D&D 5: Players Handbook, First Impressions

This is a well put-together book. I am not reviewing the rules here, and those will rise and fall on their own, but I just wanted to capture some of my feelings on opening it and skimming through the book for the first 10 minutes.

I like the consolidated lists of deities in the back of the book, including the pantheons of all the major D&D worlds (Eberron, Dragonlance, Faerun, Krynn, etc), plus the DDG deities of Earth from Norse, Greek, Celtic, and Egyptian pantheons. It feels like an answer to the single world-centric flavors of D&D3 and D&D4, and it is a very good thing to not paint the PHB into the corner of one world with a default set of deities to choose from. Wizards deserves major kudos for taking this step.

Bonus points for mentioning Mystara in the book. Minus points for not mentioning Nerrath and the Points of Light 4E setting, or at least I have not found it yet. Has Nerrath been destroyed? What happened to the Great Wheel? Wow, they sort of mixed 4E's fractured and decentralized cosmology with the traditional AD&D wheel. It feels very strange.

It is also interesting Wizards has circled the wagons and even included Birthright in its official settings list. They seem to be saying, 'if you want to play in our worlds with our IP, you play by our rules.' It's probably long-overdue, and it is good to see the older settings mentioned and celebrated again. It is a long way from the freewheeling 'you make it up' settings of 4E, here, the Wizard's IPs are taking center stage, and this isn't necessarily a bad thing.

There's no mentions of timelines? Wow, you mean the 4E changes can be rolled back, and you can play in classic Faerun again? Here's a big thank you from me, and it is about freaking time. Please, continue the 'play in the classic setting' feeling here. I have always felt the settings of D&D should be rolled back and rebooted, like they do from time to time with Batman, and allow a new generation to experience the classic Realms and other settings without all the heavy historical spellplague, shatterings, and other BS that was layered on by new versions of the game. Timelines suck for new players, I'd rather my new players have the experience of dealing with that bastard Elminster themselves, and have the entire set of classic Faerun NPCs to play with every time I start a new campaign there.

Wizards, please, from now on, treat your settings like comic book franchises and reboot them from time to time, or at least support players who want to start fresh with the stock setting. Support "day one" play in all your settings! But as for rolling things back in every setting and supporting the concept of day one play?

Thank you thank you thank you.

Where are the magic items? I still haven't found them.

That monster list in the back seems really weak, I would have thought twice about spending pages on it. I know some of those are for spells or class features, but it does seem like something that I would have liked to have in a web-extra. I guess they need to be included, but as a world's monster list they are not, unless this is a really, really basic world where the big bads are first level skeletons and zombies, and maybe some wild animals. And of course, other NPCs with classes.

I may play it this way until the Monster Manual comes out and drive players crazy.

The combat chapter is short, minuscule in fact. I remember the days where this took up most of the book in many roleplaying games. To flip through a D&D book and not have an illustration of a combat map showing line-of-sight examples feels strange.

I get a feeling this game is closer in spirit and feel to Labyrinth Lord or Basic Fantasy than it is Pathfinder. Pathfinder clearly feels like the AD&D of our age with its complexity and rules for everything, and D&D 5 feels like the old "red box" Basic D&D. It's interesting things feel like they went this way, and I think there's room for both to be played and celebrated.

The game feels like it is narrowed down and has a tight focus on just the highlights of D&D. It is not very deep, but it is very broad. I get this feeling this edition is the 'rules light' sort of 'board game rules' of D&D, like a universal Monopoly rules set to be followed by every version of Monopoly.

Now the rules, we shall see about the rules. My group had a terrible experience with them with the Starter Set, and I found that product difficult to use. With the Players Handbook, I am not seeing where the criticism of some reviews is coming from saying this book is disorganized. It looks more organized than the Starter Set by far. We shall see during play, of course.

What, no PDF to buy for the Players Handbook on launch day? Are you serious or have I not found it yet? My tablet with my complete library of Pathfinder books curses you, my friend. How am I supposed to play this outside my house, by carrying my actual books to the hobby store? You, my good friend, must be out of your mind. Books are for collecting, and PDFs are for playing. I can't wipe the Cheetos stains from my book, but I can disinfect my old 'pass around' tablet from my grubby player's filthy hands. I don't care if you have to get Paizo to do the PDF download for you, just get it done Wizards.

