Top D&D designers join Critical Role after quitting Wizards of the Coast
-
wrote on last edited by [email protected]
I mean, this just seems really gatekeepy. You're obviously allowed to play however you like, but I don't see how the way others play affects you.
the demands from players are ridiculous compared to my expectations and what I set out as my intentions
That sounds like a communication issue. I've played fully tactical with battle mats and set pieces, and I've played fully theater of the mind, and I've never had an issue with player expectations as long as I communicate my intentions pre-session zero.
As far as the paid DM part, it's very simple: This is a creative hobby.
So is art, so is adventure design. I still don't see how it's different from commissioning art of your character or buying a module.
Why stop at DM? Every group should invent their own system, carve their own dice, design their own adventures. It's not very grassroots to use a system designed by an elitist corporation.
I'm into 3d printing. When the hobby started, there were not
commercial printers, you had to build one from scratch. Are we supposed to hate manufactured printers to preserve the creative integrity of the hobby?I just don't see the rationale of your preferences for how you like to play metastasizing into hatred. You're allowed to play how you want, so is everyone else.
-
I mean, this just seems really gatekeepy. You're obviously allowed to play however you like, but I don't see how the way others play affects you.
the demands from players are ridiculous compared to my expectations and what I set out as my intentions
That sounds like a communication issue. I've played fully tactical with battle mats and set pieces, and I've played fully theater of the mind, and I've never had an issue with player expectations as long as I communicate my intentions pre-session zero.
As far as the paid DM part, it's very simple: This is a creative hobby.
So is art, so is adventure design. I still don't see how it's different from commissioning art of your character or buying a module.
Why stop at DM? Every group should invent their own system, carve their own dice, design their own adventures. It's not very grassroots to use a system designed by an elitist corporation.
I'm into 3d printing. When the hobby started, there were not
commercial printers, you had to build one from scratch. Are we supposed to hate manufactured printers to preserve the creative integrity of the hobby?I just don't see the rationale of your preferences for how you like to play metastasizing into hatred. You're allowed to play how you want, so is everyone else.
I'm in a mood right now, so I'm just going to cherry-pick. I'll come back and give you a better response when I'm in a better mindset.
It's not very grassroots to use a system designed by an elitist corporation.
You're absolutely right. D&D past AD&D1 should never have been the center of our hobby.
-
I'm in a mood right now, so I'm just going to cherry-pick. I'll come back and give you a better response when I'm in a better mindset.
It's not very grassroots to use a system designed by an elitist corporation.
You're absolutely right. D&D past AD&D1 should never have been the center of our hobby.
You're absolutely right. D&D past AD&D1 should never have been the center of our hobby.
Oh I switched to GURPS years ago. I don't think D&D is a particularly good system for anyone with any real TTRPG experience, but 5e is actually pretty accessible as an introduction to the hobby. Plenty of canon content to work from, or just buy modules from, and it's fairly simple to play. Plus D&D is the OG, so it's the default TTRPG in media.
And I'm fine with media. I like media, temporarily. It introduces the hobby to people who might otherwise remain at a perpetual distance, and while a lot of them aren't really right for TTRPGs, some of them are, and I'm happy they were introduced to it.
The reason I don't mind paid DMs is because the people that want them are new to the hobby, probably a whole group worth. The alternative is that they elect one of their own; personally I'm down with sharing the GM's chair, but I don't think it's practical for most newbies without an experienced GM present.
Now someone totally new has to figure out how to run a game, and odds are they're going to suck a bunch, and that's going to lead to a game that sucks a bunch, and everyone's going to think D&D actually sucks, and all TTRPGs as well by extension. Players who might, under an experienced GM, see what it can be, will see it instead as a trainwreck.
The market for paid GMs is newbies, and I don't mind it. This isn't the 80s, there's other stuff to do if their first campaign sucks. I don't mind paid GMs as the starter to get a group moving. Once they get a little wind in their sails one of them will step up and adopt the mantle.
