Official D&D 5E Announcement

[Cramulus]

I wonder how porting that over to the RPG market might look. A totally free PHB, DMG and MM but then you need to pay if you want artwork, or the Big Book of Shiny Swords, or non-standard classes...

That was one of the goals of the Open Gaming License. The d20 SRD (the game's core rules, along with the basic classes and spell lists) was public. Then they let third parties publish material for it - that's how Pathfinder got started. It was a great idea, I was bummed that they jettisoned it when they kicked up 4e.

RPGs are easier to pirate than those MMOs are, though, and the more I think about it the more it is like the old license DnD operated under, where all the core content was basically free so the advantage of buying the book was you got the book and the artwork. I assume that as that model collapsed, it wasn't making them the money they needed.

This is an industry-wide problem in publishing. Dead-tree format books are a dwindling format. D&D Insider hit on the right idea - you can get all the crunchy content from their printed books (but none of the fluff or art), as well as about 15-20 magazine articles, for like $11/month.

I don't know what I'd do without it! Their online tools are awesome for building characters and monsters, and the compendium is much faster than leafing through 10 different books. If the content is really cool, I'll buy the book anyway (because I'm a spag like that) but lots of groups operate without any hard copies.

[Scribbly]

One of my friends did some training up at the head office of Games Workshop. Whilst there he talked with the Forgeworld people. For those not in the know, Forgeworld models are significantly more expensive than even the ridiculously overpriced core line stuff, as they are much higher quality. They also produce very expensive campaign books of the very highest production values, which are essentially new rules to playing Games Workshop games for particular periods at an equally insane price (I believe £100+ per book).

They are one of the more profitable arms of the company, and they operate on the basis that it is their job to make luxury products aimed at the hardcore market; people aged 21-40+ who have thousands of pounds of disposable income and love their gaming.

I suspect that over the next few years games will move into three core markets; the DnD 5th 'modular' business model, the 'F2P'-inspired business model, and the Forgeworld-style business model. Fantasy Flight are probably the closest to the last currently on the market.

Then around the edges you'll have the independents who are largely operated as a sideline by people who have a 'day job'.

I would like to see someone try the F2P model again at least. A lot of good stuff came out of the d20 SRD, and it'd be awesome if someone like White Wolf decided to open that up so Genius: The Transgression or Princess: The Hopeful could be released legally as game lines in their own right. (Even if I have a personal burning hatred for the storyteller system which defies all logic).

[Don Coyote]

The only way i would be tempted to pick up a modular DnD is if the rule modules were less than $15 a pop, as it is, I can see WOTC making the modules $20-$30 a pop for a hardbound 150 pages of optional rules and pretty pictures.

[Cain]

I like alignments.  Just because players are retarded and don't know anything....

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I like alignments.  Just because players are retarded and don't know anything....

I like them because I want my good guys good and my bad guys fucking evil.

Also, people DO have - mostly - consistent behavior patterns.

[Cain]

In addition to all those valid points, if you read the material on them for more than five seconds, it is pretty clear what kind of behaviour is expected from each one.  So you can use them to screen your players for stupidity, using the good old "kobold and goblin children" test.  Then you can never invite the ones who fail said test back to the table again.

Everyone's a winner.  Except idiots. 

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I like alignments.  Just because players are retarded and don't know anything....

I like them because I want my good guys good and my bad guys fucking evil.

Also, people DO have - mostly - consistent behavior patterns.

I broke alignment once. I was playing an elf or something and we weren't sure if these mushrooms were poisonous so I fed one to a deer. It tripped balls and died.

The experiment was fruitful. I later used a sling shot to fire one into an orc's mouth.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

In addition to all those valid points, if you read the material on them for more than five seconds, it is pretty clear what kind of behaviour is expected from each one.  So you can use them to screen your players for stupidity, using the good old "kobold and goblin children" test.  Then you can never invite the ones who fail said test back to the table again.

Everyone's a winner.  Except idiots.

Actually, my acid test for who comes back to the table is "which ones make the game fun?".

Right now, I have two grabby bastards at the table, and it amuses me to no end.  They're both good players, but if I throw a decent magic item out, I make sure I have popcorn first.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I like alignments.  Just because players are retarded and don't know anything....

I like them because I want my good guys good and my bad guys fucking evil.