You think it was 1980 or something where we actually had to use real books. Please.

Overall, I am more positive about my first impressions with this book than I expected. I am also strangely reassured that Pathfinder will also be secure at my table, because the two games are so different. Step back and take a look beyond the two games, and the false competition some people are trying to foist on us to create silly arguments. Pathfinder and D&D 5 are really two very different games, a Risk to a Monopoly in fact, and both can be enjoyed by the same group at the same table. They both fill different play styles, and they both have their own 'tabletop game' appeal to me.

Pathfinder is without competition in the character building and 'what was that' monster encounter sheer terror and you cannot expect what is in the next room sort of game play. For players that enjoy tactical challenge and taking down an encounter by the numbers, Pathfinder's refinement and sheer weight of options can not be beat. There is also a great world story and incredible art that you are missing out on if you are not a fan, not to mention the inspiration of adventure paths and the story of that world is just captivating.

D&D 5 feels like a 'greatest hits' album of a band you love, but overall feels simplified and a 'basic rules' sort of version of the game you would find in a box set somewhere. It is a tight rules set, pared down after years of exploits and problems with the rules, so you aren't going to get the 'Wild West' feel of the older games, and some may miss that, like the old World of Darkness versus the new. We have Pathfinder for that Wild West zany do-anything feel, so we are covered. With D&D 5, it feels like the older retro-clone systems came back and changed the narrative of what D&D should be, and there is a place for that game at my table.

Both can exist and be enjoyed? Heresy, I know. Well, count me in the heretics column then, I appreciate them both.

As for actual enjoyment and the rules? Again, it is too early to tell for me. These are just my first impressions from my first 10 minutes of the book, so take them how you will. We will not have a complete view of the game until the end of November, when the last piece to the puzzle is released, the Dungeon Master's Guide. We still have a long road to go, games to play, and characters to design, and adventures to be had. I am still skeptical of the tight focus of the system, my experience with games with tight math is that they are more prone to power-gaming and exploits than in systems where the rules are looser. We shall see, and we won't know more about balance until the complete Monster Manual comes out here in a couple weeks.

Overall? Slightly weak on content, very simplified, but a good feeling of support of the classics. I'm more positive than I expected to be, but I still have concerns on balance, options, and the fun factor for my groups. I'm happy this is a different game than Pathfinder though, and the two don't need to compete at my tabletop.

Points of Light vs. Evil PCs

One of the most interesting concepts codified in D&D 4 was the concept of world narrative. This is the whole idea of the "points of light" narrative of the world's situation. Put simply, the world is full of evil, and only a few outposts of good remain as the last holdouts of goodness in the world.

There were a number of assumptions that went with the Points of Light concept, including:

• Good does not fight Good
• Evil does not fight Evil
• Monsters are everywhere
• Most good races get along with each other
• The world is dangerous!

Okay, granted, this makes for a default fun and action-oriented world. It is a lot like an MMO in fact, where if you step outside of the towns, all bets are off. Keeping the races friendly makes it easy for everybody to find groups and to pair up Drow and Dragonborn - if the Dark Elves are fighting the demonic Orcs too, why not team up?

Now look at the above and think, what does the Points of Light model do? For the most part, good gets along with good, and evil gets along with evil. The world is a battleground, and heroes are needed, especially the good guys. There is a built-in bias to the world that presupposes a giant good vs. evil fight.

It feels difficult to play a neutral or evil PC in this world model. It is like an MMO, it assumes you are good guy. It feels like attempting to roleplay an "evil PC" on an online game with two factions that can't intermingle, you can stand around saying you're evil all you want, but the world isn't setup to support being evil at all. In fact, an evil PC in a points of light game is more a monster and disruptive to play in a party full of people trying to save the world.

Mind you, I still love points of light, it is an 'instant action' and classic world model, but it does have some interesting quirks that I'd like to explore. Also, place aside the problems of playing an evil PC for a while, I just want to think about the question, "Does the world model support diverse play styles?"

Take a normal, typical non Points of Light world. This place has your typical Medieval Europe farms and hamlets scattered about, rolling hills, dark forests, and snow-capped mountains painted in the background. Monsters are not the norm, they are the exception. This is not Points of Light, it is more a "Farms and Hamlets" setup, where the average piece of countryside is safe and normally Dark Ages. You may have a bandit or two lurking out there, or the occasional war between kingdoms, but on the average, nothing happens out there in the vast wilderness.

