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

[Obryn]

my understanding is dungeon world, while it does indeed focus on dungeon crawls and similar D&D tropes is much more of a storygame rpg (i could be wrong as I am justbgoing by the positive reviews that describe it as such). If that is the case, I think it is something only a small portion of D&D players are looking for in the game.

It's pretty narrative, but I'd say it's also recognizable as a kind of D&D. That was my point, not that it's the best model for Next. And I think it might be a good idea to steal some mechanics or design sense from that.

-O

 

[Guest 85555]

Next is supposedly predicated on the idea of being inclusive of all playstyles. I'm not saying they have to 'cater' to that one exclusively, but I think you underestimate the amount of people who like the narrative element in D&D. I could just as easily say that a 'large number' of gamers DO have that expectation, and we'd thus both be on equally shaky ground unless we could call up some hard evidence to back up that point of view

it needs to be inclusive without driving people away. Not saying you are a small group just that there is also a size able group who react negatively to narrative mechanics.

So when you make claims like that, and insinuate that you are in touch with what 'the base' wants, I become immediately dubious. You certainly don't speak for me, or for my experience. Clearly that is not universal, but then neither is my experience, and I am not claiming otherwise.

i am not trying to speak for or marginalize you.

That said, if I find Next unsatisfying or supportive of my chosen playstyle, then they've lost me as a potential customer, and failed in their mission.

Another point and form of 'othering' that goes on a lot, is the faux-inclusive type where folks can agree that the other side's preference can appear in Next, but only if segregated, walled off, and clearly marked as 'optional,' which is quite frankly insulting.

people have honest disagreements over play style.the reason for having things like this appear as modular add in options is if you imbed them in the core it will drive away people who dislike narrative mechanics. The same way hit location tables, disease trackers, etc will drive away other types of players. It is easier to add these in then take them out (if you look at how 2E did this I think it could be quite workable). The problem is people want to play a different game from one another. Blending together a bunch of different mechanics into a single system, at this point , will just make everyone unhappy.

Perhaps it's acceptable to those who put it forward because that way there is something they can point to as 'bad' and the fact that it's 'optional' only serves to reinforce that idea in their minds, but it certainly doesn't foster any idea of inclusivity in the ruleset (an oft-stated aim, which so far they are failing at).

I think if you include narrative mechanics, 'gamey' and 'simulation' mechanics as optional rules that are easily ported into the core, that is inclusive. I don't think inclusivity that means forcing our style of play on everyone is going to work (people just have too many alternative games to go to now). Personally I want narrative mechanics optional

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

it needs to be inclusive without driving people away. Not saying you are a small group just that there is also a size able group who react negatively to narrative mechanics.

Actually, you have said this. Many times. In this thread.

i am not trying to speak for or marginalize you.

Fair enough.

people have honest disagreements over play style.the reason for having things like this appear as modular add in options is if you imbed them in the core it will drive away people who dislike narrative mechanics.

Right. And the opposites are also true. If Next comes with baked-in process sim mechanics, I may not ever even try it. I'll still read it, though I sure as heck won't buy it.

The same way hit location tables, disease trackers, etc will drive away other types of players. It is easier to add these in then take them out (if you look at how 2E did this I think it could be quite workable). The problem is people want to play a different game from one another. Blending together a bunch of different mechanics into a single system, at this point , will just make everyone unhappy.

Yes, and I've said this all along. I was plugging for a 2e-style basic game with everything marked as 'optional' or 'tournament', etc, last year at this time, but I was more often than not met with angry posts from decidedly unreasonable folks who didn't even want to accept anything 4e-styled in the core books at all - optional or not.

And so, instead, we are getting what you describe - a bunch of stuff that just makes everyone unhappy.

I think if you include narrative mechanics, 'gamey' and 'simulation' mechanics as optional rules that are easily ported into the core, that is inclusive. I don't think inclusivity that means forcing our style of play on everyone is going to work (people just have too many alternative games to go to now). Personally I want narrative mechanics optional

And I want process-sim mechanics optional, personally.

That's why I am saying that Next is heading for Failsville, full steam ahead. It's shaping up to be a big, nasty mess and doesn't give any group what they're after (at least not the ones with a distinct preference).

 

[Manbearcat]

Yes, and I've said this all along. I was plugging for a 2e-style basic game with everything marked as 'optional' or 'tournament', etc, last year at this time, but I was more often than not met with angry posts from decidedly unreasonable folks who didn't even want to accept anything 4e-styled in the core books at all - optional or not.

