D&D 5E D&DN going down the wrong path for everyone.

[Jester David]

Ugh. Trotting out this old cliche again...

Listen people...you need to go out and play some Big Eyes, Small Mouths so you can finally understand what ACTUALLY playing an Anime character is like. Once you do that... maybe this lame-ass comparison with 4E will finally be put to rest.

Well before 4e was released the term "Wuxia" was commonly used to describe higher level 3e play, so there is a precedent for equating anime with D&D.

I have played Tri-Stat system games, and found the power level was quite variable given the different point buy options, so it is quite possible to play BESM and not have it feel cartoonish. Or you could slide it up and have everything crazy Wuxia.

4e didn't have a slider. There aren't even point buy options. And it took them a year to add something as simple as the "magic items optional" rule.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

And I honestly hope they don't. I'm happy being slightly fringe and having to kitbash my game out of modules and house rules. (That's what I'm doing right now anyway.)

But I believe it's easier to say "yes" than "no", and that it's easier to grant permission than take away.
So it's easier to have a game start with a semblance of verisimilitude and nods to physical limits and plausibility, but allowing DMs to say "forget the rules, you can do that." But to the limit of simplicity; the rules should stack on options needlessly just because it's easier to take them away.

And not surprisingly many of us totally disagree with you. The tone and genre of a game, as well as the agenda it supports, are baked in from the very core of a game, you can't 'add them on' later. This is why DDN simply cannot support 4e-like play and never will, unless it is significantly redesigned.

Absolutely. I agree with everything in that statement.
But with my philosophy described above, I think it's easier to start low (gritty-esque) and add until you get over-the-top. But it's also easier to add option to make the game even grittier by adding options like lasting wounds or greater limits limits (such as corruption from spells or spellcasting fatigue).

Well, it would be great if some people with significant public game designer creds would show up and pop this little misconception for you guys, because it IS one. Sure, you can make some minor changes to the way a game plays, sometimes with simpler games which rely heavily on a very few core things you could even change it a lot, but when you do its not the same game anymore AT ALL. In the case of DDN it can only be tweaked a fairly small amount. Your logic is just flawed. This will become quite apparent with the release of '5e' or whatever it gets called. Thus the "going down the wrong path" of the thread title. I understand this doesn't suite your desires and indicates that WotC really needs to not give you exactly what you want in order to succeed, but such is life.

 

[Jester David]

Just a pet peeve of mine, but *no* that's not the definition of insanity:

in·san·i·ty (inˈsanitē)
Noun
1. The state of being seriously mentally ill; madness.
2. Extreme foolishness or irrationality.

It's an adage, they're not expected to be accurate.
Yes, it's not the definition of insanity, but we have lots to fear other than fear itself, old dogs can learn new tricks just fine, and watched pots boil normally.

 

[Jester David]

Well, it would be great if some people with significant public game designer creds would show up and pop this little misconception for you guys, because it IS one. Sure, you can make some minor changes to the way a game plays, sometimes with simpler games which rely heavily on a very few core things you could even change it a lot, but when you do its not the same game anymore AT ALL. In the case of DDN it can only be tweaked a fairly small amount.

How about Mike Mearls? Because adding concepts to a simple core is the basis of 5th edition, and he (and the rest of the team) have some major design cred. They're saying it CAN be done.

A simple modular core that can be customized with multiple options is also the basis for GURPS, a game that's been around since 1986. Regardless if you're playing fantasy or powers it's still very much GURPS.

Your logic is just flawed. This will become quite apparent with the release of '5e' or whatever it gets called. Thus the "going down the wrong path" of the thread title. I understand this doesn't suite your desires and indicates that WotC really needs to not give you exactly what you want in order to succeed, but such is life.

They tried the alternative, where they focused on making the best game for the percieve majority (or largest minority) of players assuming the rest of players would follow along because it was D&D. And that didn't work. They have to cast a wider net.

D&D Next *might* fail. But not going in the direction of flexibility and multiple play styles *will* fail.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

How about Mike Mearls? Because adding concepts to a simple core is the basis of 5th edition, and he (and the rest of the team) have some major design cred. They're saying it CAN be done.

A simple modular core that can be customized with multiple options is also the basis for GURPS, a game that's been around since 1986. Regardless if you're playing fantasy or powers it's still very much GURPS.

But neither DDN nor GURPS does different styles of play beyond anything I stated. GURPS makes no real attempt to do different styles of play really. You can adjust the point cost of PCs and kind of tweak things a bit, but that's no different from starting playing AD&D at level 6. DDN, the entire thrust of the whole debate is its non-existent ability to do a style of game like 4e. We've explained how and why this is ad-nauseum. Again, Mike can come by and tell you how utterly difficult it would be, if not impossible. He's yet to suggest a way to make it possible and in all fairness all he could come here and do is say "no, if you want to make a game that does X, your entire game design should and must be focused on X". You can talk to any other RPG design experts you want, they'll tell you pretty much the same. This is why we don't believe the DDN party line of WotC.