It feels like the world Paizo is building for Pathfinder. This may not be how every referee runs Pathfinder, but when I see maps with scattered farms and small hamlets in some kingdoms, I am going to assume there aren't a lot of wandering monsters out there in the countryside to gnaw on peasants. There are some dangerous places, but it feels like many of the kingdoms are by default mirror their inspirations, if a place is based on Medieval France, it is just like Medieval France. For some areas of the world, demon scars and vampire lands, this probably does not apply, but there are "safe zones" in the world.

If feels easier to play an evil PC in a normal or semi-normal world, since there is no default assumption of how the world expects you to act. There are more opportunities to choose evil or choose good in a world that isn't under siege, and thus more player freedom. In a way, Paizo's adventure paths typically leave it up to the group for how their characters get along, and I have never really had a problem running evil PCs through them - everyone has their own motivations to participate, and even "personal gain" is an evil-friendly and acceptable motivation for participation in an adventure path, even with a group of good characters.

I haven't got my D&D 5 PHB or DMG yet, so the jury is still out on the default world assumptions. With the lower power levels of the game, it could go either way in my eyes. Low-level monsters are still dangerous to high-level PCs, so this may make the world a more dangerous place. But, a mass of low level villagers can beat off high-level monsters, so the mass of people may push the world towards a more normal place. I need to read the default assumptions about the world to make up my mind about it, and see what view of the world they adopted for the game.

Open Licenses and Electronic Gaming

I miss the OGL.

D&D 4's GSL didn't feel like a real 3rd party license to me, and some said it limited 3rd party support of D&D 4 with its restrictive nature. I didn't see too many great 3rd party products for D&D 4, and the character builder data being limited to D&D Insider hurt 3rd party class and power add-on books. I did not like that license much for that fact.

D&D 5 needs a great community publishing license, and this feels like a huge missed opportunity at launch. We used to help organize product launches for a company, and making sure community and 3rd party support was strong on day #1 was a key part of a product launch's success. I would have loved to had all three D&D 5 books out on launch day, plus a great community license for 3rd party support - and plenty of 3rd party books launching on day #1.

You go big or go home in product launches, and organizing a great launch day with plenty of things to buy creates a hype and level of success all in itself.

D&D 5's 3rd party license is promised to be next year, and I am hopeful for an open publishing model like the OGL. I know there is always that desire to control things, but systems flourish and thrive the more you let others play with them. D&D 3.x proved that, and Pathfinder continues that trend.

Pathfinder, of course, is the king of 3rd party support right now, and I just love this model, It supports the free flow of ideas, and I can buy class and power books, and programs from 3rd party companies like Hero Lab can add those data sets to their program, and we can have a wonderful world of options and different ideas available for our choosing. Modules, game worlds, powers, classes - you can go to town and buy everything and have years worth of gaming and options in the Pathfinder/Paizo marketplace, and I love it.

Electronic game support could be better, it has always been a sore spot with the OGL. I would love for Paizo to break with the OGL, write a new set of rules, and open up support for electronic 3rd party publishing and other options with a new and freer license. I think they could do it, and if there ever is a Pathfinder 2.0, I would love for them to revolutionize the open gaming movement and take things a step further with community licensed video gaming with a new set of rules.

So in a way, the OGL is the way to go, but it needs to be replaced. The thinking needs to be along the same lines of "the more people play with our rules the more successful we are" - and this needs to cross into the electronic realm. Imagine if every fantasy game on every phone, laptop, and tablet were an advertisement for your game rules, with a non-onerous 'license required' splash screen and hotlink to your store built into every game. People should be buying electronic games, MMOs, cell phone games, character designers, and other entertainment software because it all follows the rules set they love.

This is possibly one of the largest 'missed opportunities' in RPG publishing these days, and I hope it changes soon.

D&D: Tolkien vs. World of Warcraft

It's striking the ebbs and flows popular culture take, and it affects our fantasy gaming. Popular culture defines game design, as role-playing gaming is a direct form of fantasy fulfillment. Since fantasies are defined by the culture we live in, games that adapt and meet the fantasy rise in popularity because people have an avenue for expressing the fantasy de-jour in a tabletop context.

