D&D 5E D&D Next: Deal with it, DM?

[Mattachine]

Having different sorts of characters with official rules variants/updates/modules has been part of D&D since AD&D's Unearthed Arcana, or, even earlier, since "Official" Dragon Magazine rules.

Unless you are DMing at a tournament or are in a Living Campaign, you get to pick what you want in the game. That can be a consensus in the gaming group, DM choice at the beginning of a campaign, a vote, or something else.

If you are worried about being forced to use rules you don't like at a convention, RPGA event, etc., then don't DM at those events.

 

[Minigiant]

I personally don't have an issue as I am an extreme flexible and inclusive DM.

But I've read things from people here, the WotC forums, and other forum who seem to be planning to exclude everything they don't like out of the game at the start. Now I don't know how much is serious nor if their views will remain by the time the game is released. I just question the sense of this if the game is intended to multieditional in style.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I kind of assumed they were going to be taking the GURPS approach. GURPS may be the most complicated, rules heavy RPG ever if you use all the rules. But your aren't supposed to do that. The GM and possibly the players pick the rules sets appropriate for their game, and that's all that gets used.

D&DN may be able to accommodate playstyles from all edition if it's designed really well and the designers are very lucky. I don't have much hope that they'll be able to accommodate all playstyles in the same game at once.

 

[El Mahdi]

Something just occurred to me.

I heard somewhere that one of the main goals of D&DN/5e is to allow gamers of the different editions to play together.

That is all fine for the players. If I want to make an AD&D style character, I simply do. If I want to create a 4th edition style character, I just build one.

But as a DM, how am I supposed to play with all these guys...

That's definitely one of the challenges that the designers need to deal with. Actually, it's likely one of the biggest challenges they'll need to address.

I don't think they've gotten to that aspect yet though. They seem to still be in the race/class/skills/multi-classing phase of the design.

But I think if they make a very good, consistent core system - with intuitive and compatible options for the different character styles - then it may end up being a lot easier than one might think. But it's defienitely going to take some very elegant and balanced design.

But I have faith they can pull it off.

 

[Alan Shutko]

But I've read things from people here, the Word forums, and other forum who seem to be planning to exclude everything they don't like out of the game at the start.

I exclude things, but it's not because I don't like them. It's because it doesn't fit with the feel of the particular game I want to run.

For example, when I get some free time I'm running a wizard academy game. Everyone will be young wizards at a specific place in a specific campaign world. Players won't have an option of being a druid, or a barbarian, or a gnomish thief. Just doesn't fit the campaign idea.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Sometimes in order for the group as a whole to have the most fun, people compromise.

That's life.

I want a dog. Joe wants a cat. We compromise and get a pig. Now neither of us is happy.

 

[howandwhy99]

I want a dog. Joe wants a cat. We compromise and get a pig. Now neither of us is happy.

Boy I love compromise.

(Strange they didn't get a cattdog though)

 

[catsclaw227]

I must be confused. I was under the impression that the new game will support the different play styles and "rulesets", but not necessarily at the same table. In other words, the rules will support a rules lite OD&D style game or a 3e style game or an AEUD style game. But when the DM sets the game he/she wants to play, they say let's play a rules lite game with vancian magic and at-wills, as well as 4e style defenses.

The players then build characters based upon those parameters.

Have I been misunderstanding the whole time?

 

[Kynn]

I must be confused. I was under the impression that the new game will support the different play styles and "rulesets", but not necessarily at the same table. In other words, the rules will support a rules lite OD&D style game or a 3e style game or an AEUD style game. But when the DM sets the game he/she wants to play, they say let's play a rules lite game with vancian magic and at-wills, as well as 4e style defenses.

The players then build characters based upon those parameters.

Have I been misunderstanding the whole time?

It's possible you have. The details we've been given have been very sparse and the rhetorical promises very broad.

They have made noises saying that, in effect, you could play an OD&D-style fighter at the same table as a 3e-style wizard and an AEDU-style cleric, in the same way (this is WotC's analogy, not mine) you can play a 4e PHB fighter at the same table as an Essentials slayer.

Presumably the DM could say "no AEDU at this table" but the promises from WotC indicate that there will be both player preference in character creation models, and DM preference as well.

How that makes any sense remains to be worked out -- it could be that they're blowing smoke right now, or it actually be very cool if they can deliver on their promises.

 

[Nytmare]

I really hope that this doesn't become one of the new doom cries of the upcoming edition.

They are trying to make something that is as accommodating as possible to as many players as possible, not singling out specific people and forcing them at gunpoint to not have fun.