D&D 5E D&D Next Design Goals (Article)

[Vyvyan Basterd]

The money quote for me is, "if the math works but the game doesn't feel like D&D, we've failed."

The more important quote to me is:

If the system is sound, but it can't replicate D&D's classic adventures or seamlessly support any of D&D's settings, it isn't the right system for D&D.

I'm a fan of 4E and am currently running it. But one of 4E's weak points was replicating something as simple as a pitfall trap. Either you create some weird solo pitfall encounter trap or you give a character or two a minor boo-boo. This may seem like a nitpick, but traps such as these were important challenges while exploring in AD&D.

 

[nedjer]

And once again the 4e false premise bursts into undeath. The how it is position: insufficient people bought 4e to support the development of a 5e forked from 4e.

4e was, therefore, dead in the water in terms of future development - until it was saved by Next promising to cater for the 4e style of play. So, no WotC were never going to produce a 4.25e with a 5e label. And the people being attacking for taking Next forward are very much those protecting 4e interests across Next as a whole.

Not so much biting the hand that feeds, as sticking the whole arm down your throat

 

[CasvalRemDeikun]

Relax, Mike'll tell 'im where the left arm goes.

That isn't the point I am making. It is the fact that if Monte was doing his job right, Mike shouldn't have to be telling him what to do with the left arm(4E).

 

[Mattachine]

I like seeing a set of explicit design goals.

I don't know if I will go in for the new edition, but it's at least a year and a half away. I will enjoy the discussions and debates here on EN World throughout the wait.

 

[Minigiant]

I like that they are making sure D&D Next "feel like D&D".

But I don't like how they are afraid to say that they want the game to actually "work like D&D".

Every aspect that feels like D&D should play like D&D. That involves getting the rules and math right. Or at least very very very close to right. Because if the game rules and math is not right, the way people play D&D wont feel like D&D.

So the core will have to be near perfect to encompass all the different feels of D&D.

 

[nedjer]

That isn't the point I am making. It is the fact that if Monte was doing his job right, Mike shouldn't have to be telling him what to do with the left arm(4E).

In what way are you possibly qualified to decide that Monte isn't competent at his job? Are you sure the point you're trying to make isn't just that you've made your mind-up - and now have difficulty backing that opinion with any real evidence?

 

[thecasualoblivion]

My main issue is they say their goal is reunification, but all they talk about is bringing back the old. At best, 4E interests are being taken for granted. At worst, they are being thrown under the bus. Neither inspires confidence.

 

[Steely_Dan]

My main issue is they say their goal is reunification, but all they talk about is bringing back the old. At best, 4E interests are being taken for granted. At worst, they are being thrown under the bus. Neither inspires confidence.

Doesn't sound like they are chucking 4th Ed wholesale out the window at all (quite the opposite).

4th Ed contributed just as much as any edition before it (for good and ill, also like previous editions).

 

[Gryph]

But THAC0 really is unneccesary convoluted. Making it simple addition is much easier.

Yes, but.

The bounded matrix of descending AC was responsible for a lot of the ability of early versions of the game to have monsters of broadly varying power levels be a creditable encounter for a wide variety of levels. It means that multiple level adventuring parties can work.

Some of the recent WoTC columns referencing bounded AC and flatter math seems to be a recognition that, taking advantage of ascending AC and the intuitive implication of ascension that there needs to be no enforced upper limit, was problematic.

You can certainly put limits on max AC to reinstitue the 21 AC range (or 19 for the really old school) and still make it ascending, but I would argue that the very quirkiness of descending AC kept players from questioning the lower limit.

When the whole system is non-intuitive and unabashedly a game construct there's not much point argueing the starting and ending points. When you create a simple and elegant system that seems to intuitive, you really have to do some heavy explaining when you decide to break its intuitive nature by putting a top limit.

I also dislike 20 auto hits and preferred the 6 AC band of hit on 20 that allowed very low ACs to be unhittable by the lowest level PCs/NPCs.

 

[Zaukrie]

So hard to read these threads anymore. So much vitriol. I enjoyed the glimpse into the design effort. I hope they can find a game that is d&d, and publish it.