And so, instead, we are getting what you describe - a bunch of stuff that just makes everyone unhappy.

I have little to add to your exchange but I do want to say one thing on this. I think people are reading the various playtest materials and making the assumption that with each new release we are seeing an evolution of the core game. I don't think that is true at all. I suspect the core is much closer to the initial release and each packet will have various baked-in tweaks, plugs, turned dials that are not default/basic play. They just aren't broken out and delineated as such so it is assumed that we're seeing core material proliferate and evolve as the playtest goes on.

That being said, a great number of the baked-in tweaks, plugs, turned dials are not particularly conducive to the narrative/gamist hybrid (with its own specific nuances within that framework) that creates a 4e game. Further still, some of the default assumptions of the design framework are outright antagonistic to the means and ends of a successful 4e game. It would be nice if we could have a clearly delineated core and then specific modules that support, and outright promote, 4e play. However, outside of backgrounds, we have yet to see such things.

Carry on.

 

[n00bdragon]

I have little to add to your exchange but I do want to say one thing on this. I think people are reading the various playtest materials and making the assumption that with each new release we are seeing an evolution of the core game. I don't think that is true at all. I suspect the core is much closer to the initial release and each packet will have various baked-in tweaks, plugs, turned dials that are not default/basic play. They just aren't broken out and delineated as such so it is assumed that we're seeing core material proliferate and evolve as the playtest goes on.

Fair enough, that means that one of two things MUST be true:
- WotC is doing an extremely poor job communicating where all this modularity is eventually going to come in. They have promised us tinker toys but I'll be damned if a single person can spot the holes or the pegs.
- There is actually no modularity (yet perhaps) and everything thus far is non-optional.

Either way there is a serious problem here and people are right to be vocal about it.

 

[Manbearcat]

- WotC is doing an extremely poor job communicating

What are the odds???

To be fair to them though, I think they are trying. I'm just not sure how "well" its going for them and I'm not sure how easy that job is with the static:noise ratio on the internet. Its like one giant attention deficit disorder machine and made worse by entrenched tribalism, cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias. I don't know how many times we've all had conversations on the exact same issues and the needle of understanding has moved nary an inch.

 

[Balesir]

So, that said, posts containing things like, 'most gamers,' 'many of us,' and, 'the majority of,' are, to my eyes, basically unhelpful at best and blatantly misleading at worst, unless you happen to have any hard stats to back them up (and even then, their origin should rightfully be questioned).

It's a fun coincidence that, this morning, for my Experimental Economics class, I was reading papers giving evidence of the "standard" biases that are very common in "economic agents" (i.e., people). One of these is that we tend to vastly overestimate how many people share our views and tastes. I view all comments on internet fora through a lens that compensates for this, and recommend everyone else to do so, as well.

Perhaps it's acceptable to those who put it forward because that way there is something they can point to as 'bad' and the fact that it's 'optional' only serves to reinforce that idea in their minds, but it certainly doesn't foster any idea of inclusivity in the ruleset (an oft-stated aim, which so far they are failing at).

Oh, hey - I have an idea! Make all the systems "modules"! The complete opposite of 4e - nothing is core!

 

[Ahnehnois]

It's a fun coincidence that, this morning, for my Experimental Economics class, I was reading papers giving evidence of the "standard" biases that are very common in "economic agents" (i.e., people). One of these is that we tend to vastly overestimate how many people share our views and tastes. I view all comments on internet fora through a lens that compensates for this, and recommend everyone else to do so, as well.

Did you miss the post a few pages back where I was informed that most D&D games are "basically the same" according to "industry insiders"? And that reading these boards would lead one to vastly overestimate the differences between games?

 

[Ratskinner]

my understanding is dungeon world, while it does indeed focus on dungeon crawls and similar D&D tropes is much more of a storygame rpg (i could be wrong as I am justbgoing by the positive reviews that describe it as such). If that is the case, I think it is something only a small portion of D&D players are looking for in the game.

It has storygame-ish mechanics, but those mechanics are pretty much hard-coded to produce an Old-School D&D-ish story. It is certainly not as open-ended as other prominent story-centered games like FATE or BW. Its highly variable whether or not that actually trips any given individual's "this feels like D&D" button.

 

[Ratskinner]

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.

I would add Old School Hack. Its even lighter than Dungeon World, and much closer to traditional D&D mechanics (but still very different).