D&D 5E How should WoTC address different playstyles of D&D Next?

[urLordy]

Don't care which is default. Just make them coherent and siloed.

That would be great to see how that could work in D&D.

I wonder if WoTC isn't leaning in the opposite direction though. The current playtest supposedly is saying that 1/2 maximum hit points = first signs of physical injury. Now this might not survive to the final rules. That said, the design philosophy behind this almost literal "bloodied" condition, is the exact opposite of what you suggest and instead is a compromise hybrid of two playstyles, neither plot points nor meat, but literally half of each. IMO, that's half-assed. Unless... it's an experiment of layering over hit points a sort of lens/filter clarifying its meaning depending on the campaign style.

 

[Sunseeker]

I chose "I don't like this poll" because it doesn't make sense. So I'll address some of the options in my post instead.

They should explicitly discuss this with fans.

They should, to some degree, talk about what sorts of games are going on, what their feedback is like (which I hope they still solicit to some level after DDN is released) and how they plan to go with it. People may not realize their views aren't getting heard if they don't know what views, if any, are being heard.

In the past, they've already addressed this to my satisfaction

In general, I do not feel that Wizards has done a very good job talking with their fans. They're okay at talking at them, which is a problem, even then they kinda suck at that. I appreciate that the designers and the like make blogs and sometimes even post on the forums, but really, I'd rather someone who was good at communicating "Cool idea in designer brain" to "Layman D&Der" on many occasions.

They should help manage my expectations for what D&D Next will be

Of course they should! If they don't they're a very, very dumb company.

It's already obvious WHICH playstyle(s) will be supported or not

I don't believe that it is, at least not in DDN. I feel some playstyles are more obvious in existing editions, and also easier, but I don't know what sort of playstyle DDN is going for. They need to make that clearer, perhaps what their "goal" playstyle is, because every edition has one.

4e has a very tactical playstyle.

3e has a very granular playstyle.

etc...

It's already obvious HOW multiple playstyle(s) will be supported

I don't believe it is. I think they're aiming for "modules" but we will have to wait some time before we start seeing these modules on the shelves and in action at the table, and how well that works out.

I think D&D already supports a hybrid of playstyles to my satisfaction

I believe that previous editions of D&D do indeed support a variety of playstyles within the D&D genre.

Not applicable, there really is only one best supported playstyle for D&D

I simply cannot agree with this. Certain editions emphasize particular aspects of playstyles, but I feel that in the editions I've played, the games have had core similarities, but were overall very different games.

 

[urLordy]

I chose "I don't like this poll" because it doesn't make sense.

The poll as a whole? Specific questions? The thrust of the poll? RE: the rest of your post, I think you've given sensible answers to the questions you highlighted.

 

[tuxgeo]

I'm fairly sure that some part of the completed game (DMG, maybe?) will discuss the issue of alternate playstyles, but we don't have that completed game yet.

Managing expectations will be easier for them later, when they have a better grasp on how the various playstyle modules are developing. At that time, they'll also have a better idea of which playstyles they need to talk about.

I'm not sure the game will include any provisions for "hybrid playstyles," but I suppose I'll just have to wait for that.

For a single game to support multiple playstyles, the individual playstyles cannot be basic to the game; so WotC must first establish the parts of the game that are basic, then create the playstyle stuff. It's coming later, and we haven't seen any fully developed systems for that yet.

 

[Texicles]

In general, I do not feel that Wizards has done a very good job talking with their fans. They're okay at talking at them, which is a problem, even then they kinda suck at that. I appreciate that the designers and the like make blogs and sometimes even post on the forums, but really, I'd rather someone who was good at communicating "Cool idea in designer brain" to "Layman D&Der" on many occasions.

I think this is a pretty good summation of the communication situation. As a point of contrast, Sony's team working on Everquest Next (I believe the unfortunate nomenclature is coincidental to these two distinct games) releases periodic livestreams where they show off, talk about and answer questions regarding development.

I get that it's much easier to "show off" video game content, but imo that's really secondary to the fact that they're having a dialogue with fans. Moreover, I'm not even really into EQ (my GF was back when, and she's interested now, so too must I be), but the level of enthusiasm for their product and ideas is a little infectious. I don't get any vibe of infectious enthusiasm from the D&D devs.

I DID watch some of the 5e playtest videos WotC put up, and I saw dudes playing a game. That's cool, but I can see dudes playing a game at my FLGS. I watched it wanting to be shown why I should love everything 5e and I wasn't shown that.

I already like 5e in terms of what I've seen and what it promises to be. I'm sold. That said, I want others who need a little more convincing to be sold as well, and I want to know that the folks making the game I want to play really believe it's a game worth playing.

Applying all this to the poll: I think the game should support as many playstyles as possible and I think the devs should try to more effectively communicate what styles we should reasonably expect to see supported and how they plan to support them.

