecond flat. PF2 is getting a revamp edition and that is just tip of the iceberg stuff.
Don't forget ShadowDark, which was a huge hit as well.
I'm a backer of Flee, Mortals! and it will definitely impact the game I run. And NGL: MCDM's in-progress TTRPG is the only D&D alternative I'm excited about. Because Colville and company are actually experienced game designers, I feel like it's the one that has the best chance to both deliver the experience we want while also being a markedly different and perhaps vastly improved one. I'm not jazzed about Daggerheart, as I don't have the same confidence in the Critical Role folks to design a TTRPG with parallel complexity and openness as D&D from the ground up (vs running an adapted/homebrew version of an existing one as they're doing now).
Dolmenwood and ShadowDark and others really highlight a problem within official D&D products: a complete lack of flavor, which from all signs is only going to be worse for 5.5E. In trying to be all things to all people, it's becoming a bland, flavorless game, requiring a LOT of work from the DM (and players) to inject it with a personality, tone, and feel.
After watching Colville's in-progress updates on MCDM's game, I'm finding myself wishing WOTC had just decided to boldly tear the bandaid off and gone for a full edition update.
I find it fascinating that a lot of folks are using terms like bland, flavorless, empty, and doing so even as just the last 60 days has introduced a crap ton of literal flavor text — hell, they just dropped a free gazetteer after dropping a book on giants that is pretty much 98% flavor.
it fascinates me because I have to wonder what the euphemisms are for — what is it, specifically, that people are using these terms to mean is gone, when factually — and I do mean in terms of fact — there is actually more flavor in the game as a whole.
which annoys the flack out of me because I don’t use published lore or lore sets, I only create my own. Like a lot of folks who liked the crunchier older style, I tend to have a ton of house rules, and I like a lot of optional rules and such.
so I will ask everyone who has used the terms bland or vanilla or flavorless or other euphemism to explain what they mean, precisely, if they could.
Because the easy inference is that they are euphemistic ways of saying bring back the parts of the game that drove people away or give nod to isms and phobias.
I don’t like the easy inference. That’s too assumptive. So, I am asking.
what is meant by bland?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (2000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA
I find it fascinating that a lot of folks are using terms like bland, flavorless, empty, and doing so even as just the last 60 days has introduced a crap ton of literal flavor text — hell, they just dropped a free gazetteer after dropping a book on giants that is pretty much 98% flavor.
it fascinates me because I have to wonder what the euphemisms are for — what is it, specifically, that people are using these terms to mean is gone, when factually — and I do mean in terms of fact — there is actually more flavor in the game as a whole.
which annoys the flack out of me because I don’t use published lore or lore sets, I only create my own. Like a lot of folks who liked the crunchier older style, I tend to have a ton of house rules, and I like a lot of optional rules and such.
so I will ask everyone who has used the terms bland or vanilla or flavorless or other euphemism to explain what they mean, precisely, if they could.
Because the easy inference is that they are euphemistic ways of saying bring back the parts of the game that drove people away or give nod to isms and phobias.
I don’t like the easy inference. That’s too assumptive. So, I am asking.
what is meant by bland?
I'll bite I described it many times.
The delineation between classes has never been less than it is now. The release of the dance bard is the monk/thief bard, and though it's a minor complaint, it's a subclass that demonstrates this. There's an abundance of them that steal skills from other classes or other class subclasses, so it just blurs.
Tasha's +2, +1 and the new backgrounds make species not matter. And in the subclasses a lot of features are ones that will be ignored or not used. The ranger's terrain and the weapons mastery change after a long rest which are already abused by players, so it means that the player's character creation choices don't matter as much.
Spells... There's too many. There's ones that are essentially the same as 4 others, just the damage type is slightly different. Or the shape is the damage is directed is slightly different. It's boring. And everyone tends to use the same 10 spells, because those ten are about the most broken ones in the game and you're an idiot for not taking them, while the rest kinda suck.(this is a bit of hyperbole. There's more than ten good spells, but the point stands some spells are dramatically powerful and too many false choices both in spells and abilities. The cunning strikes that a lot of people say sounds great aren't the people who play rogues because they're skills that you only use for extremely niche situations and there's existing rules that could be tweaked for far better results)
Skill aren't very class specific, and although I love 5e, a skill check with a 16 stat and no proficiency is going to succeed around 70% of the time (don't ask me how I worked that out, it's been a while.) And that's just across the board.
The genera problem of players having too much power isn't fixed, it's doubled down on giving players too much power. The monsters do not scale and are basically HP bags for players to one shot with the biggest numbers they can manage. A lot of players love it, but it's tedious and boring, and nobody wants to DM that, so there's a DM shortage... And those players are kinda toxic, but that's what WotC seems to think is the future... Until those players get bored of being walking gods at level 5, and quite for "better" games (the crunchier Pathfinders and such that operate more like war games.) Which is fine in its own right, but it just doubles down on showing the weaknesses and flaws within D&D, bot OneD&D and 5e.
It's not an issue of lore, it's a mechanical boredom and blandness.
EDIT I should point out, I agree with you about some changes being good and necessary to drive out the isms and bad habits.
Even though tasha's and backgrounds may not be the perfect solution, I do like the idea of trying t decouple species and stereotypes... Except the backgrounds awarding +1 and +2 now forces all rogues to be street urchins, etc. which detracts from creative story options and rather than racial stereotypes, you get classist ones TBH. I'm not a fan of a role playing caste system.
I like removing the "mother may I" from core character abilities. Love my rogues, but hate how DM dependent sneak attack is.. But in some cases removing the "mother may I" is still with a penalty which isn't great, but is acceptable, and in some cases it just feels like more and more player favoritism making the mechanics boring, tedious, and repetitive.
I specifically mention these because on reread I notice you mentioned the isms and problems, and I want to point out that I do agree with you about them, but in many ways they "fixed" issues by allowing worse ones through.
