D&D 5E Are you happy with D&D Next so far?

[Derren]

What, exactly, am I seeing here?

The reason why WotCs plan (if it is not just marketing) to unite all D&D players won't work.

 

[Campbell]

I'm wondering if by "narrative" you mean the same as what Campbell means by "narrative".

Here's an earlier post by Campbell that captures my own experience with 4e:


I think the comment about the need, if 4e is to work, for the participatns to remain focused on the fiction while they are engaging the combat mechanics, is correct. I think that many aspects of the game are designed to support this - both mechanical aspects, and story elements. But the support and integration is not as tight as, say, Burning Wheel (which is otherwise somewhat similar in linking narrativist play to mechanically intricate subsystems).

One feature of 4e that distinguishes it, I think, from 3E is that if you don't remainn focused on the underlying fiction, the combat resolution mechanics won't give you much of an alternative default fiction. This is because of their well-known non-simulationist character (eg encounter powers, scaling DCs etc). In my view, this is why, for those groups who aren't interested in or don't maintain that focus on the underlying fiction, the game plays (as it is often put) "like a board game". Whereas in 3E, even if you don't care about the stakes of what is going on in the fiction, the more-or-less simulationist mechanics themselves still deliver some sort of surface-level fiction about who went where and tried what and stabbed whom.

You pretty much have it. I do have one caveat: the measure of narrative control in an RPG is not binary. It is a continuum. The game I choose to run/play is based on how much I want to focus on the ongoing narrative of the game vs. how much discrete predefined details of the fiction matter to me. I'd place MRQ without liberal use of hero points and abstract downtime on one end of the scale and FATE games on the other end of the scale with 4e sitting in a comfortable middle.

I'm not really opposed to purist for system sim play. After all I play although wouldn't run GURPS from time to time. I just find that the sort of simulation engendered by D&D's tropes to not be very satisfying when deeply inspected. I like 4e and AD&D when assumptions of play sit in that middle ground. FantasyCraft is another game that occupies the same space although its narrative mechanics sit in different places than 4e.

 

[Bedrockgames]

While I have some complaints, i think they have done a good job of trying to appeal to players like myself (i can't speak for other groups of players). At first I was worried they would only be listening to people who love 4e. Now it looks like they are paying attention. It is clear they have a narrow channel to navigate and my sense is they are really trying to be better this time around about listening and not worsening divisions. Hopefully the next playtest document will continue in this direction. If not, it isn't a big deal. I do only plan to play next regulary if it meets my needs, but I won't feel insulted or denied just because their data moved them in a different direction. Chances are there will be things I like and things I don't.

 

[CasvalRemDeikun]

4e is my favorite edition. Does it do everything right? No. Could it use improvement? Absolutely. Is 5e providing that improvement? No. So, no, I'm not happy with the direction of 5e *at the moment*. Could this change as more plans and material are revealed, maybe, but looking at their design goals, I am doubtful.

This sums up my experience at the moment as well.

I do have hope, especially from the AMA from MM, but if WotC is unable to deliver on what he is saying, I won't be investing my usual $90-120 on it.

 

[Steely_Dan]

1) DDM is a derivative of D&D. First of 3E, then later of 4E.


2) As I said, there are plenty of threads about this stuff back in 2008. Go find those, find out about how these comments are denigrating, find out about how putting "IMO" on a statement does not make it less insulting, find out about how "it's not D&D" doesn't really mean anything, and then come back. We'll all be better off for it.

1) More like DDM was a derivative of 3rd Ed, and 4th Ed a derivative of DDM.


2) I'm already better off (now who's being "insulting", come on, let's not get hypocritical) for realising what I said above; and 2008 happened for a reason, I even started the 4th Ed Avengers.

 

[pemerton]

Wow.

One player dislikes 5E because it is too like 4E. Evidently 5E has too much of 4E "gamist" play . . .

The other player dislikes 5E because it is too like 3E. Evidently 5E goes too far in reversion to 3E.

What, exactly, am I seeing here? Edition wars moving to the trenches, with 5E as No Man's Land?

My feeling is that different people are responding to different features of 4e and of the playtest.

For those who don't like it, generally the most salient feature of its mechanics is that they are not process-simulation (ie they get the player to make decisions that don't correspond to decisions by the PC, and they have features/processes that don't model processes taking place in the gameworld). And D&Dnext still has some mechanics like this - Reaper, hit dice and fighter surges, for example.

