D&D 5E Another D&D Next Playtest Survey

Manbearcat · Jul 25, 2012

DEFCON 1 said:
I would suggest that what you wrote further up...

"As such, I propose a French Revolution of DnD where the Generalist Wizard is Marie Antoinette."

...would indicate just that. You want the generalist Wizard's head cut off. If that wasn't meant to imply you want the generalist wizard killed off (i.e. removed from the game)... then you might need to learn your French history a little bit better.

I figured that was where you were going with this.

1) It was hyperbolic silliness and meant as such. I thought the thorough "over-the-topness" of it conveyed that tone...particularly in light of my other more temperate, serious commentary. I suppose it didn't work.

2) Regardless, and more importantly, you were talking about getting rid of, or outright gutting, spells in your post (and asserted that I wished to do as much...which I never said I'd like to do...I would like their limits bounded and perhaps some of them need to be higher level, however...but again, this wasn't what you quoted or commented on.). Removing spells from or bounding/hard-coding or adjusting the wizard/sorceror spell repetoire downward is orthoganal to a wish to remove the Generalist Wizard from the game. Conflating the two separate issues into one (and then claiming when a person makes a hyperbolic comment, intentionally, about one they are somehow making the same comment about the other) is hurtful to clarity when disecting issues.

Manbearcat · Jul 25, 2012

Ahnehnois said:
That's the key one, to me. What I see in fantasy fiction (or in any fiction, or in reality) is completely incompatible with a balanced, closed game system. Thus, to create an engaging rpg experience, we must have an unbalanced, open system, and have people who understand this and choose not to try to "win" D&D. When I see people who treat D&D as a competitive game, rather than as an rpg, I either change their minds, or get rid of them. Not everyone has that capacity, or that luxury, I understand.

And this one is the key to me. When there is a candy, red button. Ren or Stimpy is going to push it. The world is filled with Ren and Stimpies (adult and otherwise). Unfortunately, the number of human beings with consistent self-restraint, willingness to put their ego-wrought needs on the backburner, and consistent awareness of the affects of their parasitic behavior no their host (their social system...in this case their DnD group) is quite limited...even amongst good men and women. It is hard-coded into our evolutionary biology. I find it a fault of game design when the game works well only when implied or overt social contract is reached so that the candy-red buttons are not pushed (and the responsibility of either constraining the candy-red buttons or removing them is placed on those playing).

I look to Underman's, TwinBahamut's, Erleni's, Crazy Jerome's, Neonchameleon's, Pemerton's posts regarding modulizing these spells, constraining them, or forcing wizard specialization as the Voice of Reason and Compromise in this debate. "Just Deal With It Yourself" is not a solution to me.

Ahnehnois · Jul 25, 2012

Manbearcat said:
"Just Deal With It Yourself" is not a solution to me.

All spells are optional. All rules are optional. The clearer and more explicit 5e makes this, the better. Putting a set of spells into the "problem spells" module isn't the best way of conceptualizing it, but there certainly should be ways to play with or without save-or-die, polymorph, resurrection, teleportation, and the like.

Incidentally, this modular approach is precisely that: it is telling you to deal with it yourself; it just makes doing so easuer. It's your game after all, not WotC's.

Manbearcat · Jul 25, 2012

Sorrowdusk said:
Dont prep plots. Prep scenarios and just let the dice fall where they may.

That aside....

Instant CSI

Click the link.
Click the glasses.
You're welcome.

In any case at certain levels SOME things JUST shouldnt be trouble for the PCs anymore. OH look it's a raging river.....we'll fly across. Things like the natural environment should rarely be obstacles anymore. The PCs spend more time dealing with adventure sites than traveling to them.

Simple murder mystery or 'terrorist' plot? Pah.... Maybe at low levels in any case divinations rarely provide direct answers.

When you can cast 5th level spells you are about 9nth or 10th level. Any creature of 11th level or above, or with a cr of 11 or above is "Legendary" in nature as are it's exploits. Your characters are on top of the world well before 20th level and any spell castable by characters of that level is legendary magic, because the PCs and their adversaries are among the few that can use them.

Also: no one, not even a wizard can "beat the game" because the game isnt beatable. To be beatable, the must be a win condition. How do win at LIFE (not that one) itself?

Thank you but a response that tells me to change my time-tested formula (although I'm uncertain that we are using the term "plot" in the same manner...I'm using it under the auspices of DnD convention - not hard-coded into the story - rather than as an author writing fiction) for creating successful, enjoyable games for my group is entirely unresponsive to the issue. You are telling me that the problem lies within my game design and/or mine or my players expectations. If you somehow think that this isnt something I've considered thoroughly (as have my players) and have an extremely informed opinion borne of experience, introspection and analysis...but rather its a superficial, hail-mary, reactionary response...you're quite mistaken. It is thoroughly considered...considered enough that an unresponsive statement, without much crunch, tantamount to "you're doing it wrong" is not very persuasive.

Manbearcat · Jul 25, 2012

Ahnehnois said:
All spells are optional. All rules are optional. The clearer and more explicit 5e makes this, the better. Putting a set of spells into the "problem spells" module isn't the best way of conceptualizing it, but there certainly should be ways to play with or without save-or-die, polymorph, resurrection, teleportation, and the like.

Incidentally, this modular approach is precisely that: it is telling you to deal with it yourself; it just makes doing so easuer. It's your game after all, not WotC's.

I agree and disagree. I think Keywords or some sort of "label" for things that bother certain groups such as the spells that I and everyone else have outlined and the "Mythical Fighter" that others have issues with is precisely the way to go. We have to consider not just our own preferences as hardened, long-term gamers, but new gamers who as of yet do not understand the impact, on genre expectations and on mechanics, of implementing or not implementing classes/features/spells. This is the philosophy/idea that underwrote my thread about siloing genre/mechanics via keyword (that incidentally didnt get much traction...so I suspect few think the way I do on this...fair enough.).

Manbearcat · Jul 25, 2012

Ahnehnois said:
All spells are optional. All rules are optional. The clearer and more explicit 5e makes this, the better. Putting a set of spells into the "problem spells" module isn't the best way of conceptualizing it, but there certainly should be ways to play with or without save-or-die, polymorph, resurrection, teleportation, and the like.

Incidentally, this modular approach is precisely that: it is telling you to deal with it yourself; it just makes doing so easuer. It's your game after all, not WotC's.

We have now devolved to quibbling over semantics (the sign that the debate is likely over) but "just do it yourself" and "here are tested, bounded modules that interface directly with our core system in this specific way to create this intended, predictable effect" are not congruent at all.

VinylTap · Jul 25, 2012

I just don't see how its possible to make both camps happy at this point.

They've essentially designed two completely different games, and have promised to collapse the two into one, and still keep both parties completely happy.

At some point there's got to be a 4th ed community generated mod to the existing 4th ed rules in order to keep them playing the game they want to, it doesn't sound like 5th is going to have what they're looking for... it may try, but consolidating the two play-styles may be out of the reach given the time period people expect. We're going to get a rag tag mix of two systems, watering down the focus of what two separate groups (really, there's more than this) desire out of their game-time.

PS. Is it really fathomable that a smaller ad-on module can give 4th players the strategic-depth they've come to expect from 4th (a fleshed out full game in its own right).

ForeverSlayer · Jul 28, 2012

I don't want a D&D that seems to be designed around discussion forums on the internet.

Let individual DM's handle their players, the system doesn't need to do this for you.