As a patron myself, I don’t have a question so much as a Huge Thank You for all of the organization you put into your site and your RUclips videos! I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been able to easily go back and find the article or video I need! I don’t think any other RUclipsr makes accessing their content as easy as yours is! I appreciate it so much! Thanks for all the work!
It's so refreshing to hear from someone who actually played the game for a while and remembers all this stuff. So many people trying to "fix" 5e, including WotC themselves, keep unintentionally reverse engineering 3rd and 4th edition. Piling on options and feats doesn't make the game better, just more complicated and slower, and that was something the designers of 5e deliberately avoided. It was never a perfect system, but they're going back on the improvements that it did make. Everyone making their own houserules to do it their own way was intentional. That was the point.
"Nobody ever reads it, but if you read your 2014 Dungeon Master's Guide" This line alone I think summarizes so much of the weird annoyance I have with the 5e Community online. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen a newbie DM ask how to do something and then be answered with 'oh you should look at homebrew X or 3rd party Y to add it' when the answer is literally in the DMG. For some reason it seems like everyone just views the DMG as the 'magic item table book that also has the Oathbreaker Paladin and Death Cleric in it' and nothing more.
Its probably because the book isn't very well structured, so it's hard to find things. Thes is my guess as to why all of these optional rules were rarely used.
@@Pib31995yeah, I feel like the DMG can only really be red effectively by just starting at the first page reading to the last page and taking notes along the way. It's also just a completely optional book so anyone who's trying to save money is just not going to buy it. I do think it's a shame because there is a lot of good stuff in the DMG. But it just makes sense that it gets no press, because the people who are most effective at getting information out to the community, the content creators, are incentivized to broadcast information about Homebrew more than official content.
The most frustrating for me is the player can handle 6-8 encounters per day being treated as required for game balance when it's talking about an upper limit. But then again it was populised by "martial/caster divide" culture, so it's not going to be great.
Modularity doesn’t play way with building a software platform. Sure you can feature flag, but it can cause instability They want a “this is the way” for D&D The Final Edition
@@kevoreilly6557 I think it's more that WotC is accepting some of the most common house rules and making them the default so the game is easier for new players to learn and be on the same page as everybody else. I'm betting the new DMG will still have optional rules and it's not like even the designers don't use house rules. Modularity is most appropriately aimed at DM's rather than players, however. So it makes sense that we wouldn't see much of it in the PHB.
Thats why I like Owlbear rodeo..as recommended by Mike. Easy peasy to set-up. Load the map , throw the tokens on, fog of war the whole map. Manually cut out the fog as the players can see areas.
Running games using the free Basic 5E rules - no feats, no skills - has been some of the most fun my players have had. Everything moved so fast, and opened up so much room for creative solutions. And now we’re about to start using Shadowdark.
Buying just what you need to play my class in a TTRPG and buying a non-game effecting skin or having to buy additional stuff to ease play or win in a video game are not the same thing. The first can act as a low cost hook into the game the other is exploitation. Back in the day, I'd photocopy what the player needed out of the PHB if they didn't have the book or couldn't afford it or get access because we were poor high school kids in the middle of nowhere. I do agree that Hasbro is for profit publicly traded company and will do what they can to maximize profits and are well within their rights to do so. You hit the nail on the head with their primary customers are stockholders. Doing what's good for the community is, at best, a side effect. To everyone out there: DON'T LET FOMO DRIVE YOU! Play your game your way.
I’ve been dm-ing for my wife and some family members for the last couple of years. I got my shadowdark kickstarter in the mail and was so excited I played it 1on1 with my wife. She said not only did she really enjoy it, but that if we would have started with shadowdark instead of 5E, she would have found it far less overwhelming. So I think there’s something here to this ‘shadowdark as a 5E starter kit’.
22:47 RE: Modularity. For real! It was the part of the NEXT playtest that I was most excited about. I would have loved to see the system stripped to basics/essentials, then optional variant rules/subsystems to add or tweak based on your group. A stable foundation to build off of. I think it would have supported homebrew better. **(just my thoughts and opinions. Great video, Mike 😊)**
Yes on modularity! A big missing opportunity in my opinion though, was not helping the user to put the various options together in a meaningful way to to change the feel of the game. For example, a tale that suggests which rules to use for various playstyles....Old-School Mode, Standard Mode, Superhero Mode, etc. D&D is big and broad enough (and with the historical perspective and experience) that it really can be a game for almost everyone IF it's built in a flexible and modular way. The OSR should belong to Wizards... mostly it's built from WoTC's past!... but they gave it away because they haven't made it easy for players to see how to make the game work for different play styles. And as time has gone on, I would say they are narrowing the game to a certain rules set and also a certain play style and flavor.
No matter how dominant DnDBeyond gets, players will go where the DMs are. No player has ever left a game they really wanted to be in because it wasn't on their favorite VTT.
Actually I wager there are plenty of players who exclusively play with DM's that use their preferred medium for the game, whether it be Roll20, Foundry, In person, ect... The selection tends to happen up front more often, because DM's aren't commonly switching mid campaign all the time.
@@MannonMartin I don't think there's any conflict there; players certainly choose between potential online games where they have few points of reference based on their preferred VTT, but players do typically not leave a long-term gaming group because the group switches VTTs.
@@BetterMonsters I'm not so sure about that assertion. For one, not that many long-term gaming groups switch VTTs very often in the first place. That already leaves us with a very small subset to even speculate about, and no means of getting accurate data. While there certainly are players who have a great group of friends and a DM they love and they'll follow them to hell and back there's also players who hate platform X with a passion because they had some bad experience with it and very well might consider leaving the group if their DM changed, especially if it's just a group that they found online for the sole purpose of playing D&D. Not everyone is playing D&D with their friends. Many are just playing with whatever group they can get, just because they love D&D. But bad D&D is not better than no D&D, and if they found some random group online once they can do it again. *shrug* I'm not saying a lot of people would switch if their DM switched, but it's definitely not zero and I'm pretty sure I've met a few people that would totally ditch the group if the DM switched to Foundry or something they didn't like. People don't like change when they are comfortable with something and if they are using the system for their character sheet and making rolls and such and not just a to throw virtual tokens on a digital map then there's a lot more on the line. Changing something like that can fundamentally change the way you interact with the game.
The part about not treating D&D as a monolith needs to be shouted from the rooftops. I don’t remember where I discovered this man, but I hold him and his books mostly responsible for making me believe in the TTRPG hobby again after years of post-burnout skepticism. I am now running a Shadowdark game in the Shadowed Keep on the Borderlands setting, strictly because Mike’s recommendations turned me onto those publications, and it’s the most fun my players and I have probably ever had in this hobby. If you’re running games and not at least considering what this guy has to say, you are selling yourself short. Can’t wait to back City of Arches!
I play Shadowdark with max HP at first level (roll normally thereafter) and I find it doesn't really affect the lethality in any significant way. Even fighters with 8 - 10 HP can drop from a single attack, or two attacks, pretty easily.
My impression so far is they've been super worried about what they call "mother may I" mechanics and have tried to eliminate those. At the same time, they seem oblivious or indifferent to all the elements they're introducing where if a DM wants to exclude something and say no, the DM is basically the bad guy denying players candy. It's a weird shift of the default because it's so much easier and feels better for everyone involved for the DM to be generous and give you something extra to the rules (e.g. a free starting feat), whereas it sucks for everyone if a DM has to subtract stuff and toys simply because they might want the "we're not superheroes quite yet"-phase of the game to last longer than 2-3 levels (which is another weird trend; you'd think having 20 levels to work with would allow D&D to cover a huge range of player fantasies and from low-magic, gritty to ultra-super-heroic. Yet they seem hell-bent to cram ever more stuff into tier one and ignore that people could just start their campaigns at a higher level if they're looking for the high-powered experience).
I think the reasoning is most people don’t play high level games. A lot of home groups fizzle out before levels 15-20. Secondly, after level 15 (or even level 10) the power creep in D&D is ridiculous. I’m a paid DM and run 4 D&D campaigns a week, strictly WOTC modules, and I often wonder to myself “Why are we even rolling dice in D&D 5e?”🤷🏻♂️
@@TheTerrainWizard yes, that probably is part of the reasoning...that would be a very circular reasoning, though. It's in their hands to make high-level games feasible, give guidance for it and explain to players: yes, it is indeed allowed to start a campaign at level 14!
@@TheTerrainWizard that's assuming it isn't the presence of these toys that keeps people from making it to high levels, in which case groups will just fizzle out even earlier.
Zoned combat for the theatre of the mind vs battle maps VTT issue. You can find templates for “Ultimate Dungeon Terrain” like overlays that you can put into your VTT. Oddly enough, I put out a PWYW set of templates on DTRPG on Saturday just for this problem.
In the middle of playing a shadowdark game. My group is a fan of the simplicity but not interested in the lethality. So we just homebrewed 1. Max HP at 1st level. 2. 5E standard rolling for stats (so it skews higher) making it feel slightly more heroic. 3. used most or modified optional Pulp Rules found in Shadowdark. Seems to be working so far as a player. It’s less lethal but still pretty dangerous, especially compared to 5E.
