D&D 5E 2/25/2013 L&L: This Week in D&D

[TwoSix]

I don't doubt that they are in for a challenge - that has never been disputed. But they stated their design goals right from the outset, and I will hold them to it. If they fail to deliver, then they have only themselves to blame. If they happen to deliver a game that I am interested in, even if they've failed in their goal, I might buy it. If they don't deliver a game I am interested in, then it means they've definitely failed, and I certainly won't buy it.

Yep. No one CHOSE for WotC to take on the near-impossible task of a reconciliation version of D&D other than WotC. My personal opinion is that they should put out more 4e stuff, republish the older versions, and get them consolidated into the DDI character builder. I'd pay extra for a DDI with a character builder version of 2e Skills and Powers, and the kits from the Complete Books.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

i think this is somewhat unreasonable and a bit harsh. Their design aims may have to adjust to facts on the ground. And they are just designing a game here.

How is that harsh? If they fail to meet the aim of creating a game that I, as a player of their game, want to play, then they've failed. What do you even mean by "adjust to facts on the ground"? I hope you don't mean what I think you mean by it...

i am not saying it is a two-sides issue, i am saying some preferences are in conflict with each other. I think the measure of its success or failure is how many players it can attract. If they produce a game that is less option rich but draws in more people than the previous edition, then I would call it a success.

And I would not, if it means they fail to capture the audience that the previous edition created.

I see no reason why the game can't be stretched in more than one direction simultaneously, even if not at the same table at the same time.

I think this is entirely reasonable. You should certainly advocate what you would like to see.

I will do so, so long as the environment here remains conducive to doing so, which historically, it hasn't. I can't be bothered with WotC's boards, they're even worse, usually. I do send feedback via their surveys, except for the last one, because I haven't had the patience to slog through the last packet. Things are moving further and further from a game I want to play, so I honestly can't be arsed to do it anymore. I may still fill in the survey just to complain about the direction things are going.

Yep. No one CHOSE for WotC to take on the near-impossible task of a reconciliation version of D&D other than WotC. My personal opinion is that they should put out more 4e stuff, republish the older versions, and get them consolidated into the DDI character builder. I'd pay extra for a DDI with a character builder version of 2e Skills and Powers, and the kits from the Complete Books.

I would much sooner see this, honestly, than Next, but I get that there is a better business case for a new edition. If they did go the route you (and I) suggest, they could even start producing *new* products for older editions, which I think would be fantastic.

They may end up doing that anyway, but we'll have to wait for Next to flop or get over its first run of option bloat before they go back to producing for older editions.

 

[TwoSix]

I would much sooner see this, honestly, than Next, but I get that there is a better business case for a new edition. If they did go the route you (and I) suggest, they could even start producing *new* products for older editions, which I think would be fantastic.

I'd argue that it's even a better business route. (Note: not a marketing or business person.) Right now, I don't see the Next playtest doing anything in the online communities other than generating a new round of edition carping and/or a fatalistic ennui. Heck, the Google+ group for D&D Next doesn't even have 500 members, and the Fate Core group has almost 1800.

I'm not saying we won't see an uptick in interest as we move onto 2014, the release gets closer and the playtests get more detailed. But can you imagine if WotC put out an announcement that they were releasing new supplements for every version of D&D, and DDI would be supporting them all? Our little gaming circles on the Internet would explode. And I'd say the one thing WotC really needs right now is positive buzz.

 

[Bedrockgames]

How is that harsh? If they fail to meet the aim of creating a game that I, as a player of their game, want to play, then they've failed. What do you even mean by "adjust to facts on the ground"? I hope you don't mean what I think you mean by it...

i think using yourself as the metric for whether or not they failed (and your oriignal phrasing) is what is harsh. The game probably wont be something I want to play either, but I wouldnt label that automatic failure. Whether I like it or not, what matters is how well received it is.

By adjust to facts dont he ground I mean they need to adapt to the feedback they get. They also need to adapt if their stated design goals create design issues. Design goals are important but you cant be a slave to them. You have to adjust as needed through playtest, feedback and observations at the table.

And I would not, if it means they fail to capture the audience that the previous edition created.
e.

I am not saying they should jettison 4E players. In my previous post I said they were neccessary. All I am saying is if they get more players than the prior edition that is a success in my book.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

i think using yourself as the metric for whether or not they failed (and your oriignal phrasing) is what is harsh. The game probably wont be something I want to play either, but I wouldnt label that automatic failure. Whether I like it or not, what matters is how well received it is.

If the stated aim is to support ALL playstyles, and provide OPTIONS which support that, regardless of your previous edition of choice (and this has been stated as the goal, unless they've changed their mind on that), and they then create a game that I don't want to play by choosing not to support a playstyle that a previous edition does support, then yes, they've failed to meet their stated aim. It's pretty simple.

It may be well-received, but still fail at their stated aim.

For the record, I'm not using myself exclusively as the metric by which the criteria for failure is judged, just an example, and the only one I can speak to. If they create a game that you don't want to play either, while there are previous editions that you do want to play, they have also failed.

Naturally I expect some outliers, and if they capture, say, the 95th, or even the 90th percentile - heck, given how fractured the community is - even the 80th percentile, they might not have failed completely, but to exclude those who like what 4e did for D&D is... foolish. And they will hit nowhere near even the 80th percentile with that in mind.

By adjust to facts dont he ground I mean they need to adapt to the feedback they get. They also need to adapt if their stated design goals create design issues. Design goals are important but you cant be a slave to them. You have to adjust as needed through playtest, feedback and observations at the table.

Have they done so? Have they changed the design goals? If so, I take back what I said. I don't think they have (officially) done so though.