I find it fascinating that a lot of folks are using terms like bland, flavorless, empty, and doing so even as just the last 60 days has introduced a crap ton of literal flavor text — hell, they just dropped a free gazetteer after dropping a book on giants that is pretty much 98% flavor.
it fascinates me because I have to wonder what the euphemisms are for — what is it, specifically, that people are using these terms to mean is gone, when factually — and I do mean in terms of fact — there is actually more flavor in the game as a whole.
which annoys the flack out of me because I don’t use published lore or lore sets, I only create my own. Like a lot of folks who liked the crunchier older style, I tend to have a ton of house rules, and I like a lot of optional rules and such.
so I will ask everyone who has used the terms bland or vanilla or flavorless or other euphemism to explain what they mean, precisely, if they could.
Because the easy inference is that they are euphemistic ways of saying bring back the parts of the game that drove people away or give nod to isms and phobias.
I don’t like the easy inference. That’s too assumptive. So, I am asking.
what is meant by bland?
I'll bite I described it many times.
The delineation between classes has never been less than it is now. The release of the dance bard is the monk/thief bard, and though it's a minor complaint, it's a subclass that demonstrates this. There's an abundance of them that steal skills from other classes or other class subclasses, so it just blurs.
Tasha's +2, +1 and the new backgrounds make species not matter. And in the subclasses a lot of features are ones that will be ignored or not used. The ranger's terrain and the weapons mastery change after a long rest which are already abused by players, so it means that the player's character creation choices don't matter as much.
Spells... There's too many. There's ones that are essentially the same as 4 others, just the damage type is slightly different. Or the shape is the damage is directed is slightly different. It's boring.
Skill aren't very class specific, and although I love 5e, a skill check with a 16 stat and no proficiency is going to succeed around 70% of the time (don't ask me how I worked that out, it's been a while.) And that's just across the board.
The genera problem of players having too much power isn't fixed, it's doubled down on.
It's not an issue of lore, it's a mechanical boredom and blandness.
I totally agree on the lack of discrete classes. The enforced subclass structure means the whole point of a class based system is empty, because folks just cross the lines to make the sort they want.
I will say that I have long used dance bards, lol, just not monk bards, lol. The goal seems to have been a dancing fighter, not a bard who mesmerizes with movement. But that is down to flavor: the current published settings all more or less permit such, I suppose. I need more grounding in the world, myself.
Race still matters, just not in terms of ability scores. It becomes a factor in the same way all those special abilities are now. ASIs as a result of race are a major problem and a remnant of ugly stuff, though, so won’t go deeper into that.
I agree on the Ranger — in 98% of campaigns I have heard about, overland and exploration stuff is pretty much tossed to the wind. Not a lot of gulliver’s travels fans, or variants on Robinson Crusoe.
I solved that problem in my own game, but it meant changing the Druid dramatically, lol.
duplicative spells are a problem. I also personally hate the spell slot system, so I use a spell point system and things get really wacky there. I resolved it through a unified damage system based on level of spell and level of caster, and that’s despite adding a bunch of elemental spells.
I loved the old proficiency system when it was first a cool thing (promoted by Dragon Magazine), so I won’t argue on that, and crafting has become a big thing in several campaigns I am aware of (in no small part because of a certain videogame), so there does need to be something to address that.
no argument on the “moar power” thing. Some of my original players and I were reflecting on how our 17th level characters from 1982 were like 6th level these days. We just had more magic items…
That superhero influence, though, is part of the success. It plays to the players, not to a pure DM like me. And they do like making the job of a DM harder.
I don’t agree with a lot of changes, but I didn’t agree with some of the basic stuff. I am an older Gen player who liked some of the crunchy resource management stuff. But I also have grand kids in my games, the kids of my long term players. So I see the Rule of Cool in action for a lot of this.
my solution has been to fix those issues myself. Because WotC has to make the game appeal to as many people as possible — that is the biz side of things. So mechanics wise, they will fit to the times. As I have said before, things like the VTT aren’t meant for folks like me, who delight in the creation of a world and setting and will think nothing of changing all the classes and adding to the rules and shit like that.
it is meant for those who plan to use the stuff already made. DDB is useful to me as it is only as a forum and reference space for digital versions of the books — and I don’t have most of them, because what good is a book on giants when I don’t have giants? Why would I want a book about a dungeon beneath baldur’s gate when I don’t have such a place and it wouldn’t fit?
but for the folks they need to reach now, stuff like that is key.
science wise, the Rate of Adoption of Innovation applies, with folks like me being late or never adopters. Grouchy, grumbly, liking the way things were, lol. I am all of that. But I am also one of those folks who directly experienced the stuff they finally recognized as harmful. And a lot of why I am less likely to use published material or ever drop into a more mainline kind of setup where other features of DDB or the VTT could be useful is directly because of those things and how the “fix” still isn’t enough.
It isn’t that the rules are bland, so much as they are soft, I would say.
not elegant, just kinda unimaginative and rote, overly concerned with giving everyone everything in a way that encourages min/maxing and discourages role playing or creating complex setting based campaigns with multiple storylines and this little thing called character development.
Blame Marvel, maybe?
but then I just did insanely complex and deadly dungeons 60% of the time in the 80’s, and that kind of play is boring to the younger folks (even when playing beside their older teammates).
it isn’t so much that it is flavorless and bland, but that this game is still the baseline against which others are measured. Anyone who does things differently is doing it *different from D&D* and that makes this game, no matter the edition, the default, the minimum standard, the least common denominator.
even if they (WotC) came up with entirely new mechanics, even they would have to deal with that. Hell, look at me and my endless comparison of 5e to 1e and 2e.
that doesn’t make it bland — it just makes it familiar, and familiarity has a habit of breeding contempt, lol.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (2000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA
Recently got Pathfinder 2e and damn feels great. Didn't know it uses many of the things I already have in mind to apply to D&D, like purchasing feats/features, multi-class as improving versatility not breaking the game, or using the critical if 10 points ahead the AC (they read my mind?), and etc. I'll ask players and if they are agree we will definitely try it.
The good thing is that seems not hard to adapt the D&D 5e material, just having the Bestiary you use the same type that is balanced for its system the equal to the D&D creature. And many of the magical items seems also easy to convert. So all the adventures can be played and using the Forgotten Realms set.
When available will get too 1D&D to take a look, but if the 1st manual does not convince me probably would move out. It is a shame because I purchased all the D&D 5e manuals published in my region (a lot of money), but in any case as mentioned a good amount can be used in other systems just converting.