Want to give a shout out to Heroes of Hesiod which is designed for young children. It is a super easy system and my children really enjoyed it. I used it as a gateway drug for DnD. When they got a bit older I converted their characters to DnD 3.5 as I had the books from way back. During the lock down years we swapped again to 5e and went online to play with friends in another city. We have been working through my heavily modded LMoP campaign ever since. We all still remember fondly our Heroes of Hesiod days though.
@SlyFlourish Don't get it twisted, the *ENTIRE* community is not one entity. Some people can complain about getting rid of micro-transactions. While other people can complain about adding micro-transactions. These are not typically the same people, so treating them like one entity calling them "you just want to be angry" is a bad take on the situation, and the individuals within the greater ttrpg community.
Great observations regarding modularity and optional rules. Personally I think most people will just pick and choose which rules/options they like best from each respective edition and just use those rather than completely switching to the new edition. I really like a lot of the optional rules in the 2014 DMG and I wish more people read it so they'd be aware of them. I think feats work incredibly well as quest or adventure rewards too, better than just arbitrarily picking one when you reach certain levels. It's also funny that another optional rule in 2014, epic boons, has become a fixed rule in 2024 and WotC is treating epic boons as if it's a completely new thing. I don't know anyone who used epic boons in 2014, and I've only started DMing relatively recently so I haven't had a chance to give them to players yet but it's something I plan to use if we continue with 2014
Shadowdark seems like a good intro to OSR style RPGs, and its really well designed. However as you point out it really depends on what those players prior experience and expectations are. For example, some of the new players in my group really enjoy the development of their characters and the relationships between them during a campaign. This has become a big feature of our games and generated some of our best moments (though we aren't just RP by any means and still love combat and skills etc). So for players like that you might need to consider a different system, lest they feel the game isn't enjoyable. But explaining the game up front should do a lot of that work for you; but you might need to give options if you really want to hook people in.
I’ll check out the kickstarter 👍🏿 I would like to offer a critique to your critique to the community - micro transactions in a video game are very different from buying pages of a book a la cart - Treantmonk was similarly wrong about this - it’s a false equivalence - furthermore, if you don’t want people to liken D&D to a video game, I think it’s dishonest to then liken its activities to video games when arguing against those people, but perhaps I misunderstood your point - also, I’m not sure we can generalize those two groups without good data - as well, the story is not that the community is in shock regarding a capitalist institution being evil, it is that the community is enraged that they have moved further down that road - I don’t think it’s helpful to counter protests with, “what did you expect?” - you are however correct in so far as the connection to the monopoly they want to build with D&D Beyond, but the community has no control over that - we did not make the bed that we must sleep in - we must work together if we wish to hold an institution’s feet to the fire as you say, and as a powerful voice in the community, speaking against the people who ultimately want the same thing you want is counterproductive if not damaging to the hobby - I don’t use D&D Beyond, but I do support those in the community who must use a virtual table top to play - whether or not a false accusation strengthens the position of the accused is dubious, BUT I don’t think these are false accusations - they are using the same underhanded business techniques that we’ve seen in other fields, especially video games - I don’t think the “everything WotC is evil” mentality is necessarily useful, but I question how pervasive it truly is - they’ve worked hard to lose the respect of the community (we don’t need to rehash the scandals), but if they do make good on their promises to, say release an updated SRD, they ought to reaccrue some level of respect - that said and counter point: we don’t “owe” a business (really any business) any level of faith unless we are a majority stock holder and therefore able to exert some level of influence over them directly as opposed to the methods of protest - this is a passionate issue, as I’m sure you know, but i think your voiced perspective on it, however nuanced, has been errantly skewed by your frustration with the nay sayers - I think you even have a level of recognition for this given your brief self critique following your statements on the topic around 19:50 - I would ask you to examine that dissonance and consider if there may be room to develop a more cogent position and statement on the issue - I’ll be honest, I’d be surprised if you read all this, but if you do, please know that I deeply respect you, your opinions, the material you’ve produced and the position you have in the community - I hope I have not alienated you, but if I have, I do apologize - just as for you, this is a topic of passion for me, and it can be difficult to restrain yourself from speaking your mind in such circumstances
Re. Matthew D.'s VTT maps question: don't look for a perfect map for your encounter; design your encounter around a cool map you have. Coming from TotM, where I started every encounter design in my imagination, it took me a long time to learn that there will never be a map to fit that perfectly. If you're using a map, start with the map. I also hate dynamic lighting as a player precisely because it means I can't take part vicariously in the long periods when it's others' turns.
Been loving all your work on the Patreon versions of City of Arches, it deserves a hardcover so much. Very excited for the Kickstarter. Hope it goes brilliantly.
So far the new players I've run Shadowdark have been pretty receptive to the lethality; I don't think durrable characters is a default assumption for people who haven't played (but everything you said about setting expectations is good to do)
Agree with your thoughts on D&D Beyond. Crawford's 2024 class videos full of his passion and love for the game look so sad when we all, including him, know what's going on at the top.
Modularity isn't a part of 2024 because it's a game that was made by committee, and the committee was the most vocal majority of players who don't GM and only care about optimization and their own power fantasies.
To take this in another direction: why would we expect the “modularity” as it’s called in this episode in the PHB when it games from the DMG last time?
Modularity is very hard to design. Keeping a solid base game with some optional (less-tested) rules is what 5e ended up doing. That was a good model, and I expect to see that in the DMG again.
I tend to agree that people are getting a bit too worked up over the pre order stuff as it stands atm. The concept of pre order bonuses can be controversial, but you have to examine what those bonuses actually are and whether they really matter to gameplay. Its a much bigger issue in video games because of potential power bonuses, this is less of an issue in TTRPGs. I dont think digital cosmetics, or different art covers on physical books, are an issue for pre orders. If they start putting spells or subclasses or monsters behind it, that's less ok. I do disagree a bit with your comment on saying complaining about the microtransactions is hypocritical by the same people. You can hold two different opinions about those things. Further, MTs in video games are almost never piecemeal parts of an expansion you can buy, or that you can get a disocunt on if you bought some MT part of it prior. MTs in video games, at least where they ste decried most, are those that nickel and dime you for things that you have to buy to stay competitive, or end up costing a huge amount compared to releasing the same content as a bigger DLC. This is not equivalant to WoTC removing their MTs, because that was a genuine consumer choice benefit that has been removed.
'Training Wheels D&D'. Appendix N reading is flush with characters who should've died multiple times including Elric and Conan. There's a Conan story, The Scarlet Citadel, where dude is captured and going to die at the hands of an 80 foot snake and someone we've never seen before comes in to taunt him and gets eaten by the snake and the keys wind up right next to Conan. I can't tell you how many times Corum in the Silver Hand trilogy should've died but for some random X factor. Training wheels for some.... Appendix N emulator for others.
I've run multiple different weekly D&D campaigns for kids after school, age 10+ for several years now. I used to start them with Dungeon World, because it's easy to run, the kids pick up the PbtA system quickly and it's excellent for getting them to be constantly creative. By the time they get close to maxing their characters out, they're ready to move on to 5e. I now use Shadowdark, for exactly the reasons you mentioned. And yes, I max out their HP for first level, and sometimes even the first 3 (depending on age and emotional development). Kids often get attached fairly quickly to their characters, so killing them off left and right can be problematic. I once ran a Shadowdark gauntlet session as a one-shot for some of the advanced kids, and most of them died at least 2-3 times. They were exhausted at the end of it, and none of them enjoyed it as much as our regular games. Rule of Fun wins. You can easily make Shadowdark a very good introduction to 5e, if that is your intention. Personally, I love Shadowdark for what it is, and it gives me a nice balance of modern D&D and nostalgia for my youth playing Basic and AD&D. But it absolutely IS a good system to teach players 5e with less crunch, and can definitely be made less lethal if that helps the process. It's also just fun on it's own, as you've already figured out. Don't let it's inherent lethality hinder you from running it with new players, or kids for that matter, just "turn the dials" in the right direction as appropriate. It's a great system, especially if you have experience with OSR games, and modern RPGs. I'm actually thinking about having some of my adult players take their Shadowdark characters and go create backstories using Burning Wheel (arguably the best character creation system ever). How's that for crossing the streams? ;)
I got into Tales of the Valiant during the Kickstarter, my D&D 5e campaign is coming to a close in roughly a year, and after that I'll be moving my gaming party to ToV and never looking back. I have to endure Hasbro's erratic releases and money-grabbing ways when it comes to Magic: the Gathering. If I can skip Hasbro's offerings altogether when it comes to TTRPGs, I'll do that for sure.
Whatever your character trained to use, they add their proficiency bonus, and every fourth level it increases by another +1 (so 5th, 9th, 13th etc.) very easy to explain. Which is a point I have against the design of ~minions~ CR 0.5 or weaker monsters... Reduce them to +1!
I have talked about the D&D game needing to be simple and modular. The issue is the a more complex game resists who will want to play. But I am very small now.
Am already doing this: playing 2014 D&D with a bunch of house rules. Feats can only be gained diegetically through your actions in game, failed death saves stick until you take a long rest, a system for doing cool but risky improvised combat moves; that kinda thing. As I understand it this is how people have always played D&D. Someone, Dael Kingsmill I think, said there’s an element of folk culture to the game. I think that’s right and I think D&D 2014 serves it very well. Personally have no need whatsoever of a new edition.
It will interesting to see if WOTC puts real support to the other platforms or is just halfhearted in an attempt to make D&DB a better relative experience. Not going to affect me much since I am consciously playing outside the WOTCsphere.
