Another Big Playtest Post from Michele Carter

[Imp]

Ugh, it looks like the "controller," "striker," etc. . . language is going to actually be in the PHB. Blech.

Oooh, I gotta second this... having game-designer jargon sitting out there in the open like this really hurts immersion. It's like sticking DPS stats in the weapon charts or something.

Well, we know these sort of aesthetic considerations aren't exactly this group's strength... hopefully it won't be too bad in the final product. It's gotta go through any number of edits, right?

 

[Grossout]

These tests are making it look more and more like what we are going to get is a fantasy tactical simulator. If I wanted to play wargames, I'd play wargames. I want to play D&D, and I want to not have to use miniatures, so it's looking less and less like I'll enjoy 4e.

QFT

I agree completely. But my plan is to try the game and houserule the heck out of it. If I like a tactical movement ability, I'll see if I can figure out a way to keep it. If it's cumbersome and slows the game down, I'll ignore it. The problem will be balancing the game when I start stripping character/monster abilities.

But I totally see what you're saying. I like the "adventure" part of D&D and everything that entails - battles being only a part of it, not whole point of the game. When a battle starts, I like it to be relatively quick, with only the simplest of tactics - sneak attack or charge?, fight or flight?, which weapon?, who's my target? That would about end the list of battle tactics if it were up to me. Now lets roll the dice and see what happens. But I'm definitely old school and in the minority.

 

[FadedC]

These tests are making it look more and more like what we are going to get is a fantasy tactical simulator. If I wanted to play wargames, I'd play wargames. I want to play D&D, and I want to not have to use miniatures, so it's looking less and less like I'll enjoy 4e.

3E already requires miniatures. I've seen some references to 4E supposedly reducing that requirement, although outside of simpler gameplay I haven't seen much in the way of examples of that.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

These tests are making it look more and more like what we are going to get is a fantasy tactical simulator.

Yes, and this is different from 3e how?

 

[JohnSnow]

Yes, and this is different from 3e how?

3e? Wasn't OD&D a spinoff supplement for Chainmail? So you could play fantasy characters in a wargaming system, IIRC...

So this is nothing new.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

These tests are making it look more and more like what we are going to get is a fantasy tactical simulator.

I can get behind this.

And it makes me VERY, VERY happy.

If I wanted to play an arcane, overly restrictive roleplaying game that was outmoded even when it came out, I'd play AD&D. If I wanted to play a really good roleplaying game that captured the flair and excitement of the source material, I'd play Spirit of the Century (and I do want to). If I wanted to play a Tactics/RPG with a heavy emphasis on action management, it looks like I'd play the new Traveler (and I do want to).

If I want to play a traditionally position-based Tactics/RPG with a fast, fun tactical engine that will make it run like a dream - right now I'd play a version of Star Wars Saga Edition with d20 Modern elements, since it's much better than 3.5 D&D, but with all these positional powers, 4e D&D may actually be EVEN BETTER.

And I do want to play that, too.

Different systems for different styles. It just plain works better.

EDIT:

3e? Wasn't OD&D a spinoff supplement for Chainmail? So you could play fantasy characters in a wargaming system, IIRC...

So this is nothing new.

QFT.

To me, this (along with the wealth of material produced for d20) has *always* been D&D's strongest suit. I played Basic D&D with minis, AD&D with minis, 3e with minis, 3.5 with minis, and various other d20 systems all with minis. I've played all of the above WITHOUT minis, too, and never enjoyed it as much.

By contrast, there are other systems in which I would never even consider using minis, such as Mutants and Masterminds, because they don't thrive as position-based Tactics/RPGs.

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

Yes, and this is different from 3e how?

Yes, that's pretty much my reaction. Once you take out the feats, rules, spells and monsters in 3e that deal entirely with the fantasy tactical combat simulator, there's not much left.

 

[Rechan]

I agree that D&D is basically a wargame.

However, it's also abstract about it. I mean, any game where you say "Okay you get 3 attacks, and then I get 3 attacks" is not pure simulation.

 

[Fifth Element]

Oooh, I gotta second this... having game-designer jargon sitting out there in the open like this really hurts immersion. It's like sticking DPS stats in the weapon charts or something.

The game books are full of things that hurt immersion, from that perspective. A rogue causes 1d6 extra damage on a sneak attack at 1st level - ugh, why do they need to spell that out, it really hurts immersion. Why can't they just say "some extra damage" and leave it at that?

And all this talk of levels everywhere in the books is just game-design terminology.

I'm all for dropping any pretense that it's not just a book full of game rules. If the designers designed a class to be a defender, I'd like to know that. Maybe I'll play it differently, but there's no reason whatsoever to keep design decisions behind the curtain, so to speak. Players can make better-informed choices with respect to the rules if they know as much about the rules as possible.

 

[Bishmon]

Disappointed to hear about the warlock. I guess I just don't see any reason why the class should be limited to drawing power from dark sources. Oh well, something to look forward to in 5e.

Otherwise, I liked most of what I read. I really enjoy reading Michele's writing.