Where do you see (or want) 5.0 to go?

[Jack Daniel]

Yeah, what you're suggesting is late 90s 2e AD&D. But, presumably, better done.

Presumably. One would assume d20 mechanics, for example.

But the real point is to find a way to split up all the elements that often get a bad rap from large segments of the player base.

Some people don't like a character-build mini-game. Some people don't like detailed, grid-based combat. So you isolate (silo? ) those things in their own books. And you wind up with an edition of D&D that really can potentially "please everybody." An edition that (good for WotC) the largest number of players would convert to and purchase.

 

[Bluenose]

Presumably. One would assume d20 mechanics, for example.

But the real point is to find a way to split up all the elements that often get a bad rap from large segments of the player base.

Some people don't like a character-build mini-game. Some people don't like detailed, grid-based combat. So you isolate (silo? ) those things in their own books. And you wind up with an edition of D&D that really can potentially "please everybody." An edition that (good for WotC) the largest number of players would convert to and purchase.

I'm pretty sure it's the character-buld mini-game that attracts a lot of the fans of 3e to it. 'The power to build exactly the character I want and not be straitjacketed' is the point. I don't think you can reconcile that with the desire of other people to have simpler character-building, or with others who want really strong archetypes with limited flexibility (even if the exact implementation of that archetype can be complicated). And similarly for grid-based combat and some of the other contentious issues.

 

[M.L. Martin]

Hybrid classing had potential, but if you don't have decent synergy between primary scores, then you can't really pull it off.

What the game needs in this regard, is an entirely new system that actually works.

What if you got rid of the one thing that I think has really distorted the character creation process in 4E--the ability score modifiers to attack rolls? Score synergy becomes more an extra than an essential if it's only modifying damage rolls and rider effects.

On 5E in general, I like Jack Daniel's idea (it reminds me of one I proposed a couple years back ) and agree with you on what the game probably should be. I think 3E made a mistake by building up the rules complexity and system mastery elements to such a degree that D&D became very difficult to use as a 'pick up game', and while 4E's backed off from that to a large extent, it's still got problems. Essentials is pretty good--clean up some of the details, remove the need for system mastery and build focus from the core game, and make the grid optional, and I think we'd be in pretty good shape for a baseline that could then be built off of for more complex games for those who want it.

One thing that I think makes 4E viable as a baseline for this kind of modular, multi-level design is the emphasis on keeping character sheets and monster writeups so self-contained. Move the 'forced movement' powers into 'C&T', put stuff that requires more careful DM adjudication into 'AD&D', put skill powers in 'S&P' and elaborate magic into 'Sp&M' and so forth, and I think you'd have a good setup.

The danger, of course, is the same thing that TSR risked in 2E's days--excessive division of the fanbase, especially with the insatiable demands for 'support'. However, I think that the division is a fait accompli, and WotC is better off trying to make material that's reasonably accessible and modifiable for all facets of the audience. Based on his recent L&L columns, Mearls seems to get this.

 

[Gizmoduck5000]

What if you got rid of the one thing that I think has really distorted the character creation process in 4E--the ability score modifiers to attack rolls? Score synergy becomes more an extra than an essential if it's only modifying damage rolls and rider effects.

On 5E in general, I like Jack Daniel's idea (it reminds me of one I proposed a couple years back ) and agree with you on what the game probably should be. I think 3E made a mistake by building up the rules complexity and system mastery elements to such a degree that D&D became virtually unplayable as a 'pick up game', and while 4E's backed off from that to a large extent, it's still got problems. Essentials is pretty good--clean up some of the details, remove the need for system mastery and build focus from the core game, and make the grid optional, and I think we'd be in pretty good shape for a baseline that could then be built off of for more complex games for those who want it.

One thing that I think makes 4E viable as a baseline for this kind of modular, multi-level design is the emphasis on keeping character sheets and monster writeups so self-contained. Move the 'forced movement' powers into
'C&T', put stuff that requires more careful DM adjudication into 'AD&D', put skill powers in 'S&P' and elaborate magic into 'Sp&M' and so forth, and I think you'd have a good setup.

The danger, of course, is the same thing that TSR risked in 2E's days--excessive division of the fanbase, especially with the insatiable demands for 'support'. However, I think that the division is a fait accompli, and WotC is better off trying to make material that's reasonably accessible and modifiable for all facets of the audience. Based on his recent L&L columns, Mearls seems to get this.

I think that one thing 5E should strive for is keeping modifiers on the lower end and making the actual roll more important...so no more adding 30+ to a d20 roll. Perhaps to-hit rolls should be modified by level and not much else?

I agree with the notion that the game should be like legos, wherein groups can easily plug in and pull out elements that they don't want for a given campaign. This speaks to multi-classing as well, only I think it may be difficult to pull off without some sort of level-by-level character toys like spells or talents.