A house rule in ShadowDark for hit points that works really well is that you can choose to either roll one die and add to your current total or a 1 all of your dice and keep is the higher total… So if you roll a 1 at first and survive, you can roll two days when you level up and recover from that… 😀
Had a fighter with a soldier background do I roll a 1 for on HP at first level… I role-play that he had been discharged due to a lingering wound that had not healed properly… Managed to survive until second level and rolled a15 on 2d8… I’ll adventuring in a couple of cure wound spells managed to get that rib to pop back in! 😂
Optional rules are very interesting to me. I ran a campaign with new players and we didn't use feats or multiclassing or flanking as they were optional rules and wanted to keep the game simple. And we had a lot of fun for more than two years. I feel like my players would be more discouraged to start if their character creation included mandatory feats. At least it seems like the 2024 DMG will be a vastly superior book to 2014. That one was a mess and most people I know treated it as "the magic items book".
i can see not using feats w/ new players but it shouldn't be that big of a decision for those with some experience. your either choosing stuff to optimize your character, or add utility or flavor.
Why would your players be discouraged to start because they get to pick a feature at level 1? That's all it is. Small list of level 1 feats, (which are just basic PC features) and you pick one.
Completely off topic, but would you ever go back to the old DND campaign modules and do a play by play where you build your session out like in your Shadowdark campaign? Like, show us what you might use for Scenes or Secrets and Clues.
I think wotc biggest mistake will be not having easy, normal, and hard mode and modularity would easily does this. Shadowdark does this by allowing the lever system to change the game. B/X and Shadowdark allow modularity this with such ease.
I also noticed the radio silence from the D&D design team about the OGL, and their re-appearance during the "they don't read playtest feedback" claims, and I have a related theory: I presume the D&D design team is not involved with product licensing in any meaningful way: that's for brand management and their legal team. Jeremy Crawford and Chris Perkins may have strong opinions about the OGL, but it would be inappropriate for them to voice them in an official capacity (even if they hadn't, presumably, been muzzled by management). People who cause legal headaches for their employers tend not to keep their jobs.
I agree with you it was a legal issue, not a design problem. They probably were told to stay out of it, because saying anything would have only stoked the flames no matter what side their opinions fell on. They may not have even wanted to say anything, because that would just have hurt the company and focused a lot of attention on themselves. I for one would have just kept my head down and let it sort it-self out if I could.
Modularity - Fateforge would like a word... Also, I haven't tried Shadowdark but I think one of the best starter sets I have seen that comes with EVERYTHING you could want is DragonBane. Maybe not the best for D&D then they would be a great start for role playing.
13:50 disagree. this is more like releasing Destiny on Playstation, XBox, and PC. WotC is releasing 2024 on all the systems so it can make money off all the platforms since you will still have to repurchase the materials if you want to play on different platform. just like you would have to purchase Destiny twice if you wanted to play with your friends on XBox and also with your friends on Playstation. so the best we can actually say about this is inb4 they have platform exclusive content. like what Bungie did with certain legendaries in Destiny for the Playstation.
FWIW arkenforge mostly handles setting up the FoW on its assets automatically when the maps are made. It's also pretty easy to add FoW to a static image you imported :D
My thought after this video is maybe a new Basic edition might be a good idea. Side note: But Shadow Dark's lack of proficiency bonus is a design decision I've thought about too much. Adding a proficiency bonus to Shadow Dark for saves would make the numbers fully line up as a retro clone for importing creatures. AC and HP pretty closely lines, SD's damage is kind of high but that's a choice. The only number you have to really have to adjust are save DCs and it's a straight forward -1 to -5 per two levels. So it kind of would have been easier than not for Shadow Dark to have PB but there is a lot of value in it not so it was great to hear that talked about.
The problem with making rules optional is that they rarely see play. 2024's philosophy seems to be rooted in giving martials something to do besides damage, while lowering the burst damage options available. More feats means more complexity and longer turns in exchange for more interesting characters and interactions. Personally, I'm a fan of diverse character options. I don't think I've ever made a character that didn't have a feat, as I think feats add features I can't get simply by playing the class.
For true modularity, find out what the barebones essentials are for how to play the game. After that, EVERYTHING else is an option that can modulate the game. Typically (as you've said) all you really need to run most roleplaying games are attributes (and in some cases you don't even need those.) In the case of D&D, the rest of the stuff (race, class, magic, skills, hit points, possessions, etc.) are optional; sure they can add options and flavor, but they are not ESSENTIAL to the game. Then you can design your plot in any way you see fit.
When they switched away from micro transactions they literally lost my business. Not because I'm boycotting them, but because I don't want to purchase an entire book for only a few things. They'll figure out in a few years or so that players were purchasing a la-cart, and they won't be making as much money as they were, and they'll bring back the feature.
From playtests that Treantmonk and others ran using the UA material from the end of the UA process that was mostly classes that changed very little from UA to publication the turns took a small amount longer but battles finished a little quicker. It wasn't a huge difference, though we don't have the DMG or MM yet so we won't fully see how encounter balance is affected for quite a while yet. I don't honestly expect it will be too far away from current 2014 rules games if you're using Tasha's, Xanathar's, ect... If you're only using the 2014 PHB then the 2024 rules WILL be significantly different. We also know that several spells have been tweaked, but Treantmonk has also said that many outlier spells were not changed. Though that just leaves us with some of the same headaches as 2014, it doesn't actually make 2024 worse. Overall it's just an iterative revision where WotC tries to please everybody, and ultimately nobody's gonna be 100% happy with it. But that would actually be impossible, so fortunately DM's are game designers, and we get to fix things for our own tastes as we please.
Shadowdark borrows from many games, but at its heart it is based on D&D basic. So yes, it's good for new players, because it is built on a game made for beginners. And the sad thing is WoTC's history includes games that were great for beginners... but they threw that legacy away so now we depend on the OSR. Remember that back in '77, the intent was to run Basic for levels 1-3 and then graduate to AD&D! What you are advocating for, is the modern version of that same concept! Thanks for your videos. On character death... obviously do what you want at your table... and the training wheels you are talking about is what I might do for little kids. I play Mausritter with my 4-year old RAW, and it's deadly! She's fine with that, because we've taught her that losing is part of playing games, and dying is part of RPGs. Really, teens and 20-something's can't handle a character dying? Sometimes the loving thing to do is to compassionately challenges people to learn and grow instead of accommodating them in a way that allows stasis. Now of course, if you simply want to play a story telling playstyle that has not death, that's fine. But obviously that's not really what Shadowdark is designed to optimize.
I’d have to say that, although there is a lot of new stuff in this players handbook for players, much of it we’ve seen already from Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything and they just simply made it core. There is of course some genuinely new stuff such as weapon mastery, a lot of buffs to the monk, and some buffs to the Ranger. In fairness, there are nerfs as well. Monks can no longer stunning strike more than once per turn. Paladins can no longer smite more than once per turn. Technically paladin smites can also now be counterspelled. There are also other nerfs such as mercy monk’s hand of mercy can only be used wisdom modifier times per day, ect. I say all this to make the point that this book isn’t simply power creep. Weapon mastery may make combat take longer. I don’t know for sure.
Am I just an idiot who thinks that making an alternative world setting for DMs & players is a good thing? Maybe? But I'm still gonna do it because TTRPGS have given me such joy, made so many LIFELONG friends that I just want to give back to the community... & help me get into retirement with some financial security.
For myself, the issue why i hate the 5e dmg is because the phb already presented the more "game" option to the players first. Things like feats are optional, but why are they in the phb and not the dmg? The player gets to see these super cool options and then is told NO. When if it was in the dmg, the players would he introduced only if the dm wants them to.
Its kindof weird that people are just now mentioning the preorder bonuses? Dnd beyond has always had those(even before WotC aquired them). Aside from the vtt tokens the rest has been part of every launch for years (the character frames, the dice, early access etc).
Where did you hear that feats are no longer optional? Last I heard, only background (aka origin feats) were core character options; with the intention of encouraging groups to _allow_ feats everywhere else.
Mike, I enjoy your videos. However; my Game Master situation might be different than yours. I run three groups at the local library. Two teen groups (one is currently made of 12 year olds and the other of 14 year olds) and an adult group (ages 20 to 69). I can limit the number of players, but otherwise have no control over who plays; these are official Library programs. Each group has 7 players, but anywhere from 1 to 7 can show up at any session. Also sometimes they bring a friend with them. We have to play no matter how many players are present. I have been GMing in this situation for 2.5 years. Maybe you should try doing likewise to expand the depth of your methods of running games. No offense meant.
Dragonbane is currently looking like a good match for my tables and am waiting for the box set to have a go. My players are pretty casual and really don't care about all the complex mechanics or being super powered. They just want to have fun. Slow combat gives me the shits. I really don't like any game where turns take a long time, so the 2024 dnd is going to be an issue. Also, Dragonbane has ducks. :D
my players are loving 2024 5e, I'm not too excited by it all. seems like a fight not worth having, because i'd rather just play then fight them against the system they want to show up and play
The GM is a player and their fun should be taken into account too. If there's a system you think all of you could enjoy more, I encourage you to try it.
@@thebolas000 I actually got to run a ROOT the RPG one shot since my comment. A real BLAST (literally). Unfortunately, the game doesn't seem to really support long term play. Looking for something that strikes the balance between trad d20 long game play, but the game flow of PbtA games.
