Dear Unregistered! We notice you don't currently have a silver subscription here on EN World. We'd love to encourage you to give it a try, so we've made this coupon for $5 off your first 4-month Silver Subscription. Simply go to the subscription page and enter coupon code SILVER. With that subscription you get access to TWO adventure paths, which between them cover D&D 3.5, Pathfinder, and D&D 4th Edition - War of the Burning Sky (which has been completed) and ZEITGEIST: The Gears of Revolution (which is currently ongoing). You also get a whole bunch of site perks and features here on EN World, including access to the Search function, images and links in your forum signature, a larger PM box, give out more XP at a time, and more. Please give a try; we're proud of our adventure paths, and we're sure you'll love them both!
New Horizons: The Upcoming Edition of D&DD&D 5th Edition, D&D Next - whatever you want to call it, talk about it here!
All the latest EN World
official reviews, columns, and subscriber articles here.
Don't have your subscription yet? It's only $3 a month and you can grab
it right
here!
Monte talks more about how both players and DMs have responsibilities over various dials to the game.
He also talks about how the next year is going to be an exploration of how we get to the design goals because he and the design team do not have all the answers yet.
He also makes it clear D&D Next will not be a bridge between editions (you can't play 1e characters with 3e PCs) but will be able to emulate your edition preference. Heck you can even create your own preference by mixing and matching various modules.
__________________ Bryan Blumklotz
AKA Saracenus
--------------- "Like I told your Captain, that orphanage attacked me. It was self-defense." -- Richard http://www.lfgcomic.com/
Honestly in our high-school-era campaigning, you couldn't tell a big difference between what we were doing and Grand Theft Auto With Swords. ~ Old Gumphrey
Some choices then—such as whether a character has a long list of skills and feats; or skills, feats, and powers; or just ability scores, hit points, Armor Class, and an attack bonus—are up to the player.
So I'm trying to envision this as pertains to skill checks, and I'm finding it a little odd. Let's say we have the following:
* Player T, who has a long list of skills and feats (a la third edition).
* Player F, who has a short list of skills, feats, and utility powers (fourth edition).
* Player B, who just has ability scores and AC (original D&D).
They come up to several obstacles, including a stuck door (that DC 13 door that showed up before) and a chasm that can be crossed with a rope, like Luke and Leia in Star Wars. They decide to cross the chasm first.
Does player B make an ability check to swing across, player F make an Athletics check, and player T make a Rope Use check?
What if they're not trained in any of these, is it worse than a simple ability check? Do they all use the same DC? Is player B going to be hosed because he's using a less complicated system and doesn't get a "+3 for trained" bonus? Is player T hosed cuz he chose "Rope Use" but didn't invest enough points in "Swing" skill also?
This kind of decision -- what granularity is right on skills for the game -- seems to fall more into a DM's decision about what the campaign will be like than it does the choice of individual players. But Monte presents it as a player choice that the DM doesn't need to worry about. That doesn't seem 100% right to me, anyone else feeling dubious about that?
They've set themself a couple of hard-to accomplish aims, but as an interested DM and playtester, i think this will be a journey worthy undertaking, both for them and for us.
__________________ C4bal: We´re watching your dicerolls.
X-Zine - the German review & news site for RPGs / books / comics / music / CCG / DVDs and much much more
That doesn't seem 100% right to me, anyone else feeling dubious about that?
I've been dubious about it the entire time but it might get better when we see it in action.
What might end up happening is that the DM will have to judge each character by different standards. The pure ability-score player gets by because he has a high ability and rolled decently. The athletics and use rope players get by because they beat the DC.
I hope this isn't the case because DM's already have enough on their plate but it is a possible solution.
So I'm trying to envision this as pertains to skill checks, and I'm finding it a little odd. Let's say we have the following:
* Player T, who has a long list of skills and feats (a la third edition).
* Player F, who has a short list of skills, feats, and utility powers (fourth edition).
* Player B, who just has ability scores and AC (original D&D).
