D&D 5E D&DNext - Frankenstein or Butterfly?

[RACER_X?HAHAHA]

Maybe you can't have all the benefits?

Seriously.

A lot of us, myself included, have been enamored of unified mechanics. Maybe they aren't the best. Perhaps there's a middle ground between 2e's hot mess and 4e's strict conformity (hopefully one with less fiddly bits than 3e, AFAIC.) Certainly a great many people who were turned off by 4e cited that as a reason (and something similar can be said for 2e).

At this point, I'm willing to accept that my desire for an "elegant" unified system is not the best architecture for D&D. It seems to work well for some of the other systems I like, particularly more Narrative-oriented ones. However, it doesn't seem to create that mystical magical feeling of "D&D." Why? I have no idea.

It is my belief that the key to getting that "mystical magical feeling" of D&D is disorder. It is, I feel, what the rules don't say. The grey area between the black and white of the rules. The perfect version of D&D gives you clear and concise rules for handling most of the common circumstances your character will encounter, while giving the room do something truly spectacular.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Firstly, what non-casters? Secondly, that hypothetical would make it impossible to have a mixed group. 4e has massively varying math by level, a level 2 non-caster has insufficient HP, AC, Attack bonus, or other defenses to stand against a monster that would be a challenge for a level 5 caster. So you'd either have to low-ball the challenges, which would bore the casters. Or, you'd have a high rate of non-caster death.

I think it's obvious that 4e isn't perfect. It's darn good, and fun to boot, but it's pretty limited IMO.

I think this problem is overblown really. I've had PCs of somewhat different levels and lower level NPCs fighting alongside PCs etc. Sure, your lower level characters will hit a bit less, but unless you're talking about drastic differences it isn't a very big deal really. Besides if the goal is to glorify some classes over others then simply have the challenges be scaled to the weaker classes and let the higher level 'strong class' characters whale away, that's what you WANT. I mean your point WAS to have inequality. What else would that mean besides these classes kick a lot more butt than these other ones?

In fact the beauty of it is it is a lot more controllable than the non-linear increasing inequality of ever previous edition where not only was the fighter a bit weaker at 5th level, he was losing ground GEOMETRICALLY and was a peon relatively by say 12th level. I can slap a 3 level difference on some 4e PCs and in fact the absolute power difference will stay pretty similar or even decrease slightly. I can tweak that infinitely. In say AD&D I'm just stuck with it, wizards are flat out better and short of rewriting whole classes in a big way you're not going to change it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

As much as it seems to be the popular belief, working in software/IT and the peculiarities of that culture, are not the end-all be-all of work life and workplace politics. I do not consider it at all obvious that that is what's going on. There's plenty of evidence to indicate perfectly likely monetary and business motivations for WotC.

It is just a convenient analogy, this is rife in all layers and manner of business and life. People do it all the time. Two of my friends in the last couple years have ripped out perfectly fine modern kitchens in their houses so they could do something different. As soon as you get a new boss all the perfectly good old ways of doing things get replaced by new ways. It is always at least partially NIH. Ever cat has to mark his territory.

Maybe. I personally suspect that this is a "farewell" edition of D&D that will be shelved after a relatively small run of titles. Leaving the IP to be resurrected after 10-15 years. I'm guessing that WotC has concluded that the audience's appetite for new editions is insufficient to maintain D&D as a constant, ongoing concern. Of course, if Next succeeds in its goals of unifying the audience, then WotC have the option to continue cranking out as much product as is profitable. I think the "unification" goals are an attempt to ensure that there still is an audience about 12 years from now for which to write 6e. In this, I will be happy to be wrong.

Well, I personally seriously doubt WotC would take the hit of selling nothing but low volume reprints for 2 years just so they could toss out a throwaway product.

No, this is a very different thing. Imagine you are Mike Mearls man. ONCE IN YOUR LIFE you get to frigging redesign D&D and make it any way you want. Like hell you're going to pass that up. There's no logic of any sort on the face of the Earth that would swerve any of us from rewriting the whole game from the ground up. It would be like the astronaut equivalent of being offered the chance to be to the first man to set foot on Mars and turning it down. THAT is what this is about, PURE AND SIMPLE.

I know Mike wouldn't put it that way and he's got plenty of reasons all lined up in his head for why he HAS to try to write his name in letters 100' tall across the biggest landmark in the gaming industry, but lets be real here.

Maybe you can't have all the benefits?

Seriously.

A lot of us, myself included, have been enamored of unified mechanics. Maybe they aren't the best. Perhaps there's a middle ground between 2e's hot mess and 4e's strict conformity (hopefully one with less fiddly bits than 3e, AFAIC.) Certainly a great many people who were turned off by 4e cited that as a reason (and something similar can be said for 2e).

At this point, I'm willing to accept that my desire for an "elegant" unified system is not the best architecture for D&D. It seems to work well for some of the other systems I like, particularly more Narrative-oriented ones. However, it doesn't seem to create that mystical magical feeling of "D&D." Why? I have no idea.

I'm certainly not suggesting that we go back to AD&D, where there were several different ways to "hide" depending on how, who, where, and when they were doing it. However, I don't think its totally unreasonable or unworkable to suggest and test a system where martial maneuvers work differently than spells.

You're telling me you can't tack other subsystems onto 4e? Or more properly if you have the leeway to rewrite 4e to whatever extent you couldn't fit into it a whole crapload of other subsystems? Really?

I mean ultimately this is one of those unanswerable questions and unending debates. I just don't hold with your proposition. I mean we could discuss endlessly the way this would be done and how well it would work, etc. but without being able to actually put it out there as a release of D&D and see what happened it is all just academic. That's cool though, I understand where you're coming from.

I'm not sure who or what you're referring to here. You're grammar isn't parsing for me, but maybe its because I don't have the antecedents you think I do.

Sorry, Ryan Dancy, whom you can of course peruse the opinions of right here on our most favoritest RPG site He's certainly in the "more editions just make it worse" camp and may well have the best perspective on the whole thing going these days. He certainly knows a LOT about it, and he's a sharp cookie (maybe a little cocky, maybe, but his knowledge of the industry certainly dwarfs mine).

 

[Tony Vargas]

In other words, are we going to see a truly new iteration of the game that represents an actual transformation to a higher level of design (thus the "butterfly"), or have they already gone the other way and are in the process of creating another Frankensteinian monster ala 3.x and 4E?

So what's new with Next? Thanks.

I don't know what you think is 'frankensteinian' about modern D&D. That aside, no, there's no hint of transformational or elegant design in 5e, it's all looking back to classic D&D and trying to make something that captures the 'real D&D.' That does seem to mean sewing together bits of 1e, 2e & 3e...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It is my belief that the key to getting that "mystical magical feeling" of D&D is disorder. It is, I feel, what the rules don't say. The grey area between the black and white of the rules. The perfect version of D&D gives you clear and concise rules for handling most of the common circumstances your character will encounter, while giving the room do something truly spectacular.

Yeah, I don't understand how DDN is doing that, not in any way that 3e or 4e didn't.

PERSONALLY, what I want is a set of rules that will provide an adequate answer by default for pretty much anything. I can easily set aside or elaborate on whatever elements I want to be more special or just different. Inconsistent messy hodge-podge systems that cover some things 8 times in contradictory ways, outlaw half the things my players WILL do, and just ignore the rest don't really cut it. I think DDN will be better there than 2e, but 4e was heaven sent. You can just say "make a check" for ANYTHING and add in the standard sorts of modifiers and compare it to a defense or a stat or an active check, etc. Frig, what touches that?

 

[Ratskinner]

Well, I personally seriously doubt WotC would take the hit of selling nothing but low volume reprints for 2 years just so they could toss out a throwaway product.

More like "holding pattern" product, the way I see it. Like I said, I'll be happy to be wrong about it.

No, this is a very different thing. Imagine you are Mike Mearls man. ONCE IN YOUR LIFE you get to frigging redesign D&D and make it any way you want. Like hell you're going to pass that up. There's no logic of any sort on the face of the Earth that would swerve any of us from rewriting the whole game from the ground up. It would be like the astronaut equivalent of being offered the chance to be to the first man to set foot on Mars and turning it down. THAT is what this is about, PURE AND SIMPLE.

I don't buy it. (I know, big surprise ) I get what you're saying, but if I got the job and the current edition is still riding high and making money...I'm not gonna touch it. I'd rather focus on keeping the product riding high, maybe float an experimental project or two in the splat. There's plenty of time to work a new edition when the sales flag. (I mean, you know that's coming pretty soon, anyway.)

Yes, we'd all enjoy having our name on a new edition of D&D. However, given the example of 4e, I'd want to make sure that I'm not driving another wedge through the community or putting out a load that nobody wants. Making a version of D&D that's your own...DMs have been doing that for 30+years now.

You're telling me you can't tack other subsystems onto 4e? Or more properly if you have the leeway to rewrite 4e to whatever extent you couldn't fit into it a whole crapload of other subsystems? Really?

You can, but maybe 4e isn't the best starting place to do that.

I mean ultimately this is one of those unanswerable questions and unending debates. I just don't hold with your proposition. I mean we could discuss endlessly the way this would be done and how well it would work, etc. but without being able to actually put it out there as a release of D&D and see what happened it is all just academic. That's cool though, I understand where you're coming from.

True, and no problem.

Sorry, Ryan Dancy, whom you can of course peruse the opinions of right here on our most favoritest RPG site He's certainly in the "more editions just make it worse" camp and may well have the best perspective on the whole thing going these days. He certainly knows a LOT about it, and he's a sharp cookie (maybe a little cocky, maybe, but his knowledge of the industry certainly dwarfs mine).

Okay, that makes more sense, I was reading it like it should be Paizo or something.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Okay, that makes more sense, I was reading it like it should be Paizo or something.

He does do consulting for them. They certainly seem to have taken a good bit of their playbook from things he's said, or at least there's a lot of parallel thinking going on there from what I can see.