I dont see how dm deciding to remove the rules is any different if than wanting to add them. Like you could house rule the action type of a potion before but if you have to do it the opposite way thats now harder to change? Why? I dont see why the base version of the rules need to be the simplest version possible. If the vast majority of people agree they like a mechanic than that should be the standard to help give guidance to new players and people playing league games play the game most actually like.
The first issue is a matter of perception. If the rules say you can drink a potion as a bonus action and the GM changes that to an action, the player feels like they've lost something. WoW had this happen with their rested XP mechanic. To prevent players from staying logged in 24/7 they made it so after a certain amount of time you got less XP. Players hated it, so they changed it to "If you log out for X amount of hours, when you come back you'll get bonus XP for a certain amount of time". The numbers were the exact same before and after, but it feels different for the players.
Interesting video and reinforces why my own games are still using TSR’s AD&D 1st and 2nd edition rules. I’ve tried every release except 4.0 and it’s just gotten dumber - and I mean that literally, they’ve removed so much of the creativity and instead made, for example, character creation into plugging in pre created aspects of the characters’ backgrounds and personalities instead of having the players think it up on their own.
Why in the world would you try and explain a proficiency bonus to a new player in that way? Why wouldn't you just say, "it's a bonus your character gets for things they are especially good at doing."
They can't do the piece-meal sales of the current rules when they are so close to the updated rules are coming out. They very likely will go back to this format after 5.5 is released.
BG3 would help, although it has some differences. But it'll definitely teach you the basics of how combat in 5e works, and you'll get a great sneak-peek into how each class plays. Some of the mechanics, abilities and spells are changed to make them work better in a video game format, but mostly it's a good simulation of a 5e game. Solasta: Crown of the Magister is another game that will definitely help you grasp how dnd 5e works. It's much closer in rules to actual 5e rules, though the game is made by a newish company and not nearly as polished as BG3.
I feel like some of the thoughts expressed in this video are somewhat contradictory to thoughts you’ve expressed many times in your previous videos. You’ve stated many times that we as DMs decide the modularity of our games. And that’s a sentiment I agree with. I have a “take what I want and leave the rest” attitude about 5e. I love feats but I honestly have no reason to think leaving them out of my games would affect much. You can still have a house rule that players can only take the ASI feat if you’re that kinda DM. I personally only plan to buy the new players handbook. I don’t need the DMG and I already have plenty of monster books. So no amount of “standardization” from WotC is ever going to remove the modularity from my 5e. It’s all just additional material. Funfact about the “potion as a bonus action” rule. That’s really only half the house rule as I’ve encountered it. I played in a game where you used a bonus action to roll for heal. But if you used an action you got max healing. I’ve started using that in my games and players almost always use the whole action. It’s a nice bit of strategic thinking that they seem to enjoy.
I love your advice, but inevitably it always runs into the issue of "that doesn't work with DDB". Until we have a great alternative to DDB that allows us to play remotely (we all live in different states) almost none of it works. Breaking the stranglehold of DDB is key.
Roll20 and Foundry allow remote play, you can also do it through discord with bots. Or do you mean digital versions of the books? Because yes DDB does have a monopoly over that. The best option would be everyone buying the core books in any format and then relying on 3rd party books (which can have PDF/VTT support) for extra options/prewritten adventures. Or sailing the high seas 🌊 if you really don't want to support DDB.
The talk about "microtransactions" doesn't make much sense, IMO. That term doesn't represent something bad in video games because the transactions were small. It represents something bad in video games because you could spend small increments of money at a time, but keep spending it infinitely (virtual currencies, consumable items that you pay for, etc) or because content that used to be typical unlockable content to juice up the value proposition of a game instead, moved out of the base purchase price and became an add-on (though over time Big companies realized they were better off selling these as larger purchases instead of lots of small microtransactions). In other words, the problem was never that the transactions were small, it's that players felt like they ended up spending more money than they used to and it was hidden in the cost structure and the fact that The thing they bought that should be theirs was advertising to them that they should spend more money. None of that ever happened with D&D beyond selling player options a la carte. That was always a purely pro-consumer move that was done to give them a competitive advantage over other vtts and physical books, to show something they could do that nobody else could. While they are within their rights to remove it, and it might actually be better for the hobby that they did, because it doesn't push a race to the bottom for pricing, I don't think anyone is being misguided or hypocritical when they are upset that that feature was removed.
Loveya to death my friend but you're missing the underlying trend. And that's WoTC slowly getting rid of the DM. Video game storefront marketing is the "gateway drug" to A.I. generated DMs. Players are a wider marketbase than DMs. That's how a billion dollar Corp operates.
I would wager that the majority of TTRPG profits come from DM's, not players. I have spent thousands on this hobby as a DM, and most players I know just buy maybe one book and a few dice or a mini.
@razorchuckles But that's not my point. Sure, I've spent $1000s over the years too but players outnumber DMs at least 4:1 & it's obvious WoTC is doing things to grab the largest marketshare.
@@razorchuckles by getting rid of the DM you will now have to pay a subscription fee, but your own books, etc. The OP is correct. WIzbro does not care about the DM anymore and is going to monetize the players as much as possible.
How exactly is WotC going to get rid of DMs? Will they stop selling me books if I admit being a DM? Will they send Pinkertons to break my kneecaps if I run the game for a group? I don't see it happening.
@tuomasronnberg5244 I disagree with the above theory but I think the fear is that AI dungeonmasters would be more convenient and would allow groups of players to play without having to deal with a DM. I think there are lots of holes in the AI DM "threat" that make it unlikely.
Last year's issues were the final straw for me, when I decided I'd finally had enough of their shenanigans. Since then, my main fantasy RPGs have been PF2 and A5E, and I shill for both at any excuse. A5E in particular gives me a way to play an improved (in my opinion) version of 5E without WotC getting any of my money.
19:41 you're not being hypocritical at all. But you'r enot being exactly forthright either. Bashing WOTC has no bearing on your enjoyment of TTRPG - true - but it *does* get you a lot of traffic/attention/clicks. Whatever you want to call it. Taking WotC saying "This is gonna be annoying to your monsters!" and changing the message to "This is gonna annoy Dungeon Masters!" is twisting the truth to maximize personal gain. It just doesn't feel right - escpecially for someone like me who really likes your books. I hope you can hop off the hate train (however enticing the numbers it brings may be) again and produce more positive content. I understand that being enthusiastic about things doesn't pay as well as getting people riled up all the time, but you can do the former and be a force for good in the world, which is worthwhile in its own right. Personally, I don't give two craps about WotC's virtual tabletop, preorder nonsense etc. - all they need to do is produce great quality books - and so far it seems like they are doing just that.
I always choose my topics to help GMs navigate this hobby and talk about what interests me as I navigate it. I don't chase controversy for clicks. The exact quote was "Frustrating for Dungeon Masters but fantastic for your party." www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1752-2024-rogue-vs-2014-rogue-whats-new
@@SlyFlourish That's my bad then - that's a pretty silly thing to say indeed... xD Still, it would be cool to see more productive/positive/inspiring D&D content again. Lately, all the channels I like to watch tend to include anti-WOTC tantrums in every single video (usually to promote some alternate system they're affiliated with). I'm just hoping you don't follow that patrticular trend too much.
Why are we making up our minds about the 2024 rulesset when we haven't even seen it. It seems unnecessarily negative. Yeah we all hate WOTC as a company, but to act like the individual designers are cluesless and don't care about the making the game better is weird. We don't even have the game in our hands, we've only been given piece-meal information. Can we all relax.
As a patron myself, I don’t have a question so much as a Huge Thank You for all of the organization you put into your site and your RUclips videos! I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been able to easily go back and find the article or video I need! I don’t think any other RUclipsr makes accessing their content as easy as yours is! I appreciate it so much! Thanks for all the work!
Thank you!
It's so refreshing to hear from someone who actually played the game for a while and remembers all this stuff. So many people trying to "fix" 5e, including WotC themselves, keep unintentionally reverse engineering 3rd and 4th edition. Piling on options and feats doesn't make the game better, just more complicated and slower, and that was something the designers of 5e deliberately avoided. It was never a perfect system, but they're going back on the improvements that it did make.
Everyone making their own houserules to do it their own way was intentional. That was the point.
"Nobody ever reads it, but if you read your 2014 Dungeon Master's Guide"
This line alone I think summarizes so much of the weird annoyance I have with the 5e Community online.
I've lost count of the number of times I've seen a newbie DM ask how to do something and then be answered with 'oh you should look at homebrew X or 3rd party Y to add it' when the answer is literally in the DMG.
For some reason it seems like everyone just views the DMG as the 'magic item table book that also has the Oathbreaker Paladin and Death Cleric in it' and nothing more.
Its probably because the book isn't very well structured, so it's hard to find things. Thes is my guess as to why all of these optional rules were rarely used.
@@Pib31995yeah, I feel like the DMG can only really be red effectively by just starting at the first page reading to the last page and taking notes along the way.
It's also just a completely optional book so anyone who's trying to save money is just not going to buy it.
I do think it's a shame because there is a lot of good stuff in the DMG. But it just makes sense that it gets no press, because the people who are most effective at getting information out to the community, the content creators, are incentivized to broadcast information about Homebrew more than official content.
