Seminar Transcript - Charting the Course: An Edition for all Editions

ppaladin123 · Jan 27, 2012

mcintma said:
Surprised no one asked about the spell system ...

The rest sounds good so far ...

I think that is going to come up in tomorrow's presentation on class mechanics.

mach1.9pants · Jan 27, 2012

Kurtomatic said:
In today's seminar, <SNIP>

That sounds very interesting but I have absolutely not the faintest idea what all that means!

Wormwood · Jan 27, 2012

ppaladin123 said:
I think that is going to come up in tomorrow's presentation on class mechanics.

Well, there goes *my* productivity tomorrow at work.

Erdrick Dragin · Jan 27, 2012

What the hell? They still haven't talked about how they plan on releasing new material!

Are we getting new stuff for each edition? Or are we only getting new stuff "basic" stuff? Are we getting a book, for example, with new feats (3e and 4e styles), new class kits (2e), new prestige classes (3e), new paragon paths (4e), new spells (all 4 editions), etc.? That's what I'm looking forward to, I really don't care to sit different play styles at my table.

And what about the monsters?! I like my monsters to be more 3E style, as in they have spell-like abilities, DR, etc. Are they doing monsters across 3 editions? (I count 1e and 2e as the same, 2e is just an expanded 1e)

They're answers sounded like riddles. I want to see hard data that they currently have. I'm more confused than before.

No Big Deal · Jan 27, 2012

Fanboyism, Beer Googles, and the Future of D&D

Just read the interview and (admittedly sketchy and inferred) design goals mostly don't seem like good ideas. The ones that do I don't trust the team (mostly Mearls) to implement. Why should orcs be a threat at every level? Modules for classes and subsytems?

But the primary issue that I see is the desire (from the original announcement) is the desire to use feedback from all editions of D&D. That sound suspicously like trying to please everyone which, as the proverb goes, will please no one.

So why the enthusiasm? Why are you so pysched for what is shaping up to be (IMO) a rehash of the same poor mechanics that turned into 4e?

ferratus · Jan 27, 2012

It is more fun to speculate that things are going to be even better than 4e, while regaining some of the things you loved in previous editions (and hopefully not picking up the things you didn't).

Saying that things are probably going to suck is a downer, and not very interesting. There is nothing really to talk about if you've already decided there isn't anything worth talking about.

AbdulAlhazred · Jan 27, 2012

Kurtomatic said:
What are the invariants, indeed!

It's fun to chase each other in circles trying to guess what classes/races/doodads are going to be part of the "core rules", but I'm not sure those lines of thinking are as applicable as many assume. Everyone wants to make sure their favorite stuff ends up in the core, because traditionally a lot DMs like to use the "core rules" as a convenient firewall (and for good reason!).

But that's all implementation, and less important to the core in this theoretical Next model. It's a different way of thinking about the game. I'm not sure it matters much if my favorite||hated classes are in the basic rules volume, whatever that ends up looking like. The real question is, can I safely include||exclude the desired||loathed game elements using the core lexicon.

Well, the thing is it is one thing to think of the lexicon in terms of things like say keywords or whatnot, but at least as important is what the numbers mean. While in theory you could have different baselines of say hit points, in practice you can't really do that because every other layer is going to have to depend on a hit point meaning something fairly concrete. In other words you can't make a module that provides a certain magic system or combat system unless you know that doing '10 hit points of damage' means a scratch or a killing blow.

These decisions are also highly important to the feel of the game. You can't make a consistent system where 1st level PCs can start out with radically different hit point totals, so you really have to decide in the core if your system is gritty or high fantasy. I'm still rather dubious about the whole concept of being able to make a game that works for everyone's concept of what D&D is. Most of these things will be locked in by the core and no amount of option modules are going to satisfy the people who don't like those core decisions.

Argyle King · Jan 27, 2012

No Big Deal said:
Just read the interview and (admittedly sketchy and inferred) design goals mostly don't seem like good ideas. The ones that do I don't trust the team (mostly Mearls) to implement. Why should orcs be a threat at every level? Modules for classes and subsytems?

But the primary issue that I see is the desire (from the original announcement) is the desire to use feedback from all editions of D&D. That sound suspicously like trying to please everyone which, as the proverb goes, will please no one.

So why the enthusiasm? Why are you so pysched for what is shaping up to be (IMO) a rehash of the same poor mechanics that turned into 4e?

Personally, I think 4E had a lot of good ideas which never quite made it into the final product.

As for orcs? I'm of the belief that being stabbed in the face with a greatsword should be just as much of a problem for the king of the castle as it is for the lowly peasant. I'm also someone who prefers that heroes lead armies rather than heroes who fight armies.

I'm cool with a skilled hero (Conan) besting several foes in combat. I'm cool with using situational awareness and good tactics (300 Spartans) to defeat overwhelming odds. I'm even fine with stretching reality a little bit to allow what I suppose you could call a 'Hollywood sense of realism.' However, I'm not a huge fan of one lone swordsman single-handedly defeating an entire army using super uber cool wire-fu* moves, his Mr. T starter kit of magical jewelry, and his golf bag of magical weapons.

*I'm not totally against the concept, but I believe there are times when the unbelievable becomes too unbelievable; unbelievable to the point where it seems silly rather than cool.

Raith5 · Jan 27, 2012

Wormwood said:
Well, there goes *my* productivity tomorrow at work.

Yep, mine to. Nothing aids procrastination like a new edition of D and D.

FireLance · Jan 27, 2012

No Big Deal said:
So why the enthusiasm? Why are you so pysched for what is shaping up to be (IMO) a rehash of the same poor mechanics that turned into 4e?

Because I'm an optimist and there are things to like about every edition of D&D, including (and, for me, at least, especially) 4e.

You know, I'm starting to think that if you hate any edition of D&D (and recognizing flaws is not the same as hate), then 5e will not be for you.