Troll Lord Games

Just went to the FLGS, and there was a full shelf of 5e stuff. Actually, 2/3 of a shelf, the left 1/3 was pathfinder minis, with pathfinder taking the full reverse side of the shelf.

C&C was actually well-represented, with two KS shrink wraps of Codex Nordica; grabbed one of those and left the 5e stuff there after leafing through it.

Aergraith wrote:Just went to the FLGS, and there was a full shelf of 5e stuff. Actually, 2/3 of a shelf, the left 1/3 was pathfinder minis, with pathfinder taking the full reverse side of the shelf.

C&C was actually well-represented, with two KS shrink wraps of Codex Nordica; grabbed one of those and left the 5e stuff there after leafing through it.

Yeah, I suggest you wait until we play next January before sinking your money into it. At least know whether you will enjoy playing it or not before putting cash into it. The free PDF's should work just fine for you until then.

There is definitely a lot in this one to like, which is far better than what I thought of 4E when it came out.

If there was some major deficiency in C&C I'd pick it up. I've picked up tons of OSR games for much worse reasons, sometimes no reason except my wallet was handy.

I am starting to realize all games aren't going to be possible for me to play. My home games are nearly dead, and when we do play, we play RC, which does have a few deficiencies C&C addresses. I'm glad I'll be able to try it with you in January, and that'll satisfy my curiosity. If it really bowls me over, I'll get it.

It doesn't look toxic or anything, but when I had in one hand 29.95 of setting material, a poster, and 3 modules, and in the other the-same-but-different rules I pretty much know already for 49.95, it wasn't too hard a choice.

Aergraith wrote:If there was some major deficiency in C&C I'd pick it up. I've picked up tons of OSR games for much worse reasons, sometimes no reason except my wallet was handy.

I am starting to realize all games aren't going to be possible for me to play. My home games are nearly dead, and when we do play, we play RC, which does have a few deficiencies C&C addresses. I'm glad I'll be able to try it with you in January, and that'll satisfy my curiosity. If it really bowls me over, I'll get it.

It doesn't look toxic or anything, but when I had in one hand 29.95 of setting material, a poster, and 3 modules, and in the other the-same-but-different rules I pretty much know already for 49.95, it wasn't too hard a choice.

You should join my Thursday game group, we intentionally play a new RPG every 6 to 8 weeks. Usually. We are taking longer with SR 5E.

Arduin wrote:

Julian Grimm wrote:$11 for Wolf brand here (box of 20). I like 'em but they have a slight habit of not wanting eject properly from the Mosin. I get enough money save up I'll try to get a 100 rounds bought just for target shooting. However with deer season coming and having a feral pig issue in the area I am shooting more. So I can justify the amount.

[edit to add] Availability is not bad but, my best friend also reloads so I get by a bit cheaper. There's a gun show coming in October so I am hoping to get lucky and get a few more rounds cheap.

Thanks. I moved recently so am in less rural setting and don't shoot as much anymore. Nice weapon BTW. Those are very collectable these days.

This is why I don't see myself leaving the boonies. Besides not being able to shoot I have no idea where I would I would put the goats and the neighbors would not like me peeing off the porch.

Seriously, the Mosin is on extended loan to see if I want to make an offer on it. I had been in the market for an SKS but I am warming up to the other the more I shoot it. The owner of the Mosin is thinning his collection and wanted me to keep it for as long as I wanted and we would discuss price later. I'm seriously thinking about seeing what he wants for it. The thing is too much fun.

Julian Grimm wrote:
This is why I don't see myself leaving the boonies. Besides not being able to shoot I have no idea where I would I would put the goats and the neighbors would not like me peeing off the porch.

I still have chickens. But, goats WOULD be problematic.

Julian Grimm wrote: Seriously, the Mosin is on extended loan to see if I want to make an offer on it. I had been in the market for an SKS but I am warming up to the other the more I shoot it. The owner of the Mosin is thinning his collection and wanted me to keep it for as long as I wanted and we would discuss price later. I'm seriously thinking about seeing what he wants for it. The thing is too much fun.

Nice weapon. One of the best in its class for the period.

I picked up the 5E Monster Manual, and found the artwork very meh.

slimykuotoan wrote:I picked up the 5E Monster Manual, and found the artwork very meh.