Take for example D&D 4, created during the heyday of MMO culture, and really, the game does play like an MMO. D&D 4's Essentials reboot kind of throttled that feeling down, and that was an experiment for D&D 5's return to a different inspiration. People still like the World of Warcraft over-the-top tone and feeling to D&D 4, and some don't.

This is not about what's bad or right, or what's new and what's old - this is about providing games to fill the demands of the marketplace.

There still is a demand for tabletop MMO style gaming, people are fans of it, have a blast playing it, and it still will be played far, far into the future. New games may rise and take the MMO-style throne from D&D 4. MMOs are waning a little in popularity, and MMO-tabletop gaming is as well, but that force and demand in the marketplace will never go away - MMOs are here to stay, thus the fantasy fulfillment of "playing someone like that" in a pen-and-paper game will always be there.

D&D 5 has shifted the game back towards its Tolkien roots, and away from MMO culture. The LoTR and Hobbit movies are back in the spotlight at least for a while, and the demand for that down-to-earth non-fantastic fantasy is high again. When some people think of fantasy, those Tolkien-esque images are what they see. Again, this is perfectly fine, this is one segment of the marketplace, and people are fans and should have wonderful games to play.

However, it is wrong to say either style is bad. People like MMOs and people like Tolkien, your opinion is never going to change that, so find the game you like to play and find players that like to play it. Some people like multiple genres too, and that may surprise some in our 'one game to rule them all' age. We need to be a little more inclusive and a little more understanding.

Pathfinder is a different beast, and its inspirations come our of D&D 3's Magic the Gathering roots. Pathfinder is a "deck builder" character-centric game just like D&D 3, and that appeals to another crowd of competitive fantasy gamer. It's roots lie in combining MMO and magic card-style fantasy artwork with the heavy character optimization and building gaming. In Pathfinder, building your character as you level is a big part of playing the game, and that appeals to a different crowd. It's all good, and those gamers are welcome under the big "fantasy gaming" tent as well.

I still love Pathfinder mechanically for its builds and customization. I also love the other games for their feeling and design to support those play-styles.

To be fair, any of these games could be used to simulate any of these styles of play and feelings. However, mechanically each game is close to its roots and design inspiration, so you are often better off playing games that support your idea of fantasy in mechanics because you'll have a better time and enjoy the experience more fully.

To pick a "favorite" game, you first need to know where your inspirations lie. It's hard sometimes because there's a lot of noise out there, and every publisher wants their game to be everything. It's also not fair to attack a game because it isn't what you like, but understanding a game for what it is helps you understand those who are fans better. But understanding where a game "comes from" also helps you understand what you like, and lets you be in a game that lets you express your fantasies and heroic dreams with a system built to support your idea of what "fantasy gaming" means to you.

Horde of the Dragon Queen Review on tenfootpole.org

There's a great review of the D&D 5 module Horde of the Dragon Queen over on tenfootpole.org - check it out.

What is fun about this review is that it is critical, but very constructive and imaginative. Kudos to Mr. Bryce for writing this, it highlights great (and not so great) adventure design, and player motivation.

It also highlights some important differences between 5E, OSR games, 4E, and even Pathfinder in terms of character power and advancement. It is a great "thinkers" piece just in comparison of everything out there, and it does get you thinking about where your personal fantasy gaming preference lies.

It is an excellent read for anyone interested in adventure design and critical thinking about your preferred playing style. Check it out!

Theme Park Worlds

You know what would make Star Wars better?

More Star Trek.

This feels like the strange thinking behind theme park worlds. Before we begin, what is a theme park world? The best examples of these are the old Mystara D&D setting, the universe of Space Opera, the MMO World of Warcraft setting, and of course, Pathfinder's iconic Golarion setting. These are worlds that include a little bit of everything, a Gothic horror area, an Egyptian area, some place like Game of Thrones, a dungeon area, a sci-fi area, an Orc horde area, and just about any other pop-culture fantasy trope adapted for generic pen-and-paper or online gaming use.

We end up with these improbable worlds which feel like a mish-mash Vegas buffet of ideas and adventure opportunities - look, there's something for everyone! There's an old saying if you try to please everyone, you'll end up pleasing no one, and at least for me, that's how I feel about these types of worlds.