Also, people DO have - mostly - consistent behavior patterns.

I broke alignment once. I was playing an elf or something and we weren't sure if these mushrooms were poisonous so I fed one to a deer. It tripped balls and died.

The experiment was fruitful. I later used a sling shot to fire one into an orc's mouth.

I am told by Freeky - while she's DMing - that there is no such alignments as "Lawful Violent" or "Larcenous Neutral".

[Phox]

I like alignments.  Just because players are retarded and don't know anything....

I like them because I want my good guys good and my bad guys fucking evil.

Also, people DO have - mostly - consistent behavior patterns.

I broke alignment once. I was playing an elf or something and we weren't sure if these mushrooms were poisonous so I fed one to a deer. It tripped balls and died.

The experiment was fruitful. I later used a sling shot to fire one into an orc's mouth.

I am told by Freeky - while she's DMing - that there is no such alignments as "Lawful Violent" or "Larcenous Neutral".

WHAT!? This is an outrage, as those are clearly the most prevalent alignments in D&D players.

[Nephew Twiddleton]

I like alignments.  Just because players are retarded and don't know anything....

I like them because I want my good guys good and my bad guys fucking evil.

Also, people DO have - mostly - consistent behavior patterns.

I broke alignment once. I was playing an elf or something and we weren't sure if these mushrooms were poisonous so I fed one to a deer. It tripped balls and died.

The experiment was fruitful. I later used a sling shot to fire one into an orc's mouth.

I am told by Freeky - while she's DMing - that there is no such alignments as "Lawful Violent" or "Larcenous Neutral".

WHAT!? This is an outrage, as those are clearly the most prevalent alignments in D&D players.

troof

[Cramulus]

In case you're curious, wizards has an article about their revised alignment system here. There's still good and evil, of course, they just don't split as many hairs about the different types of it.

Personally, I always found the old alignment system limiting. Back in 3e, I stopped using it entirely (and replaced it with a quick discussion with the DM about their character's concept and motivation.. which did get sticky at mid levels when spells can target certain alignments). I like it when a character has to think about a situation and can't just check an abbreviation on his character sheet to see how he should react--- and for a lot of players, that's what alignment does.

I like my badguys to have interesting motivations. The bad-guy empire in my game isn't "evil", it's actually multicultural and tolerant to an abhorrent level. (to the point where more clearly evil races like drow can become nobles, and the elves are restricted from rising against them due to "tolerance laws"). They're the bad guys because their imperialism threatens the players way of life, which is complicated because they're also the bastion of civilization right now... it's a tangled issue, and that's not something you can sort out by casting Know Alignment.

There are evil things in my game too, because that's D&D's tone, but they're not as interesting IMO.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Personally, I always found the old alignment system limiting.

That's why I use it.

I like my badguys to have interesting motivations.

Sure.  Even evil people think they're doing the right thing, most of the time.  It's the means employed and/or how far someone will go to accomplish their goal that determines whether or not someone is actually evil.

I mean, let's face it:  the classic D&D party is just a pack of grave robbers anyway, right?   

[Don Coyote]

Personally, I always found the old alignment system limiting.

That's why I use it.

I like my badguys to have interesting motivations.

Sure.  Even evil people think they're doing the right thing, most of the time.  It's the means employed and/or how far someone will go to accomplish their goal that determines whether or not someone is actually evil.

I mean, let's face it:  the classic D&D party is just a pack of grave robbers anyway, right?   

Or homicidal hobos.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Personally, I always found the old alignment system limiting.

That's why I use it.

I like my badguys to have interesting motivations.

Sure.  Even evil people think they're doing the right thing, most of the time.  It's the means employed and/or how far someone will go to accomplish their goal that determines whether or not someone is actually evil.

I mean, let's face it:  the classic D&D party is just a pack of grave robbers anyway, right?   

Or homicidal hobos.

Well, here's the thing.  My group - especially me - uses D&D as almost a form of therapy.  We live in a fairly grey-ish world where people have murky motives and there's almost never an easy answer to anything.

Some people deal with that by playing roleplaying games with GOOD GUYS and BAD GUYS, and you can solve all of life's problems with a great sword.

Other people join the republican party, which also offers easy answers to complex problems, and you can solve all of life's problems by attacking brown people.

Neither one reflects reality, of course.  But it helps you get through the week.