Yeah, I thought they would try to have the art work be better than any that had come before it, but on far too many of them, they took a step or 5 backwards.

Totally agree

I'm also disappointed by the lack of ixitxachitl.

I'm verily pleased that the Cyclops is there though!

slimykuotoan wrote:I'm verily pleased that the Cyclops is there though!

Kept your eye out for it, did you? (sorry)

Booooo

Also, the locanth R gone...

slimykuotoan wrote:Booooo

Also, the locanth R gone...

Well, they do need to have reasons to do a Monster Manual 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Yeah, too true.

Have to say, I’m super excited for Necromancer Games’ Kickstarted book of Monsters to come out. Not in the least because I know that a bunch of my players have the Monster Manual, and I like to keep them guessing.

I don't get this thing where people create more and more monsters - Sodium Dragons, Procrastinating Shufflers and Marzipan Golems...

I bought the 5th ed PHB and thought, "Hmm," in that it looks better than 3rd ed (I never had anything to do with 4th: it seemed barely a RPG at all) but I didn't like the look of the Monster Manual, too much weird crap from other planes in there and it followed the 3rd ed. trend for making everything look like a reptile or an insect. I look at all the reviews of the new DMG and and they are all glowing, everyone just lurves the new DMG, not one dissenting voice anywhere at all whatsover. The worst anyone has done is rate one section only 3 out of 5. And yet, I don't like it.

There's about 20% of it that would be of any use to me and I appreciate that this is partly because some parts are intended for newbies, but apart from that it grates: it's full of random tables to generate stuff I wouldn't dream of using a random table for and reviewers all think it's cool to have a picture of every magic item when I think exactly the opposite. I don't like all the underlying assumptions - since when did D&D have to be about heroes, the players always the white hats in some cosmic struggle of good against evil? That's fine if you're playing Star Wars or Mutants and Masterminds, but why can't the PCs just want to recover treasure or fight off attacking orcs without there being some overarching theme with an evil mastermind behind it all? I suppose this emphasis on other planes and the "multiverse" ties into that - high level characters are always going to travel to other planes and fight some even more menacing menace. I find it dismal too, that these "heroic" adventures by default appear designed like a computer game or a bad martial arts action movie: fight the minions, fight the end of level boss, fight more minions, fight the final boss - bleah.

It all feels too constrained somehow, like the WindowsME of D&D, but apparently nobody else in the world agrees with me.

TensersFloatingDisk wrote:I don't get this thing where people create more and more monsters - Sodium Dragons, Procrastinating Shufflers and Marzipan Golems...

I bought the 5th ed PHB and thought, "Hmm," in that it looks better than 3rd ed (I never had anything to do with 4th: it seemed barely a RPG at all) but I didn't like the look of the Monster Manual, too much weird crap from other planes in there and it followed the 3rd ed. trend for making everything look like a reptile or an insect. I look at all the reviews of the new DMG and and they are all glowing, everyone just lurves the new DMG, not one dissenting voice anywhere at all whatsover. The worst anyone has done is rate one section only 3 out of 5. And yet, I don't like it.

There's about 20% of it that would be of any use to me and I appreciate that this is partly because some parts are intended for newbies, but apart from that it grates: it's full of random tables to generate stuff I wouldn't dream of using a random table for and reviewers all think it's cool to have a picture of every magic item when I think exactly the opposite. I don't like all the underlying assumptions - since when did D&D have to be about heroes, the players always the white hats in some cosmic struggle of good against evil? That's fine if you're playing Star Wars or Mutants and Masterminds, but why can't the PCs just want to recover treasure or fight off attacking orcs without there being some overarching theme with an evil mastermind behind it all? I suppose this emphasis on other planes and the "multiverse" ties into that - high level characters are always going to travel to other planes and fight some even more menacing menace. I find it dismal too, that these "heroic" adventures by default appear designed like a computer game or a bad martial arts action movie: fight the minions, fight the end of level boss, fight more minions, fight the final boss - bleah.

It all feels too constrained somehow, like the WindowsME of D&D, but apparently nobody else in the world agrees with me.

I haven't really seen the 5th edition MM but in response to your rant, what some examples of MMs you do like?

