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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5589404" data-attributes="member: 2067">Yeah, I'd agree, being upfront about what the design intentions are is a good thing. I'm not so sure that 3e or 4e are that upfront to those not stepped in the game like we are, but, yeah, it's good to tell people what your game is there for.Stories aren't emergent, though the events in them are. Stories come from three elements: Character, Conflict, and Resolution. Every game of D&D has this, every game of D&D has a story. What the characters are, what the conflict is, and what the resolution turns out to be are all in flux in a good game of D&D, but those elements do all exist, and so there is a story.There's no reason for D&D to support only one way to play. Mearls seems to acknowledge this in his statements that D&D groups play in different ways, and that D&D should be able to hit all of those ways of play. That doesn't mean it is limited to that. Part of the d20 System's success and ubiquity can be blamed on the fact that it let you do new things with D&D that you've always wanted to do, but never could before. That element is key, but it's not the only thing that D&D should be able to do. My 5e would embrace many different playstyles.I can see that, but I don't think there's a great choice. A game that's just about traipsing through faerie rings and talking to the little people would likely bomb (at least from WotC's perspective; I guess an itty bitty indy publisher could do fine on it). The elements need to mix for the game to offer something for everyone. Personally, I think that by paying attention to the combat system, and viewing how that core system of HP, limited-use abilities, LTR, AC, and Saves/Defenses works to engender an emotional state in the player can provide plenty of insight into how to do this in other areas of the game. Hmm... How does it do this in a way that, say, Axis and Allies, or World of Warcraft doesn't? The former is endlessly variable and strategically rewarding with people in the room next to you, the latter is endlessly variable and strategically rewarding with people over the internet (but still other people). If that's what you're looking for, what's unique about D&D in meeting it?Suffice it to say that I believe that games cannot fundamentally be passive experiences. If they're to be good, they're to be active experiences, which is going to require more than just listening to a DM tell his tale. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Personally, I think that's OK. I'd rather do something that hits in some areas, and misses in others, and then iterate on the parts that missed, rather than something that only tries one thing, and either succeeds or fails entirely on that narrow selection. This is part of why I'd iterate on 4e. 4e does many things pretty dang well (encounter powers and short rests are dang good ideas!), and those things I would keep. It does some things rather horribly (anything outside of combat, or short combats), and those things I would iterate on, develop more, and produce polished systems for. Yeah, a system that tries to "do it all" might end up not doing much very well. But given a strong starting point (4e) and a dedication to getting those other elements right, I'm pretty confident about the possibilities of a positive outcome. At least, more confident than I am about the ability of a team to produce a game about faerie rings and have it meet even modest sales goals. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification