D&D 5E Legend Lore says 'story not rules' (3/4)

Nagol said:

I think its more the splat treadmill that he's trying to reduce.

Click to expand...

Yes, this. Not rules modules.

I really shouldn't try to write these at 11 PM on Thursday night.

mearls said:

Yes, this. Not rules modules.

I really shouldn't try to write these at 11 PM on Thursday night.

Click to expand...

re-explain it then. and why did you post it today? lol its even got mondays date on it

And there you have it. /Holster pitchforks and torches.

What will Next do for those of us who were looking forward to the splat treadmill?

I think the content management system had a hiccup.

Basically, adding too many character options to the game too quickly is bad for the game. It makes it more likely for broken things to get into the system, is a pain for DMs to track, and makes it harder for new players and DMs to get into the game.

The flipside of that, is that if the options don't get added quickly enough (i.e. the ones that let us recreate what we had in previous editions), some of us (such as myself) won't even look at it until it has them, by which point we might not even care anymore about Next.

mearls said:

I think the content management system had a hiccup.

Basically, adding too many character options to the game too quickly is bad for the game. It makes it more likely for broken things to get into the system, is a pain for DMs to track, and makes it harder for new players and DMs to get into the game.

Click to expand...

That is one perspective. Another perspective, echoing Nemesis above, having piles of options to choose from when building and progressing characters is a big part of enjoying D&D to many of us.

mearls said:

I think the content management system had a hiccup.

Basically, adding too many character options to the game too quickly is bad for the game. It makes it more likely for broken things to get into the system, is a pain for DMs to track, and makes it harder for new players and DMs to get into the game.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be easier to just come up with a core expectation of ability and then design around that? You know... like 4e did? Determine what a character of level X should be able to do. Voila. Anything more than that is broken. Anything less than that is underpowered. This isn't something you guys should be struggling with. Not after 14 months of development.

Thanks [MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION] for the clarification. I really appreciate it; I'm much less worried now, and largely agree with you.

Nemesis Destiny said:

The flipside of that, is that if the options don't get added quickly enough (i.e. the ones that let us recreate what we had in previous editions), some of us (such as myself) won't even look at it until it has them, by which point we might not even care anymore about Next.

Click to expand...

This isn't a shot at 4e, but this is a big part of where I landed when 4e was released. Druids and Bards were not a small part of my games, and some of the other classes didn't feel like what I was expecting (Ranger, Paladin).

With that in mind, I think it's important for 5e to try to let those options be possible. I don't want to wait for Bard to come out several books down the line; that's not good enough for me to get into the game when it's released. So, I definitely get where Nemesis Destiny is coming from, here, even if our tastes differ. As always, play what you like

JamesonCourage said:

This isn't a shot at 4e, but this is a big part of where I landed when 4e was released. Druids and Bards were not a small part of my games, and some of the other classes didn't feel like what I was expecting (Ranger, Paladin).

Click to expand...

Yep, I fully agree with you, and I was right there with you when 4e launched. I love bards, always have. And Druids are a massive part of my campaign world.

That said, when I first tried 4e, I was going in thinking that I was going to hate it, so I didn't care. One of the guys we gamed with convinced us to try it, and ran a short series of games, so we left behind all our baggage, and just played it to see what it was like, and I ended up loving it, despite myself. Reads terrible, plays great! (for us)

As a further aside, the Paladin wasn't what I was expecting either, but this is my favourite treatment of it yet. I don't look forward to going back to the paladins of previous editions. At all.

With that in mind, I think it's important for 5e to try to let those options be possible. I don't want to wait for Bard to come out several books down the line; that's not good enough for me to get into the game when it's released. So, I definitely get where Nemesis Destiny is coming from, here, even if our tastes differ. As always, play what you like

Click to expand...

Despite our differences in opinion, we clearly had similar early experiences with 4e. Since its launch however, I've come to much better understand what I want out of a game. 4e made me, for the first time, start analyzing what it was about the way it works that makes me like it so much. Despite the fact that the system mastery curve is much lessened in 4th, I know it, and more importantly understand it better than I have any other edition, even in half the time. I guess you could call it my RPG Renaissance.

I suppose the point of that is, I have much less patience this time around waiting for options to come along. If 4th had never gotten around to releasing those options, I definitely wouldn't like it as much, and probably wouldn't be playing it today. I am quite glad it did release those options, and I lament 'all that could have been' in its future potential that we will now likely never know.

I've found something I really like (even though I still houserule heavily, I have a much better understanding of why I made the changes I did, and how they affect my games). Next is going to have to be something really spectacular to entice me to use it, and so far, I'm not seeing anything close to meeting that benchmark.