Okay then, let's get started.
Yes, let's. It's nice to see this discussion take a more friendly and constructive turn.
Looking at this blog, it really does look like we are at pretty opposite ends of the spectrum on many things. For example, I liked 4E's marketing strategy built on explaining how 4E had improved upon 3E. I'd be perfectly happy if 5E used the same strategy, and I'm kinda disappointed that they have not... I guess it is a difference between "wanting to preserve the past" and "wanting to see dramatic change," or something like that.
But I'll reiterate the ones related to design and expand.
1) Variable Play No one play style is king. The game shouldn't dictate to DMs how to run their game.
This would include the style of game changing over the levels. While the math and balance should be the same, high level play should not be identical to lower level play but with higher numbers and "kobolds" scratched out and "abyssal plague demonaughts" written in.
This is a big catch-all category, since it includes allowing gritty and heroic fantasy, high and low magic, high and low fantasy, high and low power, etc.
I'm having trouble following this a bit, since you seem to have combined a few different ideas together here. I think it is almost impossible for the game to
not influence how it is run, but I do agree that a game like D&D should try to have wide appeal and to be inclusive to different genres.
2) Promote House Rules Let people make the game their own. The includes providing alternate rules (alternate healing, alternate ways of taking damage, different armour rules, more ritualistic spellcasting, alternate spellcasting systems (mana), variant class designs, tactical combat options, etc.) but also explaining the reasoning for rules so DMs can make informed design decisions.
I guess this gets into the argument I had in another thread that seemed to be ultimate based around what the term "house rules" means. I don't consider alternate rules to fit under the category of house rules... But, yeah, there should be many variants in there. The real trick is reconciling the desire for variation with the need for balance, and that can be pretty hard. Sometimes I wonder if D&D should just embrace the "tier" system that fans created for 3E, and allow come classes to be vastly stronger or weaker than others as long as the weak and strong ones were clearly distinguished from the balanced ones.
3) Reward and Encourage Role-Playing It's not enough to just sit back and let it happen, you need to nurture and emphasise RPing.
This one is hard for me to agree with on its face. The problem is that "Role-Playing" is something that people rarely think of in the same terms. For some 4E killed role-playing and for others it enabled far better roleplaying than any previous version. Of course, there is also the fact that many people simply don't want to roleplay in D&D, and the game should accommodate them, too. I think we'd need to dig deeper into this idea to reach an agreement on it.
From my perspective, roleplaying comes from the environment (mostly the group of players) and from the mechanics. I don't think the rulebooks can really change the environment much, but it can encourage roleplaying via mechanics. That said, mechanics that really encourage roleplaying tend to be more the domain of indie RPGs, and are pretty alien to what has appeared in previous editions of the game.
4) Narrative Realism I want more nods to reality and a cohesive world. While, obviously, there needs to be some funkiness where the game rules bleed through into the world for balance and fun, I want there to be attempts and effort made to make the game and rules reflect reality. Not hard "Confirmed" as true by Mythbusters reality but narrative reality where if you saw it in a movie you'd say "yeah, I buy that. It could happen."
This is going to be a bit of a stickling point for me, as you might be aware if you've seen my arguments asking for Fighters who can chop mountains in half. If you ask me, this kind of request contradicts the "keep the game open for a variety of playstyles and genres" thing from above that I mostly agree with you about. I don't really want strict realism all of the time, especially in high-level, high-fantasy play. I think trying to enforce this intrudes on more important elements needed for a good compromise.
5) Respect New Players New players aren't dumb. You don't need to completely hold their hand and treat them like fragile flowers that will wilt at the first sign of math or a choice. And a new player is only a new player for a couple levels. At this day and age everyone who might be interested in D&D knows what an "elf" is, what a "hitpoint" is (kinda) and terms like "level" and "class".
I'll agree with a lot of this. These days, people get introduced to game mechanics far more complicated than Essentials classes all the time. It's fine for even simple parts of the game to quickly get more complex and mechanically robust, as long as it doesn't swing too far in the opposite direction.
