Does DDN do it better?

[Dwimmerlied]

Just wondering. I haven't playtested yet, but I am intrigued about some of the stuff I'm reading.

Is it unfair to ask this? Is 5th ed doing the things your preferred edition(s) did better? Is it addressing the things you saw as problematic?

Also, to what degree is it shaping up to unite disparate edition bases? Does it yet look like it will be playstyle and conversion friendly? Is it heading in a direction that will make older modules and characters easily portable?

 

[Jack Daniel]

That's the $64,000 question, ain't it?

I guess it boils down to, "what do you want this game to do for you?" I mean, for my part, I figured out a long time ago that what I really want out of a role-playing game is something with simple rules that don't get in the way, with no mechanical fiddly-bits involved in character creation or advancement. So right away, that throws 3e and 4e out the window. When I first got out of the d20 System and more involved in old-school gaming again, I played 0e and 2e (never having used 1e as anything but a resource to steal stuff for 0e and 2e games), and I was struck by how markedly different things felt after having played 3e pretty much exclusively from 2000 to about 2006.

- Regarding 0e (which is a blanket term I use for everything from the White Box to the Rules Cyclopedia; honestly, it's all the same game), I was just astonished at how functional it was. It looks like a cobbled-together mish-mash that defies all modern sense and game design, and you know what? That's precisely why it works. The dungeon-crawling mechanics were put there after it was decided that the game would be about crawling dungeons for treasure. The wilderness exploring mechanics were put there after somebody got it into their heads to go out and explore the wilderness. The mechanics are a hodge-podge, but that's a feature, not a bug: it means they're tailored to what they're supposed to do, rather than the game being tailored to some core mechanic or higher-order design aesthetic. But, and this is a really big but, OD&D doesn't do much beyond the dungeon-crawl/hex-crawl very well at all. When you're playing a standard sandbox-and-dungeon, it's wonderful, because it's like the system has done all this work for you. Try to take it out of that box, and, well, you're free-falling at that point. Which brings me to...

- AD&D 2e, the game that I pretty much grew up playing, and the game which is still (in some back corner of my mind) the "default" for "what D&D is supposed to do, be, and feel like". Revisiting this edition was in many ways an eerie experience, because I (like most of the bandwagon circa 1999) was very ready for streamlined mechanics and less-restrictive character rules as we all eagerly awaited the 3rd edition. But going back to this game, I was mostly amazed at how much better balanced it is than the other editions I've played. After all, it's basically the same game as 0e or 1e... only with the spells really reigned in, with damage caps and drawbacks and so forth. This has the curious effect of making 2e the best "fantasy world simulator" out of all of TSR's editions. 2e and 3e both try to do this: 2e pulls it off much more elegantly, again with ad-hoc "mechanics where they're needed" rather than a "framework for everything".

So, here's the thing. I don't think there will ever be a better dungeon crawling game than 0e. I just don't think you can beat the original, and I'm not looking for a replacement in that department. But for fantasy world simulators? 5e has a shot at besting 2e here. Many have commented that backgrounds/specialties have kind of a proficiency/kit feel, and I'll add that spellcasters' drastically reduced per-day progression tables look very much like 2e as well. If the multi-classing system works better than 2e's dual-classing rules (and that can't be difficult!), sign me up. In the meanwhile, I'll be playing something* else and waiting and watching. But, whether I invest in Next or not, it will just be really nice to see a new version of D&D on the shelves again. It can't happen soon enough.

______________________

* No, I'm not going to say what it is. Doesn't it tick anybody else off whenever somebody posts something to the effect of, "I don't play D&D now, I play Savage Worlds/FATE/whatever" all over a D&D board? That seems... less than classy. So I'm not going to do that. I'm glad we had this talk.

 

[Kinak]

You're right that those are awkward questions about a game that isn't done yet.

What I'm really looking for is something that plays like a slightly-streamlined 3.x/Pathfinder from the player side and runs like OD&D or a slightly-streamlined 4e for the DM in combat. Right now, we're playing Pathfinder, but I'd say my favorite edition rules-wise is OD&D.

As of right now, it isn't hitting the mark for me on the DM side and my players... aren't fans. So, barring a stunning reveal, I'll be running houseruled Pathfinder rather than houseruled Next.

If they manage to really grab my players, creating something simple and engaging that allows for non-fiddly customization as you go up in levels, then there's a very real chance we'll switch over. My concerns really end up being secondary, since its so easy for me to make the changes I need.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[JeffB]

It has a couple of cool mechanical elements that I am using in a houseruled C&C game: I have replaced the existing Siege Prime/Not Prime mechanic with Prime=Advantage ala NEXT. Also expertise dice for Fighters. I also use alot of elements from 3.x/PF and 4e too..all distilled down to a.CnC/OD&D level of complexity and quick play.

I will wait for the final rule set and check it out, but after a year, I think I am more in love with the idea of DDN, than in love with what I have actually seen. I gave up playtesting after packet 4 or so, cos none of the players were interested in radical changes from packet to packet and relearning things. With gaming time at a premium, it was a waste of that time. IMO, NEXT doesnt seem tobe doing a great job o the DM.side of things like 4e, the player options seem thin and what is there can be awful fiddly in play,and it is too modernistic/post Gary to pull in the typical pre 3e/ OSR fan.

 

[El Mahdi]

deleted

 

[Alphastream]

There are so many different types of gamers, with so many preferences. No game can be the best for everyone. That's why the game any one person likes the least has many people thinking it was the best.

