D&D 5E (2014) Creative and innovation?

[DonAdam]

Creative in mechanics, classic in flavor.

 

[Obryn]

For me, creativity and innovation are means to an end, not an end in and of themselves.

Thus, I really don't care if they are creative and innovative. I care that the resulting game is fun to play. If that means same-old-same old (but good) mechanics, that's fine. If that means thinking outside the portable hole, that's good too.

It seems weird to disagree with this, but... Well...

I want new and innovative mechanics because mechanics influence and direct the flow of the game. If they weren't important, we wouldn't have multiple systems.

I also want the actual gameplay to bring entertainment over and beyond the narrative. I want it to be fun as a game in and of itself. Think Savage Worlds with all its bennies, playing cards, fun dice mechanic, etc.

But over and above, I want innovation because it has to do something new and better than the games I already have. Otherwise I don't see why I would want it.

-O

 

[TwoSix]

It seems weird to disagree with this, but... Well...

I want new and innovative mechanics because mechanics influence and direct the flow of the game. If they weren't important, we wouldn't have multiple systems.

I also want the actual gameplay to bring entertainment over and beyond the narrative. I want it to be fun as a game in and of itself. Think Savage Worlds with all its bennies, playing cards, fun dice mechanic, etc.

But over and above, I want innovation because it has to do something new and better than the games I already have. Otherwise I don't see why I would want it.

I agree with your disagreement. The boom in availability of retroclones/neoclones means I have an ample assortment of good games that are "D&D with a twist". I'd prefer something that distills D&D to a solid, singular essence, and then uses that framework to explore modules we've never thought of before.

 

[JamesonCourage]

On a scale of 1-10, I'd give it a 4 for innovation / creativity. But, it's not as important as how fun the game is, of course. Just my thoughts. As always, play what you like

 

[Umbran]

I want new and innovative mechanics because mechanics influence and direct the flow of the game. If they weren't important, we wouldn't have multiple systems.

Nobody said they weren't important. But "important" does not equal "must be new". If the desired flow of the game can be achieved with fairly well-known techniques, why reinvent the wheel?

I also note - you can get new flows of the game with old mechanics, combined in new ways. For example, take out alignment, and bolt a WoD-style morality system into the game instead. With different results for many stock D&D behaviors, the game would play much differently, though there's nothing really new there.

I also want the actual gameplay to bring entertainment over and beyond the narrative. I want it to be fun as a game in and of itself.

And for those who don't actually want to have to deal with game rules? What happens to them? Go a long way to bake the "fun and entertaining game" into the system, and you'll find many of those who are seeking immersion, which is broken by having to worry so much about the details of rules, get turned off. So, there's a choice there - go for one end, the other, or some compromise middle-ground?

And again, in order to be a fun game in and of itself, they must be new an innovative mechanics?

But over and above, I want innovation because it has to do something new and better than the games I already have. Otherwise I don't see why I would want it.

Well, it potentially can do things better than before, with modification and rearrangement of well-known mechanics. Sometimes, good engineering comes from retuning designs that are already proven in practice, rather than starting from the drawing board.

Not that I mind new and innovative either, mind you. I honestly don't care that much. But I think "it must be new" as a barrier to entry can be self-defeating. When the system is done, look at it, and see what it does. Don't worry about what bits are new and what aren't - see what it accomplishes, new or old.

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

Also, one of the big risks with too much innovation in an RPG is where do you stop? And by stop I mean the point at which you can publish a playable game.

Personally, I think there's been far too much tinkering with Next already. Swords & Wizardry as a base, three new mechanics (backgrounds, advantage/disadvantage and maybe exploration) and publish the bloody thing.

 

[Obryn]

Nobody said they weren't important. But "important" does not equal "must be new". If the desired flow of the game can be achieved with fairly well-known techniques, why reinvent the wheel?

And for those who don't actually want to have to deal with game rules? What happens to them? Go a long way to bake the "fun and entertaining game" into the system, and you'll find many of those who are seeking immersion, which is broken by having to worry so much about the details of rules, get turned off. So, there's a choice there - go for one end, the other, or some compromise middle-ground?

I'm talking about what I'm looking for, not what other people are looking for. It's possible for reasonable people to have different goals, and for those goals to be largely incompatible.

If you're asking, "what about immersion folks," I'm asking, "what about those of us who like a fun and robust metagame?" I'm talking about my preferences; it's their job to talk about theirs.

And again, in order to be a fun game in and of itself, they must be new an innovative mechanics?

No, it doesn't. But I want both.

-O

 

[Obryn]

Also, one of the big risks with too much innovation in an RPG is where do you stop? And by stop I mean the point at which you can publish a playable game.

Personally, I think there's been far too much tinkering with Next already. Swords & Wizardry as a base, three new mechanics (backgrounds, advantage/disadvantage and maybe exploration) and publish the bloody thing.

That would be fine, but I would not be interested in such a thing. Not even to buy into a starter set, which I'm likely in for with Next.

-O

 

[Scrivener of Doom]

That would be fine, but I would not be interested in such a thing. Not even to buy into a starter set, which I'm likely in for with Next.

-O

Don't get me wrong. I might not be interested in such a set either.

My point really is this: at some point the game has to be published. That's the goal, is it not? And, ideally, it should be complete and playable - unlike, say, Iron Heroes - and it needs to be fairly D&D-ish because this is about going back to 3E and casting around for a new version that is not 4E.

The goal is not innovation, per se, but there needs to be some innovation in order to achieve the goal. But there also can't be too much innovation because then you end up with 4E and that's not something that WotC wants. (After all, the edition is called Next rather than 5E because 5E automatically suggests that there was a 4E before it....)

My suggestion of S&W plus 3 new things is just a rough approximation of a baseline so this doesn't keep dragging out in the search for the next really innovative thing in gaming... which probably wouldn't be adopted anyway because of the risk that it would pose a la 4E.

 

[Li Shenron]

...have their changes thus far been innovative and creative? Do you want that?

These 2 are basically contrasting question, which one is asked in the poll?

Anyway, I don't care for innovation. 5e is going to have some, and what I've seen so far I liked, but I really don't care to change the rules just for the sake of changing. [MENTION=177]Umbran[/MENTION] has summarized my feeling perfectly.