What bothers me about them? Well, some of this came up yesterday in my post about Hero Lab, and I wanted to break this down into my top seven reasons of what makes theme park worlds less compelling for me.

#1 The Escape Hatch: Tired of living under the Vampire Counts? Sure, let's go next door to the Happy Kingdom and take a break from this constant Gothic oppression. If you aren't forced to live in a dangerous world, you take it less seriously. The decisions you need to make don't feel as important, you don't take matters of survival and careful political planning as having any real consequence. Sure, if you start a game in "Gothic area" at low-level ytou get the feeling, but at high levels when the characters own a fortress in the Happy Kingdom next door, all of a sudden those scheming Vampire counts seem so distant and far away.

#2 Disneylandification: Theme parks by their nature are improbable collections of everything within walking distance. It doesn't have to make sense, it just has to cover everything and keep people moving through to see constantly changing sights and sounds. Each themed piece of the theme park needs to be less than the whole, as the entire experience is what we are here for. The 'rides' sit next to each other with no real history or reason, and they exist simply because they offer another option. Because there is this air of improbability, by its nature the overall creation is taken less seriously.

#3 Stuck in Time: Wouldn't the Orc Horde just sitting there up to the north have crushed the Happy Kingdom by now? One thing about theme parks is they don't change all that often. Oh, there may be new restaurants and rides every so often, but their purpose is to move people through and entertain the masses with similar experiences. Due to this fact, they often get stuck in time, where the Gothic Kingdom will never be crushed by the Holy Kingdom, and the Happy Kingdom will always be the same happy place it's always been.

#4 No Clear Villains: Or too-many villains in some cases. Of course Game of Thrones would be better with Lord of the Rings' Sauron somewhere in there, and also the Harry Potter Death Eaters as well. Imagine all the villainy! If you had a world where just the Vampire Counts were the big bad guys, your conflicts and enemies would be clearer and a lot more focused. If you have a Demon Scar over here, Vampires over there, Orc Hordes in this valley, Evil Fae here, the world feels like there is no clear conflict and drama. Good fiction writers tell you to simplify, and it feels like there are several worlds waiting to get out and shine on their own in here.

#5 The Mighty Averages: Because your rules has to support every option and every social structure, you can't all of a sudden say that the worship of Gods in this world is limited and persecuted by the evil powers that be.  This can be confined to an area, sure, but you may want to make story decisions with certain classes, like having all druids be a part of an ancient order of the Winter North. In a theme park world, every class has to be everywhere, and you can't make over-riding story decisions for your world anymore. You may only want one church to support the creation of paladins, but in a world where anybody can be a paladin for any reason and for any god, they feel less special and less linked to the world's story and central conflict.

#6 Does Nothing Well: People say theme park worlds give you everything, so you don't need anything else. Well, true, if you don't really care about a focused and quality experience. A focused game world on one particular subject will always be a better experience than the theme park version. Imagine a vampire count type world with detailed histories, families, biographies, lands, conflicts driven by the vampire counts, wars, magics, legends, secrets, and mysteries all in one glorious, focused tome. It will be a more dramatic and focused experience just because that's all that book does, and the creators do not have to worry about supporting other ideas.

#7 The Comic Book Effect: All we play is Vampire Counts. Look Egyptian enemies from Egypt-land! Oooh, shiny! There's two answers for this sort of a problem. Either your vampire count area wasn't compelling enough to hold their attention, or your group is suffering from a comic book effect where things have to constantly change in order for interest to remain high. I like Game of Thrones and other dramas, and those worlds don't have to get so crazy by introducing all sorts of crazy comic-book monsters and villains with all sorts of funny shapes and costumes. Humans really are all the villain you need in some game worlds, and you don't need four bestiaries full of funny shaped critters to have a great story. Less is more, and running a game that tosses in constantly changing threats gets tiring because there is no central villainous threat, and you are constantly looking for the 'next big thing' to top the threat the party just vanquished. Psionic beings from the nether-dimension? Oooh, even shiner!

