D&D 5E How Can D&D Next Win You Over?

[Badapple]

That probably won't save you from being modded for bringing in politics. That said, if this is your position:



Then why change D&D into that vision rather than seeking another game in the first place that does fit the profile? That's what I don't understand. If you want that much of a change, why not go out and find it rather than change what's already there? Is it the D&D name that you feel attached to if you're not attached to the specifics of the game?

And if you want a game that is willing to anger part of the fan base, why should that angered fan base not be you rather than me or people who don't want radical changes in D&D?

Fair questions. First, I would be willing to play any game as long as it's fun. I gave a few things that I would find fun in a new edition, but I am perfectly happy to play any RPG that friends and I would enjoy. I do actively seek out games that I enjoy playing... and that is the entire point of this thread isn't it? What do you like to play, what would you like to see? But if there was enough of a customer base of people that liked what I would like in a D&D game wouldn't WotC at least be willing to consider making D&D rules to support that customer base? And vice-versa of course...

As far as the second question goes, I am of the opinion that there will be people that love an edition and people that hate it. If I hate D&D Next, I want it to at least be because they designed a game with new features that just didn't appeal to me, but that there was a large majority of the customer base that was revelling in the new edition and it brought sheer joy to their gaming tables. I would be ok with that.

In other words I don't want the new edition to be mediocre. I don't want it to be a compromise where it kludges together things from previous editions that doesn't particularly jazz up people because it is trying to be all things to all people. I don't want it to be a simple core that needs a bunch of house rules and optional extra modules to bring it back to a level of what someone had been playing before. I think there are some diametrically opposed philosophies gamers have about what they want. So for Next, I want it to pick a direction, pick a goal, and do those things particularly well. And also to try a few new things along the way.

Hopefully this answers the questions

 

[Umbran]

Warning, long, somewhat hyperbolic, tongue in cheek rant ahead

That probably won't save you from being modded for bringing in politics.

Aaaaand, that's my cue.

Ladies and gents, EN World has pretty strict no-politics, no-religion rules. They are there for very good reason. That you may feel it makes an excellent joke does not, in fact, constitute sufficient cause to violate those rules.

We're talking about different ways pretending to be an elf, which is in no way analogous to the actual troubles in the world. To make such an analogy, frankly, makes you look pretty insensitive and dorky. I'm sorry, but it does.

So, really, don't go there anymore, please. Thanks all, for your time.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Proposed EN World meme: As soon as one person says “that’s not D&D” in response to someone else’s post, we pelt him with 20 sided dice until he apologizes and buys a pizza and a case of Mountain Dew?

Seconded!

Unless it is in response to something grossly out-of-genre, like space monkeys or tommy guns, I consider all replies to the effect of "That's not D&D" to be admissions of defeat.

 

[billd91]

Seconded!

Unless it is in response to something grossly out-of-genre, like space monkeys or tommy guns, I consider all replies to the effect of "That's not D&D" to be admissions of defeat.

What if they were to present us with, for example, something that's a knock off of GURPS Fantasy? Would we be justified in saying "That's not D&D. That's GURPS." I can't see that as a defeat when it's calling a spade a spade.

 

[Badapple]

What if they were to present us with, for example, something that's a knock off of GURPS Fantasy? Would we be justified in saying "That's not D&D. That's GURPS." I can't see that as a defeat when it's calling a spade a spade.

Productive Discussion

A: “I hope D&D Next has all the abilities of a class broken down into a point value, and I can build the character I want using points… for example I can get a wizard with more hitpoints but less spells!”

B: “Brilliant! I agree!”

C: “There are systems out there such as GURPS and Fantasy Hero that allow for that, might want to check that out”

A: “Thanks, that’s where I got the idea… but there are other things about those systems I don’t like. I’d just like to see D&D try it”

D: “D&D did try it. There was a book called Player’s Option: Skills and Powers… it went over like a lead balloon.”

C: “There were things about that book I liked, but I agree… it was found to be too exploitive. And it’s not what I’d like to see in D&D Next”

E: "You know... I was looking over my old copy of Skills and Powers. Fighters were hardly allocated any points. A Wizard or a Cleric could buy every single fighter ability and still have enough points left over for some cool powers. That suggests that when one quantifies the design of the classes into discrete components and assigns value to them that some classes were inherently more powerful than others if they are taken as a whole."

D: "Interesting. That possibly explains why fighters in future editions have been getting relative boosts in power compared to clerics and wizards. I wonder if the game designers behind the curtain actually do have mathematical models for character balance or if it is just done by feel and instinct"

F: "Well my brother has a game company and the way he does it is..."

