What I Like

Let’s start with a gripe sandwich. I’ll start with what I like the most about 5e before moving to the unpleasant business. I truly LOVE that fifth edition has brought so many new and diverse gamers to the RPG table and conventions. Clearly our friend Mike Mearls with Jeremy Crawford and the WOTC team brought a quality product that lines up with the target market. The whole team put their ears to the community to give them something they wanted. They added in NUMEROUS house-rulings, and built something completely different from the previous edition that, let’s face it, wasn’t received as well by the community. People defend the system like a religious text, so clearly they love it. So much, that I am hesitant to release a blog post with a criticism of it.

I will also preface my gripe with the fact that I have released almost all my titles with 5E rules and compatibility. The ire that critique of the system raises is almost, in itself, a small gripe about it. So let’s move on to the issue at hand.

What I Don’t Like

There is a small list that this single dislike incorporates. So I will itemize my sub-gripes under this heading. In brief, my biggest gripe about the system is that: 5E has players pushing numbers ahead of characters. *please hold your ire until the end so I can explain*

I will also preface the following and above that I already KNOW that your group doesn’t do this. That you feel I am utterly wrong. That the system can be bent to fit all styles of play…. I know… you hate me for a critique of 5E. All editions can be bent for various styles of play, and we all have examples. I am stepping back from that muck pit to look at this topic.

Character Builds

This isn’t an ‘official’ WOTC term I don’t think, but I hate that it exists. A build is the term used to ‘work the system’ for advantages and plug-in a number of module elements to arrive at a character. The idea itself reveals that character’s aren’t unique. This is a videogame thinking in character creation. Plug in race, class, feats, background, skills, tighten the bolts and here’s your character. When going through it I can almost see a SKyrim type menu with things I tick off and then just choose hair and eye color at the end. It has your story, look, feel, indeed your entire advancement career outlined for you already. One of the more common posts in the 5E groups that I watch is: “What is the best build for a ____[insert character archetype]____?”
My answer will unwaveringly and unapologetically be, “The one that seems like the most fun for you to roleplay at the moment.”

Mechanics in Backstory

My first reaction to the preset background stories was, “Yeah ok whatever. it gives some inspiration for those who don’t want to think of a background.” Then when I realized these preset backstories weren’t just “dungeon dressing” but actually things to choose with mechanics attached, I recoiled in horror. To me this feels counter to the spirit of the game. Yes, I know you can write your own and make them up, but then your DM needs to layout rules, bonuses, and a path through the various feats and abilities.

Is This a Good Character to Play?

A question that gets asked in 5E groups more than any other. Variants of this question come up and it is related to character builds. What the inquisitor means is, “Will this character survive? Is it Min/Maxed properly to try to get an edge on the mechanics? Can I “win?” My answer is unapologetically, “If it seems like a fun character to you to play, ONLY then is it “good”.” I don’t know what it is about the system that seems to entice the idea of maximizing numbers to get an advantage. I admit It would happen on occasion in 2E as well I.E. strong fighters with high dex taking darts, then specializing. But for some reason, it seems to be the standard mindset for players in the 5E groups I frequent, not the exception.

Concept vs. Numbers

I would like to encourage 5E players to NOT think about builds, numbers, or system weaknesses at character creation. DISCARD everything you read about backgrounds, archetypes, feats, skills, and how they combine. DISCARD everything you know about stats, rules, advantage, disadvantage, AC, DC, HP, and close your eyes to think about what kind of hero you imagine in a fantasy RPG setting. From the stories of old, new, books, movies, and stories, imagine what type of character excites you. Imagine what YOUR hero in a fantasy realm looks like, talks like, acts like. What’s their story? WAIT…not those 5E backstories…. this is your own imagining.
Is it a lithe elf of the forest, surviving in the wilds in search of their friends? Is it the popular wise-guy from the city who is everyone’s friend and shmoozes them out of money?

Imagine your hero the way you want to play it. Whatever way and whatever style seems FUN to you and your friends at the table. Take that image and THEN apply the tool box of modules and numbers in the players handbook to make that image happen. The numbers aren’t your character, they only describe your character.

The numbers aren’t your character, they only describe your character.

That is my biggest gripe about 5E summed up in one sentence (above). Perhaps it’s a player gripe, I’m not sure. I strongly feel that the numbers, feats, abilities, and all that should be used to describe our characters, not the other way around.

Complete the Sandwich

5e can accommodate all sorts of styles of play and approaches. If you are finding yourself opening the book to find the best numerical advantage in damage and abilities, I really challenge you to stop, close the book, and imagine the FUN character first. The game can handle your presence without min maxing the numbers. There is no “winning” in D&D. If you are only carving numbers, you are thinking of winning and not telling the story of your band of heroes.

The system is ready for this style of play. You can even trim everything back to the core, maybe replay Phandelver one more time with the intro set rules. Your DM may even be willing to go beyond level 3 with the intro box rules. That intro box set really put the story mode in front, it’s what excited a whole new group of gamers to play – reconnect to that excitement of adventure and hold onto it. Humans get competitive, it’s ok. We also get cooperative, you don’t need to be great at everything, it’s why we adventure in groups.