With regards to people making new monsters, I think they do it so that they can throw something new at the party. Many of my players have been paying for a long long time and they already know how most of the standard D&D monsters work - i.e. they know the creature's weaknesses and it is no longer challenging or exciting. Throwing a new monster at them can liven up a game of old-timers.

Regarding the DMG...
I haven't purchased the DMG yet, so I can't speak directly to your comments about content. I will say that I have heard a bit of criticism about it - but mostly just that it falls off the boat in terms of actually helping a new DM understand how the game works and how to use all the advice at the table. Which is weird because it's the most important place, right? And this is supposed to be the edition that draws in all players new and old, right?

The second criticism that I heard/read was that the book completely skips over sandbox style play. Then the author of that review qualifies it a bit by adding that the book talks about hex crawls which implies a sandbox style. The reviewer still gave the book 9 out of 10 stars even though it was missing anything on that persons main style of play.

In terms of your criticisms of the random tables, the tables are there because the WotC team is trying to be inclusive of the old school players (that they are trying to win back) and someone thinks that all old school players love random tables, so the book is full of them. Now, personally, I do love tables - if I have writers block (or GM-planning block) I flip through some tables, roll some random crap, and I usually get inspired by something that shows up. I almost never actually use the tables to insert items directly into my games. So in that way I am glad they are there. I wonder if the book has any advice on how to use them, though. I mean, really use them to plan, or does it just submit them as 'on-the-fly-game-prep' - which isn't actually the best way to use them. As i said, I don't have the book, so I can't speak to that.

I agree with you about the magic items - I don't want a picture of every one. I think you and I may be in the minority though.

As far as having an overarching story that the PCs are expected to work within (usually good vs evil or save the world from a catastrophe) that is just a modern theme in RPGs.

Many people want their players to start out basically heroic and grow in power from there, and eventually save the world and become immortal (or immortalized) - and that idea isn't actually all that new, to be honest. After all, in Basic D&D you could become immortal at very high levels (rules were in the gold box). The difference is that, back in the 80s characters started out so unheroic and lowly that a cat scratch could kill them and they often didn't live past 6th level. Now-a-days characters start out heroes and only get stronger. There are a few of us that still play games with very fragile low level PCs though. Apparently we are not the target audience for 5e D&D.

DMSamuel wrote:With regards to people making new monsters, I think they do it so that they can throw something new at the party. Many of my players have been paying for a long long time and they already know how most of the standard D&D monsters work - i.e. they know the creature's weaknesses and it is no longer challenging or exciting. Throwing a new monster at them can liven up a game of old-timers.

Regarding the DMG...
I haven't purchased the DMG yet, so I can't speak directly to your comments about content. I will say that I have heard a bit of criticism about it - but mostly just that it falls off the boat in terms of actually helping a new DM understand how the game works and how to use all the advice at the table. Which is weird because it's the most important place, right? And this is supposed to be the edition that draws in all players new and old, right?

The second criticism that I heard/read was that the book completely skips over sandbox style play. Then the author of that review qualifies it a bit by adding that the book talks about hex crawls which implies a sandbox style. The reviewer still gave the book 9 out of 10 stars even though it was missing anything on that persons main style of play.

In terms of your criticisms of the random tables, the tables are there because the WotC team is trying to be inclusive of the old school players (that they are trying to win back) and someone thinks that all old school players love random tables, so the book is full of them. Now, personally, I do love tables - if I have writers block (or GM-planning block) I flip through some tables, roll some random crap, and I usually get inspired by something that shows up. I almost never actually use the tables to insert items directly into my games. So in that way I am glad they are there. I wonder if the book has any advice on how to use them, though. I mean, really use them to plan, or does it just submit them as 'on-the-fly-game-prep' - which isn't actually the best way to use them. As i said, I don't have the book, so I can't speak to that.

I agree with you about the magic items - I don't want a picture of every one. I think you and I may be in the minority though.

As far as having an overarching story that the PCs are expected to work within (usually good vs evil or save the world from a catastrophe) that is just a modern theme in RPGs.

Many people want their players to start out basically heroic and grow in power from there, and eventually save the world and become immortal (or immortalized) - and that idea isn't actually all that new, to be honest. After all, in Basic D&D you could become immortal at very high levels (rules were in the gold box). The difference is that, back in the 80s characters started out so unheroic and lowly that a cat scratch could kill them and they often didn't live past 6th level. Now-a-days characters start out heroes and only get stronger. There are a few of us that still play games with very fragile low level PCs though. Apparently we are not the target audience for 5e D&D.

