innerdude
Legend
This may not immediately seem like a "D&D Next" specific thread, but hear me out.
The question I have is, based solely on a "read through," what RPG system most closely delivers the "play experience" outlined in its core rules?
For example, for me, of all the systems I've actually read through and played, Savage Worlds wins this competition. You may not like the system. You may not like what it delivers. But there's no question that for me at least, the game "experience" I envisioned while reading the Savage Worlds rules is very, very similar to the way it plays at the table. It's fast, it's a little bit kinetic, a little bit swingy with exploding dice, and a little bit pulpy. And you just feel as you read through the rules that that's exactly what is going to happen, and that it's intentional.
(I haven't played either system yet, but as a side note, Fantasy Craft also presents for me a fairly clear picture of the type of game that playing its RAW will produce, as does Radiance RPG).
And call me crazy, but I think it's extremely important, even critical to D&D Next's success, that the type of game it delivers is infinitely clear within its pages. Obviously there's going to be variances from group to group. Everyone's going to have their own ideas of what the most important elements are to focus on.
But if D&D Next is going to reach high levels of success, I think it needs to "play the way it reads." When I get done reading the D&D Next PHB, I should be able to say, "Yeah, this is going to produce a game with qualities X, Y, and Z" and even have some idea of which mechanics have that effect.
Why is this important? Mostly because WotC needs some good will. They need some "win" in the early going to gain traction. They need to do it to show customers that they're listening, and want to give them the best gameplay experience they can. If D&D Next has a particular playstyle in mind, TELL US and let us decide if that's what we want.
The other reason I think this is necessary? Because it displays a confidence in the material, in the preparation it took to create the material, and confidence in the material's ability to deliver on the promise. It became very, very clear after the first 5-6 months after 4e's release that WotC really didn't know what they building. Yeah, they had the PHB2 and the "X Power" splats in the works. But I never had the sense that they truly had confidence in the product until the release of Essentials.
To be sure, I hate the basic Essentials presentation. I don't like the smaller format, and I really dislike the art. But having read through both "Heroes" Essentials books, there's a very subtle but clear shift in tone that this is finally a product that is understood. The creators understand what they've built, and there's purposeful reasons for the changes outlined in the pages.
If D&D Next can encompass that level of purposefulness in its initial release, I'll feel a lot more confidant about the product line going forward.
The question I have is, based solely on a "read through," what RPG system most closely delivers the "play experience" outlined in its core rules?
For example, for me, of all the systems I've actually read through and played, Savage Worlds wins this competition. You may not like the system. You may not like what it delivers. But there's no question that for me at least, the game "experience" I envisioned while reading the Savage Worlds rules is very, very similar to the way it plays at the table. It's fast, it's a little bit kinetic, a little bit swingy with exploding dice, and a little bit pulpy. And you just feel as you read through the rules that that's exactly what is going to happen, and that it's intentional.
(I haven't played either system yet, but as a side note, Fantasy Craft also presents for me a fairly clear picture of the type of game that playing its RAW will produce, as does Radiance RPG).
And call me crazy, but I think it's extremely important, even critical to D&D Next's success, that the type of game it delivers is infinitely clear within its pages. Obviously there's going to be variances from group to group. Everyone's going to have their own ideas of what the most important elements are to focus on.
But if D&D Next is going to reach high levels of success, I think it needs to "play the way it reads." When I get done reading the D&D Next PHB, I should be able to say, "Yeah, this is going to produce a game with qualities X, Y, and Z" and even have some idea of which mechanics have that effect.
Why is this important? Mostly because WotC needs some good will. They need some "win" in the early going to gain traction. They need to do it to show customers that they're listening, and want to give them the best gameplay experience they can. If D&D Next has a particular playstyle in mind, TELL US and let us decide if that's what we want.
The other reason I think this is necessary? Because it displays a confidence in the material, in the preparation it took to create the material, and confidence in the material's ability to deliver on the promise. It became very, very clear after the first 5-6 months after 4e's release that WotC really didn't know what they building. Yeah, they had the PHB2 and the "X Power" splats in the works. But I never had the sense that they truly had confidence in the product until the release of Essentials.
To be sure, I hate the basic Essentials presentation. I don't like the smaller format, and I really dislike the art. But having read through both "Heroes" Essentials books, there's a very subtle but clear shift in tone that this is finally a product that is understood. The creators understand what they've built, and there's purposeful reasons for the changes outlined in the pages.
If D&D Next can encompass that level of purposefulness in its initial release, I'll feel a lot more confidant about the product line going forward.
Last edited:
.
