What I'm Advocating

[Campbell]

When I speak up about areas of D&D Next I find wanting I am not advocating that another play style needs to be marginalized. I am advocating that the base game should at least deliver the ability to play and run the game in the manner I would like to play/run it in. I just want the options to exist in the core rules to deliver a quality play experience. In an ideal world the game would be play style neutral and deliver the tools everyone is looking for.

• You would have a basic attack centered fighter sitting next to a mechanically interesting narratively empowered warblade.
• You would have the equivalent of an elementalist sorcerer sitting next to a wizard.
• You would have an inspirational leader sitting next to divine magic users.
• You would have a dial for starting hp/hp recovery.
• Conflict resolution rules sitting next to task resolution rules.
• A discussion of different play styles that doesn't assume one is the right one.
• Social conflict resolution sitting next to just talk it.

I'm not trying to invalidate anyone's play style I'm just advocating support for my preferences. Don't really see the issue here.

 

[DM Howard]

As far as it goes I pretty much agree with you. But interestingly enough it seems that your personal preferences seem to allow for many different play styles and preferences in of itself. It seems like you want the ability for people to play exactly what they want in the mechanical way that best suits them.

If that's what you are trying to get across, I am all for it, if not I'd love to hear some clarification on what you mean.

 

[Campbell]

As far as it goes I pretty much agree with you. But interestingly enough it seems that your personal preferences seem to allow for many different play styles and preferences in of itself. It seems like you want the ability for people to play exactly what they want in the mechanical way that best suits them.

If that's what you are trying to get across, I am all for it, if not I'd love to hear some clarification on what you mean.

Pretty much. I'm more selective at my table, but I believe that if we're going to coexist as a community we need to realize that preferences vary wildly from table to table, sometimes at the same table! We should not need the game to validate our preferences, especially in the big tent that D&D has historically been.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Agree in theory; in practice it will depend upon how it's implemented.

 

[Harlock]

When I speak up about areas of D&D Next I find wanting I am not advocating that another play style needs to be marginalized. I am advocating that the base game should at least deliver the ability to play and run the game in the manner I would like to play/run it in. I just want the options to exist in the core rules to deliver a quality play experience. In an ideal world the game would be play style neutral and deliver the tools everyone is looking for.

• You would have a basic attack centered fighter sitting next to a mechanically interesting narratively empowered warblade.
• You would have the equivalent of an elementalist sorcerer sitting next to a wizard.
• You would have an inspirational leader sitting next to divine magic users.
• You would have a dial for starting hp/hp recovery.
• Conflict resolution rules sitting next to task resolution rules.
• A discussion of different play styles that doesn't assume one is the right one.
• Social conflict resolution sitting next to just talk it.

I'm not trying to invalidate anyone's play style I'm just advocating support for my preferences. Don't really see the issue here.

I think it is an admirable goal. I just wonder at the size such a core rulebook would take. I don't think there is realistically a way to encompass all play styles in a single core rulebook. Hence, modules.

 

[Umbran]

I just want the options to exist in the core rules to deliver a quality play experience. In an ideal world the game would be play style neutral and deliver the tools everyone is looking for.

Here's the thing - the core must be finite in scope. As a practical matter, the core itself cannot be all things to all people, and we would be well-served to be realistic about that. My expectation is that the core is going to be pretty simple, all-in-all.

That's what the rules modules are about: adding to and altering the core so that the game overall can be more things to more people.

 

[Raith5]

Given the Practical Size Problem indicated in the above posts and the inherent complexity of deep modularity I just dont see how modularity can be developed in a way that satisfies the mechanics lite and mechanics heavy crowds (not to mention other gamer lines of preferences).

Why not "fork" the game have a more 'basic' stripped down game out sooner and then bring out the more complicated game later?

I am just not sure that the goal of modularity can be done in a way that can keep everyone happy. And keeping everyone happy is the point of modularity.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Here's the thing - the core must be finite in scope. As a practical matter, the core itself cannot be all things to all people, and we would be well-served to be realistic about that. My expectation is that the core is going to be pretty simple, all-in-all.

That's what the rules modules are about: adding to and altering the core so that the game overall can be more things to more people.

Well WOTC needs something to put in the dozens and dozens of splat books it's gonna print out over 5E's lifespan!

 

[jrowland]

I want the same thing. In fact, I want the flexibility at my own table!

I have run games where miniatures and round by round tactical combat lasted 4+ hours and was a blast, and some where I ditched the mat, so to speak, and hand-waved (light rolls) combat into a deeper RP experience. I know that sort of uncertainty brings a lot of trepidation to players who bounce from game to game, but for me, I usually have dedicated players who are all-in for whatever I have in store. (3.x game FWIW)

I have also ran multiple groups: both 4E but one more open-ended and rules light and one a series of epic combats with a very tenuous story. Both were fun for their own reasons.

In short, I want a system flexible enough to mix it up at the table with the same group as well as more consistent gaming expereinces with different groups. I know I ave just re-hashed how older editions allowed me to do that, but I think thats more a function of nearly 30 years of DMing than the system itself. I'm getting to old and crotchety with little time to do that sort of heavy lifting anymore.