I find it fascinating that a lot of folks are using terms like bland, flavorless, empty, and doing so even as just the last 60 days has introduced a crap ton of literal flavor text — hell, they just dropped a free gazetteer after dropping a book on giants that is pretty much 98% flavor.
it fascinates me because I have to wonder what the euphemisms are for — what is it, specifically, that people are using these terms to mean is gone, when factually — and I do mean in terms of fact — there is actually more flavor in the game as a whole.
which annoys the flack out of me because I don’t use published lore or lore sets, I only create my own. Like a lot of folks who liked the crunchier older style, I tend to have a ton of house rules, and I like a lot of optional rules and such.
so I will ask everyone who has used the terms bland or vanilla or flavorless or other euphemism to explain what they mean, precisely, if they could.
Because the easy inference is that they are euphemistic ways of saying bring back the parts of the game that drove people away or give nod to isms and phobias.
I don’t like the easy inference. That’s too assumptive. So, I am asking.
what is meant by bland?
I can sort of explain/address this by example.
So we talked about a game in the OSR called Dolmenwood and the thing that makes this such a fascinating and interesting product is that it has a very specific identity. What I mean is that, they have created a setting and used D&D to create unique races and classes specific to that setting and specific to the style of play they created in the game with unique fantasy troupes designed just for that game. Its D&D, but there are clear decisions made in the game about what it wants to be, what atmosphere its trying to create/portray and everything about the design, the setting and the writing is focused on creating the atmosphere of that game. It has clear limits, there are a small handful of races and classes, none of which are the standard fair, so the mechanics of the game match up and align with the setting, which again is very specific.
I think the reason why D&D 5e appears "bland" by comparison is because its a game in which pretty much anything and everything goes at all times. There is nothing specific about the atmosphere its trying to create, its not generating any sort of specific playstyle or focused on doing anything unique, it ensures that every 5e game is everything to everyone.
This sort of melts into campaigns in which something specific is needed, like the recent Dragonlance for example. I mean this is an example of extremely boring content because its Dragonlance by name, but everything that made that setting a unique place has been washed out by trying to fit anything the goes fantasy into it. Anything that was specific about the setting and the style of play Dragonlance was famous for, for example how magic worked, or the unique flavor of the settings classes, all of it has been replaced with the standard, D&D 5e, anything goes troupes... so when you play Dragonlance using the 5th edition version of the setting, your not really playing Dragonlance, your still just playing in the same broad, anything goes, generalized and general D&D fantasy that all games under 5e are.
It is bland in the sense that 5e is just one thing, bland generic fantasy.
You could change that, but Wizards of the Coast simply doesn't. They create setting-specific books but when they do they just jam every splash book ever made for 5e into it, breaking it.
I mean for example the Loxodon people.. now it would be awesome if they created a new setting where very specific races and classes exist, where magic worked in a unique way and perhaps the Elphant people represent a unique powerful empire with a cool back story and unique elements of a world in which to play them.
But no.. they just made a new race and stuffed it into Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, SpellJamer... and in the end just that makes that race super boring and bland instead.
I think the reason why D&D 5e appears "bland" by comparison is because its a game in which pretty much anything and everything goes at all times. There is nothing specific about the atmosphere its trying to create, its not generating any sort of specific playstyle or focused on doing anything unique, it ensures that every 5e game is everything to everyone.
I think this hits upon so much of what my gripe is, both in world and playstyle.
I keep thinking about "The History of MtG" and how originally that was supposed to be an overarching game that used the cards from many other subsidiary games.
D&D is perfect for something like that, and in the past it felt a little more so with setting specific species and monsters.
But I feel like when spelljammer originally came out, it kind of opened a can of worms where you cold go from greyhawk to forgotten realms to dragonlance, and you have this mixing of settings, and the loxodon in dragonlance or the Kender in Forgotten Realms just... is...
The gods aren't unique, they're just aspects of other gods in other realms, and so on...
But honestly, mechanics are where my gripe lies the most. I find the lore itself burgeoning. It's 40-50-ish years of just piling on more and more backstory and lore and I'd just rather....not. Homebrew settings feel like a breath of fresh air, without the weight of having all the world already explored and explained away.
But lore itself also only really pertains to those that stick only to published adventures, though, in that regard, it's mostly a republishing cycle with each edition rather than new and exciting worlds/settings, but again, the problem lies with the core mechanics, and I really think a full re-examination under the hood so to speak is needed, this time to favor DM's more an balance the player power, but without creating situations that allow for toxic players or DM's to ruin the games.
so I will ask everyone who has used the terms bland or vanilla or flavorless or other euphemism to explain what they mean, precisely, if they could.
Because the easy inference is that they are euphemistic ways of saying bring back the parts of the game that drove people away or give nod to isms and phobias.
I don’t like the easy inference. That’s too assumptive. So, I am asking.
what is meant by bland?
Bob the Fish's response is good and I agree, though what I had primarily in mind is what this post says. Both in terms of lore, setting, and writing overall, a lot of 5E is just bland as hell.
~~~
The comment above that 17th level characters from older editions feel like 6th level characters in 5E rings true, but I'm thinking specifically of a design choice that Matt Colville called out in one of his videos. The decisions to make magic items superfluous is a very, very odd one and it has a LOT of ramifications/effects on gameplay. The fact that all or most classes are able to overcome resistance or immunity to damage from non-magic weapons by 5th level (!) is a huge mistake, IMSNHO, one that is in parallel to design a game in which magic items - something most players covet - are explicitly unnecessary.
Removing the need for magic items removes a primary motivation to even play the game at all, whether you're talking game-internal motivation (character) or game-external motivation (player). Characters no longer need magic items, which means they no longer need or have as much drive to go loot tombs, explore, and seek out treasure. They don't need magic weapons to defeat the monsters guarding any treasure hoards which, again, has a domino effect on motivation. I'm in full support of D&D becoming much, much more than simply a gang of adventurers going from one tomb complex to another - but I'm also in support of it never being less than that. If that makes sense.
In the defense of 5e, I can say two things about it that I do think make it a good system and is probably why so many people have been able to run successful and fun campaigns and expanded material for it.