Mind you, I like Pathfinder's Golarion setting, it is beautiful and offers a lot of places for adventure. However, as the game matures, I feel there is a need to break out and explore new worlds. I am craving focused, dedicated settings that just take one topic and do a hell of a good job with the source material. I am imagining a Vampire Counts world all done out with a Game of Thrones level of detail and history, with no extraneous distractions, demons, orcs, or Happy Kingdoms in the world to take the focus away from the conflicts in the world. You step into this world, the steel cage door is closed, and you have to live in it to survive.

Can you tell a story like that in a theme park world? You could, for the first few levels, but as the party's magic and travel options broaden, the escape hatch cracks open a little bit,. and the 'ooh shiny' other conflicts in the theme park world attract them with their new sights, flashing lights, and happy music. I want a world without those distractions, where Count Dracula is my world's big bad 20th level necromancer, and all the families and backstabbing vampires underneath him scheme and plot to get the upper hand. It feels difficult to run a high-level game in a theme park world with the Demon Scar sitting to one side of Dracula's castle, and the Evil Pharaoh King sitting to the other.

Sometimes, you are in the mood for a tight and focused experience, and as a game-master, you want that control. While the freedom and options provided by theme-park worlds is great, there are downsides and trade-offs should you choose one as your campaign setting. As a game-master myself? I'd rather be known as the guy who runs the cool and fascinating Vampire Counts setting, rather than someone who runs the stock world setting very well.

Hero Lab: Deep Magic and Advanced Class Guide

This is one I've been waiting for, the Pathfinder Advanced Class Guide and the Deep Magic supplement have been added to Lone Wolf's Hero Lab. Check it out on the Pathfinder support page here. I think I have been waiting for the Deep Magic package for a while now, and that completes my "super collection" of Pathfinder build books and computer-assisted character design. This would consist of:

• Pathfinder Core Rulebook
• Ultimate Magic
• Ultimate Combat
• Ultimate Equipment
• Ultimate Campaign
• Mythic Adventures
• Advanced Race Guide
• Advanced Player's Guide
• Advanced Class Guide
• Pathfinder Bestiary 1 thru 4
• Tome of Horrors Complete
• Deep Magic
• 1001 Spells
• Secrets of Adventuring

I'd love to build a Pathfinder game world that supports all that, in fact - especially integrating the four non-official books in italics. As of mid-2014, this is the most interesting and complete group of non world specific character, setting, and monster material you can get right now.

With the above set of books I think it would be harder to do, and I would eventually settle down on one theme and pick-and-choose what I wanted. Another great point about making a focused game world is that players who are bought-in to the main Paizo campaign could always borrow your setting and drop the parts they like in.

Do I believe there's room for another Pathfinder compatible game world? Of course! There's always room outside of Paizo's main theme-park style setting of Golarion for more specific and focused experiences. The one thing about theme-park worlds is they don't force a deep and committed player buy-in of any one part of the world.

Let's say you wanted to run a game in a Vampire-count sort of Ravenloft-y world. Golarion has one of those places, but for a setting like that to work for me - there can be no escape. You can't jet over to the Elven Kingdom or your Barbarian Enclave to escape that threat, for me, having a focused 100% "this is it" type world (like Game of Thrones) is a very compelling experience. Even if my mini-world setting is not as big as the main Paizo world, if it is 100% devoted to one subject - Gothic horror, backstabbing noble families, Arthurian fantasy, Cthulhu style horror - I feel it is better focused and my players will have a great time.

For me, it is about limiting distractions and not providing safe zones for the players. Take the vampire count world idea. Without safe zones, players have to become involved in the game world, make deals with vampire counts, find places they can be safe-er in, and ally with NPCs (they think) who share their interests. Nowhere in the world is safe from the vampire lords, there is no "demon area" or "Egypt area" where the big bad guy changes and the vampires can't reach.

There is also the fun possibility of limiting areas that would be a threat to Vampires, such as divine magic. Let's say the vampire counts stamped out all worship of deities that could provide divine power to challenge them, and worship to one or two long-forgotten gods was underground and secret. This is fun, compelling content you can't get in a theme-park world since you could always go next-door to the holy kingdom, round up a bunch of paladins, and ride in like the Magnificent Seven.

Still, I think even a semi-generic alternate game world is very compelling and possible using the above list as a seeder guide. Write it for Pathfinder like Eberron was written for D&D3 - everything must exist and play together. The addition of the four other non-official books would make for an interesting world to explore indeed.