Seminar Transcript - Charting the Course: An Edition for all Editions - Page 2




What's on your mind?

+ Log in or register to post
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 69
  1. #11
    Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
    Grandmaster of Flowers (Lvl 18)

    Plane Sailing's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Hertfordshire
    Posts
    17,753
    Blog Entries
    6

    Ignore Plane Sailing
    My communities:

    Quote Originally Posted by ferratus View Post
    I am happy I got fat halflings and Aragorn-style rangers back.
    Me too!
    Plane Sailing
    (Enworld Admin)
    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

 

  • #12
    Registered User
    Scout (Lvl 6)

    jeffh's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Winnipeg, MB
    Posts
    1,322

    Ignore jeffh
    on 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.
    breaks into wild applause
    Jeff Heikkinen

    Now in initial playtesting, the Fantasy Infinity project!

  • #13
    Registered User
    Gallant (Lvl 3)

    mcintma's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    ottawa ontario
    Posts
    75

    Ignore mcintma
    Surprised no one asked about the spell system ...

    The rest sounds good so far ...

  • #14
    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...

    Sanjay

  • #15
    Registered User
    Scout (Lvl 6)

    Kurtomatic's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Plain Ol', Tejas
    Posts
    186

    Ignore Kurtomatic

    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.

  • #16
    Registered User
    Waghalter (Lvl 7)

    Nivenus's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Neverwinter
    Posts
    349

    Ignore Nivenus
    My communities:

    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.

    "Understanding is a three-edged sword."

  • #17
    Registered User
    Magsman (Lvl 14)

    howandwhy99's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    SE WI
    Posts
    4,924
    Blog Entries
    101

    Ignore howandwhy99
    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.

  • #18
    Registered User
    Magsman (Lvl 14)

    Johnny3D3D's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Claysburg
    Posts
    2,164

    Ignore Johnny3D3D
    My communities:

    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.

  • #19
    Aasimar Aardvark COPPER SUBSCRIBER
    A 1e title so awesome it's not in the book (Lvl 21)

    TarionzCousin's Avatar

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Portland, Oregon, USA
    Posts
    4,938
    PlanescapeCircvs MaximvsGygax Memorial Fund

    Ignore TarionzCousin
    My communities:

    Quote Originally Posted by Kurtomatic View Post
    Good. I like pancakes.
    Rose City Regulars - ENWorld Gamers in and around Portland, Oregon, USA

  • #20
    Registered User
    Scout (Lvl 6)

    Kurtomatic's Avatar

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Plain Ol', Tejas
    Posts
    186

    Ignore Kurtomatic
    Quote Originally Posted by howandwhy99 View Post
    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.
    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.
    Last edited by Kurtomatic; Friday, 27th January, 2012 at 01:05 AM.

  • + Log in or register to post
    Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

    Similar Threads

    1. Seminar Transcript - Class Design: From Assassins to Wizards
      By Morrus in forum Older D&D Editions and OSR Gaming
      Replies: 164
      Last Post: Wednesday, 18th April, 2012, 11:06 PM
    2. Replies: 164
      Last Post: Wednesday, 18th April, 2012, 11:06 PM
    3. Seminar Transcript - Reimagining Skills and Ability Scores
      By Morrus in forum Older D&D Editions and OSR Gaming
      Replies: 260
      Last Post: Thursday, 16th February, 2012, 05:38 PM
    4. Replies: 260
      Last Post: Thursday, 16th February, 2012, 05:38 PM
    5. 4th Edition Monster Conversions from older editions!
      By Perigorn in forum Older D&D Editions and OSR Gaming
      Replies: 0
      Last Post: Monday, 30th November, 2009, 02:23 AM

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •