D&D 5E (2014) L&L 8/19/13: The Final Countdown

[dd.stevenson]

Find it here.

 

[Gundark]

 "I also believe that D&D had wandered away from what players are looking for from it"
Interesting, I agree with that statement. I don't think that this was a dig at 4th. It was a good game, but the number 1 complaint I heard bar none was it didn't "feel" like D&D.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

The first thing that pops into my head is that song from Europe...

But most of the statements about their finding don't come as much of a surprise.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Yeah, the findings list is no surprise to me. My question is if that can be delivered.

The one bullet point I would have added is

You want characters that have mechanical, in addition to roleplay differences.

The playtest really seemed to be pushing this, though the last packet, not so much.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Partially I agree.

Partially I feel that the "findings" remind me of those lines from horoscopes that everyone thinks applies to them. They're statements deliberately phrased to ensure most everyone agrees with them on the surface. No one's really saying "I want adventures to be difficult and time-consuming to build" - they're arguing about how much time is "time-consuming".

 

[Li Shenron]

- You like simplicity. You want to jump into the game quickly, create characters, monsters, NPCs, and adventures with a minimum of fuss, and get down to the business of playing D&D.
- You like that every class has the potential to contribute in most situations, but you're OK with some classes being better at certain things if that fits the class's image. You see balance on a larger, adventure-based or campaign-based scale.
- You want rules that make it easy to build adventures and encounters. You want to think about the story or your setting's details, rather than fiddle with math.
- You value flexibility in rules. You prefer an ability or a rule that's easy to adapt or that leaves space for creative applications, rather than rigidly defined abilities.
- You aren't edition warriors. You want the game to support a variety play styles in equal measure. You're not attached to any specific ways of doing things as long as the game works.

That's exactly all that I think I want from a RPG.

 

[Quartz]

I'm glad that they're going to be taking a hard look at balancing the maths. No one did this for 2E (e.g. MU vs Bard) or 3E (e.g. bonus stacking / creep, imbalanced saves), or if someone did, they were ignored.

 

[Plaguescarred]

What i get from that column is that WoTC came to the conclusion that the majority of the D&D fanbase think that D&D Next has the feel of D&D it sought to have, that the simple core ruleset is more appealing than a more complex one, that the majority of the fanbase is not into edition warring like we see on some forums. I also preceive that they conclude that D&D had wandered away from what the majority of the fanbase are looking for from it.

Speaking for myself and my tabletop group, we are looking for a simpler, leaner and adaptable ruleset that can increase complexity through modules and optional rules, like AD&D and 2nd edition was more design toward. We want every classes to be able to contribute, but not necessarily be perfectly balanced and symmetric. Finally, we aren't edition warriors, we have preferences, but we all love D&D as a game. We fit square in with the points illustrated in this column.

I'm also glad to hear that the columns and Q&A blogposts will continue and we will still see the same weekly content.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Partially I agree.

Partially I feel that the "findings" remind me of those lines from horoscopes that everyone thinks applies to them. They're statements deliberately phrased to ensure most everyone agrees with them on the surface. No one's really saying "I want adventures to be difficult and time-consuming to build" - they're arguing about how much time is "time-consuming".

I can see what you're saying, but I think that you might be able to find actual preference buried in there.

"You like simplicity" means that there's not a lot of patience for pre-gaming or pre-prep. This means things like 4e's and 3e's crazy-detailed character creation had quickly diminishing returns, and 3e's "build characters and monsters exactly the same way" and 4e's "precisely balance this detailed encounter and make it interesting!" are not necessarily good ideas. The game doesn't need to be detailed with a tremendous amount of options to be fun.

"You see balance on a larger scale" means that encounter-based design a la 4e wasn't a great approach. Every class doesn't need to contribute equally in every single encounter, and HP and abilities can be depleted over the course of an adventure, not just within one encounter. While we don't want binary situations ("Thieves should avoid combat entirely!"), we do want situations where the character might be at a disadvantage ("Thieves are not going to shine in combat.")

"Easy-to-build Scenarios" indicates that the mechanics don't drive the play experience: we aren't enticed by high numbers or rolling dice, we're driven by the story we're telling, that's what pulls the game ahead, so making it easy to tell that story is important. Essentially, we tend toward being narrative, as a group.

"Flexibility in Rules" means that the 3e/4e approach of locking down precisely what PC's are capable of isn't as interesting as the earlier-e approach of using some DM judgement. We don't mind making active DM choices during play.

"You aren't edition warriors" means that there's not one true way to play for us, there's not one right choice of how to make the game. This is actually counter to 4e's "hit the way most people play" philosophy, and shows that there isn't one game to rule them all. Variety trumps consistency and the value you get from one consistent assumed ruleset.

...that's how I see the rubber meeting the road, here, anyway.

 

[Blackbrrd]

@Kamikaze Midget great post with very convincing arguments. I really hope you are right, because it really fits the what I want from a game system.

I really hope they manage to move away from the "balanced encounter" mentality and go back to the earlier more free-form encounters. I do like well designed encounters, but having it as a design requirement for an adventure really makes it feel like a game. If they want to keep some designed encounters, go with the "boss encounters". There is nothing like an epic fight to complete an adventure.