They come up to several obstacles, including a stuck door (that DC 13 door that showed up before) and a chasm that can be crossed with a rope, like Luke and Leia in Star Wars. They decide to cross the chasm first.
Does player B make an ability check to swing across, player F make an Athletics check, and player T make a Rope Use check?
What if they're not trained in any of these, is it worse than a simple ability check? Do they all use the same DC? Is player B going to be hosed because he's using a less complicated system and doesn't get a "+3 for trained" bonus? Is player T hosed cuz he chose "Rope Use" but didn't invest enough points in "Swing" skill also?
This kind of decision -- what granularity is right on skills for the game -- seems to fall more into a DM's decision about what the campaign will be like than it does the choice of individual players. But Monte presents it as a player choice that the DM doesn't need to worry about. That doesn't seem 100% right to me, anyone else feeling dubious about that?
I think what Monte means is that they'll try to build the system in a way that players could choose different ways of building their char without wrecking the game. In the end that will look more than the Slayer / Fighter - split in 4e. Which means: if the DM allows all these choices, the players can then choose what they want.
Or to rephrase it: to take characters of radically different complexity, the DM has to say at first "we are using modules a, b, c, and you can mix'n'match your chars".
__________________ C4bal: We´re watching your dicerolls.
X-Zine - the German review & news site for RPGs / books / comics / music / CCG / DVDs and much much more
I think what Monte means is that they'll try to build the system in a way that players could choose different ways of building their char without wrecking the game. In the end that will look more than the Slayer / Fighter - split in 4e. Which means: if the DM allows all these choices, the players can then choose what they want.
Or to rephrase it: to take characters of radically different complexity, the DM has to say at first "we are using modules a, b, c, and you can mix'n'match your chars".
What YOU say makes the most sense, but it's not at all what Monte said.
I'm getting a little annoyed by these very uninformative Legends & Lore articles ever since the announcement was made. I feel I just read this one and know almost nothing I didn't know before. Why can't they let some of the details slip? We're going to be playtesting soon, or at least I hope we will!
__________________ "All right, I am not the Shadow. You have nothing at all to worry about. Except, oh, wait, I'm pointing a gun at you."
I'm getting a little annoyed by these very uninformative Legends & Lore articles ever since the announcement was made. I feel I just read this one and know almost nothing I didn't know before. Why can't they let some of the details slip? We're going to be playtesting soon, or at least I hope we will!
It will keep being this way until the playtest actually arrives. Right now, they are just buttering us up with what they hope the next edition will achieve. That way, when the playtest does start, you won't have everyone going "this is completely bonkers!" because they didn't have any idea what they were aiming for.
I think the more telling thing in these articles are the polls. Not only how people are responding but which questions they are asking. So far, they seem to be asking the right ones.
I'm getting a little annoyed by these very uninformative Legends & Lore articles ever since the announcement was made. I feel I just read this one and know almost nothing I didn't know before. Why can't they let some of the details slip? We're going to be playtesting soon, or at least I hope we will!
Yeah, I think they're heading for a bit of a PR disaster by announcing this early (with press release and NY Times interviews and so on) and then not offering up anything for the masses to chew on.
(Their "select bloggers get details on this but are under NDA" strategy also seems a poor choice from a PR perspective.)
I wish I could get some sense of what the designers think about non-combat. They seem to be defining earlier editions and their work moving forward in relation to combat and styles of combat-oriented play. I get the sense that they are primarily concerned with modes of combat during play and are looking to define 5E in terms of how players approach combat situations. If it turns out that "themes" are no more than a thin veneer to deal with combat-oriented play approaches, that's going to undercut the one aspect of design I have so far seen that seems to speak to 5E as an actual roleplaying game.
I'm getting a little annoyed by these very uninformative Legends & Lore articles ever since the announcement was made. I feel I just read this one and know almost nothing I didn't know before. Why can't they let some of the details slip? We're going to be playtesting soon, or at least I hope we will!
