The Paladin and the Stirges

[Kynn]

I've seen an awful lot of lobbying for A through Z over the last few years, some of it quite bitter, and done in a vacuum of expectations that doesn't even acknowledge all the other, similar lobbying going on at the same time--sometimes even the same topic.

Part of what scares me about the process is that for the next 18-or-so months -- or until individual issues get settled -- D&D communities may be stuck in non-stop edition wars (or The Great 5e Cold War) as we try to navigate through the minefield of everyone passionately and for legitimate reasons advocating on behalf of their favorite parts of their D&D games while many times advocating against everyone else's. Even if we don't need to do the latter.

I hope D&Ders prove me wrong but at this point I am not really holding my breath.

 

[Halivar]

Part of what scares me about the process is that for the next 18-or-so months -- or until individual issues get settled -- D&D communities may be stuck in non-stop edition wars (or The Great 5e Cold War) as we try to navigate through the minefield of everyone passionately and for legitimate reasons advocating on behalf of their favorite parts of their D&D games while many times advocating against everyone else's. Even if we don't need to do the latter.

This is precisely why we need the modular approach. Any bones thrown in the core to either side of the Great Edition War will only incense and antagonize the other. Leave it all out, then, and let people plug n' play what they want. I believe this is vital to the success of 5E.

 

[nedjer]

Game 1 has my preferred game mechanics.

Game 2 has my preferred game mechanics, as an alternative option to "core" mechanics.

Should I consider Game 2 obviously better than Game 1? I would say "no", because I have more reason to expect that Game 1 will be well designed, and well balanced around the specific set of mechanics I want. Your post seemed to suggest that Game 2 was obviously better, so we should have no objections to it.

If I say "I want Skills, not just ability checks", then maybe a system where Skills are an option, but ability checks are the baseline, will be sufficiently well-designed and well-balanced, but I have to expect it to be less likely than a system where Skills are core, and what the designers focused their attention on.

It's not about wanting to make fundamentalist claims about who is playing right. It's about wanting a certain kind of game (as we all do), and arguing in favor of making it a reality (as we all do). That includes arguing over what we think should be the baseline, and thus receive the most amount of design attention. Just saying that more options means we all get what we want would be cop-out.

Dude! you've re-framed my 'options', adapted them to your perspective - and called for decisions about a type of gaming based on teamwork and collaboration to be made on the strength of much win mentality.

I would still welcome you at my table, but mainly run gritty, medieval Gotham, so the players/ PCs need to be tight to survive. I'm not saying cannibalising lone wolves is good, but desperate times call for . . .

 

[Rechan]

Compare this to the 4e launch. 4e was not announced until 6 months out in order to prevent sales cannibalization.

4e was announced Gencon (August 2007), and released June 2008.

Bit more than 6 months.

 

[FireLance]

These blind guys need to stop feeling up that elephant.

I'm sure the publicity is good for WotC, so maybe the elephant *wants* to be felt up.

Erm, maybe I shouldn't have continued that metaphor.

 

[Number48]

You know what it feels like when you feel up an elephant? It feels like pain. I am touching this elephant-thing and it feels like my pelvis being crushed.

 

[Piratecat]

4e was announced Gencon (August 2007), and released June 2008.

Bit more than 6 months.

You are quite correct. Ten months.