First, it's very modular. Like B/X of old, if you strip away all the "specialized" stuff and simply take the basic game as found in the SRD, what you have is a platform upon which to build your own vision for a D&D game. Essentially making it a kind of D&D construction kit. Most mechanics in the game can be added, cut or changed and though that affects balance, its actually fairly easy to control and work with, the levers are very easy to work with. This is true about 1e B/X as well and its why the vast majority of OSR games are based on 1e B/X, for the same reason, its an incredibly modular game you can bend and twist in different ways to get the feel you're looking for.
The second thing is that by creating many classes, races and variety in rules options and splash books that support a wide range of fantasy troupes, you can, without being a designer and without really doing much work, create unique settings by mixing and matching elements and re-writing their narratives. This is actually one aspect of 3.5 that was so fantastic. Sure, the game had more splash books than the rest of D&D editions combined x1,000 but what you had was content you could piece together like legos to create your own settings, by adding things you like and cutting things you don't.
In this way, I think 5e is actually pretty great, it is, as promised, a very modular game design.
The reason this is a problem in 5e however, is not the system so much as the D&D culture and by association D&D creative publishing. The assumption by modern gamers of D&D is that if it's printed, it's cannon for all of D&D, and it must be allowed in the game which is why you end up with this very bland, anything-goes D&D that doesn't have its own identity. In turn because this community is so adamant about this mentality of including everything in every setting, Wizards of the Coasts knows that they can't release anything without being all-inclusive of every book printed before the release of any other.
Their hands are tied, the multiverse is just an excuse to justify this anything-goes fantasy but really all that has happened is that the vocal elements of this community have effectively taken the game hostage and they are setting the terms of what Wizards of the Coast can and can't print or even say in what has become an atmosphere so politically charged, the makers of the game are scared to go on camera and talk about the game because one word out of place and this community attacks. Any chance this game has of ever returning to a more sensible and focused game where we have unique settings each with their own soul, structure, playstyle and feel that gives them a unique flavor is completely out at this point. This community has absolutely destroyed any prospect of anything unique or creative taking place at Wizards of the Coast going forward.
This is why I think companies like MCDM, who are not bound by the modern D&D community's choke hold and can make whatever game they want without giving a crap about the politics, are going to normalize D&D being a premise rather than a specific franchise. Something that has already pretty much happened at this point. Ask any player what game they are playing when they use Pathfinder, Castle's and Crusades, Old School Essential or Dungeon Crawl classics for example and they will all tell you the same thing, they are playing D&D. Wizards of the Coasts owns the logo, but its soul is safe in the hearts of its fanbase, "official rules" means jack shit at this point. When WotC lost the OGL battle, they surrendered ownership of D&D, they own the name and thats it.
But those options already are covered. When readed the DMG for me was totally natural because came from a skill development based game. The skills in my games are part of the core and actively much used. In DMG we have about partial/near success and total failure checks, socials, and more things. In DMG2 (Xanathar) we have more about integrating tools, using collected materials for crafting, etc.
On the other hand, fortunately they removed those stereotyped roles, like that mandatory Rogue for pick locks and disarm traps, as now with class proficiencies, backgrounds, and feats any character can take other roles. So a any Wis character with Savage background can be a good "Ranger" for tracking/foraging, or any Dex one can be a decent "Rogue" with Thieves' Tools proficiency.
So at the end seems no matter if they cover it or not, as any table will make use of it or not by its own. What we want, specially those who want a more RPG and less simple board tactical combat style game, are options, that can be at DMG or anywhere, but options. I.e. I miss much some real options for deadly combat, in DMG we have some for Injuries and Massive Damage, but are poorly designed very hard to apply in a real game. Then some degree for criticals, taking into account each combatant skill and AC, inflicting injuries temporal or permanent, instant KO, etc.
My prediction is that they're not going to change much at all, mechanically. What they'll end up doing is just re-editing the existing PHB/DMG/MM to bring the changes from the various supplements (Tasha's, Xanathar's, Mordekeinen's, etc.) into the 'main line', and likely completely re-organize the DMG. They're not going to change much, as that would risk a 4e situation, with poor consumer reception and rivals spinning up to take on those customers. Especially with the recent debacles around the OGL, making Hasbro a bit twitchy around one of their biggest P&L line items.
At least, that's what I *thought* before Baldur's Gate came out and got the reception it has. Because it's been successful, there's going to be a pressure from Hasbro to have WotC adopt the changes Larian made in order to make a popular and functional D&D video game. I have to remember that Hasbro, as a corporation, has no long-term memory. They will dive after whatever is the biggest sparkly in visual range. And will *always* go for whatever short-term gains they think they can get away with.
The lack of DM's is because the DMG is utter s***.
There's one brief chapter around chapter 9 about how combat mechanics work and that's it. The rest is in the PHB for the most part.
The DMG should be just that a guide on how to operate the mechanics of the game and the nitty gritty way to use a module and run a game. It spends 100+ pages trying to use incredibly vague and abstract ways of describing cosmology with about 6 different tables to role to pick at random elements and put them together and somehow from that you have a world and a game?
F*** that.
The pre-written campaigns are the only thing written worse than the DMG. There's absolutely no rhyme or reason as to how to actually figure things out and run one from page one. You have to read the whole convoluted s***show and then try and figure out the overarching way things work and fit together.
DM's, especially new ones, generally want to be a tell a story to their friends. And they want to play host. And the DMG and source books just give them a bunch of vomited up tables and rules and never tell them how it all works.
And by that, using the hosting analogy, it's like telling someone "here's stuff you can put on the menu, and here's a GIGANTIC list of staff, And here's a list of entertainers. Good Luck!
They don't tell DM's that you need to set it up so you have appetizers before dinner, followed by dessert, much less where the cheese and fruit course is and does it come before or after a soup course? What silverware are you going to require.. How do these piece fit together? How much food should you prepare? What's your budget in time and materials?
