D&D 5E DNDNext Commentary on Arstechnica

[Emerikol]

Well I was there. And the game allowed that playstyle. Of course people played every way known during those days. Perhaps thats a strength.

3e and 4e were much better defined. But in doing so they divided. They abandoned all the playstyles they no longer supported.

I'm coming around to thinking that 5e supporting every playstyle well is impossible. I think they designers are not fully aware even of the differing playstyle groups out there. For me the early days of D&D was simulationist with gamist leanings. Not perfectly either. 2nd edition advanced this approach. 3e went gamist with simulationist leanings. 4e was gamist with narrativist leanings.

No wonder we have edition wars.

 

[The Little Raven]

If you're going to discount the opinions of anyone under 50, that doesn't leave a lot of room for the hobby to grow (or even continue).

I think he's discounting the opinion of someone who is telling us what D&D is really supposed to be while at the same time demonstrating through his article that his experience with the game is quite limited. And his insistence that D&D is, and should be, about telling a great story just smacks of one-true-wayism that is at odds with the majority of the game's history (including its creators' intent).

 

[kimble]

Perhaps I was reading too much into the writer's intent in the article.

No, you weren't. The original subtitle was something stupid like "Help Mike Mearls save D&D from 4e" or other equally "edition warring" line. Then people started making jokes about the line and they changed it.

 

[mudbunny]

No, you weren't. The original subtitle was something stupid like "Help Mike Mearls save D&D from 4e" or other equally "edition warring" line. Then people started making jokes about the line and they changed it.

That tagline was *not* chosen by him. It was chosen, as I understand it, but the Ars Technica editors.

I also didn't read any bias or edition warring in the article. As much as it may surprise some posters here, disliking an edition because it doesn't match the preferred playstyle of your group does not an edition war make.

 

[GreyICE]

That tagline was *not* chosen by him. It was chosen, as I understand it, but the Ars Technica editors.

I also didn't read any bias or edition warring in the article. As much as it may surprise some posters here, disliking an edition because it doesn't match the preferred playstyle of your group does not an edition war make.

Hey, you see all the 3E fans on this board who are STILL up in arms about all the negative stuff said about 3E prior to 4E coming out?

Most of that stuff wasn't HALF as negative as this article.

I mean 4 hour combats? Regularly? At the heroic tier? WHAT IS HE DOING? Combat takes 3-5 rounds at that tier. That means, with a 5 man party, you have a total of 15-25 turns, plus the DM. For that to take 4 hours, you'd have to be averaging around 6-8 minutes PER TURN. SIX TO EIGHT MINUTES PER TURN

*Edit: I'm sorry, this was meant to be humorous. Always have to remember humor doesn't translate well on the internet. The intent was not to imply that anyone was engaging in illegal activity, simply to offer a humorous exaggeration of what might be involved in an 8 minute combat turn.*

Mod note: see my post below, please. ~Umbran

 

[kimble]

That tagline was *not* chosen by him. It was chosen, as I understand it, but the Ars Technica editors.

Then I hope that on future articles, they don't make the same mistake again and let the author write his own subtitle.

I also didn't read any bias or edition warring in the article. As much as it may surprise some posters here, disliking an edition because it doesn't match the preferred playstyle of your group does not an edition war make.

If the subtitle was written by the author or not, it's something that we can debate. And I believe you that may not be his fault. But asking people to help Mearls save D&D from 4e, is edition warring. If not from the author, from the editors.

 

[mudbunny]

Then I hope that on future articles, they don't make the same mistake again and let the author write his own subtitle.



If the subtitle was written by the author or not, it's something that we can debate. And I believe you that may not be his fault. But asking people to help Mearls save D&D from 4e, is edition warring. If not from the author, from the editors.

As soon as the author was made aware of the bias/edition war tone of the subtitle to the article, he got it changed.

I am not sure there is much more than can be done.

 

[Umbran]

I mean... is this a typical scene at his gaming table? "Hey man, pass me a hit of that bong" *Pulls* "Oh god oh that's the good stuff... hey... what are these dice things? Why are they in front of me... powers! I see powers! Which one will I choose? Let me read them!"

HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?

While you do have a point and valid question about the time taken per turn, how about you let up on the insults? "You have to be on drugs to have this experience," is not exactly in our file of acceptable approaches to discussion. Thanks.

Questions? Take them to e-mail or PM with the Moderator of your choice. Thanks, all.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I mean 4 hour combats? Regularly? At the heroic tier? WHAT IS HE DOING? Combat takes 3-5 rounds at that tier. That means, with a 5 man party, you have a total of 15-25 turns, plus the DM. For that to take 4 hours, you'd have to be averaging around 6-8 minutes PER TURN. SIX TO EIGHT MINUTES PER TURN

Our 4Ed combats take about that long per round...

 

[GreyICE]

I'm sorry Umbran, that was meant to be humorous, and I edited the post to remove the offensive content.

It's just it's quite hard for me to understand how an 8 minute combat turn works. I introduced people to the system a few days ago, and in a complex combat (over 20 monsters involved) with 3 players brand new to the system and one playing it once, we managed to resolve combat in a little over two hours. And it was a 9 round combat (it involved an on-lvl Elite, two EL+1 Leader Lurkers, and about 20+ minions all of which were hard to kill (came back to life on a 15+). If we can do 9 rounds of combat with a party that's almost brand new to the system in a little over 2 hours, using pregenerated level 3 characters, I don't see how it takes 4 hours to run a simple combat with people who have been playing for years.

When I have things that stick out like a sore thumb thrown out there blithely, it makes it quite hard for me to take the entire rest of the article without a huge grain of salt.