D&D 5E Will there be such a game as D&D Next?

[pemerton]

I think what's toxic is the mixing of metagame mechanics with those that are not, creating the impression that the entire set of rules is on a metagame level.

I've seen you post this before, and it seems it may be one of the few points where I'm more of a "traditional" D&D-er than you! I think of hit points as the original mixing of ingame and metagame, and (as you know, and differently from you) I think it's a real achievement in 4e to have found a way of generalising this "D&D-ism" across broader parts of the game, without going quite as abstract as free-descriptor systems like HeroWars/Quest or MHRP, nor turning into something more like process-sim plus fate points (which could be a very crude characterisation of Burning Wheel).

 

[pemerton]

I would not propose Ad&D/3E plus bennies for a cinematic D&D module. I come from a savage worlds and cubicle 7 approach to this. I think the game would need to be stripped down and simplifies for cinematic to work. For me the measure would be can I run wuxia, raiders of the lost ark (albeit in a D&D setting) or 300 with this. More importantly does it feel like these movies when I am playing or just in hindsight (which is why I emphasize fast and simple).

If you're bored, Ratskinner and I had an exchange about this that's currently towards the end of the Warlord thread. TL;DR: I think that 4e is a pretty heavy system, and I think that limits its appeal.

 

[pemerton]

[/I]I don't assume that DDN's designers are neglecting my favorite classes or races because they haven't been mentioned or released yet.

The only classes I see mentioned frequently are martial classes - especially the warlord - and this is because they epitomise some distinctive features of 4e. I don't think anyone is especially worried that D&Dnext won't be able to do a psion, or cosmic sorcerer (but then again, maybe they are!).

It's core features of the system - resources, resolution - that seem to me to be under scrutiny in this thread at this stage.

I don't assume that DDN's designers are deliberately avoiding, neglecting, are alergic to, or have an aversion towards my edition.

<snip>

This: "...it's because the designers have become allergic to overtly metagame mecahnics in the wake of the significant hostility to such mechanics in 4e." is a statement saying that the designers (specifically Mike Mearls) have an anti-4E bias.

If you say so.

From my point of view, saying they have an anti-4e bias sounds like I'm imputing some sort of irrationality or self-servingness to them. Whereas I think the apparent aversion to metagame mechanics is completely reasonable, given the apparent market hostility to such mechanics. It also just tends to suggest that I may not like their game.

You said that those tweets were proof supporting the above statement.

No I didn't. I said they count as evidence in its favour. I've never claimed that it's proved - I, at least, haven't intercepted Mearls' secret memos!

 

[Bedrockgames]

You realize most action MOVIES don't resolve their big fights in 5-15 minutes right? Asking a board game with dice and 4-6 people trying to decide what goes on to move faster than a movie is asking for just a little much don't you think?

i dont think so, I was speaking quite generally. For me this is the ideal average for a cinematic style game. keep in mind I am talking about most of your discrete combats. In an action movie those are usually much faster than typical 3E or 4E combat. If I run a wuxia campaign for example, I might have an extended battle that lasts quite a while, but the individual elements of that battle (not to mention the smaller battles in between) should feel like they do in an action movie. Those tend to move quickly. In an action movie it doesnt take forever to get through three rounds of combat.

 

[Manbearcat]

If you say so.

From my point of view, saying they have an anti-4e bias sounds like I'm imputing some sort of irrationality or self-servingness to them. Whereas I think the apparent aversion to metagame mechanics is completely reasonable, given the apparent market hostility to such mechanics. It also just tends to suggest that I may not like their game.

No I didn't. I said they count as evidence in its favour. I've never claimed that it's proved - I, at least, haven't intercepted Mearls' secret memos!

I attempted to go through the various Legends and Lore and Q&A/Rules of Three articles archives to get specific quotes but someone at WotC had the truly brilliant idea to put floating "ghost beholders" all over the screen...because everyone loves popups! So lets make some that you actually can't remove! That will get more people to peruse our website!

Anyway, count me in as someone who senses this aversion to the metagame is obvious. Not outright hostility as was the case during the 2e era. But the aversion is pretty clear. The only true metagame mechanics that I've seen in the playtest are the author stance aspect of Backgrounds (my favorite part of the playtest) and a few martial dailies; 2 of which have been removed after they were lambasted. The only one remaining is Ace in the Hole but we shall see if that stays; basically a minor entrance into author stance to turn a roll into a 20. Its a good ability but its relatively tame with regards to its metagame implications. Its much more tame than something like CaGI or martial forced movement.