Every criticism you've heard as a criticism about the new DMG has been praised by the bloggers I follow. I have yet to get the DMG either, but will this up coming week, so I'll find out then who is right, in my opinion, of course.

DMSamuel wrote:With regards to people making new monsters, I think they do it so that they can throw something new at the party. Many of my players have been paying for a long long time and they already know how most of the standard D&D monsters work - i.e. they know the creature's weaknesses and it is no longer challenging or exciting. Throwing a new monster at them can liven up a game of old-timers.

I see where you're coming from with monsters getting too familiar, but too many of the published ones usually ended up creating silly ones or adding to the seemingly endless array of dragons or golems - I did like a few of the old MM2 creatures like Vargouilles and Sirines.

As far as having an overarching story that the PCs are expected to work within (usually good vs evil or save the world from a catastrophe) that is just a modern theme in RPGs.

Many people want their players to start out basically heroic and grow in power from there, and eventually save the world and become immortal (or immortalized) - and that idea isn't actually all that new, to be honest. After all, in Basic D&D you could become immortal at very high levels (rules were in the gold box). The difference is that, back in the 80s characters started out so unheroic and lowly that a cat scratch could kill them and they often didn't live past 6th level. Now-a-days characters start out heroes and only get stronger. There are a few of us that still play games with very fragile low level PCs though. Apparently we are not the target audience for 5e D&D.

It's not low level play that annoys me - I don't long for the days of sitting round a table with seven other teenage lads waiting for it be my turn to roll the d20 and announce a miss before I took 13 points of damage and died at first level yet again - it's the automatic assumption that high level characters are conscripted into some world-defining epic struggle against the forces of bwahahahar (and this in spite of the power curve supposedly being levelled off somewhat) and then that this struggle is going to culminate in a boss fight on another plane. As you said earlier, no sandbox.

TensersFloatingDisk wrote: It's not low level play that annoys me ... it's the automatic assumption that high level characters are conscripted into some world-defining epic struggle against the forces of bwahahahar (and this in spite of the power curve supposedly being levelled off somewhat) and then that this struggle is going to culminate in a boss fight on another plane. As you said earlier, no sandbox.

That's how computer games are written. That all the modern day RPGers know. So, like with 4E WotC is trying to cater to computer gamers without destroying their RPG division by alienating too many regular RPGers . Not an unintelligent design angle. But, not for most RPGers that I know. Like the 4E roll out.

Arduin wrote:

TensersFloatingDisk wrote: It's not low level play that annoys me ... it's the automatic assumption that high level characters are conscripted into some world-defining epic struggle against the forces of bwahahahar (and this in spite of the power curve supposedly being levelled off somewhat) and then that this struggle is going to culminate in a boss fight on another plane. As you said earlier, no sandbox.

That's how computer games are written. That all the modern day RPGers know. So, like with 4E WotC is trying to cater to computer gamers without destroying their RPG division by alienating too many regular RPGers . Not an unintelligent design angle. But, not for most RPGers that I know. Like the 4E roll out.

Some of it is just a sign of the times. When OD&D came out you had fantasy still being mainly pulp, considered part of sci-fi and wargamers and what I would call the slide-rule college students come in. The game grew to reflect that and you have a game that fit that era perfectly. 1E comes out on the cusp of some of the fantasy movies coming out, IIRC the beginning of a Conan revival and LOTR becoming more popular. Again the game reflects that mindset. When 2e came you had things like the Conan, Elfquest and other comics. Console and computer rpgs are taking hold and players that are more interested in story. The game reflects that idea and goes with it.

D20/3.X D&D comes at a time where computer and console gaming is replacing table-top gaming, games like Magic are going strong and newer players are molded by this. Game complexity ramps up as does the idea of character builds, epic struggles and you also have the LOTR movies that will begin shaping campaigns. 3.X as a whole also reflects a shift away from traditional fantasy to fantasy influenced by anime, video games and a huge shift away from heroic/high medieval fantasy to a somewhat superheroic fantasy based on 'magitek' and other ideas from various sources.

