The Problem of Entitlement

Anyone who knows me knows that I tend to think arguments surrounding people being "entitled" are ridiculous. Unfortunately, when it comes to 4th Edition, I think the issue of entitlement really is a strong one.

Look at the off-line character builder. When Wizards of the Coast decided (rightly or wrongly) that they weren't going to offer everyone a permanent access to all the game's rules (up to a certain point) for the cost of a 1 month subscription, they pulled it. And there was backlash. A lot of backlash. People felt entitled to it.

But, even ignoring Wizard's concerns (that range from digital piracy to just how much they're really charging for content), entitlement is what Essentials is all about. Rather, it's about fighting that entitlement. Players feel entitled to artifacts. Players feel entitled to Slidespam builds for wizards. Players feel entitled to this and that.

If you take a look at an Essentials Only game-rarity rules, no pre-essentials classes, etc-you really don't see that. And surprise surprise, there's complaints about how the content sucks. Because it doesn't live up to the pre-existing expectations. And that's intentional: the game can't meet those expectations.

Wizards is releasing a lot less crunch, and a lot more fluff these days. And that's partially because it's easier for them to catch up with that much. But in the current market, I ask all players of the game: If you hadn't been given so much before, would you really think what you're getting now is inadequate?

Not Exactly Top Tier

So apparently Sly Flourish is a popular site for Dungeon Mastering advice on 4th edition. They realized the same things about solo monsters I did, though taking a bit less of an issue by issue systemic approach to it.

I don't qualify for their top blogs, as I haven't been releasing posts weekly (inspiration is so hard to find~) but it's worth checking out, at http://slyflourish.com

The Problem with Published Monsters

It's always been tacitly understood that different parties have access to different resources. So, if the party "just happens" to have Mass Resistance in store, then they can make a battle become utterly boring. Alternatively, you can design monsters that are basically impossible without Mass Resistance. This actually works if you're tailoring monsters for the party-it rewards players for their choices without threatening a TPK (because you know they have that choice). The problem, of course, is that any such monster inherently has to be ad hoc.

It's rather like having trolls that are entirely impossible to kill without fire or acid damage. If the party has access to fire or acid damage, there's no issue, but if you run such a troll against an all-melee party with nothing but sticks and stones, you'd better make sure you drop some torches on them.

Not Joking Anymore

You know, originally, Fifth Edition Now was just a way of saying that things need to change. I wasn't really suggesting we release 5th edition. But the more I think about it, the more I think the game really does require a few fundamental changes that ultimately I don't think can be accomplished within the 4th edition framework.

It's unfortunate, but perhaps it really has become time for us to launch into 5th edition. Over the coming days, weeks, centuries, whatever, I will be explaining some basic frameworks going forwards.

Defenses are like a Dollar Store...

Price-point marketing. You look at a demand curve, and it's either a straight line, or convex. But you think of it as Price-Pointing, the line kind of bumps, with peaks and valleys.

Defenses are like that.

When you hit 21st level, BOOM! Improved Defenses (and its ilk) suddenly increase by one. Your ability scores are all (well, the important ones) even again. You're in reach for +5 armor, which for heavier armors can lead to yet another +1 to AC.

There are lots of "Price Points" for defenses, and some of them are spread out, making it look like a straight line from a distance. But if you zoom in, you can really see the texture of the curve.

I just thought that was something interesting.

How Plato Speaks of Dungeons and Dragons

I recently had a conversation with a friend who, by all means, radically diverges with me on what he think makes for optimal game design. His criticism of my manner was to suggest "There's no Plato's Perfect Form of Dungeons and Dragons."

Which pretty much sums up his opposition to my position-the position that, there is indeed a theoretical "best" or "perfect" model, and that the purpose of game balance discussions is to move us closer in that direction.

Of course, there was no argument as to why there is no Plato's Perfect Form of Dungeons and Dragons. But to be fair, that would have been a lengthy philosophical conversation in and of itself.

A change in tone

You may have noticed the change in header. 5eNow hasn't particularly had anything going for it to distinguish itself from other Dungeons and Dragons blogs. It doesn't have the hard-hitting numbers like Square-Fireballs, or the ... ... ... actually, I don't currently follow anyone else's Dungeons and Dragons related blog.

So, I'm going full acid damage. Expect to see more complaining about people I disagree with in a totally unjustified and hateful-but still utterly rational (and presumably correct?)-manner. Why? Well, everyone has to have a hobby.

I've already unconsciously undergone this transformation (as you'll notice in my Fallacies posts) so I figure, why fight the tide.