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.
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.
Gygax also elevated Jean Wells in the company before the subsequent management basically made her a secretary. Wells had a decent working relationship with Gygax, which you can see if you read in Dragon magazine “Sage Advice” column from the mid 80’s. Gygax should have listened to Wells more often than he did, but he did try to empower her to make the game more friendly to women.
Still, his legacy towards women in gaming is mixed at best. In the 80’s, TSR games which Gygax was less involved in tended to do better with women, notably Star Frontiers, but also “Basic D&D” which did not include rules making it disadvantageous to play a female character, unlike Gygax’s Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, which capped female strength below male strength for each race. And I think telling a new D&D player their character would be a lousy fighter is pretty rough.
Yes, there was a pattern in Gygax’s creations of evil female power that went beyond the dragon example. Most notably drow were the only evil elves, and the only matriarchal (he would have said “female dominated”) ones. This pattern wasn’t his invention — it’s as old as Snow White, Cinderella, and the rest — but even in his own time, others (for example, Tom Moldvay) created more inclusive games.
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.
Most folks never did need the books to learn to play. You’ve always been able to learn D&D by somebody (usually their DM) explaining it. But many people end up buying books and things once they’re engaged.
Like any hobby, people spend money on it when they want to. Those solid modules and supplements you mention would be a bit part of that, but also how people feel about the company they’d be supporting matters a lot (this is the so-called “reflective reaction” Don Norman writes about in his book Emotional Design) .
It’s a great feeling.
But I have to admit, the good booze may have had as much to do with it than anything else.
And be careful not to bask in the feeling too much. Eventually you do want to get the party moving again. Once the weekend is over, folks may notice they “didn’t do anything.”
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.
My progressive-as-anyone zoomer kids and their friends use “based” all the time, for, as I understand it, any bold statement that’s hard to dispute.
This is actually the first time I’m hearing “based” being associated with alt-righties.
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.
Goth girls are drow.
In an OSR game, you only fight when you have to, because victory is not a foregone conclusion.
You might also “roll up” your character instead of creating one. Which everyone should at some point, because it’s a whole part of the game that’s disappeared. If you hate trying to come up with a character concept, you might well love a game where the dice can give you some ideas.
Most modern OSR games will tell you that characters have no “plot armor” and are just as vulnerable as NPC’s, just like they were in the old days. But read the rules, and the PC’s actually do have some plot armor after all, just a bit less.