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

[JamesonCourage]

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)

Maybe I'll play it at length one day, but I don't see myself ever running it. The tactical aspect appeals to me, and maybe one of my players, but not to most of my group, and my RPG can get tactical if you push it there.

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.

Yeah, it's just play style. Paladin has always been my favorite class, so when I saw it, it was a huge turnoff. Not that it's objectively wrong, I just had a "they butchered it" reaction, while others rejoiced.

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.

That's awesome. My eyes really started to open when designing my RPG, and no longer just house ruling. It's a really cool experience (the realization and discovery you described).

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.

I'm basically with you on where I stand (I even house rule my game sometimes, and I made it!). That includes needing to see something spectacular from 5e that I don't see yet. But that's okay; I basically already think of it as "a game I might play, bu won't run." So, while I still have a tiny investment in it, I'm a lot more open to what it can be. I'm definitely waiting on a lot of "rules modules", though; I'm not really feeling like it's living up to what I want, yet. As always, play what you like

 

[Evenglare]

I really hope Next isnt just another edition of D&D. By this I mean another set of rules I have to buy to run the games I already run (yes I am aware I dont HAVE to buy them). Next was marketed to me as a game with modular rule sets allowing me to tweak whatever rules I wanted, giving me options of the mechanics I want. I'm still waiting and seeing, but if this is just another fantasy RPG i'll stick with pathfinder or 13th age, or any of the other myriad of RPGs that do what I want.

 

[Falling Icicle]

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.

I agree, quality should be emphasized over quantity. Thanks for taking the time to clarify things for us.

Oh, and any chance we might be getting the new playtest packet soon?

 

[GX.Sigma]

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 really don't think Mike and co are saying those options won't be there.

4e, at launch, had too many meaningless options, and too few meaningful options. You could take action surge or wintertouched or far throw, but you couldn't be a druid or a monk.

With D&D Next, they want to maximize the meaningful options ("I'm a fighter, specifically an archer, who used to be a blacksmith") and minimize the meaningless options ("I'm a Fighter 1 / Cavalier 1 / Ninja 2 / Knight of the Chalice 2 / Planar Champion 1 with bloody vengeance, death from above, improved drag, passing trick, and combat casting").

Is that more what you were trying to say, [MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION]?

 

[mearls]

Is that more what you were trying to say, [MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION]?

Yup.

 

[Libramarian]

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.

IMO it's a pretty empty threat to say you won't have the patience to wait around for your preferred modules/options when you're following DDN right now, like a year and a half from release.

edit:
I don't mean to be rude...I'm just saying.

The jilted lover posts by 4e fans are kind of silly at this point.

Belittling the opinions and feelings of others is a shortcut to an Edition War, so this needs to stop right here before it gets going. ~ KM

 

[DonAdam]

I actually take this as hopeful, since I read it as anti-splat book.

They of course need to roll out new player content (classes, specialties, etc.) from time to time. But that is best done in large chunks--PHB 2, PHB 3, etc.--not quarterly or monthly. That will give time for ample playtesting and minimize the number of books you have in front of you when making a character.

That would also correspond to a feasible development schedule for new rules modules, so I hope they err towards bundling these into big, well-thought-out packages. Hopefully they will focus releases generally on adventures and expanding the scope of D&D. A book that introduces a detailed system for running court intrigue is better than a book of "extra maneuvers for fighters."

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

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.

Why do you think this, Mike? The worst mechanical problems with 3e (the imbalance between spellcasters and non-casters) and 4e (the relative weakness of the paladin and warlock, some poorly worded ranger powers that ended up needing errata) were both in the first Player's Handbook. In two editions that focused on character-building content I can think of all of one serious, at-the-table problem broken option released in a supplement, Divine Metamagic.*

*I can think of quite a few that broke too weak, like Complete Warrior's Samurai or the unfortunate Tome of Magic Binder, but those generally aren't a serious problem at the table.

Leaving aside for a moment whether or not it's good for the rules of the game, it seems like it would be bad for the sales of the game. This is a 180 on how Wizards has handled the D&D game line since the launch of 3.0. The intent with that release was to let 3rd party publishers produce the lion's share of settings and adventures because market research showed those products, while often helpful for a game, didn't sell as well as character options. Has that changed in the last decade and a half?

 

[pemerton]

"I'm a fighter, specifically an archer, who used to be a blacksmith"

My concern is that most of that is looking like mere colour.

4e, at launch, had too many meaningless options, and too few meaningful options. You could take action surge or wintertouched or far throw, but you couldn't be a druid or a monk.

The key about 4e's options was that they mattered in action resolution.

At present, what is missing for me in Next are action resolution mechanics that will take that colour beyond mere colour.

 

[GX.Sigma]

The key about 4e's options was that they mattered in action resolution.

At present, what is missing for me in Next are action resolution mechanics that will take that colour beyond mere colour.

One of the major goals of D&D Next seems to be making the rules (especially action resolution) as simple and lightweight as possible, and cutting down on minor little things you can take during character creation that you have to remember later for some small benefit. Do you approve of these goals? If so, how do you think the rules can accomplish what you mention here?