I agree that they need to reconsider the implications of the design issues trying to please everyone will create. That's why right now we have a hodge-podge mess of a game that fails to please anyone but the group of people who will play the newest edition regardless.

I am not saying they should jettison 4E players. In my previous post I said they were neccessary. All I am saying is if they get more players than the prior edition that is a success in my book.

Granted, but success in your book, or my book, or financial success, doesn't mean they've met their goals of creating The One Edition To Bring Them All.

 

[Sunseeker]

Granted, but success in your book, or my book, or financial success, doesn't mean they've met their goals of creating The One Edition To Bring Them All.

And I don't just say this as a 4e player, but this is true. Certainly I hope WOTC's new edition is successful and by that I mean "getting lots of people to play it." I'm not wholly sure I care if they get AD&D, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and Pathfinder players to all come to the same table. I suspect that given their stated design goals, all of these players may be able to play DDN, but they won't be playing at the same table. We'll just have DDN 4e tables, ADDN tables, Pathfinder DDN tables, and none of them will overlap and actually connect these groups.

I don't mind there being seperate and distinct versions of D&D all being played right next door without needing nor wanting to share a table, I just wish WOTC would drop the rhetoric that everyone who doesn't play their latest shtick is doing it wrong....a lesson they clearly haven't learned over multiple editions.

 

[Bedrockgames]

If the stated aim is to support ALL playstyles, and provide OPTIONS which support that, regardless of your previous edition of choice (and this has been stated as the goal, unless they've changed their mind on that), and they then create a game that I don't want to play by choosing not to support a playstyle that a previous edition does support, then yes, they've failed to meet their stated aim. It's pretty simple.

It may be well-received, but still fail at their stated aim.

For the record, I'm not using myself exclusively as the metric by which the criteria for failure is judged, just an example, and the only one I can speak to. If they create a game that you don't want to play either, while there are previous editions that you do want to play, they have also failed.

Naturally I expect some outliers, and if they capture, say, the 95th, or even the 90th percentile - heck, given how fractured the community is - even the 80th percentile, they might not have failed completely, but to exclude those who like what 4e did for D&D is... foolish. And they will hit nowhere near even the 80th percentile with that in mind.

Their stated aim is to support all playstyles, but the point I am making is there is always going to be an argument from some quarter that their playstyle is not supported. And at the emd of the day, if they decide making a game that supports all platystyles is not feasible, they should change their design goals.

i am not saying they shouldn't appeal to the 4E playstyle. I am saying the game isn't going to appeal directly to anyone single group, they are trying to cast the broadest net possible, which means it is going to include 4E, 3E, 2e, 1E and basic elements. Doing so may drive some people like me or you away, but it wont drive everyone away.

Have they done so? Have they changed the design goals? If so, I take back what I said. I don't think they have (officially) done so though.

I dont know. i believe they may have to a degree. There does seem to be some adjustment to the language over the course of the playtest (though maybe my initial expectations were colored by misunderstanding). I think it is normal an good to do so. Design goals are great but rigid adherence to them at the expense of enjoyment at the table is not good. I think designers do need to re-evaluate their initial goals in light of feedback and testing.

I agree that they need to reconsider the implications of the design issues trying to please everyone will create. That's why right now we have a hodge-podge mess of a game that fails to please anyone but the group of people who will play the newest edition regardless.

i dont know that it has failed. I think the loudest people like me and you dont like it, but I also see lots of folks from different camps who say they like what they see.

Granted, but success in your book, or my book, or financial success, doesn't mean they've met their goals of creating The One Edition To Bring Them All.

Lets be realistic about that though. Their main goal is to make money, not to be meet some vague design goal. Their stated design goal could be more pr than anything else. They may well be operating under different goals behind the scenes (or simply use the one edition to bring them all as a simplified bullet point). Either way, they will never bring them all. That is literally an impossibility. What they can do is bring a lot of people back together. So I think if they do better this time than they did last time, that is a success. That is still a tall order though.

 

[Balesir]

I think not being so laser focused though is what has made D&D's appeal in the past so broad. It was a bit of a hodge podge and that allowed for different kinds of gamers to see what they wanted in it. I make games that are pretty focused. And I think there is a place for focused design in the hobby, but there is definitely a narrowing of your potential customer base as you narrow the design. So I am not sure such an approach is the best choice for a game trying to be be king of the hobby.

I don't entirely disagree with this - D&D was for a long time a game that you had to engineer a good deal for yourself, but that does make it kinda hard to give useful feedback and productive rules criticism.

To misquote Cecil B. DeMille. "for an fantasy adventure game, it's not a bad simulation, and, for a simulation, it's not a bad fantasy adventure game"...

 

[CAFRedblade]

The nice thing is the healing option in the base is good for general casual gameplay, 1hp/hour during rest, which in general means 6-8hp overnight which is good at low levels, but if you keep that as you go up, gets diminishing returns, (unless you scale it per level).

I can hopefully forsee a good chapter under advanced rules on Healing options, from faster recovery (near 4th ed style), to grittier recovery 1hp per day, or 1d4 per day rested or 1hp +con per day, min 1hp.
Me, I'm striving to find a balance on gritty, but not glacial hp recovery, perhaps with a combined wounds system for longer term injuries.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't entirely disagree with this - D&D was for a long time a game that you had to engineer a good deal for yourself, but that does make it kinda hard to give useful feedback and productive rules criticism.

To misquote Cecil B. DeMille. "for an fantasy adventure game, it's not a bad simulation, and, for a simulation, it's not a bad fantasy adventure game"...

The way I look at it is D&D is like a blockbuster movie. Its really not meant for critics but the public. And it isnt meant for one single demographic, but many. You cant hold it up to the same lens you might use to evaluate a historical drama or an highbrow indie flick.