Similarly, A DM needs to know different ways of organizing notes. They need characters and plot points reduced to bullet points that they can organize either on a spreadsheet, on note cards or on a piece of paper.
they need a cheat sheet for the rules that they AREN'T used to knowing from being a player one or two times, Then after that, they need to know OPTIONAL rules, and OPTIONAL needs to be bolded and explain why some DM's find these optional rather than strictly enforced (like survival games, and how they're for people who enjoy a challenge, but not all groups do, or spell points because some groups find it preferable for added flexibility in caster classes)
They need to understand how to plot out maps, and they need to know how dungeon shape can affect tactics (thin hallways into small rooms lead to cramped fighting), or how to scale up encounters for different sized groups, ( going tall versus going wide, or in other words, making monsters tougher versus more monsters).
They need to understand magic items and how it affects the balance of gameplay.
All this sort of stuff is just left out for a "well... Here's a piece of fluff to use for worldbuilding and 5 pages on mechanics. Good luck!"
I have yet to see a DM who's stuck for creativity, and many, including myself, who fumble in the dark on the best way to work the mechanics the way they want.
Secondly, this PHB doesn't address the DM shortage problem, but only exacerbates it with more nitpicky mechanics. Like I really have the time and energy to devote to learning what cute little bonus your weapon does and whether or not you remembered to switch your masteries during the last long rest.
I got 500 plus damned spells to parse and remember, and half of them do the same damned thing, just SLIGHTLY different, meaning either a different shape of damage or a different type, or it does a d12 instead of a d10.
And the DM shortage issue is something that feeds into itself because there's not enough DM's to give feedback on even the PHB compared to the overwhelming number of players who want overpowered BS so they can play god for 5 levels before dropping the game because it got "boring".
I think you pretty much nailed it.
From what I have seen in the whole beta test is that they change stuff, everyone craps all over it, and they try again... and after a while they just go back to a slightly altered version of the original.
I think the biggest challenge going forward for the next edition is the upcoming competition. There are some serious contenders en route and some of them have proven their metal. Flee Mortals, the monster manual by MCDM has shown just how completely incompetent and out of touch Wizards of the Coast designers are when it comes to game design and how far ahead their competition is. MCDM's upcoming system is going to make a big splash. Then you have Critical Role putting out their own system with a built-in audience which will no doubt mean all future critical role shows are going to be using their new system. I think its going to bring a lot of competition. Then you have the OSR which is like a slow 1d4-2 bleeding wound in WotC side but its consistently growing. Games like Dolmenwood for example by Necrotic game kickstarted with a million dollars in a millisecond flat. PF2 is getting a revamp edition and that is just tip of the iceberg stuff.
There is so much stuff coming down the pipe right now and the RPG community is not the inflexible D&D stone it once was, more and more people are branching out and the direction of these games is to get back to the table, not try to figure out how to play online. I personally think that WotC is making a big mistake by joining the battle for supremacy in the VTT space, its already crowded as hell and VTT's like Talespire have already proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that while an interesting gimmick, it is just too much prep and work to use. People want mini's on the table, not on their computer and they sure as shit don't want AI's running their game. I mean Balders Gate 3 is a fun little distraction, I put 60 hours into it and now Im done with it, probably forever. A PC game can't replace a hobby I have been dedicated to for nearly 4 decades, they are fun, but digital stuff is just a fun thing to take for a spin and then delete it to save hardrive space.
But who knows, its all just speculation. The most important thing for WotC to do is to make sure they have a solid game design that can compete with the evolutions of RPG games and that evolution is moving at a neck-breaking pace, from what I have seen of the planned changes to the game, they are trapped in a design box that they can't talk their way out of. I think as has been the case with all in-between editions, this is the begining of the 5e era decline.
They started out with some really interesting possible changes. Some were just good to help keep things consistent. (Standardizing subclass progression.) Some were good for making mechanics actually get used. (Various systems to make sure Inspiration showed up at the table.) Some are interesting ideas, but still need a lot of work so you don't lose the cool part about a feature. (Druid wildshape stuff.) Some were good just for playability. (More people being able to prepare spells daily, while wizards became the "when you need it, I have it" class.)
But the drive for backwards compatibility is killing any chance of improvements. This is ending up being a series of unimpressive tweaks. Some are useful and good still. But it's not inspiring and it's not the kind of thing that will make someone think the whole thing was worthwhile.
Honestly, they should have committed to making a new edition that was the best they could make it, with backwards compatibility being a minor point. Because here's the thing: the people who are really worried about backwards compatibility aren't likely to jump onboard anyways. The only way to bring people over is to make such compelling improvements that people can't help but want to pick up the new books. I'm afraid they are frittering that away.
On the plus side, my D&D campaigns are going to have a *ton* more homebrew than before. Just because they're giving up on good ideas doesn't mean I have to.
I think they probably intended to go more heavily on the changes but the experiences from 3.5e to 4e, plus the backlash with the OSR shenanigans at the beginning of this process, have caused them to become a lot more hesitant. Annoyingly I reckon that, like you say, a lot of the better more ambitious changes won't survive and we'll see only small tepid changes.
Instead, I think the bolder ideas and majority of this playtest work is going to be used towards 6e after they properly prepare the audience (and 3rd parties) for the big changes.
Still incredibly frustrating but as you say, it's given us a taste and driven some brilliant discussions and design ideas on the forums for homebrew and houserule.
if they learned their publicity lesson, i bet that 6e play tests won't be all that surprising. they'll decide it ahead of time, workshop the changes internally, drop a video to set expectations ahead, tie in youtube talking heads, and then drop the play test. it'll be a cozy hype train, a showcase of features leading up to release. an adventure on rails.
on the other hand, I bet there won't be nearly as much time between drops if they're not relying on surveys, right? (ugh, I hope they drop ua this Tues...)
I said it before, I'll say it again.
I don't like the new rules.
It's not horrible.
I could workshop some of the stuff around, give some of the dance bard stuff to the swashbuckler, the swashbuckler's stuff to the fighter, and tweak weapon masteries to apply only to fighters, and give everyone a unique spell list (for the most part) back, though a LOT of the spells would be tweaked, probably not to make players happy, but to make a lot of DM's happy (Well, a mix of unhappy and happy, and really, with a bit of a spell nerf and some more fun with upcasting and damage on spells, I think happier casters in the long run), but this is all digression.