They tried the alternative, where they focused on making the best game for the percieve majority (or largest minority) of players assuming the rest of players would follow along because it was D&D. And that didn't work. They have to cast a wider net.

D&D Next *might* fail. But not going in the direction of flexibility and multiple play styles *will* fail.

Then it WILL FAIL, that's all there is to it. Better to continue to make new and interesting games. Flailing on some dead horse is meaningless.

 

[Jester David]

But neither DDN nor GURPS does different styles of play beyond anything I stated. GURPS makes no real attempt to do different styles of play really. You can adjust the point cost of PCs and kind of tweak things a bit, but that's no different from starting playing AD&D at level 6. DDN, the entire thrust of the whole debate is its non-existent ability to do a style of game like 4e. We've explained how and why this is ad-nauseum. Again, Mike can come by and tell you how utterly difficult it would be, if not impossible. He's yet to suggest a way to make it possible and in all fairness all he could come here and do is say "no, if you want to make a game that does X, your entire game design should and must be focused on X". You can talk to any other RPG design experts you want, they'll tell you pretty much the same. This is why we don't believe the DDN party line of WotC.

Then it WILL FAIL, that's all there is to it. Better to continue to make new and interesting games. Flailing on some dead horse is meaningless.

Then... why are you still here?

If it's impossible and you're sure you're right then why argue about it and try and convince other people? Why play the part of cursed Cassandra forever speaking true prophecy only to be ignored when you could be anywhere else doing anything else?
Crying "doom" adds nothing productive to the discussion. It just sets everyone against each other.
Is it just to be there so you can say you were right?

I choose to believe D&D Next won't fail. Because the alternative is D&D the RPG being shelved and forgotten, the game going away for future generations, while Pathfinder reigns supreme and unchallenged.
While I like both Pathfinder and Paizo, I don't feel the hobby is well served by only having a single voice. And I will miss D&D.

While a game that has different play styles might be "impossible" I choose to believe it is merely improbably, something hard to do well. And nothing worth doing is easy.

 

[billd91]

Then... why are you still here?

Why... to get revenge for all of the nay-sayers who trashed 4e and never gave it a chance, of course.

At least, that's what cynicism would say. Of course, it's probably more likely the same reason people criticized 3e, 3.5e, 4e, PF continually despite the rolling on of years and dozens of threads - because we wanted to continue to participate in conversations that naturally covered a lot of ground, a lot of circular revisitations of old topics thanks to the messageboard medium, and because we can't let go of our own ideas.

Speaking of conversations we've had before: let's not play internet mind-reader and ascribe intentions to others. It doesn't help a conversation go anywhere productive. ~KM

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

And I honestly hope they don't. I'm happy being slightly fringe and having to kitbash my game out of modules and house rules. (That's what I'm doing right now anyway.)

I think you'd find that most DM's do that; it doesn't make you fringe or a special snowflake. I think they finally get this and thus have made a bunch of noise about "modularity," but as I and many others here have pointed out, that will only carry a DM so far. There are things about the chassis of 5e that, despite their PR about big tents, simply will not serve to deliver the gaming experience that some of us are after.

But I believe it's easier to say "yes" than "no", and that it's easier to grant permission than take away.
So it's easier to have a game start with a semblance of verisimilitude and nods to physical limits and plausibility, but allowing DMs to say "forget the rules, you can do that." But to the limit of simplicity; the rules should stack on options needlessly just because it's easier to take them away.

Do you realize the irony of what you're saying and how contradictory it is? Say "yes," unless it's something Jester Canuck doesn't want to see, in which case the default is "no."

So you pretty much made my point for me. If I want to run a certain kind of game, it would be much easier for me if that playstyle were supported out of the box, i.e. if the system says, "yes" without making me bend it forcibly and hacking it into the shape I want when there is already another edition of the game that will do what I want with less effort.

And your last point just completely misses the point. I don't want a game where I am forced to say, "forget the rules" to run the kind of game I want to run, because the game designers were afraid of some options offending the sensibilities of some gamers. That's why I buy games, because I want some rules that support my preferred playstyle, in addition to other playstyles, which I also like, campaign depending.

Absolutely. I agree with everything in that statement.
But with my philosophy described above, I think it's easier to start low (gritty-esque) and add until you get over-the-top. But it's also easier to add option to make the game even grittier by adding options like lasting wounds or greater limits limits (such as corruption from spells or spellcasting fatigue).

Your philosophy above was poorly articulated if that's what you were actually trying to say, because it came off a lot more like, "these are the rules, grounded in reality, if you want to do something beyond this, you're on your own; houserule away!"

I'm sure you can understand how that is a very unsatisfactory way to handle it. I'd prefer to start with legit rules as close to what I want as possible, and houserule when and only if necessary. That said, and I am reiterating my point above, I'd have a lot more houseruling to do with Next than 4th, so they have to give me a good reason to buy in, or I'm sorry, but it just isn't my system of choice; it's a poor chassis for running D&D in the style I prefer.