 

[urLordy]

To the people who don't like this poll. I can't please everyone obviously. The best I can do is try to explain the context.

Let's look at what happened around DoaM. I will not argue the merits of this mechanic as is; I think there's been more than enough of that. However, I am interested in DoaM as a rallying point for at least two playstyles that often conflict, and WoTC's response.

This is where I think WoTC totally dropped the ball. Before that, they had mechanics like advantage/disadvantage which is arguably playstyle-neutral and generally favored. Before that, concerns about implementation of backgrounds and skills, and Legends & Lore articles publically discussed the design progression in a very open way I think. Before that, when the playtest seemed too simple for tactical players, WoTC publically promised more complexity and tactical options. And so forth...

But then DoaM comes along. Well, initially with the Reaper, then dropped. Then resurfaces. Months of heated debate in forums. What does WoTC say? Not much. Shutting down threads at WoTC. A twitter from Mearls that it's testing well (fair enough, he might be right, but keep reading...). A Q&A where Rodney offers an explanation that suits neither crowd (incomplete and incohesive fictional positioning for the sim-friendly crowd, too limiting for and rarely regurgitated by the narrativist camp).

(Even Wandering Monsters which solicits very subjective opinions about the ideal monster background stories gets more public attention than the subjective story beneath any one mechanic)

(The last time they addressed playstyles head-on AFAICR was June 2011 with this article http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20110614 )

I've been reading the book Of Dice and Men (aside: I didn't realize that so many elements of D&D were the brainchild of one man: Gygax) and it reminded me about the announcement of 5E.

...We don't want there to be a break in the audience. So we're here to tell you about the next edition of Dungeons & Dragons...a new, universally compatible set." - Liza Schuh

"We're... making sure we have a game that encompasses all different styles." - Mike Mearls

With fourth edition, there was a huge focus on mechanics. The story was still there, but a lot of our customers were having trouble getting to it. In some ways, it was like we told people, "The right way to play guitar is to play thrash metal." But there's other ways to play guitar."
- Mike Mearls

The point is that until a mechanic like DoaM comes along, I thought WoTC was doing reasonably well engaging with fans, and then here is a mechanic that is controversial for several reasons, both mechanical and that "a lot of our customers were having trouble getting to [the story]" and the best they can do is to tell us that DoaM is about the GWF bruising an opponent on a block. Sounds like "thrash metal" to me all over again.

Perhaps this is a blip, a molehill, etc. But the Internet response is not a blip, it's the same old. If WoTC's agenda is to unite playstyles, this was a perfect opportunity to stop telling people what the story is, and address the people or playstyles having trouble getting past the mechanic to the story. That's where I think they blew it. I don't care what their answer was, as long as it received the same attention as the other issues.

As a result, the ensuing forum feuding was predictable and inevitable. Left to their own devices, this is what ardent fans do. Of course, one common answer inevitably came down to "houserule it away" but that just spawns arguments about which is the default and where is the onus. Mods close down the threads. New ones arise. And so it goes. I'm not complaining or judging; just observing the paradigm.

IMO the ongoing arguments of houserule vs optional rule, etc. by fans who feel upset or burdened by how to handle multiple playstyles doesn't need to remain status quo in light of 5E's mantra, yet AFAICT the wizards haven't fully engaged on this matter.

D&D is very much collaborative storytelling. Some guidance on collaborating, please.

That's why I created a poll about managing expectations, etc. I wanted to know if I was part of some unreasonable or irrational minority. I wanted to poll if people thought the situation was an ideal one to be in.

 

[Mistwell]

So it sounds like you started this thread as a sly way of getting around the moderators locking of the Damage on a Miss topic (TWICE), so you could continue to complain about that mechanic but in a way that you hope will continue to fly under the radar as "sort of but not really" talking about that topic?

Good luck with that.

 

[urLordy]

So it sounds like you started this thread as a sly way of getting around the moderators locking of the Damage on a Miss topic (TWICE), so you could continue to complain about that mechanic but in a way that you hope will continue to fly under the radar as "sort of but not really" talking about that topic?

It might sound like that to you, but since I'm self-aware of my own state of mind far bettter than you are, I can assure you that I do NOT want to complain about the validity of the mechanic itself here. When I wrote " I will not argue the merits of this mechanic as is" I meant it. Will you please give me the benefit of the doubt? I am genuinely interested in the larger context, as I said. I don't like the tone of your post at all, but I'm willing to look past that.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

Given the proposed modularity of the rules, a discussion of playstyles would belong to each module, accompanied by web articles on how possible combinations could play out.

Also, "playstyle" is a difficullt tem, which is often confused with "rules I have to have in my game"

 

[Quartz]

The poll really does not compute. All a rules set can do is provide the mechanics. How theatrically or mathematically or scientifically or whatever you play is entirely up to you and your group.