I feel 4e* was a culmination of the above and a response to the growing MMORPG fanbase. The game reflects these games and moves away from more standard fantasy tropes. Another reflection of the era and players. 5e seems to want to shift back a bit and seems to have taken inspiration from game modding, the so-called 'OSR' as a whole and a reaction to editions changing every few years. I also feel 5e is a product of WOTC trying to gain lost ground when Pathfinder began to dominate the market. They knew they could not go back to 3e so tried something different.

As to if it will work, only time will tell. I do like what I have seen but I am invested enough into C&C and some 3.X/ Pathfinder that another D&D edition is not practical for me. Mainly because everything 5e has done can be run through C&C or Pathfinder. Now, I don't hate 5e, nor do I find a sick joy in it not taking off like WOTC had hoped. In fact, I actually hope 5e does do well so we do not have to see a 6e or 7e. And I still remain a fan of D&D as a whole (Whether it is has C&C, Pathfinder, S&W or OSRIC on the cover is irrelevant) and want to see the game succeed.

As for all I wrote; this is just the way I see it and YMMV.


*Concerning 4e: This was the biggest mixed bag of ideas that I ever saw. I did like the game and had fun playing it. The game had good ideas and did fix some things I did not like about D&D lore as a whole (I'm looking at you Great Wheel). However, the game was very far removed from D&D. I feel it would have worked better as a separate game. Say, a Magic: the Gathering RPG.

Julian Grimm wrote: Some of it is just a sign of the times. When OD&D came out you had fantasy still being mainly pulp,

Depends on the crowd. When D&D was out, most of the gamers at our local store were Tolkien fans. As was the creator of D&D...

Julian Grimm wrote: nor do I find a sick joy in it not taking off like WOTC had hoped. In fact, I actually hope 5e does do well so we do not have to see a 6e or 7e.

The actual accounts I have heard have 5e doing better than WotC planned. According to Chris Perkins they are already doing the 3rd printing of the 5e PHB because they sold out of the first two so quickly. *shrug* I want them to succeed because D&D is the flagship RPG with household name recognition, whether anyone feels D&D deserves that place or not doesn't make it less true. If it succeeds it has the possibility of bringing new players into the RPG world, and that can only be good for my games. It's a sad RPGer that runs out of players and can't enjoy their favorite hobby.

DMSamuel wrote: The actual accounts I have heard have 5e doing better than WotC planned.

Yep. Better than forecast but not as much as 4E.

Arduin wrote:

DMSamuel wrote: The actual accounts I have heard have 5e doing better than WotC planned.

Yep. Better than forecast but not as much as 4E.

That's why I shrugged... I don't really know what the numbers are. 4e started high and then crashed hard, if 5e slopes up and then maintains or rises slowly I think it will be counted a success. Also, the D&D team only consists of about 15 people at the moment. Only a small portion of the staff they had for 4e. That has to hit their bottom line as well (fewer employees to pay, employee benefits to pay, insurance to pay, etc).

DMSamuel wrote: 4e started high and then crashed hard, if 5e slopes up and then maintains or rises slowly I think it will be counted a success.

Yep

Arduin wrote:

Julian Grimm wrote: Some of it is just a sign of the times. When OD&D came out you had fantasy still being mainly pulp,

Depends on the crowd. When D&D was out, most of the gamers at our local store were Tolkien fans. As was the creator of D&D...

True. To hear some tell it OD&D was intended to be pulp, was nothing but pulp and the Tolkienesque stuff was added as an appeasement to higher fantasy fans. Of course, I don't know as I was not even a twinkle in my parents' eye when OD&D came out and some sources keep using the same 1974 calendar over and over.

DMSamuel wrote:The actual accounts I have heard have 5e doing better than WotC planned. According to Chris Perkins they are already doing the 3rd printing of the 5e PHB because they sold out of the first two so quickly. *shrug* I want them to succeed because D&D is the flagship RPG with household name recognition, whether anyone feels D&D deserves that place or not doesn't make it less true. If it succeeds it has the possibility of bringing new players into the RPG world, and that can only be good for my games. It's a sad RPGer that runs out of players and can't enjoy their favorite hobby.

This is pretty much how I've always felt. I haven't bought anything D&D since 2000 but, I always hope that it does well. It is a good feeder to the hobby, I mean people start out looking for D&D then discover that rpg's cover a wide range of genre's... a genre that they may be more into.