But, a game can pull from the common threads of different editions and speak to the shared past. A game can seem familiar and welcoming to gamers regardless of the edition they prefer. On those counts, D&D Next is doing fairly well. While there is some influence from 4E, it is likely the least represented at this time. I suspect it could use some more of 4E's innovations, but time will tell how far it goes in doing so.

The editions are different enough that no single one can be better at all things. It would be hard to top 3E's ability to duplicate the 'real' fantasy world in rule form, or how it allows customization. It would be hard to top OD&D's simplicity. It would be hard to top 4E's ability to create cinematic scenes and equality and balance (monsters of the same tier being equal in threat, PCs of different classes all being competent, etc.). No edition can do all these things, and it seems Wizards is well aware of that.

 

[Libramarian]

I don't like:
the assumption that the DM will be tailoring encounters and treasure to the PCs rather than building a sandbox environment with "objective" encounters/treasure
the fact that non-magical treasure doesn't do anything and is an empty reward (can't buy magic items, no gp=xp)
the exploration rules (half-baked at best, atm)
outsourcing the character sheet in the form of a contest rather than considering it an important game element that they should probably design themselves

Unless they reorient themselves on these issues DDN has no chance to become my favorite edition. It's frustrating because if they did it could be--they have the practical design chops but they don't have the right goals.

 

[Ahnehnois]

What I'm looking for is:
*The ability to build a character without classes, class abilities, and the inevitable horse-trading and cross-referencing that ensues.
*The ability to treat all races (including monsters) in the same way and all learned abilities in the same way, in a consistent and balanced fashion, with all mathematical parameters scaling in the same manner.
*A deeper, more flexible, yet still simple and playable system for describing health and wounds.
*Simple, skill-based psionics.
*Several completely disparate magic systems, not tied to any one class or archetype.
*Deeper rules for describing and exploring the world.
*An overall sense of control for individual DMs; transparent and meaningful and believable rules.

At the moment, the best I can do is hack 3e. 5e is definitely not doing any of those things for me.

 

[Li Shenron]

Is it unfair to ask this?

Yes, because our opinion can change with next packet. But who cares? Go ahead

Is 5th ed doing the things your preferred edition(s) did better?

My favourite edition is 3.0. It's main strength was flexibility (especially in character creation), and I think 5e has about the same, and it looks like it's getting even more and extend that flexibility also to the whole game.

Is it addressing the things you saw as problematic?

Problematic in 3.0 (and 3.5, and PF...) is that you need "system mastery" to enjoy the game. I used to like that, but now I just don't have time anymore to keep up with it, and its long DM's preparation time and slow pace of a campaign due to long fights, and fiddly bits in all situations... 5e is doing a fantastic job for the DM because it is indeed simpler to prepare and faster to run. It's however still a lot complicated for players, but we haven't yet got a clear idea on how "Basic" will handle that.

There are problematic things in other editions. Older editions aren't flexible enough, 5e is. 4e isn't traditional enough (for my tastes, IOW didn't feel enough like I was playing D&D), and 5e has a few elements that unfortunately are still harming the sacred cows, but at least it's trying as much as possible to offer alternatives.

Generally speaking, I want simplicity, flexibility and tradition. Any lack of these beyond a certain threshold, and I have a problem: if it's not simple I just can't afford to play it; if it's not flexible I don't see myself playing it more than a bunch of evenings; if it's not traditional then I have no reason to prefer it over any other RPG. 5e is quite ok with the 1st and 3ed, and definitely doing a good job with the 2nd.

Also, to what degree is it shaping up to unite disparate edition bases?

I see a lot of principles of 3e in 5e, to the point that I think a 3e fan can have few reasons against 5e except money (i.e. if they spent a lot on 3e books they may just not want to spend them again on 5e).

I didn't really play 4e except for a few evenings, so I totally missed its development through the years. From what I think I know, 5e is slowly incorporating more and more 4e ideas. Whether this is enough to capture 4e fans I have no idea. Whether this it already too much to alienate 3e fans who also hated 4e (like me), well I think not yet, but occasionally I do feel like I'm starting to be a bit pissedoff...

Does it yet look like it will be playstyle and conversion friendly?

Yes. Presumably it won't be ever able to support every conceivable playstyle, but they are trying indeed to be inclusive, and at the moment it quite is. (See next about converting)

Is it heading in a direction that will make older modules and characters easily portable?

I really don't know... At the moment I would say no, at least not any easier than previous editions switches.

5e characters might be close enough to 3e or 4e characters of the same level. But bounded accuracy and damage bloat means that clearly you can't take a 3e or 4e PC of level N and put it into a 5e game for a party of level N, because it will have much larger combat stats and lower damage output. Maybe it would even out after all... but generally speaking, I think you'd have to convert it, and same for modules, you'd better just use the 5e versions of monsters (after checking that each encounter is still within the encounter building budget).

edit: forgot to mention that equipment will be a significant conversion problem, at least from 3e which assumed wealth-by-level; if the whole 3e party of PC is converted to 5e then almost no problem (except with items of large number of +s), but if just some PCs are converted to join a 5e party then it might be necessary to totally replace their equipment

 

[keterys]

What I'm looking for is:
*The ability to build a character without classes, class abilities, and the inevitable horse-trading and cross-referencing that ensues.
*The ability to treat all races (including monsters) in the same way and all learned abilities in the same way, in a consistent and balanced fashion, with all mathematical parameters scaling in the same manner.
*A deeper, more flexible, yet still simple and playable system for describing health and wounds.
*Simple, skill-based psionics.
*Several completely disparate magic systems, not tied to any one class or archetype.

These don't feel appropriate to D&D to me. I can understand why the closest option you have is hacking 3e, but wouldn't you be better served by seeking a (not D&D) system that directly addresses those desires?