The most frustrating for me is the player can handle 6-8 encounters per day being treated as required for game balance when it's talking about an upper limit. But then again it was populised by "martial/caster divide" culture, so it's not going to be great.
Modularity doesn’t play way with building a software platform. Sure you can feature flag, but it can cause instability
They want a “this is the way” for D&D The Final Edition
@@kevoreilly6557 I think it's more that WotC is accepting some of the most common house rules and making them the default so the game is easier for new players to learn and be on the same page as everybody else. I'm betting the new DMG will still have optional rules and it's not like even the designers don't use house rules.
Modularity is most appropriately aimed at DM's rather than players, however. So it makes sense that we wouldn't see much of it in the PHB.
Thats why I like Owlbear rodeo..as recommended by Mike.
Easy peasy to set-up.
Load the map , throw the tokens on, fog of war the whole map.
Manually cut out the fog as the players can see areas.
Running games using the free Basic 5E rules - no feats, no skills - has been some of the most fun my players have had. Everything moved so fast, and opened up so much room for creative solutions. And now we’re about to start using Shadowdark.
The basic rules doesn’t have skills?
Buying just what you need to play my class in a TTRPG and buying a non-game effecting skin or having to buy additional stuff to ease play or win in a video game are not the same thing. The first can act as a low cost hook into the game the other is exploitation. Back in the day, I'd photocopy what the player needed out of the PHB if they didn't have the book or couldn't afford it or get access because we were poor high school kids in the middle of nowhere. I do agree that Hasbro is for profit publicly traded company and will do what they can to maximize profits and are well within their rights to do so. You hit the nail on the head with their primary customers are stockholders. Doing what's good for the community is, at best, a side effect.
To everyone out there: DON'T LET FOMO DRIVE YOU! Play your game your way.
Hear hear
Remember the pirates. ;)
I’ve been dm-ing for my wife and some family members for the last couple of years. I got my shadowdark kickstarter in the mail and was so excited I played it 1on1 with my wife. She said not only did she really enjoy it, but that if we would have started with shadowdark instead of 5E, she would have found it far less overwhelming. So I think there’s something here to this ‘shadowdark as a 5E starter kit’.
22:47 RE: Modularity. For real! It was the part of the NEXT playtest that I was most excited about. I would have loved to see the system stripped to basics/essentials, then optional variant rules/subsystems to add or tweak based on your group. A stable foundation to build off of. I think it would have supported homebrew better. **(just my thoughts and opinions. Great video, Mike 😊)**
Yes on modularity! A big missing opportunity in my opinion though, was not helping the user to put the various options together in a meaningful way to to change the feel of the game. For example, a tale that suggests which rules to use for various playstyles....Old-School Mode, Standard Mode, Superhero Mode, etc.
D&D is big and broad enough (and with the historical perspective and experience) that it really can be a game for almost everyone IF it's built in a flexible and modular way. The OSR should belong to Wizards... mostly it's built from WoTC's past!... but they gave it away because they haven't made it easy for players to see how to make the game work for different play styles. And as time has gone on, I would say they are narrowing the game to a certain rules set and also a certain play style and flavor.
No matter how dominant DnDBeyond gets, players will go where the DMs are. No player has ever left a game they really wanted to be in because it wasn't on their favorite VTT.
I almost did/may have. Then the DM started using Foundry instead of theater of the mind, and I was back on board.
Actually I wager there are plenty of players who exclusively play with DM's that use their preferred medium for the game, whether it be Roll20, Foundry, In person, ect... The selection tends to happen up front more often, because DM's aren't commonly switching mid campaign all the time.
@@MannonMartin I don't think there's any conflict there; players certainly choose between potential online games where they have few points of reference based on their preferred VTT, but players do typically not leave a long-term gaming group because the group switches VTTs.
@@BetterMonsters I'm not so sure about that assertion. For one, not that many long-term gaming groups switch VTTs very often in the first place. That already leaves us with a very small subset to even speculate about, and no means of getting accurate data. While there certainly are players who have a great group of friends and a DM they love and they'll follow them to hell and back there's also players who hate platform X with a passion because they had some bad experience with it and very well might consider leaving the group if their DM changed, especially if it's just a group that they found online for the sole purpose of playing D&D.
Not everyone is playing D&D with their friends. Many are just playing with whatever group they can get, just because they love D&D. But bad D&D is not better than no D&D, and if they found some random group online once they can do it again. *shrug*
I'm not saying a lot of people would switch if their DM switched, but it's definitely not zero and I'm pretty sure I've met a few people that would totally ditch the group if the DM switched to Foundry or something they didn't like. People don't like change when they are comfortable with something and if they are using the system for their character sheet and making rolls and such and not just a to throw virtual tokens on a digital map then there's a lot more on the line. Changing something like that can fundamentally change the way you interact with the game.
The part about not treating D&D as a monolith needs to be shouted from the rooftops. I don’t remember where I discovered this man, but I hold him and his books mostly responsible for making me believe in the TTRPG hobby again after years of post-burnout skepticism. I am now running a Shadowdark game in the Shadowed Keep on the Borderlands setting, strictly because Mike’s recommendations turned me onto those publications, and it’s the most fun my players and I have probably ever had in this hobby. If you’re running games and not at least considering what this guy has to say, you are selling yourself short. Can’t wait to back City of Arches!
I play Shadowdark with max HP at first level (roll normally thereafter) and I find it doesn't really affect the lethality in any significant way. Even fighters with 8 - 10 HP can drop from a single attack, or two attacks, pretty easily.
Your just slightly more heroic. Like you said, just a extra hit.
My impression so far is they've been super worried about what they call "mother may I" mechanics and have tried to eliminate those. At the same time, they seem oblivious or indifferent to all the elements they're introducing where if a DM wants to exclude something and say no, the DM is basically the bad guy denying players candy. It's a weird shift of the default because it's so much easier and feels better for everyone involved for the DM to be generous and give you something extra to the rules (e.g. a free starting feat), whereas it sucks for everyone if a DM has to subtract stuff and toys simply because they might want the "we're not superheroes quite yet"-phase of the game to last longer than 2-3 levels (which is another weird trend; you'd think having 20 levels to work with would allow D&D to cover a huge range of player fantasies and from low-magic, gritty to ultra-super-heroic. Yet they seem hell-bent to cram ever more stuff into tier one and ignore that people could just start their campaigns at a higher level if they're looking for the high-powered experience).
I think the reasoning is most people don’t play high level games. A lot of home groups fizzle out before levels 15-20. Secondly, after level 15 (or even level 10) the power creep in D&D is ridiculous.
I’m a paid DM and run 4 D&D campaigns a week, strictly WOTC modules, and I often wonder to myself “Why are we even rolling dice in D&D 5e?”🤷🏻♂️
@@TheTerrainWizard yes, that probably is part of the reasoning...that would be a very circular reasoning, though. It's in their hands to make high-level games feasible, give guidance for it and explain to players: yes, it is indeed allowed to start a campaign at level 14!
@@TheTerrainWizard that's assuming it isn't the presence of these toys that keeps people from making it to high levels, in which case groups will just fizzle out even earlier.
Exactly @@TheTerrainWizard
Zoned combat for the theatre of the mind vs battle maps VTT issue.
You can find templates for “Ultimate Dungeon Terrain” like overlays that you can put into your VTT.
Oddly enough, I put out a PWYW set of templates on DTRPG on Saturday just for this problem.
Super excited for this ks! Id love for there to be a stretch goal where you get Dyson to make a few maps for it 😊
In the middle of playing a shadowdark game. My group is a fan of the simplicity but not interested in the lethality. So we just homebrewed 1. Max HP at 1st level. 2. 5E standard rolling for stats (so it skews higher) making it feel slightly more heroic. 3. used most or modified optional Pulp Rules found in Shadowdark. Seems to be working so far as a player. It’s less lethal but still pretty dangerous, especially compared to 5E.
Good luck on the Kickstarter! It's been interesting to follow the development of the City of Arches over the last two(!) years.
Want to give a shout out to Heroes of Hesiod which is designed for young children. It is a super easy system and my children really enjoyed it. I used it as a gateway drug for DnD. When they got a bit older I converted their characters to DnD 3.5 as I had the books from way back. During the lock down years we swapped again to 5e and went online to play with friends in another city. We have been working through my heavily modded LMoP campaign ever since. We all still remember fondly our Heroes of Hesiod days though.
I agree 1000% on your thesis of the preorder stuff being symptomatic of the DnDB root cause.
Really appreciate these updates! Keep up the good work!
I like the cut of your jib Mr M.E. Shea. Saling that fine line between the rocks and the reef with your eyes on the horizon.
@SlyFlourish Don't get it twisted, the *ENTIRE* community is not one entity. Some people can complain about getting rid of micro-transactions. While other people can complain about adding micro-transactions. These are not typically the same people, so treating them like one entity calling them "you just want to be angry" is a bad take on the situation, and the individuals within the greater ttrpg community.
Great observations regarding modularity and optional rules. Personally I think most people will just pick and choose which rules/options they like best from each respective edition and just use those rather than completely switching to the new edition.