B: "Hey lets get back to the idea of more customizable characters... is there any way D&D Next could have some point buy customization and still be workable? Perhaps if all characters started with the same pool of points?"

Mike Mearls: "Hey I was reading this discussion and there are some elements of Fantasy Hero I really liked. Our surveys have shown that customization of characters is very important to the players. We are going with the idea of themes and backgrounds as a class independent overlay that people can optionally add to their characters to provide more depth and customization. Tell us what you think".


Unproductive Discussion

A: “I hope D&D Next has all the abilities of a class broken down into a point value, and I can build the character I want using points… for example I can get a wizard with more hitpoints but less spells!”

B: “That’s not D&D, that’s GURPS”

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If you want productive discussion, start constructively and maintain that rhetorical tone. Don't fire broadsides like:

I don’t want a game that is built on the foundation of a previous edition, any edition for that matter. I want a brand new game that is a new edition that completely stands on its own merits. I don’t want sacred cows. I want those cows turned into steaks and burgers and grilled and slathered with bbq sauce. I want a game that is not afraid to take some chances and anger some of it's fanbase in the hopes that the remaining players, and newcomers, will find it a better game than what has come before.

(emphasis mine)

Because that really sounds like you don't want the next iteration to have any ties to the foundations of the game.

And I'll reiterate my agreement with bild91- that does not sound like D&D. In fact, it sounds like a wholesale rejection of everything that has gone before, not- as in your recent post- a suggestion of a different game element here or there, inspired by games X, Y and Z.

And people WILL call you on it.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

What if they were to present us with, for example, something that's a knock off of GURPS Fantasy? Would we be justified in saying "That's not D&D. That's GURPS." I can't see that as a defeat when it's calling a spade a spade.

If I ever see the "That's not D&D" comment in response to something easily identifiable as a GURPSism, I may add a second proviso to the statement you quoted. However, as I've never played GURPS, I'm not even clear on what a 'knock off' of its fantasy module might be. So I'll simply point you towards Badapple's example above.

 

[Abraxas]

I find the "That's not D&D" response perfectly acceptable - especially when you can directly see what mechanics the respondent was referring to. It tells you exactly what the other person doesn't want in his/her D&D experience. I don't have to agree with it, but I would never take offense to it.

As for how D&D next can win me over - It just has to be a game I enjoy playing AND give me the gaming experience that I associate with D&D.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Warning, long, somewhat hyperbolic, tongue in cheek rant ahead:



Throw away comments like “This isn’t D&D” have a place in a Chick Fil-A boardroom perhaps, but not on a D&D message board. It’s insulting to read this when gamers go to a premium message board like EN World, especially on a thread that the original poster specifically asks to keep away from edition wars and simply state what they want to see out of the new edition. Following the intent of the thread, I posted my opinion of what *I* would like to see. You are free to post your own opinion of what kind of game you want or you are free to civilly point out disagreements you have in a rational manner, but you are not free to post stand-alone ignorant statements like “this isn’t D&D” to another poster’s opinion. Comments like that increase the signal to noise ratio of a thread, heavily in favor of the “noise” portion. It’s also specifically the kind of thing the moderators have repeatedly warned users not to engage in.

For the record, EN World moderators have made it crystal clear that OD&D, 3E, and 4E are all resoundingly D&D and that on this message board any comments to the contrary are unproductive, edition warring, and disallowed.
]

Irony much?

First, I'll post without asking for your permission, thank you very much. Oh, and thank YOU for the insult, btw.

That out of the way, suppose I like baseball, but I think swinging a bat to score runs is boring, why don't we just catch the ball instead. Yeah, and maybe we run, oh, say, a hundred yards or so, and if we get the ball across a line we score a run! The other team can try and stop us by knocking us down. No, wait, let's call it a touchdown and give the team six points instead of one! Maybe put up a goal post and kick the ball through there for an, um, extra point, as well. Of course, the ball is too small and hard for that, we'll have to do something ab out that, too. Baseball would be so much better if it had those rules.

At some point, you ARE playing a different game and it no longer deserves the same name.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I think DnD next has already made me interested enough to give it a try. I like the concept of simplification and flattening of the power curve.

From what I have seen so far, my only issue is a bit too simple combat. I want something between 2e and 4e in complexity. My biggest issue with 4e was the state tracking and very heavy reliance on the grid.

I liked the at-will and encounter powers, but disliked the daily powers. I think they could let non-magic users have at-will/encounter powers of some sort, while magic users could have at-will/daily powers. It's okay for the classes to have different mechanics.