Yeah. Don't get me wrong, the last two articles did concisely clarify what they mean when they say modular and getting to the core of D&D. It's important that we all understand the high level design goals.
But I'm dying to get to some nitty gritty mechanical details. Sure, every detail needs the big disclaimer, "THIS IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE IF IT DOESN'T WORK", but I want to know what they're trying out right now. I want to know what they've tried and discarded, and what they're thinking about trying.
But, that's just curiosity and impatience. I'll get over it.
__________________ ApathyGames.com
Last edited by Jeff Carlsen; 6th February 2012 at 06:12 PM..
In effect, what you end up with is a fully playable game with its own style. Think of it this way: It would be wrong to say that there is no inherent D&D style that carries across the nearly forty-year lifespan of the game. What you really end up with, in this approach, is a game that ends up looking—not coincidentally—like original D&D. Not entirely, of course, and not precisely, but close. It's a game that captures the feel of OD&D.
Is an incredibly tall order. I honestly shudder to think about the task they've laid down for themselves here.
This is like saying "We are going to produce a no-budget 11 minute silent film shot on hand-wound cameras that is going to win Best Picture 2012."
The comparison of original DUNGEONS & DRAGONS to early silent films, is, incidentally not a slight but a compliment. I love original D&D almost as much as AD&D. Moving on...
That is a monumental task. I hope they pull it off.
Parenthetically, photostat copies of the manuscript rules were made, and when the commercial game was published, fans not willing or financially unable to expend the princely sum of $10 for the product did likewise, copying the material on school (mainly college/university) machines. We were well aware of this, and many gamers who had spent their hard-earned money to buy the game were more irate than we were. In all, though, the 'pirate' material was more helpful that not. Many new fans were made by DMs who were using such copies to run their games. - Gary Gygax
It will keep being this way until the playtest actually arrives. Right now, they are just buttering us up with what they hope the next edition will achieve. That way, when the playtest does start, you won't have everyone going "this is completely bonkers!" because they didn't have any idea what they were aiming for.
I was buttered up and excited a couple weeks ago. Now I'm getting annoyed. Nobody can sustain excitement in the absence of hard information.
Quote:
I think the more telling thing in these articles are the polls. Not only how people are responding but which questions they are asking. So far, they seem to be asking the right ones.
The results to the polls are statistically meaningless. Self-selected sampling limited to fans who visit their website? What's the point? Ego-stroking?
The questions, I grant, are interesting. But there's only so far you can parse them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kynn
Yeah, I think they're heading for a bit of a PR disaster by announcing this early (with press release and NY Times interviews and so on) and then not offering up anything for the masses to chew on.
Yes. When's the playtest start? March? April? They haven't even told us that yet. If we get no new substantive information before then, I'm going to
get positively peeved.
Worse, they haven't even yet committed to the playtest being for home-groups rather than through stores. Why on earth not? If they really want feedback, surely they want it from all sorts of groups!
Quote:
(Their "select bloggers get details on this but are under NDA" strategy also seems a poor choice from a PR perspective.)
Amen to that, with knobs on! "I can't tell you anything specific, but it felt like D&D" is reassuring at first. Then, as time passes, it's just frustrating.
__________________ "All right, I am not the Shadow. You have nothing at all to worry about. Except, oh, wait, I'm pointing a gun at you."
I'm concerned by the implied degree of complexity in the overal system. I've played some 'modular' build-your-own-system systems in my day. Well-done, they can be a joy to work with and a lot of fun for the obsessive DM with a lot of time on his hands. But they're increadibly complex. You don't just decide things like 'well, don't need drive or pilot in my medieval fantasy game.' You're looking at things like: how do skills workd? How does damage work? what list of powers can players use? etc, etc... it's like building a custom campaign world from the ground up, with a complete grand unified field theory to underlie it.
Like I said, fun! But, not for everybody. Not nearly.
Recent News
ApathyGames.com 
Linear Mode