On a side note, I really think that D&D is at it's heart a fantasy action & adventure game and the design needs to reflect this. Action is obviously the big one, but greater emphasis also needs to be put on the adventure aspect. I don't agree with the cat in the other forum who wants XP to be derived from treasure, but I do think that it needs to be a goal oriented award. For this reason, I like Kamikaze Midget's idea of adventure-based resource management. If the adventure or mission is the assumed time frame of the game, then this would help eliminate the 15 minute workday problem.

Also, the grid really needs to go. People who like maps and minis are going to use them regardless of whether the rules call for them or not, so on the one hand you cater to them by focusing the rules in that direction, on the other hand you cater to everyone by not doing it.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Character creation is what you do in D&D 4e.

Character generation is what you do in Gamma World.

Thanks for trying to help, but I've not done Gamma World so the example doesn't work for me.

Could it be explained a little more clearly please?

Thanks

 

[Shadeydm]

That's the way to please the broadest possible number of players. The best way to go? Ditch the PHB, DMG, and MM model. Swap for a new hardcover trilogy:

(1) Core Rules. Everything you need to play a Heroic Tier game. Character generation (not creation, generation), the basic four classes, the basic four races, lists of spells and monsters and magic items, the basic Dungeon Mastering procedures.
(2) Advanced Player's Handbook. Rules for character creation. All the character build stuff that doesn't really need to be in the core game. All of the extra races and sub-classes; feats; a more complex variation on the core skill system; Book of Nine Swords style "spells for fighters."
(3) Advanced Combat & Tactics. For players who like a little wargame in their RPGs. Optional rules like using grids, push-me pull-you square shifting stuff, tweaking HP totals to make combat longer, and the fine mechanical distinction between wielding a glaive vs. a guisarme vs. a bardiche.

I really think you are on to something here. I notice you don't mention paragon and epic teirs. Would rules for either be included in the new core 3 or in later materials. Should all 3 layers support all 3 tiers?

 

[Bluenose]

Thanks for trying to help, but I've not done Gamma World so the example doesn't work for me.

Could it be explained a little more clearly please?

Thanks

In D&D 4e (and 3e, come to that, as well as plenty of other games) character creation is a design process. You work out what you want to do, and then you go through the classes/feats/abilities and decide how to make that happen.

In Gamma World (and AD&D as well as other games), it's a lot more random. You roll/draw, see what you get, and play with that. There's a lot less decision making involved and you have a lot less control over how your character turns out. It's notably quicker, and people who have a strong character concept in mind can't expect to get it. Character concept comes after character creation, instead of before.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Thanks for trying to help, but I've not done Gamma World so the example doesn't work for me.

Could it be explained a little more clearly please?

I think Gizmoduck is talking about the difference between builds and randomly generated PCs. 4e isn't really a great example of a build rpg - Champions, GURPS and 3e are a lot more 'buildy'. In Gamma World, a PC's mutant powers (and all other stats) are randomly rolled, so it is a good example of very random PC gen. Moreso than classic D&D, where a player can choose class and race. A lot of non-Champions superhero rpgs from the 80s also had very random char gen, such as Marvel Superheroes, Villains & Vigilantes and Golden Heroes.

 

[Lanefan]

In D&D 4e (and 3e, come to that, as well as plenty of other games) character creation is a design process. You work out what you want to do, and then you go through the classes/feats/abilities and decide how to make that happen.

In Gamma World (and AD&D as well as other games), it's a lot more random. You roll/draw, see what you get, and play with that. There's a lot less decision making involved and you have a lot less control over how your character turns out. It's notably quicker,

My vote goes to the Gamma World side.

and people who have a strong character concept in mind can't expect to get it.

Not necessarily. If your character concept is entirely mechanics-based then what you say is often true (and I'd recommend a more mechanics-based system e.g. D+D 3e), but if your concept is personality or character-based then the mechanical aspect isn't nearly so important.

Character concept comes after character creation, instead of before.

From experience, I mostly disagree. Not counting NPCs for my games, I've probably banged out and played about 60 1e PCs over the years. Of those 60, I'd say for at least 50 I had a clear idea going in what I wanted to end up with - and in just about all cases that's what I got; the few exceptions being situations where my dice didn't co-operate to give me the stats I needed for a particular class. (the other 10 were situations where either I needed something *now* and just went with whatever I got or I rolled everything including race and class at complete random for fun)

A relatively recent example: my idea going in was for a jovial happy none-too-bright Cavalier that could hold his own in a fight and be played for a few laughs the rest of the time; and that's what I rolled up. Later that session, that's exactly what the party met. His Achilles heel later turned out to be his *pathetic* hit point rolls, but them's the breaks...

A game where character optimization is possible for thems as likes it is, I suppose, something I can reluctantly accept. A game where character optimization is required is a game I will not play.

Lan-"if you can't always get what you want, stop wanting so much"-efan

 

[Dice4Hire]

There is something to be said for random rolls, but Gamma World is not good enough for me. Too few choices, and too few different things to be. Gamma World is fun for a one shot, or a few session campaign, but it is not robust enough for a full game.

IMO, of course.