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

[soulcatcher78]

I'm looking forward to this new edition. The only concern I have is how the different rules modules will fit together (i.e. can you have one player using the grid rules beside someone who doesn't see the need for the grid?) in actual play.

Guess we have to wait for the open playtest to really see but I'm looking forward to it.

 

[LordArchaon]

I think I have an argument-ender here, though i take no credit for it.
The version that was playtested, besides being pre-alpha, was also the "core" version. They stated that by "core", they don't mean much "the only official one", or "the only one you get to play without splatbooks". No, they said it's the "basic foundation" of what "basic D&D" is, and on top of which every play-style can be built. Now, it's more than logic that the core ought to be the simplest possible, hence the old-school feel. It's also more than logic that 4e is the farthest thing from a "basic D&D experience", not because of the fluff which is subjective, nor because of the different "feel" of mechanics, which again is subjective. It's just objectively more difficult to pick up: you have way more options at 1st level in 4e than you had at 4th in every other edition. As such, it's obvious that the "core" aka "basic" game, caters less to 4e than it does to other editions. That doesn't mean that the "4e module" (aka Tactical Combat) won't be on the very first Player's Handbook. What's more, you can be pretty sure we'll have it from the start, because as many others said, it's not in their interest to loose 4e players. True: players wanting to play 5e in the 4e style will have to tinker more with the rules. But that's exactly what they've been doing with 4e for the last 4 years. And again, those rules are going to be just as official and valid as the "basic"/"core" ones. They're going to be Core in the actual sense. As Mearls was quoted saying more or less, you'll be able to play your 4e-style character right at the side of a player who'll play a 1e-style one. They'll be balanced, it's just that the 4e one will have many more things to choose at each level, compared to the others.

 

[D'karr]

I'm a 4e fan, I make no mystery of that. It kept me in the game I like, which is DMing. I also like simplicity in games. 4e is not a simple game but it has a very simple core. I can understand how a solid core can be used to emulate a bunch of different effects and styles. 4e did this very well mechanically with the ad-hoc guidelines. In essence my style as DM was reinforced by the solid, simple rules at the "core" of the game.

When I saw the playtest and what we were to run, I was slightly apprehensive, but I took it in stride. I wanted to provide a very fun experience for my players. After running many tables I can honestly say I was exhausted, but content. There were many enthusiastic players after the games. I was organizing the seating at the tables and I'm sure there is a group of players that had a "nerdgasm" when at their table they got Monte as DM. A few minutes later they were joined by Bruce Cordell, Rob Schwalb and Miranda Horner. Then Steve Townsend strolled in looking for his table and he ended up at that one too. That was one crazy fun table. And by the way, the game played well - even with a large table like that.

After listening to the seminars, and speaking personally with some of the designers and hearing a lot of the comments from others as they sat with the playtesters, I'm optimistic.

What everyone saw at DDXP is a very "rough draft" of the game as it stood several weeks ago. This game is currently in almost a state of "pre-development", a pre-alpha release if you like. The comments from the playtesters are very important. Mike Mearls spent most days looking over them and collating them. Rob Schwalb was looking at them too when he wasn't engaged in seminars, or running the playtest. I honestly believe that the designers want to put out the best game they can. They are taking the input very seriously. This input will help guide them as they move forward with changes to what we have seen.

The OPEN playtest is scheduled for sometime in the spring, at this moment. I would expect many changes from now until then to solidify the "core" and experiment with some of the modularity. I'm sure that the comments from playtesters will impact what we see in OPEN playtest. And it is sure to be different than what we saw this weekend. I'm optimistic that what we see then will have a lot of elements that will appeal to all the different audiences.

So right now I'm optimistic, and exhausted.

 

[bss]

Just to play devil's advocate, it's wholly possible that they don't have the basic rules down. Therefore, "These are stuff we want to do/add" and "Here are our design goals" is all they got. Otherwise, the playtest didn't matter - if they did have all the basic rules nailed down, then feedback form the DDXP crowd woudln't have mattered.

I would be cool with this. They would just need to backpedal ever so slightly and say "alright, we demoed OSR, but we didn't intend for it to seep so deep into the core, we biffed the presentation a bit. Bear with us."

There was a tweet by one of the Wizards folks (Trevor?) which suggested the 4e support is there, it is just waiting for a different playtest cycle. In my opinion they need to make that very apparent soon.

 

[JohnRTroy]

I don't think it is a matter of being progressive. Progressive is not automatically equal to superior.

You basically said what I said. Neither progressive nor conservative are "right" or "wrong", both words have a neutral connotation. From Wikipedia.

Progressivism is an umbrella term for a political ideology advocating or favoring social, political, and economic reform or changes through the state

Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to preserve") is a political and social philosophy that promotes the maintenance of traditional institutions and supports, at the most, minimal and gradual change in society.

Replace politics and state with the D&D game

 

[Shemeska]

When someone asked what the might want to see back in the game for 5e, and one of the answers was "the Great Wheel", I was dancing. We'll see if it comes to pass, but if it does, it raises the spectre of having it and the PF cosmos to play around with. What a wonderful problem to have!