Especially since I assume a decent GM is probably in the neighborhood of $100/session, so about $25/person for a party of four. I think that the instant one of them feels confident to give it a go, they will have that conversation.
Sure, there might be a bit of an expectation adjustment, as you said, but that actually seems easier to accommodate. It would be obviously unreasonable for the party to expect, for free, the same experience they were previously paying $25/person/session for.
And even if they don't, and they keep the paid GM, it's not like WOTC has a DM Uber app. Those aren't corporate stooges, they're experienced enthusiasts like yourself getting a little kickback for the years of development they've dedicated to their craft. I'd reckon a fair segment of the people who would take the job are veteran GMs with no parties to play with. They benefit doubly.
I just think new players in the modern age benefit more from a good first impression of the hobby, and the cost provides a natural incentive for the unpaid alternative to evolve.
-
Gross. I was really excited for 5.5 for a while but don't really want to get it anymore. I liked the PHB class upgrades when I read it but don't own anything from it yet
5.5, in my opinion, is a very corporate edition of the game. There wasn't any actual change or reason for a new edition other than Hasbro wanted D&DBeyond and the money it got, and the way to do that was make a "new edition". But people liked and were playing 5e so, make a backwards compatible system that's totally the same thing.
The 2024 version of D&D, in my eyes, doesn't fix any of the actual issues with the game. They change some wording and change some abilities but none of the core issues are dealt with. So to me, it's a pointless cash grab.
-
5.5, in my opinion, is a very corporate edition of the game. There wasn't any actual change or reason for a new edition other than Hasbro wanted D&DBeyond and the money it got, and the way to do that was make a "new edition". But people liked and were playing 5e so, make a backwards compatible system that's totally the same thing.
The 2024 version of D&D, in my eyes, doesn't fix any of the actual issues with the game. They change some wording and change some abilities but none of the core issues are dealt with. So to me, it's a pointless cash grab.
I like the changes with weapons properties and I like some of the updates with various classes for some improvements to the weaker subclasses and feats. I overall enjoyed the majority of the changes.
However, from what I have heard and seen I did not enjoy the changes to the Monster Manual and statblocks.
-
I love Christ Perkin and Jeremy Crawford. Who is even running D&D now? They are literally the only people I knew still on the project. They are both great. Were they forced out of WoTC?
Chatgpt probably
-
Chatgpt probably
ChatGPT give some pretty generic DnD advice. I can't wait until they make a terrible automated DM. I can't wait to play the most generic DnD of all time.
-
ChatGPT give some pretty generic DnD advice. I can't wait until they make a terrible automated DM. I can't wait to play the most generic DnD of all time.
Every single game is just the plot of Monty Python and The Holy Grail.
-
Every single game is just the plot of Monty Python and The Holy Grail.
That would be fun. Every game would just be a series of different fetch quests with a rotated list of the same enemies. Like a MMRPG but worse and more expensive
-
I'd seen it written up in other articles as coming from Star Wars, so perhaps it was that writer that was mistaken. I've watched them play, heard the rules explanations and such, and "yes, but" and "no, however" to skill checks aren't solving some problem I've had in other systems.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]It comes from the FFG Star wars RPG system and its method of creating multiple success/failure conditions. It's an entirely independent system to the light/dark side force mechanics.
That's fair if it's not solving a problem for you, but it does add something new that resonates with a lot of people (at least it did for me). I'm speaking from the Genesys side so I don't know how daggerheart handles it, but I absolutely loved it. I found it made skill checks more collaborative, my table would suggest ideas for how to interpret the roll, and having more to 'explain' got people more descriptive in how they talk about their actions. We went from 'I take a swing. Nope, that's a miss' to 'failure with advantage, ok I go in with my axe but I can't get through this guy's defenses. For my advantage, I want to hook this guys shield with my axe so the next attacker gets a boost die to hit'.
It does make checks more involved, but I prefer fewer, more impactful checks as a general rule anyway.