I really like a lot of the optional rules in the 2014 DMG and I wish more people read it so they'd be aware of them. I think feats work incredibly well as quest or adventure rewards too, better than just arbitrarily picking one when you reach certain levels. It's also funny that another optional rule in 2014, epic boons, has become a fixed rule in 2024 and WotC is treating epic boons as if it's a completely new thing. I don't know anyone who used epic boons in 2014, and I've only started DMing relatively recently so I haven't had a chance to give them to players yet but it's something I plan to use if we continue with 2014
Shadowdark seems like a good intro to OSR style RPGs, and its really well designed.
However as you point out it really depends on what those players prior experience and expectations are.
For example, some of the new players in my group really enjoy the development of their characters and the relationships between them during a campaign. This has become a big feature of our games and generated some of our best moments (though we aren't just RP by any means and still love combat and skills etc). So for players like that you might need to consider a different system, lest they feel the game isn't enjoyable. But explaining the game up front should do a lot of that work for you; but you might need to give options if you really want to hook people in.
I’ll check out the kickstarter 👍🏿
I would like to offer a critique to your critique to the community - micro transactions in a video game are very different from buying pages of a book a la cart - Treantmonk was similarly wrong about this - it’s a false equivalence - furthermore, if you don’t want people to liken D&D to a video game, I think it’s dishonest to then liken its activities to video games when arguing against those people, but perhaps I misunderstood your point - also, I’m not sure we can generalize those two groups without good data - as well, the story is not that the community is in shock regarding a capitalist institution being evil, it is that the community is enraged that they have moved further down that road - I don’t think it’s helpful to counter protests with, “what did you expect?” - you are however correct in so far as the connection to the monopoly they want to build with D&D Beyond, but the community has no control over that - we did not make the bed that we must sleep in - we must work together if we wish to hold an institution’s feet to the fire as you say, and as a powerful voice in the community, speaking against the people who ultimately want the same thing you want is counterproductive if not damaging to the hobby - I don’t use D&D Beyond, but I do support those in the community who must use a virtual table top to play - whether or not a false accusation strengthens the position of the accused is dubious, BUT I don’t think these are false accusations - they are using the same underhanded business techniques that we’ve seen in other fields, especially video games - I don’t think the “everything WotC is evil” mentality is necessarily useful, but I question how pervasive it truly is - they’ve worked hard to lose the respect of the community (we don’t need to rehash the scandals), but if they do make good on their promises to, say release an updated SRD, they ought to reaccrue some level of respect - that said and counter point: we don’t “owe” a business (really any business) any level of faith unless we are a majority stock holder and therefore able to exert some level of influence over them directly as opposed to the methods of protest - this is a passionate issue, as I’m sure you know, but i think your voiced perspective on it, however nuanced, has been errantly skewed by your frustration with the nay sayers - I think you even have a level of recognition for this given your brief self critique following your statements on the topic around 19:50 - I would ask you to examine that dissonance and consider if there may be room to develop a more cogent position and statement on the issue - I’ll be honest, I’d be surprised if you read all this, but if you do, please know that I deeply respect you, your opinions, the material you’ve produced and the position you have in the community - I hope I have not alienated you, but if I have, I do apologize - just as for you, this is a topic of passion for me, and it can be difficult to restrain yourself from speaking your mind in such circumstances
It’s funny because me and my players are all Dark souls veterans. Shadowdark is gonna be familiar lol
I always give my Shadowdark players Max HD +5 HP at level 1.
Re. Matthew D.'s VTT maps question: don't look for a perfect map for your encounter; design your encounter around a cool map you have. Coming from TotM, where I started every encounter design in my imagination, it took me a long time to learn that there will never be a map to fit that perfectly. If you're using a map, start with the map.
I also hate dynamic lighting as a player precisely because it means I can't take part vicariously in the long periods when it's others' turns.
Been loving all your work on the Patreon versions of City of Arches, it deserves a hardcover so much. Very excited for the Kickstarter. Hope it goes brilliantly.
So far the new players I've run Shadowdark have been pretty receptive to the lethality; I don't think durrable characters is a default assumption for people who haven't played (but everything you said about setting expectations is good to do)
Agree with your thoughts on D&D Beyond. Crawford's 2024 class videos full of his passion and love for the game look so sad when we all, including him, know what's going on at the top.
Thank you for pointing out the "placement issue" on feats
Modularity isn't a part of 2024 because it's a game that was made by committee, and the committee was the most vocal majority of players who don't GM and only care about optimization and their own power fantasies.
To take this in another direction: why would we expect the “modularity” as it’s called in this episode in the PHB when it games from the DMG last time?
Nothing was made by committee. That was an advertisement campaign
Modularity is very hard to design. Keeping a solid base game with some optional (less-tested) rules is what 5e ended up doing. That was a good model, and I expect to see that in the DMG again.
I tend to agree that people are getting a bit too worked up over the pre order stuff as it stands atm. The concept of pre order bonuses can be controversial, but you have to examine what those bonuses actually are and whether they really matter to gameplay. Its a much bigger issue in video games because of potential power bonuses, this is less of an issue in TTRPGs. I dont think digital cosmetics, or different art covers on physical books, are an issue for pre orders. If they start putting spells or subclasses or monsters behind it, that's less ok.
I do disagree a bit with your comment on saying complaining about the microtransactions is hypocritical by the same people. You can hold two different opinions about those things. Further, MTs in video games are almost never piecemeal parts of an expansion you can buy, or that you can get a disocunt on if you bought some MT part of it prior. MTs in video games, at least where they ste decried most, are those that nickel and dime you for things that you have to buy to stay competitive, or end up costing a huge amount compared to releasing the same content as a bigger DLC. This is not equivalant to WoTC removing their MTs, because that was a genuine consumer choice benefit that has been removed.
'Training Wheels D&D'.
Appendix N reading is flush with characters who should've died multiple times including Elric and Conan. There's a Conan story, The Scarlet Citadel, where dude is captured and going to die at the hands of an 80 foot snake and someone we've never seen before comes in to taunt him and gets eaten by the snake and the keys wind up right next to Conan. I can't tell you how many times Corum in the Silver Hand trilogy should've died but for some random X factor.
Training wheels for some.... Appendix N emulator for others.
I've run multiple different weekly D&D campaigns for kids after school, age 10+ for several years now. I used to start them with Dungeon World, because it's easy to run, the kids pick up the PbtA system quickly and it's excellent for getting them to be constantly creative. By the time they get close to maxing their characters out, they're ready to move on to 5e. I now use Shadowdark, for exactly the reasons you mentioned. And yes, I max out their HP for first level, and sometimes even the first 3 (depending on age and emotional development). Kids often get attached fairly quickly to their characters, so killing them off left and right can be problematic. I once ran a Shadowdark gauntlet session as a one-shot for some of the advanced kids, and most of them died at least 2-3 times. They were exhausted at the end of it, and none of them enjoyed it as much as our regular games. Rule of Fun wins. You can easily make Shadowdark a very good introduction to 5e, if that is your intention. Personally, I love Shadowdark for what it is, and it gives me a nice balance of modern D&D and nostalgia for my youth playing Basic and AD&D. But it absolutely IS a good system to teach players 5e with less crunch, and can definitely be made less lethal if that helps the process. It's also just fun on it's own, as you've already figured out. Don't let it's inherent lethality hinder you from running it with new players, or kids for that matter, just "turn the dials" in the right direction as appropriate. It's a great system, especially if you have experience with OSR games, and modern RPGs. I'm actually thinking about having some of my adult players take their Shadowdark characters and go create backstories using Burning Wheel (arguably the best character creation system ever). How's that for crossing the streams? ;)
I got into Tales of the Valiant during the Kickstarter, my D&D 5e campaign is coming to a close in roughly a year, and after that I'll be moving my gaming party to ToV and never looking back. I have to endure Hasbro's erratic releases and money-grabbing ways when it comes to Magic: the Gathering. If I can skip Hasbro's offerings altogether when it comes to TTRPGs, I'll do that for sure.
No problem explaining your proficiency bonus: "It's a bonus that grows when your reach some levels. Wait and see."
Whatever your character trained to use, they add their proficiency bonus, and every fourth level it increases by another +1 (so 5th, 9th, 13th etc.) very easy to explain.
Which is a point I have against the design of ~minions~ CR 0.5 or weaker monsters... Reduce them to +1!
Re: Modularity. So when are you going to write a 5e BECMI?
I have talked about the D&D game needing to be simple and modular. The issue is the a more complex game resists who will want to play. But I am very small now.
Am already doing this: playing 2014 D&D with a bunch of house rules. Feats can only be gained diegetically through your actions in game, failed death saves stick until you take a long rest, a system for doing cool but risky improvised combat moves; that kinda thing.
As I understand it this is how people have always played D&D. Someone, Dael Kingsmill I think, said there’s an element of folk culture to the game. I think that’s right and I think D&D 2014 serves it very well.
Personally have no need whatsoever of a new edition.
The DMG for og 5e us not perfect, but it contains so much good stuff, and is wildly underappreciated
It will interesting to see if WOTC puts real support to the other platforms or is just halfhearted in an attempt to make D&DB a better relative experience. Not going to affect me much since I am consciously playing outside the WOTCsphere.