It’s why so many previous edition gamers play Holmes, BECMI, 1E, 2E, we are reconnecting to what excited us about playing in the first place. Even previous edition gamers sometimes do this min/maxing business. People who only play the number often lose the magic and eventually fade out of the hobby. People whose eyes glaze over at the table and can “see” their hero creating the story as it unfolds, tend to immerse deeper into the game and find more joy in it.

What is Best in Life?

There is no best system or style of play. The best system for you is the one that generates the most fun. Role playing games aren’t games of numbers. They are ROLE PLAYING games that use numbers to tell a story.

I hope this helps enrich your gaming experience, and thank you for tolerating my 5E gripes. Now feel free to voice your ire in the comments.

~Lloyd M

The post My Gripe About D&D 5E appeared first on Fail Squad Games.

What is BECMI?

B.E.C.M.I. is the abbreviated term for Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, and Immortal box sets. “Basic Dungeons and Dragons” was released in the USA in 1983. There were two versions prior to this known commonly as “Holmes edition” and “Moldvay edition”. They were all intended as a gateway into the existing Advanced Dungeons and Dragons systems that intimidated some players with more complex rules and tables. The revision author of the red box was Frank Mentzer with art from Jeff Easley and Larry Elmore.

Who still plays this?

Plenty of people, that’s who. North Texas RPG con is one example of cons focused primarily on the older versions of tabletop RPGs. Many gamers, myself included, came to Dungeons and Dragon through this box set. The original box set is a little difficult to find these days, but the books still exist and have even been re-released by WOTC in PDF. Labyrinth Lord is considered the OSR standard version of the game. Some differences exist, but the feel and primary fun are all in place.

Why use it?

Let’s take the controversy of an author out of this post and look at why it’s good to keep the old red box on your shelf.

BECMI Dungeons and Dragons remains a quality product if we set all other things aside. It’s easy to pick up and play, limitless in possibility, and streamlined. It places story telling in the forefront and maintains a fast battle resolution system and extremely fun game that relies heavily on DM rulings to resolve issues. The red set (Basic) gives you just enough to play and run games up to level 3. It doesn’t concern itself with powers, ability or spells beyond that. The product itself is elegant and hard to put down as a read. If it doesn’t excite the gamer in you, you aren’t alive.

For young gamers, it’s a wonderful introduction. The text and wording are carefully chosen to inspire the imagination and feed adventure. Just flipping through the pages, I find myself inspired to get moving on our next project.

Isn’t it too simple for experienced gamers?

If you came into the hobby during AD&D 2.0 – 5.0 it’s worth the read through and at least a night of trying it out. It isn’t really the same game and has a different flavor. It allows to DM to be loose and free with ideas and rulings. It’s almost like gesture drawing in the gaming world. In as little as 20 – 20 minutes you will have the gist of how to play and DM. The cap is put tightly on power while party collaboration takes over.

Races as classes?

Yes, races as classes. This was done to simplify the process and the game. Labyrinth Lord keeps this, and I believe the Rules Cyclopedia does as well. It’s worth at least a few play-throughs with the rules set as written before you begin house-ruling changes about race – class. 0D&D treated things a little differently.

The red box deserves a play based on its own merits alone before you discard it based on anything else. The game is remarkably fun and exciting, even the solo adventure in the players manual. Once you get your BECMI group into the realm of levels 5-8 things really come into their own and become more exciting than should be allowed with one-page character sheets. The game is simply, fun as hell.

To put a point on it, we are releasing our next adventure module from Fail Squad Games in BECMI and 5E. It’s worth while to keep it alive and keep the old school dice rolling.

The post Why Play Red Box D&D? appeared first on Fail Squad Games.

Which do you Prefer?

When the race first came to Dungeons and Dragons, it was Hobbit. Clearly inspired by the works of J.R.R. Tolkein. In the workings of copyrights and business, it was quickly changed to Halfling.

At conventions I have sat at the table of a number of the old TSR Staff who insist on using the verbiage “Hobbit”, and they explain that we all know the naming was changed, but it was clear what was meant. In fact the term ‘Halfling’ remains in some of the Tolkein writings to describe the folk of the shire.

With the latest edition of the Dungeons & Dragons game (5E) Wizards of the coast seem to have taken a sharp left turn and made Halflings something un-hobbit like completely. Having small feet and a penchant for shoes seems awkward and out-of-place.

Do you Love it or Hate it?

I have tried to like the new Halflings, but in my mind, they remained as Hobbits. The little feet in the artwork of 5e is bothersome to me. I try not to look at it. I mean, I’m not even sure what I’m looking at here when it comes to proportion.

It does bring some new ideas to the table though, and that can’t be all bad – right?

There are interesting new quirks to little feet and shoes, and maybe I would be quicker to embrace the change if they weren’t SO little, with giant heads.

When you game – What do you see?

These differences are minor, it’s true. Likely a wise move by WOTC to get away from the Hobbit IP when the movies were headed the theaters.

When you close your eyes at the gaming table, what do you see when you think of a Halfling/Hobbit?

I have to work hard to stop seeing Meriadoc and Pippin smoking and eating apple pie at second breakfast. My mouth says the word Halfling, but my brain sees a Hobbit.

What are some of the ways you have made the transition? Have you changed Hobbits and Halflings in your own world?

The post Hobbit or Halfling? appeared first on Fail Squad Games.