D&D 5E "But Wizards Can Fly, Teleport and Turn People Into Frogs!"

[TwoSix]

Now it does seem the designer have backed away from that design with the clarification/rule adjustment in the Rule Compedium, but by that time I had dumped my books and am unlikely to develop a renewed interest in the game.

Their failure to defend their own design on their merits tells me not all of the designers were on board with some of the design decisions, or didn't think through the implications of what they designed.

Sometimes I wonder if the fact that the main designers have been playing since OD&D/AD&D is necessarily a strength. Someone with a stronger background in modern games (maybe their introduction to fantasy was Everquest!) might be more able to give a fresh set of eyes.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Their failure to defend their own design on their merits tells me not all of the designers were on board with some of the design decisions, or didn't think through the implications of what they designed.

Sometimes I wonder if the fact that the main designers have been playing since OD&D/AD&D is necessarily a strength. Someone with a stronger background in modern games (maybe their introduction to fantasy was Everquest!) might be more able to give a fresh set of eyes.

I really agree with this, in that whoever wrote 4e seems to have been a lot less knowledgeable and engaged than its more zealous fans, and in that fresh blood and an ability to think outside of the (very small) D&D box are really needed.

 

[billd91]

Their failure to defend their own design on their merits tells me not all of the designers were on board with some of the design decisions, or didn't think through the implications of what they designed.

Sometimes I wonder if the fact that the main designers have been playing since OD&D/AD&D is necessarily a strength. Someone with a stronger background in modern games (maybe their introduction to fantasy was Everquest!) might be more able to give a fresh set of eyes.

That depends on your design goal. Is the project designed to be a new game and new way to play? Is it to update a previous game with an established market? Is it something in between? There might be different answers for each of those goals and even if you find the right answer for each goal, the goal itself may not be right for the company.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I really agree with this, in that whoever wrote 4e seems to have been a lot less knowledgeable and engaged than its more zealous fans, and in that fresh blood and an ability to think outside of the (very small) D&D box are really needed.

For once we agree. If they really wanted to look for talent the people they'd be courting wouldn't be the crowd they've got there at the moment so far as I can tell - and neither Mearls nor Monte Cook would have been taken seriously. They'd probably try for Luke Crane (who is these days arguably as much of an expert on oD&D as there is, as well as writing Burning Wheel), Fred Hicks and Rob Donahugue (FATE/Spirit of the Century/FATE Core), Vincent Baker (Dogs in the Vineyard, Apocalypse World), possibly Cam Banks (Smallville, Leverage, Marvel Heroic Roleplaying) and Robin Laws (Feng Shui, Hillfolk, a lot of good guidance - and he's written for WotC before but his skills are more on the advice than the design/development side), and maybe Jason Morningstar (Fiasco). Those are all people who've developed innovative games that have significant followings without starting with the D&D name or much of a publishing house behind them before they started.

Of course the mandate is to "unite the editions" - and that's very much an inside the box thing. And for the record Heinsoo's post-D&D attempt at 13th Age is significantly less interesting than 4e.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

As soon as we start talking about the "believability" of martial abilities and what that should be "allowed" to represent, it becomes a "Fighters Can't Have Nice Things" argument. There's really no way around it.

Case in point: 2e PHB suggests modelling your Fighter after Hercules, among others. Hercules. Mr. Twelve Ridiculous Labours himself. Not all that mundane if you ask me. Granted, holding up planets and sundering mountains may not be for everyone, but this type of thing should be supported, by default, for those who do find it to their liking.

Now, you can try to balance the muggles by hindering spellcasters in some way, as was the case in AD&D, or by deciding to simply not care about caster vs. mundane balance in any way, as was the case in 3.x, but neither of those things feel all that satisfying to either camp in the end, and they don't work well for folks who like playing martial heroes.

D&DNext certainly isn't taking great strides to rein in caster power; reducing higher-level spell slots will help, but unless the gonzo power of some of the more problematic spells gets brought into line, while simultaneously giving mundanes something more than "Moar Damage! Rawr!", then this effort is doomed to fail as well. I, and most 4e players along with me, want half the classes to feel like they have more options than just hitting things with a stick, sharpened or otherwise.

The way things are headed, I won't be buying Next on launch. I'll read the final version, probably play a couple games, then wait until it supports a playstyle and breadth of options that I demand in a game. If that never comes (and I strongly feel that it won't), I have plenty of 4e to keep me busy for the next 50 years. If I'm still playing by that time, I'll consider myself lucky.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Of course the mandate is to "unite the editions" - and that's very much an inside the box thing.

Well, there's uniting the editions in the literal sense by trying to combine all their mechanics together.

And then there's trying to unite them by creating a game with completely new mechanics that still does what most of the D&D populace wants it to do. Without taking a dump on everything that came before it.