A house rule in ShadowDark for hit points that works really well is that you can choose to either roll one die and add to your current total or a 1 all of your dice and keep is the higher total… So if you roll a 1 at first and survive, you can roll two days when you level up and recover from that… 😀
Had a fighter with a soldier background do I roll a 1 for on HP at first level… I role-play that he had been discharged due to a lingering wound that had not healed properly… Managed to survive until second level and rolled a15 on 2d8… I’ll adventuring in a couple of cure wound spells managed to get that rib to pop back in! 😂
Optional rules are very interesting to me. I ran a campaign with new players and we didn't use feats or multiclassing or flanking as they were optional rules and wanted to keep the game simple. And we had a lot of fun for more than two years. I feel like my players would be more discouraged to start if their character creation included mandatory feats.
At least it seems like the 2024 DMG will be a vastly superior book to 2014. That one was a mess and most people I know treated it as "the magic items book".
i can see not using feats w/ new players but it shouldn't be that big of a decision for those with some experience. your either choosing stuff to optimize your character, or add utility or flavor.
Why would your players be discouraged to start because they get to pick a feature at level 1? That's all it is. Small list of level 1 feats, (which are just basic PC features) and you pick one.
Thanks
Completely off topic, but would you ever go back to the old DND campaign modules and do a play by play where you build your session out like in your Shadowdark campaign? Like, show us what you might use for Scenes or Secrets and Clues.
I think wotc biggest mistake will be not having easy, normal, and hard mode and modularity would easily does this.
Shadowdark does this by allowing the lever system to change the game. B/X and Shadowdark allow modularity this with such ease.
I also noticed the radio silence from the D&D design team about the OGL, and their re-appearance during the "they don't read playtest feedback" claims, and I have a related theory: I presume the D&D design team is not involved with product licensing in any meaningful way: that's for brand management and their legal team. Jeremy Crawford and Chris Perkins may have strong opinions about the OGL, but it would be inappropriate for them to voice them in an official capacity (even if they hadn't, presumably, been muzzled by management). People who cause legal headaches for their employers tend not to keep their jobs.
I agree with you it was a legal issue, not a design problem. They probably were told to stay out of it, because saying anything would have only stoked the flames no matter what side their opinions fell on. They may not have even wanted to say anything, because that would just have hurt the company and focused a lot of attention on themselves. I for one would have just kept my head down and let it sort it-self out if I could.
Modularity - Fateforge would like a word...
Also, I haven't tried Shadowdark but I think one of the best starter sets I have seen that comes with EVERYTHING you could want is DragonBane. Maybe not the best for D&D then they would be a great start for role playing.
The dragonbane starter is great too.
OR you could homebrew your own 5.5 based off of all the rulesets and bury yourself in work! MWAHAHAHA
Shut up and take my money! I mean, really, you do good books but also you give us a lot here. Happy to pay it back a bit.
If your wisdom gets across to just one person!!
Mike, how good is the Level Up A5e starter box?
I don’t have it so I can’t say
this video just made me more curious to read the 2024 DMG. i honestly liked a lot of the 2014 dmg despite all the people who never read it lol
It's weirdly the only core book I still use.
I remember when it would take 10 castings of “Wish” to increase an ability score one point.
13:50 disagree. this is more like releasing Destiny on Playstation, XBox, and PC. WotC is releasing 2024 on all the systems so it can make money off all the platforms since you will still have to repurchase the materials if you want to play on different platform. just like you would have to purchase Destiny twice if you wanted to play with your friends on XBox and also with your friends on Playstation.
so the best we can actually say about this is inb4 they have platform exclusive content. like what Bungie did with certain legendaries in Destiny for the Playstation.
FWIW arkenforge mostly handles setting up the FoW on its assets automatically when the maps are made. It's also pretty easy to add FoW to a static image you imported :D
Completely agree with you about the pre-orders. Thanks for being a reasonable voice in the community.
My thought after this video is maybe a new Basic edition might be a good idea.
Side note: But Shadow Dark's lack of proficiency bonus is a design decision I've thought about too much. Adding a proficiency bonus to Shadow Dark for saves would make the numbers fully line up as a retro clone for importing creatures. AC and HP pretty closely lines, SD's damage is kind of high but that's a choice. The only number you have to really have to adjust are save DCs and it's a straight forward -1 to -5 per two levels. So it kind of would have been easier than not for Shadow Dark to have PB but there is a lot of value in it not so it was great to hear that talked about.
The problem with making rules optional is that they rarely see play. 2024's philosophy seems to be rooted in giving martials something to do besides damage, while lowering the burst damage options available.
More feats means more complexity and longer turns in exchange for more interesting characters and interactions.
Personally, I'm a fan of diverse character options. I don't think I've ever made a character that didn't have a feat, as I think feats add features I can't get simply by playing the class.
For true modularity, find out what the barebones essentials are for how to play the game. After that, EVERYTHING else is an option that can modulate the game.
Typically (as you've said) all you really need to run most roleplaying games are attributes (and in some cases you don't even need those.) In the case of D&D, the rest of the stuff (race, class, magic, skills, hit points, possessions, etc.) are optional; sure they can add options and flavor, but they are not ESSENTIAL to the game. Then you can design your plot in any way you see fit.
When they switched away from micro transactions they literally lost my business. Not because I'm boycotting them, but because I don't want to purchase an entire book for only a few things. They'll figure out in a few years or so that players were purchasing a la-cart, and they won't be making as much money as they were, and they'll bring back the feature.
If you were to run shadow dark for new players what adventure would you run?
The one in the QuickStart I think.
Is there a "dndbeyond" type thing for pathfinder(2)?
yes, made by the same company as DDB, it's called Pathfinder Nexus on Demiplane
@@hirundo_rustica thanks, friend!
From playtests that Treantmonk and others ran using the UA material from the end of the UA process that was mostly classes that changed very little from UA to publication the turns took a small amount longer but battles finished a little quicker. It wasn't a huge difference, though we don't have the DMG or MM yet so we won't fully see how encounter balance is affected for quite a while yet. I don't honestly expect it will be too far away from current 2014 rules games if you're using Tasha's, Xanathar's, ect... If you're only using the 2014 PHB then the 2024 rules WILL be significantly different.
We also know that several spells have been tweaked, but Treantmonk has also said that many outlier spells were not changed. Though that just leaves us with some of the same headaches as 2014, it doesn't actually make 2024 worse. Overall it's just an iterative revision where WotC tries to please everybody, and ultimately nobody's gonna be 100% happy with it. But that would actually be impossible, so fortunately DM's are game designers, and we get to fix things for our own tastes as we please.
Shadowdark borrows from many games, but at its heart it is based on D&D basic. So yes, it's good for new players, because it is built on a game made for beginners. And the sad thing is WoTC's history includes games that were great for beginners... but they threw that legacy away so now we depend on the OSR.
Remember that back in '77, the intent was to run Basic for levels 1-3 and then graduate to AD&D! What you are advocating for, is the modern version of that same concept! Thanks for your videos.
On character death... obviously do what you want at your table... and the training wheels you are talking about is what I might do for little kids. I play Mausritter with my 4-year old RAW, and it's deadly! She's fine with that, because we've taught her that losing is part of playing games, and dying is part of RPGs. Really, teens and 20-something's can't handle a character dying? Sometimes the loving thing to do is to compassionately challenges people to learn and grow instead of accommodating them in a way that allows stasis. Now of course, if you simply want to play a story telling playstyle that has not death, that's fine. But obviously that's not really what Shadowdark is designed to optimize.
I’d have to say that, although there is a lot of new stuff in this players handbook for players, much of it we’ve seen already from Tasha’s Cauldron of Everything and they just simply made it core.
There is of course some genuinely new stuff such as weapon mastery, a lot of buffs to the monk, and some buffs to the Ranger.
In fairness, there are nerfs as well. Monks can no longer stunning strike more than once per turn. Paladins can no longer smite more than once per turn. Technically paladin smites can also now be counterspelled. There are also other nerfs such as mercy monk’s hand of mercy can only be used wisdom modifier times per day, ect.
I say all this to make the point that this book isn’t simply power creep. Weapon mastery may make combat take longer. I don’t know for sure.
It's weird seeing Weapon Mastery called "new" when it was back in BECMI D&D.
Am I just an idiot who thinks that making an alternative world setting for DMs & players is a good thing? Maybe? But I'm still gonna do it because TTRPGS have given me such joy, made so many LIFELONG friends that I just want to give back to the community... & help me get into retirement with some financial security.
For myself, the issue why i hate the 5e dmg is because the phb already presented the more "game" option to the players first.
Things like feats are optional, but why are they in the phb and not the dmg?
The player gets to see these super cool options and then is told NO. When if it was in the dmg, the players would he introduced only if the dm wants them to.
Its kindof weird that people are just now mentioning the preorder bonuses? Dnd beyond has always had those(even before WotC aquired them). Aside from the vtt tokens the rest has been part of every launch for years (the character frames, the dice, early access etc).
I'm sure no one anywhere ever foretold this not inevitable thing happening.
Where did you hear that feats are no longer optional? Last I heard, only background (aka origin feats) were core character options; with the intention of encouraging groups to _allow_ feats everywhere else.
That may be true. We’ll have to see!
Mike, I enjoy your videos. However; my Game Master situation might be different than yours. I run three groups at the local library. Two teen groups (one is currently made of 12 year olds and the other of 14 year olds) and an adult group (ages 20 to 69). I can limit the number of players, but otherwise have no control over who plays; these are official Library programs. Each group has 7 players, but anywhere from 1 to 7 can show up at any session. Also sometimes they bring a friend with them. We have to play no matter how many players are present. I have been GMing in this situation for 2.5 years. Maybe you should try doing likewise to expand the depth of your methods of running games. No offense meant.