What pisses me off about the above though is that it's right. pay off a handful of youtubers and the player base will eat it up. I don't think I heard an honest opinion about the movie. I MAY have, but every single person who had anything to say about it parroted the youtubers, in most cases, lifting full phrases. (it was to polished. the 2000 movie was better. Not that it was good, it was a TERRIBLE movie, but it at least had a damned soul to it...)
I hate bashing community, but I feel like that's just where the community is at generally. Whomever hasn't ditched already probably will just follow along with the next release, (although there will be some who drop because it's going to just get more and more difficult and the paywalls are going to simply be higher than their already stretched budgets will accommodate), and people will just keep going along with what they're told.
just to say, I'm not claiming they'll seek to control the media. I'm saying they'll seek to control the product. in years to come they're more likely to provide a finished product to be "tested" and lay a narrative for how they expect feedback to go. no more messy moving targets and changing direction. managed expectations all the way. it'll seem faster on our end: no waiting after a survey because those will just be for satisfaction metrics, not combed for feedback.
Fair enough, but we live in a world of paid sponsorships and "advertorials" where spin is king. I also know hollywood has been VERY adept ad blaming "fans" when something goes south, and curiously, the fan blaming often hits before the actual product does.
And I don't think it's going to go the way they want.
I don't see hasbro or WotC as being particularly evil, but I do see them being just as any other corporate entity wishes to be these days.... It's just that those days are either over or not nearly as feasible as they may hope. (which is basically own something, do little to nothing, and collect money).
Write a campaign where the Big Bad is a corporate entity that only values profit and views people as mere assets to be manipulated in pursuit of that profit. The BBCE (Big Bad Corporate Entity) is not evil, merely amoral. It employs Illusionists and Bards and everything it can to manipulate public opinion, until the people are actually convinced to voluntarily make their own lives worse by ceding more and more wealth, power, and authority to the BBEC.
Just an aberrant campaign idea I had. Wait- what were we talking about?
Don't forget ShadowDark, which was a huge hit as well.
I'm a backer of Flee, Mortals! and it will definitely impact the game I run. And NGL: MCDM's in-progress TTRPG is the only D&D alternative I'm excited about. Because Colville and company are actually experienced game designers, I feel like it's the one that has the best chance to both deliver the experience we want while also being a markedly different and perhaps vastly improved one. I'm not jazzed about Daggerheart, as I don't have the same confidence in the Critical Role folks to design a TTRPG with parallel complexity and openness as D&D from the ground up (vs running an adapted/homebrew version of an existing one as they're doing now).
Dolmenwood and ShadowDark and others really highlight a problem within official D&D products: a complete lack of flavor, which from all signs is only going to be worse for 5.5E. In trying to be all things to all people, it's becoming a bland, flavorless game, requiring a LOT of work from the DM (and players) to inject it with a personality, tone, and feel.
After watching Colville's in-progress updates on MCDM's game, I'm finding myself wishing WOTC had just decided to boldly tear the bandaid off and gone for a full edition update.
I find it fascinating that a lot of folks are using terms like bland, flavorless, empty, and doing so even as just the last 60 days has introduced a crap ton of literal flavor text — hell, they just dropped a free gazetteer after dropping a book on giants that is pretty much 98% flavor.
it fascinates me because I have to wonder what the euphemisms are for — what is it, specifically, that people are using these terms to mean is gone, when factually — and I do mean in terms of fact — there is actually more flavor in the game as a whole.
which annoys the flack out of me because I don’t use published lore or lore sets, I only create my own. Like a lot of folks who liked the crunchier older style, I tend to have a ton of house rules, and I like a lot of optional rules and such.
so I will ask everyone who has used the terms bland or vanilla or flavorless or other euphemism to explain what they mean, precisely, if they could.
Because the easy inference is that they are euphemistic ways of saying bring back the parts of the game that drove people away or give nod to isms and phobias.
I don’t like the easy inference. That’s too assumptive. So, I am asking.
what is meant by bland?
Only a DM since 1980 (2000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA
Wyrlde.com
Free PDFs
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I'll bite I described it many times.
The delineation between classes has never been less than it is now. The release of the dance bard is the monk/thief bard, and though it's a minor complaint, it's a subclass that demonstrates this. There's an abundance of them that steal skills from other classes or other class subclasses, so it just blurs.
Tasha's +2, +1 and the new backgrounds make species not matter. And in the subclasses a lot of features are ones that will be ignored or not used. The ranger's terrain and the weapons mastery change after a long rest which are already abused by players, so it means that the player's character creation choices don't matter as much.
Spells... There's too many. There's ones that are essentially the same as 4 others, just the damage type is slightly different. Or the shape is the damage is directed is slightly different. It's boring. And everyone tends to use the same 10 spells, because those ten are about the most broken ones in the game and you're an idiot for not taking them, while the rest kinda suck.(this is a bit of hyperbole. There's more than ten good spells, but the point stands some spells are dramatically powerful and too many false choices both in spells and abilities. The cunning strikes that a lot of people say sounds great aren't the people who play rogues because they're skills that you only use for extremely niche situations and there's existing rules that could be tweaked for far better results)
Skill aren't very class specific, and although I love 5e, a skill check with a 16 stat and no proficiency is going to succeed around 70% of the time (don't ask me how I worked that out, it's been a while.) And that's just across the board.
The genera problem of players having too much power isn't fixed, it's doubled down on giving players too much power. The monsters do not scale and are basically HP bags for players to one shot with the biggest numbers they can manage. A lot of players love it, but it's tedious and boring, and nobody wants to DM that, so there's a DM shortage... And those players are kinda toxic, but that's what WotC seems to think is the future... Until those players get bored of being walking gods at level 5, and quite for "better" games (the crunchier Pathfinders and such that operate more like war games.) Which is fine in its own right, but it just doubles down on showing the weaknesses and flaws within D&D, bot OneD&D and 5e.
It's not an issue of lore, it's a mechanical boredom and blandness.
EDIT I should point out, I agree with you about some changes being good and necessary to drive out the isms and bad habits.
Even though tasha's and backgrounds may not be the perfect solution, I do like the idea of trying t decouple species and stereotypes... Except the backgrounds awarding +1 and +2 now forces all rogues to be street urchins, etc. which detracts from creative story options and rather than racial stereotypes, you get classist ones TBH. I'm not a fan of a role playing caste system.