I guess they're going the previous route, but I could see fresh faces as being productive towards unification. Most of the existing figures are pretty divisive.

 

[Manbearcat]

For once we agree. If they really wanted to look for talent the people they'd be courting wouldn't be the crowd they've got there at the moment so far as I can tell - and neither Mearls nor Monte Cook would have been taken seriously. They'd probably try for Luke Crane (who is these days arguably as much of an expert on oD&D as there is, as well as writing Burning Wheel), Fred Hicks and Rob Donahugue (FATE/Spirit of the Century/FATE Core), Vincent Baker (Dogs in the Vineyard, Apocalypse World), possibly Cam Banks (Smallville, Leverage, Marvel Heroic Roleplaying) and Robin Laws (Feng Shui, Hillfolk, a lot of good guidance - and he's written for WotC before but his skills are more on the advice than the design/development side), and maybe Jason Morningstar (Fiasco). Those are all people who've developed innovative games that have significant followings without starting with the D&D name or much of a publishing house behind them before they started.

Of course the mandate is to "unite the editions" - and that's very much an inside the box thing. And for the record Heinsoo's post-D&D attempt at 13th Age is significantly less interesting than 4e.

100 % agree on all of those names and definitely agree on Heinsoo's 13th age being significantly less interesting than 4e. Its not bad but it was bandied about as a replacement for 4e. Unfortunately it lacks much of what made 4e great; hard-coded tactical depth (with clear fiat empowering players) combined with thematic depth, and clear focus within its mechanical resolution frameworks that require little to no arbitration/bargaining. The spirit is kinda, sorta there but there are key factors missing that make classic 4e gameplay difficult to reproduce within the ruleset. That will likely be the same legacy of 5e with regards to 4e (although the spirit won't really be there either).

 

[Bedrockgames]

For once we agree. If they really wanted to look for talent the people they'd be courting wouldn't be the crowd they've got there at the moment so far as I can tell - and neither Mearls nor Monte Cook would have been taken seriously. They'd probably try for Luke Crane (who is these days arguably as much of an expert on oD&D as there is, as well as writing Burning Wheel), Fred Hicks and Rob Donahugue (FATE/Spirit of the Century/FATE Core), Vincent Baker (Dogs in the Vineyard, Apocalypse World), possibly Cam Banks (Smallville, Leverage, Marvel Heroic Roleplaying) and Robin Laws (Feng Shui, Hillfolk, a lot of good guidance - and he's written for WotC before but his skills are more on the advice than the design/development side), and maybe Jason Morningstar (Fiasco). Those are all people who've developed innovative games that have significant followings without starting with the D&D name or much of a publishing house behind them before they started.

Of course the mandate is to "unite the editions" - and that's very much an inside the box thing. And for the record Heinsoo's post-D&D attempt at 13th Age is significantly less interesting than 4e.

At this point though, is it really D&D you are after? I don't mean that as an attack. I just mean guys like Laws, Morningstar, and Baker make games that are very non-D&D (not itself a good or bad thing). So this sounds like an argument that D&D ought to become something else. This list also strikes me as very narrative/storygame heavy, again not a bad thing on it's own, but I think most D&D players are not accustomed to or expecting that style of play with the game.

 

[Obryn]

At this point though, is it really D&D you are after? I don't mean that as an attack. I just mean guys like Laws, Morningstar, and Baker make games that are very non-D&D (not itself a good or bad thing). So this sounds like an argument that D&D ought to become something else. This list also strikes me as very narrative/storygame heavy, again not a bad thing on it's own, but I think most D&D players are not accustomed to or expecting that style of play with the game.

I think D&D is a genre at this point as much as anything else, with a few sacred cows sitting around it. And I'm confident a skilled group of designers could pull it off - making another fresh & innovative approach at D&D. Check out Dungeon World - it's very D&D despite the mechanical differences.

 

[Sunseeker]

At this point though, is it really D&D you are after? I don't mean that as an attack. I just mean guys like Laws, Morningstar, and Baker make games that are very non-D&D (not itself a good or bad thing). So this sounds like an argument that D&D ought to become something else. This list also strikes me as very narrative/storygame heavy, again not a bad thing on it's own, but I think most D&D players are not accustomed to or expecting that style of play with the game.

I am entirely unfamiliar with any of those people's works but I'd like to emphasize this point. I agree that in order to make D&D, you need people who are familiar with D&D, not just good RPGs in general. I'm certain that those folks could likely design a very good game, but I'm not sure they could design a very good D&D, which I think at this point is more than simply a layering a fluff on top of mechanics.

Wizards doesn't really have much of a choice in the fact that it's a big company backed by an even bigger company, and I don't believe that "smaller is better", it's a fallacy that comes up all too often in politics(my other specialty) when people assume that because something is smaller; it must be more efficient and it must be more grounded and true to it's roots.