Still (and this might be a bit unrelated to your intent), I do want the game to be very helpful and clear on understanding what is going on and how it can be played. One of my biggest issues with 4E was how it could be rather annoyingly difficult to really get a feel for how its classes worked. You need to read through every power in a giant list and work out how they fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. Once you figure it out it works great, but there is a hurdle there that needed to be smoothed over. I'd like to avoid a repeat of that issue.
6) Balance
Haven't they acknowledged this? I think the complaints for many isn't the idea of balance but the implementation of balance early in 4e.
I want balance as well. That's totally high on my list. But I want the classes to be equal yet different. Perfect balance is an impossibility. There's too much variability and moving parts. "Average" balance is probably the best compromise between variety and equality. There are always going to be encounters that favour one class or build or character more than others, there is almost always going to be an M.V.PC. in each fight.
Well, I can't say that they've acknowledged it in the way I want them too. They've brought up the subject in a "trust us we know what we're doing" way, but the actual game shown in the playtests isn't exactly a paragon of balance, and the design team seems to be on the same path that led to 3E's unacceptable level of imbalance.
But, yeah, you can't ask for perfect balance. Companies with more resources, financial motivation, and a more limited-in-scope task have tried and failed to achieve prefect balance, so it is too much to ask for WotC. Also, situational power differences are not actually an issue of balance... Balance is not "always equal all the time". Balance is "equal in the aggregate over a reasonable amount of time". It's fine if a fight has a M.V.PC, but it's a problem if it is the same person each time, or even half of the time. I also think that we can hope for a bit better level of balance than "average", since the average level of balance in games tends to be pretty poor...
7) Greater DM Control & Education Here's the first point where we really disagree.
I don't think bad DMs are so common that the entire edition needs to be designed to protect players from them. I think they're a minority, and it's more efficient to assume some DM skill and work to improve DM skills. Raise the bad DMs up rather than just mitigate their awfulness.
But I acknowledge that it's easier to ignore a rule than add one that doesn't exist. So there should be a adequate baseline established to firmly show DMs what is acceptable. And rules somewhere (possibly a rules module) for reducing DM fiat.
This really isn't so much about protecting people from bad DMs as permitting other styles of playing and DMing. When I DM, I don't
want a lot of DM control and need for DM fiat. It gets in the way of my fun and creativity. The job of DMing is really hard and bothersome (which is why many call it a job). The less strain the game places on that one player, the better the game can be for everyone. It also helps add predictability to the table, which helps players feel more comfortable with their actions and let's them feel more in control of their fate and free to experiment. Having clarity in the rules makes every part of the game run smoother.
* Generic monsters. I don't want three different types of roper. It's a roper, that should be enough. Instead, customizing monsters (monster themes, alternate powers) should be easier. Especially for humanoids. We don't need a goblin raider and orc raider and gnoll raider. We need a goblin and orc and gnoll and some way of adding the "raider" template.
This is going to be an issue of contention. You see, I'm the sort who would
love to see a Monster Manual entirely dedicated to 300 statblocks for human opponents. Everything from guards, brigands, and hedgewizards to knight-commanders, pirate kings, and the dark sorcerers who command the armies of Evil Overlords. I like seeing a huge variety of easy-to-use humanoid statblocks that don't require templates or class levels, because they make the kinds of games I like running much, much easier.
I might agree with the "three kinds of roper" thing, though. Most monsters don't need the same kind of treatment that intelligent opponents do.
* Avoidance mechanic. I dislike the 4e defences for the sole reason stationary objects attacking the PCs is silly. "The pit trap attacks your Reflex with a 19." There needs to be an active defence and a reactive defence.
You know, I can understand the psychological disconnect caused by "the trap attacks you and rolls a 15", but I don't think it is worth changing the game over. The 4E defense system makes the game run much smoother for a lot of reasons, and trying to reconcile the differences caused by your trap example might require a significant overhaul of the way the dice mechanics in D&D work.
That said, I'm totally be okay with a "the PCs roll all the dice" system. I liked that 3E variant. Players roll for their own attacks and defenses, while enemies always have static attacks and defenses. This kind of system works best to solve some of the complaints I've seen come up here and elsewhere, since the PCs are always being active, and NPCs are kept simple.