I like removing the "mother may I" from core character abilities. Love my rogues, but hate how DM dependent sneak attack is.. But in some cases removing the "mother may I" is still with a penalty which isn't great, but is acceptable, and in some cases it just feels like more and more player favoritism making the mechanics boring, tedious, and repetitive.
I specifically mention these because on reread I notice you mentioned the isms and problems, and I want to point out that I do agree with you about them, but in many ways they "fixed" issues by allowing worse ones through.
I totally agree on the lack of discrete classes. The enforced subclass structure means the whole point of a class based system is empty, because folks just cross the lines to make the sort they want.
I will say that I have long used dance bards, lol, just not monk bards, lol. The goal seems to have been a dancing fighter, not a bard who mesmerizes with movement. But that is down to flavor: the current published settings all more or less permit such, I suppose. I need more grounding in the world, myself.
Race still matters, just not in terms of ability scores. It becomes a factor in the same way all those special abilities are now. ASIs as a result of race are a major problem and a remnant of ugly stuff, though, so won’t go deeper into that.
I agree on the Ranger — in 98% of campaigns I have heard about, overland and exploration stuff is pretty much tossed to the wind. Not a lot of gulliver’s travels fans, or variants on Robinson Crusoe.
I solved that problem in my own game, but it meant changing the Druid dramatically, lol.
duplicative spells are a problem. I also personally hate the spell slot system, so I use a spell point system and things get really wacky there. I resolved it through a unified damage system based on level of spell and level of caster, and that’s despite adding a bunch of elemental spells.
I loved the old proficiency system when it was first a cool thing (promoted by Dragon Magazine), so I won’t argue on that, and crafting has become a big thing in several campaigns I am aware of (in no small part because of a certain videogame), so there does need to be something to address that.
no argument on the “moar power” thing. Some of my original players and I were reflecting on how our 17th level characters from 1982 were like 6th level these days. We just had more magic items…
That superhero influence, though, is part of the success. It plays to the players, not to a pure DM like me. And they do like making the job of a DM harder.
I don’t agree with a lot of changes, but I didn’t agree with some of the basic stuff. I am an older Gen player who liked some of the crunchy resource management stuff. But I also have grand kids in my games, the kids of my long term players. So I see the Rule of Cool in action for a lot of this.
my solution has been to fix those issues myself. Because WotC has to make the game appeal to as many people as possible — that is the biz side of things. So mechanics wise, they will fit to the times. As I have said before, things like the VTT aren’t meant for folks like me, who delight in the creation of a world and setting and will think nothing of changing all the classes and adding to the rules and shit like that.
it is meant for those who plan to use the stuff already made. DDB is useful to me as it is only as a forum and reference space for digital versions of the books — and I don’t have most of them, because what good is a book on giants when I don’t have giants? Why would I want a book about a dungeon beneath baldur’s gate when I don’t have such a place and it wouldn’t fit?
but for the folks they need to reach now, stuff like that is key.
science wise, the Rate of Adoption of Innovation applies, with folks like me being late or never adopters. Grouchy, grumbly, liking the way things were, lol. I am all of that. But I am also one of those folks who directly experienced the stuff they finally recognized as harmful. And a lot of why I am less likely to use published material or ever drop into a more mainline kind of setup where other features of DDB or the VTT could be useful is directly because of those things and how the “fix” still isn’t enough.
It isn’t that the rules are bland, so much as they are soft, I would say.
not elegant, just kinda unimaginative and rote, overly concerned with giving everyone everything in a way that encourages min/maxing and discourages role playing or creating complex setting based campaigns with multiple storylines and this little thing called character development.
Blame Marvel, maybe?
but then I just did insanely complex and deadly dungeons 60% of the time in the 80’s, and that kind of play is boring to the younger folks (even when playing beside their older teammates).
it isn’t so much that it is flavorless and bland, but that this game is still the baseline against which others are measured. Anyone who does things differently is doing it *different from D&D* and that makes this game, no matter the edition, the default, the minimum standard, the least common denominator.
even if they (WotC) came up with entirely new mechanics, even they would have to deal with that. Hell, look at me and my endless comparison of 5e to 1e and 2e.
that doesn’t make it bland — it just makes it familiar, and familiarity has a habit of breeding contempt, lol.
Only a DM since 1980 (2000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA
Wyrlde.com
Free PDFs
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Recently got Pathfinder 2e and damn feels great. Didn't know it uses many of the things I already have in mind to apply to D&D, like purchasing feats/features, multi-class as improving versatility not breaking the game, or using the critical if 10 points ahead the AC (they read my mind?), and etc. I'll ask players and if they are agree we will definitely try it.
The good thing is that seems not hard to adapt the D&D 5e material, just having the Bestiary you use the same type that is balanced for its system the equal to the D&D creature. And many of the magical items seems also easy to convert. So all the adventures can be played and using the Forgotten Realms set.
When available will get too 1D&D to take a look, but if the 1st manual does not convince me probably would move out. It is a shame because I purchased all the D&D 5e manuals published in my region (a lot of money), but in any case as mentioned a good amount can be used in other systems just converting.
I can sort of explain/address this by example.
So we talked about a game in the OSR called Dolmenwood and the thing that makes this such a fascinating and interesting product is that it has a very specific identity. What I mean is that, they have created a setting and used D&D to create unique races and classes specific to that setting and specific to the style of play they created in the game with unique fantasy troupes designed just for that game. Its D&D, but there are clear decisions made in the game about what it wants to be, what atmosphere its trying to create/portray and everything about the design, the setting and the writing is focused on creating the atmosphere of that game. It has clear limits, there are a small handful of races and classes, none of which are the standard fair, so the mechanics of the game match up and align with the setting, which again is very specific.
I think the reason why D&D 5e appears "bland" by comparison is because its a game in which pretty much anything and everything goes at all times. There is nothing specific about the atmosphere its trying to create, its not generating any sort of specific playstyle or focused on doing anything unique, it ensures that every 5e game is everything to everyone.
