The "Smell Test"

[Steely_Dan]

Smells like ... victory

Apocalypse Now - Smell of Napalm HD - YouTube

Thank you for that, my favourite character in the film, one of my other favourite scene is earlier when he's walking by and he sees the upset guy and chucks him on the shoulder and says "...cheer up, son..."

 

[Mercule]

I never understood what the big fundamental difference was between reading the book and imagining what will happen as opposed to...actually imagining what happens. Sure, acting in real time with other people is somewhat different; but D&D is all about imagining things.

In this case, it's because looking at the rules made me think "this could work" but it wasn't until I'd played the session that I was struck by "this really feels like D&D".

Any reason to go with such a complicated grading system?

Because I wanted to see whether the prior edition that most defines D&D to you has an impact on whether the play test felt right or if WotC had actually pulled off a unification.

So far, the results are generally in line with what I expected. It's heavily favored by those who define D&D based on AD&D, and split elsewhere. Right now, those to whom 4e == D&D are more positive than I expected. And the 3e/OGL crowd are, too (I expected a slant, just not as much as the AD&D group). The real surprise, though, is the lack of love from the BECMI players, which I almost didn't break out because I figured they'd parallel the AD&D group.

 

[Keldryn]

Well, I waffled a bit on whether I identified more with AD&D or BECMI, but ultimately gave the edge slightly to AD&D. There may not be enough votes for BECMI to get a good overall picture. For me, BECMI and AD&D are much closer in feel to one another than either is to 3e or 4e.

 

[El Mahdi]

I was really struck also by how much this just felt like D&D. Even though stripped down, it just felt brilliantly simple and very D&D'ish.

I know it will change a bit yet, and that there are parts that need to change, but I think they're off to a great start.

 

[Libramarian]

I chose "I identify with 1e/2e and it smells fishy" but it was pretty close.

It's not awful, but the problem is for just about every difference between DDN and AD&D I still like AD&D's way of handling it better.

I prefer roll-every-round group initiative to cyclical individual initiative.

I like rolling for encounter distance and charging.

I like randomly determining what opponent to attack in melee.

I vastly prefer AD&D's rules for spell disruption.

I like morale rules and XP for something besides killing monsters.

I'm not getting much of an AD&D vibe from it actually, but then I'm one of the crazy people who likes using all the rules when running AD&D.

I actually would say that, out of AD&D, Moldvay Basic, 3e and 4e, I'm seeing the least influence of AD&D as such.

At this point I highly doubt that I will end up preferring DDN to AD&D, but it could very well replace Basic D&D as the version I'm happiest to recommend to new players, which would be a fine result in itself.

 

[Keldryn]

I'm not getting much of an AD&D vibe from it actually, but then I'm one of the crazy people who likes using all the rules when running AD&D.

I actually would say that, out of AD&D, Moldvay Basic, 3e and 4e, I'm seeing the least influence of AD&D as such.

I can see that. I get an AD&D vibe from it much the same way that I get a BECMI vibe from it. However, I did tend to play AD&D more as Basic/Expert D&D with more races, classes, spells, and magic items than by-the-book. I like D&D to play quickly and without the rules getting in my way; both BECMI and AD&D let me do that much better than 3e or 4e.

It's not awful, but the problem is for just about every difference between DDN and AD&D I still like AD&D's way of handling it better.

The core of DDN is intended to be simpler and stripped-down; look at it as an modern recreation of Basic/Expert D&D. It is likely that we'll also see an "Old School" module to give it more of an AD&D feel: more random elements in general, class/race restrictions, weapon vs armor type adjustments, longer natural healing times, XP for treasure, easier spell disruption, no at-will magic, expensive & difficult magic item creation, etc.

The designers have talked about optional modules for tactical combat and more character customization options and I see no reason why there wouldn't be modules to emulate the feel of 1st Edition AD&D (especially considering that they're re-publishing the books). It would be pretty easy to add all of the things that you listed to the DDN playtest rules as they stand right now.

I prefer roll-every-round group initiative to cyclical individual initiative.

I like rolling for encounter distance and charging.

I much prefer the per-round group initiative as well. Primarily because it just tends to run faster, but also because everybody takes their turn at once instead of waiting. I like to run it in the "phased" style of Basic D&D, where you resolve ranged attacks, then movement, then melee, then magic in that order for each side. Segmented movement and casting times as written in AD&D 1e are too fiddly and time-consuming for my liking.

