Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6224880" data-attributes="member: 42582">I voted* In the past, they've already addressed this to my satisfaction * They don't need to manage my expectations for what D&D Next will be * It's already obvious HOW multiple playstyle(s) will be supportedIn the past, as per some of the quotes upthread provided by [MENTION=6747028]urLordy[/MENTION], WotC - especially Mearls - has talked about supporting multiple playstyles through options, modules etc. I think this is how they plan to handle these things. In this way, I think it's fairly obvious how multiple playstyles may be supported (to the extent that they will be). I don't need any more explanation from WotC. I wouldn't mind seeing some more examples.WotC does not need to "manage my expectations for what D&D Next will be". They have made it pretty clear - through commentary and publication via the playtest - what D&D Next will be. I don't think it is going to support the sort of RPGing I'm interestsed in that well, but I could be wrong. The interaction rules have some interesting elements, for instance, even though they seem a bit attenuated at this point. As per my previous paragraph, I am not interested in more explanations. I am interested in seeing examples.What would be helpful - but which D&D has always shied away from, I think because it likes to be seen as all things to all people - would be more commentary on the rationale for including or not including certain options or approaches in a game.Here's a slightly convoluted example: 4e has at least two magic items I know of intended to make resource-tracking unnecessary: the 4th level Basket of Everlasting Provisions, which obivates the need to track rations; and the 9th level Endless Quiver. In my campaign I had the PCs receive a Basket early in the campaign, as a gift from some elves. It gives an ingame reason for being able to ignore food tracking. In my campaign I have never placed an Endless Quiver for the ranger PC, but nevertheless the player has never tracked ammunition: I guess we just assume that he scavenges, makes his own, etc. Why the different approach? I'm not entirely sure, but a Basket of Everlasting Provisions makes for a cool fey reward to the party as a whole, whereas the 9th level Endless Quiver seems both more magically potent, and also is relevant to only one player and therefore doesn't really contribute to the colour of the collective story that much.So I have my own half-baked reasons for having used one item to get around resource tracking, while just handwaving the other resource tracking issue without doing so via an item. A good rulebook would actually talk about these options, the role that magic items play in contributing to the resolution of these sorts of play issues, possible trade-offs in items for some vs hand waving for others, etc. The 4e rulebooks don't have this sort of commentary. Nor do the D&D Next playtest documents outside of healing options. It would be good for the final rules to have some commentary along these lines for a whole range of options - not just items, and encumbrance, and resource tracking, and healing, but also PC build options (incuding damage on a miss), monster options, DC setting, and indeed the whole gamut of game and mechanical elements.</blockquote>

Verification