D&D 3E/3.5 How is this going to work? BECMI & 3.5 & 4e players all at once?

[BryonD]

And let's be honest: No matter what WotC does, there is going to be a segment of folks that don't like 5E and manage to get themselves in a tizzy about something.

True. And there will also be people who don't like 5E and get accused of being in a tizzy just because they don't like what other people see as the new shiny.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I agree with you completely. But it does remain that the unreasonable expectation just so happens to also be a literal reading....

True. And there will also be people who don't like 5E and get accused of being in a tizzy just because they don't like what other people see as the new shiny.

These things are not as unrelated as they might first appear. Throw into the mix a few people who apparently just like being in a tizzy, and it gets complicated to even understand why people complain about what they complain about. I mean, from my persective, there were people at 3E, 3.5, 4E, and Essentials launch that practically screamed, "I hate it, want nothing to do it, and I'm going to spend the next few years telling you about it in detail." That's so alien to me. Things I dislike that much I try to avoid. There might have been a few actually like that, but you know there can't be that many. So clearly something they were saying was based on an entirely different set of expectations than what I was getting from their statements.

Of course, sometimes people that are in a tizzy don't even really know themselves why, much less be able to explain it to strangers over the internet.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I agree with you completely. But it does remain that the unreasonable expectation just so happens to also be a literal reading....

My suggestion? Don't read things too literally!

There has been so much... discussion... on ENworld over the years because of people picking through rules text ultra-literally when it wasn't written for that purpose. This is also just someone communicating, not a legal draft.

I wouldn't sweat it, either yourself or on anyone elses behalf!

Cheers

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

And WotC simply doesn't mind that I have no interest in playing at a 4E fan's table and that the 4E fan has zero interest in playing at my table. WotC is just happy because we are both playing D&D "I". Still an amazing challenge and the "at the same table" doesn't fit that.

I agree that WotC has an amazing challenge ahead of them. But I disagree over the comment of zero interest if I understand you correctly. I can only take your interest level at face value, so 0%? I believe you. But you seem to assume likewise from the other side in general. I'm a 4E fan, but I would probably be interested in playing at your table BryonD based on what you've shared about your style. I would NEVER run OD&D/BECMI/AD&D/3.x again (although I entertained the thought recently in Pathfinder), but I would be interested in sitting down with others here in their games even though 4E is my current edition of choice. In fact I have sat at others' tables at least for a single session when given the opportunity.

 

[Mercurius]

True. And there will also be people who don't like 5E and get accused of being in a tizzy just because they don't like what other people see as the new shiny.

True! What an ornery bunch of people us geeks are

 

[BryonD]

I agree that WotC has an amazing challenge ahead of them. But I disagree over the comment of zero interest if I understand you correctly. I can only take your interest level at face value, so 0%? I believe you. But you seem to assume likewise from the other side in general. I'm a 4E fan, but I would probably be interested in playing at your table BryonD based on what you've shared about your style. I would NEVER run OD&D/BECMI/AD&D/3.x again (although I entertained the thought recently in Pathfinder), but I would be interested in sitting down with others here in their games even though 4E is my current edition of choice. In fact I have sat at others' tables at least for a single session when given the opportunity.

Ok, fair enough. I stand corrected of over-stating a position.

 

[BryonD]

My suggestion? Don't read things too literally!

There has been so much... discussion... on ENworld over the years because of people picking through rules text ultra-literally when it wasn't written for that purpose. This is also just someone communicating, not a legal draft.

I wouldn't sweat it, either yourself or on anyone elses behalf!

Cheers

Oh, I'm not sweating this.
But I'll also stick to the point that it doesn't require parsing the words to reach my interpretation. If anything it takes making some presumptions to reach any other conclusion.
And legal isn't relevant. We have PRECIOUS little to work with right now. So the correct thing to do is to WAIT FOR A LOT MORE. But the little bit there will get a lot of focus.

Again, in my first post here I said it couldn't be true. I don't think it is. But that is what it says.....

 

[JeffB]

Phil Foglio finally got some justice- WOTC will be using "Coin Toss Dungeon" as the mechanical basis & inspiration for 5E

 

[Rechan]

My guess is that it's going to be like GURPS.

You have a base system. Look at 3e. Your base class framework (BAB, saves, HP, etc). Basic skills/spells, equipment.

In this book, we'll call it Tome of Sweat (thank you @Dice4Hire ). This is your Gritty Book. It has rules on how to make the game more lethal and gritty, save & die effects, it gives you a formula on having everyone start with reduced HP, on having non-awesome powers, etc.

In this book, we'll call it Book of Awesome. It fits on top of the basic framework to effect classes, and give powers.

Then this book is Book of Combat Expertise. It's a grid-based system (because they are saying the base system will not be on a grid).

Then there's the Book of World-Emulation. This is your simulationist "how many commoners/experts/high level PCs per 1,000 population, thorough NPC creation rules" type of book. Encumbrance rules, indepth craft rules, etc.

A DM may pick up the Book of Sweat and Book of World-Emulation, that goes for his table. Another DM could pick up Book of Awesome and Combat Expertise at his table.

 

[trancejeremy]

Skills were introduced later on in BECMI, and they were a part of the Cyclopedia. They called them "non-weapon proficiencies" but they were skills. You are correct that they were based on attribute rolls, however.

But I don't see this working. There is a chasm the players have to jump across. The GM says to BECMI player "Okay roll 1d20 under your Str". Player "Okay, my Str is 17, so here goes my 85% chance of success".

Then he says to player 2, Ms. D&D 3.5 "Okay make a Jump Check, DC 20". Player 2 says "Okay, I have +8 to jump, including my 17 Str, so here goes my 45% chance of success."

Then he says to player 3, D&D 4e Guy "Okay make an Athletics check to make this jump, DC 20". 4e Guy says "No problem, since I'm trained in Athletics, with 17 Str, I have +12 to this check, so that's a 65% chance".

So that's why I'm skeptical of the idea of 3 different styles of play being able to co-exist at the same table. This is what they were saying might be possible; and I'm not saying it isn't. I'm just curious as to how they will do it.

To be honest, I think that actually works out pretty well. Especially as in the RC version of BECMI (where they also actually get called "skills"), skills can have difficulty modifiers set by the DM...

The only thing that would be needed is a way to normalize the difficulty modifiers according to the different systems.