Rolling for encounter distance will probably be in the DDN core rules as one way of doing it; it wasn't needed for this particular playtest scenario, so it wasn't included. This was still present in 3.5. Given that some monsters have specific charging actions, I'm pretty sure that we'll see it as an option for PCs in the basic rules as well.

I like randomly determining what opponent to attack in melee.

I was doing this when I ran the playtest if I didn't have a good reason for the monster to attack a specific PC. I usually just made it part of the attack roll; if the d20 came up odd is was one PC, and if it came up even it was the other PC.

I like morale rules and XP for something besides killing monsters.

I'm certain that morale rules will at least be a modular options, as will different methods of rewarding XP. This playtest didn't specify anything other than monster XP, but that isn't an indication of how even the core game will work. I inevitably change XP as written in every version of D&D to be more quest- and achievement-based anyway.

At this point I highly doubt that I will end up preferring DDN to AD&D, but it could very well replace Basic D&D as the version I'm happiest to recommend to new players, which would be a fine result in itself.

I think it's quite likely that it will replace AD&D as my preferred version of D&D; I love the feel of AD&D and how quickly combats can be resolved, but it's hard for me to look past many of the clunky rules and arbitrary restrictions after years of playing the WotC incarnations of the game. Also, I find that I'm usually more enthusiastic about running an AD&D or Basic/Expert D&D game than are my players.

 

[Raith5]

Despite identifying with all editions at some point, I currently identify with 4th ed.

I voted for fishy but felt little bad for doing so. Essentially it is not really fair to criticise these PT rules for being incomplete, but the current game does not look especially exciting to me. But there are things that look good (themes/backgrounds), adv/dis and hopefully down the track the advances of 4th can filter in.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Can't really vote in the poll because I don't really identify with any version of D&D-- it isn't that I don't love D&D so much as, no matter which version of D&D I'm playing, I wish I were playing a different one-- but I'm sniffing the playtest right now and I'm thinking it smells pretty good.

It's clean and simple like BECMI, while still having a lot of the things I liked about 3.X and 4e. Even in this primitive state, it's clear that it has a lot of potential... and could very well be my favorite version of D&D to date.

 

[Li Shenron]

I prefer roll-every-round group initiative to cyclical individual initiative.

I like rolling for encounter distance and charging.

I like randomly determining what opponent to attack in melee.

I vastly prefer AD&D's rules for spell disruption.

I like morale rules and XP for something besides killing monsters.

Aren't all these possible variants/additions to 5e?

Roll-every-round initiative could well be added in the PHB as an alternative, I don't see much problem with that with the current 5e combat rules: fixed initiative means less rolling and slightly more predictable hence tactical combat, variable initiative means more randomness if you like that. They could definitely both have a place in the core rules.

All the others IMHO should not be forced on any gaming group (because if you don't particularly like what they add to the game, they become a waste of time), but they can all easily be turned into tiny additions or "modules" to 5e.

 

[CleverNickName]

Statistics are Fun!


Overall:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
34% of all voters identify with 4E.

28% of all voters identify with 3E.

23% of all voters identify with 1E/2E.

9% of all voters identify with BECMI.

3% of all voters identify with OD&D.

Of the 207 gamers who took the poll, only 25% think it smells fishy.


Fishiness By Edition:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Of the 71 people who identify with 4E, 43% think it smells fishy.

Of the 58 people who identify with 3E, 17% think it smells fishy.

Of the 48 people who identify with 1E/2E, 10% think it smells fishy.

Of the 19 people who identify with BECMI, 31% think it smells fishy.

Of the 6 people who identify with OD&D, 0% think it smells fishy.


Editions, Sorted by Fishiness:
------------------------------------------------------------------
(Most Fishy Votes > Fewest Fishy Votes)

4E > BECMI > 3E > 1E/2E > OD&D


Editions, Sorted by Participation:
------------------------------------------------------------------
(Most Playtesters > Fewest Playtesters)

4E > 3E > 1E/2E > BECM > OD&D



I think the data is interesting...and a bit surprising. I expected the players who identify with 4E to have the highest number of "fishy" votes, since 4E and the playtest are arguably the most different. But I'm surprised that the BECMI crowd is so fishy as well. I myself identify with BECMI, and (aside from the at-will spells and auto-damage fighter) I was really impressed at how NOT fishy the playtest was.

I also expected there to be a lot more playtesters who identified with 4E, since it is still the current edition in print. One in three isn't shabby, though.