For at least a certain subset of 4e players, what is most salient about its mechanics is the way they tightly integrate to make the encounter the focus of play, with tight scene framing (especially tight by traditional D&D standards), tight pacing and a high degree of player control over the way the situation unfolds. D&Dnext doesn't seem to have very much of this - there are no encounter powers or milestones, there are durations and other action resolution features that draw attention away from the encounter and into more traditional D&D "exploration", etc.

So those who didn't like 4e's techniques are still going to find some of those techniques in D&Dnext. But those who liked 4e's techniques for the particular play experience they produced may not find that experince replicated by D&Dnext.

My hope is that it will correct the caster vs. Fighter imbalance too readily apparent in 3e, and that it will avoid being as...weird...as 4e.

I think 4e is "weird" - noticeably different - compared to older versions of D&D. And I don't think it's just the emphasis on tactical combat - it's the way those mechanics work, and are so overt, and are expected to be taken up by the players in a blatant, even flagrant, fashion.

Interesting. I'd never looked at 4E in that light. I don't know that I fully agree, but I can see where you guys are coming from.

I don't know how many people look at 4e in the way I described. I know that Campbell and I aren't the only ones on ENworld.

(Also: [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION], caveats noted. For me, 4e is the right mix of gonzo fantasy and narrative play. Rolemaster is the right mix of gonzo fantasy and purist-for-system play, though over the years my group drifted RM in a narrativist direction. I like RQ, and admire it, but find it too mechanically austere for extended play. Once my 4e campaign finishes, I'm hoping my group will let me run Burning Wheel for something less gonzo and more overtly narrativist.)

 

[Gold Roger]

I want a game where I can gather some friends around, get characters done and run them through adventures in a variety of settings, often my homebrew, and see everyone having fun. All this without getting bogged down or hung up on system inherent matters I find problematic. Ideally characters are interesting and a coherent story can be recognized afterwards.

The playtest did this for me and the designer statements are encouraging.

So yes, I'm happy.

I guess I'm lucky I don't have a favorite edition to measure DDN up to.

I think people should remember that DnD is a group game. It shouldn't perfectly measure up to one persons or subgroups expectations, it should be enjoyable to as many people as possible, so groups are diverse and easily found. To me that's ten times more valuable than my personal gaming ideals.

 

[Fifth Element]

1) More like DDM was a derivative of 3rd Ed, and 4th Ed a derivative of DDM.

2) I'm already better off (now who's being "insulting", come on, let's not get hypocritical) for realising what I said above; and 2008 happened for a reason, I even started the 4th Ed Avengers.

1) The instructions for the revised DDM rules disagree with you. The design credits include "Based on the Original Game Design By" and "on the D&D 4th Edition Game Design By" lines, and then says "Based on the 4th Edition of the Dungeons & Dragons roleplaying game and inspired by earlier editions of the D&D RPG
and the D&D Miniatures Game."

2) 2008 did happen for a reason. My advice is to not dredge it up, since it's all been said before and doesn't need to be filling up 2012 threads as well. Your definition of insulting seems a little wonky as well. Presumably if I put "IMO" it would be all right?

But that's the last I'll say on the topic here.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

1) More like DDM was a derivative of 3rd Ed, and 4th Ed a derivative of DDM.

Didn't the mods ask you to stop doing this?

 

[Campbell]

I think an argument could be made that prior to Essentials 4e expects too much from players. When you wholly embrace the mechanics and their narrative underpinnings its a beautiful game, but 4e does not hold up well to shallow purely mechanical play. It shares this feature in common with Burning Wheel and to a lesser extent FantasyCraft. I'm still holding out hope that solid design time can be given to a module for more narrative play, but I'm not holding my breath. In the meantime I plan to pick up as much 4e Classic material as I can get my hands on.
[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] - I think RuneQuest's biggest strength is also its biggest weakness. It's bloody brutal combat system calls too you begging to be used. Sure, there's a good chance your character will die every time they take up their sword, but it's so much fun you don't care as much as you should. It also has the reverse of D&D's classic problem - warrior types are so much more engaging to play in a game that features even one combat encounter a session thanks to the fact that magic is mostly useful on the operational level (the most combat effective magic makes you better at weapon based combat*) and spell acquisition is by default tightly controlled on the setting level. It makes for a great Conan or Elric game, but doesn't work well for players who prefer magic user as protagonists or plentiful use of monsters. The game is designed for personal man to man combat and excels at it. The trade off being that fights with dragons, giants, and Cthulhu inspired horrors doesn't feel as natural as it does in D&D.

*The exception being highly advanced theists who are boss. Of course by the time divine magic reaches this level martially oriented PCs can do stuff like parry missile weapons with swords, knock enemies back several meters, fully parry great swords with short swords, run up walls, and make attacks that cannot be parried (all requiring spending resources of course).