I gave my 8 players a Condorcet poll for which game I should run next. Their main gripe was a Condorcet poll sounded complicated (it wasn't).
Kevin Crawford's "Without Number" games swept the podium (Stars, Cities, Worlds) knocking D&D to fourth place.
The real big table might be a factor. Combat is just so much faster.
This can happen with new players who are native English speakers too, as D&D has a fair deal of vocabulary not everyone knows. Words like charisma and melee really got popularized by D&D.
Deep cut here: When I was a kid (ages past) and first heard friends talk about D&D, I thought there was a lens to keep you on the border. And without it, you might go straight Into The Unknown.
Are you quoting something with those ellipses?
If "5.2" were a marketing decision, then it would probably be getting used in their marketing materials. But there you see stuff like "One D&D."
Incrementing the second number here is in line with general "geek numbering system" convention. It doesn't seem to me like marketing barged into the production room and insisted on a more "marketable" version number — not that that has never happened, but marketing would most likely have wanted "5.5" not the inscrutable "5.2."
Shades of the original (only much better art). I like it.
I'm not sure it's an exact match, but SRD 5.1 was published around the same time as the PH accrued the "This printing includes corrections to the first printing" message in the front matter.
They both contain the corrections from the previously-published errata.
So if you will, if your PH has that message, and it probably does, you've probably been playing 5.1 for a while now.
SRD 5.1 was released 8 years ago though, long before TCE. And since Tasha's rules are all considered optional, that book didn't really revise the rules, just expand on them.
For anyone wondering where this is coming from, WOTC announced their new System Reference doc associated with the upcoming book releases, and that is SRD 5.2.
I agree, that's the version number. Marketing types might want a catchier name, but "five-two" may be the most clear way to communication what version you're talking about.
Fair points. I'm a walking rules encyclopedia type, and I've been in a number of games where I was like, "What the hell am I supposed to be doing?" And not having any fun.
On the other hand, I've brought "D&D only" people along for the ride on other games with good success. The trick is running a good "tutorial level" introductory adventure, where nobody is either bored or frustrated. That's going to involve introducing the mechanics in digestible bites.
Funny thing about a D&D only mindset is that there are games that are much simpler, where thinking tactically is much less important.
Not sure. I can ask over on the reddit board the creator monitors.
I have that book. Fun fact, Stars Without Number riffs on that passage, with an example about a trader named "Grendel."
Rebel shareholders such as Alta Fox have been touting the radical concept of investing in the business, creating good products, and selling them.
You know, instead of screwing up relationships with long-term business partners, sending hired heavies to their fans' houses, and driving their customers to their competition.
So crazy it just might work.
Soon we find out whether they are charting a new direction or doubling down on dumb.
A group of my players brought this up. I let them know that was fine, but the monsters would be able to return the favor.
We decided "the weave" determines the angle of squares (no diagonals).
Meh. The "go low level" advice is sort of a cop out: "To make a D&D murder mystery, just make sure your party can't do any of that D&D stuff, so it's just like any other murder mystery."
It's more of a D&D murder mystery if you figure out how to make it interesting even though players have powers to read minds, etc.
And it's not wrecking the game for the villain to be immune to truth and mind-reading spells, or for the victim to be unavailable to raise dead (maybe because their soul is stolen). There are plenty of other minds to read and lies to detect.
The adventure should start with exposition NPC's saying, "We tried raising the victim, Zone of Truth, and Detect Thoughts, and we got no nowhere. We suspect the villain is immune to our mind magic, but we can't tell who it might be."
Zone of Truth games can be a lot of fun when everybody has something to hide or an enemy they'd love to make look guilty. "I'm sure Bob did it" isn't a lie if Alice thinks he's as wicked as that.
Or step it up a notch. (And ya gotta wait until this comes up in conversation.)
Session 1: My Chaos Paladin tells party his goddess' name is Beth.
Session 2: Find magic sword, name it Beth.
Session 3: Tell party my goddess wants to be called Kate now. (Chaotics, ya know?)
Session 4: Explain that the goddess is OK if I still call my sword Beth, but I should name the next one Kate.
Session 5: Utter a vow of enmity: "For Kate's sake I stick my last Beth at thee!"
If you're having fun, you're having fun. But you provide a lot of context in text that's not in the graphic.
PSA: DM's, never imitate this
Back in the day, PC's would get strongholds and followers when they hit a certain level. Every crap DM (myself included) would think is was a great idea for monsters to sack one while the PC was away. It was never any fun.
When a player puts a little effort work into something, like a castle, house, or cart, don't trash it without their buyin. It's like a thief stealing their items when they were sleeping.
There are better ways to use these new settings in the campaign.
Yeah, you'd definitely want to keep a sword like that happy, since it might decide to disintegrate you. Plenty of other options for its goal (who it wants to stab) that might be more interesting narratively.
I was just describing one the most OP swords possible in the original DMG — and when just about everyone is a "non-human monster" that's the power option.
I'm a simple man, and will just ask for a AD&D 1e Unusual Sword +5 Holy Avenger, with an Intelligence of 17. Love me that 50% magic resistance in 5 foot radius, dispel magic at will, and +10 damage vs. Chaotic Evil.
Since I'm choosing, I'll assume optimum rolls for an "unusual sword", and take: All 14 extraordinary powers: charm person, clairaudience, clairvoyance, determine direction and depth, ESP, flying, heal, illusion, leviathan, strength, telekinesis, telepathy, teleportation, and X-ray vision.
Its Special Purpose should be slay "non-human monsters" disintegrating them on a hit unless they save (sure its special purpose should be slaying evil, but that's so restrictive. It should speak 10 languages.
Before I forget, it ought to match my alignment, so its ego doesn't overwhelm mine and make me stab myself or something. But maybe that's where the fun for the DM comes in?
They sure don't make 'em like they used to.
They had trouble with simultaneous releases when they put out 4e, there were some troublesome proofreading/quality issues. So with 5e, they put out the pieces one at a time, allowing each title to have its own turn to be the urgent, top priority.
I started running 5e before the release of the Monster Manual 5e, using the smattering of monsters in the back of the PH. It was limiting, but fun in its way.