Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jack Daniel" data-source="post: 5339479" data-attributes="member: 694">Consider this another vote for the notion of a tiered complexity system.&nbsp; The best thing that WotC could do, by far, for 5th edition is to have a relatively simple and free form &quot;basic&quot; game which can then be upgraded to an &quot;advanced&quot; game for hardcore players who want that added complexity.&nbsp; But, unlike how TSR kept both D&amp;D and AD&amp;D on the market as separate and mostly incompatible games, make the advanced game a mere extension of the basic game.&nbsp; In fact, I would love to see:1) A &quot;Basic&quot; game that comes in a box, and isn't crippleware.&nbsp; It should have everything you need to run a classic campaign (fighters/wizards/clerics/rogues, elves/dwarves/halflings/humans) to at least 5th level.2) An &quot;Expert&quot; game, possibly done up like the Essentials digest-sized paperbacks, which both takes the basic game to high levels (15th or 20th) and includes the traditional &quot;sub&quot; classes and races (gnomes, half-elves, half-orcs, and eladrin and drow I guess; and paladins, rangers, barbarians, druids, illusionists, assassins, bards, monks, warlords, and of course some new mage-that-isnt'-a-mage to carry on in the tradition of 3e sorcerers and 4e warlocks).3) The &quot;Advanced&quot; game, published as a set of traditional hardback books (although I certainly wouldn't lament the demise of the PHB/DMG/MMX model), for added complexity like tactical battles, more class and race and other character options, settings and adventure paths.&nbsp; Various options to create your own &quot;complete&quot; game with &quot;a rule for everything&quot; instead of ad hoc DM rulings.==========Beyond that, I think that it is incumbent on WotC to address the more obvious problems with 4e, the things that drive gamers away from it.&nbsp; It took years for the major 3e problems to emerge and be seen in the light of day; it was more like months for 4e.&nbsp; So... I guess it goes without saying, but a rigorous play-testing regimen is step zero.&nbsp; You can't just &quot;do the math&quot; and take your armchair analysis as proof that you've cooked up the best-ever version of D&amp;D.&nbsp; Mainly, 5e must at least fix the following:1) The grind.&nbsp; If combat is eating up the bulk of game session, you haven't designed and RPG, you've designed a wargame with RPG trappings.2) Combat equivalency.&nbsp; Because, again, combat is not the last word in tabletop fun, characters who aren't good at fighting should be viable options.&nbsp; If the game doesn't have something as basic and important and needed as a Craft skill, then once again, we've got a problem.3) The implied setting.&nbsp; This is more of a pet peeve than anything that will really put me off the inevitable 5th edition, but D&amp;D is the flagship RPG.&nbsp; It should therefore be the most generic fantasy RPG that it can be.&nbsp; 4e took a great many rules sacred cows and shot them in the head.&nbsp; Let's hope that 5e takes &quot;Points of Light World&quot; and shoots it in the head.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jack Daniel, post: 5339479, member: 694"] Consider this another vote for the notion of a tiered complexity system. The best thing that WotC could do, by far, for 5th edition is to have a relatively simple and free form "basic" game which can then be upgraded to an "advanced" game for hardcore players who want that added complexity. But, unlike how TSR kept both D&D and AD&D on the market as separate and mostly incompatible games, make the advanced game a mere extension of the basic game. In fact, I would love to see: 1) A "Basic" game that comes in a box, and isn't crippleware. It should have everything you need to run a classic campaign (fighters/wizards/clerics/rogues, elves/dwarves/halflings/humans) to at least 5th level. 2) An "Expert" game, possibly done up like the Essentials digest-sized paperbacks, which both takes the basic game to high levels (15th or 20th) and includes the traditional "sub" classes and races (gnomes, half-elves, half-orcs, and eladrin and drow I guess; and paladins, rangers, barbarians, druids, illusionists, assassins, bards, monks, warlords, and of course some new mage-that-isnt'-a-mage to carry on in the tradition of 3e sorcerers and 4e warlocks). 3) The "Advanced" game, published as a set of traditional hardback books (although I certainly wouldn't lament the demise of the PHB/DMG/MMX model), for added complexity like tactical battles, more class and race and other character options, settings and adventure paths. Various options to create your own "complete" game with "a rule for everything" instead of ad hoc DM rulings. ========== Beyond that, I think that it is incumbent on WotC to address the more obvious problems with 4e, the things that drive gamers away from it. It took years for the major 3e problems to emerge and be seen in the light of day; it was more like months for 4e. So... I guess it goes without saying, but a rigorous play-testing regimen is step zero. You can't just "do the math" and take your armchair analysis as proof that you've cooked up the best-ever version of D&D. Mainly, 5e must at least fix the following: 1) The grind. If combat is eating up the bulk of game session, you haven't designed and RPG, you've designed a wargame with RPG trappings. 2) Combat equivalency. Because, again, combat is not the last word in tabletop fun, characters who aren't good at fighting should be viable options. If the game doesn't have something as basic and important and needed as a Craft skill, then once again, we've got a problem. 3) The implied setting. This is more of a pet peeve than anything that will really put me off the inevitable 5th edition, but D&D is the flagship RPG. It should therefore be the most generic fantasy RPG that it can be. 4e took a great many rules sacred cows and shot them in the head. Let's hope that 5e takes "Points of Light World" and shoots [I]it [/I]in the head. [/QUOTE]

Verification