D&D 5E Building a Hot Rod: What I miss most in D&D Next

[Enkhidu]

...Let me ask you guys, whose games apparently don't have the problems mine do -- Do your players think about your game between sessions? Is it a good thing if they do? What sort of things are they thinking about? What might we wish they were thinking about instead?

Some level of between session mechanical thinking is desired, I think. I want players thinking about their next level, cool spells, etc. But I don't want them thinking about it to the exclusion of other things, and would prefer to engage them with continued play. In the game I'm presently running, I've opted to use email to keep that engagement level high.

Some things I do (and based on player feedback they've been successful):

* Take care of "montage scene" material via email. Creating, researching, identifying, bardic lor-ing (ran out if "ings" there, I guess) - they are all taken care of away from the table if I can manage it.

* Dangle plot hooks away from the table, and encourage people to talk in between session. If you end while the PCs are in town, send the players messages over email (or wiki, or forum, or what-have you) that the characters are approached by a messenger / have a letter waiting for them / hit them with local news or events. One time, while the PCs came back to town after an adventure, we ended the session with them coming back to see that they had been levied a fine on their house while they were away. They talked about it all week.

* Ending on a cliffhanger - especially a "big reveal." That's been the thing which as worked the best, I think. It generates speculation, planning, etc.

 

[Radiating Gnome]

In reply to the OP, I can't see more tinkering options coming along anytime soon, I think its in testing for a whole other year, yet! I don't know about engaging between game sessions, but I get your point. Is it an option to keep playing your previous edition at the same time?

It's always an option, but dont misunderstand -- this isn't a big enough problem to send us back to 4th any time soon. My current group came together playing 3rd and 3.5, and loved it (I grew up playing AD&D -- the only edition I don't have much history with is 2nd). We playtested 4e and loved that for years. Now we're playtesting Next and enjoying that, by and large. They're very different versions, and they do different things well, but we have fun playing all of them.

-rg

 

[kerleth]

Hmm, I've had the opposite experience as the OP. As we've gone along I've found that even with this small amount of material I've got room to tweak (varying between packets). The thing is, it was always about creating a unique character concept.

A barbarian with the priest background and healing feats who was a tribal shaman?

How about a barbarian who has more of a tribal hunter thing going on, emphasizing dexterity, constitution, and exploration skills, and depending on his rage when he gets stuck in melee? Which scores should be where, should he be a masterful sneaker or a trapfinder, or a generalist?

A mountain dwarf rogue assassin with a battleaxe?

A human with four 14's, two 13's, and as broad a skill base as possible? I still can't do everything, so what do I leave out?


I think that the difference is that there isn't quite as much number crunching. The tweaking is more about how to get a character concept just right. Which direction you want your character to grow in, rather than how to get the best numbers. So far next seems poised to be more customizable and tweakable in my opinion. 4E was, in my opinion only, a huge disappointment here because the class and power structure could have been tweaked to be SUPER customizable. Instead they made each class very customizable(which was awesome), but it was hard to do your own unique thing (I'm looking at you wild elf rogue who's class powers won't work with the bow you are automatically proficient with). 3rd edition had some of the same problems at making a unique concept USEFUL. I predict and hope that Next will actually be a paradise of customizability and tweaking, without requiring a spreadsheet to do so.

 

[howandwhy99]

My understanding of the OP is whether the game will include built in Min/Maxing* for the players when they're not playing the game. It's understandable they will minimize their weaknesses and maximize their strengths when playing the game, but the metagame which is inherent to a lot of the more recent versions isn't necessary and actually detrimental to those who'd rather keep the game element out of character generation and advancement.



*Min/Maxing meaning the point buy game for raising and lowering relevant Ability Scores after the rolls were made and class and race options chosen.

 

[jrowland]

Jesus Built My Hotrod. That is all.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I think it's waaay to early to worry about missing min/maxing or customization. For instance the answer from Mearls about feats being equal to +1 to feats so people have a choice. It might worry me that those aren't in the game yet, but since there still isn't any release date, I am good.

Anyway, I love min/max/customization, but I think 3e/4e went a bit too far when it comes to min/maxing (4e mainly because of the magical items). I hope 5e goes more for customization than min/maxing. In other words, not a million splat books, but a good number.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I reckon if people enjoy tinkering, more power to them.

Totally agree.

I'm sorry to use your post as an example, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I see these kinda elitist opinions about what the real d&d experience is and I think that it is more that which takes from the game than all the tinkerers and powergamers.

Not elitist. Just a perspective derived heavily from older versions of the game which understandably and distinctly clashes with openly stated design goals of newer versions.

 

[Spatula]

The further the game gets away from the "build" mentality, the better, IMO. But I wouldn't worry too much about it, really. Feats and other player options are proven sellers, and it'll only be a matter of time before there are a zillion of them to comb through.

 

[Kobold Stew]

Hmm, I've had the opposite experience as the OP. As we've gone along I've found that even with this small amount of material I've got room to tweak (varying between packets). The thing is, it was always about creating a unique character concept.

Agree 100%: I am much more interested in playing around with developing robust and workable character concepts now than I was in the past two editions.

 

[Herobizkit]

I thought this was going to be a tie-in to the 5e Artificer. >:X

That said, more tinkering = more powerful and efficient characters = the more work the DM has to challenge players = players motivated to make even tougher characters.