Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Rhenny" data-source="post: 6167482" data-attributes="member: 18333">Over the past few days I've been reading the playtest package, reading the WotC boards, the ENWorld boards, the RPG.net boards and the Paizo boards, and I've been converting the PCs for my 12th level playtest adventure that is still in progress.  (yes, I am on vacation and have too much time on my hands).I'm getting a sense from what I've been reading that many more people (some who have been very negative about D&D Next up until now) are starting to share a little bit of optimism that the direction suggested from this playtest package (and some of the L&L articles) may start to draw more fans from different editions.Here's something I wrote in my WotC blog (warning, everything I wrote is completely from my own subjective experience reading the board posts, playing, and DMing the playtest packages):****Flexibility for Players and DMs with D&D Next (More thoughts after the August 2013 public playtest release)Can D&D Next really unite fans of different editions?   Many thought (and maybe still think) that this is impossible, but as the rules, classes and sub-classes develop, I’m beginning to see a ray of hope.With PC creation and development, I think I'm sensing (and I hope I'm sensing) that a power gamer can trick out his D&D Next PC, and play in the same party as a roleplayer who chooses options because they are cool not just optimal.   Both will enjoy the experience, and it won't be necessary to maximize a PC to contribute to the game.Another aspect that touches on flexibility in D&D Next is that it seems pretty easy for DMs to run sessions with 1, 2 or 3 players, and it doesn't really matter what the party composition.   No cleric...fine.   No fighter...fine.   No rogue...fine.   I dig it.   Furthermore, it is far easier to find fewer than 4 players to run a game than have to rely on 4 or more to be at each session. I kind of like the experience of playing without skills too.   It seems to free up my players to just try stuff and not worry too much about what skill they have.    In my experience without skills, my players make choices more directly because they understand how their PC would act given its attribute strengths and weaknesses, its class and its background.   I like it.  Not having skills also makes the game move a bit quicker because the players don't hunt for their skill to check if they can apply the bonus die or bonus to their rolls.   The best part about no skills is that it will be an option.   There will be a way to use skills if groups like them, and there will be a way to play without them.  Good stuff. Additionally, I think we will get to a point with Next where DMs will have complete control over combat length and difficulty thereby influencing playstyle and balance as well. So far in my games, I've been able to create adventures that have been completely different.   In one adventure, PCs went on for over 17 encounters before having to quit for the day (11 combat, 4 traps/puzzles, 2 interaction encounters - about 10 hours of gaming to complete).  In another part of one adventure the party went through only 4 combat encounters each of which took between 30 minutes to 1 hour (about 3 1/2 hours to complete), and they were spent.  The shorter combats foreground storytelling and the flow of the campaign while the longer combats become more tactical, and using both becomes a fantastic tool for the DM to infuse variety and excitement into adventures. I think D&DNext is very flexible....I like that very much, and I’m hoping that the flexibility will become the beacon that draws all fans from basic D&D through 4e.    <a href="http://community.wizards.com/rhenny/blog/2013/08/07/46._flexibilty_of_dd_next_and_the_power_to_unite_fans" target="_blank">http://community.wizards.com/rhenny/blog/2013/08/07/46._flexibilty_of_dd_next_and_the_power_to_unite_fans</a></blockquote>

Verification