+ Log in or register to post
Results 11 to 20 of 69
Thursday, 26th January, 2012, 10:35 PM #11
Grandmaster of Flowers (Lvl 18)
If you need to email me click here
I'd like things to go back and forth from "ARGH!" to "WOOO!" more frequently. - Kamikaze Midget
- EN World
- has no influence
- on advertisings
- that are displayed by
- Google Adsense
Thursday, 26th January, 2012, 10:47 PM #12
Scout (Lvl 6)
breaks into wild applauseon monsters at different levels
monte: Instead of the fighter getting a better and better attack bonus, he instead gets more options to do stuff as he goes up in level, and his attack bonus goes up at a very modest rate. I think it offers a better play experience that the orc/ogre can remain in the campaign, and people can know how the monster would work from a previous experience, but they remain a challenge for longer.
Jeremy: The monsters are in the design teams hands now and we'll be moving to development in the next few weeks. What i can say about this goal that monte is talking about is that we're working ot provide the dm with really good world building tools. And it's important to provide information about the orcs place in d&d while making sure that a monster remains relevant as the characters level up. They're might be an orc shaman, an orc champion or whatever for higher levels, but we also want the basic orc to be relevant at higher levels. We want it to be really easy for the dm to open the monster manual and drop an orc or iconic monsters into the game.
Now in initial playtesting, the Fantasy Infinity project!
Thursday, 26th January, 2012, 11:03 PM #13
Gallant (Lvl 3)
Surprised no one asked about the spell system ...
The rest sounds good so far ...
Thursday, 26th January, 2012, 11:43 PM #14
Acolyte (Lvl 2)
I actually kinda like Drizzt more than Aragorn.
Also don't care much for using orcs/ogres at higher levels since my players (and myself as DM) get bored of monsters once we've used them too much. I try hard to use new stuff every campaign (as long as it makes sense for the campaign it self)..
but the design goals do sound pretty good. still will see if my players go for it...
Thursday, 26th January, 2012, 11:55 PM #15
Scout (Lvl 6)
D&D Next is a Stack
In today's seminar, they talked about the core rules lexicon, and the idea that the optional modules would have seeds in the core. This part of the seminar isn't getting the bandwidth that splashier bits like the playtest snippets are getting, but let's have some fun with it.
This description suggests a model where the "core" is really a vocabulary of terms and relationships. The core also includes some basic rules which provides the process for using that vocabulary in play (an implementation). Optional modules hook into the core by assigning or changing these underlying rules without modifying the seeded lexicon or its defined relationships (i.e., design by contract).
The lexicon is a game platform with an included "core" vanilla runtime. The various rules modules are an implementation package library contracted to that platform. These modules can be swapped out and layered as desired to meet varying output requirements. New modules can be added by the players themselves or third parties.
D&D Next is a stack.
Thursday, 26th January, 2012, 11:59 PM #16
Minor Trickster (Lvl 4)
This is kind of what I expected: that a lot of things would be touched on in the core books but elaborated on in supplements (online or print). It also sounds like the easiest way to accomplish 5e's "modularity" goal.
Friday, 27th January, 2012, 12:23 AM #17
Magsman (Lvl 14)
I think in more or less fuzzy terms this is what most people expected. The questions now are: what are the invariants? What are the elements of the game that define how every other supplement to plug into it.
It's a good thing they are getting into a little higher level math here for design. It's been in my head for awhile now that D&D is more of a language game and the core elements a lexicon. That's a good term and I believe it has some history in the hobby. I'm curious whether or not they will be dipping into linguistics as well, but I suspect not for the short term. Most of what has been talked about for core are numerical descriptors.
Playing a game is a study. Storytelling is personal composition.
Friday, 27th January, 2012, 12:36 AM #18
Magsman (Lvl 14)
So, I'm curious how this is done in a way which is different than what is already being done with some of the toolkit systems.
For example, I can play a campaign using GURPS Lite. It's not nearly as robust as the Basic Set, but it's possible. If I want more in depth options for melee combat, I can by GURPS Martial arts, and it expands upon the rules in the Basic Set. If I want a modern game which is inspired by Hollywood reality, Matrix, and things of that nature, I use Gun Fu. If I want a more gritty experience with guns in the vein of something like Band of Brothers, I would get Tactical Shooting.
None of these options change the core. They simply expand upon the core options. Like I said, Martial Arts gives more melee options. I listed both gun books as a way to illustrate how two different supplements can cover the same topic, but do so in a way which provides a completely different style of game. As said, Gun Fu is over the top action in the vein of Equilibrium, The Matrix, and etc; Tactical Shooting would be more for a more realistic treatment of modern weaponry.
(Note: If I really wanted to, I could mix elements from both of the mentioned gun books together too.)
Is the D&D 5E model similar to that (in theory) or different? I'm curious how such an approach can be made in such a way to keep the core essence and feel of D&D. I'm also curious how such an approach can make itself different enough to make me choose it over one of the other modular games.
Friday, 27th January, 2012, 12:44 AM #19
A 1e title so awesome it's not in the book (Lvl 21)
Rose City Regulars - ENWorld Gamers in and around Portland, Oregon, USA
Friday, 27th January, 2012, 01:02 AM #20
Scout (Lvl 6)
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.
Last edited by Kurtomatic; Friday, 27th January, 2012 at 01:05 AM.
By Morrus in forum D&D and Pathfinder Rules & DiscussionReplies: 164Last Post: Wednesday, 18th April, 2012, 11:06 PM
By Morrus in forum NewsReplies: 164Last Post: Wednesday, 18th April, 2012, 11:06 PM
By Morrus in forum D&D and Pathfinder Rules & DiscussionReplies: 260Last Post: Thursday, 16th February, 2012, 05:38 PM
By Morrus in forum NewsReplies: 260Last Post: Thursday, 16th February, 2012, 05:38 PM
By Perigorn in forum D&D and Pathfinder Rules & DiscussionReplies: 0Last Post: Monday, 30th November, 2009, 02:23 AM