Then... why are you still here?

Because that's what this thread is about.

If it's impossible and you're sure you're right then why argue about it and try and convince other people? Why play the part of cursed Cassandra forever speaking true prophecy only to be ignored when you could be anywhere else doing anything else?
Crying "doom" adds nothing productive to the discussion. It just sets everyone against each other.
Is it just to be there so you can say you were right?

I can't speak for AA, but I'm here in the vain hope that WotC is still listening to the desires of a good portion of its current fanbase. It's not too late for them to make some systemic changes that will make a believer out of me again. It still won't be what I would prefer (4.5), but they still could make the chassis much more driftable into a style I prefer than their current iteration.

Saying that we're all just butthurt and crying doom out of bitterness is really not a very productive way to have a dialogue ( not to mention the borderline edition-warring tone you continue to use). It's pretty clear that you're just trying to silence any complainers because you want to believe that what they're producing will be the best thing ever, but you have to accept that for a lot of folks, it's not, and we have every right to complain about it in the hopes that someone will listen.

I choose to believe D&D Next won't fail. Because the alternative is D&D the RPG being shelved and forgotten, the game going away for future generations, while Pathfinder reigns supreme and unchallenged.
While I like both Pathfinder and Paizo, I don't feel the hobby is well served by only having a single voice. And I will miss D&D.

While a game that has different play styles might be "impossible" I choose to believe it is merely improbably, something hard to do well. And nothing worth doing is easy.

Right, and so far, looks like they're aiming for "easy," because for a non-trivial number of us, they aren't doing it well.

 

[Ratskinner]

The tone and genre of a game, as well as the agenda it supports, are baked in from the very core of a game, you can't 'add them on' later.

err... I think that's only partially true at best, at least when speaking of "a game" in broad terms. Games like FATE let you set tone and genre at the start of play, to a very wide and strong degree. I think what you say is more true of agenda, since this is much harder to do with games that take a less narrative/story-side stance to the rules, and that is part of playstyle agenda. Even so, many people played Old-school D&D with wide variety of agendas and stances. (Still do, in fact.) So, to some extent, creating a game that has a strong (or tightly focused) tone, genre, or agenda, must be a design decision, not an inherent limitation of game design.

This is why DDN simply cannot support 4e-like play and never will, unless it is significantly redesigned.

I think the problem there is that 4e's architecture is not very good at supporting a wide variety of tones and genres simultaneously. If 4e fans find that only 4e's structure can support their play, well then at least they've got 4e to fall back on, I guess. However, I don't see a way to start with that architecture and make it easily expandable to fit different playstyles. Since that's a big part of 5e's design goals, I don't see it happening. OTOH, the team may yet have something up their sleeves to recover some of that 4e feel for folks that want it. I think supporting 4e's tone is easily within the possibilities there, given what we've seen so far. (Some of 4e's other advantages....less so.)

 

[Jester David]

I think you'd find that most DM's do that; it doesn't make you fringe or a special snowflake. I think they finally get this and thus have made a bunch of noise about "modularity," but as I and many others here have pointed out, that will only carry a DM so far. There are things about the chassis of 5e that, despite their PR about big tents, simply will not serve to deliver the gaming experience that some of us are after.

Yes, I know most DM's do it. But what changes each DM makes is what varies and I have no delusions that the changes I've made to my game are changes the majority -or even a large minority- would make.
The game is NOT going to be what I want right out of the box. Period.
I will have to make changes. Period.
But I'm happy & confident the game will be designed around making it easy to make those changes and will have options provided that will make implementing those changes easy.

Do you realize the irony of what you're saying and how contradictory it is? Say "yes," unless it's something Jester Canuck doesn't want to see, in which case the default is "no."

That's not what I'm saying. In fact, it's close to the opposite of what I'm saying.

I know there are times I'm going to have to say "no, that option does not exist in my game." But I'm hoping the base game is simple enough that those times will be few and far between and I can say "yes, this option exists" much more often as well as "yes, that restriction doesn't exist".

So you pretty much made my point for me. If I want to run a certain kind of game, it would be much easier for me if that playstyle were supported out of the box, i.e. if the system says, "yes" without making me bend it forcibly and hacking it into the shape I want when there is already another edition of the game that will do what I want with less effort.

And your last point just completely misses the point. I don't want a game where I am forced to say, "forget the rules" to run the kind of game I want to run, because the game designers were afraid of some options offending the sensibilities of some gamers. That's why I buy games, because I want some rules that support my preferred playstyle, in addition to other playstyles, which I also like, campaign depending.

Whoa. Wait. Hold up.

After giving me the gears in a particularly hostile way about how I'm supposedly asking for the default to match my particular play style, you go and demand the same.
Why is it okay for you yet bad for me?