Dragonbane is currently looking like a good match for my tables and am waiting for the box set to have a go. My players are pretty casual and really don't care about all the complex mechanics or being super powered. They just want to have fun. Slow combat gives me the shits. I really don't like any game where turns take a long time, so the 2024 dnd is going to be an issue. Also, Dragonbane has ducks. :D
my players are loving 2024 5e, I'm not too excited by it all. seems like a fight not worth having, because i'd rather just play then fight them against the system they want to show up and play
The GM is a player and their fun should be taken into account too. If there's a system you think all of you could enjoy more, I encourage you to try it.
@@thebolas000 I actually got to run a ROOT the RPG one shot since my comment. A real BLAST (literally). Unfortunately, the game doesn't seem to really support long term play. Looking for something that strikes the balance between trad d20 long game play, but the game flow of PbtA games.
I dont see how dm deciding to remove the rules is any different if than wanting to add them. Like you could house rule the action type of a potion before but if you have to do it the opposite way thats now harder to change? Why?
I dont see why the base version of the rules need to be the simplest version possible. If the vast majority of people agree they like a mechanic than that should be the standard to help give guidance to new players and people playing league games play the game most actually like.
The first issue is a matter of perception. If the rules say you can drink a potion as a bonus action and the GM changes that to an action, the player feels like they've lost something.
WoW had this happen with their rested XP mechanic. To prevent players from staying logged in 24/7 they made it so after a certain amount of time you got less XP. Players hated it, so they changed it to "If you log out for X amount of hours, when you come back you'll get bonus XP for a certain amount of time". The numbers were the exact same before and after, but it feels different for the players.
Interesting video and reinforces why my own games are still using TSR’s AD&D 1st and 2nd edition rules. I’ve tried every release except 4.0 and it’s just gotten dumber - and I mean that literally, they’ve removed so much of the creativity and instead made, for example, character creation into plugging in pre created aspects of the characters’ backgrounds and personalities instead of having the players think it up on their own.
Play 3.5 you can do anything
Play 1st Ed. With 2nd Ed. Secondary skills. Even better.
Why in the world would you try and explain a proficiency bonus to a new player in that way?
Why wouldn't you just say, "it's a bonus your character gets for things they are especially good at doing."
They can't do the piece-meal sales of the current rules when they are so close to the updated rules are coming out. They very likely will go back to this format after 5.5 is released.
Never played balders gate. Would it help me learn to play dnd.
BG3 would help, although it has some differences. But it'll definitely teach you the basics of how combat in 5e works, and you'll get a great sneak-peek into how each class plays. Some of the mechanics, abilities and spells are changed to make them work better in a video game format, but mostly it's a good simulation of a 5e game.
Solasta: Crown of the Magister is another game that will definitely help you grasp how dnd 5e works. It's much closer in rules to actual 5e rules, though the game is made by a newish company and not nearly as polished as BG3.
I challenge any dragon book to be better then DRACONOMICON
I feel like some of the thoughts expressed in this video are somewhat contradictory to thoughts you’ve expressed many times in your previous videos. You’ve stated many times that we as DMs decide the modularity of our games. And that’s a sentiment I agree with. I have a “take what I want and leave the rest” attitude about 5e. I love feats but I honestly have no reason to think leaving them out of my games would affect much. You can still have a house rule that players can only take the ASI feat if you’re that kinda DM. I personally only plan to buy the new players handbook. I don’t need the DMG and I already have plenty of monster books. So no amount of “standardization” from WotC is ever going to remove the modularity from my 5e. It’s all just additional material.
Funfact about the “potion as a bonus action” rule. That’s really only half the house rule as I’ve encountered it. I played in a game where you used a bonus action to roll for heal. But if you used an action you got max healing. I’ve started using that in my games and players almost always use the whole action. It’s a nice bit of strategic thinking that they seem to enjoy.
I love your advice, but inevitably it always runs into the issue of "that doesn't work with DDB". Until we have a great alternative to DDB that allows us to play remotely (we all live in different states) almost none of it works. Breaking the stranglehold of DDB is key.
Roll20 and Foundry allow remote play, you can also do it through discord with bots.
Or do you mean digital versions of the books? Because yes DDB does have a monopoly over that. The best option would be everyone buying the core books in any format and then relying on 3rd party books (which can have PDF/VTT support) for extra options/prewritten adventures.
Or sailing the high seas 🌊 if you really don't want to support DDB.
imagine complaining about "training wheels" on a game you're using to... train people
The talk about "microtransactions" doesn't make much sense, IMO. That term doesn't represent something bad in video games because the transactions were small. It represents something bad in video games because you could spend small increments of money at a time, but keep spending it infinitely (virtual currencies, consumable items that you pay for, etc) or because content that used to be typical unlockable content to juice up the value proposition of a game instead, moved out of the base purchase price and became an add-on (though over time Big companies realized they were better off selling these as larger purchases instead of lots of small microtransactions).
In other words, the problem was never that the transactions were small, it's that players felt like they ended up spending more money than they used to and it was hidden in the cost structure and the fact that The thing they bought that should be theirs was advertising to them that they should spend more money. None of that ever happened with D&D beyond selling player options a la carte. That was always a purely pro-consumer move that was done to give them a competitive advantage over other vtts and physical books, to show something they could do that nobody else could. While they are within their rights to remove it, and it might actually be better for the hobby that they did, because it doesn't push a race to the bottom for pricing, I don't think anyone is being misguided or hypocritical when they are upset that that feature was removed.
I love your work, Michael, but City of Arches makes me think that it’s run by Mayor Big Mac and the thieves guild run by the Hamburglar. 😂
Loveya to death my friend but you're missing the underlying trend. And that's WoTC slowly getting rid of the DM.
Video game storefront marketing is the "gateway drug" to A.I. generated DMs.
Players are a wider marketbase than DMs. That's how a billion dollar Corp operates.
I would wager that the majority of TTRPG profits come from DM's, not players. I have spent thousands on this hobby as a DM, and most players I know just buy maybe one book and a few dice or a mini.
@razorchuckles But that's not my point. Sure, I've spent $1000s over the years too but players outnumber DMs at least 4:1 & it's obvious WoTC is doing things to grab the largest marketshare.
@@razorchuckles by getting rid of the DM you will now have to pay a subscription fee, but your own books, etc.
The OP is correct. WIzbro does not care about the DM anymore and is going to monetize the players as much as possible.
How exactly is WotC going to get rid of DMs? Will they stop selling me books if I admit being a DM? Will they send Pinkertons to break my kneecaps if I run the game for a group? I don't see it happening.
@tuomasronnberg5244 I disagree with the above theory but I think the fear is that AI dungeonmasters would be more convenient and would allow groups of players to play without having to deal with a DM.
I think there are lots of holes in the AI DM "threat" that make it unlikely.
Last year's issues were the final straw for me, when I decided I'd finally had enough of their shenanigans. Since then, my main fantasy RPGs have been PF2 and A5E, and I shill for both at any excuse. A5E in particular gives me a way to play an improved (in my opinion) version of 5E without WotC getting any of my money.
I think you are missing the goal of Wizards moving to platforms like Foundry VTT is that they can kill DnD 2014 in a single update.
I really dislike drinking a potion as a bonus action. Most players won't even use the correct actions to get a potion out. Feels like cheating.
19:41 you're not being hypocritical at all. But you'r enot being exactly forthright either. Bashing WOTC has no bearing on your enjoyment of TTRPG - true - but it *does* get you a lot of traffic/attention/clicks. Whatever you want to call it. Taking WotC saying "This is gonna be annoying to your monsters!" and changing the message to "This is gonna annoy Dungeon Masters!" is twisting the truth to maximize personal gain. It just doesn't feel right - escpecially for someone like me who really likes your books.
I hope you can hop off the hate train (however enticing the numbers it brings may be) again and produce more positive content. I understand that being enthusiastic about things doesn't pay as well as getting people riled up all the time, but you can do the former and be a force for good in the world, which is worthwhile in its own right.
Personally, I don't give two craps about WotC's virtual tabletop, preorder nonsense etc. - all they need to do is produce great quality books - and so far it seems like they are doing just that.
I always choose my topics to help GMs navigate this hobby and talk about what interests me as I navigate it. I don't chase controversy for clicks.
The exact quote was "Frustrating for Dungeon Masters but fantastic for your party."
www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1752-2024-rogue-vs-2014-rogue-whats-new
@@SlyFlourish That's my bad then - that's a pretty silly thing to say indeed... xD
Still, it would be cool to see more productive/positive/inspiring D&D content again. Lately, all the channels I like to watch tend to include anti-WOTC tantrums in every single video (usually to promote some alternate system they're affiliated with). I'm just hoping you don't follow that patrticular trend too much.
Why are we making up our minds about the 2024 rulesset when we haven't even seen it.
It seems unnecessarily negative. Yeah we all hate WOTC as a company, but to act like the individual designers are cluesless and don't care about the making the game better is weird.
We don't even have the game in our hands, we've only been given piece-meal information. Can we all relax.
Racial stat bonuses are gone. Trying to appeal power gamers. I won't be playing.
We are not surprised. We are disgusted.