This sort of melts into campaigns in which something specific is needed, like the recent Dragonlance for example. I mean this is an example of extremely boring content because its Dragonlance by name, but everything that made that setting a unique place has been washed out by trying to fit anything the goes fantasy into it. Anything that was specific about the setting and the style of play Dragonlance was famous for, for example how magic worked, or the unique flavor of the settings classes, all of it has been replaced with the standard, D&D 5e, anything goes troupes... so when you play Dragonlance using the 5th edition version of the setting, your not really playing Dragonlance, your still just playing in the same broad, anything goes, generalized and general D&D fantasy that all games under 5e are.
It is bland in the sense that 5e is just one thing, bland generic fantasy.
You could change that, but Wizards of the Coast simply doesn't. They create setting-specific books but when they do they just jam every splash book ever made for 5e into it, breaking it.
I mean for example the Loxodon people.. now it would be awesome if they created a new setting where very specific races and classes exist, where magic worked in a unique way and perhaps the Elphant people represent a unique powerful empire with a cool back story and unique elements of a world in which to play them.
But no.. they just made a new race and stuffed it into Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, SpellJamer... and in the end just that makes that race super boring and bland instead.
I think this hits upon so much of what my gripe is, both in world and playstyle.
I keep thinking about "The History of MtG" and how originally that was supposed to be an overarching game that used the cards from many other subsidiary games.
D&D is perfect for something like that, and in the past it felt a little more so with setting specific species and monsters.
But I feel like when spelljammer originally came out, it kind of opened a can of worms where you cold go from greyhawk to forgotten realms to dragonlance, and you have this mixing of settings, and the loxodon in dragonlance or the Kender in Forgotten Realms just... is...
The gods aren't unique, they're just aspects of other gods in other realms, and so on...
But honestly, mechanics are where my gripe lies the most. I find the lore itself burgeoning. It's 40-50-ish years of just piling on more and more backstory and lore and I'd just rather....not. Homebrew settings feel like a breath of fresh air, without the weight of having all the world already explored and explained away.
But lore itself also only really pertains to those that stick only to published adventures, though, in that regard, it's mostly a republishing cycle with each edition rather than new and exciting worlds/settings, but again, the problem lies with the core mechanics, and I really think a full re-examination under the hood so to speak is needed, this time to favor DM's more an balance the player power, but without creating situations that allow for toxic players or DM's to ruin the games.
Bob the Fish's response is good and I agree, though what I had primarily in mind is what this post says. Both in terms of lore, setting, and writing overall, a lot of 5E is just bland as hell.
~~~
The comment above that 17th level characters from older editions feel like 6th level characters in 5E rings true, but I'm thinking specifically of a design choice that Matt Colville called out in one of his videos. The decisions to make magic items superfluous is a very, very odd one and it has a LOT of ramifications/effects on gameplay. The fact that all or most classes are able to overcome resistance or immunity to damage from non-magic weapons by 5th level (!) is a huge mistake, IMSNHO, one that is in parallel to design a game in which magic items - something most players covet - are explicitly unnecessary.
Removing the need for magic items removes a primary motivation to even play the game at all, whether you're talking game-internal motivation (character) or game-external motivation (player). Characters no longer need magic items, which means they no longer need or have as much drive to go loot tombs, explore, and seek out treasure. They don't need magic weapons to defeat the monsters guarding any treasure hoards which, again, has a domino effect on motivation. I'm in full support of D&D becoming much, much more than simply a gang of adventurers going from one tomb complex to another - but I'm also in support of it never being less than that. If that makes sense.
In the defense of 5e, I can say two things about it that I do think make it a good system and is probably why so many people have been able to run successful and fun campaigns and expanded material for it.
First, it's very modular. Like B/X of old, if you strip away all the "specialized" stuff and simply take the basic game as found in the SRD, what you have is a platform upon which to build your own vision for a D&D game. Essentially making it a kind of D&D construction kit. Most mechanics in the game can be added, cut or changed and though that affects balance, its actually fairly easy to control and work with, the levers are very easy to work with. This is true about 1e B/X as well and its why the vast majority of OSR games are based on 1e B/X, for the same reason, its an incredibly modular game you can bend and twist in different ways to get the feel you're looking for.
The second thing is that by creating many classes, races and variety in rules options and splash books that support a wide range of fantasy troupes, you can, without being a designer and without really doing much work, create unique settings by mixing and matching elements and re-writing their narratives. This is actually one aspect of 3.5 that was so fantastic. Sure, the game had more splash books than the rest of D&D editions combined x1,000 but what you had was content you could piece together like legos to create your own settings, by adding things you like and cutting things you don't.
In this way, I think 5e is actually pretty great, it is, as promised, a very modular game design.
The reason this is a problem in 5e however, is not the system so much as the D&D culture and by association D&D creative publishing. The assumption by modern gamers of D&D is that if it's printed, it's cannon for all of D&D, and it must be allowed in the game which is why you end up with this very bland, anything-goes D&D that doesn't have its own identity. In turn because this community is so adamant about this mentality of including everything in every setting, Wizards of the Coasts knows that they can't release anything without being all-inclusive of every book printed before the release of any other.
Their hands are tied, the multiverse is just an excuse to justify this anything-goes fantasy but really all that has happened is that the vocal elements of this community have effectively taken the game hostage and they are setting the terms of what Wizards of the Coast can and can't print or even say in what has become an atmosphere so politically charged, the makers of the game are scared to go on camera and talk about the game because one word out of place and this community attacks. Any chance this game has of ever returning to a more sensible and focused game where we have unique settings each with their own soul, structure, playstyle and feel that gives them a unique flavor is completely out at this point. This community has absolutely destroyed any prospect of anything unique or creative taking place at Wizards of the Coast going forward.
This is why I think companies like MCDM, who are not bound by the modern D&D community's choke hold and can make whatever game they want without giving a crap about the politics, are going to normalize D&D being a premise rather than a specific franchise. Something that has already pretty much happened at this point. Ask any player what game they are playing when they use Pathfinder, Castle's and Crusades, Old School Essential or Dungeon Crawl classics for example and they will all tell you the same thing, they are playing D&D. Wizards of the Coasts owns the logo, but its soul is safe in the hearts of its fanbase, "official rules" means jack shit at this point. When WotC lost the OGL battle, they surrendered ownership of D&D, they own the name and thats it.