- We don't have encounter-based resources and the game has overtly moved from being encounter-based to adventure-based specifically to appeal to metagame neutrality.
- We don't have overt PC roles.
- We don't have overt monster roles.
- We don't have an out of combat conflict resolution mechanic.
- We don't have subjective DCs whose context for difficulty is abstractly (metagamed) framed within the scope of said conflict resolution.
- We don't have any director stance powers for martial classes.
- We have one author stance power (Ace in the Hole) for martial classes.
- We don't have action/hero/fate/plot points.
- We have removal of unified mechanics for the explicit purpose of making each class feel more organically their own rather than artificially gamey (fighters casting spells).
- Every time some aspect of the playtest/character resources lacks perfectly clear causal logic, it is ruminated upon on these boards and they address it verbally and either change it, clarify it, or remove it; this is mostly Fighter and Rogue abilities it seems (those classes whom the player-base is disinclined to allow to have metagame mechanics).
- We have them working from the fluff toward the mechanics rather than the outcome based design of mechanical (fun)ctionality and then skinning the fluff to the mechanics.

There is more than that but that is just off the top of my head. I'm a bit baffled how it could be conceived that this community specifically is not metagame averse - a large percentage of the userbase will overtly tell you that they are or they will imply it with every keystroke dedicated to outcry against martial forced movement and CaGI. I'm then baffled how it is not clear that this tone is not specifically the line that they are towing in their "design speak", and all of the iterations we have seen so far in the playtest.

Does any of this mean that 5e will be a poor game? No. Does any of this mean that 5e will not have metagame modules in the future (folks who are non-metagame/4e advocates have ruminated upon this, so clearly it isn't just us who see it) that support the above missing features? No. Does it mean that metagame mechanics are being avoided at the core of the game (and whatever modules we've seen introduced to the playtest thus far) and they are making a concerted effort to associate causal logic to all mundane features of the game? Absolutely. Clear and present.

 

[D'karr]

Anyway, count me in as someone who senses this aversion to the metagame is obvious. Not outright hostility as was the case during the 2e era. But the aversion is pretty clear.

I don't think there is any need to sense. At DDXP (last year), when they had the first open playtest, the designers Q&A/Seminar was pretty clear that they wanted to minimize the "overt" metagame aspects of the game. Rob Schwalb, Jeremy Crawford, Monte Cook, and Mike Mearls were all there and I remember both Rob Schwalb and Mike Mearls making specific comments about it.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Conversely, the alienation of people who prefer metagame mechanics, or people who prefer mechanics that the metagame focus enabled indirectly shouldn't be a suprise.

 

[Manbearcat]

I don't think there is any need to sense. At DDXP (last year), when they had the first open playtest, the designers Q&A/Seminar was pretty clear that they wanted to minimize the "overt" metagame aspects of the game. Rob Schwalb, Jeremy Crawford, Monte Cook, and Mike Mearls were all there and I remember both Rob Schwalb and Mike Mearls making specific comments about it.

I'll take your word for it mate. That would certainly make sense. If WotC wanted a metagame-intensive game then there was no reason for them to can 4e. If they wanted an "old-school" feel (specifically to court lost AD&D ardents), then they would need to distance themselves from the overt metagame friendliness (and slain sacred cows inherent to cosmology/fluff changes) that drove them off. Those would be the conversations I would be having at marketing and R&D meetings. They would have to speak to that in a public forum and make it clear.

 

[Garthanos]

- We don't have encounter-based resources and the game has overtly moved from being encounter-based to adventure-based specifically to appeal to metagame neutrality.

Encounter based resources ie things which recover on a short rest don't intrinsically imply meta-game, at all. And even making tricks hard to repeat in context for various reasons.... doesn't either. Its purely the level of abstraction and simplification involved.

 

[sheadunne]

Encounter based resources ie things which recover on a short rest don't intrinsically imply meta-game, at all. And even making tricks hard to repeat in context for various reasons.... doesn't either. Its purely the level of abstraction and simplification involved.

I can't, in my mind, justify encounter based resources. I've tried. I tried looking at it like, they know that trick now so I have to use another one, but it just doesn't feel right for me at the table. Daily resources sometimes have that effect for me as well, but I've had 30 years to get used to those. I suppose it would be less of an issue if encounter based resources weren't limited to one per an encounter, instead worked like daily resources and recharged with a short rest. (Which I mean you can use your powers x times/encounter total and you choose what to use each encounter.) At least then I wouldn't feel like I was being forced to do something that interfered with my immersion. Whether this is considered meta-game or not doesn't concern me, but if it breaks my immersion because I start asking those questions, then it's an issue for me.