After DDXP, how are you feeling about D&En?

[SlyDoubt]

I find it kind of odd people are complaining about feat taxes because they want to make the game into 4E...

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Anyone too married to their current system and play style, is going to be disappointed. I would include myself in that particular demographic.

Sure, but if someone is happily married to their current system and play style, why would they want to switch, anyway, short of getting something different?

 

[FireLance]

What the hell did they threaten you people with???

My guess: weasel molestation.

Since I'm currently reading through A Clash of Kings, that creates a bad, bad image.

 

[gyor]

So far some stuff sounds really cool, but it also sounds like they are a lot less done then I thought. I think many people had thought that it was already done and all that was left was tweaking things, that the playtest is a marketing ploy, but it sounds way more genuine and far less finished then I expected.

Which means the playtests are really important after all.

I will say I believe those that played, played with a vary skeltonal game, many rules and feature may have been held back, including basic core stuff. I have a feeling you were given just the bare bones, most basic stuff, I'm betting thier will be alot more customizablity in the core books.

 

[Raith5]

My first impression is, we already have this game on our shelves (or in my case, a cardboard box in the crawl space). Its pages are a bit yellower from age, and I might have some difficulty finding my bundle of house rules, but it is the same game. When I played this "next" iteration, it felt like I was playing AD&D with a bunch of house rules, and since those house rules are coming from the house of WoTC, we're just calling them rules. I don't really see the point....

I would have much rather seen them go forward, rather than this whole zen approach of starting from basic D&D, and building up again, to rediscover the game of Dungeons and Dragons. It seems like a whole lot of work to give us something we already have. Yes most of our rules were hand written and in binders, but they were exactly how we wanted them to be. And we've moved on (well... admittedly, some of us haven't).

Interesting. This observation reinforces my view that WOTC wildly overestimates the value of a unified game/hobby. When I am playing, i dont say to myself gee this is so much fun because other people are playing this version too. It is fun because the rules and supplements/adventures enable me to have a shared experience with the people at my table where our ideas of fun coexist.

I guess WOTC overestimated the value and the ease of getting the WOW market in the case of 4th ed, now they are overestimating the value of a unified hobby.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Yeah, not a big fan of this type of thing.

The articulate intelligent player gets "advantage" nearly every session. The shy introverted player doesn't.

I understand that some people will say, "Well, this might pull the shy person out of his shell", but that's not really the job of the game mechanics. I'm not too keen on game mechanics that give advantages to some individual players and not to others. I prefer a more equitable system and have a strong fairness streak in me.

I also am a fan of "let the dice fall the way they fall" and am not into Karma systems.

Frankly, regardless of how the rules are built, more assertive and more innovative players will always have huge advantages in rpgs. Balancing the fighter and the barbarian is the game designers' job, but balancing the people at the table is the individual DM's job.

In any case, the "advantage" idea isn't terribly different from most circumstance modifiers. Your Bluff check result is affected by how plausible of a lie you told. That really makes sense. The converse doesn't. I think a mechanic that rewards ambition and skill is good design (much better than punishing those who don't).

 

[Reynard]

I find it interesting that it seems -- from an admittedly small sampling -- that big fans of 4E are the ones who did not particularly like or feel optimistic after the actual playtest.

At the risk of sounding like I am edition warring (I'm not, honest) this gives me some hope.

 

[KarinsDad]

Frankly, regardless of how the rules are built, more assertive and more innovative players will always have huge advantages in rpgs. Balancing the fighter and the barbarian is the game designers' job, but balancing the people at the table is the individual DM's job.

Odd phrase that. "Balancing the people". I might phrase that "being equitable and consistently fair and unbiased to each player at the table".

In any case, the "advantage" idea isn't terribly different from most circumstance modifiers. Your Bluff check result is affected by how plausible of a lie you told. That really makes sense. The converse doesn't. I think a mechanic that rewards ambition and skill is good design (much better than punishing those who don't).

It won't be bad if it is an immediate circumstance modifier. Course, I'm not sure how that would be different than how DMs have handled this since RPGs came out. I won't like it if it is similar to an action point (i.e. I have one of these "bonus" karma points that I can play later on).

 

[Savage Wombat]

I want to hear more about Monica Belucci's lingerie, and less about molesting weasels.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Odd phrase that. "Balancing the people". I might phrase that "being equitable and consistently fair and unbiased to each player at the table".

Just trying to turn a phrase. Managing the people at the table and their interests and skilld is probably more what I'm getting at.